Like the evil Wes Clark, I'm a bit unclear on what it is about the physical and moral courage John McCain showed while captive in Vietnam that indicates he'd do a good job of managing US national security policy. The key point I'm missing seems to be that "military background = awesome" irrespective of specifics. Thus, when the NBA tells us it's going to clean up officiating by hiring retired Army Major General Ronald Johnson we raise no eyebrows at the news that Johnson "was commanding general of the Army Corps of Engineers, Gulf Region division, from 2003-04, responsible for overseeing $18 billion of reconstruction in Iraq." After all, it's not like half that money went missing or anything.
« Working | Main | The Safety Valve »
Strange Qualification
02 Jul 2008 02:34 pm
Comments (76)
I think McCain's war time experiences make him well qualified to be the starting center for the Utah Jazz. If you disagree with me you're a goddamned veteran hating pinko faggot! Facing death at the hands of the Vietnamese and emerging alive certainly proves you're man enough to set a pick in the lane or fight for a tough rebound, right?
Aren't you the ones who still do not understand why the majority of Americans rejected John F. Kerry and his claims that war-time experience was a reason that he was qualified? Maybe you really don't understand the issue. It's foreign to you.
Courage and core principles. Start with those and see if you can begin to understand.
I realize you might not, as your chosen one simply has no courage or core principles, but that doesn't bother you, so you don't know why those qualities are appealing in a leader.
I think it's pretty clear most liberals simply pretend to respect the military in order not to appear unpatriotic. I doubt it's genuine in most instances. Many conservatives, on the other hand, value military service to an inordinate degree. On balance it's a fair assessment that it is better to have served your country in uniform than not, but it isn't a qualification by itself. John McCain also happens to have over 25 years of legislative experience (to Obama's 12).
Denigating McCain's military service isn't going to be a winning strategy any more than attacking Barack Obama's race. He also can't win the experience argument. What Obama needs to remain focused on is selling himself as an agent of change, who can nonetheless cross the Commander in Chief threshold. That's how he wins.
Too true. It says something about the almost unquestioned prominence the military, and even more so the "war fighters," have in 21st century America.
Chalmers Johnson has it right -- the size and deep, pervasive roots of the military-industrial complex is a grave threat to a healthy Democratic country (our own and other countries). It will be a very difficult task, but if America is to revive and not continue to decline, we will have to restore the proper balance between guns and butter.
I think the fact that McCain has a dangerous temper and a propensity to get physical, deserves a post or two.
Denigrate? My, my, how sensitive we are today! The gist of Clark's comments were not that McCain's experience as a POW disqualified him for the presidency. He say they alone did not qualify him for it. This is such as obvious truth that one can only shake their head and agreed with the mountain of criticisms of the sad state of our media's political coverage.
Wow, Iraq misfeasance and the NBA. This news story must be Matt's holy grail.
C'mon, Matt, the last part of your post is stupid. You have no idea whether or not General Johnson had any part in the accounting of the money. Knowing a little something about the military, most likely, he did not. So let's allow him a chance to clean up NBA officiating before we start blaming him for losing 18 billion.
Nine billion dollars disappeared and the general is looking for a job? Proves two things: incompetence, and he didn't even ask for a percentage.
What better oversight could one desire? From a certain point of view.
Like the evil Wes Clark, I'm a bit unclear on what it is about the physical and moral courage John McCain showed while captive in Vietnam that indicates he'd do a good job of managing US national security policy.
There is nothing at all in that record to indicate McCain is especially suited for managing US national security policy. But that's not why people like Matt should avoid the immature sarcastic cracks when it comes to McCain's record. And Democrats, particularly those who did not serve in the military, should not go within 1000 meters of the sometimes-voiced suggestion that McCain's only qualification is that he was "shot down", with its sly and nasty implication that his military record was actually one of failure. That's a grotesque insult to every perfectly fine soldier who every got shot, shot down or sunk.
