So what's the story behind John McCain and the USS Forrestal Incident that killed so many?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: RY62
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: shinerburke
A rocket under an F4-Phantom on the deck misfired. McCain just happened to be lucky enough to be sitting in the aircraft that the misfired rocket struck.

What luck. Then after that he gets shot down and gets a warm bed at the Hanoi Hilton.

In case you missed the memo from the Obamessiah:

"For those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country ? no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary," Obama said. "And let me also add that no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides."

No one made this about politics until you brought it up. I just mentioned that the guy has bad luck.

Or good luck. Most people in an airplane that get hit by a missile don't survive.

Doubtful. His plane was on the ground in the forrestal incident. When he was shot down, he was in a fighter plane. Maybe you're confusing civilian planes with military but a fighter pilot has a much, much higher shot at survival than sitting ducks on a civilian plane. There's that thing call a parachute that they have that helps them.
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
Now we know why he was made a 4 star general. He is intelligent, lucid in response and stubborn to a fault. On Fox news, Abrams couldn?t shake him even coming at him from two or three angles. Clark would not allow him to ?change the subject?. He gave McCain his due at what he did but refused to back down from the premise that McCain?s military past qualifies him to be a better Commander in Chief or that he?d be better at running a country because he was shot down in Viet Nam.

It was a thing of beauty. More surrogates need to pin these lemmings down. The 3 pundits that followed Clark went on agreeing that the argument?s nuance was too much for those ?low information voters? to discern. Interesting phrase: ?Low Information Voter? I get this image of a Cro-Magnon man staring blankly at Fox News with a bit of dribble leaking from the corner of his mouth. That there is even a category for this type of voter is a scary concept but one that brings delight to the Republican right.

I would also like to see Clark flesh his theory out a bit more while this is still a hot issue and he is given air time. He cold point-out McCain's long record siding with Bush on almost every conceivable issue. His anti-veteran stance on bills supporting vets, his support for an attack on Iran, etc., etc. Then ask the pundit, if they now understand the point he is making.

War experience does not translate into leadership or necessarily gave Mccain a leg-up on Obama on how one would face the decision making in National security issues. This is a important "narritive" the Republicans will be pounding home in this election. We need more people like Clark to squash this false meme.

I wish there were a way to tell Gen. Clark directly that his clear-headed, logical and firm response to the unwarranted and infantile attacks by the politico-media are exactly the kind of political maturity we need if we are ever going to overcome the disastrous state of political "discourse" here.

I was also disappointed that Obama felt it politically prudent to distance himself from Clark's statments, rather than going to bat for him and "clarifying" his position. He basically hung Clark out to dry for the benefit of FOX News watchers. I don't think I'd be going on the talk shows to support Obama anymore, if I were Clark.

Unfortunately, it looks like this campaign is shaping up, once again, to be targeted towards the lowest common denominator, instead of appealing to people who can actually think.



 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
he seeming didn't learn a damn thing from the Vietnam war.

I think the core of the problem is that McCain was locked away and being tortured in Hanoi Hilton (or at the spa, as some liberals seem to imply) when other soldiers came back to the US and had their medals thrown at them and the atrocities shown on the news every night. the tet offensive, vietnimization, peace with honor, and all that passed him by.

McCain's long record siding with Bush on almost every conceivable issue. His anti-veteran stance on bills supporting vets, his support for an attack on Iran

wait... what? :confused: x3
 

RKDaley

Senior member
Oct 27, 2007
392
0
0
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed


I was also disappointed that Obama felt it politically prudent to distance himself from Clark's statments, rather than going to bat for him and "clarifying" his position. He basically hung Clark out to dry for the benefit of FOX News watchers. I don't think I'd be going on the talk shows to support Obama anymore, if I were Clark.

I was too. However, Obama is in a lose lose situation with this.
If he clarified Clarks position, the media would continue to highlight McCains service and I don't think Obama wants to go there.
Also, in light of the speech given on patriotism yesterday, Obama praised McCains service and it would look bad if he in any way diminished it.

