Quote:
Originally Posted by TripletDaddy
This is likely best answered by Tex. It is his offering, not mine. Tex claimed that Obama lacked any real security credentials. I asked him for 3 or 4 specific examples of national security credentials.
So far, we have, amongst others, that he was born on a military base (that one was yours. It was pretty sweet, actually), that he went to the Naval Academy about 50 years ago, that he was a pilot in Vietnam (shot down and captured, btw), and that he currently sits on an oversight committee with Liddy Dole helping to decide fair pensions for retired soldiers.
I don't see how any of this pertains specifically to our current national security threats...ie, terrorism, border patrol, and illegal immigration. Help me see it.
McCain is the Senator for a state that is one of the most notoriously LACKING in border control. Has he done anything in AZ that has helped control the tide of illegal immigrants? I think that is way more relevant than the fact that his grandfather was a soldier.
When pressed about Reagan's complete lack of national security experience, the only response seems to be, "well, Reagan was different, but I cant really explain why...."
|
I have no opinion on Obama's National Defense credibility, but I've got to throw in here...
To minimize the effect personal experience in the military has in one's understanding of the workings of said military, the effects of war on soldiers, and so on, is incredibly dishonest. This knowledge on the inner workings of the military cannot be underestimated in terms of National Defense.
Furthermore, while the fact that my father was a retail-store manager for 30 years doesn't qualify me as being a credentialed economist, it certainly gives me some insight into the effects of minimum wages on the operation of a business. My degree in economics, however recent, certainly does give me those credentials.
The items Tex listed are, to me, compelling reasons to trust McCain in terms of National Defense as POTUS.
IMO, you're barking up the wrong tree here. Your best bet is the route Cali has taken. I find his arguments in this case to be far more compelling. Alternatively, pointing out the inherent fallacy in the original post would be the way I would go (specifically, that attacking someone using that person's support for an unpopular war isn't defensive in nature at all - it's an offensive tactic, and may well be effective in the anti-war community).