The guy underwent torture and imprisonment for his country. That doesn't automatically make him a strategic thinker fit for guiding the foreign policy of a great power. But it should make him snark-proof and entitled to some degree of honor and respect in at least that one department.
I agree that it's a really, really bad idea in general for people to start examining vet's records to determine who and what they feel are 'heroic' -- as shown by the Republican convention purple bandaid brigade and the Sh*t Floats Veterans for Dupes, this degenerates rapidly into mockery.
On the other hand, if very carefully and explicitly phrased, it can be emphasized that while service and/or heroism and/or suffering in war can help a person's ability to govern, this is neither to be assumed nor is it to be demanded that this be recognized as a qualification to be able to make the policy decisions of a President.
As demonstrated above, right wingers think that military service & suffering qualifies right wingers & Republicans for office, while they advocate very opposite rules for Democrats.
"The guy underwent torture and imprisonment for his country."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The guy blindly signed on to a policy destined to fail. In the course of meeting his ill considered committment he was injured. I might pity the fool losing an eye for failing to wear his safety glasses at his job but I won't lionize him for his sacrifice. He made a bad choice and suffered the consequences. As did McCain. As have all the military personnel serving in Iraq now. Volunteer for a poorly planned clusterfuck if you will but don't knock at my door later wanting rewarded for your losses suffered. Or asking to be President.
On balance it's a fair assessment that it is better to have served your country in uniform than not
WTF? I've got a few words from a true patriot who might disagree with you Tim K.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.It is some 50 miles of concrete highway. We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.
This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. These plain and cruel truths define the peril and point to the hope that comes with this spring of 1953.
-President Dwight D. Eisenhower
I think Wesley Clark is the victim of both parties living and dying by the sword. Both camps regularly feign outrage over perceived slights. The best example, prior to this, is the outrage Democrats expressed over ads targeting Max Cleland. As I recall, the ads I saw on the web didn't question his patriotism; they alleged that he was soft on terrorism. That charge might have been false, but Democrats insisted that the attach was on Cleland's patriotism, when, Goddammit!, he is a triple amputee!
These things -- revisiting, time and time again, Wesley Clark's remarks on McCain, Ferraro's remarks on Obama, Hillary's remarks about RFK -- make politics pretty much unbearable to me today. And, honestly, this is a case when both sides are equally guilty. Every minute during this campaign not spent talking about the war, about torture, about the 4th amendment, and about similar issues of national import, is a waste of precious time.
And being a community organizer in some ghetto neighbourhood is supposed to qualify somebody to be president?
As another example, TPM has on its page an entry on whether McCain ever admitted to not knowing much about economics. Seriously, who gives a sh*t? It deserved a two-minute bit on John Stewart, and nothing more.
If a conservative had said the following in 2004, it would have caused exactly zero controversy: "Although John Kerry served his country heroically in Vietnam, commanding a swift boat in battle in 1970 does not qualify a man to be president in 2004."
Why is this statement ok? Because it represents a perfectly reasonable critique of a senator with a large legislative body of work who is trying to capitalize politically on a military career that ended 40 years ago. And it is equally applicable to both Kerry and McCain.
Of course, conservatives did nothing of the sort. They attacked Kerry's service and accused him of being a liar and a coward.
No Cid, you do not understand.
It is not military service per se or suffering itself that count as leadership qualities. It is the display of courage under pressure and a willingness to follow principles that are greater than oneself, even at great personal cost. Those are qualities a leader has.
The fact that McCain suffered brutality does not make him fit to be a leader. The fact that he sacrificed his own comfort and freedom to stay with his fellow captives and chose to deny the Viet Cong a PR victory shows that he has courage and is capable of placing principles above self-interest. Most people understand the difference.
John Kerry tried to bluff his way through that he had these qualities. The vast majority of men who served with him called him out, and he wilted. His exaggerations were exposed, and he was done.
Obama has never shown any courage ever at any time in his life. He ducks every tough vote and hedges every position. That is not leadership. Giving good speeches may be an acceptable substitute for some, but only those who don't care that he lacks core principles.
