I swear, it's like Senator Obama puts out a Natsec Ignorance Field.
And none of his supporters are safe.
By Moe Lane Posted in Anti-war liberals | Archived | Obamafiles — Comments (55) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
[Further UPDATE: Constant Reader mcg points us to Senator Rockefeller's apology for making "an inaccurate and wrong analogy."]
[UPDATE: My colleague California Yankee points out something that I missed the first time: Orson Swindle, the man who made McCain's response, was McCain's cell mate in the Hanoi Hilton. But then, Lt. Commander Swindle was tortured even though he only flew a fighter jet, so perhaps Senator Rockefeller is under the impression that being beaten by one's captors is merely an unavoidable and not particularly noteworthy side-effect of military service.]
Among other things, this field clearly makes people like Senator Jay Rockefeller - a man who really, really, should know better - say stupidities.
Rockefeller believes McCain has become insensitive to many human issues. "McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit.
"What happened when they [the missiles] get to the ground? He doesn't know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues."
Let us start from the beginning: as the McCain campaign itself notes, the Senator was not using his A-4 Skyhawk to drop laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. The Skyhawk was a light attack aircraft generally used in close-range attacks; during bombing runs their major enemy was ground-based AA batteries, although small-arms fire and even trees were sometimes a problem. McCain's own Skyhawk was knocked down by a SA-2 at 4,500 feet. And I trust that I don't need to explain to our Democratic colleagues the most obvious reason why he wasn't using a laser-guided missile?
(pause)
Right. Paveways weren't used in Vietnam until 1968. At which point Senator McCain had already been a POW for a year - and might I add, Senator Rockefeller, that it is the action of a partisan buffoon to call someone who has been tortured for half a decade for putting on America's uniform ignorant of the consequences of his actions. Believe me, vile men with clubs made sure that McCain knew - and while I don't expect better from your chosen candidate, Senator (he's obviously made his choice), I did expect better from you.
Well. Live and learn.
Moe Lane
« Question and answer time: the Wes Clark thing. — Comments (50) | Will Barack Obama accept the endorsement of a woman who helped torture John McCain? — Comments (41) »
I swear, it's like Senator Obama puts out a Natsec Ignorance Field. 55 Comments (0 topical, 55 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Be thankful he very well could have been a Republican and without changing his position one millimeter.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
....by Rockefeller. Including, him saying that "we weren't going to be around in 50 years" because of climate change, and how he wants the federal government to solve the problem, because he "doesn't want private companies to get any patents".
I love leftist tycoon hypocrites like Rockefeller - his massive fortune is derived from oil & gas.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Will help Sen. Rockefeller with his a/c recognition:
Rockafeller is a coward ...
If Obama was a real man he would repudiate that vicious smear today ... but alas his stones are in Michelles purse and I don't think she'll let him have them back ...
and I don't believe McCain would have been using them before he was captured.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision-guided_munition#Laser-guided_weapons
Surely the Good Senator Rockefeller is clear on the amazing difference between *missiles* and *bombs*....no?
I just can't get over this. How do these mentally challenged people get elected to office?
Since when does getting a plane shot out from under him and spending six years behind bars qualify _anyone_ as a "national security expert"???
Hero, maybe, but foreign policy genius? Sen. McCain, who has confused Al Queda with the Iranians on several, separate public occasions, and who opposes decisive American action against Al Queda in Pakistan, has yet to demonstrate his vaunted foreign policy prowess and national security expertise in any noticable way.
We Republicans have been snookered...
...which is about Senator Rockefeller's ignorance of the man that he's slandered, McCain's Skyhawk ordinance load is actually relevant. You want to complain about that topic, go bug Rockefeller.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.“--Jeff Cooper. From Bill Coffey's collection of military quotations
"we"
Sure.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
but different groups like that do cooperate with each other, even as they privately hate each other.
1. Unlike John Kerry, John McCain's foreign and defense policy bona fides have been established by what he has accomplished since he returned from Vietnam, not by what he did while he was there.
2. "Decisive American action" in Pakistan is quite a howler coming from the people who are trying desperately to turn Iraq over to al Qaeda.
3. "we Republicans"? Got a mouse in your pocket, bubba?
"A man does what he can and endures what he must."
"behind bars"??? That sounds kind of criminal.
"confused" on "several" occasions???
You ever mis-speak....and how many of McCain's "several" can you name specifically?
