[MiNe 109]

There will be a right-wing faux-outrage hissy fit today based on an
out-of-context quote. Just ignore it.

Stephen

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Jun 30, 5:54*am, MiNe 109 wrote:
There will be a right-wing faux-outrage hissy fit today based on an
out-of-context quote. Just ignore it.

Are you talking about the comments that Obama has rejected from
Clark?

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...0/1175471.aspx

"*** UPDATE *** Here's a statement from Obama spokesman Bill Burton on
Wes Clark's controversial comments about McCain's military service.
"As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects
Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's
statement by General Clark." "

Or is there something else Obama should reject that I'm not aware of?

Seems like Barack is doing more rejecting of dems and nutty preachers
lately than republicans.

ScottW

This is exactly what is wrong about our political climate. Clark didn't
day anything that needed an apology. Clark should stand by it because
he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject Clark's comments.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

This is exactly what is wrong about our political climate. Clark didn't
day anything that needed an apology. Clark should stand by it because
he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject Clark's comments.

Why do say he's right? I thought McCain is offering his experience in the
Senate as his primary qualification. Did I miss something?

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

Jenn said:

This is exactly what is wrong about our political climate. Clark didn't
day anything that needed an apology. Clark should stand by it because
he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject Clark's comments.

Why do say he's right? I thought McCain is offering his experience in the
Senate as his primary qualification. Did I miss something?

Clark was right. He didn't show disrespect toward McCain's military
experience. He simply said that being a fighter pilot and being shot
down isn't a qualification for the Presidency. He's right.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

This is exactly what is wrong about our political climate. Clark didn't
day anything that needed an apology. Clark should stand by it because
he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject Clark's comments.

Why do say he's right? I thought McCain is offering his experience in the
Senate as his primary qualification. Did I miss something?

Clark was right. He didn't show disrespect toward McCain's military
experience. He simply said that being a fighter pilot and being shot
down isn't a qualification for the Presidency. He's right.

Well, unless McCain claimed getting shot down *is* a qualification, Clark
made a gratuitous snot-attack. You're against those, right? Suppose Hannity
or some other talking head said being half-black isn't a qualification to
be President. Wouldn't that be gratuitous snot? When you use the phrase
"not a qualification" in the proximity of a candidate's name, the
implication is clear. If Clark thinks McCain isn't qualified, he should say
why he believes that instead of making snide comments like a third-rate
political operative.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Jun 30, 12:48*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Jenn said:

This is exactly what is wrong about our political climate. *Clark
didn't
day anything that needed an apology. *Clark should stand by it
because
he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject Clark's comments.

Why do say he's right? I thought McCain is offering his experience in
the
Senate as his primary qualification. Did I miss something?

Clark was right. *He didn't show disrespect toward McCain's military
experience. *He simply said that being a fighter pilot and being shot
down isn't a qualification for the Presidency. *He's right.

Well, unless McCain claimed getting shot down *is* a qualification, Clark
made a gratuitous snot-attack. You're against those, right? Suppose Hannity
or some other talking head said being half-black isn't a qualification to
be President. Wouldn't that be gratuitous snot? When you use the phrase
"not a qualification" in the proximity of a candidate's name, the
implication is clear. If Clark thinks McCain isn't qualified, he should say
why he believes that instead of making snide comments like a third-rate
political operative.

Well said. It's very clear why Obama rapidly distanced himself from
those remarks. I am surprised Jenn doesn't see the obvious
nature of Clarks remarks.
Of course Clark can always claim his own background as
prematurely retired Nato commander is not a qualification
for vice president. That too would be right.

ScottW

What does flying a fighter jet and being shot down have to do with
qualifications for the Presidency?

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Jun 30, 1:27*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW wrote:
On Jun 30, 12:48*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Jenn said:

This is exactly what is wrong about our political climate. *Clark
didn't
day anything that needed an apology. *Clark should stand by it
because
he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject Clark's comments.

Why do say he's right? I thought McCain is offering his experience
in
the
Senate as his primary qualification. Did I miss something?

Clark was right. *He didn't show disrespect toward McCain's military
experience. *He simply said that being a fighter pilot and being shot
down isn't a qualification for the Presidency. *He's right.

Well, unless McCain claimed getting shot down *is* a qualification,
Clark
made a gratuitous snot-attack. You're against those, right? Suppose
Hannity
or some other talking head said being half-black isn't a qualification
to
be President. Wouldn't that be gratuitous snot? When you use the phrase
"not a qualification" in the proximity of a candidate's name, the
implication is clear. If Clark thinks McCain isn't qualified, he should
say
why he believes that instead of making snide comments like a third-rate
political operative.

*Well said. It's very clear why Obama rapidly distanced himself from
those remarks. * I am surprised Jenn doesn't see the obvious
nature of Clarks remarks.
Of course Clark can always claim his own background as
prematurely retired Nato commander is not a qualification
for vice president. *That too would be right.

ScottW

What does flying a fighter jet and being shot down have to do with
qualifications for the Presidency?

