On Face the Nation, Schieffer baselessly claimed "Obama's people are trying to denigrate" McCain's "military service"
SUMMARY: On Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer alleged that "[Sen. Barack] Obama's people are trying to denigrate the war hero's military service," referring to Sen. John McCain. Schieffer did not explain which of "Obama's people" he was talking about, but a few days earlier he said that "[retired Gen.] Wesley Clark, who was speaking for Obama, tried to marginalize John McCain's military service" in a June appearance on Face the Nation. In fact, Clark did not "denigrate" McCain's "military service"; rather, he questioned the relevance of McCain's combat experience as a qualification to be president.
On the August 3 edition of CBS' Face the Nation, host Bob Schieffer alleged that "[Sen. Barack] Obama's people are trying to denigrate the war hero's military service," referring to Sen. John McCain. Schieffer did not explain which of "Obama's people" he was talking about, but on the July 31 edition of CBS' Early Show, when asked "what is it about John McCain that he [Obama] would attack," Schieffer responded, "[w]ell, I mean, they've already tried this, there's no question about that," adding that "[retired Gen.] Wesley Clark, who was speaking for Obama, tried to marginalize John McCain's military service" during a June 29 appearance on Face the Nation. Schieffer cited no other examples of the Obama campaign "attack[ing]" McCain. However, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, during his Face the Nation appearance, Clark did not "denigrate" McCain's "military service." Rather, as Zachary Roth wrote at the Columbia Journalism Review's Campaign Desk blog, Clark "questioned the relevance of McCain's combat experience as a qualification to be president of the United States."
McCain himself has previously said he does not "accept the notion" that military experience is necessary to be an effective commander in chief. As the blog Think Progress noted, in an interview published in the February 13, 2003, edition of the National Journal, Kirk Victor asked McCain, "Do you think that military service inherently makes somebody better equipped to be commander-in-chief?" McCain replied:
McCAIN: Absolutely not. History shows that some of our greatest leaders have had little or no military experience -- Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Harry Truman was in the artillery in World War I, which was magnificent. Ronald Reagan did most of his active duty in the studio lots in California. It might be a nice thing, but I absolutely don't believe that it's necessary.
From the August 3 edition of CBS' Face the Nation:
SCHIEFFER: Finally today: When it began, this was a campaign of great expectations. Two extraordinary candidates -- Obama, the son of a Kenyan exchange student, raised by American grandparents; McCain, a true American hero. What a statement it could have been to the world, what a learning and inspiring experience it could have been to us, two such very different people giving us their vision for America. And yet, it has come to this: Obama's people trying to denigrate the war hero's military service, McCain's people comparing Obama to a couple of frivolous tarts.
As I watch the latest back-and-forth over who did or did not inject race into the campaign, I thought back to the political consultant who once told me that he began each political cycle by rereading Machiavelli, who argued the only ethic that should matter to those seeking power was the ethic that benefited them. In other words, the end justified the means. That's where we are in today's politics: do or say whatever it takes to win the daily news cycle, deal with the collateral damage later. And that's the part that bothers me. What comes after this? I can't help but remember what Gandhi once said: "Ends do not justify the means, they reflect the means." The government we get generally reflects the campaign that produced it. What kind of government can we expect from this one? This time it could have been so different.
That's it for us. We'll see you next week right here on Face the Nation.
From the July 31 edition of CBS' The Early Show:
MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ (co-anchor): Do you think it's inevitable that Barack Obama will eventually go down the same road? And if so, what is it about John McCain that he would attack?
SCHIEFFER: Well, I mean, they've already tried this, there's no question about that. Look, when Wesley Clark, who was speaking for Obama, tried to marginalize John McCain's military service and said -- I asked him on Face the Nation why, you know, that he thought McCain shouldn't consider -- you know, his military service shouldn't be considered as something that was a plus for somebody running for president, and he said, "Well, you know, just being shot down over Hanoi does not qualify you for being president." So both sides are engaging in this. I don't think the public likes it, but I think we're going to see more of it. One thing for sure: when you're running ahead, you don't normally run negative ads about your opponent. I think this does say that John McCain's people know that he's behind right now.
