McCain blasts Barack Obama for not serving in uniform

[CanOWorms]

Adding Wesley Clark to Obama's ticket would help Obama in these types of attacks as well as counter against certain ignorant beliefs (weak, patriotism, etc.)

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

OK, lets assume you are correct(which is highly unlikely given your stances) does that not also mean that Obama is "posturing"? But anyway, it's interesting to see the continued attempt by the leftists to try to tie McCain to Bush. McCain and Bush aren't even close except for on a few issues. But hey, continue trying to bleat that failed strategy. (Just some advice from a non-McCain supporter)

You might want to check on a few things. First of all more then 50% of people view McCain's closeness to Bush as an electoral liability. That hardly sounds like a failed strategy to me.

Secondly, McCain is extremely close to Bush on nearly all wedge issues. He shares his views on the war
on military spending
on taxes
on abortion
on immigration
on stem cells
on gay marriage
on judicial nominees
on missile defense
on gun control
on intelligent design... need I go on?

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: maziwanka

Originally posted by: LOOPY
So Hussein blast McCain for serving and he returns fire about the other not serving, and in your out of context glimpse you think this was bad on McCain.


Mmkay.

you are the largest douchebag i've seen on this forum. by far.

It's best to ignore the troll.

The troll has to take its toll every time.

 

[BoomerD]

Obama should claim that he has killed fewer of his fellow Americans than John McCain has...and slip in some USS Forrestal stats...

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Obama should claim that he has killed fewer of his fellow Americans than John McCain has...and slip in some USS Forrestal stats...

Obama also killed fewer Vietnamese though. I really don't think he has what it takes to kill enough people to win the war on terror.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: yllus
Very Starship Troopers. 😛

Personally, I think it's high time that the U.S. moved on from Vietnam-era leaders. They haven't exactly provided great results thus far.

QFT

 

[RichardE]

I love how Fox news leaves out the fact that McCain was absent from the vote and refused to co-sign it when asked a while ago. McCain didn't have the balls to be there to vote no so just skipped it.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: daveymark
Not having read the entire statement put out by mccain, and only based on reading this single article, I disagree with McCain on this issue as well.

but why did BHO accuse McCain of posturing? Simply for opposing a bill? If there's no reasonable explanation for BHO's remarks, they're both guilty of below the belt accusations. simply a sign of things to come is all. The difference being that we know McCain is going to do this, BHO is supposed to be a "different kind of candidate" though. How many layers need to be peeled off the onion before people realize BHO is the same type of politician as anyone else in washington?

Also, is there a link to the entire 900 word statement that McCain sent? I'd prefer to read the entire statement made by mccain, not a snippet that may or may not have been taken out of context.

I'd also like to know more about obama's "posturing" statement as well.

Great post. No wonder it has been ignored... 😉

BTW, McCain did not support Webb's bill but rather a different version.

Because McCain is posturing? The Pentagon and the White House don't like the Webb Bill because it costs too much. So in order to appease Bush's money people to finance his own campaign, McCain failed to support, or even vote on, a bill that 75 senators supported. McCain and Bush are practically the only people who DO NOT support Webb's bill. Obama wants to know why. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever.

OK, lets assume you are correct(which is highly unlikely given your stances) does that not also mean that Obama is "posturing"? But anyway, it's interesting to see the continued attempt by the leftists to try to tie McCain to Bush. McCain and Bush aren't even close except for on a few issues. But hey, continue trying to bleat that failed strategy. (Just some advice from a non-McCain supporter)

Okay, prove it.

 

[StageLeft]

ooo, i cannot wait to see him be taken to town by obama in their debates. it will be awful.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
ooo, i cannot wait to see him be taken to town by obama in their debates. it will be awful.

Heh. I'm already setting up game day with my buddies. Food with plenty of booze. 😉

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Skoorb
ooo, i cannot wait to see him be taken to town by obama in their debates. it will be awful.

Heh. I'm already setting up game day with my buddies. Food with plenty of booze. 😉

Eh, general consensus is Obama is 10x stronger in front of a teleprompter than in debates. It hasn't been his best venue.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Skoorb
ooo, i cannot wait to see him be taken to town by obama in their debates. it will be awful.

Heh. I'm already setting up game day with my buddies. Food with plenty of booze. 😉

Eh, general consensus is Obama is 10x stronger in front of a teleprompter than in debates. It hasn't been his best venue.

I don't really agree with that. I think it is more a statement to the fact that Hillary is an exceptionally good debater.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: daveymark
Not having read the entire statement put out by mccain, and only based on reading this single article, I disagree with McCain on this issue as well.

but why did BHO accuse McCain of posturing? Simply for opposing a bill? If there's no reasonable explanation for BHO's remarks, they're both guilty of below the belt accusations. simply a sign of things to come is all. The difference being that we know McCain is going to do this, BHO is supposed to be a "different kind of candidate" though. How many layers need to be peeled off the onion before people realize BHO is the same type of politician as anyone else in washington?

