This McCain Smear
The following has cropped up here and elsewhere, and appears to be a whisper smear campaign against McCain; the story goes, 'he's the father of a black child'… no wait! That was the South Carolina whisper smear campaign from 2000. Sorry about that, but they are oddly related, because there seems to be a correlation between the types of people who routinely say, "Bush is despicable, look at what he did to McCain in South Carolina" and those pimping this latest one. Now, before anyone assumes I'm only speaking of the port side, I'm seeing it from people on both the left and the right.
Like any good smear, there needs to be sufficient truth to it so those facts can be spun into something that will play to people's prejudices (for instance McCain does have an adopted daughter from Bangladesh which provided the "facts" used in 2000), and this new one does have lots of indisputable facts that provide a foundation of believability. Ironically, I should believe this one; given that I've never had much regard for the Senator's career in politics and it wouldn't take much for me to think ill of him. However, as much as I dislike him, I think there's something wrong in this nouvo smear.
The smear goes something like this; 'McCain dumped his loyal wife while she was recovering from a crippling car accident so he could run off with a beer heiress.' The Daily Mail did a hit piece on it, and you can read here The wife John McCain callously left behind.
The important facts are there:
Carol McCain was in a crippling car accident
John McCain did divorce Carol
John McCain married Cindy who is indeed the daughter of beer distributor.
So what's the problem? Saying, "John McCain is the father of black girl" is a completely true statement, yet it is good example of how to state a fact, but in a way that doesn't really tell the whole story. My guess is that we have a similar situation with this suddenly in vogue slur. I don't say that because I read a different version of the story, or heard pushback from McCain's surrogates, or anything else, it's actually in the Daily Mail story itself.
Two other facts perhaps tell a different story, first and foremost, is that apparently Carol McCain doesn't agree with the Daily Mail's spin and one imagines that she is now very unhappy with them:
…despite all her problems Carol McCain says she still adores he ex-husband…She says she agreed to talk to The Mail on Sunday only because she wanted to publicise her support for the man who abandoned [sic] her.
The second problem in this smear meme involves the timeline. To hear the story shorthanded in blogs, it sounds like McCain left the poor woman in traction at the hospital and catted out before the tow trucks had cleared the wreckage. However, let's look at the timeline without the Mail's hyperventilation:
October 1967 John McCain is shot down
Christmas 1969 Carol McCain is in a horrible car accident.
March 1973 John McCain is released from captivity
February 1980 John McCain files for divorce
March 1980 Files for marriage license
April 1980 Divorce granted
So it was fully ten years after the accident, and seven years after his return that he filed for divorce. Yes, it is obvious that he started seeing Cindy McCain before he filed for divorce and that certainly doesn't speak well of him. However, the facts don't quite fit the characterization.
I don't know if this study is flawed or not, but it provides an important footnote for this story:
The bottom line: the marriages of the men studied who actually served in combat were 62% more likely to end in divorce or separation, according to the study.
And here is a Time Magazine story from 1975 on a surge in the divorce rate of POWs:
Alan Kroboth, 27, was an American prisoner of war in Viet Nam for "275 days, 14 hours, 36 minutes and 14 seconds." Shortly after he returned home to New Jersey to a hero's welcome and a beaming wife in 1973, his marriage began to unravel. Now Kroboth has joined the rapidly growing ranks of ex-P.O.W.s who have become ex-husbands since they returned home.Military records show that as of last October the divorce rate for former P.O.W.s stood at 27%—about twice the normal rate for men of their age group.
Wouldn't it be a completely reasonable observation, given that both John and Carol had each suffered such incredible personal trauma, that it would be extraordinary if they had remained married? Given the smear's metrics, if McCain couldn't have left after 10 years, when could he have filed for divorce without it being seen as 'abandoning his crippled wife'? Marriages, without all the things the McCains suffered through, break up all the time, and if I recall correctly from the 2004 election this shouldn't be seen as any kind of character flaw.