Clark is attempting to cut down Mccain on the issue because Obama needs to close the gap on courage and core principles. Since Obama has none, and therefore cannot elevate his own, the only choice is to knock McCain's down to his non-existent level.
Aren't you the ones who still do not understand why the majority of Americans rejected John F. Kerry and his claims that war-time experience was a reason that he was qualified? Maybe you really don't understand the issue. It's foreign to you.
Courage and core principles. Start with those and see if you can begin to understand.
We understand very well.
When John Kerry charges a hostile beach to go one-on-one with an enemy soldier firing an RPG, he's a bloodthirsty opportunist.
When Max Cleland dives on a live grenade, he's a bumbling oaf.
When Wesley Clark is shot four times while fending off the Viet Cong, he's a cowardly REMF.
When John McCain endures five years as a P.O.W., he's a preeminent expert on foreign policy.
These things -- revisiting, time and time again, Wesley Clark's remarks on McCain, Ferraro's remarks on Obama, Hillary's remarks about RFK -- make politics pretty much unbearable to me today.
I agree 100%. It's so predictable and embarrassing to watch. Every day, someone must "repudiate" or "denounce" something or someone new.
I don't blame you for blaming the political strategists, but at the same time, they wouldn't use this "strategy" if the media wasn't so eager to run with every single "gaffe/repudiate/denounce" storyline they can find.
It is a bit of an odd extreme. A large percentage of the population has never served in uniform but reaped the rewards of a relatively stable country for the last several years. America went to work, college, or bowling while others served in harm's way.
Do you think the assumption that anyone who has "military experience" is ready to be Commander-in-Chief is the product of "civilian guilt?"
what a fuckwad.
we sign up to serve our country...for good or for ill. not for a specific conflict. hoping that our elected leaders get it right but understanding that they won't always.
and we sign up willing to die for our country..even for fuckers like you.
"Obama has never shown any courage ever at any time in his life."
Posted by Dude | July 2, 2008 3:57 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So Dude, tell us exactly how many miles you've personally walked in Obama's shoes. Being an intimate expert of every single minute he's drawn a breath on the planet it should be a number you can produce quickly.
I think it's pretty clear most liberals simply pretend to respect the military in order not to appear unpatriotic.
Oh, FFS. This is pure nuttery on the "Why do you hate America?" scale. This is Chris Ford territory.
McCain IS Saul Tigh!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25495610/#storyContinued
I for one don't want his finger on the button.
In other news, Liberal Blogosphere Accusses Obama of Trying to Win Election
The fact that he sacrificed his own comfort and freedom to stay with his fellow captives and chose to deny the Viet Cong a PR victory shows that he has courage and is capable of placing principles above self-interest.
Great. So being a major player in the Keating Five means that he "is capable of placing self-interest above principles." Ditto for his stance on the Confederate flag. Ditto for his flip flop on taxes, realizing that his plan will save him and his wife close to $400,000 per year. Ditto on the estate tax. Ditto on his view of Jerry Falwell. Ditto for ... well, you get the idea. (I didn't even get through close to half of this list.
The number of times McCain has not just shifted position but gone 180 degrees for personal gain is staggering. It shows him to be unfit to be president. And it's a lot more recent than his military service.
Well, Stevie, I expect that if Obama ever did have a moment of where he took any kind of risk to his own personal advancement that we would have heard all about it. The fact that he needs to embellish even the very sparse accomplishments he has had in his public life shows that that tank is empty.
Plus there were those books he wrote that include nothing in the courage department. Lots of self-absorbtion, yes, but nothing showing any risk. The closest he comes is his "sacrifice" to organize in the hood.
It is not military service per se or suffering itself that count as leadership qualities. It is the display of courage under pressure and a willingness to follow principles that are greater than oneself, even at great personal cost. Those are qualities a leader has.
No, these are qualities that campaign literature tells you a leader has. I tend to want more than platitudes from a candidate.