Also, is there a link to the entire 900 word statement that McCain sent? I'd prefer to read the entire statement made by mccain, not a snippet that may or may not have been taken out of context.

I'd also like to know more about obama's "posturing" statement as well.

Great post. No wonder it has been ignored... 😉

BTW, McCain did not support Webb's bill but rather a different version.

Because McCain is posturing? The Pentagon and the White House don't like the Webb Bill because it costs too much. So in order to appease Bush's money people to finance his own campaign, McCain failed to support, or even vote on, a bill that 75 senators supported. McCain and Bush are practically the only people who DO NOT support Webb's bill. Obama wants to know why. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever.

OK, lets assume you are correct(which is highly unlikely given your stances) does that not also mean that Obama is "posturing"? But anyway, it's interesting to see the continued attempt by the leftists to try to tie McCain to Bush. McCain and Bush aren't even close except for on a few issues. But hey, continue trying to bleat that failed strategy. (Just some advice from a non-McCain supporter)

Obama is posturing to the extent that he's using the senate floor to deliver a rebuke of this sort to further his attempt to get a better job. I'd be critical of this if the senate floor weren't used to congratulate minor league teams, criticize fictional characters and other misc nonsense.

However, McCain and bush ARE the same on issues AS OF NOW! MCCAIN USED TO disagree on

1. Immigration (complicated since bush was also attacked by the base)
2. TAX CUTS - complete flip flop
3. This GI bill ( 🙂 )

Also, they've been in agreement over the Iraq war from day 1.


Look at McCain's voting records boss.

 

[RightIsWrong]

I would argue that less people actually know what is said on the Senate floor than do what is said on the campaign trail because of all of the press coverage.

If anything, McCain is being the bigger whore by not addressing it there and sending it into the public eye which is only going to make himself look worse.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Wow...I guess McCain can never speak about medical care, the poor, farming, environmental issues, etc.

After all, he never actually "served" in any of those fields or professions.

To someone the knows the entire context of the duiscussion, do you realize how stupid you sound.

Please share with us your infinite knowledge on the subject.

From those of us without the connections/resources that you are implying that you have access to, it would appear that the context is:

1. Webb proposes updated GI Bill legislation
2. McCain says he will vote against
3. Obama says McCain should not be denying the troops the ability to go to college

I respect sen. John McCain's service to our country. He is one of those heroes of which I speak. But I can't understand why he would line up behind the President in his opposition to this GI bill.

I can't believe why he believes it is too generous to our veterans. I could not disagree with him and the President more on this issue. There are many issues that lend themselves to partisan posturing but giving our veterans the chance to go to college should not be one of them.

4. McCain throws a hissy fit at being taken to task

"It is typical, but no less offensive that Senator Obama uses the Senate floor to take cheap shots at an opponent and easy advantage of an issue he has less than zero understanding of. Let me say first in response to Senator Obama, running for President is different than serving as President. The office comes with responsibilities so serious that the occupant can't always take the politically easy route without hurting the country he is sworn to defend. Unlike Senator Obama, my admiration, respect and deep gratitude for America's veterans is something more than a convenient campaign pledge. I think I have earned the right to make that claim.

"When I was five years old, a car pulled up in front of our house in New London, Connecticut, and a Navy officer rolled down the window, and shouted at my father that the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor. My father immediately left for the submarine base where he was stationed. I rarely saw him again for four years. My grandfather, who commanded the fast carrier task force under Admiral Halsey, came home from the war exhausted from the burdens he had borne, and died the next day. I grew up in the Navy; served for twenty-two years as a naval officer; and, like Senator Webb, personally experienced the terrible costs war imposes on the veteran. The friendships I formed in war remain among the closest relationships in my life. The Navy is still the world I know best and love most. In Vietnam, where I formed the closest friendships of my life, some of those friends never came home to the country they loved so well .

"But I am running for the office of Commander-in-Chief. That is the highest privilege in this country, and it imposes the greatest responsibilities. It would be easier politically for me to have joined Senator Webb in offering his legislation. More importantly, I feel just as he does, that we owe veterans the respect and generosity of a great nation because no matter how generously we show our gratitude it will never compensate them fully for all the sacrifices they have borne on our behalf.

"Senators Graham, Burr and I have offered legislation that would provide veterans with a substantial increase in educational benefits. The bill we have sponsored would increase monthly education benefits to $1500; eliminate the $1200 enrollment fee; and offer a $1000 annually for books and supplies. Importantly, we would allow veterans to transfer those benefits to their spouses or dependent children or use a part of them to pay down existing student loans. We also increase benefits to the Guard and Reserve, and even more generously to those who serve in the Selected Reserve.