Unfortunately, rather than making me think badly of McCain, this smear will only causes me to think less of anyone repeating it, and jaw droppingly appalled at anyone who is aiding this whisper campaign after using South Carolina as a stick to point at and beat up on Bush or Rove. Either you are against this kind of thing, or you are for it – you can't only be for it when it benefits your candidates.
--
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Macallan's blog
- Login or register to post comments
when he was a prisoner and he recorded anti-American messages. No shame in that as NO ONE can withstand torture indefinitely.
In 2000, Karl Rove-ian tactics broke John McCain's spirit once again and now (analogous to Stockholm Syndrome phenomenon) McCain has become another Rove-ian type dog whistle politician.
A pity, because the 2000 version of John McCain would have been a MUCH better President than George W. Bush.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
)and given your Stockholm Syndrome meme, you wonder how he ever moved fwd to run for the Congress.
--"Making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much." Ob
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Karl Rove was more than he could handle
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )deja vu in winning the GOP nomination
--"Making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much." Ob
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )are what allowed McCain to defeat Romney
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )nt
--"Making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much." Ob
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )If you were to send Senator Obama's people a suggestion to use that as a campaign theme, I'd be much obliged.
--- Login or register to post comments
| parent )However John McCain is not the man he was in 2000.
His own quest for his "precious" has allowed him to make compromises he never would have made ten years ago.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )what compromises?
--"Making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much." Ob
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )nt
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )it will help the conversation.
--"Making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much." Ob
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )... was that his tenure as a POW had made him mentally unstable and unfit to lead.
Three guesses as to the political party of the authors of those fliers. And now, of course, the same party is using McCain's POW record as a justification for sundry personal failings. He couldn't help cheating on his wife and leaving her for an heiress; cut the guy some slack, fer chrissake, he was a POW for five years!
Man, I've missed the election season. No one writes comedy this good.
--The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- Login or register to post comments
)You'd notice, if you had bothered, that I said I've seen this smear from both the left AND right.
You'd also notice that nowhere do I say his POW experience "justifies" anything. Combat and POW divorce rates were presented as a direct reference point to McCain's marriage and divorce relevant to THIS one particular smear as fully and clearly delineated. The key to this smear is leaving the impression that he just dumped his wife the moment he came home and found her in a "crippled" state. The divorce rates give a good perspective to the fact that he was married for nearly 15 years and for 7 years after his return.
Your comment, and several others, seem more like bad faith than comedy.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Wouldn't it be a completely reasonable observation that the high divorce rates of POWs indicate some degree of mental instability?
--The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Wow, are you goin' where I think you're goin' with that? Implying that McCain lacks the sanity to be president as a result of his POW experience?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You might want to take a look at where such a horrible, nasty, awful, un-American smear against McCain actually came from. (That was, after all, the entire point of my post.)
--The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )is that everyone's idea of what constitutes a completely reasonable observation depends on their a priori preferences. When those preferences shift, even for the same man in different elections, the perception of what is "reasonable" and what is a "smear" flips 180 degrees. The extreme personal trauma that was once a potentially destructive liability is now evidence for the defense.
Not to be rude, but did you read this? I thought I was being pretty clear...
--The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You weren't clear, you're still not being clear, and as for "everyone" flipping 180 degrees based on partisanship, that's an overstatement, leaving out at least one person I know, although if you scale it back to a heck of a lot of people, including probably most on Forvm and certainly most on the echo chamber blogs like RedState, that would probably be correct.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )since you misquoted me and misinterpreted me to an extent that I can only see as deliberate.
FTR, I did not say that everyone flips 180 degrees based on partisanship. I said that everyone sees events, especially political events, through a lens of a priori beliefs that partly shape their impression of what is reasonable and what is a smear. This was an elucidation of why I, personally, find it highly amusing that the same people who attacked John McCain in 2000 on the basis of his POW experience are now defending him on the same basis.
Since Mac has said that he condemned the attacks on McCain in 2000, and I believe him, I was obviously not including him in that group.
--The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Where did I misquote you?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Yes. Yes, it certainly is.
--The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )First, that's not a misquote. Second, I don't even think it's a mischaracterization, although I'm open to whatever explanation you wish to offer.