I'm glad Media Matters caught this. I did this morning too and can't believe how ignorant or biased or both some in the media still are.
Any educated person who looked into what Wesley Clark said knows that he wasn't marginalizing McCain's service. And no one from Obama's campaign has denigrated McCain's service. It's just that it's not relevant to being president!
Schieffer also said "So both sides are engaging in this. " But they both are not doing it.
Schieffer also said "So both sides are engaging in this. " But they both are not doing it.
True, Obama never served in the military. And I don't recall anyone ever bashing McCain's military record. If anything Obama's the main recipient of bashing based on his "lack of experience", "community organizer vs. POW", his "Marxist and Communist influences and tendencies", and "his terrorist friends".
The only bashing McCain gets is when he slips up, like wanting to veto beer.
"lack of experience"
One senate term, no executive experience, no military experience.
"community organizer vs. POW"
Although I don't see what being a POW does for running for President, but again - community organizer vs. military experience.
"Marxist and Communist influences and tendencies"
Higher taxation, increased redistribution of wealth, nationalized health care system.
"his terrorist friends".
William Ayers.
One senate term, no executive experience, no military experience.
There are no experience requirements to be president so he can't lack it.
Although I don't see what being a POW does for running for President, but again - community organizer vs. military experience.
I think both (community organizing and military experience) are good qualities.
Higher taxation, increased redistribution of wealth, nationalized health care system.
A guess you can call the majority of Americans Marxists.
William Ayers.
As far as I know, Bill Ayers is not a terrorist.
There are no experience requirements to be president so he can't lack it.
No one is talking about "requirements", since Corky Thatcher would meet them. Experience speaks to your qualifications.
I think both (community organizing and military experience) are good qualities.
Agreed.
A guess you can call the majority of Americans Marxists.
That would be true, if the majority of Americans were for those items, which they arent.
As far as I know, Bill Ayers is not a terrorist.
From wiki:
Later in 1969, Ayers participated in planting a bomb at a statue dedicated to police casualties in the 1886 Haymarket Riot.[7] The blast broke almost 100 windows and blew pieces of the statue onto the nearby Kennedy Expressway.[8] The statue was rebuilt and unveiled on May 4, 1970, and blown up again by Weatherman on October 6, 1970.[9][8] Built yet again, the city posted a 24-hour police guard to prevent another blast.[8] He participated in the Days of Rage riot in Chicago that October, and in December was at the "War Council" meeting in Flint, Michigan.
No one is talking about "requirements", since Corky Thatcher would meet them. Experience speaks to your qualifications.
The qualifications to be president are listed in the Constitution. If Corky wants to run, more power to him.
That would be true, if the majority of Americans were for those items, which they arent.
But they are.
From wiki:
I did some research on the Haymarket riots for one of my classes and the bombing may have been done by the police. In the rest of the events, it doesn't say if Ayers participated. Anyway, Bill Ayers is not a terrorist today and it's debatable if he was a terrorist 30 to 40 years ago. The NY Times article that he wrote in 9/01 makes him out to be a wannabe terrorist.
The NY Times article that he wrote in 9/01 makes him out to be a wannabe terrorist
All the more reason to associate with him...
You shouldn't be surprised, science is more concerned about 30 year old connections than he is of all the corrupt people who were exposed and then resigned from McSame's campaign staff this year.
Science1, Did Gen Clark try to diminish McCains military service? That is the post here. If you feel he did, explain your point. If you wish to sling mud, my typewriter doesn't have enough ink. Rumsfeld and his good buddy Saddam...the Bushs' and their good buddies, the bin Ladens...etc, etc, even including Dick Cheney and the devil. Sorry, the devil does not wish to be associated with Dick Cheney, it is bad to associate with someone more evil than yourself. This could go on and on.
Do you think McCains' military service has been diminished by anyone? If so, how??
and call obama the n word without really saying it outright.
