16 comments

• 

  sandman

  9 months ago

  That first video was pretty good until it gets into the POW part. That part is unnecessary.

  reply
• 

  Daniel Miessler

  9 months ago

  I agree; they could have done without the POW stuff. It may be true, but it's not the type of thing you slip onto the end of a video like this. It needs far more careful attention if it's going to be attempted.

  reply
• 

  shane

  9 months ago

  OK, I'll bite. Obama wouldn't dare touch those videos because they are sensational and/or factually inaccurate. They may not be out of context, but they are tricks.

  
  

  100 years of war ===
  Having soldiers abroad for 100 years is not the same thing as 100 years of war. He gives Japan and South Korea as examples of where we have been there for 50+ years with out war. His point is that America should be prepared to have SOME soldiers still in Iraq after the "war" is over like we do with Germany, Japan, Korea, Philippines, Africa, Kuwait, Cuba, etc. And most Americans "are fine with" us being in those places, why not Iraq?

  
  

  Attacking Iran ===
  No where is it stated in that video that McCain even wants to bomb Iran. It goes from Buchanan giving his fearful opinion straight to Scott Ritter (who I agree with). I know McCain made a stupid joke about "bomb bomb Iran" and he is definitely more inclined than Obama to be strict against Iran's nuclear energy developments but McCain is not promising to bomb Iran with nuclear weapons.

  
  

  "General Patreaus goes into Baghdad in an unarmed humvee" === This one is weird... but an unarmed humvee is different than an unarmored humvee. I think an "armed" humvee is one with a big turret on top. McCain didn't claim that the General went out without any protection, but he was trying to say that things are safer now, that the General goes out there at all... almost daily.

  
  

  "I disagree with what the majority of the people want" ===
  As if that is always a bad thing. This isn't a mob rule democracy. We elect people to make decisions for us. Argumentum ad populum.

  
  

  "confederate flag flying over the [South Carolina] capitol" ===
  http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/storie... -
  I guess you were looking for an instance when McCain admitted to a mistake; here he believed that it was a state issue that they can pick whatever flag they want. Until it became a national outrage, and then he let it come out that he was personally against it and should have spoken up earlier.

  
  

  HR 3603 Truth Accountability Bill ===
  Doesn't exist. No joke. Look it up. You will find a long post on Ron Paul forums that claim it was in 1992. Go to congress.gov and you can find HR 3603 bill from 1992 : "To promote family preservation and the prevention of foster care with emphasis on families where abuse of alcohol or drugs is present, and to improve the quality and delivery of child welfare, foster care, and adoption services." There is no match in any congress database by the name of "Truth Accountability". http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d102:...>
  

  I hereby appoint myself officially a McCain Apologist. I have little against Obama, and I have little for McCain, but I can't let some of this stuff go by without debunking.

  reply
• 

  Mark Davini

  9 months ago

  Thank you, Shane. That was totally cool, and I agree. And guess what? After reading it, I STILL support Obama. But what I DO NOT SUPPORT is distortion after distortion from both parties. When people do this without checking facts, it only makes you look as fanatical as ANY OTHER GROUP. These manipulations of facts make me really hope for this to all be over soon.

  reply
• 

  jeff in chicago

  9 months ago

  The POW part is where I stopped also. It sounds like swiftboats somehow. Even if that's not the case, that's my perception, and you lost me there.

  reply
• 

  Grove

  9 months ago

  Cynthia McKinney is another great third-party candidate (Green Party) that people who can't vote Dem or Republican should consider voting for.

  reply
• 

  Carl

  9 months ago

  The person who said that bill HR 3603 doesn't exist obviously doesn't know much about congressional law. A little homework would show that Representative Denny Smith sponsored the bill during the 101st Congress in 1989. The Truth Accountability Bill (as it became known) is here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d101:h....>
  

  It's primary purpose is to "To direct the heads of Federal departments and agencies to disclose information concerning United States personnel classified as prisoners of war or missing in action from World War II, the Korean Conflict, and the Vietnam Conflict. "

  reply
• 

  shane

  9 months ago

  Carl,

  
  

  Well shit. Thanks for finding it. I really did spend some time looking for it. Links to search results on the Thomas LOC site won't work but I found this copy.... http://www.nationinstitute.org/pdf/syd5hr3603.pdf
  I'd like to learn more about how it got killed if you know how to find it.

  reply
• 

  deblirious

  9 months ago

  Don't fall into the trap of saying that anyone but mccain is going to be ok as a presidential candidate. It makes the people feel like their voice doesnt matter in politics and it's more important that people vote than anything else. Not voting takes power away from the people and gives it to the people who have an interest in manipulating the government. Obama is a balanced, educated, diverse man and will make an outstanding President. You cannot agree with a candidate on everything but at least Obama has the capacity to weigh the consequences of his decisions.

  reply
• 

  mccain apologist?

