Senator John McCain is a true American hero. I admire his past service to this country, his bravery under combat, his time as a POW and his extensive years as a United States Senator who at times has been in the past a maverick, willing to work with Democrats from Senator John Kerry to Senator Russ Feingold.
But he is not the best choice for President.
I am supporting Senator Barack Obama because he represents what America can be and Senator McCain is all about yesterday.
I know it sounds trite but isn't it true?
McCain is unwilling to recognize the errors of our pursuit of WMD's in Iraq and the shameful loss of American life and fortune in that war. For him, it is surge after surge. Maybe 100 years of conflict.
Obama says it is time to move on. We have given the Iraqis the opportunity to deal with their own internal divisions and civil war. Let us instead concentrate on Osama Bin Laden, you know the 'evil-doer' who led the campaign that resulted in 9/11. There weren't any Iraqis hijacking planes into the Twin Towers.
Global Warming and the high price of oil?
McCain wants more of the same. Let's help deal with our dependency on oil by making oil cheaper for Americans with a temporary gas tax "holiday".
More of the same.
Obama talks about alternatives, investing in Wind and Solar. Conservation.
Best McCain can do is to talk about "drill more". More and More. Yes more of the same.
Obama speaks clearly and persuasively. He is admired and respected in America and around the globe.
McCain slips on his feet and stumbles on his words. "Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran"...."Cigarettes kill Iranians", and rape jokes, and jokes about Chelsea Clinton. His campaign attacks his wife. The wife that Obama married and stayed with.
McCain. Well he met his current wife while he was married to another woman.....but that's history.
Obama is about today, tomorrow and the rest of our future. He has a vision of possibility.
McCain can't even get on the internet nor check his email.
Come on. This one isn't close.
The media doesn't have a 'love affair' with Obama. The American people do.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 150
Then with the economy such a tremendous worry, his best solution is to read Alan Greenspan's latest book. Ok, that's a start, but where are his advisors? Phil Gramm? Carly Fiorina who saw a huge drop in the price of stock when she ran HP? Or how about the leverage and buyout king, Mitt Romney.
I'm curious who McCain will choose as a running mate. It certainly needs to be someone who is more in touch with the modern world of business and progress than he is.
We, as voters, need to remember we are voting for the future. The past is behind us. We need to learn from it, not repeat it. It's time to move forward, not tread water.
Obama offers a vision of the future.
McCain a hero? Sure, he put his ass on the line in combat--as have millions of other good Americans. He got unlucky and wound up in the hands of the enemy, where he was tormented for years. I'll give him credit for refusing to be released by the NVA ahead of his compatriots--but what other choice did he really have? Taking the carrot would have made him appear to be a despicable coward, verging on treason. His own Dad would probably have disowned him. America was not very welcoming of returning Viet Nam vets in any case. He would have become a pariah.
He's clueless about more than computers. His gas-tax holiday gimmick was a transparent bid to bribe voters with a free tank of gas. Obama had the guts, and good sense, to call him on it--just a "feel-good" handout that would have crippled the principle funding source for maintaining an essential part of our infrastucture, which is crumbling in any event.
-Sorry, Senator, but Americans don't sell their votes quite that cheaply.
In his own way, I do believe that McCain is a "hero" and has served his country well. A more important point or question is whether his POW time has DISQUALIFIED him for being President. How is that?
I strongly believe that Senator McCain suffers still from this horrible episode and his 'anger issues' betray his likely PTSD.
I respect and admire John McCain for what he has been through in that period. I cannot support him because of his political record which is dismal. Whether it be as part of the Keating 5 or his inconsistencies on torture, his off-color insensitive jokes, or his apparent naivete regarding the world today, he is NOT the best person for the job.
My concerns are twofold: First, he appears prone to discomfort in situations that require judgment and leadership. Second, he appears prone to thinking superficially. The job requires strong judgment, comfort in leading, and comprehensive (i.e., deep and broad) thinking. Obama exhibits those attributes; McCain does not.
I hope he is in time, that it is not already too late.
I don't understand this statement, made in a comment: "I respect and admire John McCain for what he has been through in that period." Why does a person deserve respect and admiration for going through something that he didn't choose?