The fact that McCain suffered brutality does not make him fit to be a leader. The fact that he sacrificed his own comfort and freedom to stay with his fellow captives and chose to deny the Viet Cong a PR victory shows that he has courage and is capable of placing principles above self-interest.
I'm glad he did that decades ago. Any idea when these qualities are going to resurface? Because I gotta tell ya, I don't see him placing any sort of principles ahead of anything in his recent political career. This is why his campaign has to puff its chest out and throw fake tantrums over innocuous remarks--because they don't have any real answers to the question of what he would do if he were elected.
"Dude" is just demonstrating for us in real time how far conservatives' reverence for military service goes: up until the moment a soldier/veteran declares his party identification.
Tell us, "Dude," how many Purple Hearts and Bronze/Silver stars do you have that you feel you can challenge the veracity of Sen. Kerry's or Gen. Clark's?
we sign up to serve our country...for good or for ill. not for a specific conflict. hoping that our elected leaders get it right but understanding that they won't always.
and we sign up willing to die for our country..even for fuckers like you.
Bullshit. I served in the Army. I was enlisted and got to see both the officer and enlisted class -- the former, while perhaps more likely to be serving out of patriotism, also consisted of a lot of middle class kids who used ROTC to pay for college. I'm not saying they were unpatriotic opportunists, just that money played an important role. The monetary incentive plays an even bigger role in the enlisted ranks -- not only can you earn some decent money for college, but the army provides the sort of social welfare state that is so lacking for the rest of middle to lower class America.
And being a community organizer in some ghetto neighbourhood is supposed to qualify somebody to be president?
It's a better qualification in my eyes than being a fighter pilot. America is choking on the machismo of the last 7 years. We need somebody who understands the needs and the struggle of most Americans and who has experience at rallying a people to common cause.
I think you can tell something about McCain's character based on his refusal to accept release if the price was a propaganda victory for his captors. As opposed to, say, Wesley Clark, who tried hard to start WWWIII over an airport in the Balkans, and was dismissed from his command.
Or Obama, who proudly helped fun shoddily built housing for the destitute, all the while accepting below market rate loans.
Mind you, I don't like McCain's politics much, and - had Hillary been the nominee - I would have had to think about my vote. With Obama, it's really no contest. He has no discernible principles, his judgment is awful (based solely on the people he's called friends and mentors), and his policy ideas harken back to Carter. While I dislike many of McCain's principles, at least they exist.
"I tend to want more than platitudes from a candidate."
I presume you are not supporting Obama then.
BTW, do you know what Barack means in Kenyan: Platitudes is all I got, dude.
The fact that he needs to embellish even the very sparse accomplishments he has had in his public life shows that that tank is empty.
I'd put serious money down on the probability that your personal accomplishments are highly risible next to Obama's.
Dude makes Tim K. look smart by comparison.
"Or Obama, who proudly helped fun shoddily built housing for the destitute, all the while accepting below market rate loans"
*Most Clueless Statement in the Entire Thread!!*
Bragan,
there were a bunch of us who left six figure jobs (especially after 9/11) to become officers. if you want to argue that boredom and dissatisfaction with corporate drone work played a role...sure. but patriotism was/is the largest component (and you can think that Iraq was a mistake and still be motivated by patriotism to sign up. trust me.)
as for the enlisted, that's really person to person and circumstance to circumstance. the guys looking for a combat MOS or the guys going 18X (do you know how many lawyers have gone enlisted 18X?) aren't doing it from the social welfare standpoint.
Good show, goethean. Not just funny, but RISIBLE.
Let's see. We both have white mothers. We both kind of suck at hoops but still play. I screw around at work sometimes and laugh at you pathetic leftists for fun, while he accepts your adoration. We're both secret Muslims. (nah-- made that one up to be risible).
Of course I do not claim to be the best person to run the country. So I don't need to embellish.
And I know I am not the messiah.
"Well, Stevie, I expect that if Obama ever did have a moment of where he took any kind of risk to his own personal advancement that we would have heard all about it."
