Family Told Obama NOT To Wear Soldier Son's Bracelet

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
From what I"ve heard, obama has rarely ever used the story.

You mean besides the first nationally televised debate?

This will be a great thread to link to in the future when the left falls back into the routine of blindly accusing the right of apologizing. Hope it's still here.

I will NOT excuse your stupidity. My point was that ... how can the "family" or the "ex husband" demand Obama stop telling a story that he rarely ever told?

So, how is the fact he brought it up in the debate RELEVANT? I'll await your answer, moron.

I'll ignore the unnecessary childish attacks and resist assuming they were used in lieu of critical thinking.

Let's not forget this is "what you heard." :roll:

Grow up and collect something tangible.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: jonks
Chris Matthews putting my thoughts into words after the debate:

I thought John McCain made a terrible point tonight. He said if someone dies in battle, someone serving their country because they were ordered to do something in battle, because they were out on a mission . . . you don't pick your missions. You don't pick your wars. When someone dies for their country, they have done that. It's over. They have served their country. They are patriotic. They deserve forever to be remembered and honored. It's not a question of what happens later in that war, or whether that battle was a good one or not, or whether you should continue to fight. By the definition John McCain gave us tonight ? and it was a heinous definition ? we must continue every war we ever start. Every time we suffer a casualty, we must fight that war indefinitely to achieve the initial objectives set by generals who may well be wrong.

I think that's a very hard argument to make morally 'cause it suggests that war must never end. It suggests that every war that's begun must continue indefinitely until it achieves the political or the military objectives set in the initial context. Contexts change and sometimes wars have to end. The Korean War ended. It was not dishonorable for General Eisenhower to come to Korea and end the war in 1953 that had begun in 1950, ending a war without final victory. There's nothing wrong with that. There's nothing dishonorable about it. You don't have to complete the mission. You simply have to serve your country honorably when called to do so. So I think John McCain is wrong, demonstrably wrong. I wish sometimes someone would call him on that. Unfortunately, Barack Obama did not tonight.

The whole "please make sure my son didn't die in vain" thing. What does that mean? Don't lose? What do you say to the parents of the 40,000 soldiers killed in Vietnam right before we pulled out? That their kids died in vain because we finally realized we shouldn't be there? No, they didn't die in vain, they did what they were ordered to do, they were given a mission, and whether we win or lose the battle or war, you cannot use past deaths to justify untenable strategy.

I like Chris Matthews, watch him every chance I get.

I saw him (on TV) when he made these remarks. IMO, he mis-characterized what McCain said. This whole "indefinately" thingy is his own (Matthew's) personal interpretation, and I think it's wrong but it does serve to illustrate a difference between some Dems & Repubs.

The point is not fighting a war "idefinately" as he says, but rather one about a determintaion to win, or the willingness to quit (i.e., accept defeat).

There are some who believe losing a war will result in very bad consequences (I won't bother enumerating them here); and others ready to declare a war "unwinnable" and accept defeat because they consider the cost too high. I think a legitimate question for the latter is do they believe losing will have other negative longer-term consequences and, if so, are those factored into their decision?

McCain is one of those who is unwilling to accept defeat, there is no evidence that he believes in "indefinite war" or even considers that an acceptible thing. An indefinite war is one that you are NOT winning. He was out-in-front, pretty much alone, in pushing for the surge exactly for the purpose of finishing it and winning (the opposite of supporting it being indefinite, contrary to Matthew's spin).

IMO, if anyone made a terrible point that night it was Matthew's; but he's not running for office. I highly doubt Obama would publicly agree with him, I doubt any politician running for national office wants to publically agree that the USA can accept defeat in a war. To get anywhere near that line of thought is dangerous political ground.

Fern