Amazon.com Widgets

« A Book For You | Main | Nader on Limbaugh »

McCain's Big Lie

John McCain seems to think that being a 'war hero' and a POW means he can tell lies about his support for the military. There are others who have served their country in the military who are in the perfect position to call him on his bullshit.




Quicktime Video 8.8 MB | Duration: 05'56
Quicktime 7 required
This file is available for download here.
Ctrl-Click and 'Download Linked File' (Mac)
or Rt-Click and 'Save Target As' (PC) the link above.

Countdown w/Keith Olbermann
Keith's latest book is Truth and Consequences: Special Comments on the Bush Administration's War on American Values

 

Comments

I crashed my car once, does that qualify me to be Secretary of State?

I think it qualifies you for Secretary of Transportation.

The Rovian analysis of the campaign so far:

What, the largest group on Obama's website is a protest group? What, there's someone in McCain's audience with an IQ higher than a turnip who exposed McCain's lies? What kind of amateurs are running these operations? It is so sad to see the state of politics today.

I feel like this campaign should be reclassified as torture. Can I call myself a POW now?

So I don't get it... exactly WHY did McCretin vote against these bills? ;-)

although it may sound like i am defending McCain here i'm really not. without knowing much more/anything about those bills he voted against, i have a sneaking suspicion they may have been loaded with earmarks and what not (what else is new?)

on another note, i wis that whenever McCain is criticized on his politics (after all he is running for prez right?) we wouldn't have to go the whole rigamarole of having to issue a disclaimer to the effect of "we respect McCain's service blah blah blah".

May the Vogons recite poetry at him.

without knowing much more/anything about those bills he voted against, i have a sneaking suspicion they may have been loaded with earmarks and what not (what else is new?)

Bingo. It's probably the oldest political trick in the book: introduce a bill with a good-sounding name, attach a bunch of riders that you know will cause the bill to be rejected, then trumpet the rejection of the bill as the rejection of the titular concept.

Even disregarding the dishonesty of this type of attack, it's patently ludicrous to imagine a member of a left-wing, anti-military party (the Democrats) would in any way be more supportive of the military than a war veteran.

Bingo. ...Even disregarding the dishonesty of this type of attack, it's patently ludicrous to imagine a member of a left-wing, anti-military party (the Democrats) would in any way be more supportive of the military than a war veteran.
Thanks for the Laugh Callgirl, been a long time since you've made me LOL Google people, it only takes 20 seconds to find out why mccain voted against it and campaigned against it. Don't troll. [washingtonpost](http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/26/mccain_slams_webb_on_gi_bill_i.html)
Sen. John McCain asserted that the G.I. Bill sponsored by Virginia Sen. James Webb will drive soldiers out of the armed services at a time when the country is trying to expand the size of the military.

McCain:

"I detest war," he said. "It might not be the worst thing to befall human beings, but it is wretched beyond all description. When nations seek to resolve their differences by force of arms, a million tragedies ensue."

And a Veterans group view on the McCain GI Bill he floated in place of Webbs bill

And from CBS news:

“There are fundamental differences,” McCain told Politico. “He creates a new bureaucracy and new rules. His bill offers the same benefits whether you stay three years or longer."

McCain voted against it because he wanted career soldiers, and felt that giving them an education when the left after 3 years would give them incentive to leave.

His answer here in the Posted clip is entirely disengenous. Maybe he forgot why he opposed it though. The chance for senility does increase between 3-7% each year over the age of 65.

more info from Time

Oh, and since Calligraph has problems reading information, how about a few videos..

1

2

The veteran in the video is asking why McCain voted against increasing healthcare funding for the Veterans Administration. And not about the G.I. Bill. So while you are correct about the G.I. Bill, Magnolia, its not in fact what we are talking about. FYI.

Sen. John McCain asserted that the G.I. Bill sponsored by Virginia Sen. James Webb will drive soldiers out of the armed services at a time when the country is trying to expand the size of the military.

So after all the blustering and childish name-calling, you just admit my point was correct?