Your statement, to which I was referring:
If you'd like to explain the difference between my characterization and what you meant, please do.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Not to be rude, but stop making up this kind of childish crap.
You have zero evidence that I ever smeared McCain with "extreme personal trauma" is "a potentially destructive liability" which would be necessary to support this inane claim.
Believe it or not, I really don't control *all* of the VRWC, only most of it. Man up and just admit you read into this what you wanted, rather than what was actually written.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Please see below.
--The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Seems like a very strange assertion that high divorce rates indicate a degree of mental instability, but go with it if that's what you want.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You can't just haul out POW divorce rates in a vacuum, especially when you're using them as a factor in mitigation of John McCain's personal divorce. Why would it have been extraordinary if McCain had stayed with his wife?
--The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I said it pretty clearly -- If you look at the timeline, relevant divorce rates for the general population as well as combat veterans and POWs* the marriage failing doesn't look as sinister a picture as the smear attempts to paint.
*I looked but couldn't find any studies of divorce rates for victims of severe car accidents or other crippling injuries, and I assumed people have a general idea about the prevalence of divorce in the U.S.
Ironically, nobody has mentioned or commented on what I labeled "first and foremost", but hey, why take her word for it. What does she know?
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I had to take a deep breath and sleep on this one, 'cause I was getting seriously annoyed in this thread. Not good when the topic was supposed to be funny.
First of all, I am not smearing John McCain. I have no doubt that the true facts of McCain's marriage and divorce are complicated, personal, and ultimately politically irrelevant. (To me. There are some people in this country who care deeply about a candidate's marital history, but I'm not one of them.) You will note that I have never attacked McCain on this basis, nor will I ever.
Second, I was not accusing you personally of being a partisan hack. Actually, I think you're a very fair-minded person -- more so than the majority of posters on The Forvm, left and right. My observation was directed at those Bush supporters who used McCain's POW tenure as a cudgel in the 2000 South Carolina primary, and now employ that same POW tenure as a shield. I think that's really funny, and revelatory of aspects of human nature most people prefer not to think about. I posted in this diary thread because it's topical, not as an attempt to attack the guy who wrote it.
So, I apologize for any hackles I've raised. That really was not my intent.
--The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )is pretty awful, too. Something breaks in the soul, when something like that happens. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see severe car accidents do the same.
Everybody I knew in the service who's married is divorced. Every single one. I hear SF won't take married volunteers.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )1. My stepfather is 80 yrs. old. When auditioning for the part of my mother's new husband I was satisfied that he had a loving family around him and no bitter ex-wives. I didn't feel the need to delve into his marital history from 25 yrs. ago and I don'tfeel the need to delve into Mccain's.
2. That said, did a guy w. serious political ambitions get remarried before his divorce was finalized? Am i reading this right? That should at least earn him some serious stupid pts.
3. "Either you are against this kind of thing, or you are for it". So you were "against" it when Bush did it in 00, but he still got your vote twice. Is that right? I'm further assuming he got your vote b/c other concerns outweighed the negative campaign tactics.
My question is, what's the difference between that position and the Ds on this site who view smearing McCain as a necessary evil? In both cases the 'badness' of negative campaign tactics is viewed as outweighed by larger concerns.
i.e. I might respond: 'Either you draw a line re: supporting a candidate, or you don't'. If you didn't then, what difference does being 'against' the tactics now really make?
- Login or register to post comments
)Re: 3, it's not established that "Bush did it in 00" and it's not even claimed (AFAICT) by Mac that Obama is in any way assisting, let alone propelling, the attack detailed in the diary in 08.
So I'm not sure the point applies, since it's not really fair to judge a campaign by the actions of its extreme supporters. I suggest a more reasonable standard to ask for from a campaign "is that it (a) neither originate nor promote smears and (b) condemn smears made on its behalf."
--Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )... it's not even claimed (AFAICT) by Mac that Obama is in any way assisting, let alone propelling, the attack detailed in the diary in 08.