I don't know, you could say that graduating from Harvard Law School and turning down extremely high-paying jobs to be a community organizer would be a risk to your personal advancement. Sure, you can say that it was all part of a long-term plan to get into politics, but its a huge risk for your own personal advancment.
The response "We agree with Wes Clark, being shot down and captured does not qualify one to be president. A lifetime of service to country, in uniform and in the Congress, is another matter" would have been sufficiently quelling and not make the odd shot down = president link, which would seem to qualify a lot of people.
Of course, that formulation would apply to Kerry, too, (and Webb!) and I don't think McCain wants to be the Kerry of this election, which is where a lot of his military-biography campaign seems to inexorably lead.
Seeing as how GHWB was the only better-military-record to actually win a presidential contest in the past few decades, it's an odd spot to center the campaign.
I agree with Steve Duncan.
I'm a bit unclear on what it is about the physical and moral courage John McCain showed while captive in Vietnam. . .
Do we even know it was that? Or did he just get tortured?
Otherwise, that's like saying that Al Qaeda guys we capture have "physical and moral courage" because we torture them.
Stop revering this man's experience, Matt.
chose to deny the Viet Cong a PR victory
Signing a confession to being a "black criminal" and "air pirate" isn't a PR victory?
"The fact that he sacrificed his own comfort and freedom to stay with his fellow captives and chose to deny the Viet Cong a PR victory shows that he has courage and is capable of placing principles above self-interest."
When he made propaganda videos for the Viet Cong in return for better medical treatment than his fellow POWs got, exactly what principle was he placing above self-interest?
Resisting torture might involve physical or moral courage. But do we know if this guy even knew anything that was worth concealing from them? To me he sounds like he was a high-flying Butthead.
If he couldn't prevent his plane from being shot down, how will John McCain keep this country flying?
Swan is an idiot.
Love,
Swan is an idiot.com
20 guys mostly hailing from Saudi Arabia manage to drop the Towers and damage the Pentagon. George Bush demands we invade Afghanistan and then Iraq because of what 20 guys mostly from Saudi Arabia did. Citizens here enlist in the military, heeding the call to lay waste to people and lands not responsible for the attack. These citizens are patriotic? Why? Gullible maybe. Devastatingly incapable of rational, temperate consideration of what was being asked of them. But patriotic? Seems like a poor choice of an adjective to me. Why in the hell does enlisitng in the U.S. military automatically imbue you with qualities such as patriotism, courage, sacrifice and strength? I swear every guy claiming to be a conservative Republican secretly wants to blow a Marine hoping the throat full of jizz will turn them into Audie Murphy.
I would say that getting shot down, captured, and then held captive and tortured for 5 years doesn't qualify you for the Presidency. But I think it does show you to have a pretty strong mind and will to be able to come back from that and be a US Senator. I'm no fan of McCain, but I do belive he's an impressive individual. I'll never vote for him, but Swan does kind of sound like an idiot.
Chalk up military service next to marital fidelity as things that wingnuts only note the absence of in Democrats. If Audie Murphy came back from the dead, and ran for office as a Democrat, the McCain defenders on this thread, to a man, would be wondering if he really deserved that Medal of Honor, all the while defending the honorable service record of some weekend warrior out of the Dan Quayle/George W. Bush mold.
Steve,
You act as though everyone joined the military after we invaded Iraq? You're a small-minded idiot. And your attempt at humor is sorry. You are as bad as 'conservative Republicans.'
For the record, Cleland did not "jump on a grenade" - he reached down to pick up one lying on the ground, and it went off. A tragic accident that happened while he was serving his country, yes. Let's not over-sell it though.
As to John Kerry - well, what can I say about a man who has Cambodia "seared" in his memory...
there were a bunch of us who left six figure jobs (especially after 9/11) to become officers
Bullshit, again. What's a "bunch"? A few hundred? The vast majority of officers serving in the military after 9/11 never earned a six figure salary before joining.
Yes, there's plenty of patriotism in the enlisted (and officer) ranks. But for a lot of guys, and gals, its an alternative to a dead-end job or no job at all.
Given McCain's temperment and thin skin, we're going to be hearing a LOT of umbridge taken until November.
Nothing McCain did in his military career is either necessary or sufficient to be President. Therefore, it's not a qualification. He has many admirable qualities, and his courage as a POW is among them. The fact that he chose to take that courage and cash in on it by dumping his wife, marrying his generation's Paris Hilton, and buying a life as a party hack (with bonus money from Keating) while pretending to be morally superior toe everyone else is not.
Being a community organizer didn't hurt his personal advancement, considering his clear political ambitions. How else to establish credibility in Chicago's black community and lay the groundwork for a future run in a predominantly black state senate district?
Dude said:
John Kerry tried to bluff his way through that he had these qualities. The vast majority of men who served with him called him out, and he wilted. His exaggerations were exposed, and he was done.
This is a lie. The vast majority of the people who served with Kerry and were in a position to know backed him up when a small contingent of people who either did not serve with him or were contradicting statements they had made at the time decided to slander him for political reasons. The Green Beret he pulled out of the water and who nominated him for one of his Bronze Stars. backed up his story. The guy who was on a different boat in a different part of the river said it didn't happen.
You are entitled to an opinion. You are not entitled to make up BS about someone who served honorably, even heroically at a time when he could have easily avoided serving at all (like Dick Cheney and GW Bush).
Duncan's comment above is wrong -- Audie Murphy was in the Army.
Just trying to help ...
No shit, Tim K, what did I say? But just because his gamble paid off doesn't mean it wasn't a risk. He could have ended up never winning a seat anywhere you ignorant idiot. And I know most people try to ignore you, but didn't you pretend to be a Democrat during the primary? I know being a Democrat doesn't mean you can't criticize Obama,(because I definitely have a few issues with him myself) but you certainly have never been a Democrat...
"And being a community organizer in some ghetto neighbourhood is supposed to qualify somebody to be president?"
Has this ever been claimed? By anybody? You're a fool.
It's not a risk like flying jets over enemy lines. The fact you'd even put the two on the same plain makes me embarassed for you. I still think Hillary Clinton would make a better president than Barack Obama or John McCain. With McCain you get strengh and experience, with Obama you get progressive policies. With Clinton you'd have gotten both.
Whoever said it was a comparable risk? Who put them on the same 'plain?' Seriously, no one ever claimed that and you know it. Typical dishonest bullshit from you. You should probably kill yourself.
You're not a very balanced person. Chill.
Leaving a six figure job stuff makes even less sense from a selfless perspective.
Similar to Pat Tillman you most likely could have done a lot more for the military and members of the military simply by donating a sizeable amount to veterans and other military charities.
A truly selfless person would realize that their attendance is probably not as beneficial as their money to the greater good.
You're not a very balanced person. Chill.
You're not a very balanced person. Chill.
I take a huge risk when I go out wearing my mauve pant suit in public. Even more than flying planes.
So I should run for president.
Oh, I'm plenty balanced. I just think you are the type of person this world would be better off without. So I either need to pray for an accident or your suicide. And since I don't pray, I'll just encourage you to kill yourself.
I can't help but notice that you didn't point out a place where the two situations were placed on the same 'plain.' Figures. You are a dishonest idiot. Bury yourself up to your neck in the backyard, and have a loved one run you over with a lawnmower.
Dude: "Courage and core principles."
Far as I can tell, McCain has neither and never did.
He folded for the North Vietnamese and he flip-flops daily on just about everything.
McCain was not "tortured for five years". Apparently there's little evidence he was tortured at all. His physical condition apparently is due to injuries sustained in his crash. Once he was determined to be an admiral's son, the North Vietnamese gave him medical treatment denied to all other POWs. For which, apparently, he repaid the North Vietnamese by telling them information he was required to withhold.
