“It’s one thing to have been drafted and served, but another thing when you come from generations of military people and that’s just how you’re steeped, how you’ve learned, how you’ve grown up.”
“I think he’s trapped in that. Everything is looked at from his life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous.”
“I think he’s trapped in that. Everything is looked at from his life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous.”
Senator Tom Harkin on Senator John McCain
In case you were unaware, Senator Harkin also served in the military. During his run for the Democrat Presidential nomination in 2004, he was forced to admit that he did not fly combat air patrols or photo reconnaissance as he said he had. He ferried damaged planes between Japan and the Philippines and then did test flights on them after they were repaired. I guess it's a good thing he wasn't in Bosnia with Hillary during all that sniper fire.
Democrat strategists will have a difficult enough time convincing the American people that Senator Obama has any concept of geo-politics without Senator Harkin's foolish observations. Since Senator Obama says he's ready to sit right down and negotiate with terrorists just as soon as he's sworn in, and immediately start withdrawing troops from Iraq, I hope he asks Senator Harkins to be his running mate.
I guess thinking that politics should be set aside for Memorial Day was foolish on my part, but thankfully the vast majority of us aren't consumed by political aspirations.
Senator Harkin should apologize for his slander. If he fails to do so, it will only help Senator McCain, and the results in November could very well place Senator Obama alongside George McGovern and Michael Dukakis inside "The Hall of Hapless Wanna-Be's" where liberal Democrats reign supreme.
Senator Harkin - you should be ashamed of yourself.
20 comments:
Just one more instance of
Neo-Libs "Supporting the Troops" and hating the military.
really, what are you talking about, watson? obama has resolutely rejected negotiating with "terrorists", and he favors a managed, prudent withdrawal from iraq -- because he judges our current occupation to run counter to american interests. yes, i would expect the withdrawal to _begin_ shortly after obama's inauguration, but everything about his character and temperament suggest he would conduct the withdrawal deliberately and carefully, with attention paid to shifts in the situation on the ground. you certainly didn't write that obama would have the troops up and leave in one fell swoop, but it's worth emphasizing that that's _absolutely not_ the policy obama would pursue.
what's more, i find your tone towards obama disappointing: you seem all too eager to degenerate into caricature, like he's just the latest democratic bogeyman. i'm no conversative, but if you consider yourself one, i'd encourage you to take a good look at him with the partisan blinders off -- there's a lot there that i think you should like.
as for harkin, what's actually wrong with what he said? is excessive militarism no longer a bad thing? the point he's making is one in the spirit of "when you have a hammer, every problem can look like a nail". what on earth is wrong with that?
um, charles, doesn't that strike you as a touch over the top? sorry, but i'm a proud democrat and i've never met a single person who "hates the troops".
No one today (unlike the reign of Hanoi Jane) "hates" the troops. It is considered un-PC. However, many hate the military as an institution. It has been ever thus.
i still don't agree with this. i hate to get into the nitty gritty, but how many people qualifies as "many"? as in, "many" people hate the military as an institution? are you serious? i think that's nonsense. surely, there's at most a tiny, negligible fringe of society that comes anywhere near hating the military. again, i'm no hawk, and i've simply never met anyone who actively hates the military. and maybe i'm reading too much between the lines here, but you seem to be saying that no one hates the troops today chiefly, if not solely, because that wouldn't be politically correct! what an astonishing thing to say! what you must think of your fellow citizens!
Watson,
I supported your suggestion for a civil Memorial Day to focus on memorializing.
You said “We should be capable of waiting a few days before resuming the debate over what to do in Iraq”
I agreed with you. I put away my sarcasm and left you alone and you come up with this dribble on the very day you suggested we keep peace. That’s a low blow. A sucker punch. A breach of etiquette.
And you are also wrong thinking. Or not thinking at all.
“Senator Harkin should apologize for his slander.”
“I think he’s trapped in that. Everything is looked at from his life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous.”
That’s not slander. It’s an opinion about McCain’s militant view of the world. Slander involves false statement like:
You said, “Senator Obama says he's ready to sit right down and negotiate with terrorists just as soon as he's sworn in”
That’s slander.
Obama never said that. Rush Limbough said that. Obama said he would talk to the enemy, not negotiate, or appease them. Huge difference.
Take a minute and look at my last post on http://foilhatsunite.blogspot.com/
Person A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person A
Therefore claim X is false
I thought you were going to try to start thinking before you repeat those Limbough sound-bites. You spell good and you’re grammar is good, but you’ve got to start using sound logic.
