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

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It makes a great point, and you can hardly be surprised that he threw out Stratego with the silly reasons you were giving for McCain's experience (born on a military base? Really?).

His point, which you are totally ignoring, is a valid one. To what extent would John McCain be a better commander in chief than Obama? Bush was in the military too. Did that make him a great commander in chief? Reagan also was (despite the fact that you said he wasn't). He was in the cavalry (seriously) and wound up making movies for the army while in service. I honestly would have thought you would have known that about your hero. Was it his army experience that led him to "greatness" as a commander in chief?

The point is that being in the military, in and of itself, doesn't make you qualified to be commander in chief or mean you will be a great commander in chief. There are some experiences that prepare you better than others and that are better predictors than others. McCain fought in active duty. That seems more relevant to me than Bush's service in the national guard, which seems more relevant to me than making movies in the cavalry. But is McCain "highly qualified" as you contest? If he is, it has nothing to do with being born on a military base or being related to soldiers. It also has nothing to do with serving on a committee which, Triplet has pointed out, focuses on military pensions and not on combat troop movements or strategy.

We should also be careful not to conflate military service with "foreign affairs experience." One involves combat, the other involves negotiations and politics, though they do overlap in some ways.

I think you and Triplet are talking past each other in some ways. He is asking what makes McCain "highly qualified" to be commander in chief. You are responding with answers that may indicate a general familiarity with the military, but in no way indicate a sound knowledge of how a president should utilize the military in the field of foreign affairs. We all respect McCain's service in the military (at least, I hope we all do), but that doesn't resolve the issue as to how he would act as president.

Perhaps even more important is to ask why we should care if he is "highly qualified" to be a commander in chief if the manners in which he indicates he would use our military in foreign affairs would be disastrous (even if a highly qualified disaster).

Thank you. You are stating exactly the point I was making....which simply started as a fair question for Tex. I knew when he threw out the "if you dont know I wont tell you" that he had already lost. The personal attack only sealed the deal. YOhio's allusion to a miraculous birth Away in Motorpool didnt help much.

Cali Coug gets it.

Billy Idol gets it.

Why doesnt Tex get it?

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It makes a great point, and you can hardly be surprised that he threw out Stratego with the silly reasons you were giving for McCain's experience (born on a military base? Really?).

That was me, it wasn't Tex. Admittedly a silly comment. It was intended to emphasize his familiarity with the military culture. Kind of like, "Hey, this guy knows the military. He comes from a military family. His whole life has been in and around the military. Hell, he was even born on a military base." Anyways, it didn't quite have the affect I was going for.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It makes a great point, and you can hardly be surprised that he threw out Stratego with the silly reasons you were giving for McCain's experience (born on a military base? Really?).

His point, which you are totally ignoring, is a valid one. To what extent would John McCain be a better commander in chief than Obama? Bush was in the military too. Did that make him a great commander in chief? Reagan also was (despite the fact that you said he wasn't). He was in the cavalry (seriously) and wound up making movies for the army while in service. I honestly would have thought you would have known that about your hero. Was it his army experience that led him to "greatness" as a commander in chief?

The point is that being in the military, in and of itself, doesn't make you qualified to be commander in chief or mean you will be a great commander in chief. There are some experiences that prepare you better than others and that are better predictors than others. McCain fought in active duty. That seems more relevant to me than Bush's service in the national guard, which seems more relevant to me than making movies in the cavalry. But is McCain "highly qualified" as you contest? If he is, it has nothing to do with being born on a military base or being related to soldiers. It also has nothing to do with serving on a committee which, Triplet has pointed out, focuses on military pensions and not on combat troop movements or strategy.

We should also be careful not to conflate military service with "foreign affairs experience." One involves combat, the other involves negotiations and politics, though they do overlap in some ways.

I think you and Triplet are talking past each other in some ways. He is asking what makes McCain "highly qualified" to be commander in chief. You are responding with answers that may indicate a general familiarity with the military, but in no way indicate a sound knowledge of how a president should utilize the military in the field of foreign affairs. We all respect McCain's service in the military (at least, I hope we all do), but that doesn't resolve the issue as to how he would act as president.

Perhaps even more important is to ask why we should care if he is "highly qualified" to be a commander in chief if the manners in which he indicates he would use our military in foreign affairs would be disastrous (even if a highly qualified disaster).

First, some corrections for your inability to read:

1. I did not cite his birth on a military base. I did cite his family history of Admirals.
2. I did not use the term "highly qualified" nor do I see anyone else who did.
3. What TripletDaddy asked for was "credentials." That is what I supplied.

Second, you're conflating two separate thoughts: is McCain credentialed for national security? do those credentials qualify him for commander-in-chief?