Information which, according to one US officer, was responsible for a 60 percent increase in downed US aircraft over North Vietnam over the next years of the war. I have no idea if that is true or not. If true, it's clearly a serious problem for the "war hero" concept.
Hacker,
Are you the dude who robbed an unarmed woman bank teller and have Iran invasion fantasies?
As far as I can tell, your opinion of whether McCain has sufficient leadership skills needs to be discounted. But it's an interesting perspective.
I'd love to hear your opinion on whether you think Obama has the type of leadership qualities you look for, and if so, what those are.
If not, what does a dude like you look for in a political leader? (I always assumed anarchists looked for the same types of qualities in their leaders as do ordinary folks, or is that playing by the Man's rules and too organized/not applicable to anarchists?)
You're the only anarchist I know of, so I need to ask you.
This thread reminds me of what I used to read on Little Green Footballs back before the war. The problem with the web is it gives voice to people who don't deserve it.
Dude: First, the circumstances of my bank robbery are irrelevant. But I will say that the people in that bank were quite safe from being injured by me - unless, of course, they decided to attack me. What the psychological consequences were of facing my gun are on them and irrelevant to me.
Actually, as I was exiting the bank, two women were coming in. On seeing this black-masked figure with a gun, they looked scared. I say, "Relax, it's all over, I'm out of here" as I went by them.
They smiled at me. I probably made their day more interesting. Of course, if they wanted to do business in the bank at that point, I'd just ruined that but at that point they hadn't realized that. You obviously don't get any business done at a bank that's just been robbed. They close up shop until the cops are gone and the accounting is done.
Second, I'm not your typical anarchist, so you probably won't get a statistically viable answer from me.
I don't look for anything in a "leader" because I don't look for "leaders" - since I'm not a "follower". OTOH, anarchists aren't against "leaders" per se, they're just against "rulers".
But if I WERE looking for a leader, I would be looking for the only two things that matter in a human being: rationality and intelligence (and the two aren't the same.)
Obama clearly seems to have a degree of intelligence. But since he's a politician, as an anarchist, by definition, he has no rationality.
So, no, I don't look to him to be a "decent" President. But since I'm not running the country myself, I'll be satisfied if he doesn't start a war with Iran (assuming Bush or Israel doesn't do it for him first) or more war in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Anything else he does - assuming he doesn't, as Jon Stewart joked, "enslave the white race" - is pretty irrelevant to me, short of martial law or something.
McCain, on the other hand, is clearly a war monger and a deluded senile old fool to boot, as well as a corrupt politician that makes Obama look like the Flying Nun.
And nothing McCain did in Vietnam or in his military service changes that one whit.
He's a moron compared to Obama.
"The fact that he sacrificed his own comfort and freedom to stay with his fellow captives and chose to deny the Viet Cong a PR victory shows that he has courage and is capable of placing principles above self-interest."
If the N. Viets really wanted to release McCain; how, as a prisoner, would he had any say about the matter?
"The fact that he sacrificed his own comfort and freedom to stay with his fellow captives and chose to deny the Viet Cong a PR victory shows that he has courage and is capable of placing principles above self-interest."
If the N. Viets really wanted to release McCain; how, as a prisoner, would he had any say about the matter?
That's a grotesque insult to every perfectly fine soldier who every got shot, shot down or sunk.
Um, if they got shot down or sunk odds are they probably weren't soldiers, but airmen and/or sailors.
I think Steve Duncan is onto something.
I think the excessive valuing of _any_ military experience is a symptom of not enough of us having military experience. In particular, we've lost the pristine hatred of officers developed by many enlisted men, generals especially; we've also become too easily swayed by the false (in facts and in morals) cult of the "warrior".
That being said, McCain's not going home when he had the chance showed real courage.
Obama's insanely good organisational skills showed his fitness for command.
Comments closed July 16, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Strange qualification, indeed!! Then again the NBA is trying to get money back from Donaghy. Good luck with that one.
Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | July 2, 2008 2:45 PM