Anon, check this out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Marine_Corps_Recruiting_Center_controversy
That tiny, negligible fringe of society includes Code Pink and a large percentage of the Left Coast. Google "hate the military".
NCL: I don't listen to Rush as a rule - I prefer Bill O'Reilly. As regards the breach of etiquette, talk to Senator Harkins.
His comments not slander? He's saying that anyone with prior military experience is dangerous and should not be in a position of political power. That is slander, not only to John McCain, but to all veterans. And if you think he's referring to psychological implications of being a prisoner of war, that's even more despicable.
Mr. Obama has said, just like Jimeh Cahtah, he would negotiate/talk (feel free to define the difference) with Hamas -if that's not sitting down with terrorists I don't know what is. You give them credibility where none exists. Elected by their radical fanatics, they are butchers of men, women and children in their undeclared war to wipe Israel from the face of the earth. I believe that has also been the chant of Mr. Ahmahdinejad in Iran - should we be running right over to sit down and "talk" with the country that's supplying arms to the radicals in Iraq?
As far as using sound logic and thinking, feel free to get your talking points from the Daily Kos - did you really love their disgusting montage of photos from the President's daughter's wedding and casualties in Iraq?
I will match my logic against yours any day of the week my friend, and I can assure you that thought is given to anything that I write - not anyone elses thoughts, mine. So don't tell me I don't think, and I'll return the favor.
I forgot I thing - Dear Anon - "excessive militarism" - Rome, Japan, Germany, Russia - Great Britain, take your pick throughout history - their militarism was to conquer peoples and land; then make them part of their empire - we did the same thing too as far as the Indians are concerned. All these countries, according to you, are obviously guilty of "excessive militarism". You obviously believe that, in Iraq at least, if not Afghanistan as well, we are the perpetrators of the "excessive militarism". If the majority of the American population begins to think that way, that's when you can count on the decline of freedom around the world and the tumble to second class status of the once greatest nation in the world.
To the other anon: I think most of the citizens of America are just fine - and that includes the vast majority who consider themselves to be Democrat. Make no mistake my friend, the far left hates the military and everything it stands for - not just ours - everyones. I don't hate anyone, I just find the voices on both extremes to be as intransigent as the Adirondacks, and both equally dangerous should the body politic ever swing in either direction.
I also believe you misunderstood why I feel the military is treated with greater respect today. It's not because it's politically correct, though there are surely some who say one thing and feel another; I think there's greater respect for the military because of Desert Storm and the obvious professionalism and dedication of the volunteer army. If political correctness plays a part in supporting the military however, who do you think would be more likely to be guilty of that: a Democrat or a Republican? There should be no question in anyone's mind as to the answer of that question.
Geez, I can't remember anything anymore - read your post NCL - after reading your intro about "Rush the Pig" and all the other name calling you seem to enjoy, that tells me a lot about your definition of logic. The "ad hominem" attack is not necessarily fallacious; it may not be a direct answer to the question posed, but it need not be untrue. In this case, Obama having chided McCain for his own political purposes, it was only appropos that McCain point out the lack of military experience/intelligence that Obama is the proud holder of. You'll recall a month or so back I cited Obama's suggestion for either military or civilian service for our young people in return for a college education. My only problem with it was the same problem with the current GI Bill - if you want four years of college, you give four years of service, 3 if you've been in combat. The fact that Obama has the most liberal voting record in the Senate is what concerns me and is the primary reason I will not vote for him. McCain is no diehard conservative, that's what will make the difference in November. He can work both sides of the aisle, Obama cannot.
Whew! Slow down on the coffee Watson.
It's just opinions. Don't have a stroke over it.
well, there's an awful lot in watson's and charles' comments that i don't agree with, but i'll try to keep this concise in hopes of maintaining at least a modicum of focus.
1) obama has plainly and unequivocally labeled hamas a terrorist organization and said he would not negotiate with them (unless "they renounce terrorism, recognize israel's right to exist and abide by past agreements"), and he criticized carter for meeting with them; see here. what you wrote is simply wrong, watson. it is correct that obama has said he'd be willing, in principle, to meet with iran.
2) regarding "excessive militarism", i completely support our military campaign in afghanistan, but i believe invading iraq is an almost textbook example of excessive militarism! and most americans already think this way: according to polls, at least, a clear majority believes invading iraq was a mistake. your worries about our descent to "second class status" sound like paranoia.