Obama is the one injecting race to the campaign without formally saying it, not McCain. The "dollar bill" statement is just an example.
I've gotta update the list again, I think weathervane mccain broke the 70 barrier with this doozy...
On Fox News Sunday today, host Chris Wallace asked Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a top McCain surrogate, about Sen. John McCain’s “doozy” of a flip-flop this past week on whether he would consider raising taxes as part of a Social Security fix. Despite the McCain campaign’s backtracking assertion this week that raising taxes is “absolutely out of the question,” Graham said McCain could support it “if it’s part of a comprehensive approach.”
Following Graham’s comments, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle remarked that, “we don’t know what we’re going to get with John McCain. The more he talks, the less certain we are about any of the positions he’s taken.”
That last part was priceless!
Snoopy posted:
"self serving racist and POW collaborator that he is."
Please back this statement up...
I'd love to see you would react at the hands of the NVA...
Yet, I'll bet you think torture is still a reliable method of information extraction?
After four days, McCain made an anti-American propaganda "confession".[32]
Too easy. And, let me add that the only reason he got early release was because of the tireless efforts of his 1st wife. She did all the lobbying to get him freed, and two-faced mccain paid her back by divorcing her because she was disfigured in a car wreck. He's a two bit collaborating coward who only thinks about himself.
One senate term, no executive experience, no military experience.
There are no experience requirements to be president so he can't lack it.
It's because he has a "D" behind his name instead of an "R". Then he would be a breath of fresh air in Washington ;)
Although I don't see what being a POW does for running for President, but again - community organizer vs. military experience.
I think both (community organizing and military experience) are good qualities.
I agree - and both provide their experiences that can be useful in the Presidency.
Higher taxation, increased redistribution of wealth, nationalized health care system.
A guess you can call the majority of Americans Marxists.
And that's not even touching the fact that we already have many Marxist elements in our country (income tax, government schools, among others).
I don't know what redistribution of wealth will do, as the rich and poor would simply swap places.
William Ayers.
As far as I know, Bill Ayers is not a terrorist.
Sean Hannity 847841214475132156749845132168484514897653 times: "[Bill Ayers] [doesn't] regret setting bombs. [He] [feels] [he] didn't do enough"
(I don't know if there's anything to refute that [Ayers' terrorism], but Hannity did cite some articles and papers. If I get to be corrected, I get to be corrected. Nothing wrong with that.)
"And that's not even touching the fact that we already have many Marxist elements in our country (income tax, government schools, among others)."
Wow, you sure give Karl Marx a lot of undue credit.
The earliest American income tax proposal dates back to just a few years before Marx was born.
Government mandated public schooling in America predates Marx even further, by about 170 years.
Any other brilliant observations of "Marxist elements" in America you'd care to tell us about?
Bill Ayers
Rashid Khalidi (PLO)
Raúl Reyes (FARC)
Ahmed Youssef (Hamas)
Wow Ghengis,
You've reached deep for some debunked talking points.
Please provide some specifics on the relationship between Barack Obama and these people.
Science, don't you get tired of the same old bullsh*t.
I know you think that repeating Republican talking points will make them true but sorry, it won't. Oh and throwing a penny in a fountain won't give you good luck either.
It's time you ask your fellow Republican comedians for some new material.
Unless Jesse Jackson has cut his n*ts off, what prevented him from speaking against criminals like Ayers and Youssef and rabble rousers like his "former" spiritual advisor, Wright?
No Ghengis,
That's not true.
Please come back when you have an actual fact or if you would like to discuss the actual topic.
Any educated person who looked into what Wesley Clark said knows that he wasn't marginalizing McCain's service.
Gramps McCain is counting of the votes of uneducated persons......
Like the votes of DaWuss and Science101?
Anyone else notice the set-up DaWuss did for Science? He brought Obama's detractors into the argument, even though the issue was Schieffer being an apologist for McCain! We already knew that McCain was being unfairly protected, and DaWuss had to pile on and attack Obama unfairly!