  9 months ago

  Shane,

  
  

  you can make the case that the POW stuff is swiftboating. and if you do, then you have no leverage if you think any part of the swiftboating was legitimate. for instance, had any of the accounts that were presented been true and not drummed up, it still would have been unpopular to bring it up. so it was really about what subject is off limits period, regardless of any truths uncovered. ok, fine, as long as it's fair. but it's not, it's been done, and likely had a hand in costing the election to kerry. so it was so disgusting that it should never been done again, to anyone, no matter if based on fact? (none of US know the facts. we're beholden to any eyewitnesses and their seeming trustworthiness). ok then, it's just off limits, and if so, then yeah, shouldn't have been injected here.

  
  

  about keeping a US presence in iraq...i think that people generally aren't objecting to the idea of having a small presence in ANY country that we did or did not have some war or conflict with, rather, it's the context that mccain has given to his statements. he's a war hawk. he backs wars. he just does. look at his record. he may have been reticent on a couple of occasions, but he's supported wars and a big military. he's stood behind both bush prez's on wars. he advocates for larger numbers of troops and doesn't like to talk about leaving. he seems to be the only person in the room who won't talk about it. his generals talk about it, but he thinks it's "dangerous" and "emboldens the enemy" etc etc. if say Al Gore advocated for keeping troops in a country after a conflict it necessarily means something different than what mccain has said. context is everything. you seem to be ready to dismiss mccains "joke" about bombing iran. i saw that video, and the context i got sent chills down my spine. do i think mccain wants to go over and wipe out all of iran? i don't know. maybe not. i'd like to think not. do i think he means leaving a sizeable force for 100 yrs in iran when he says that he'd be ok w/leaving troops in iran for 100 yrs? yes, i do. maybe it's just me.

  
  

  about the general walking the streets unarmed? sorry pal, you're just choosing to spin it, and you know it. he was very specific. he was just lying. you can't suddenly claim he was just saying that to make a point and choose not to believe him when he said it himself, several times. he also said he'd walked down a street no problem, in the context that there were some iraq streets that were safe enough to walk down, you and him, together w/o cause for worry. he chose those words, he was specific, and he defended them on at least a couple of other occasions, including the interview we saw. he was lying. sometimes things are just what they seem. he was lying - he was never safe enough to walk any street of iraq w/o two apache helicopters, armored vehicles of various description, and many, many heavily armed soldiers protecting him during his stroll. your spin is just a lie. sorry pal.
  because of subtext of your posting, i don't for a second believe you're being sincere. you are a mccain supporter, i'm confident of that. but if you're gonna play the game you should want to lend legitimacy to your expression, and you kind of lose it when you say someone who was lying was just trying to make a point. again, context is everything - all the readers here know this intuitively, and doubt your attempt at spin succeeded.

  
  

  about the confed. flag business - i'm not sure how you can revise this shane. he admits to us, the audience, that he was not honest. he said it, and the context was that he was being confronted by people who had knowledge otherwise. he was caught, that's the context, and unless he was being overly patronizing or sarcastic (and i'm gonna go ahead and guess "no" on that), then he is confessing, and confessing that he did it for personal political gain. though this might seem like "honesty", it's a little bit like a thief confessing she stole something. she's still a thief, and probably not to be trusted in the candy store, at least until she can convince us she's changed.

  
  

  about going against what the american people want, this is a favorite of mine. if you go against what the people want from the leverage of being a maverick, then the implication is you will go against everyone to do what is "right" or best for them. fine. but you've lost the right to ride the power of the populist wave whenever it suits you. you can't commandeer the "will of the people" whenever it's politically convenient for you. you can't claim "well blah blah b/c it's what the american people want!". you've lost that trick. being a maverick means you don't care what direction the water flows, and you don't get to claim you're right b/c the water is flowing your way. the context in the video was obviously about how the majority of the polled populace wanted out of iraq. the point here is that mccain doesn't get to decide. the public mandate has been lost. his role should be one of public educator. he's had years to educate us, and instead of popularity increasing as we've learned more, it's decreased. we should be out, or they should be "better" educators for their cause. cause it's not OUR cause any more.

  reply
• 

  Pat

  9 months ago

  I agree about the Vietnam stuff. Seems unnecessary and drags the whole thing down. And honestly, I don't care what John McCain was like 35 years ago. I care about what John McCain is like now. I would hope he has grown and changed in the last 35 years. (BTW, I voting for Obama. If you can't say "President Palin" without cringing or laughing, you should too.)

  reply
• 

  Uncle B

  9 months ago

  Tender spot hurting a lot? Other side too? bruises on your face and body throbbing? Is that blood running out your nose, skirt above your head in the wind, panties torn and soiled, titties swelling and turning blue by the minute, lost on the roadside, hoping not to die? Did you recognize the tail lights of the limo that threw you off? Was it the same limo that picked you up at election time, promising a good decent clean ride? Will you ever learn? Last time these guys did this to you, your babies were killed in Iraq and your retirement funds spent to do it, your taxes went up, you did not get destroyed by the weapons of mass destruction, they were never found. Poor little America. Our heart-felt prayers from Canada go out to you!

  reply
• 

  FukkenSaved

  9 months ago

  And Obama doesn't lie? What about all those agendas of his that disappeared right after winning the primary, such as ending the war on drugs?

  reply
• 

  sandman

  9 months ago

  Cynthia McKinney a great third party candidate?