And please, don't tell me you've never corrected yourself when you have mis-spoken. Or if you did, is that proof you were "confused"?
he figured out how to register on RedState, or else was cunning enough to find someone of his acquaintance who could figure it out -- he is clearly not the ignoramus you think he is!
Or not!
Iran's contribution to al Qaeda can not compare to the massive support coming from Saudi Arabia.
- Fatwa issued to kill two Saudi writers 03/17/2008
- Saudis's Multi-Million Dollar PR Machine, 03/10/2008
- Two Saudi al Qaeda operatives killed in Mosul 03/03/2008
- Protecting Our Journalists From Libel Terrorism, 01/21/2008
- Insurers Seek To Sue Saudi Arabia, Others for Attacks, 01/07/2008
- Saudis biggest group of al Qaeda Iraq fighters-study 12/19/2007
- 1,500 Qaeda Members Freed After Counseling, 11/27/2007
- Tithing for Terrorists, 10/12/2007
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
Versus massive support by the state apparatus of iran.
Big difference to anyone whose eyes are not squeezed shut.
The "few bad apples" notion is a fairytale. Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld will be the first one to tell you that "rich wackjobs" are in fact members of the royal family who are using the kingdom's power and sharia banking to fund terrorism and Wahhabism.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
No reason to cite the Saudis as reason not to deal with Iran. You paint your house, you do one wall at a time.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
No, no, that's not my intention at all. They are equals in evil, and their opposition explains much of the dynamics between muslim nations.
Yet there are Conservatives and Republicans who paint Iran as THE bogeyman of the Middle East while excusing the dangers of the Saudi Kingdom as necessary. I can not begin to tell you how much that infuriates me.
For example, the National Review posts a daily report of all the bad things Iran has been up to in the past 24 hours. But Saudi Arabia, aside from an occasional blurb on the corner, is a non-entity. Even worse is the NR's editorial position of appeasment:
The Saudis and Us
The Editors, National Review, August 10, 2007The Saudis have always been an ally of convenience rather than a natural partner for us, to say the least. (Not for nothing did an National Review cover story once dub them “Desert Rats.”) We wish the administration would push them harder to end their worldwide Wahhabi evangelism and to do more to support the government in Iraq. But the Saudis can be useful nonetheless. They have ponied up $1.5 billion to help support Fouad Siniora’s besieged government in Lebanon. And they — along with other Gulf states, who tend to follow their lead — recognize the nature of the Iranian threat, for ideological, strategic, and sectarian reasons.
What the NR doesn't appreciate is that, despite the theological cold war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, they have more interests in common with each other than with us.
That's why the Saudis & the GCC consistently defend Iran's right to civilian nuclear power (and their own). That's why the Saudis & the GCC have consistently warned Washington DC not to attack Iran (as they did with Iraq). And that also why, though rarely mentioned, the Saudis fund Palestinian terrorists.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
and Paris Hilton, is the reason that I am FOR death taxes and estate taxes. By the time the money gets to the third generation there is no more entrepreneurship, and nothing left but a waste of time, a disconnect from reality, and a big dose of white liberal guilt.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
Just another pampered leftist who has never served in uniform defaming a true hero. It's a joke that the Democrat Party claims to be "pro-military." Some liberals do support the troops, to be sure, but the party is full of anti-military traitors who are rooting for our soldiers to die in Iraq for ideological reasons of their own.
Please tell me there's video of this...and will someone with more technical knowledge than I have please start putting these comments along side Barry's "just words?" speech?
IOW, a typical lefty democrat leader
path.
This is turning into the Sen. Wellstone Memorial v2.0 really fast.
of Senator Jay Rockefeller's statements speaks volumes about how he makes his political and personal decisions.
As sympathetic to McCain as I truly am in this case... I for one am getting really tired of demands for an apology every time some waste of human skin says something idiotic like this. Demanding an apology frankly sounds weak.
I would much prefer that McCain's side simply treat Senator Rockefeller with the respect he has earned---which is to say, none---and rip him a new one while explaining how idiotic his statement was. Then move on to say that if this is the kind of idiot Obama chooses to associate himself with, what must it say about him?
simple common decency demands that Rockefeller apologize. I do agree that Obama need not apologize for this. You can't hold him responsible for what every one of his supporters says, even the high profile ones. However, I think it would show some class if Obama were to say something.
But that doesn't mean we should demand that he do so. After all, what does it say about him if he apologizes only because of the intense pressure placed upon him? It certainly would say far more about his basic decency if he apologized simply because he realized he was wrong. I mean, we all say boneheaded things sometimes.