As it stands, Obama rejected the comments made by Clark. Yet, McCain is still attempting to stir the contriversy about it despite his assertion that this talk "doesn't reduce the price of a gallon gas by one penny or achieve our energy independence" . IMO McCain should just let this go, he is starting to look petty.

ETA: Oh and now the McCain camp is going after Clark's service.
"General Clark probably wouldn't get that much praise from this group. I can't speak for them, but we all know that General Clark, as high-ranking as he is, his record in his last command I think was somewhat less than stellar."

 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Now we know why he was made a 4 star general. He is intelligent, lucid in response and stubborn to a fault. On Fox news, Abrams couldn?t shake him even coming at him from two or three angles. Clark would not allow him to ?change the subject?. He gave McCain his due at what he did but refused to back down from the premise that McCain?s military past qualifies him to be a better Commander in Chief or that he?d be better at running a country because he was shot down in Viet Nam.

It was a thing of beauty. More surrogates need to pin these lemmings down. The 3 pundits that followed Clark went on agreeing that the argument?s nuance was too much for those ?low information voters? to discern. Interesting phrase: ?Low Information Voter? I get this image of a Cro-Magnon man staring blankly at Fox News with a bit of dribble leaking from the corner of his mouth. That there is even a category for this type of voter is a scary concept but one that brings delight to the Republican right.

I would also like to see Clark flesh his theory out a bit more while this is still a hot issue and he is given air time. He cold point-out McCain's long record siding with Bush on almost every conceivable issue. His anti-veteran stance on bills supporting vets, his support for an attack on Iran, etc., etc. Then ask the pundit, if they now understand the point he is making.

War experience does not translate into leadership or necessarily gave Mccain a leg-up on Obama on how one would face the decision making in National security issues. This is a important "narritive" the Republicans will be pounding home in this election. We need more people like Clark to squash this false meme.

I wish there were a way to tell Gen. Clark directly that his clear-headed, logical and firm response to the unwarranted and infantile attacks by the politico-media are exactly the kind of political maturity we need if we are ever going to overcome the disastrous state of political "discourse" here.

I was also disappointed that Obama felt it politically prudent to distance himself from Clark's statments, rather than going to bat for him and "clarifying" his position. He basically hung Clark out to dry for the benefit of FOX News watchers. I don't think I'd be going on the talk shows to support Obama anymore, if I were Clark.

Unfortunately, it looks like this campaign is shaping up, once again, to be targeted towards the lowest common denominator, instead of appealing to people who can actually think.

It must be ashame then that the BHO bus already has room for another then since Clark was already tossed out of it and run over.
 

eleison

Golden Member
Mar 29, 2006
1,319
0
0
Whatever it takes to get elected -- morals be damn. First it was Rev. Wright, then the public financing. then not wearing his lapel/now wearing his lapel. (just to name a few.) All Minor road bumps for the Osamba bus to the white house.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: alchemize
Idiot dems on the path to self destruction again.
"I wouldn't characterize anybody who fought in Vietnam as a war hero," said Medea Benjamin, a co-founder of the theatrical anti-war group Code Pink. "In 23 bombing sorties, there must have been civilians that were killed and there's no heroism to that."


Nice to see that Craig234 and the founder of Code Pink can try and out-left each other :D Same talking points?

I bet we agree the world is flat too, and instead of dealing with the facts, you would post an ideological, substance-free, name-calling post about talking points on that, too.

For what it's worth, I would say there were absolutely 'war heroes' in Vietnam (on both sides). War heroes has to do with the bravery and sacrifice, not the merit of the war.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Taejin
When it was Bush vs Kerry, it was an overprivileged son of politically well connected parents who dodged serving and couldn't even attend his duties correctly or avoid drug abuse that made him avoid a physical and grounded him, and was a supporter of others going to war VERSUS a man who served honorably and bravely under fire.

Couple things left out.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: loki8481
he seeming didn't learn a damn thing from the Vietnam war.