Very little, but then again, who said they do?
It wasn't John McCain.
Clark is making a feeble attempt to diss McCain's history of military
service
and his acknowledged status as a war hero.
It was an incredibly transparent and blundered attempt.
That history, while perhaps not being a qualification for the
presidency,
does provide some insight into the man's strength of character.
Most people feel that character is an important attribute of a
president.
Clark did more to reveal his own character than diminish McCains.

ScottW

Do you know that statement made by a McCain advocate that directly let
to the Obama advocate's statement?

[Clyde Slick]

On 30 Iun, 15:29, Jenn wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW wrote:
On Jun 30, 5:54*am, MiNe 109 * wrote:
There will be a right-wing faux-outrage hissy fit today based on an
out-of-context quote. Just ignore it.

*Are you talking about the comments that Obama has rejected from
Clark?

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...0/1175471.aspx

"*** UPDATE *** Here's a statement from Obama spokesman Bill Burton on
Wes Clark's controversial comments about McCain's military service.
"As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects
Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's
statement by General Clark." "

Or is there something else Obama should reject that I'm not aware of?

Seems like Barack is doing more rejecting of dems and nutty preachers
lately than republicans.

ScottW

This is exactly what is wrong about our political climate. *Clark didn't
day anything that needed an apology. *Clark should stand by it because
he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject Clark's comments.- Ascunde citatul -



Nor is being a State Senator and a less than one term US Senator
any decent qualification to be President.

Although I admit he has the 'best' qualification of all-
he talks a good game.

[Clyde Slick]

On 30 Iun, 15:39, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
*George M. Middius wrote:

Jenn said:

This is exactly what is wrong about our political climate. *Clark didn't
day anything that needed an apology. *Clark should stand by it because
he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject Clark's comments.

Why do say he's right? I thought McCain is offering his experience in the
Senate as his primary qualification. Did I miss something?

Clark was right. *He didn't show disrespect toward McCain's military
experience. *He simply said that being a fighter pilot and being shot
down isn't a qualification for the Presidency. *He's right.

But there's a little bit of Arny's
snot factor attached to that.

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Jun 30, 4:38*pm, ScottW wrote:
Clark is making a feeble attempt to diss McCain's history of
military service and his acknowledged status as a war hero.

Some questions have been raised about McCain's
behavior while a prisoner in Vietnam; see, for example,
http://www.usvetdsp.com/smith_mc.htm .

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Clyde Slick]

On 30 Iun, 15:48, George M. Middius wrote:


If Clark thinks McCain isn't qualified, he should say
why he believes that instead of making snide comments like a third-rate
political operative.

I agree, it sounded a bit 'turdy' to me.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On 30 Iun, 15:39, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
*George M. Middius wrote:

Jenn said:

This is exactly what is wrong about our political climate. *Clark didn't
day anything that needed an apology. *Clark should stand by it because
he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject Clark's comments.

Why do say he's right? I thought McCain is offering his experience in the
Senate as his primary qualification. Did I miss something?

Clark was right. *He didn't show disrespect toward McCain's military
experience. *He simply said that being a fighter pilot and being shot
down isn't a qualification for the Presidency. *He's right.

But there's a little bit of Arny's
snot factor attached to that.

Not really. The McCain advocate said, while arguing qualifications,
"Obama didn't fly in a fighter jet and wasn't shot down."

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

Nor is being a State Senator and a less than one term US Senator
any decent qualification to be President.

That's not in the same category as whether a candidate served in the armed
forces. Stop being Scottie-ish.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 30, 3:17*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jun 30, 12:48*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:

Jenn said:

This is exactly what is wrong about our political climate. *Clark didn't
day anything that needed an apology. *Clark should stand by it because
he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject Clark's comments.

Why do say he's right? I thought McCain is offering his experience in the
Senate as his primary qualification. Did I miss something?

Clark was right. *He didn't show disrespect toward McCain's military
experience. *He simply said that being a fighter pilot and being shot
down isn't a qualification for the Presidency. *He's right.

Well, unless McCain claimed getting shot down *is* a qualification, Clark
made a gratuitous snot-attack. You're against those, right? Suppose Hannity
or some other talking head said being half-black isn't a qualification to
be President. Wouldn't that be gratuitous snot? When you use the phrase
"not a qualification" in the proximity of a candidate's name, the
implication is clear. If Clark thinks McCain isn't qualified, he should say
why he believes that instead of making snide comments like a third-rate
political operative.

*Well said. It's very clear why Obama rapidly distanced himself from
those remarks. * I am surprised Jenn doesn't see the obvious
nature of Clarks remarks.

The "obvious" nature of them is as an answer to things like this:

"Portraying Obama as weak and highlighting his inexperience in foreign
and defense matters is central to McCain's strategy. Polls show that
McCain's military background and years of dealing with security issues
in Washington give him a clear edge when voters rate the candidates as
a future commander-in-chief."

Flying a jet and getting shot down does not prepare one for being
CinC. Clark is exactly right. It's good to bring these things up so
they can be examined by the voters.In fact, fighter pilots (and I've
known a few) tend to be egomaniacal and selfish. They typically have
no command or leadership experience at all.