If I must respect and admire people for what they went through during that time, I think I give the draft dodgers those emotions. They chose to do the right thing, which carried its own difficulties. John McCain earns my sympathy for what he endured as a POW, but if I follow his lead I get to dump part of that the way he dumped the wife who "wasn't the same person" any more after her accident.
Isn't that what we did in Vietnam? I remember well the treatment the Vietnam veterans received when they returned home. Is it possible John McCain is still hurt and traumatized about what he went through as a prisoner and then returned home to find it all in vain?
Would that explain why he gets so excited when he talks about us pulling out of Iraq and losing?
What is his definition of winning? We have nothing to win in Iraq. We should be in Afghanistan going after Bin Laden. We should never have been in Iraq and I believe Bush should be held responsible for bringing us into a war under false pretenses.
John McCain keeps yammering about the "surge" and it's success. He didn't order the surge, he merely supported it. He keeps saying he knows how to win a war. When and how did he learn this. What war has he won?
He was a pilot, he has never been in combat on the ground. We cannot keep ignoring McCain's radical views of winning at all cost and his plans to keep us in Iraq an indefinite time!
I believe the surge made the Iraqi's realize they would never rid themselves of us until they quit fighting among themselves. Once they get us out I believe they will resume their age old waring among their factions. I believe the downturn of violence is because the Iraq's cooled their selves and the surge was perhaps the reason but not the winning manuver McCain and Bush believe!
Barbara: Part of the reason for the "suceess" of the surge was the fact that the respective factions were running out of people to kill. Having driven hundreds of thousands of refugees out of their own country, murdered tens of thousands more, and created defacto internally partitioned bastions for themselves, the conflict was destined to die out of its own accord.
Hate to say it but you're a bit off base there on the cowardice theme. The obverse of the cowardly side of the coin is courageousness, and I'm not about to credit those dudes with THAT attribute.
Fearlessness, which can arise out of stupidity or a lack of imagination, is NOT the same thing. The deluded belief that one is going to get one's ticket to paradise punched by murdering thousands of innocents is, likewise, something entirely different.
I love that you just laid it all out on the table with no fancy talk. I wanted to keep reading more.......
Paul M. ....Hopefully this country is beat down enough and ethically diverse enough to realize how dire our situation is and look past names or skin color. It may be more of a landslide than you anticipate!
Obama's message is Generic and Boring. He isn't saying anything new. He is presenting the same "message of hope and change" that 10,000 other politicians have for decades in campaigns at every level. The new guy says we need change and the incumbent is part of the broken system. Yawn. This has been the theme of every new guy's campaign from the beginning. THAT is "Yesterday."
The only real change that Obama offers comes nearly every day as he changes his view on every issue facing the American population in this election. His recent flip flopping on FISA should be a major alert to voters about what's in store, as they watch his dance step move from left to center.
I don't think that both McCain and Obama are idiots. Obama is quite bright.
All hype and ego? Shelley, I don't really follow you. Can you be more specific?
And Aimee, change is "yesterday"? I suppose you are right. America has made a wrong turn somewhere. We have endorsed torture, rendition, secrecy in government, spying on citizens without warrants, and incompetency in our regulatory agencies.
Going back to more yesterday when government was performing the needs of the electorate would be a refreshing change. So I can buy that.
Sandy - You brought up the question of Why should a person be respected for going through something they did not choose? Which is a valid question to ask. However, and with due note that this legnthy and horrific time as a POW really should not be a major selling point on a candidate. As for as the respect or admiration for something one did not choose should be rethought as, do we owe a certain degree of respect for the men and women who took an oath, followed their commands and survived being a POW in another country. For me the answer is absolutely, but I am biased as my late great uncle was part of the groups of prisoners of the Japanese military that was forced to build the bridge over the river kwai. When I heard his stories, and have at every opportunity watched, or listened to the stories of him and other POWs (especially of Japan in WWII...but not to trivialise other POWs) I am in awe of what they went through, how some of them survived, and the lasting impact it made on them for life. Now again I remind all that I dont find this to be a prerequisite to serving as CIC.