  
  

  The woman is a lunatic.

  reply
• 

  shane

  9 months ago

  @whoever it was that wrote a long rebuttal to my comment

  
  

  I don't make the case that the POW stuff was swiftboating. There probably are shreds of truth in those accusations. I don't think it is relevant yet until the real truth really does come out. Nor do I think his POW stuff is off-limits. I didn't even respond to those accusations because they are just accusations. Show me something real.

  
  

  Yes, McCain generally backs wars. He continues to back the Iraq "war" even when most people think it is/was a horrible idea. He is also probably more likely to initiate a war than Obama would. That obviously doesn't sound good to you, but it does for some people. It makes them feel America is strong and capable of retaliating to threats. He doesn't "talk about leaving" because he doesn't think promises for military withdrawals are political issues. Those plans should be developed by the Generals, which they are. But the "100 years of war" is bogus. I don't get why people think that Military leaders are that incompetent and war-hungry to spend that much money, lose that many lives, and stay there for that long ... without responding to any real threat. But maybe it is just because I have spent a few years in the "Military Industrial Complex".

  
  

  RE: "General walking the streets unarmed" - Of course I am "spinning it", I am explaining it in a different way than you originally thought of it. This point was my weakest of the list, but I still stand by it. McCain is being misinterpreted by people who don't know military terms. And your mixing two McCain quotes. He said the General goes out in an unarmed humvee and a different quote said that there are safe neighborhoods where one can walk the streets more safely. I don't buy his second quote, but then again I have never walked an Iraqi street. ... And of course a general or presidential candidate can't walk around those streets safely because they are far more valuable of targets that ordinary Iraqis or Americans. I don't accuse you of purposefully spinning your side because I actually assume you are just regurgitating Wolf Blitzer or Keith Olbermann.

  
  

  RE: confederate flag stuff - So because he took his political party's side on the stupid issue of a state flag, over his own real stance, he can no longer be trusted with political affairs?

  
  

  Finally, if going against the American public on one issue prevents him going along with the American Public on another issue (riding the populist wave)... then... Good! I sure as hell hope he doesn't do that because I don't trust the American public (religious nutjobs, emo sk8rs, ultrafeminists, gun-happy rednecks, soap opera fanatics, truthers, actual socialists, actual anarchists, and 19yr old "political activists") to guide our affairs. That's why we have a republic and I hope that doesn't change.

  
  

  PS: If you want to attack McCain, go after Palin's inexperience (without highlighting Obama's own inexperience), go after McCain's misguided stances on economic issues (or his lack of stances on economic issues), question his "Maverick"-ness when he votes +90% along the party line, promote Obama because he can be the good cop/savior that the rest of the world loves which will make America better, or promote Obama for ensuring social equality over economic efficiency. And no, McCain has not earned my vote and I do not think he's worthy of your vote either. I am only here to debate issues as rationally as possible.

  
  

  PPS: Thanks Uncle B for showing us how one can speak without adding anything to a conversation. Interesting.

  reply
• 

  TIMM

  9 months ago

  @ Shane,

  
  

  Thank you for your efforts to "even the playing field." It really is appreciated that, even as an Obama voter, you recognize the ferocity and underhandedness of certain tactics used to play on fear and ignorance of the as-yet unconvinced voting segments.

  
  

  When some people finally come down to having to say "because he's (or she's) lying", making an unbased and unprovable accusation on a candidate's character, it shows the ultimate limits to which they need to extend their arguements/frustrations/whathaveyou. The problem with doing is is that it goes well beyond the issues.

  
  

  "The mission in Iraq is becoming a success.", and someone states, "Well, that's a lie." All of the sudden the debate shifts from the merits of what premise has been proposed to a more basic understanding negating the need for the premise.

  
  

  It's worse when the candidates themselves do this to each other. At least, here, amongst ourselves, we have control over it.

  
  

  I also appreciate having this forum to conduct our discussions, yet this goes after saying I'd rather not participate if this was a member's only mutual appreciation society, where like-minded people were the rule without exceptions. I can pat my own back, if that were the case.

  
  

  Furthermore, to Shane again, you implied a perspective coming from the MIC that interests me. I hope you get a chance to draw from that perspective some more, (and perhaps divulge some details none of us can compare to). It is most welcome, and seems kind of balance-oriented.

  
  

  -=T=-

  reply