Otherwise, if these things are not examined, we have imbeciles who
make assumptions or perpetuate myth and rumor (see below).

Of course Clark can always claim his own background as
prematurely retired Nato commander is not a qualification
for vice president.

Not true. Overseeing all the moving parts of an organization as large
as NATO Europe is experience in managing and leading. Flying planes is
not.

*That too would be right.

Wrongo, 2pid. BTW, Clark was not "forced" to retire, nor did he retire
"prematurely", 2pid. After you hit four stars, you're on your way out.
There's nowhere else to go. We have not promoted anyone to five stars
since WWII.

I held three commands in my career. Two-to-three years is a standard
command tour. Clark commanded NATO Europe for three years.

"At times, he had a difficult relationship with Secretary of Defense
William Cohen and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Hugh
Shelton, which led to rumors Clark was forced into retirement, though
both he and the Department of Defense said his retirement was merely
standard personnel movement."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark

Why do you insist on perpetuating baseless rumors, 2pid?

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Jun 30, 5:54*am, MiNe 109 wrote:
There will be a right-wing faux-outrage hissy fit today based on an
out-of-context quote. Just ignore it.

Are you talking about the comments that Obama has rejected from
Clark?

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...0/1175471.aspx

"*** UPDATE *** Here's a statement from Obama spokesman Bill Burton on
Wes Clark's controversial comments about McCain's military service.
"As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects
Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's
statement by General Clark." "

Or is there something else Obama should reject that I'm not aware of?

Seems like Barack is doing more rejecting of dems and nutty preachers
lately than republicans.

That's because one can only show strength by standing up to Democrats.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 30, 3:38*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jun 30, 1:27*pm, Jenn wrote:





In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On Jun 30, 12:48*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Jenn said:

This is exactly what is wrong about our political climate. *Clark
didn't
day anything that needed an apology. *Clark should stand by it
because
he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject Clark's comments.

Why do say he's right? I thought McCain is offering his experience in
the
Senate as his primary qualification. Did I miss something?

Clark was right. *He didn't show disrespect toward McCain's military
experience. *He simply said that being a fighter pilot and being shot
down isn't a qualification for the Presidency. *He's right.

Well, unless McCain claimed getting shot down *is* a qualification, Clark
made a gratuitous snot-attack. You're against those, right? Suppose Hannity
or some other talking head said being half-black isn't a qualification to
be President. Wouldn't that be gratuitous snot? When you use the phrase
"not a qualification" in the proximity of a candidate's name, the
implication is clear. If Clark thinks McCain isn't qualified, he should say
why he believes that instead of making snide comments like a third-rate
political operative.

*Well said. It's very clear why Obama rapidly distanced himself from
those remarks. * I am surprised Jenn doesn't see the obvious
nature of Clarks remarks.
Of course Clark can always claim his own background as
prematurely retired Nato commander is not a qualification
for vice president. *That too would be right.

ScottW

What does flying a fighter jet and being shot down have to do with
qualifications for the Presidency?

Very little, *but then again, who said they do?
It wasn't John McCain.
Clark is making a feeble attempt to diss McCain's history of military
service and his acknowledged status as a war hero.

Did he "RIP", 2pid?

LoL

It was an incredibly transparent and blundered attempt.

It brings an important assumption into play for review. I'm with Jenn.
Questioning McCain's service in the context of being a qualification
for office is not "dissing" his service.

Only an imbecile would think that.

That history, while perhaps not being a qualification for the
presidency, does provide some insight into the man's strength of character.

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

Jenn said:

This is exactly what is wrong about our political climate. Clark
didn't
day anything that needed an apology. Clark should stand by it because
he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject Clark's comments.

Why do say he's right? I thought McCain is offering his experience in the
Senate as his primary qualification. Did I miss something?

Clark was right. He didn't show disrespect toward McCain's military
experience. He simply said that being a fighter pilot and being shot
down isn't a qualification for the Presidency. He's right.

Well, unless McCain claimed getting shot down *is* a qualification, Clark
made a gratuitous snot-attack. You're against those, right? Suppose Hannity
or some other talking head said being half-black isn't a qualification to
be President. Wouldn't that be gratuitous snot? When you use the phrase
"not a qualification" in the proximity of a candidate's name, the
implication is clear. If Clark thinks McCain isn't qualified, he should say
why he believes that instead of making snide comments like a third-rate
political operative.

A fuller context explains it better:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200806300004?f=s_search

SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those
experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot
down. I mean --

CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot
down is a qualification to be president.

--

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 30, 4:00*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 30 Iun, 15:48, George M. Middius wrote:

If Clark thinks McCain isn't qualified, he should say

Why jump to that conclusion?

What is McCain had been an infantry private in Vietnam, and had been
captured? If someone said, "Being an infantry private does not qualify
one to be CinC, would you make the same assumption?

why he believes that instead of making snide comments like a third-rate
political operative.

I agree, it sounded a bit 'turdy' to me.

Yet here we are discussing it.

So does, IYO, flying a fighter and getting shot down give one a "leg
up" in experience to be CinC?

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
MiNe 109 wrote:

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

Jenn said:

This is exactly what is wrong about our political climate. Clark
didn't
day anything that needed an apology. Clark should stand by it
because
he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject Clark's comments.

Why do say he's right? I thought McCain is offering his experience in
the
Senate as his primary qualification. Did I miss something?

Clark was right. He didn't show disrespect toward McCain's military
experience. He simply said that being a fighter pilot and being shot
down isn't a qualification for the Presidency. He's right.

Well, unless McCain claimed getting shot down *is* a qualification, Clark
made a gratuitous snot-attack. You're against those, right? Suppose Hannity
or some other talking head said being half-black isn't a qualification to
be President. Wouldn't that be gratuitous snot? When you use the phrase
"not a qualification" in the proximity of a candidate's name, the
implication is clear. If Clark thinks McCain isn't qualified, he should say
why he believes that instead of making snide comments like a third-rate
political operative.

A fuller context explains it better:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200806300004?f=s_search

SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those
experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot
down. I mean --

CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot
down is a qualification to be president.

--

Stephen

Exactly. Oh, but we must not say that or we might be accused of being
un-patriotic.

Politics sucks.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

MiNe 109 said:

Well, unless McCain claimed getting shot down *is* a qualification, Clark
made a gratuitous snot-attack.

A fuller context explains it better:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200806300004?f=s_search

SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those
experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot
down. I mean --

CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot
down is a qualification to be president.

In that context, it wasn't gratuitous. It was tit-for-petty-tat. I'm
surprised Scottie doesn't approve of such tactics wholeheartedly.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Jun 30, 1:51*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW wrote:
On Jun 30, 1:27*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On Jun 30, 12:48*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Jenn said:

This is exactly what is wrong about our political climate.
*Clark
didn't
day anything that needed an apology. *Clark should stand by
it
because
he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject Clark's
comments.

Why do say he's right? I thought McCain is offering his
experience
in
the
Senate as his primary qualification. Did I miss something?

Clark was right. *He didn't show disrespect toward McCain's
military
experience. *He simply said that being a fighter pilot and being
shot
down isn't a qualification for the Presidency. *He's right.

Well, unless McCain claimed getting shot down *is* a qualification,
Clark
made a gratuitous snot-attack. You're against those, right? Suppose
Hannity
or some other talking head said being half-black isn't a
qualification
to
be President. Wouldn't that be gratuitous snot? When you use the
phrase
"not a qualification" in the proximity of a candidate's name, the
implication is clear. If Clark thinks McCain isn't qualified, he
should
say
why he believes that instead of making snide comments like a
third-rate
political operative.

*Well said. It's very clear why Obama rapidly distanced himself from
those remarks. * I am surprised Jenn doesn't see the obvious
nature of Clarks remarks.
Of course Clark can always claim his own background as
prematurely retired Nato commander is not a qualification
for vice president. *That too would be right.

ScottW

What does flying a fighter jet and being shot down have to do with
qualifications for the Presidency?

Very little, *but then again, who said they do?
It wasn't John McCain.
Clark is making a feeble attempt to diss McCain's history of military
service
and his acknowledged status as a war hero.
It was an incredibly transparent and blundered attempt.
That history, while perhaps not being a qualification for the
presidency,
does provide some insight into the man's strength of character.
Most people feel that character is an important attribute of a
president.
Clark did more to reveal his own character than diminish McCains.

ScottW

Do you know that statement made by a McCain advocate that directly let
to the Obama advocate's statement?

Dueling advocates? How cute.

So do you understand what Clark was responding to now?

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

MiNe 109 said:

Well, unless McCain claimed getting shot down *is* a qualification, Clark
made a gratuitous snot-attack.

A fuller context explains it better:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200806300004?f=s_search

SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those
experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot
down. I mean --

CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot
down is a qualification to be president.

In that context, it wasn't gratuitous. It was tit-for-petty-tat. I'm
surprised Scottie doesn't approve of such tactics wholeheartedly.

That military service mojo only works for Republicans.

In other news, real swift boat veterans want their reputation back:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/us/politics/30swift.html'

Stephen

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Another entry for the Scottie-to-Human Glossary.

In that context, it wasn't gratuitous. It was tit-for-petty-tat. I'm
surprised Scottie doesn't approve of such tactics wholeheartedly.

Clark reveals his own stupidity[sic] in getting drawn into a
tit for tat with Scheiffer and saying something so stupid[sic].

If you were a normal person, I'd applaud your blunt condemnation of
Schieffer. However, you're just Scottie, so we now know that your
understanding of the words "stupid" and "stupidity" are up to your usual
standard.

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Jun 30, 2:00*pm, John Atkinson wrote:
On Jun 30, 4:38*pm, ScottW wrote:

Clark is making a feeble attempt to diss McCain's history of
military service and his acknowledged status as a war hero.

Some questions have been raised about McCain's
behavior while a prisoner in Vietnam; see, for
example,http://www.usvetdsp.com/smith_mc.htm.