As for those who say that Obama is just preaching cliches without sustanance, then I can only conclude that due to a preset biad prior to it all, then you have not done minimal research. Yes he has mottos, most candidates do. Recall, Thousand Points of Light, and uniter not a divider and the worst compassionate conservative. But he, Senator Obama has listed where he stands on the issues and in many of them laid out a rough draft on how these goals can be accomplished, including financing. I live in Texas and when the primaries came around in March, the papers ran each candidates platform and as many details as they were given along with their bios, resumes, and who was endorsing them as far as public figures. Surprisingly or not Clinton and Obama were direct, to the point and even addressed how to finance things like their health care programs. McCain did not.
So it really isn't that every time we see the news he is saying Yes we can, or Change, or Hope. It is because we listen to all the parts before, after and in between.
In what time frame would you place the condition where the government was performing the needs of the electorate?
I agree it is nice to have a thread where there can be disagreement without insults and name calling.
Obama has lied and/or flip-flopped on issues he has ....outlined....stated.... spoken....etc., ( Those are documented...over 60 so far.) Both candidates have taken us down the primrose on changing platform position.
However, Obama is moving so fast to the center from his previous left position that it is impossible to know where he is on issues from day to day. We are likely to see more position changes, because his original far left platform would be recognizably unelectable.
If they would just sit back, close their eyes, and listen to Obama and McCain speak, without knowing the color of the skin of the person speaking, perhaps they would actually be able to hear what Obama is saying.
And Dawne, as to both being "idiots" - unfortunately that remark seems to be more revealing about yourself than the two candidates. Here's a thought experiment for you, during the 2000 election some jaded folks, like you, were saying there's no difference between bush and Gore. Let's try to role back the clock, rewrite history, and imagine where we would be today had big Al won instead of the shrub...
Is it the fact that he can raise more money for his campaign blindfolded and upside down that allows him to forego on taking the funds from the government? Because I think it is a GOOD thing that he is being financially responsible. Is it that he said that he supports the death penalty in certain cases, because remember when he said that he...oh wait, he has been saying this all along, as a mattter of fact he got a law passed in Illinois regarding this issue and not by a tiny margin either. Is it how he kept voting for the war in Iraq and then....oh wait he didn't do that. Is it how he went and told people he was not using warrantless wiretaps and he was...oops again that was shrub not Senator Obama. Is it that he made a comment, which I actually agree with and applaud him for, about when times are tough people cling to their religion and guns. And then he said he agrees with the Supreme Court ruling about the DC Gun Ban issue? Because anyone who puts two seconds of thought into the comment about clinging to religion and guns and thinks it is incorrect or insulting needs to do some real thinking here. First and foremost where is the insult? These issues are both stated in the top two bill of rights. So what is wrong with practicing your rights under the Constitution. Now I am not saying it is alright to go off the deep end here but seriously, where is the insult? And, is he wrong?
No Senator Obama is not a flip flopper. You may try to paint him as one, but it doesn't make it true. Besides can ONE person tell me a legit reason why if a person says, supports, votes for, or does something based on being lied to by the CIC, why would we not praise them for changing their stance when the truth came out? Now if other people want to go bleating merrily along while they follow each other one by one off that cliff then so be it, but quit trying to force the rest of us with you.
You folks make me sick. You know what you folks deserve Obama. Two years from now don’t tell me I didn’t warn you when you realize your dream was actually a nightmare and the nightmare is now reality.
I will, however, be more than happy to tell you that you had your head up your butt back in July of '08.
One thing you ARE right about is that we DO deserve an intelligent, thoughtful man of good character, with good judgement and personal integrity in the Oval Office, i.e., a man like Barack Obama.
That's a pitiful, sad statement. Maybe we should let the Gold Star families that their kids weren't particularly bright and apparently quite reckless. Maybe they should know their kids weren't heros, just unlucky and not bright. Maybe Blue Star families should know that volunteering to serve our country doesn't deserve the same respect as draft dodgers and terrorists carrying box cutters and flying planes to crash into buildings. I'll bring that up at the next meeting to support our military and fallen heros and see their response. Want to come with me?
As to the statement: "I simply don't agree that everyone that ever serves is a hero. Some have been found to be downright contemptable." I do consider our military as heros. I'm very close to that statement here in my family. But yes, some have indeed been found to be downright contemptable. All that lying to Lois Lane, changing clothes in public telephone booths, property destruction; just plain contemptable indeed!
Thoughtful article. Thanks for the chuckle.
The following information would not agree with the above statement:
Further, he was never brushed aside for advancement.
