In Bob Schiefer's eyes, and apparently, other anchors, as well.

It doesn't matter how many times a person associaded with the Obama campaign can say they admire and respect McCain's service, as Clark did just as he was giving a critical appraisal to whether McCain's POW experience gives him the actual experience of military command leadership, _all that_ just disappears in today's "slime and get ratings" press.

Just one person saying that being a POW does not necessarily mean that he has performed or has the ability to perform in a military command, is _actually_ being used as propaganda -- not in FreeperMail, or on Faux News, but by formerly respected television news anchors.

We have quite a number of former POWs in American, each of whom should be admired and respected for what they went through.

But, that doesn't mean that they could be president.

What has happened, to make it "okay" to question whether Barack Obama is prepared to lead (a fair question of _anybody_), but NOT OKAY to question McCain's? What on earth has happened to rational argument, when you cannot rationally explore McCain's _actual_ credentials, where that equals that you are "slamming McCain's military career?"

I am just in total despair for our country.

Pat

no need to despair...as far as i'm concerned, Wes Clark was RIGHT in saying about mcbush that...'i dont think getting shot down in a plane qualifies him to be president'...and all of us have to go on repeating this truth whenever we hear that Obama is too inexperienced to be president...

And being a community organizer gives BO experience to be POTUS?

BO admitted in 04 that he was not experienced enough to be POTUS and said he wouldn't run in 08. Flip-Flop?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj6syUD1I4U

I'm sure that you're one of that slavish type who adores anyone who dons a uniform of any type and expands the label of "hero" to include each and every one of them. That's okay! Think as you please and do as you please.
I'm reminded of something that happened when I was a high school freshman. I was never clear on the details, but it seemed to me at the time that some really dangerous characters had escaped from prison - or maybe hadn't been apprehended at all - and were holed-up in some cabin in the Adirondacks. My father became the star of the show, according to news reports.
Not only did we pray in school for my father's safety, but there was a special Mass in the school auditorium. Then came the word that Sgt. ***** had been shot in the charge on the cabin. Pandemonium reigned, and my father was perceived as a great hero.
My father was a good five miles from the scene.
He brought home an issue of "True Detective Magazine," in which there was an article that he termed "total crap." In the article, Sgt. ***** gave the order to charge and took a hit in the process. Daddy was man enough to discredit this nonsense. And since he returned to us, unscathed, we tended to believe him more than we believed the "True Detective" article.
That's when my father became a true hero to me. He could have lapped up the praise and made the most of something that never happened. But his honesty was more heroic than accepting someone else's acclaim. We read the "True Detective" article together - at the kitchen table, where my father always held sway with his books of poetry, great literature, and comic essays. The article became as hilarious as the essays of Stephen B. Leacock and was thus diffused.
True heroes are those who don't claim to be heroes.
Another excerpt from my book, for your entertainment!
Sallie

Now what was the point you were trying to make?

Perhaps that being shot down while flying a mission that dropped bombs on innocents is not the way to claim the title of "hero?"
As I said, real heroes don't claim to be heroes and don't milk the title for all it's worth. Real heroes are honest enough to realize that non-heroic acts (such as dropping bombs on unarmed civilians) are not the stuff from which heroes are made.
John McCain crashed, or otherwise descimated four Navy jets before he was shot down. He was on a path to self-annihilation when he met his match. His other four "accidents" had nothing at all to do with enemy fire or extreme bravery. Before he became a POW, he was widely regarded as an eff-up, which is why he never achieved more than the rank of captain during 20 years in the Navy.
Of course, you don't want to know about this; you'd much prefer to believe that surviving a shoot-down and being a POW is the ultimate in fitness for the CIC position. You prefer to disregard those other POWs who spent as much, if not more, time as POWs. They're immaterial, because they didn't go on to marry heiresses to fortunes and run for office.
These other POWs are out there and they don't much like John McCain. He doesn't have a great deal of support from his fellow POWs. Maybe you should think about that, rather than heaping praise on someone who did what he needed to do to survive - even though this included signing anti-US statements and airing anti-US sentiments via radio.
John McCain admits to breaking under torture. Who wouldn't? I'd be the first, and I make no bones about it! The problem derives from the fact that McCain has somehow twisted his statements and broadcasts as somehow being noble. They weren't, even though they were understandable.
Here's the thing: Being captured while committing crimes against a whole slew of people, if this occurred here in the US, would not even come close to making the perp a hero. We'd call the guy a terrorist and whisk him away to some offshore prison where he'd be tortured and finally spout whatever nonsense suited our purpose.
What's the difference? And why do we persist in seeing a difference between those we term "terrorists" and those who have terrorized others under the guise of being "the good guys?"
This is probably what I had in mind....
Sallie

wow, what a smear. And did you serve? Didn't think so. His experiences in the military is well known. How about something we don't know about his career.

Provide a link where you can show me where he puffs his chest, declares himself to be a POW war hero.

It's quite obvious you have no clue on the difference between serving in the military and being a terrorist. I'm thinking that you were one of the people that were spitting on the soldiers coming back from Viet Nam, and calling them baby killers.

Just another bleeding heart liberal.

I was to young to greet homecoming Viet Vets. I did however meet a few several years after that war. One was my best friend's (high school) older brother and the other lived 2 houses down the street. BOTH said it was a f*cked war, a war that was based on lies. One was a grunt, the other was Airborne. BOTH saw more action than McBush.

I've also had the pleasure of knowing a few WWII Vets. My grandfather was one.

Remember the purple band-aids? Remember the swiftboat crap?