Some questions have been raised about your character.
I see you doing all you can to assure us those questions are well
founded.

Hey, that was my line for the Kerry thing.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Jun 30, 2:36*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
MiNe 109 said:

Well, unless McCain claimed getting shot down *is* a qualification,
Clark
made a gratuitous snot-attack.
A fuller context explains it better:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200806300004?f=s_search

SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those
experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot
down. I mean --

CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot
down is a qualification to be president.

In that context, it wasn't gratuitous. It was tit-for-petty-tat. I'm
surprised Scottie doesn't approve of such tactics wholeheartedly.

Clark reveals his own stupidity in getting drawn into a
tit for tat with Scheiffer and saying something so stupid.

What's so great about getting shot down?

Stephen

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Jun 30, 5:45*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,
*ScottW wrote:
On Jun 30, 2:00*pm, John Atkinson wrote:
On Jun 30, 4:38*pm, ScottW wrote:
Clark is making a feeble attempt to diss McCain's history of
military service and his acknowledged status as a war hero.

Some questions have been raised about McCain's
behavior while a prisoner in Vietnam; see, for
example,http://www.usvetdsp.com/smith_mc.htm.

Some questions have been raised about your character.
I see you doing all you can to assure us those questions
are well founded.

Hey, that was my line for the Kerry thing.

At least ScottW didn't tell me this time that I was being
"treasonous" :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

GMAFB.

BTW, please watch your ****ing language. You wouldn't want to be
accused of being hypocritical, would you?

****in' A no!

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Scottie tries some clumsy disinformation.

In other news, real swift boat veterans want their reputation back:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/us/politics/30swift.html'

Page not found.

I skimmed the article earlier, Scooter. It's there. You're just too stupid
to find it or too ideologically twisted to understand it. In a nutshell,
the Swift Boats were a group of Navy boats that fought in the Pacific
during the war. But the morally depraved ****uplicans (you know who I mean
-- you worship them faithfully) induced a few of the Swift Boat veterans to
launch a smear campaign against Kerry in 2004. Now the real vets want their
service to be cleansed of the stink of republican dirty tricks.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Jun 30, 2:02 pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:





On 30 Iun, 15:39, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

Jenn said:

This is exactly what is wrong about our political climate. Clark
didn't
day anything that needed an apology. Clark should stand by it
because
he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject Clark's comments.

Why do say he's right? I thought McCain is offering his experience
in
the
Senate as his primary qualification. Did I miss something?

Clark was right. He didn't show disrespect toward McCain's military
experience. He simply said that being a fighter pilot and being shot
down isn't a qualification for the Presidency. He's right.

But there's a little bit of Arny's
snot factor attached to that.

Not really. The McCain advocate said, while arguing qualifications,

Who declares Bob Schieffer a McCain advocate?

GMAFB.

ScottW

He was advocating for McCain.

Lol. So a media person demonstrating the folly
of some political advocates position is
now an advocate of the opposition.
Exactly what did he say that advocated McCain?
Please be specific.

And let me just point out that Obama is now also a McCain
advocate since he too rejected Clarks comments.

ScottW

I was mistaken. Schieffer was the host, not the opposing talking head.

SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those
experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot
down. I mean --
CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot
down is a qualification to be president.
SCHIEFFER: Really?

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Scottie tries some clumsy disinformation.

In other news, real swift boat veterans want their reputation back:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/us/politics/30swift.html'

Page not found.

I skimmed the article earlier, Scooter. It's there.

Page not found. Maybe it was too hot even for the NYTimes?

ScottW



By KATE ZERNIKE
Published: June 30, 2008
Years ago, when William Miller talked about being in the Vietnam War ‹
if he talked about being in the Vietnam War ‹ he would tell people he
served on a Swift boat.

³It¹s taken on the connotation of political sport versus honoring those
that sacrificed everything.² FRED SHORT, Swift boat veteran who served
with John Kerry
At least now they have heard of it. But not in the way he would like.
³I was proud of what I did, and all the guys I was with,² Mr. Miller
said. ³Now somebody says ŒSwift boat¹ and it¹s a whole different
meaning. They don¹t associate it with the guys we lost. That¹s a shame.²
³Swift boat² has become the synonym for the nastiest of campaign smears,
a shadow that hangs over the presidential race as pundits wait to
proclaim that the Swiftboating has begun and candidates declare that
they will not be Swiftboated.
Swift boat veterans ‹ especially those who had nothing to do with the
group that attacked Senator John Kerry¹s military record in the 2004
election ‹ want their good name back, and the good names of the men not
lucky enough to come home alive.
³You would not hear the word ŒSwift boat¹ and think of people that
served their country and fought in Vietnam,² said Jim Newell, who spent
a year as an officer in charge on one of the small Navy vessels in An
Thoi and Qui Nhon. ³You think about someone who was involved in a
political attack on a member of a different party. It just comes across
as negative. Everyone who is associated with a Swift boat is involved in
political chicanery.²
Sure, Watergate will never be just the office complex. And the name
Willie Horton will always refer to more than just a criminal. But for
Swift boat veterans, the name theft is more personal. When they talk
about Swift boats, they recall friends and crewmates killed, countless
moments of sheer terror in their young lives, the pain of coming home to
a country that offered less than a hero¹s welcome.
³It¹s completely inappropriate,² said Michael Bernique, a highly
regarded Swift boat driver who led missions up a canal that became known
as Bernique¹s Creek. ³The word should connote service with honor, which
is what was conducted. Anything that demeans that honor is shameful.²
In an April column in Proceedings magazine of the United States Naval
Institute, Harlan Ullman, a Swift boat driver in Vietnam and a Pentagon
consultant known as a creator of the ³shock and awe² concept, wrote: ³It
is time to ban a word that is at once offensive, demeaning and obscene
both to and for anyone serving in the naval profession. That word is
ŒSwiftboating.¹*²
This month, a group of veterans who served with Mr. Kerry took up the
challenge by Boone Pickens, the billionaire Texas oilman who helped
finance the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004, that he would give $1
million to anyone who could disprove anything in the group¹s campaign
against Mr. Kerry.
³One of the prime reasons we¹ve done this is the way it¹s taken on the
connotation of political sport versus honoring those that sacrificed
everything,² said Fred Short, who was in the gun tub of a Swift boat
during one of the firefights that the veterans group said Mr. Kerry had
exaggerated.
Before 2004, Swift boats ‹ also known as Patrol Craft Fast, or P.C.F.¹s
‹ were 50-foot aluminum boats, just big enough for an officer, five
enlisted men and a Vietnamese interpreter. There were about 110 of them
as part of the so-called brown water navy in Vietnam, boats agile enough
to patrol the shallow waters near shores where the North Vietnamese were
sending small craft filled with munitions and supplies. They conducted
some of the most harrowing missions of the war.
³The bad guys shot you on the way up the river, and they knew you had to
come back down,² said John Scholl, who served as an officer in charge
from May 1968 to May 1969.
There was no room for politics.
³What you cared about was the five guys on the boat,² Mr. Scholl said.
³You didn¹t get involved in what Johnson was doing, you all just wanted
to make sure you succeeded in the operation. I always say, ŒI was 24,
and I was much older than I am now.¹*²
The Swifties, as they call themselves, were a fairly loose fraternity
until the mid-1990s, when they gathered at the dedication of a
refurbished boat in Washington. Now, the Swift Boat Sailors Association
holds a reunion every two years.
On Swiftboats.net, Larry Wasikowski tends to a crew list, a history of
the boats and even archives of newsletters that various crews sent home
to their families from 1966 to 1969. Mr. Wasikowski and the sailors¹
association grant the designation of ³Swiftie² meticulously, requiring
extensive official documentation from anyone who claims the title.
By the association¹s count, about 3,600 men served aboard Swift boats in
Vietnam, 600 officers and 3,000 enlisted. About 200 signed the letter
that became the basis of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign in
2004. In advertisements, a best-selling book and extensive news media
appearances, they accused Mr. Kerry of fabricating exploits to win his
military decorations and a discharge just four months into a yearlong
tour.
Navy documents contradicted many of their accusations, but the claims
undermined what Democrats had hoped would be Mr. Kerry¹s strength.
Regardless of what they thought of Mr. Kerry, many Swift boat veterans
objected to the attacks.
³It was unconscionable,² said Stan Collier, who served as an officer in
charge on a boat based in Qui Nhon. ³I thought those boys struck a new
low.²
Mr. Collier considers himself a conservative and did not agree with Mr.
Kerry¹s politics, but he voted for him to protest the Swift boat
campaign. ³We¹ve all been attributed to the sleaziness that those guys
assigned to Kerry,² he said. ³I think we¹ve all been demeaned.²
As Mr. Miller said, ³People don¹t know about us; they know about those
few TV advertisements.²
Mr. Wasikowski, who signed the original letter, said some Swift boat
veterans dropped out of the sailors¹ association because they thought it
was connected to the campaign against Mr. Kerry. And many former sailors
watched with dismay as the noun became a verb.
³When someone¹s Swiftboated, it¹s like being waterboarded,² said Sandy
Wilcox, who keeps a model of the Swift boat he skippered on the credenza
in his office in Wisconsin.
The new meaning of Swift boat stings worst for the men who served with
Mr. Kerry, who say that, by implication, the attacks tarnished their
military decorations. ³I don¹t have a lot in this world ‹ my service
means a whole lot to me,² Mr. Short said. ³It¹s been besmirched, I guess
would be a good word. Whether they meant it or not.²
Mr. Pickens refused to pay on his challenge, and he suggested that the
Swift boat colleagues who submitted records and other materials in
defense of Mr. Kerry take up their disagreement with the Swift Boat
Veterans for Truth.
For their part, group members say they take nothing back. ³We didn¹t
back down,² Mr. Wasikowski said.
Still, even some Swift boat veterans associated with the anti-Kerry
group say they do not like what ³Swift boat² has become.
³It¹s taken on a life of its own,² Mr. Wasikowski said. ³The problem is,
it¹s on the wrong side. We would like to be remembered as the one
operation in Vietnam that succeeded, totally.²
The Swift Boat Sailors Association has attached a disclaimer to its Web
site disavowing any ³express or implied² political ties.
Signing the association¹s online guestbook in October, ³Carlo² expressed
his appreciation: ³I think it¹s disgraceful that a handful of people
have managed to turn ŒSwift boat¹ into a synonym for ŒTo smear somebody
with lies,¹*² he wrote. ³I hope you guys can take the term back to
connote bravery, courage and sacrifice, like it always has.²

copyright NYT

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Jun 30, 2:02 pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:





On 30 Iun, 15:39, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

Jenn said:

This is exactly what is wrong about our political climate.
Clark
didn't
day anything that needed an apology. Clark should stand by it
because
he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject Clark's
comments.

Why do say he's right? I thought McCain is offering his
experience
in
the
Senate as his primary qualification. Did I miss something?

Clark was right. He didn't show disrespect toward McCain's
military
experience. He simply said that being a fighter pilot and being
shot
down isn't a qualification for the Presidency. He's right.

But there's a little bit of Arny's
snot factor attached to that.

Not really. The McCain advocate said, while arguing qualifications,

Who declares Bob Schieffer a McCain advocate?

GMAFB.

ScottW

He was advocating for McCain.

Lol. So a media person demonstrating the folly
of some political advocates position is
now an advocate of the opposition.
Exactly what did he say that advocated McCain?
Please be specific.

And let me just point out that Obama is now also a McCain
advocate since he too rejected Clarks comments.

ScottW

I was mistaken. Schieffer was the host, not the opposing talking head.

You seriously didn't know who Bob Schieffer is?
Back to the ivory tower with you!

ScottW

lol Yeah, I knew but he has appeared of late as the conservative
talking head here and there. He's a fishing buddy of GWB.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Scottie tries some clumsy disinformation.

In other news, real swift boat veterans want their reputation back:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/us/politics/30swift.html'

Page not found.

I skimmed the article earlier, Scooter. It's there.

Page not found. Maybe it was too hot even for the NYTimes?

ScottW

So who turned the Swifties into a synonym for a smear?
It was not the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
It was the Kerry campaign trying to counter charges
they could not refute.

ScottW

http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
.
..
In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Jun 30, 2:02 pm, Jenn wrote:
In article

,
Clyde Slick wrote:





On 30 Iun, 15:39, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

Jenn said:

This is exactly what is wrong about our political climate.
Clark
didn't
day anything that needed an apology. Clark should stand by
it
because
he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject Clark's
comments.

Why do say he's right? I thought McCain is offering his
experience
in
the
Senate as his primary qualification. Did I miss something?

Clark was right. He didn't show disrespect toward McCain's
military
experience. He simply said that being a fighter pilot and
being
shot
down isn't a qualification for the Presidency. He's right.

But there's a little bit of Arny's
snot factor attached to that.

Not really. The McCain advocate said, while arguing
qualifications,

Who declares Bob Schieffer a McCain advocate?

GMAFB.

ScottW

He was advocating for McCain.

Lol. So a media person demonstrating the folly
of some political advocates position is
now an advocate of the opposition.
Exactly what did he say that advocated McCain?
Please be specific.

And let me just point out that Obama is now also a McCain
advocate since he too rejected Clarks comments.

ScottW

I was mistaken. Schieffer was the host, not the opposing talking head.

You seriously didn't know who Bob Schieffer is?
Back to the ivory tower with you!

ScottW

lol Yeah, I knew but he has appeared of late as the conservative
talking head here and there. He's a fishing buddy of GWB.

Jenn pulls a swiftie.

ScottW

You consider being called a friend of GWB an attack?

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

MiNe 109 said:

Well, unless McCain claimed getting shot down *is* a qualification,
Clark
made a gratuitous snot-attack.

A fuller context explains it better:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200806300004?f=s_search

SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those
experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot
down. I mean --

CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot
down is a qualification to be president.

In that context, it wasn't gratuitous. It was tit-for-petty-tat. I'm
surprised Scottie doesn't approve of such tactics wholeheartedly.

That military service mojo only works for Republicans.

In other news, real swift boat veterans want their reputation back:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/us/politics/30swift.html'

Page not found.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/us...s/30swift.html

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Scottie tries some clumsy disinformation.

In other news, real swift boat veterans want their reputation back:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/us/politics/30swift.html'

Page not found.

I skimmed the article earlier, Scooter. It's there.

Page not found. Maybe it was too hot even for the NYTimes?

ScottW

So who turned the Swifties into a synonym for a smear?
It was not the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
It was the Kerry campaign trying to counter charges
they could not refute.

No, it was the smearing.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
.
..
In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Jun 30, 2:02 pm, Jenn wrote:
In article

,
Clyde Slick wrote:





On 30 Iun, 15:39, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

Jenn said:

This is exactly what is wrong about our political climate.
Clark
didn't
day anything that needed an apology. Clark should stand by
it
because
he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject Clark's
comments.

Why do say he's right? I thought McCain is offering his
experience
in
the
Senate as his primary qualification. Did I miss something?

Clark was right. He didn't show disrespect toward McCain's
military
experience. He simply said that being a fighter pilot and
being
shot
down isn't a qualification for the Presidency. He's right.

But there's a little bit of Arny's
snot factor attached to that.

Not really. The McCain advocate said, while arguing
qualifications,

Who declares Bob Schieffer a McCain advocate?

GMAFB.

ScottW

He was advocating for McCain.

Lol. So a media person demonstrating the folly
of some political advocates position is
now an advocate of the opposition.
Exactly what did he say that advocated McCain?
Please be specific.

And let me just point out that Obama is now also a McCain
advocate since he too rejected Clarks comments.

ScottW

I was mistaken. Schieffer was the host, not the opposing talking head.

You seriously didn't know who Bob Schieffer is?
Back to the ivory tower with you!

ScottW

lol Yeah, I knew but he has appeared of late as the conservative
talking head here and there. He's a fishing buddy of GWB.

Jenn pulls a swiftie.

http://mediabloodhound.typepad.com/w...of-the-da.html

KURTZ (1/13/03): During the ¹90s, Schieffer also struck up a friendship
with George W. Bush when his brother Tom‹now the U.S. ambassador to
Australia‹became partners with the future president in the Texas
Rangers. Bob and W. went to ball games together, played golf, attended
spring training. ³He¹s a great guy‹that doesn¹t mean I agree with him,²
says Schieffer, adding that the situation became ³a little awkward² when
Bush ran for the White House but that he¹s never gotten favorable
treatment.
--

You're right: no mention of fishing.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 30, 9:39*pm, "ScottW" wrote:

So who turned the Swifties into a synonym for a smear?
It was not the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
It was the Kerry campaign trying to counter charges
they could not refute.

I know all about how stupid you are, 2pid.

Yet sometimes the depth of your stupidity surprises even me.

Every time you have had sex with your wife, you raped her. "Refute"
that, 2pid. BTW, don't bring your wife in to say it's not true. We
know how afraid of you she is. She'll say anything to try to stay
safe. And don't bring up the fact that you presumably haven't had any
police charges filed. We know, based on the "Swift Boat Veterans for
Truth", how easily official statements and documents can be
manipulated.

You might as well confess now, rapist.

Lol

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
MiNe 109 wrote:

In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
..
.
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

t.
..
In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Jun 30, 2:02 pm, Jenn wrote:
In article

m
,
Clyde Slick wrote:





On 30 Iun, 15:39, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

Jenn said:

This is exactly what is wrong about our political
climate.
Clark
didn't
day anything that needed an apology. Clark should stand
by
it
because
he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject Clark's
comments.

Why do say he's right? I thought McCain is offering his
experience
in
the
Senate as his primary qualification. Did I miss something?

Clark was right. He didn't show disrespect toward McCain's
military
experience. He simply said that being a fighter pilot and
being
shot
down isn't a qualification for the Presidency. He's right.

But there's a little bit of Arny's
snot factor attached to that.

Not really. The McCain advocate said, while arguing
qualifications,

Who declares Bob Schieffer a McCain advocate?

GMAFB.

ScottW

He was advocating for McCain.

Lol. So a media person demonstrating the folly
of some political advocates position is
now an advocate of the opposition.
Exactly what did he say that advocated McCain?
Please be specific.

And let me just point out that Obama is now also a McCain
advocate since he too rejected Clarks comments.

ScottW

I was mistaken. Schieffer was the host, not the opposing talking
head.

You seriously didn't know who Bob Schieffer is?
Back to the ivory tower with you!

ScottW

lol Yeah, I knew but he has appeared of late as the conservative
talking head here and there. He's a fishing buddy of GWB.

Jenn pulls a swiftie.

http://mediabloodhound.typepad.com/w...of-the-da.html

KURTZ (1/13/03): During the ¹90s, Schieffer also struck up a friendship
with George W. Bush when his brother Tom‹now the U.S. ambassador to
Australia‹became partners with the future president in the Texas
Rangers. Bob and W. went to ball games together, played golf, attended
spring training. ³He¹s a great guy‹that doesn¹t mean I agree with him,²
says Schieffer, adding that the situation became ³a little awkward² when
Bush ran for the White House but that he¹s never gotten favorable
treatment.
--

You're right: no mention of fishing.

Stephen

I guess that I was mistaken.

But then I'm just a supposed conductor who teachers at relatively tiny
rural college that blows thousands of dollars on mics, who at the same
time conducts groups of professionals who don't need a conductor and who
lives in an ivory tower.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

You consider being called a friend of GWB an attack?

I consider it such. It implies a lack of ethics and a profound intellectual
disability.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

But then I'm just a supposed conductor who teachers at relatively tiny
rural college that blows thousands of dollars on mics, who at the same
time conducts groups of professionals who don't need a conductor and who
lives in an ivory tower.

You also crave dominance over mentally unbalanced computer repair techs.