He was offered the rank of one star rear Admiral.
From: Wikipedia.
In early 1981, Secretary of the Navy John F. Lehman told McCain that he was about to be selected for one-star rear admiral, but McCain declined, telling Lehman that he could "do more good" in Congress.
John McCain has received the following medals and decorations:
Silver Star
Legion of Merit with Combat V and one gold star
Distinguished Flying Cross
Bronze Star with Combat V and two gold stars
Purple Heart with one gold star
Meritorious Service Medal
Air Medal with one bronze star and Numeral "2"
Navy Commendation Medal with Combat V and one gold star
Combat Action Ribbon
Prisoner of War Medal
Navy Expeditionary Medal (Cuban quarantine)
Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (Cuban quarantine)
National Defense Service Medal
Vietnam Service Medal with two bronze stars
It is a clear sign you have lost the battle when you resort to personal insults and attacks on those who don't agree with you... as opposed to focusing on the subject matter.
To focus on the subject:
Only 1% of the Navy population attain the rank of Rear Admiral. McCain was in that one percent. The one, overriding reason McCain and those who knew him did not encourage him to stay in the Navy and pursue the rank of Admiral was that he had always shown a love of, and flare for politics. A cardinal rule if you are seeking Admiral status is: Avoid becoming involved in political controversies. McCain, his friends and family, knew he wanted to pursue a career in politics, which would have conflicted with a Navy career. He was encouraged to pursue politics, the career he loved.
It would have been an impossibility for McCain to recieve any of the awards that were bestowed upon him because his father/grandfather were high ranking Naval officers. The process for the award of any one of these requires nominations from your supervisors, and travels through many channels on up the line, some to the office of the President, requiring approval and signatures of many, including many of higher rank than his father/grandfather.
Perchance you?
I'm American. Maybe you're British?
McCain being in that 1% attests to the fact of his individual high rating/standing.
To repeat: McCain had no desire to remain in the Navy. He made that point clear to the Navy brass, early on, before they invested anything further in him or his Navy career.
I'm not saying favoritism, nepotism doesn't exist. In this particular case there were eyes from everywhere on his upward mobility, awards, BECAUSE of his father/grandfather. McCain has written approx 14 books/pubs, some include this subject. More importantly, many books/pubs/articles have been written ABOUT McCain providing the justification, reason for the awards and accolades he has received. This man deserves our respect for circumstances of peril forced upon him, NOT because of his choosing, but circumstances over which he had no control but from which he chose to emerge as a hero. AND, not just his prisoner of war circumstance.
It is easy for those who wish to strip McCain of anything meaningful to attribute everything he has been or done to forces outside his personal characteristics.
You see, Clark, I have managed an attempt at a response without any inferences to your IQ, ability to comprehend, or the marital status of your mother and father at the time of your birth.
Common? You betcha! It's what America is! Thank you for the compliment! But you and Clark appear to be quite rare birds. You sure there is enough room in that phone booth for both of you?
McCain did not say that we would be fighting a war for 100 years, but that we might have American presence in Iraq for 100 years. How long have we had bases in Germany and just about every other country we ever invaded? Let's not be silly--or worse, malicious twisters of words.
A temporary Band-Aid is better than nothing at all! I'm all for long-term solutions, but those will take years or decades to find through innovation and invention. Until we can find better ways, we need to make current ways more affordable and do whatever it takes to reduce foreign dependence on oil. Short-term fixes need to fill the time until a long-term fix is found. Or...we can just "hope" for some magic recipe to manifest itself out of thin air that can turn pine cones into fuel.
It's a sad state of affairs when a presidential candidate gets extra points not for acting Clintonian.
False logic. How many Afghanis were there? Liberals want to focus on Afghanistan. According to your logic, we should invade Saudi Arabia.
Neither could JFK.
Just like Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Stalin, and FDR.
America can be whatever it wants to be. What America should and must be is a different matter entirely. The "yesterdays" of this nation have been prosperous and miraculous days. Why shouldn't we gaze upon those days lusting for the old times?
And, frankly, what I find a bit offensive about the whole thing is that, for the most part, the people that are bending over backwards to defend McCain's hero status are the same ones who openly mocked and ridiculed John Kerry's military service, in spite of the fact that he was unquestionably a wartime hero.
Here's the difference, Clark: Kerry stabbed his nation in the back by lying about the Vietnam war effort. McCain: patriotic. Kerry: treasonous. There ya go.
Yeah, he really put his foot in his mouth didn't he? Shoot first ask questions later. That's the lesson we learn as to what kind of leader he would be. A leader should give thoughtful responses to serious questions especially to an overwhelming majority who think we should have never gone in in the first place.
A temporary Band-Aid is better than nothing at all! I'm all for long-term solutions, but those will take years or decades to find through innovation and invention. Until we can find better ways, we need to make current ways more affordable and do whatever it takes to reduce foreign dependence on oil. Short-term fixes need to fill the time until a long-term fix is found. Or...we can just "hope" for some magic recipe to manifest itself out of thin air that can turn pine cones into fuel.
How much time are you willing spend debating to save a few cents on the gallon on a weekend you just might spend idling the gas away in traffic or waiting in line for gas? I'm not saying it will, but it just might cost you more money.
It's a sad state of affairs when a presidential candidate gets extra points not for acting Clintonian.
It's a sad state of affairs that the right-wing feels it has to attack and spread lies about anyone's wife.
False logic. How many Afghanis were there? Liberals want to focus on Afghanistan. According to your logic, we should invade Saudi Arabia.
Your understanding of the logic is false because the point is not to attack anyone, just not to attack anyone who wasn't involved especially your attacker's mortal enemy.
Neither could JFK.
He probably could if he was alive to have experienced the internet.
Just like Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Stalin, and FDR.
The only response this deserves is the one I'm giving it.
America can be whatever it wants to be. What America should and must be is a different matter entirely. The "yesterdays" of this nation have been prosperous and miraculous days. Why shouldn't we gaze upon those days lusting for the old times?
What did happen to those days? ::sigh:: Anyway the writer already acknowledged that those days are fine and that yes a "Change" to that would be perfect, just not what the Neoconservative movement has brought us to.
Here's the difference, Clark: Kerry stabbed his nation in the back by lying about the Vietnam war effort. McCain: patriotic. Kerry: treasonous. There ya go.
Kerry didn't lie at Winter Soldier. That was just a lie about him and part of the reason we call it "swiftboating". There is nothing treasonous about dissent. In fact it is treasonous to say otherwise.
I dare you to watch or listen to Winter Soldier and then call any of them treasonous.
Love and Kisses,
Cathi
Francis, the blame game is fun, isn't it?
I have planned for a great many years that I will serve my God as a missionary at age 19. I am not backing out on that promise I made with Him. If the law requires my service, I will go, but otherwise I am not going. Like Cathi said, there are many ways to serve your country. Being on the frontlines of battle is an honorable way. So is staying on the homeland and doing good. If all patriotic people were fighting foreign wars, our homeland would be void of patriotism.
I have to wonder what constitutes your bottom of the barrel. Dimwits? Because someone doesn't know advanced math that makes them less of a person? Gangsters? I'm assuming you refer to our "innocent inner city youth", in which case a lot of them had no choice as to whether or not they became what they were. That makes them the bottom of the barrel because they have an opportunity to turn their life around? Racists? Bigotry is everywhere. Criminals have almost always been afforded the opportunity for military service.
Admittedly, there are bad seeds in the military, there is no denying that. But because someone who couldn't cut it as a scientist decided to join the infantry that makes him a pick at the bottom of the barrel?
No, but the fact that his "only chance" is to become a killer for his country in an illegal war is a disgrace to all of us.
UNTIL SOMEONE FINALLY ANSWERS THE FOLLOWING I AM DONE EXPLAINING WHY I AM NOT GOING TO ENLIST. I HAVE ASKED IT MANY TIMES, AND NO ONE HAS BOTHERED TO EXPLAIN IT:
YOU SAY THAT AS A WAR SUPPORTER I AM OBLIGATED TO ENLIST.
DO ALL PRO-CHOICERS HAVE TO ABORT BABIES TO MAKE THEIR SUPPORT VALID?
DO ALL PRO-ETHANOL FOLKS HAVE TO GROW CORN?
DO ALL GAY RIGHTS FOLKS HAVE TO BE GAY?
DO ALL FREE PRESS SUPPORTERS HAVE TO PRINT A NEWSPAPER?