I think the core of the problem is that McCain was locked away and being tortured in Hanoi Hilton (or at the spa, as some liberals seem to imply) when other soldiers came back to the US and had their medals thrown at them and the atrocities shown on the news every night. the tet offensive, vietnimization, peace with honor, and all that passed him by.

McCain's long record siding with Bush on almost every conceivable issue. His anti-veteran stance on bills supporting vets, his support for an attack on Iran

wait... what? :confused: x3

Liberals imply that McCain's stay in Hanoi was pleasant? Can you link a single credible source? (actually just a single source period would be interesting)

McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time in 2007, curiously coinciding with when he started to try and run for president. He opposed the new GI bill while attempting to replace it with one that offered lesser benefits. He SINGS BOMB IRAN AT CAMPAIGN RALLIES. While some of these things might overstate McCain's position on the issues, you can't possibly plead ignorance on them.
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,509
1
81
Originally posted by: RKDaley
Originally posted by: Craig234
I think Clark's comments were quite reasonable [..]


Yes, particularly in light of of the context:

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Because in the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk. It's a matter of gauging your opponents, and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in Air- in the Navy that he commanded, it wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, 'I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle it-'??

Bob Schieffer: Well-??

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: ' -it publicly.' He hasn't made those calls, Bob.??

Bob Schieffer: Well, well, General, maybe-??

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: So-??

Bob Schieffer: Could I just interrupt you. If-??

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Sure.??

Bob Schieffer: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean-??

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be President.?

Wesley Clark was responding to Schieffer's comment that Barack had not gotten shot down in a plane by saying that is not a qualification to be president.
Schieffer introduced the "shot down in a plane" argument, not Clark.
Well in all fairness, I believe that to be Commander in Chief of the US armed forces, you need to have actually served IN the armed forces.

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Cad, do you know the difference between being a surrogate and backing somebody? You back McCain so I guess anything you say reflects poorly on mccain.

Nope, I do not back McCain.... try again...

Try keeping up...
Clark isn't a surrogate for BHO? OK, then when is BHO going to denounce Clark's lame attack?
THAT is what I posted in response to Harvey's bleating.

You're kidding right? To prove you are full of shit in respect to my response and Harvey's here's the full initial exchange:

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Is this the "tangental" type of attacks that the left and DNC is going to use to try to discredit McCain's service? Sure, it won't be overt.... but damn with Clark's recent attacks and this, I'm beginning to wonder how low BHO will let them go before he denounces this stuff.

Speaking of spreading the FUD, did you see Obama or anyone from his organization attack McCain over this, tangentially or any other way?

If anyone is pitching a "tangential" attack, maybe it's that guy you see in the mirror when you're shaving. :roll:

Clark isn't a surrogate for BHO? OK, then when is BHO going to denounce Clark's lame attack?

I'm just commenting that there seems to be a "surge" of this sort of crap from the left lately and it has to be coming from somewhere...unless you believe it's all just a big coincidence...


First, in respect to your discussion with harvey, YOU OBVIOUSLY fucked up since you brought up Clark in DIRECT response to Harvey's quote.

Harvey: neither obama nor his people brought up this (forrestal) in this or any other way.
Tard: Didn't clark do that!


Second, YOU OBVIOUSLY had no idea since you were suggesting CLark was a BO surrogate. You are now going to claim you didn't mean it that way but you're probably the only person who believes your own B.S.

Either learn English or learn to lie better.

I brought up Clark BEFORE that response to harveybot which the quote shows. Also, can you not read my respose to harveybot? I posed the question about surrogate, and then said "OK"(meaning harvey would likely say no) then asked when he was going to denounce the lame attack. BHO has not denounced the lame attack, he spouted his usual generalities about "patriotism" and the like.

:roll: You obviously don't know how to read/comprehend if you think the second part of that statement(you know the one that started with "OK") wasn't a continuation of the posed question(which I assumed his answer to).

But hey, if you want to blame me for your mis-comprehending then fine...suit yourself. :)

I could believe it was just poor sentence structure on your point if you didn't have a tastelikechicken tendency to misrepresent what you've said yourself. You can bark now about "generalities" when the truth is everybody knows it was a rejection of clark's statements.