Ideally true:
a more reasonable standard to ask for from a campaign "is that it (a) neither originate nor promote smears and (b) condemn smears made on its behalf."
But now what do you do when one party breaks your standard? Is it still in force for the other party?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )LINK
But she's a queen, and such are queens
that your laughter is sucked in their brains. -D. Bowie
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )FYI: My recollection re: the viral email of McCain's supposedly "illegitimate", "black" child is that it was ultimately traced to some Evangelical guy, I think a professor, who originated it. Which, in itself, isn't probative one way or the other as to coordination with the Bush campaign, but I'm saying those who wish to research it could check into that and see if any link or evidence thereof was reported at that time.
[edit below]
Ahh, I just Googled and this must be it:
The column also mentions push-polling to promote that rumor, but apparently the push-pollers were able to maintain anonymity.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Hee. Reasoning worthy of a BJU professor, for sure.
--The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )yeah. As in, if ya' can't prove that god doesn't exist, you have to believe not only in a god, and not only in our god, but in everything in our scriptures.
By the way, one thing I wonder about Pascal's wager (a symptom of AIS -- Advanced Idiocy Syndrome) is: Wouldn't he have to profess faith in every religion that claimed punishment for disbelief (and/or reward for belief) in it? And what would he do when multiple beliefs were contradictory? Such questions certainly don't point to the most idiotic aspect of Pascal's wager -- which is the whole concept itself -- but just add some idiocy icing on the idiocy cake.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Hardly. Pascal was smarter than everyone on The Forvm put together. His Wager is a reminder that being very, very smart is no shield against blind spots and delusion.
It's even more sobering to reflect that Pascal's Wager was thought up by the inventor of modern probability theory. We're a strange species.
--The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )the idea that one can reason one's way to believing in the irrational is seriously flawed. It's like trying to reason your way into falling in love, people just don't work that way.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )get up with fleas.
Indeed it's not established that "Bush did it in 00" but Rove was in charge of the Bush-Cheney campaign and Rove's MO is well known and entirely compatible with what happened in SC in '00. That may be unfair to Rove but given his reputation, them's the breaks.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Do we need videotape of Karl Rove telling someone to start a whisper campaign about McCain's daughter before we can lay the blame at Bush's feet?
--But she's a queen, and such are queens
that your laughter is sucked in their brains. -D. Bowie
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I was going to respond to "Bush did it in 00" but figured it was more important to reiterate what I actually said rather than jump down that rabbit hole. I appreciate you addressing that point.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )On pt. 2, AFAIK he didn't actually get married until after the divorce was final, I just wanted to highlight that he was obviously intending to marry Cindy prior to seeking his divorce.
On the third point, I can't really respond well because you're sort of skewing what I said. AFAIK, nobody has ever had the option of voting for a perfect candidate who ran a perfect campaign, we're all stuck, if we vote, having to pull the lever for someone who either did or stands for something we don't agree with. That's just a fact of life.
What I did say was if you are someone who has made it point to highlight and denounce the whisper campaign in South Carolina, it is "jaw droppingly" appalling to participate in doing the same thing (and against the same guy). IOW, if you proactively climbed up on the soapbox, when it was a convenient means to bash Bush, you don't have any excuses to be spreading this smear. You can't even take license claiming, "he did it first!" because McCain was the victim not the perpetrator last go round.
Is that clearer?
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Macallan, you do know what a 'scottish marriage' is, I assume.
I assume the same of McCain.
--Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Re: 2, I looked it up. McCain got married after his divorce was finalized. Whoops. Again, if the parties involved came to terms with this, I would think the electorate could as well.
Re: 3, I thought you were granting that Bush did it in '00 for the sake of argument and still making a charge of hypocrisy. Whoops again.
Lemme see if I can salvage a pt. regardless. You write:
nobody has ever had the option of voting for a perfect candidate who ran a perfect campaign, we're all stuck, if we vote, having to pull the lever for someone who either did or stands for something we don't agree with. That's just a fact of life.
That's what Blue + I are arguing when we support smearing McCain: it's a fact of life that some negatives are outweighed by the overall good.