DO ALL CLIMATE CHANGE FREAKS HAVE TO CONSERVE ENERGY? APPARENTLY NOT -- AL GORE USES SEVERAL TIMES MORE ENERGY THAN THE AVERAGE AMERICAN DOES!
DO ALL PRO-SMOKING RIGHTS FOLKS HAVE TO SMOKE?
DO ALL PRO-ALCOHOL RIGHTS FOLKS HAVE TO DRINK?
DO ALL PRO-MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION FOLKS HAVE TO SMOKE WEED?
DO ALL PRO-PORNOGRAPHY FOLKS HAVE TO VIEW PORN?
LAST BUT NOT LEAST: DID WE EXPECT ALL PRO-REVOLUTION AMERICANS TO FIGHT IN THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR? WAS EVERY NON-LOYALIST MAN FIGHTING THE BRITS? I DON'T THINK SO!!!
UNTIL YOU CAN EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THE IRAQI WAR FORCES ME TO ENLIST TO HAVE SUPPORT FOR IT, I AM DONE TALKING TO YOU ABOUT WHY I WILL NOT ENLIST. SO PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
The same is true for every person over there. Now what?
Note the applause at the end.
But then again, I'm not an elitist.
No, but the fact that his "only chance" is to become a killer for his country in an illegal war is a disgrace to all of us. "
Kindly do not quote me out of context. I never stated that his only chance was to enlist. I was merely stating that it was a foolish(and extremely elitist) statement. And if you're going to use the term killer please use it correctly, "professional killer" is the proper terminology. Further on top of that, "illegal war" is a moot point. It disregards the fact that there are thousands of other things provided by the military that do not involve the war.
Kindly do not call such a individual a "disgrace to us all", as doing so does us the true disgrace. He is just another metaphorical man trying to make a living for himself and his family, do not judge him with such harsh terms.
I know they likely don't have a fantastic clue about soldiers. But if they are going to use killer, then they can at least add the "professional" part. It takes the fun out of saying, "I'm here from the government to kill you".
Moonbats.
Just giving helpful suggestions so you can read the article and understand his viewpoint. Just providing an example here, senator was a link to a coupon place on the site, here its okay:
"commemorated the senator's first speech"
Wow TJ, had I only read this article at WorldNetDaily, who got their information from such an esteemed member of "Accuracy in Academia"'s Conservative University I would have never mocked your Idolism of Joseph McCarthy (the preceding was satire) who according to the article got his information directly from former director of the FBI J Edgar Hoover (another hero of yours I suppose, albeit a racist, xenophobic, cross-dresser) and also according to the article the member of said Conservative "University" got HIS info from released FBI records... the records that J Edgar Hoover was giving him. He read the recently released FBI documents under J Edgar Hoover... who was allied with McCarthy apparently but for some reason didn't stick up for him even though he was STILL HEAD OF THE FBI at the time. Why would such a man as Hoover stand idly by as his compatriot in the battle against Communism got his ass spanked by journalist Edward R Murrow? A Journalist! And a Broadcast Journalist at that?
This is supposed to make McCarthy right? Why didn't J Edgar Hoover just tell everyone that what was going on was legit? As a student of history why do you not ask these questions? There was such an important battle being fought and some reason the HEAD OF THE FBI couldn't inform... say the President? The Speaker of the House? The House Minority Whip? SOMEBODY!? Why could he only talk to the Chairman of the House Un-American Activities Committee? This story is very thin TJ.
Thank you, Christopher B. It takes a big man to admit that, after all we have suffered over the last seven years, and all the hard work we've done to save our country, you now see that we deserve a President Obama to restore happiness, safety, hope, and integrity to this country.
You can accuse me of a straw man fallacy and even setting one up once I commit one, but I at least deserve the benefit of committing one first, thank you.
24 villages of Iraq’s Kurdistan were targeted by chemical bombardment by Saddam in late April, 1987. “Bloody Friday”, Saddam’s attack using chemical weapons and cluster bombs on the Kurdish city of Halabja (pop. Est. 70,000) on March 17, 1988. “Chemical Ali,” Ali Hassan al-Majid, one of Saddam Hussein’s notorious top former aides who was tried and hanged for his crimes. Iraq didn’t have WMDs? These things and more didn’t happen? Chemical Ali was really a fictional bad guy on Scooby Do maybe?