Then Science ran with it. If I was a suspicious type, seeing DaWuss abuse this site and denigrate knowledge previously, I might think there was a conspiracy to derail a thread!
Where did I attack Obama? All I did was list some observations. I know I don't echo DNP talking points to the letter - I just say what's on my mind based on observations and facts and things of the sort.
If someone wants to take what I said and run with it, that's their choice. I'm not a big supporter of Obama anymore (I used to be, way back early in the election), and I'm not a supporter of McCain either (you ask me, he's trying to lose and some figures in the media are trying to prop him back up in the name of a tight election, which can be good for ratings [and remember back when the media called him the "Maverick John McCain" in the early-mid 2000's?]).
I'm looking for a reason to like either candidate.
True, Obama never served in the military. And I don't recall anyone ever bashing McCain's military record. If anything Obama's the main recipient of bashing based on his "lack of experience", "community organizer vs. POW", his "Marxist and Communist influences and tendencies", and "his terrorist friends".
On top of that, you set Science101 up again to distract us from the point of this thread.
Notice how dawuss attempts to equate McCain's worn out, tone deaf persona to Obama? Notice how he speaks of losing enthusiasm for Obama?
I think the intent here is to infuse complacency and frustration into the discussion in an attempt drive down voter interest because we all know that low voter turnout benefits Republicans. Granted, as an individual, dawuss has marginal obvious effect, but if you mesh his approach with the mounting GOP narrative of Obama as a celebrity, as scary or as risky you'll recognize the parallels. GOPers are going full tilt at Obama's greatest asset, his ability to inspire participation. Wingers are some sick puppies, man. Their only concern for our future is for their continued control of our democratic culture.
Hey, I just go by what I hear and know.
If I watched SportsCenter, I'd think Peyton Manning is the NFL's greatest quarterback...
On Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer alleged that "[Sen. Barack] Obama's people are trying to denigrate the war hero's military service
Perhaps Schieffer could have kind enough to have asked this question to his guest or his watchers about whether McCain and his campaign are trying to denigrate Barack Obama as the Anti-Christ and/or the Coming of the Apocolyps with subliminal and under handed ways with the recent "The One" TV ad that has recently come out??
It is quite scary that we have probably in the neighborhood of 10 to 15 million fellow citizens that will fall for this garbage!
All this religious stuff about God and God being used by religious freaks to scare people is dangerous enough..... but in a presidential campaign?
In the immortal words of Frank Barone....... "Holy Crap!"
McCain doesn't need to do any promoting of Obama as the "Messiah" or "Anti-Christ". This guy has that covered.
Obama is running a clean campaign and McCain a nasty rovian one
Well, perhaps if he would take the time to have some real debates, instead of flip flopping and giving speeches to the Europeans.....there wouldn't be a need for a nasty one.
But then again, the only people complaining about McCains negative ad's and approaches are the ones who realized they lost 9 points in the National Polls.
Well, perhaps if he would take the time to have some real debates, instead of flip flopping and giving speeches to the Europeans
He's only flip-flopped on two issues so far against what seems like 100 for McCain. And McCain can't attack him [without looking silly] on the oil drilling because he has flip-flopped on that issue too.
.....there wouldn't be a need for a nasty one.
Are you kidding me? A nasty campaign is what republicans live for.
He's only flip-flopped on two issues so far
Campaign finance, the surge, oil drilling, town hall debates, fisa bill, individual gun rights
This is just jukebox john's flip flops on energy...
Energy Policy
39. McCain supported the moratorium on coastal drilling ; now he’s against it.
40. McCain recently announced his strong opposition to a windfall-tax on oil company profits. Three weeks earlier, he was perfectly comfortable with the idea.
41. McCain endorsed a cap-and-trade policy with a mandatory emissions cap. In mid-June, McCain announced he wants the caps to voluntary.
42. McCain explained his belief that a temporary suspension of the federal gas tax would provide an immediate economic stimulus. Shortly thereafter, he argued the exact opposite.
43. McCain supported the Lieberman/Warner legislation to combat global warming. Now he doesn’t.
McCain supported the Lieberman/Warner legislation to combat global warming. Now he doesn’t.