That's consistent w. criticizing the '00 McCain smear, since it was a negative not outweighed by any overall good. Really I kind of doubt anyone believed the tactics were a deal-breaker in any circumstances whatever. Probably most believed instead that it was unnecessarily dirty in a primary w. two similar candidates.
In this election, by contrast, McCain hasn't run a particularly honorable campaign, the modern GOP has proven itself immensely dangerous, and IMO there's a reasonable case to be made that McC should be the target of a concerted smear effort.
At least I think the option should be on the table if Obama slips behind in the polls.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )huh?
Since IMO the modern D party has proven itself immensely dangerous and their presumptive nominee is a blank slate running a campaign of fluffy nonsense, should Sen. Obama be the target of a concerted smear effort?
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Even the merest hint as to what you have in mind here would be much appreciated. I've heard a lot of things, some true, said about the modern Dems. But dangerous is a new one.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Obviously I don't speak for Mac, but in general one could argue that an inclination against military action when it is indeed important to our security is dangerous, and I'm sure that argument is made with regard to continuing our war effort in Iraq [edit: as well as other elements of the "GWOT", such as the absurdly-named Patriot Act]. Not something I want to get into; I'm just trying to satisfy your curiosity, since the very concept of the Democratic party being seen as "dangerous" seems inexplicable to you. And by the way, I'm a bit older than you, and I can tell you that during the Cold War -- particularly the Reagan years which were my college years -- you probably wouldn't find that charge uncommon or odd. Those who believed in "peace through strength" saw the policies advocated by the nuclear freeze, hands-off-central-America (etc.) folks as quite dangerous in the face of the "communist threat".
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Support for military action after 9/11 was near universal, across the political spectrum and worldwide. What happened?
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )if not for those attacks we'd certainly be a socialist dictatorship by now.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Are you guys (Hank and Jordan) having a straw man contest?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Who can pull the most straw out of the "Dems endanger national security" scarecrow. Starting stupid wars...that endangers national security.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Yes, starting stupid wars endangers national security. And your point is...? That NOT starting a war (or failing to maintaining a credible military threat or failing to support surrogates waging war against some broad threat to national security) can't also endanger national security? If that's not your point, I know you're smart enough to dispense with the tunnel vision or pretense thereof. If that IS your point, well, whatever you say, Neville.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )is insufficient reason to launch wars of preemption to topple a dictator and put the US in charge of a nation of 20+ million, without the capacity or will to manage the outcome successfully.
Vietnam supposedly taught us that it is next to impossible to win protracted wars in far off places where the enemy has significant popular local support and the friendly government is so corrupt or ineffectual that they are incapable of offering meaningful resistance absent our substantial and costly efforts to sustain them.
The 1% doctrine compounds the error of Vietnam by further trivializing the trip wire event that sets such sorry escapades in motion. In short, an overreaction to a relatively minor problem such as the Messinpotamia, creates more of a problem than it seeks to mitigate.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The 1% doctrine is stupid. It sidesteps rational resource allocation.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Who here has argued that
Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )huh? Yeah, I said that, and did so in the context of this subthread. What's your point?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )that you presented. You're arguing against someone not involved in the present conversation, and "straw man" is the term of art for that tactic.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I repeat, huh? What are you talking about. I made a simple point that, just as opting FOR war can endanger national security, opting AGAINST war (etc.) can also endanger national security. You replied that opting FOR war can endanger national security (if it's a "stupid war"), and I repeated my comment. You then say that I've erected a straw man. Please explain how that is so.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Macallan said Democrats are "immensely dangerous." I said wha-huh? So right off the bat we know we're comparing Dems & Repubs.
You chime in suggesting an inclination against war "when it is indeed important to our national security is indeed dangerous" as a reason why Democrats might be viewed as dangerous.
I reply that that is a well known slur against Democrats & has no basis in truth. I never suggested anything was wrong with your point in general, that refusing military options when necessary can be dangerous. So your continuing to pound that generic, uncontroversial point as if it's in play when in fact we're comparing specific war policies is a straw man tactic.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Oh please. This is getting silly. I offered you an explanation as to why some could view the Democrats as dangerous, a view that they could very well apply to the Iraq war, to the GWOT, etc. You replied that getting into "stupid wars" is dangerous. I pointed out that, while that's true, opting against war (etc.) can also be dangerous -- a principle that many consider applicable to Democratic policy preferences on Iraq, GWOT, etc. You then, for some bizarre reason, accuse me of erecting a straw man. I have no idea why you would think that charge fits what I've said. Yeeeesh.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )which I pointed out is a partisan slur. Your unfounded premise is that there are *any* Dems in power who would be willing to sacrifice national security just to avoid necessary war. There aren't. "Some people" might think so, but those people are either partisan hacks or dupes of partisan hacks, and their POV is immaterial here.
The issue here, in case it's been lost in the smoke and flames downthread, is how Macallan can say the D party has proven itself immensely dangerous. Not how "some people" might think that, but how it can be true in any normal sense of the word.
And I'll note that you've silently shifted ground from the abstract point (avoiding war can be dangerous) back to the actual topic at hand (how the D's "have proven themselves immensely dangerous").
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ). . .still won't admit that she was wrong to oppose Operation Desert Storm--I'd say she qualifies. I'd be interested to know if Obama would have joined the vast majority of Democrats in the Senate in early 1991 who were content to let Saddam keep Kuwait. It should be a rather easy "of course not" from him; if not, he has no business being within a time zone of the White House.
--- Login or register to post comments
| parent )drilling. The British interests and the US energy sector by proxy were the reasons for Desert Storm.. It didn't hurt that the Saudis were fearful that Saddam would keep going. It would be interesting to see the Intel on that topic...We did get to test some combat systems. Bush SR and Baker Scowcroft etc. Were smart enough to not break Iraq and have to deal with the mess. The Saudis bankrolled it so it was a net winner. We had allies that stood by us on the principle of non-aggression... Still I am not sure outside of the PR/Dis-info Campaign that their were not good reasons to oppose actions.. Potential loss of life of US soldiers seems plausible.. Still If we were concerned with protecting anything but energy supplies. In the end we picked BP/British and Saudis over Saddam. Who up until that point was still our guy...
--Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Must be willing to start the Persian Gulf War?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )But if you're not, we don't even get near asking the questions that are. Sort of like a fashion model who walks into a job interview with unshaven armpits and not having bathed in a week--the interviewer doesn't bother to ask her to sit down.
--- Login or register to post comments
| parent )for the average taxpayer in Gulf War I?
I mean really, who cares if a presidential nominee wasn't a Gulf War I enthusiast?
Saddam in Kuwait was never much of an economic threat + never a security threat.
This was a small war over a small-to-medium-level balance of power concern in the Persian Gulf.
Just not very important.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )An expansionist, dictatorial power that had already launched two wars on its neighbors in the past decade had absorbed one of the largest oil producers in the world and had troops on the border of the largest one. Iraq *was* trying to build nuclear weapons in those days, and had thousands of medium range missiles and chemical warheads to put in them--with Israel nearby, having nuclear weapons, and having proven in recent years to take strong measures to preserve its existence. Do you want to try answering that question again?
--- Login or register to post comments
| parent )An expansionist, dictatorial power
... that was fairly weak + easily deterred from making a move contra SA.
Iraq *was* trying to build nuclear weapons in those days
and we've managed to deal w. that issue in other countries w/out a war.
had thousands of medium range missiles and chemical warheads to put in them-- with Israel nearby...
and showed no inclination to attack Israel unless already under attack. Again overall, they weren't much of a military power. They got whalloped in a few weeks.
had absorbed one of the largest oil producers in the world
Kuwait today ranks 11th w. about 8% of known reserves.
probably the #s were similar in '90.
As I said, a small-to-medium balance of power concern in a region where the US has shown too much inclination to micromanage.
And you didn't answer the question. Of all the issues that affect the US taxpayer why should the Persian Gulf War even rank let alone be a deal breaker?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ). . .the prosecution rests."
--- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Except I missed the part where you tied this back to crucial interests of the sort a citizen should care about when voting for President.
Surely you aren't unfamiliar w the notion that projecting American power abroad is an over-valued concern to our political class?
i worry that you find it obvious that lives should've been sacrificed -- not to mention $ + energy expended -- for a project that arguably affected so few in this country.
i actually don't know where you're coming from.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )USA good, everyone else bad (unless they do what we want) and you're a shrieking moonbat if you feel differently.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )blame America first
--"Making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much." Ob
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Our first war vs. Iraq was basically about oil, yes, although it was also, I thought at the time and still, a statement that "the new world order" of which H.W. Bush had spoken would not be one of total chaos, but rather that the only remaining superpower would act to some extent as policeman.
But back to the point, yes. And lest you belittle "oil", if Saddam gained control of a dominant share of the world's oil and could control the supply and price, he could (1) do severe damage to our economy (and that of others), with serious adverse effects on the lives of many millions, (2) use control of this vital resource to blackmail other nations in all sorts of ways, and (3) over time, use the resulting financial resources to grow in military power, which he'd probably use, all of which would reinforce the process and trend, allowing it to snowball (or be cut down at much greater cost in lives and dollars later).
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )to learn that I supported the first Gulf War, not because of oil but because I didn't think it was a good idea to let people invade other countries and annex them on a whim. I do wish that we had set up a democracy in Kuwait after we retook it, however. Fighting one dictator to put another dictator back in power seems rather un-American to me.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I didn't think it was a good idea to let people invade other countries and annex them on a whim
Me too! But I was around 12 at the time.
looking back, no one seriously intended that maxim to be consistently applied. And it hasn't been.
Gulf War I was about smacking Saddam around.
That was in the interest of some people + they managed to convince others it was also important to them.
Scott has remained convinced, but I highly doubt any of his direct interests were affected much if at all.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )the Treaty of Westphalia - you know, national sovereignty, territorial integrity and all that. I still think it's a bad idea to let countries invade other countries at will - even when the US does it.
BTW, is there a reason you seem so cranky lately?
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )is there a reason you seem so cranky lately?
I *hope* you're just saying that b/c I was criticizing you!
Maybe it's time for a break tho.
My bunnypic-to-cranky-post ratio should be more favorable.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )fark.com. It always seems to lift my spirits, especially the Photoshop contests like this or this.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )kind of like Eastern Europe in WW II
--"Making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much." Ob
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ). . .it seems to be about reminding the moderates why they don't trust Democrats to protect the country any more.
--- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Indeed. And we were darn lucky Saddam miscalculated and invaded Kuwait before acquiring nuclear weapons capability. Otherwise things could have played out quite differently. (cue someone to point out that things are not good today, as if that refutes my point)
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )not even in France?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )or Russia, Georgia. There's always some martial test in the selection mix with a certain part of the electorate.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )No kidding. That's who we gave Kuwait back to, a guy who keeps Sudanese slaves from Darfur as his personal human pets.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Geez Louise, man. What in god's name are you talking about? This is not that complicated, and no shifting has taken place on my part. You seemed not to have any idea how one could considered Democrats dangerous. I offered you a reason some do -- I stated the principle and how such people are applying it to Democrats*. That's it.
Whatever premises or arguments you are attributing to me are your own creation. Maybe just give it a rest, or respond if you wish to something I've actually said or any actual inherent premises thereof.
* My initial comment:
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The people who claim Democrats are a danger to the country because they'd hesitate to fight a necessary war are utterly full of it. Period. I don't consider that viewpoint or assumption a valid base for discussion. Prove me wrong if you can, but don't expect me to accept the shrieking of fools as a given.
I asked for legitimate reasons or examples why Macallan would say D's are "immensely dangerous", and you have so far provided no on-topic responses worth either of our time.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Wow, you are really (uncharacteristically) out there on this one. There are a good number of people who not completely insane, utterly ignorant, or mentally retarded, who think that the Democrats are insufficiently aggressive vis a vis threats to our security to the degree that the Democrats are dangerous. You are free to feel 100% certain that such a view is quite obviously crazy, ignorant and/or stupid if you wish, but you're thinking that doesn't make it so. Many throughout the Cold War -- including the period of time I mentioned in my initial comment -- have held that view, and many others disagreed, and some in each camp ridiculed those in the other, sometimes rather narrow-mindedly, at least with regard to a lack of appreciation for the possibility that the other may be correct. If you want to maintian that type of mindset and make comments in that spirit, go ahead, but I'll have to leave you on your own to do so (although I'm sure you'll have company here and elsewhere) rather than spending more time on an exchange that past the threshold of silliness pretty much from the start.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )which had Presidents Kennedy & Johnson starting & ramping up the Vietnam War?
The most dangerous current Democrats I know are the ones who authorized Bush to attack Iraq when it was plain as day he had nary a plan for what to do with a post-Saddam Iraq. And even they seem to have mostly learned their lesson, viz. that Republicans should be kept as far as possible from foreign policy these days.
So again, finally, please provide examples of these "dangerously anti-war" Democrats, or, you know, admit you are simply repeating a campaign slur, repurposing the Daisy ad, etc. It would be helpful if these dangerous Dems are responsible for a screwup anywhere in the ballpark of the colossally idiotic first 3 years in Iraq.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Jordan, you are really all over the place and making little sense in this exchange. I know you're capable of sound reasoning rather than this persistant partisan blather coupled with non sequiturs. I don't want to be repetitive and I've already been quite clear, so I'll just suggest you take a break from this exchange and take a fresh look at it at some later point.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You suggest that. All I've asked for are some examples of "dangerous" democrats. You provide condescension and theory of war.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Geez. Fine. Don't listen to me. Don't take my advice. I was just trying to get you back to what I think is your normal, more sensible self rather than persisting with this nonsense.
I don't understand why I need to spell this out any further than I need to, but ok:
Many would view any Democrat who seeks a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, and/or who opposes extension of the Patriot Act, and/or who wants to give more opportunities for detainees at Guantanamo to be released, etc., etc., (and/or any other position that they think represents less aggressivenes in the "GWOT") as dangerous (meaning that their policies would likely result in significant incremental security threats). Does one have to be batsh*t insane, utterly ignorant or a complete moron to hold any such view. No. Which Democrats am I talking about? Take your frickin' pick.
Was the above really not obvious to you from all I had said prior to this comment?? WTF, man??
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I told you plainly what I thought of people who believe such things. To rehash briefly: the fact some people (mostly Fox News viewers) believe Democrats who oppose the Patriot Act are endangering national security, just don't make it so.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Are you saying that you feel certain that one has to be extremely ignorant, stupid and/or crazy to believe that some policies favored by Democrats would lead to increased threats to our security? In other words, are you saying that no reasonably well-informed, reasonably intelligent, sane person could possibly be of that opinion? Because my whole frickin' point from the start has been that there are many such people of that opinion, and that's how some can consider the Democtats "dangerous".
So if that's not what you're saying, then what's yer problem, dude?
If the above IS what you are saying, then I'm surprised to hear you saying it, and I consider it beneath the quality of thinking reflected in your comments generally (and I probably should adjust my expectations).
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The impetus of this conversation was Macallan's comment that Dems have "proven themselves *immensely* dangerous," and we're talking about whether anyone has any valid reason to think such a thing.
It's a far cry from the notion that "some policies favored by Democrats would lead to threats to our security" to what we're actually talking about here. I will agree that some D positions have been unfortunate; Scott's example of Pelosi's opposition to the Persian Gulf war is a good one. But that to me doesn't qualify as anywhere close to "immensely dangerous"; it's actually fairly typical Congressional minority roadblocking. You saw the same efforts to undermine a war coming from the Repub side of the aisle during the operations in Kosovo and Somalia. Venal and disgusting and unworthy of a public servant? Yes. Immensely dangerous to the security of the nation as a whole? Please.
Absolutely nothing you or anyone else has shown on this diary comes anywhere close to supporting such a wild and histrionic claim.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when y