I know of no individual who has served his country more valiantly than John McCain. None. All the men who serve this country, all the women who serve this country do so valiantly. But they all don’t go through this.
Taken from Mark Levin's radio show. Slight paraphrasing as my fingers could only fly so fast in typing what he said.
The White House received several reports from Hoover. They ignored them. These reports began coming in in 1944 of 1945, but each president subsequently ignored Hoover's claims.
For whatever reason, Hoover showed great disdain for Martin Luther King. Ron Paul newsletters from the 90s called King a gay pedophile, referencing FBI files as his source. Surely Hoover knew of and probably contributed to these reports. The falsehood of King's criminality does not automatically exonerate those communists who infiltrated our government. Dateline NBC interviewed a scholar who maintains that Hoover disliked King for personal reasons, because he ignored a phone call (Hoover being a supposedly very arrogant man). I find it unlikely that he personally disliked the several hundred communists and communist sympathizers mentioned by name by McCarthy.
Finally, I respect Dr. King for his contributions to the Civil Rights cause. I strongly doubt that he did any of those criminal and immoral behaviors mentioned in the FBI files, but I will not rule out that King was an imperfect man because he obviously was--we all are. The FBI may have had weak evidence of something an exaggerated it because of Hoover's disdain for the man. Who knows? But I do know that historians have plagued the McCarthy era story so much with twists and lies that I find it very difficult to trust the popular interpretation of Hoover.
FBI files aside, exalting Murrow to some mythbuster extraordinaire status is ridiculous. That man was smitten by Sacco and Vanzetti, making himself an advocate for the constitutional right to murder payroll carriers in cold blood. Murrow was not a patriot, so I find it very plausible that he was a communist sympathizer, if not one himself.
You can accuse me of a straw man fallacy and even setting one up once I commit one, but I at least deserve the benefit of committing one first, thank you."
As long as you know what you did.
If I misrepresented their stance any, then I called it as I saw it.
Or do you expect me to believe the "highest respect" details calling them killers, disgraces, and the bottom of the barrel. I'm just going on what they gave me and someone that respects my friends overseas doesn't refer to them as "killers in an illegal war".
If that's the case, they misrepresent their own stance.
The funny thing is that the end result of any "victory" in our War in Iraq is that Iraq, the majority and the government being run by Shiites will ally themselves with the Shiite nation of Iran precisely why then Defense Secretary Dick Cheney said we didn't invade in the first Gulf War.
TJ- Hoover was the kind of guy who attacked, harrassed, and lied about anyone he didn't like. He was paranoid. Not that he didn't do any good, but he did PLENTY of bad. And you are right no one is perfect, even MLK. But the American Communist Party was a legitemate, registered political party and NO ONE should be harrassed and persecuted on their beliefs alone (Thoughtcrime). I think you may have gotten enough of that from being a Mormon in Las Vegas.
I'll have you know that Edward R Murrow is considered THE standard by which all good journalism is judged. He was the most trusted man in news at the time and warned us about what the news would eventually become today. He was Cronkite before there was Cronkite. Murrow WAS a patriot and it is ridiculous to say otherwise. He did this country a great service by exposing the hollowness of Joe McCarthy and is a greater hero than even McCarthy imagined himself to be.
"But because someone who couldn't cut it as a scientist decided to join the infantry that makes him a pick at the bottom of the barrel?
No, but the fact that his "only chance" is to become a killer for his country in an illegal war is a disgrace to all of us. "
There are the words, there is the statement. You can nitpick what she means by disgrace, but the statement still stands. So no, I'm not twisting her words. Though she did twist mine.
Las Vegas has lots of Mormons. Probably 6% of my high school was LDS.
About Murrow: yeah, and Hitler was THE best thing that happened to Germany's economy...until he decided to start his genocidal rampages. I think we should have learned by now that respected and beloved people are not always good people.
No kidding? I guess "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" could be applied here. You don't supposed that's ever happened before, do you? Gee, I guess your statement proves WMD existed there! Despite the statement "That's like historians going back and finding Curveball's testimony and saying, "Holy Crap! Iraq did have WMDs!" despite the fact no one ever found any."