So why are you rejecting the rejection? Because it came hours before you posted probably.

SPeaking of which, did you see McCain's response to a question about obama's patriotism? Now that was a non-answer for the ages.

Wow, you really do have comprehension issues.... I have not misrepresented what I posted and it's all right there for you to READ.
Now for harvey, your, and other's assertion that Obama's comments were a "rejection" of clark's statements...

around :53 for Obama's position on yesterday's comments...

So does THAT answer your question about my "rejecting" of the "rejection"? I'll also note that Obama's statements today while addressed Clark's statements was nothing more than nuance. This "inartful" BS is nothing but a dodge. It's mildly better than yesterday's statement(as used to suggest a "rejection") but it's still not a direct rejection.

Obama's own words enough proof for you? ;)
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,357
8,446
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think the left is going after McCain's military service as a way to discredit it and therefore make Obama's lack of service less of an issue.

It is similar to me calling Craig or Harvey a hack and hoping that everyone focuses on that and ignores the fact that I'm a hack as well.

BTW at least seven Democrats have gone after McCain's war record, seems like a lot of be purely coincident. I am sure these guys know that Obama's lack of service and his lack of experience is a weakness for him and thus are trying to lessen McCain's service.

post of the week!
 

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,491
0
76
Clark isn't a surrogate for BHO? OK, then when is BHO going to denounce Clark's lame attack? I'm just commenting that there seems to be a "surge" of this sort of crap from the left lately and it has to be coming from somewhere...unless you believe it's all just a big coincidence...


Start with the first sentence. Was that mean to be a rhetorical question? Because when you were informed he was a clinton surrogate you responded and said he was "supporting BO." SO this tells me 1) you didn't know he was NOT a BO SURROGATE 2) you don't know what the difference between a supporter and a surrogate is.

Now, the second sentence, BO had already denounced the statement at the time you made the comment. You were not aware of this. So now you are going to bark about how the rejection is not direct enough?

Which leads to the newest problem: Hayabusa asked you to quote clark's statement. YOu provided a quote but I believe you missed the point.

Bob: Obama was never shot down like mccain
Clark: Being shot down doesn't qualify you to be president necessarily


Clear enough now?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY


Wow, you really do have comprehension issues.... I have not misrepresented what I posted and it's all right there for you to READ.
Now for harvey, your, and other's assertion that Obama's comments were a "rejection" of clark's statements...

around :53 for Obama's position on yesterday's comments...

So does THAT answer your question about my "rejecting" of the "rejection"? I'll also note that Obama's statements today while addressed Clark's statements was nothing more than nuance. This "inartful" BS is nothing but a dodge. It's mildly better than yesterday's statement(as used to suggest a "rejection") but it's still not a direct rejection.

Obama's own words enough proof for you? ;)

Obama shouldn't have apologized at all. There was nothing wrong with the statement.
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,277
0
0
bushies think being in the armed services qualifies as serving in the armed services.
:laugh:
bush treated the armed services like an optional weekend camp - and missed most of it.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Well in all fairness, I believe that to be Commander in Chief of the US armed forces, you need to have actually served IN the armed forces.

I think that's a wrong and dangerous view. Was FDR unfit to be president in WWII?
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Contrary to many here, I think Clark's an idiot and has revealed him so.

Politically stupid thing to say. And his persistance with it is throwing Obama off message.

I've wondered if he's secretly supporting Hillary with this line of discussion? Is he trying to derail Obama?

He is also detracting from one of the Dem's bitter complaint about GWB, Cheney, Rove et al not having served and thus have taken us into war where we shouldn't be etc. If they knew what combat was like, they would have been more cautious etc.

Clark's effort at making distinctions is so labored, and makes him look pompous and arrogant. McCain does not have "Big-time" military experience like Clark, and thus is not worthy of claiming experience? WTH? So Clark's contention is his own experience is the only one worthy? As if the only military experience worth a damn is that of being a 4 start general. Everything else is too piddly.

I don't see hiw this goes over well with vets who weren't also 4 start generals.

He is also drawing attention to McCain's experience as commanding the largest air wing (or whatever it's called), yet Clark even criticizes that? Having such command responsibilities does demonstrate leadership & responsibility. I don't see why Clark is bringing that up as it appears in McCain's favor. I had forgotten all about. Why advertise that?

Finally, by raising the issue of experience it compares badly for Obama. The last thing Obama needs is this issue be made important. Every time Clark criticizes McCain's experience one almost immediately thinks to Obama's. Take away the military experience from McCain and one thinks of his 20 years in the Senate, then you think to Obama and he ain't even close to that. Doesn't compare well.

Strikes me as dumb, dumb, dumb.

Fern
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: RY62
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: shinerburke
A rocket under an F4-Phantom on the deck misfired. McCain just happened to be lucky enough to be sitting in the aircraft that the misfired rocket struck.

What luck. Then after that he gets shot down and gets a warm bed at the Hanoi Hilton.

In case you missed the memo from the Obamessiah:

"For those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country ? no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary," Obama said. "And let me also add that no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides."

You should of passed that on to Karl Rove and Swift Boat guys.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Fern
Contrary to many here, I think Clark's an idiot and has revealed him so.

Politically stupid thing to say. And his persistance with it is throwing Obama off message.

I've wondered if he's secretly supporting Hillary with this line of discussion? Is he trying to derail Obama?

He is also detracting from one of the Dem's bitter complaint about GWB, Cheney, Rove et al not having served and thus have taken us into war where we shouldn't be etc. If they knew what combat was like, they would have been more cautious etc.

Clark's effort at making distinctions is so labored, and makes him look pompous and arrogant. McCain does not have "Big-time" military experience like Clark, and thus is not worthy of claiming experience? WTH? So Clark's contention is his own experience is the only one worthy? As if the only military experience worth a damn is that of being a 4 start general. Everything else is too piddly.

I don't see hiw this goes over well with vets who weren't also 4 start generals.

He is also drawing attention to McCain's experience as commanding the largest air wing (or whatever it's called), yet Clark even criticizes that? Having such command responsibilities does demonstrate leadership & responsibility. I don't see why Clark is bringing that up as it appears in McCain's favor. I had forgotten all about. Why advertise that?

Finally, by raising the issue of experience it compares badly for Obama. The last thing Obama needs is this issue be made important. Every time Clark criticizes McCain's experience one almost immediately thinks to Obama's. Take away the military experience from McCain and one thinks of his 20 years in the Senate, then you think to Obama and he ain't even close to that. Doesn't compare well.

Strikes me as dumb, dumb, dumb.

Fern

You might be surprised that I agree with you, to a point, that it's bad politically.

But on the other hand, how do you fix things that are broken without challenging them?

Not doing so is 'pandering', which pretty much everyone here says they're against.

The fact is, it's absurd to say the thing Clark is criticizing, that McCain's being shot down automatically makes him a well-qualified CiC. So why put up with our culture saying that?

It's the way of cowardice to not take on some of those battles.

I understand that the math is different for Obama - the stakes are high for him to win the election, and you don't need to say 'that baby is ugly' when you pick your battles.

I understand that the issue at hand is nonsense, and Obama gains a lot by the way he's handling it, but I'm not without some sympathy for Clark calling BS, BS.

I don't so much disagree with your post, as to note that some of Clark's behavior is a good thing for our country, too.

I think Obama is due for taking a principled stand on *something* again soon, after a few choices that are politicall expedient. (not that McCain's done so in a long time that I recall).
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Craig234
-snip-
The fact is, it's absurd to say the thing Clark is criticizing, that McCain's being shot down automatically makes him a well-qualified CiC. So why put up with our culture saying that?

I think if Clark had stopped right there, he'd be OK.

All he had to say was "I don't think being shot down, in and of itself, qualifies a person to be CIC.

If I was on Obama's campaign, I'd be trying to take the shovel outta Clark's hands.