"I know that my friend and fellow veteran, Senator Jim Webb, an honorable man who takes his responsibility to veterans very seriously, has offered legislation with very generous benefits. I respect and admire his position, and I would never suggest that he has anything other than the best of intentions to honor the service of deserving veterans. Both Senator Webb and I are united in our deep appreciation for the men and women who risk their lives so that the rest of us may be secure in our freedom. And I take a backseat to no one in my affection, respect and devotion to veterans. And I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did.

"The most important difference between our two approaches is that Senator Webb offers veterans who served one enlistment the same benefits as those offered veterans who have re-enlisted several times. Our bill has a sliding scale that offers generous benefits to all veterans, but increases those benefits according to the veteran's length of service. I think it is important to do that because, otherwise, we will encourage more people to leave the military after they have completed one enlistment. At a time when the United States military is fighting in two wars, and as we finally are beginning the long overdue and very urgent necessity of increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps, one study estimates that Senator Webb's bill will reduce retention rates by 16%.

"Most worrying to me, is that by hurting retention we will reduce the numbers of men and women who we train to become the backbone of all the services, the noncommissioned officer. In my life, I have learned more from noncommissioned officers I have known and served with than anyone else outside my family. And in combat, no one is more important to their soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen, and to the officers who command them, than the sergeant and petty officer. They are very hard to replace. Encouraging people not to choose to become noncommissioned officers would hurt the military and our country very badly. As I said, the office of President, which I am seeking, is a great honor, indeed, but it imposes serious responsibilities. How faithfully the President discharges those responsibilities will determine whether he or she deserves the honor. I can only tell you I intend to deserve the honor if I am fo rtunate to receive it, even if it means I must take politically unpopular positions at times and disagree with people for whom I have the highest respect and affection.

"Perhaps, if Senator Obama would take the time and trouble to understand this issue he would learn to debate an honest disagreement respectfully. But, as he always does, he prefers impugning the motives of his opponent, and exploiting a thoughtful difference of opinion to advance his own ambitions. If that is how he would behave as President, the country would regret his election."

Thanks for posting what McCain said. Very reasonable IMO.

 

[jpeyton]

The real question is, why is McCain opposed to providing support to veterans we're sending overseas to fight the war in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Many of these young men and women joined military service to get the opportunity to pursue a higher education through the GI Bill. Why deny them that? Why does McCain hate our troops so much that he wants to keep them uneducated and occupying Iraq for 100 more years?

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Skoorb
ooo, i cannot wait to see him be taken to town by obama in their debates. it will be awful.

Heh. I'm already setting up game day with my buddies. Food with plenty of booze. 😉

Eh, general consensus is Obama is 10x stronger in front of a teleprompter than in debates. It hasn't been his best venue.

I don't really agree with that. I think it is more a statement to the fact that Hillary is an exceptionally good debater.

Yup, but since she's a woman with an unfortunate voice, that merely makes her an agressive bitch.

Besides, who would want a President who has shown she has the best ability of all the candidates to think on her feet under real time pressure? :roll:

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The real question is, why is McCain opposed to providing support to veterans we're sending overseas to fight the war in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Many of these young men and women joined military service to get the opportunity to pursue a higher education through the GI Bill. Why deny them that? Why does McCain hate our troops so much that he wants to keep them uneducated and occupying Iraq for 100 more years?

McCain is pushing a bill with less generous provisions. So the real question is, why is he willing to spend billions on a war but unwilling to spend more on servicemen after they leave?

 

[palehorse]

IMO, a single four-year hitch should in the US military should be sufficient to qualify them for 100% tuition at any university that receives funds/grants from the US government -- especially if/when we're at war. Perhaps they could make the requirement six years of service, but then have each year spent in a declared combat zone count as two... or any one of a hundred other variations for qualification.

Whatever the case, however this gets resolved, 100% tuition is a very reasonable expense for what servicemen and women do for our country and everyone in it! Does anyone here disagree?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The real question is, why is McCain opposed to providing support to veterans we're sending overseas to fight the war in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Many of these young men and women joined military service to get the opportunity to pursue a higher education through the GI Bill. Why deny them that? Why does McCain hate our troops so much that he wants to keep them uneducated and occupying Iraq for 100 more years?

McCain is pushing a bill with less generous provisions. So the real question is, why is he willing to spend billions on a war but unwilling to spend more on servicemen after they leave?