The Obombers get to lob out anything they want, and we are left sputtering for an apoolgy.
There has to be a definitive effective way to defeat the Obombers, and to make sure that BHO gets at least his share of the fragmentary damage, so to speak.
I do agree. The constant harping about demanding apologies is weak, weak, weak.
Fight them on the (rhetorical) beaches, but don't beg them to apologize.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.“--Jeff Cooper. From Bill Coffey's collection of military quotations
I think the point about the apologies (though I definitely agree, it's unnecessary and getting irritating) is that it forces the other guy into an awkward position, because he either has to refuse, in which case he's stuck defending the remarks, or he has to cave, which is a tacit admission of guilt and makes him look weak. (Or he is James Carville.) If you just denounce and ridicule the remarks, it doesn't put your opponent on the spot in quite the same way; demanding an apology requires him to take some action (or not), so he can't just ignore you. So it really puts the ball in his court. Also, by apologising for one such remark, Obama has basically admitted that all such future remarks are out of bounds, which could be a useful line at some point.
But yeah, I still kinda hope everyone gets bored with this thing. I can only take so much sensitivity.
It is my understanding that the LGBs were initially used by the USAF.
why is it that EVERY democratic politician slanders the military and all those who are braver than they are?!!
how is the American public not aware of this?!! We need to win this election- our civilization depends on it..
Obama is Jimmy Carter- only without the sweater.
Moe, you have apparently harbored a much too high opinion of Mr. Rockefeller. Just because he calls himself "Senator" doesn't make him a gentleman.
Expect nothing from "leading" Democrats beyond blather.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.“--Jeff Cooper. From Bill Coffey's collection of military quotations
My only hope is that these buckets of pond scum leave their masks off all the way to November.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
Sounds like Rocky misspoke. Just like Hillary misspoke about her wartime heroism. Lots of that going on among the Dems . . . maybe a group speech class is in order?
Rockefeller's apology should have more closely followed the theme of "I regret to inform the American public that I am a moron, a buffoon, and a simpleton. My latest challenge with the English language proves once again that I am unable to rub two IQ points together. I hereby resign from the United States Senate - will someone please wake up Senator Byrd and say 'goodbye' for me?"
--
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox
Mod 1.1
'I hereby resign from the United States Senate, the Democratic Party, and the Human Race. I will be retiring to a cave in Pakistan, where I will stay until I can identify the difference between McCain dedicating his life to fight for our country and my sitting on my fat behind in an air-conditioned country house counting my money. - will someone please wake up Senator Byrd and say 'goodbye' for me?"'
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.“--Jeff Cooper. From Bill Coffey's collection of military quotations
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, a prominent McCain supporter, told FOX News shortly after the Rockefeller apology that McCain actually dropped bombs very close to the enemy before he was shot down and taken as a prisoner.
“John didn’t drop bombs at 35,000 feet in Vietnam. The bombs were not laser-guided,” he said. “I’m glad Senator Rockefeller apologized, but at the end of the day behavior like this basically comes from wanting to win too badly. We don’t need to manufacture issues in this race.”
It is NOT the POINT what altitude John McCain was flying at, it is the idea that he was unfeeling in murdering innocent people. THAT was the implication that the idiot Senator from WV was implying.
Lindsey, keep your yap closed. You're as big a fool as Rockefeller.
Unfortunately, it isn't just Graham and Rocky IV. There are dang few of them that are not fools. Even McCain is foolish about some issues.
I'd even go so far as to say that Rocky's whole statement was a slam at his own country. It certainly was a slam at any war effort made by the military.
Rocky is a typical Liberal. I can't think of a worse condemnation for him.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.“--Jeff Cooper. From Bill Coffey's collection of military quotations
beyond being wrong, unless they really give me reason to question their motives. They have to travel, give speeches, try to communicate where they're coming from and where they're going, and they have to concentrate, all at the same time. I find it very easy to misspeak or misjudge under heavy stress and on the fly.
Still, they ask us to trust them, so there's no such thing as too much accountability.
To say that was a case of "mis-speak" boggles the imagination. It's like saying, "I meant to say 'Your new outfit is lovely,' not 'Your uncle is a child molester.'"
If he didn't mean what he said, what the heck did he mean? It wasn't just a bad choice of words, his meaning was obvious whatever the words were. And his meaning was outrageous.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.“--Jeff Cooper. From Bill Coffey's collection of military quotations
the hardscrabble, man-of-the-people upbringing and common touch of John D. Rockefeller IV.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill