The Next Commander In Chief
Posted March 29th, 2008 by Da King
As the Clinton/Obama mud-slinging festival continues, voters must be confused. Should they reject Hillary for making things up out of thin air, or should they reject Obama for hanging with his racist pastor for 20 years ? Decisions, decisions. The voters COULD look at the issues, but good luck finding any differences between the two candidates there. They both serve the same puppetmaster. It's said 'Vive le difference !', but in this case, there's no difference to vive. Instead, let's look to one of the Democratic heavyweight deep thinkers, DNC head Howard Dean (the Democrat's answer to Dan Quayle) for a suggestion.
Here's what Howie says about who you should vote for:
“The real issue is this. Who would you rather have in charge of the defense of the United States of America, a group of people who never served a day overseas in their life, or a guy who served his country honorably and has three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star on the battlefields of Vietnam?”
Point well made, Howie. Sounds like a strong endorsement of John McCain to me. Now, Mr. Dean did make the above statement in 2004, and he was talking about Jon Carry, but I'm sure Dean, being an honorable man (lol), would see that McCain's military resume is quite a bit stronger than Hanoi John's. I mean, at least McCain didn't commit treason. That should count for something. Then again, treason might be a plus with today's hate america far left crowd….
But I digress. It seems Sen. John McCain is going to launch a biography tour next week, and he will talk about his days as a Vietnam POW. In response, the honorable (lol) Howard Dean issued the following statement:
“John McCain can try to reintroduce himself to the country, but he can’t change the fact that he cast aside his principles to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with President Bush the last seven years. While we honor McCain’s military service, the fact is Americans want a real leader who offers real solutions, not a blatant opportunist who doesn’t understand the economy and is promising to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years.”
The McCain people didn't much like Dean calling McCain a "blatant opportunist" in response to McCain talking about Vietnam. They think McCain has earned the right to talk about it, and then some. Also, it's about time to drop the 'McCain promises to keep the troops in Iraq for 100 years' crapola. The honorable (lol) Howard Dean knows darn well that McCain promised nothing of the sort, and was only referring to a possible small leftover guardian force, like we've had in Germany and Japan for 60+ years, not a large active fighting force. The equally honorable Obama and Clinton know this as well.
John McCain, btw, has been awarded the Silver Star, the Legion of Merit, two Bronze Star Medals, a Purple Heart and the Distinguished Flying Cross. That takes away the Left's 'chickenhawk' strategy for this election cycle (darn the luck !), especially since Barry and Hillary haven't served in the military at all, though Hillary took imaginary sniper fire. Thus, unlike 2004, military service will be MEANINGLESS to the Democrats. The Dems will do a complete 180 degree turnaround on the issue, and even turn McCain's military service into a negative. Instead of the 'John Kerry, reporting for duty' theme, the Dems are using a 'John McCain, warmongering Bush 3rd termer' meme (that word's for you, Rev). The Dems are, like I said, very honorable.
And they support the troops, no doubt about that.
Just like they did in Vietnam, a war that we won on the battlefield, but lost in the press and in the realm of public opinion. As General William Westmoreland said of US involvement in Vietnam:
"It's not that we lost the war militarily. The fact is we as a nation did not make good our commitment to the South Vietnamese."
The enemy in Vietnam said the same thing. Here's General Vo Nguyen Giap, supreme leader of the North Vietnamese Army, in a 1989 interview with CBS:
“We paid a high price [during the Tet offensive] but so did you [Americans]… not only in lives and materiel. Do not forget the war was brought into the living rooms of the American people… The most important result of the Tet offensive was it made you de-escalate the bombing, and it brought you to the negotiation table. It was, therefore, a victory… The war was fought on many fronts. At that time the most important one was American public opinion.”
Sounds like deja vu all over again. What's that they say about people who ignore history ?
March 29th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
I think it's something like, "People who ignore history love to raise taxes."
March 30th, 2008 at 9:54 am
" …. Vietnam, a war that we won on the battlefield, but lost in the press and in the realm of public opinion."
Yes! The war in Vietnam was lost — actually, not lost as much as it wasn't won — because of the Left in this country. And these very same people are now trying to sabotage the war in Iraq.
NB: There are many people who were (and still are) against the war in Iraq for honest reasons. This does not include the American-hating Left who always roots for our enemies no matter what. Unfortunately, an influencial segment of the Dim Party fits into this catagory.
+++
And speaking of documents, let’s note that documents have been found that show Hugo Chavez is trying to subvert the government of Colombia by supporting the leftwing guerillas there.
March 30th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Total nonsense, of course, but not unexpected.
Dean wasn't criticizing McCain's blatant opportunism because of his constant reference to the POW days. That has nothing to do with Dean's comment…..as he clearly made plain to all non-neo-cons.
McCain has been a flip-flopper on many issues…..you know that….that is what Dean was referring to…..you knew that too.
But as far as refighting the Vietnam quagmire….
America made a mistake in escalating U.S. militarism in Vietnam. A huge mistake. There was nothing to win. The enemy was difficult to determine. There was no exit strategy
That describes Iraq as well. Just more fraud.
You and Ghost and McCain have to re-fight the Vietnam quagmire in order to blur the current middle eastern quagmire with the Southeast Asia American quagmire.
The same mistakes were made in both quagmires. Neo-cons blame all this on liberals who recognized the quagmire for what it was and ….is again today. Somehow the narrative becomes again that the commie liberals just won't let us win.
No credibility in any of it.
March 30th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
I have to agree with rev, king, on McCain. He's not a flip flopper in the order of Kerry, but he's certainly the next level. You guys have all admitted that in the past. I just wish people would admit they are voting for these candidates because they see them as the lesser of two evils than actually saying they support them.
March 30th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Read what Enlightened has to say on the Obama changing on Iraq blog. It's right on the money.
March 30th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
As far as commander-in-chief is concerned, there can be no comparisons to McCain. We know Hillary was an anti-war radical, in her youth, and Obama seems to fit the same bill when it comes to our military. They can ding McCain for supporting G. Bush, but they cannot take away from his valor.
The 100 year arguement makes for a nice soundbite, but any educated person catches drift of what is implied. After all is said and done, the area will require a presence to prevent the progress from coming undone. If we must have a presence for 100 years, it would be no different than our other occupations throughout the world, especially when dealing with islamo-fascism.
The flip-side to that scenario is a dire one. Remove all troops, let the violence escalate, and the spread of that "disease" will have us once again drawn in.
There has always been a question which seems to elude the candidates……………………"Did you ever think about serving your country?" and "What was so important to prevent you from doing so?"
Instead of constantly trying to revise the electoral college, maybe there should be an addendum added to the pre-requisites for becoming president.
If one wishes to lead this country, they must first serve this country! Before anyone pipes off on a tangent, I'm not defending G.Bush or anyone else that received preferential treatment to avoid military service. It would just be nice for every candidate to have a frame of reference, when it comes to our military.
Possibly then, they wouldn't be so eager to smear generals, vandalize recruitment facilities, and pander to the anti-war goons.
March 30th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Alexander D suggests two questions that should be posed to the presidential candidates.
The first is, "Did you ever think about serving your country?" and the second is, "What was so important to prevent you from doing so?"
Thanks for the set-shot, Alex.
Let's all recall that Comrade Hillary claims she tried to enlist in the Marines [come on, guys, stop laughing] but was turned down because she was a woman, and back in those days, women needed not apply.
Yes, this is the same college radical who, when she became First Lady, was quoted as saying how much she despised those in the military. Her leftwing hate was so great towards our service men & women that it even extended to the poor Secret Service agents who were assigned to protect her.
Ah those Clintons. a class act all the way — third class that is.
March 31st, 2008 at 12:58 am
Reverend Red, would you please explain in third grade English so we can see that you really do understand, these words that Howie Dean spoke? ***While we honor McCain’s military service, the fact is Americans want a real leader who offers real solutions, not a blatant opportunist who doesn’t understand the economy and is promising to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years.”***
I keep having trouble understanding the solutions that Obama is offering. For some reason I don't see "hope" and "change" as any kind of solutions. I really do need for you to explain to me what Dean did mean by the blatant opportunist statement there. Also, I wonder just how much Obama understands the economy but doesn't admit not knowing. For some reason I think that since Alexander Hamilton was Washington's main man with the economy there hasn't been a lot of Presidents who were economists. Somehow this seems like one of Dean's silliest statements since "Eeeeaaaaaggggghhhhhh." Remember when he said that one and was thrown on the heap of used up President Wannabes?
March 31st, 2008 at 4:58 am
da truth,
Just about every conservative I know, including myself, already HAS admitted that McCain was not their first choice. I have already written posts critical of McCain. Must I repeat that every time I mention the man's name ?
That being said, McCain's still better than the Hopester or Clinton 2.0 in my eyes. It IS the lesser of two evils. It almost always is for me. My preferred candidate never wins.
March 31st, 2008 at 5:06 am
Roy,
I have to defend Obama here. During his recent speech on the economy, Obama offered up a couple ideas.
They were OTHER PEOPLE'S ideas, but Obama had no problem offering them up as if they were his own. Obama even pretended previously that he co-sponsored Chris Dodd's bill, until that was exposed as being false. Between Obama and Hillary, there is so much imaginary experience and accomplishment that it boggles the mind. The old phrase 'baffle 'em with bs' comes to mind.
And I think 'hope' and 'change' ARE solutions. Let me explain:
I 'hope' people 'change' their minds about voting for Obama, and vote for someone else instead.
March 31st, 2008 at 6:53 am
"I 'hope' people 'change' their minds about voting for Obama, and vote for someone else instead."
Your hope is being granted, King.
Many people who voted for BO in the earlier primaries are now kicking themselves since Omama has been exposed as a 20-year member in the Rev. Wright Church of Hate.
April 1st, 2008 at 9:32 am
Correction to "people…now kicking themselves" over their Obama vote. Obama has opened a 10% lead among national Democrats over Hillary. Facts are stubborn. Obama, currently, has a five point lead in a matchup with McCain.
Understandably, arch-conservatives are afraid of an Obama presidency. These conservatives will spin out, in real time, a phony narrative of events transpiring. Just as they have done with EVERY story or fact over the last 7 years or more.
That's the reason why the resident arch-conservative spun out a totally bogus line like, people who voted for Obama are kicking themselves.
April 1st, 2008 at 9:47 am
roy: How ya' doin' out there in tornado territory? I see you're still making life miserable for those lefties. Keep it up….it will make you live longer.
***While we honor McCain’s military service, the fact is Americans want a real leader who offers real solutions, not a blatant opportunist who doesn’t understand the economy and is promising to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years.”***
Dean acknowledged and honored McCain for his military service. That's the first point.
Dean said "real solutions" are what is needed and not a "blatant opportunist". In this, Dean was implying McCain's statements about "staying the course" in Iraq and the middle east and his new flip-flop favoring even more tax cuts, something which he previously opposed…..are not real solutions but simply opportunistic statements to solidify the neo-conservative and Grover Norquist Republicans.
Now I'll grant you, for old time's sake, that McCain didn't mean American troops should be fighting in Iraq for 100 years. I don't think for a minute that he really wants that to happen. At the same time, roy, why did he say such a thing and why does he continue to stand behind it?
Dean is saying it was all opportunistic red-meat for the far right. Looks like there's, at the very least, some truth to that.
April 4th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Ooh, Rev, you found a new word, "arch-conservative". Is that a conservative who wears one of those pointy hats, like an archbishop wears ? I always get a kick out of your over-the-top lingo.
When it comes to narratives about Obama or Hillary, nothing phony needs be said. The truth does quite nicely.
And since you acknowledge that McCain didn't mean he wants american troops fighting in Iraq for 100 years, will you now condemn Obama for peddling THAT phony narrative ? He keeps repeating the charge over and over, knowing full well that it's a lie.