As I stated, McCain voted against the bill because he disagreed with the actual content, and he is being lambasted for his decision based upon the bullshit summary.

Oh, and you accidentally called me 'calligraph' in the second reply. I insist you keep using 'callgirl' while labeling me a troll. It helps prove my position about liberal hypocrisy.

Calligraph:

You never stated that McCain voted against the bill because he disagreed with the actual content. It also never said anything in the bill about driving out soldiers, this was a conclusion McCain embraced as a possibility; he however did not bother to think that it would also increase recruitment rates.

I thinks it's fair to say that Magnolia got it right. McCain wants career soldiers. I can somewhat understand his position since in order to have a functioning military you need soldiers to become officers. He however seems to have issues articulating that point.

It sounded like the questioner was talking about past votes on expanding healthcare for veterans, not the recent GI Bill introduced by Webb. We could discuss that as well, but I think it's a separate issue.

he's got the medals and awards and awards and medals to prove that he loves the military more than any of you. when did that stop being enough for you guys? sheeesh

I'm glad to have a liberal opinion/news show on cable, but do they need to treat us like idiots by 'summarizing' each clip in a slanted way? Why not just let the clips speak for themselves?

Bingo. It's probably the oldest political trick in the book: introduce a bill with a good-sounding name, attach a bunch of riders that you know will cause the bill to be rejected, then trumpet the rejection of the bill as the rejection of the titular concept.

Strange how this makes sense for McCain, but some how not Obama. Incidentally, the recent Webb GI bill had no such ridings attached. And McCain's reason for voting against it wasn't pork--it was that a GAO report showed that RE-enlistment what would drop 16%, a fact McCain recited repeatedly. Unfortunately for you and McCain, the same GAO report showed that first time enlistment would increase by exactly the same percentage--16%.

Besides: what is more important? A little bit of pork, or a lot of health care for vets, some of whom have had, such as in the case of Walter Reed, abominable care.

Even disregarding the dishonesty of this type of attack...

OK, so you know exactly nothing about this man asking the question, and know nothing about these bills--specifically whether they had pork spending attached or not--and you move from pointing out these uncertainties to inferring from them that the vet who claims such knowledge is a "dishonest" hack? How would you know? And how is that not exactly the same kind of dishonesty which you are charging others of?

And not about the G.I. Bill. So while you are correct about the G.I. Bill, Magnolia, its not in fact what we are talking about. FYI.
Sorry, I was so pissed about his mischaracterization of the Webb GI bill I was stuck on that.
So after all the blustering and childish name-calling, you just admit my point was correct?

You never made said point about McCain rejecting the bill due to enlistment rates.

It's probably the oldest political trick in the book: introduce a bill with a good-sounding name, attach a bunch of riders that you know will cause the bill to be rejected, then trumpet the rejection of the bill as the rejection of the titular concept.

And, if this were the case for voting against veteran funding, it would have been THE moment for McCain to bring up his much touted campaign point of "earmarks" that he loves to bring up so much. He stands by his votes with only the defense of "Vet groups support me". Then, in the interview after, they directly show that mccain get pretty poor ratings in supporting veterans by two separate groups. The facts do not look good for mccain and "supporting veterans".

what is interesting for me is that McCain is doing badly in these town hall meetings that he attends. He just attacked a veteran. It may be that there were good reasons (in his opinion) to oppose some of these bills, but he did not even attempt to answer the question. He could have easily stated, give me the bills names and i will get back to the public about my vote on those bills, talked about politics and how your votes can be mistrued etc. Plus he was clearly upset and a bit angry, should have been more charming etc.

Obama is making misteps all the time too, but realistically McCain is just not doing as well as i thought he would. I actually wonder if he really is getting old ? He can be pretty funny and charming, but he just seems so stiff and uninspiring these days.

...it's patently ludicrous to imagine a member of a left-wing, anti-military party (the Democrats) would in any way be more supportive of the military than a war veteran.

Er, how have the Republicans been any less anti-military than the Democrats?

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives