Obama knows he's going to get slaughtered on national security

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

But Reagan had been governor of California and Obama has no experience whatsoever. Reagan had the ear of the military, but Obama is considered the enemy of the military. That aspect is significant.

Obama is considered the "enemy of the military?" Where do you get that idea? If you mean "Archaea considers Obama the enemy of the military," we can agree. Otherwise...

What does being governor of California have to do with foreign affairs as opposed to being a US Senator?

Check out this link, Arch... It doesn't seem to support your theory.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...ry_shifti.html

[Tex]

We've been over this before, Cali. Obviously experience is not the sole predictor of Presidential success.

To TripletDaddy's question ... are you serious about McCain's credentials? Have you familiarized yourself with the man's history at all? Listen, I'm no McCain fan as anyone here can tell you, but there's no question he understands the military. Let's at least be real here.

And no, Reagan did not have significant national security credentials. But then again he didn't get slaughtered on the issue because of it either; he didn't need to lie about Carter's failures (or misconstrue some idle comment) because they were obvious. In fact if memory serves, Reagan came across as infinitely better prepared on the issue than the sitting President. And Reagan wasn't perfect in office anyway. Not long ago his cut-and-run from Beirut was mentioned. But Reagan's foreign policy successes far outweighed any failures.

Thus the comparison is obtuse. Obama has none of this. He has no gravitas. He has no credibility. Earlier in the campaign he sounded more like a Code Pink protestor than a responsible adult commander-in-chief. Obama isn't Reagan. He's Kofi Annan.

But don't take my word for it. Watch his campaign. Watch what a big deal he makes out of the so-called "100-year war". This is not the rhetoric of a man confident in the American people's support of his security positions.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Tex

We've been over this before, Cali. Obviously experience is not the sole predictor of Presidential success.

To TripletDaddy's question ... are you serious about McCain's credentials? Have you familiarized yourself with the man's history at all? Listen, I'm no McCain fan as anyone here can tell you, but there's no question he understands the military. Let's at least be real here.

Thus the comparison is obtuse. Obama has none of this. He has no gravitas. He has no credibility. Earlier in the campaign he sounded more like a Code Pink protestor than a responsible adult commander-in-chief. Obama isn't Reagan. He's Kofi Annan.

Again, do me the favor and outline what his credentials are. Your response is simply evasive and non-responsive. Being a soldier, spending a chunk of it as a POW, does not give you "national security credentials." Please walk me through what you feel are his top 3 or 4 specific traits or credentials that give him a clear advantage over Obama. I am pretty clueless as to these obvious characteristics to which you refer. Sounds like you are too.

To everyone else who has responded, Reagan actually proves my point....he had ZERO national security experience when elected...yet his charisma and his oratory (tear down this wall) was very effective...as was the accumulation of silos all over the globe. Arch mentioned California as a redeeming quality on Reagan's resume, but I am sure he was joking, as being the Governor of California has nothing to do with establishing "national security credentials."

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Again, do me the favor and outline what his credentials are. Your response is simply evasive and non-responsive. Being a soldier, spending a chunk of it as a POW, does not give you "national security credentials." Please walk me through what you feel are his top 3 or 4 specific traits or credentials that give him a clear advantage over Obama. I am pretty clueless as to these obvious characteristics to which you refer. Sounds like you are too.

To everyone else who has responded, Reagan actually proves my point....he had ZERO national security experience when elected...yet his charisma and his oratory (tear down this wall) was very effective...as was the accumulation of silos all over the globe. Arch mentioned California as a redeeming quality on Reagan's resume, but I am sure he was joking, as being the Governor of California has nothing to do with establishing "national security credentials."

The big difference that I see between and Obama when it comes to national defense is that Reagan wouldn't hesitate to kick some ass. Obama thinks we should talk.

I'd prefer a guy who doesn't put up with any crap and McCain is more like that.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Again, do me the favor and outline what his credentials are. Your response is simply evasive and non-responsive. Being a soldier, spending a chunk of it as a POW, does not give you "national security credentials." Please walk me through what you feel are his top 3 or 4 specific traits or credentials that give him a clear advantage over Obama. I am pretty clueless as to these obvious characteristics to which you refer. Sounds like you are too.

Graduate of the the Naval Academy, Aviator in the Navy and continued military service until 1981, a year before he was elected to congress.

He comes from a military family. Born on a military base. Grew up in the military culture. His direct ancestors have fought in every war the U.S. has entered into, including his father as a commanding officer in Vietnam.

Ranking member and former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Cmmte.

In sum, McCain has spent his entire life in and around the military. His family life, education, career, and political career have all been tied to the military.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

The big difference that I see between and Obama when it comes to national defense is that Reagan wouldn't hesitate to kick some ass. Obama thinks we should talk.

I'd prefer a guy who doesn't put up with any crap and McCain is more like that.

I am fine with all of that.

If your conclusion is simply, "look, i dont really have any specifics, i just like X instead of Y," then cool. More power to you.

But if someone starts talking BS about how one candidate lacks "national security credentials," then I want to know exactly what credentials the other candidate has that absolves him from the same accusation. Clue me in if you have it all figured out.

Tex is basically unable to point to specific things, so he responds with the old "if you dont know, I am not going to tell you."

The bottom line is that McCain really has no national security credentials.

He was a soldier in Vietnam, but not sure how that makes him qualified to ensure the safety of our own borders. He cant even keep Arizona's border intact. Also, as a soldier, he was shot down and captured for 5 years. Awesome. He is SO much more qualified....