Thank god for that. But he still scares me.
That's pretty sleazy thinking. It's akin to, "I have to stalk you because you won't talk to me."
Ridiculous in the extreme.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXaua7eu8vc
Facing questions, Edwards evades reporters: http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/1160048.html
Monkey business on the Edwards story?: http://www.nj.com/columns/ledger/mulshine/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/121747907040810.xml&coll=1
John Edwards sex scandal? Hey, you didn't hear it here: http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10048465?source=most_viewed
Why isn't John Edwards answering reporters' questions?: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/46030.html
Sorry, Roundhouse! Your emperor, John Edwards, has no clothes. /snicker
Not that the story is necessarily untrue, but I'll wait for the facts to roll in.
On the other hand, if the story is true, I guess your queen mum, Ann Coulter, was totally off her rocker when she insinuated that Edwards was a faggot.
Well, perhaps if he would take the time to have some real debates,
Why debate a liar and smear-monger? I wouldn't.
What Shieffer did this morning was wring his hands about what a nasty campaign this has become, suggesting that both sides are to blame and using what he described as an attack on McCain's military service as an example of the Obama campaign's bad conduct. The fact that there simply are NOT 2 sides to this argument is a problem for these pundits.
Not only did Wesley Clark not denigrate McCain's military service, in the very same interview with Shieffer he described McCain's service as laudatory and heroic. In the course of the interview Shieffer said something to the effect that Obama hadn't been shot down over enemy territory as had McCain and Clark responded that being shot down doesn't necessariy qualify one to be president. Is there ANYONE who argues that such an occurance IS a qualification to be president? It's not like Clark said it DISQUALIFIED McCain but that's the way it is played up. Even Kerry this morning offered criticism of the remark. Why is it ok to suggest that Obama is not qualified but not allow for the same criticism of McCain?
Schieffer is a Bush and McCain admirer who is not objective or credible when covering politics.
Do you remember Schieffer's outrage in 2004 when Bush's relatives, administration members and campaign staff engaged in a deliberate, well funded campaign to LIE about John Kerry's military service? Not merely suggest that Kerry's service in uniform wasn't relevant to serving as president, but work to turn voluntary, heroic combat experience into a national JOKE?
I don't, either.
is not objective or credible when covering politics
Anyone who covers politics does so because they have a personal interest in it, to which they lean to one side or the other. To claim anything else is to deny reality.
I'd have no problem with Schieffer flakking for the Bush administration if that's what he admitted he was doing. But he doesn't -- he PRETENDS to be objective.
A couple of weeks ago, Chris Wallace of Fox "News" said that he regards Karl Rove as a genius, and that when he wants objective analysis of current events and politics, he relies on Rove. Are you kidding me? I think any OBJECTIVE observer would agree that Rove appearing on Fox is like Rove working in the Bush administration or Rove running the Bush campaign -- he always partisan, always political. If he admitted that when he was on the air, at least Fox viewers would know they were getting the same spin as they'd be getting if Rove still worked directly for Bush. Instead, he pretends to be objective, and allegedly professional journalists like Wallace a bet him. And yet these same guys still claim that the problem with the media is that it's too LIBERAL. Come on!
"Two extraordinary candidates -- Obama, the son of a Kenyan exchange student, raised by American grandparents; McCain, a true American hero."
WRONG. According the B.S's own statement, only one is extraordinary.
"Obama, the son of a Kenyan exchange student, raised by American grandparents". All true and verifiable.
"McCain, a true American hero.". Opinion only and hence need not be true.
What makes a guy who graduated almost last in his class from the Naval Academy, where he was enrolled merely because his dad and granddad were Admirals, who crashed planes because he couldn't fly, and who was shot down also because he probably couldn't fly well enough to take simple evasive action without crashing yet another plane, and sold out his fellow airmen, so extraordinary?
Is it also extraordinary to divorce the wife who waited for him because she was in a car acciden, and then lied about it in hi autobiography, where he also lied about the so-called phony info he gave his captors, a story he changed just last month for campaign purposes?
The only thing extraordinary about McGramps is the extent of his slimy personality.
LOL yourself, ignorant troll.
The exchange student referred to is NOT the extraordinary person.
The son of an exchange student happens to be a nominee for the President of U.S. Do you not find the son extraordinary?
On a lot of the morning talk shows they discussed how Obama is being portrayed as elite.
He was raised by a single mom. He had a father who disappeared and a stepfather. Because he worked hard, he got into a really good school, but that doesn't make him elite.
He's elite if Hannity and Rush etc. say he is.
But I want a president who is elite. Someone who is smarter than me. I've long ago had enough of a president that you'd want to have a beer (or snort a line) with.
I keep coming back so I can somehow be accepted by the liberal crowd.
Your masochism isn't the issue. The issue is why you keep coming back with the same debunked lies over and over again. You're either too stupid to learn, or you don't read well enough to understand why the lies you spread aren't true.
Either way, you really have no reason to be proud of your abject inability to think logically.
I think he repeats these lies for the same reason the right-wingers in the media repeat them - they KNOW they are lies, but they also know that if they repeat them enough, people will get tired of refuting them and many people will believe it's the truth.
It's the standard right-winger operating procedure - lie, lie, lie.
I think it was Joey Göbbels who stated that if people hear a lie enough times, they will eventually accept it as the truth.
At least that's what I heard on Michael Savage several months back, back when I viewed him more favorably than I do now.
Science is a sad little man who has to live out his fantasy life on anonymous blogs because his real life is so pathetic.
He claims to be a father of four with three house and multiple advanced degrees all at the age of 28.
Amazing that he has times to monitor these threads and spend so much time responding.
I kind of feel bad for him now that I think about it.
I probably won't be able to debate with him any more since his entire self esteem is wrapped up in these blogs.
He claims to be a father of four with three house and multiple advanced degrees all at the age of 28.
God father of one (niece) who I am now the legal guardian, 1 house + 1 condo, 2 bachelors + a masters from a state university. If they are advanced, then thats your claim. But at least you got my age correct.
Lie about Obama to hate him? Is that what you mean?
Or do you mean that your lies and distortions foster more hate toward Obama because of his African American Background.
Its just like Bob Herbert said in his Saturday columm in the NYT, that there is a GOP attempt to bring race out into every aspect of this election, to bring out all the racist haters who do nothing but spew the most vile racist garbage and junk they can. You Science are an example of that. You disgust me .
Right. I see how you like to inject race - and call everyone a racist if they don't agree with your views. Typical liberal BS. Never once did I mention anything about race, besides the fact that his "dollar bill" statements seem to inject it.
You are a typical "when i can't win, lie" type of liberal.
AUGUST,
Amen brother!!
The corporate owned slanted media WAS the first to inject race into this campaign!
Now that the black man has tried to defend himself from the use of his looking different and the use of obvious discrimination he's now suddenly the one using the race card! Yeah.... right!
I'm not a historian on the Civil War era or slavery..... but why do I get the feeling that many of the things being said and used today against Obama are not much different from back then when blacks wanted only to be seen as human beings and not property! Only now its indirect instead of direct.
BREWER: Do you think if he had just said -- if he had just said -- "I have become the symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions," that sentence in and of itself, do you think that that is presumptuous? Do you agree if that had been the only sentence without the context, that it would have been enough for people to think, well, who does he think he is?
I texted a friend this morning that Obama needs to abandon fair coverage of this election and reach out to voters in another way. The above interview sums up the coverage of his campaign thus far. Conservatives make a false accusation that is then validated by the media and aired on a continuous "news cycle" for public consumption. And unfortunately, our public seems to have a large appetite when it comes to junk food.
You are a typical "when i can't win, lie" type of liberal.
Yeah , whatever you say Science.
Schieffer is unbelievable. He as so much been part of McCain's base (in love with his POW status & old age) for years.
But why does everyone on this site keep arguing over Bill Ayers? Just exactly what proof is there of any relationship? They live in the same neighborhood? Attend the same board meetings? Saw each other at events?
My GOSH people ... This is all that you've got against Obama? Keep trying, please. Cuz this one is ridiculous. Think of McCain's associations over his half century of public service. His list of unfavorables will pale in comparison.
What d'ya say? Wanna have that contest, McCain-lovers?
It is very easy to show that McCain is a liar - and to be quite fair - same with Obama, Though i think McCain has a ton of blood on his hands
and who calls McCain a war hero - other than McCain himself.
I come from a military officers family and i can tell you the word on the street is that McCain is a spoiled coward.
SCHIEFFER: Finally today: When it began, this was a campaign of great expectations. Two extraordinary candidates -- Obama, the son of a Kenyan exchange student, raised by American grandparents; McCain, a true American hero.
I cannot help but concur with Schieffer that we have "two extraordinary candidates." Obama, somewhere at the top of his class at Harvard; McCain fifth from the bottom of his graduating class at the US Naval Academy. While there's no doubt that it takes courage to continue to fly after two crashes, it's worth noting that McCain's crashes took place in the Carribean and the Mediterranean seas. The question should probably be why, after two such events, he was allowed to continue to command an fighter in Vietnam. The answer probably has something to do with his vintage family connections, a characteristic he seems to share with the current commander-in-chief with whom he also shares an equally distinguished academic record. While we can commend the service he rendered to his country in a war that should never have been waged--the war in Vietnam--it is hard to understand what he did--other than survive-- that accords him the status of true American hero.
You may find this interesting:
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/
Let's not forget that in 2004 there was an organization calling itself "The Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry".
Some of the same people involved with the VV Against John McCain were leades of the VV Against John Kerry.
These so called leaders have been involved in some very pretty rotten things over the years.
As much as I want McCain to lose this election I refuse to believe anything this organization has to say about McCain, just as I was angered by their dispicable actions against John Kerry in 2004.
Here's a link to an article about one of those people who is/was a leader of both VVA John Kerry and now the VVA John McCain.
http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/conason/2004/02/10/kerry_smear/
Ahh, yes, Vietnam Veterans Against McCain. Led by that pillar of truth, ted sampley.
He has had a thing for McCain and Kerry for years.
I see he's dropped (or I missed it) the story about the "memorial" the Vietnamese erected to McCain on the spot where he was shot down in Hanoi. Actually, it was a memorial to the Vietnamese who shot him down, and spoke of McCain as a criminal . . . . . needless to say, the translation sampley had provided of the words written on the "memorial" was blatantly false.
Doug Reese
If Obama was white . . .
John McCain would have wanted to run as his vice president.
The media has become a joke. McCain launched a series of negative ads to which the media said, "Bravo!!" Obama comes out and defends himself and is accused of "injecting race" into the election, despite that being exactly what the Republicans want.
"Obama's people" = Clark, misquoted in one interview.
"McCain's people" = McCain himself, in his own campaign ad, being run bazillions of times for free in addition to however many paid airings they've bought.
But hey, the iron rule of "each side is equally guilty" must march on!
And speaking of "denigrating the war hero's military service," that would be like those purple heart bandaids mass-distributed by the GOP last time? Or the Swiftboat lies in general? Or the more widespread evidence that GOP respect for military service ends at the partisan divide, such as, oh I dunno, Ann Coulter (and her many ditto-ers) mocking Max Cleland's sacrifice of three of his limbs on the basis that "He blowed hisself up wid his own grenade, har har har har!"
I have to say, Obama falls pretty far short of the GOP's standard when it comes to this stuff.
"In fact, Clark did not "denigrate" McCain's "military service"; rather, he questioned the relevance of McCain's combat experience as a qualification to be president."
Okay, so the definition of denigrate according to Merriam Webster is "to deny the importance or validity of." So when Clark "questioned the relevance" of McCain's combat experience, he was in fact denigrating or "questioning the importance of" his combat experience.
Oopsies!