Why not send them blank checks every month? I support that, do you? If not then you obviously don't care as much as I do... :roll:

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
IMO, a single four-year hitchshould g in the US military should be sufficient to qualify them for 100% tuition at any university that receives funds/grants from the US government -- especially if/when we're at war. Perhaps they could make the requirement six years of service, but then have each year spent in a declared combat zone count as two... or any one of a hundred other variations for qualification.

Whatever the case, however this gets resolved, 100% tuition is a very reasonable expense for what servicemen and women do for our country and everyone in it! Does anyone here disagree?

the question isn't "should servicemen and women get tuition benefits"

it's "should servicemen and women get more tuition benefits the longer they stay in service"

That is one of mccain's points, and I think it's a valid one. This is definitely NOT political posturing as BHO claims.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The real question is, why is McCain opposed to providing support to veterans we're sending overseas to fight the war in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Many of these young men and women joined military service to get the opportunity to pursue a higher education through the GI Bill. Why deny them that? Why does McCain hate our troops so much that he wants to keep them uneducated and occupying Iraq for 100 more years?

McCain is pushing a bill with less generous provisions. So the real question is, why is he willing to spend billions on a war but unwilling to spend more on servicemen after they leave?

Why not send them blank checks every month? I support that, do you? If not then you obviously don't care as much as I do... :roll:

Hyperbolize much? Slippery slope arguments are the last bastion of a poor intellect.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The real question is, why is McCain opposed to providing support to veterans we're sending overseas to fight the war in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Many of these young men and women joined military service to get the opportunity to pursue a higher education through the GI Bill. Why deny them that? Why does McCain hate our troops so much that he wants to keep them uneducated and occupying Iraq for 100 more years?

McCain is pushing a bill with less generous provisions. So the real question is, why is he willing to spend billions on a war but unwilling to spend more on servicemen after they leave?

Why not send them blank checks every month? I support that, do you? If not then you obviously don't care as much as I do... :roll:

Hyperbolize much? Slippery slope arguments are the last bastion of a poor intellect.

It's much the same thing whether or not you wish to see it. Obamarama is trying to make claims(suggestions,hints, etc) that McCain doesn't want to spend money on the troops but that is hardly the case. He supports a different bill that may have less of an increase in benefits. All I've done is take BHO and the fringe left's "logic" and shown it for the absurdity it is by taking to it's extreme conclusion.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The real question is, why is McCain opposed to providing support to veterans we're sending overseas to fight the war in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Many of these young men and women joined military service to get the opportunity to pursue a higher education through the GI Bill. Why deny them that? Why does McCain hate our troops so much that he wants to keep them uneducated and occupying Iraq for 100 more years?

McCain is pushing a bill with less generous provisions. So the real question is, why is he willing to spend billions on a war but unwilling to spend more on servicemen after they leave?

Why not send them blank checks every month? I support that, do you? If not then you obviously don't care as much as I do... :roll:

Hyperbolize much? Slippery slope arguments are the last bastion of a poor intellect.

It's much the same thing whether or not you wish to see it. Obamarama is trying to make claims(suggestions,hints, etc) that McCain doesn't want to spend money on the troops but that is hardly the case. He supports a different bill that may have less of an increase in benefits. All I've done is take BHO and the fringe left's "logic" and shown it for the absurdity it is by taking to it's extreme conclusion.

you're missing something, which is McCain moving in lockstep with Bush. It's pretty obvious why he's doing it and I highly disapprove.

And apparently at least 20 republicans disagree with mccain on this one.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The real question is, why is McCain opposed to providing support to veterans we're sending overseas to fight the war in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Many of these young men and women joined military service to get the opportunity to pursue a higher education through the GI Bill. Why deny them that? Why does McCain hate our troops so much that he wants to keep them uneducated and occupying Iraq for 100 more years?

McCain is pushing a bill with less generous provisions. So the real question is, why is he willing to spend billions on a war but unwilling to spend more on servicemen after they leave?

Why not send them blank checks every month? I support that, do you? If not then you obviously don't care as much as I do... :roll:

Hyperbolize much? Slippery slope arguments are the last bastion of a poor intellect.

It's much the same thing whether or not you wish to see it. Obamarama is trying to make claims(suggestions,hints, etc) that McCain doesn't want to spend money on the troops but that is hardly the case. He supports a different bill that may have less of an increase in benefits. All I've done is take BHO and the fringe left's "logic" and shown it for the absurdity it is by taking to it's extreme conclusion.

you're missing something, which is McCain moving in lockstep with Bush. It's pretty obvious why he's doing it and I highly disapprove.

And apparently at least 20 republicans disagree with mccain on this one.

Ah so instead of looking at what he actually does support, you only look at the fact that he didn't support Webb's just like Bush. Boy... lets use that "logic" on all the other politicians on all the other issues. :roll: Talk about "poor intellect"...