[Tex]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Again, do me the favor and outline what his credentials are. Your response is simply evasive and non-responsive. Being a soldier, spending a chunk of it as a POW, does not give you "national security credentials." Please walk me through what you feel are his top 3 or 4 specific traits or credentials that give him a clear advantage over Obama. I am pretty clueless as to these obvious characteristics to which you refer. Sounds like you are too.

It's not evasive and non-responsive. I'm simply stunned that someone would ask such a stupid question, particularly when the answers are so widely available. There's plenty of places to get educated about his military involvement (here's his Wikipedia page, for starters), but here's a quick summation:

- Grandfather was a Navy Admiral
- Father was a Navy Admiral (thus he grew up around military life and culture)
- US Naval Academy Graduate
- Naval Flight school graduate
- Served 6 years as naval combat pilot, including surviving two crashes
- Had flown 23 bombing missions when captured in Vietnam
- Spent 5.5 years as POW, surviving torture
- Attended National War College
- Became CO of a Florida training squadron and earned Meritorius Unit Commendation
- Served as US Senate Naval liason for 4 years
- Retired after 20 years in the Navy at rank of Captain
- Served on the Senate Armed Forces Committee since 1987 (is currently the Ranking Minority member)
- Was member of Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs

Refer to this list the next time you get an ignorant urge to call me "clueless".

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

To everyone else who has responded, Reagan actually proves my point....he had ZERO national security experience when elected...yet his charisma and his oratory (tear down this wall) was very effective...as was the accumulation of silos all over the globe. Arch mentioned California as a redeeming quality on Reagan's resume, but I am sure he was joking, as being the Governor of California has nothing to do with establishing "national security credentials."

Perhaps I unnecessarily distracted from my point by using the word "credentials". It appears to have distracted the myopic to highlighting every successful president who had no military experience. Yes, there exists a successful commander-in-chief who was once an actor. This is no great secret. You think you're the first to come up with it?

Obama doesn't have any credibility on national security. Reagan did. Rightly or wrongly, people believed Reagan ... they felt he knew what he was talking about and they trusted his vision of what America should be abroad. And once in office, Reagan proved that by and large, he DID know what he was doing.

Obama doesn't have that. And he's up against a candidate who can make an even better case for himself than Reagan did. This 100-year distortion reflects that insecurity. If you can't see that--what a great weakness this is for him--you're just whistling Dixie.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

The bottom line is that McCain really has no national security credentials.

This statement alone reflects so much ignorance it really makes further discussion pointless.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by YOhio

Graduate of the the Naval Academy, Aviator in the Navy and continued military service until 1981, a year before he was elected to congress.

He comes from a military family. Born on a military base. Grew up in the military culture. His direct ancestors have fought in every war the U.S. has entered into, including his father as a commanding officer in Vietnam.

Ranking member and former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Cmmte.

In sum, McCain has spent his entire life in and around the military. His family life, education, career, and political career have all been tied to the military.

Walk me through his military service, as it pertains to "national security credentials."

Born on a military base? His direct ancestors and family were in the military? Serious?

If that is where we are at, then just do yourself a favor and admit that you are not really aware of any specific credentials pertaining to national security.

The only one I would agree with as being remotely persuasive is his tenure on the Armed Services Committee...except I have no real idea what he does on that committee. It is mostly an oversight committe. Liddy Dole is a member, too. Should we elect her on her national security credentials? Also, the ASC oversees pensions, R&D, and other ancillary matters.

The real decisions are made by the Pentagon, not the ASC. Unless we are worried about a President who can help make decisions about retirement benefits for old soldiers.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Tex

It's not evasive and non-responsive. I'm simply stunned that someone would ask such a stupid question, particularly when the answers are so widely available. There's plenty of places to get educated about his military involvement (here's his Wikipedia page, for starters), but here's a quick summation:

- Grandfather was a Navy Admiral
- Father was a Navy Admiral (thus he grew up around military life and culture)
- US Naval Academy Graduate
- Naval Flight school graduate
- Served 6 years as naval combat pilot, including surviving two crashes
- Had flown 23 bombing missions when captured in Vietnam
- Spent 5.5 years as POW, surviving torture
- Attended National War College
- Became CO of a Florida training squadron and earned Meritorius Unit Commendation
- Served as US Senate Naval liason for 4 years
- Retired after 20 years in the Navy at rank of Captain
- Served on the Senate Armed Forces Committee since 1987 (is currently the Ranking Minority member)
- Was member of Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs

Refer to this list the next time you get an ignorant urge to call me "clueless".



Perhaps I unnecessarily distracted from my point by using the word "credentials". It appears to have distracted the myopic to highlighting every successful president who had no military experience. Yes, there exists a successful commander-in-chief who was once an actor. This is no great secret. You think you're the first to come up with it?

Obama doesn't have any credibility on national security. Reagan did. Rightly or wrongly, people believed Reagan ... they felt he knew what he was talking about and they trusted his vision of what America should be abroad. And once in office, Reagan proved that by and large, he DID know what he was doing.

Obama doesn't have that. And he's up against a candidate who can make an even better case for himself than Reagan did. This 100-year distortion reflects that insecurity. If you can't see that--what a great weakness this is for him--you're just whistling Dixie.

Your basic contention was that since he went to a military academy, flew in Vietnam, and now sits on a Committee that helps oversee military pensions, that he also has some level of expertise on national security.

My grandfather was a WW2 soldier. My father was in the National Guard (before I was born). I guess that gives me some measure of national security credential. Sweet. Maybe I should run for office.