The answer to the first question is obvious: yes. McCain has spent a lifetime around the military, as a child, as a young man, as an adult. No clear-thinking person (excludes DDD) can deny that he has been exposed to many facets of military life, that he has a grasp of the issues the military faces. I'm not going to keep arguing this point. It's like listening to somebody tell me the sun is green.

The second question is open for debate, and I don't deny someone's right to disagree. You don't think his experiences qualify him for office? Fine. You don't agree with how he'd use the military? Fine. That's different from making an obtuse argument that playing Stratego makes you McCain's peer in military expertise.

Third, this thread is really about Obama. No matter what someone thinks about McCain--no matter if he had ZERO military experience--Obama is weak on the issue. One can come from a lean military background and still be a great leader but one has to work hard to convince people of that. Reagan did. Obama hasn't.

This is why Obama has to distort McCain's comment. Because he can't get traction any other way on the issue. It reflects his poor positioning.

[Flystripper]

Why do you think that the "military" = "national security". Sure the military is part of the United States national security efforts, but military experience (which nobody denies McCain has in spades) <> National Security experience as far as it pertains to the POTUS.

However, I will concede that Obama cannot site military experience as a reason to vote for him. (duh)

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Flystripper

Why do you think that the "military" = "national security". Sure the military is part of the United States national security efforts, but military experience (which nobody denies McCain has in spades) <> National Security experience as far as it pertains to the POTUS.

However, I will concede that Obama cannot site military experience as a reason to vote for him. (duh)

Tex has repeatedly failed to cite specific accomplishments that relate to issues such as border control, terrorism, or illegal immigration. He keeps going to back to generalities--time spent flying an airplane in Vietnam, the pedigree of his parents, etc. He even insulted my grandfather!

It would be nice if Tex could simply give some specifics. I've already conceded that Obama really doesnt have any. I have also proferred that most POTUS candidates do not.

Humor me, McCain fans......can you name ONE single very specific thing McCain has done that pertains directly to National Security? Any legislation he has drafted? Any law he helped enact? Anything?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Tex

First, some corrections for your inability to read:

1. I did not cite his birth on a military base. I did cite his family history of Admirals.
2. I did not use the term "highly qualified" nor do I see anyone else who did.
3. What TripletDaddy asked for was "credentials." That is what I supplied.

Second, you're conflating two separate thoughts: is McCain credentialed for national security? do those credentials qualify him for commander-in-chief?

The answer to the first question is obvious: yes. McCain has spent a lifetime around the military, as a child, as a young man, as an adult. No clear-thinking person (excludes DDD) can deny that he has been exposed to many facets of military life, that he has a grasp of the issues the military faces. I'm not going to keep arguing this point. It's like listening to somebody tell me the sun is green.

The second question is open for debate, and I don't deny someone's right to disagree. You don't think his experiences qualify him for office? Fine. You don't agree with how he'd use the military? Fine. That's different from making an obtuse argument that playing Stratego makes you McCain's peer in military expertise.

Third, this thread is really about Obama. No matter what someone thinks about McCain--no matter if he had ZERO military experience--Obama is weak on the issue. One can come from a lean military background and still be a great leader but one has to work hard to convince people of that. Reagan did. Obama hasn't.

This is why Obama has to distort McCain's comment. Because he can't get traction any other way on the issue. It reflects his poor positioning.

I honest to goodness don't think Obama has a sophisticated understanding of foreign policy issues at this point. Being only a few years removed from a state legislature you can hardly expect him to. That doesn't mean that he can't come up to speed or surround himself with good advisors. I don't think Bush 43 was all that sophisticated when he took office. I wonder if anyone on the left will argue that his inexperience is irrelevant?

I do think that any Senator, regardless of what committee they sit on, over time gains more of a depth on these issues because they work in the federal government. The three candidates are at different points of progression on this. Obama, if elected, will be just like 43 in that he will need good people he can turn to when tough issues arise because he will, at least initially, lack the depth others might have. This will be true for them all to some degree, but I have to think that McCain after his many, many years of Senate service and having run for president before, having been one who has been constantly asked for his opinion during the last 8 years on this issue and being, frankly, much older, just has a lot more knowledge and experience to draw from. None of that would matter to me if I disagreed with his politics.

I can buy the argument that experience can be overrated. That is what I understand DDD and Cali to be saying. I do think that McCain has a more sophisticated depth of knowledge than his opponents, however, I'm not sure I see that is critical, though I do see it as somewhat preferable.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Flystripper

Why do you think that the "military" = "national security". Sure the military is part of the United States national security efforts, but military experience (which nobody denies McCain has in spades) <> National Security experience as far as it pertains to the POTUS.

That's a fair point, much like Cali's assertion (with which I agree) that military experience does not equal foreign policy experience. But though not equivalent, neither are they entirely divergent either.

I guess my contention is that his experiences have been of such a nature as to grant him political credibility when he speaks on security.

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Tex has repeatedly failed to cite specific accomplishments that relate to issues such as border control, terrorism, or illegal immigration. He keeps going to back to generalities--time spent flying an airplane in Vietnam, the pedigree of his parents, etc. He even insulted my grandfather!

It would be nice if Tex could simply give some specifics. I've already conceded that Obama really doesnt have any. I have also proferred that most POTUS candidates do not.

Humor me, McCain fans......can you name ONE single very specific thing McCain has done that pertains directly to National Security? Any legislation he has drafted? Any law he helped enact? Anything?

I confess I'm not intimately familiar with McCain's legislative record. I'm certainly no fan of his. What I've cited is sufficient for my purposes.

Moreover, your ignorant intransigence has provided me no motivation to do otherwise anyway. You've summarily dismissed 40 years of the man's career as irrelevant--I'm not sure why I should be persuaded that you'd react any more sanely to "ONE specific thing."

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I honest to goodness don't think Obama has a sophisticated understanding of foreign policy issues at this point. Being only a few years removed from a state legislature you can hardly expect him to. That doesn't mean that he can't come up to speed or surround himself with good advisors. I don't think Bush 43 was all that sophisticated when he took office. I wonder if anyone on the left will argue that his inexperience is irrelevant?

Parenthetically, it's interesting that Bush continues to be cited in these discussions as though he were "obviously" underqualified for the job. Almost like, "We tried this before, and look how it turned out." Not exactly a ringing line of logic for Obama supporters. Heh.

In any case, I tend to believe history will be much kinder to Bush than the politics of the moment. Bush fatigue is now high, but the emotion of that memory will fade.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I honest to goodness don't think Obama has a sophisticated understanding of foreign policy issues at this point. Being only a few years removed from a state legislature you can hardly expect him to. That doesn't mean that he can't come up to speed or surround himself with good advisors. I don't think Bush 43 was all that sophisticated when he took office. I wonder if anyone on the left will argue that his inexperience is irrelevant?

I do think that any Senator, regardless of what committee they sit on, over time gains more of a depth on these issues because they work in the federal government. The three candidates are at different points of progression on this. Obama, if elected, will be just like 43 in that he will need good people he can turn to when tough issues arise because he will, at least initially, lack the depth others might have. This will be true for them all to some degree, but I have to think that McCain after his many, many years of Senate service and having run for president before, having been one who has been constantly asked for his opinion during the last 8 years on this issue and being, frankly, much older, just has a lot more knowledge and experience to draw from. None of that would matter to me if I disagreed with his politics.

I can buy the argument that experience can be overrated. That is what I understand DDD and Cali to be saying. I do think that McCain has a more sophisticated depth of knowledge than his opponents, however, I'm not sure I see that is critical, though I do see it as somewhat preferable.

Bush 43 wasn't bad at foreign policy due to a lack of experience. Condi Rice has a ton of experience in foreign affairs and she has also been a disaster. Both Bush 43 and Condi Rice suffer from the same flaw that makes them bad in foreign affairs: poor judgment.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Tex

Moreover, your ignorant intransigence has provided me no motivation to do otherwise anyway. You've summarily dismissed 40 years of the man's career as irrelevant--I'm not sure why I should be persuaded that you'd react any more sanely to "ONE specific thing."

So you basically cannot think of one.

Why accuse me of intransigence? I stated from the beginning that I didnt think either one was particular qualified. Hardly a stubborn position. And a bit hypocritical given that you continue to refuse to respond to a very reasonable request.

Did you know that McCain crashed his plane into some power lines before he even went to Vietnam? I guess he was in a few crashes, but one time was into a mess of power lines.

Perhaps if he had paid more attention while at the Naval Academy...

Check out this link to the US Veteran Dispatch. Even Vets are not too hot on John as CIC. Surely, veterns who understand war, understand what it takes to win a war, and have served their country would have a qualified opinion, no?

Or maybe they are all being intransigent?

http://www.usvetdsp.com/jan08/mccain...ary_record.htm

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjoh...ost_five_u.htm

[Tex]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

So you basically cannot think of one.

Why accuse me of intransigence? I stated from the beginning that I didnt think either one was particular qualified. Hardly a stubborn position. And a bit hypocritical given that you continue to refuse to respond to a very reasonable request.

Did you know that McCain crashed his plane into some power lines before he even went to Vietnam? I guess he was in a few crashes, but one time was into a mess of power lines.

Perhaps if he had paid more attention while at the Naval Academy...

Check out this link to the US Veteran Dispatch. Even Vets are not too hot on John as CIC. Surely, veterns who understand war, understand what it takes to win a war, and have served their country would have a qualified opinion, no?

Or maybe they are all being intransigent?

http://www.usvetdsp.com/jan08/mccain...ary_record.htm

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjoh...ost_five_u.htm

I've already said, people are welcome to look at his record and decide they disagree with his approach. They just can't say the record either doesn't exist or doesn't matter, as you have.