Fern
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Clark isn't a surrogate for BHO? OK, then when is BHO going to denounce Clark's lame attack? I'm just commenting that there seems to be a "surge" of this sort of crap from the left lately and it has to be coming from somewhere...unless you believe it's all just a big coincidence...


Start with the first sentence. Was that mean to be a rhetorical question? Because when you were informed he was a clinton surrogate you responded and said he was "supporting BO." SO this tells me 1) you didn't know he was NOT a BO SURROGATE 2) you don't know what the difference between a supporter and a surrogate is.

Now, the second sentence, BO had already denounced the statement at the time you made the comment. You were not aware of this. So now you are going to bark about how the rejection is not direct enough?

Which leads to the newest problem: Hayabusa asked you to quote clark's statement. YOu provided a quote but I believe you missed the point.

Bob: Obama was never shot down like mccain
Clark: Being shot down doesn't qualify you to be president necessarily


Clear enough now?



<yawn>
You obviously misunderstood my post, why can't you just admit it and/or drop it. Do you not understand that I "answered" for harvey then asked another question?

Also, if you would have read my post from this afternoon and watched the video you'd know that BHO has even stated that his comments that you and others are trying to claim are "denouncing" were NOT in response to Clark's statements.

Put down the shovel already...
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Craig234
-snip-
The fact is, it's absurd to say the thing Clark is criticizing, that McCain's being shot down automatically makes him a well-qualified CiC. So why put up with our culture saying that?

I think if Clark had stopped right there, he'd be OK.

All he had to say was "I don't think being shot down, in and of itself, qualifies a person to be CIC.

If I was on Obama's campaign, I'd be trying to take the shovel outta Clark's hands.

Fern

Maybe I need to re-read it, but that's the recollection I have of what Clark said, though he may have been able to phrase it a little better, like the phrasing we agree on.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
After all the complaining about how Republicans are going to smear him it seems that Obama's people are the ones doing the smearing:
link
The only obstacle between Barack Obama and the presidency is the mountain of smears that will no doubt come his way. That?s the narrative that Obama supporters ? and his swooning chroniclers in the mainstream media ? would have us believe.

Obama himself set up a website, fighthesmears.com, correcting some e-mail chain letters that allege he ?can?t produce his birth certificate,? is ?secretly a Muslim? and that he ?won?t say the Pledge of Allegiance.? In May, Newsweek published a cover story confirming the Obama campaign?s fears, declaring that ?the Republican Party has been successfully scaring voters since 1968.?

Writers Evan Thomas and Richard Wolfe concluded that the 2008 presidential election will be no different. ?It is a sure bet that the GOP will try to paint Obama as ?the other? ? as a haughty black intellectual who has Muslim roots (Obama is a Christian) and hangs around with America-haters.?

But has it been a ?sure bet??

Not really. Thus far, no one with any serious affiliation to John McCain's campaign has resorted to the alleged ?scare? tactics in which Republicans ? and, apparently, only Republicans ? have been perfecting since Richard Nixon was first elected. On the contrary, if the past few months have showed us anything, it?s that the Obama campaign is the one dealing in crude smears.

There have been only two incidents in which people officially associated with McCain have done anything approaching what Thomas and Wolfe predicted those dastardly, conniving Republicans would inevitably do. In February, a conservative talk radio host speaking at a McCain rally made reference to ?Barack Hussein Obama.? McCain immediately condemned the statement, leading the embittered and embarrassed professional yacker to complain that McCain ?threw me under the bus.? The only other smear-worthy episode occurred in March, when the McCain campaign suspended a low-level aide who provided a link on his Twitter account to a video featuring the rants of Obama's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Heavy stuff, to be sure.