3) regarding harkin, watson, you're seriously mischaracterizing what he said. he's not saying that "anyone with prior military experience is dangerous and should not be in a position of political power" -- gimme a break! i agree it would be despicable if harkin was referring to the psychological implications of being a prisoner of war, but he plainly wasn't, so it's a moot point. harkin's point is couched in the specific context of john mccain: harkin says not that anyone with mccain's background would necessarily have a militaristic outlook on the world. rather, he believes that mccain does have an excessively militaristic outlook, and he traces that, in this case, to mccain's life experiences. i think your take on it is a distortion.
3) watson, i'd be careful about making broad generalizations about the two parties' relationship with the military. while i do believe it's true that the members of the military themselves still tend to skew republican, i think the situation with our elected officials is more complicated. it's the democrats that consistently take the more troop-friendly position -- just look at the recent gi bill as a perfect example. you can argue about whether the bill that was passed was a good bill or not, but there's no question that the democrats came down on the side of more generous benefits for the troops.
4) charles, isn't that (the berkeley-marine corps kerfuffle) the exception that proves the rule? i find a lot of the rhetoric that came out of the berkeley city council to be upsetting, though i also find little that rises to the level of "hate". but really, this is one of the most densely populated parts of the country, a place with a long tradition of antiwar activism, and (according to the article) at the peak of protests over the council's actions, a whopping 2,000 people showed up? and who knows how many of them were pro-marines! sure, there exist people in the country who hate the military, but they constitute what i said before: a negligible fringe. nobody gives 2 craps about code pink -- they have no power or influence! and what do you mean by "large percentage"? 50%? 20%? 2%? 0.00000000001%?
hmm, so much for that concision thing....
NCL - good advice on the coffee - it's that second pot that fires me up!
So, Anon., we need more Democrats in the professional military? I couldn't agree more! As to the military haters, I must respectfully disagree. If you look at any UC town you will find the same attitude. Google the newspapers or city council records in Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, Riverside, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz and you will find the same thing. It is even worse in Oregon and Washington. Look at this article: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48808
Let's see. Who is supporting the new GI Bill of Rights? Democrats or Republicans? John McCain or Tom Harkin? At least we know Bill O'Reilly supports the GI Bill of Rights. The Bill was his idea.
You would consider me a member of the far left Watson. I demonstrated against the Vietnam War, I'm opposed to the Iraq War. But in 1971, when you were a liberal, I joined the US Navy and served 4 years. What did you do? I do not hate the military, I never have. My father was career military. My father-in-law, a marine (and a liberal), fought in the Pacific. I am the one who continues to believe that old codgers like you and me should be putting our bodies on the line during war and not our young men and women. I take great offense at your grouping all members of the "far left" as anti-military. I think a non-slanderous argument can be made that someone who only has military experience may not be the best candidate for President. But I wouldn't want to disagree with honest Bill O'Reilly (the falafel boy, what is his military record).
As for Harkins military record....I'll put it up against George W. Bush's military record anytime.
PCS, I thank you and your family for your service to our nation. You have earned the right to your opinions. I did not serve in the military. If you were in the Navy from 1971 through 1975 then you are aware of the level of morale in the Armed Forces after our defeat in Vietnam. Whether or not Sen. Harkin exaggerated his mission in the service, he served and also deserves our thanks. I can't find his actual record, but he was a Naval Aviator and did aircraft testing in Japan and that required a high degree of courage. Also remember that Randy Cunningham was a Naval Aviator, a MiG ace and a recipient of the Navy Cross. He was a hero. He is now a felon.
Whatever else you may think of Bush 43, he completed USAF pilot training and flew F-102 Delta Daggers, one of the most dangerous aircraft in the USAF at the time. The pilot fatality rate was excessive. That also required a high degree of courage.
sir,
...or a high quantity of liquor.
I served and I can testify that not everyone that served is a hero or of high character. There was a high ratio of alcoholics, dopers, losers, low lifes, and marginal psychos serving toward the end of the Viet Nam "Police Action". Some served for patriotism, but many served for "the rush", or to avoid jail.
Many of the rest of us thought we were invincible and weren't smart enough to be scared when we should have been.
We didn't "win" Viet Nam and we won't "win" Iraq. You can't win the "wrong wars". Ask the Russians.
NCL, thanks for the illumination.
Post a Comment