A fireman that rushes into a burning building to save someone's life is a hero. Randy Pausch is a hero.

I wouldn't criticize McCain's military service. Maybe this is partly because I try to be a respectful guy, but also it is because it isn't terribly relevant. One could argue that military service is a good thing in a President, for things are learned in the military about self-reliance and mutual cooperation that could be useful for a chief executive. Those things can be learned elsewhere, and I haven't heard anyone claim Obama is lacking in terms of self-reliance or cooperation. Thus, both candidates aren't lacking in any area which I think long-ago military service adds to a man (or if one of them is lacking, it is McCain in terms of getting along with others), and therefore McCain's military service doesn't matter a hell of a lot to me.

He served, and deserves our gratitude and respect for it. He doesn't deserve the Presidency; no one ever deserves the Presidency.

That second is a good point, but I want you to go back and look at the first.

Clark was _not_ criticizing McCain's experience, but he _was_ taking a critical look at whether McCain's military experience as a POW meant that he had the ability to run a command.

Since when, are we not allowed to do that? Since when, does it become "a slam against McCain?"

Pat

Enlighten us as to exactly what those experiences were.

Were any of them, perhaps, when he capitulated to the enemy?

Maybe these will help you.

This document is a transcript of a Hanoi correspondent broadcast to Cuba quoting newly captured POW John McCain detailing U.S. military information about U.S. bombing operations over North Vietnam. The broadcast was transmitted in English on November 09, 1967 and intercepted by U.S. intelligence

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/declassified_2nhan_dan_interview_11_09_1967.pdf

This document is a transcript of a North Vietnamese news service article, translated from French to English. "Nhan Dan today published answers to questions by one of its correspondents made by a U.S. air pirate detained in North Vietnam. "He is Lt. John Sidney McCain . . ." Hanoi VNA International Service in French - November 9, 1967

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/declassified_nhan_dan_interview_11_09_1967.pdf

Much More Here

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccai...ied_landing.htm

===========================================================================

And you know what? You didn't serve, either! Don't try to intimidate me by trying to categorize me as a person who spit on Viet-Nam vets. I was married to one. You have no clue. Just because I know the difference between being a terrorist in service to the USA and being a terrorist in service to some other country doesn't make me a bleeding-heart liberal.
It doesn't take a man to attack relatively defenseless "enemies" and destroy their country. That's the work of a coward. We have proved our cowardice during the past more than five years. It was going to be a piece of cake; the people of Iraq would welcome our invading troops with flowers and candy. Who the hell sold us that bill of goods?
We wanted it to be so, but it wasn't - any more than if Iraqis had invaded the US (as if they could). But supposing they could, at the invitation of some "high-ranking people" and the Iraqis had the temerity to invade the US. What would be your reaction?
Sure, some people in power wanted your president deposed and wanted to step into the breach.
Even if it was GWB, I would have fought tooth and nail against an invading force. So would you, even if you hated the SOB's guts. That would make you an insurgent. Would you devise bombs and such in an attempt to defeat this invader? Of course you would!
The worst thing about this long, long war is the total misunderstanding of the insurgency. It's their country, damn it! We're running around over there with our crazy-azz idea of bringing democracy via whole-scale slaughter, and being amazed when the people with a horse in the race don't rush to our side. The culprits (who invited us to invade in the hope of running the country in the absence of Saddam Hussein) have already cashed their checks in off-shore accounts and will be living very nicely, while their countrymen live in squalor.
You want to argue with me? You want a toe to toe? Well, just do it! And don't be surprised if your arguments fail the test.....
Sallie

Yep. McCain got shot down and then he sang like a canary.

He most certainly was. When he said McCain's "command experience" wasn't relevant because McCain did not command his squadron "during wartime," most scrambled eggs rolled their eyes, regardless of political affiliations. I like Clark but that was a bone-headed comment.

Military men following lawful orders of their commander in chief aren't cowards and it would serve the best interest of your candidate that none of his supporters vocalize such sentiments in any national forum where the MSM could pick up it. I doubt Obama feels as you do Sallie, in fact, I know he doesn't. Usually your points, while on opposite sides of my own politically, are void of emotional foolery but sorry to say, this time you went off the deep-end.

Good comment.
Flag waving USED to embarrass McCain.

Implying being a prisoner, qualifies one for said position, or that the Air National Guard in Alabama does,
or that even being a Navy flier necessarily does - is ludicrous.

Having had a heart bypass does not qualify one as a surgeon.

The right ripped Kerry for his service - and made fun of all Viet vets when it suited their purpose.
They did the same to Gore - and lauded GW's AWOL status in the same breath.

GW pretended to land on a carrier - and declared the Mission Accomplished.
It didn't accomplish the mission, though he seems to think so. So take that for what its worth.
In the meantime, he's still taking my tax dollars -- for an accomplished mission that is not in the budget!

No one on the right has that much cred invoking military.
Chickenhawks.

organizing a community so it can address social problems like gang violence, drug-abuse prevention, access to legal advice,etc is a hell of a lot more experience then being shot down.....and your hero mcbush has flip-flopped on virtually all his previous positions so dont pull that f-f crap on me.......and nice tactic of trying to point the subject in another direction...how very republican of you...heheh...

"Criticizing" and "taking a critical look" amount to the same thing. Movie reviewers criticize as they critique. Pundits criticize. We all do it. I did not intend the word in a negative connotation.

Criticizing (or raising issues about) his service isn't a "slam". It's fair game politically, but dangerous in that the overwhelming majority of the public seem to be sympathetic to McCain's suffering. Senator Obama understands that, I believe.