Contrast the absence of smears from the McCain camp with some of the outlandish remarks made by high-ranking Obama supporters. In April, West Virginia Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV said that because McCain ?was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet,? and ?was long gone when they hit,? the Arizona senator who spent five and a half years in a Vietcong tiger cage having his arms repeatedly broken didn?t really understand the carnage of war. ?What happened when [the missiles] get to the ground?? Rockefeller asked a crowd at an Obama rally. ?He doesn?t know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues.? That the great-grandson of John D. Rockefeller would impugn the wartime experience of John McCain is especially rich, given that the only ?battle? Rockefeller has seen is when he hunts wild game at his 80-acre ranch in Jackson Hole, Wyo.

Rockefeller?s smear was the first salvo in a pattern of attacks meant to insinuate that McCain?s Vietnam experience not only shouldn?t count as meaningful ?experience,? but rendered him psychologically unfit for presidential office. In May, Iowa Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin said of McCain, ?Everything is looked at from his life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous.? Over the weekend, retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark said that McCain is ?untested and untried,? and elaborated that, ?I don't think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.? Clark, you may remember, ran for president in 2004 on his record as a career military officer, so his comment, which he has not retracted, was not just morally offensive but self-discrediting.

The smears didn?t stop there. On Monday, Obama foreign policy adviser Rand Beers unfavorably compared McCain?s POW experience with ?the members of the Senate who were in the ground forces or who were ashore in Vietnam,? and who ?have a very different view of Vietnam and the cost ... than John McCain does because he was in isolation essentially for many of those years and did not experience the turmoil here or the challenges that were involved for those of us who served in Vietnam during the Vietnam War.?

It?s curious how anyone could argue that a man with such visceral understanding of the capacity for what America?s enemies will do to our men and women in uniform doesn?t fully appreciate the cost of war. But even more troubling is the unmistakable pattern of these smears, all of them unsubtly alleging that McCain is an unhinged, mentally unstable warmonger who would deploy soldiers capriciously because he hasn?t truly experienced the horrors of ground battle. Indeed, the claims of these four men ? and the short period of time in which they were all uttered ? are so similar in tone that one would be foolish not to at least consider the possibility they were coordinated by the Obama campaign.

Nevertheless, the fears of Obama supporters that their candidate lies eternally vulnerable to GOP smears exists only in their fevered imaginations. The evidence of dirty Republican tricks has been utterly absent this campaign season. And if anyone has tried to smear Barack Obama in the way that Thomas, Wolfe and other Democratic partisans allege, it was not the Republican National Committee, but rather Hillary Rodham Clinton and her surrogates. In February, the Drudge Report claimed that the Clinton campaign circulated photos of Obama in a traditional East African turban and robe, with the message that the images showed him ?dressed.? Asked if there was any truth to the smear that Obama is a Muslim, she infamously replied, ?As far as I know,? it wasn?t the case. After the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, she said the results showed that "Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again.?

The belief that ?the Republican Party has been successfully scaring voters since 1968? is a comforting salve for Democrats. After all, it?s much easier for them to demonize conservatives than consider that the reason for their electoral defeats may lie with liberal ideas. Please don?t take that as a "smear.?
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
After all the complaining about how Republicans are going to smear him it seems that Obama's people are the ones doing the smearing:


Nice try - the rightwingers keep attempting to tie anyone who supports Obama as under orders from Obama himself for whatever opinion they may offer.....

The KKK supports McCain, should we also take it that Mr. McCain is following their directive?

If you want to play tit for tat, then that's how it goes....


 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
To Non prof john who I consider a republirat shill, you lost me when you posted---Contrast the absence of smears from the McCain camp with some of the outlandish remarks made by high-ranking Obama supporters.

Truth be told, both sides will smear each other, but most of the smearing will and has come from the Republirat side.

And truth be told, by in large, McCain is the one who is more image than substance. While I believe that attacking McCains service record is shameless, I think its entirely fair game to ask what McCain learned from Vietnam. And a record of 93% McCain GWB support can't support anything but the charge of McSame. And a 24% anti green voting record can't support McCain being green. Not when Obama has an 83% green voting record.

The only person you fool, non Prof John, is yourself. You and the GOP leadership may have lost their collective minds, but even the GOP electorate is no longer buying this crap. Obama has already shown he will take the high road and win.