"If I must respect and admire people for what they went through during that time, I think I give the draft dodgers those emotions."
And didn't Sandy state the above? She reserves her respect and admiration for the little weasles who were draft dodgers? When their country needed them they decided to hide?
TJ and Matt, I don't know your background but I do admire your stance. Good on you!
Thomas, Obama's truth-telling skills may be impressive to the party of Clinton, but the rest of us are not impressed. I guess fighting for peace is just a silly conservative fairy tale, whereas the liberal philosophy (do nothing and send Islamic dictators white elephant gifts from time to time) is capable of giving every Miss America her longtime wish for "world peace."
Killing innocent people in the name of their own liberation is wrong. No amount of right-wing equivocation can excuse Bush's disregard for the lives of innocent Iraqis. He is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis! This is a conservative estimate.
Bush and accomplices deservesto be held accountable for telling lies to create this war, then for inventing multiple rationales to continue it, and for carrying out the misguided death and destruction he made happen. In no way is this fighting for peace! There has been a Bush-led exercise of evil in Iraq. Even worse, taxpayers have been robbed blind to pay for the fraudulent contracting practices of Bush's cronies.
The majority of Americans oppose the war in Iraq for obvious reasons, now that the facts are known. It is only an ignorant minority who cling to Bush's lies. Barrack Obama's Iraq position reflects the will of the Iraqi people and the will of the American People. To want better than Bush has given us is to stand up for justice and be in favor of democracy for all. You can't get more American than that!
"Killing innocent people in the name of their own liberation is wrong. No amount of right-wing equivocation can excuse Bush's disregard for the lives of innocent Iraqis. He is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis! This is a conservative estimate."
Thomas! This is not a conservative estimate! It is a liberal statement if I have ever heard one! I just posted a reply from your compatriot Bob on another article so I shall repeat myself here:
Most are innocent? You know this for a fact? "After-term abortion" is a horridly absurd term. Should GW be held responsible for terrorists/insurgents who hide behind human shields because of our desire to reduce collateral damage? Should GW be responsible for terrorists/insurgents who use mentally challenged individuals as walking bombs? Should GW be held responsible when terrorists/insurgents place IEDs inside dead bodies to entice our military to walk up to these to check for life? Where do you get off blaming this on Bush? Thousands and thousands of Iraqis have been kill by who? Just the Coalition forces? Only them? Nothing to do with car bombs, suicide vests, children carrying stuffed animals with an IED in them and sent into a crowd? Go crawl back under your rock or learn what is really happening. What a ridiculous statement, indeed.
"The majority of Americans oppose the war in Iraq for obvious reasons, now that the facts are known. It is only an ignorant minority who cling to Bush's lies. Barrack Obama's Iraq position reflects the will of the Iraqi people and the will of the American People. To want better than Bush has given us is to stand up for justice and be in favor of democracy for all. You can't get more American than that!"
Back to those liberals again. The majority? Is this the Thomas Poll? Obamarama's position reflects policies already in place AND happening. The will of the American people? Another Thomas Poll? Please post where your facts originate. Bush is in favor of democracy, just not democrates. And from your statements, I can certainly understand why.
Lois, I'm missing a praying mantis named Petey, you think your science teacher has him?
I have never taught science. But would love to do so! But the question is whether I should get more involved in Journalism, but you probably would know about that....with you and Clark Kent around here!
You know that when a Democrat starts complaining about a policy because of its cost, something else is really on their mind.
Robert, thanks for responding to a single one of my comments about quotes from your article. You obviously care about discussing this and not just getting comments praising your journalistic merit.
Robert, I am not from Utah. I love Utah, and it is my favorite state, but I am from Las Vegas, Nevada. Sorry I had to ruin your stereotype like that.... If it's any consolation, I plan on living in either Utah or DC when I have a family of my own, so your stereotype may be right some day! And yes, I am fairly intelligent, you are right. Smarter than average, really!
the hundreds of comments left on above story are most interesting ;)
I hope that you do not mind that I left a link to this article on another friend's opposing view article at:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977429799
His article doesn't seem to have picked up 'the steam' that this one has but I wanted to have your article 'stand strong for the truth' as some of the startlingly clear differences between Obama and McCain are so talently described here.
...I have to agree with you.
Obama is SO Today.