McCain is generally understood to be a war hero, and I think his service to the country deserves respect. But sadly, some believe this service somehow entitles him to be president over someone without it.

Most would think, given his distinguished career, that McCain would have the support of the military... but it doesn't seem to be the case:


I could be like Reaganite and flash a bunch of smilies and "lol"s... but what's the point? I've become dissapointed with Obama lately and am questioning my support for him, so my reason for posting this isn't partisan in nature.

I just think this speaks volumes about the situation we're in.

Comments?

I'd just like to point out - politely - that in the beginning he was promoted by others as a Messiah and seemed like one too when cast in the light of the past 8 years and the wishful thinking-style exaggeration that comes with that hope. People's eyes glistened in the beginning. That's not really reality's fault.

Now that he's come down to Earthly mortal status that would naturally be disappointing but predictable. He's still better than "more of the same".


True, but I would say it's more reliable in that regard than a poll. People say things in a poll they may not commit to later, this is easy to understand. But when you "invest" your hard earned dough into a candidate I'm betting your follow-through on the commitment will be higher.




just sayin',
Ahk

Oh has machioveli signed his name on that dotted line and personally experience the cuts he claims to know so much about. Wonder if he knows the only military cut in pay, maybe ever was accomplished by General Eisenhower as President. But from some actual veterans, though Patton doesn't care for real vets who don't support his choice for
CIC, McCain's response. Oops I forgot, Reagan and Poppy Bush cut the VA unmercifully.  Don't believe that. Check out their budgets.

McCain's Elitist Response to Military Donor Story
by: Brandon Friedman
Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 17:36:07 PM EDT

When it came out yesterday that troops overseas were donating six times as much money to Obama as to McCain, the McCain campaign was quick to respond:

"This campaign is confident that it will find significant support among active duty troops stationed both at home and abroad, but most of those troops are likely too busy doing the important work of defending this country to make political contributions. We'd also note that John McCain has been endorsed by more retired admirals and generals than Barack Obama has military donors."

First off, the second sentence isn't true: As noted in the donation analysis, Barack Obama received money from 859 military donors.  By contrast, the McCain campaign--by its own admission--claims the moral (not monetary) support of only 241 retired flag officers.

But aside from the fact that the McCain campaign lied is confused, does anyone catch a whiff of elitism here?  Is support from within the ranks somehow more credible if it comes in the form of a general officer or an admiral?  If so, that would be strange. . .since flag officers aren't the ones fighting the insurgencies in Iraq or Afghanistan.

This comes as no surprise--and it reinforces the message: It's clear that McCain values the opinions of flashier, high-ranking, inside-the-wire types over the views of the grunts, the medics, and the lieutenants who wade waist-deep through the muck and blood and shrapnel of insurgency, day in and day out.  And while he may easily dismiss the actual combatants of these wars in a moment of political self-defense, those same troops will not so easily forget his bellicosity, his foreign policy ignorance, and his general lack of respect for them when it comes time to vote in November.

http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1773

Wonder if BETRAYUS made a big contribution to attempt to provide himself with "job security?"  Or maybe he'll just wait till a week before the election and write an op ed
for the WAPO as he did for Dubya in 2004.

While OT, IamMe, I'll share the Senate vote of one of the most important pieces of legislation
IMHO, that took place related what in reality is an authorization for war against Iran.  This Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Bill for the current year and is in force, shows both McCain and Obama cutting an running from a vote. Clinton supported it, a primary
factor for some like me to refuse to support her candidacy. 

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00349#top

But returning to the topic of the thread some may find this amusing and other may not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcTWIVdECN0&eurl=http://www.vetvoice.com/

Findeton, I haven't a clue as to how old you are nor your location.  There is a major difference, though I agree that wars such as the one in Vietnam should have never been fought and that opinion about the invasion and occupation of Iraq is even more so, the glaring difference was the draft. There is no troop sent to Iraq, who didn't
make a personal choice for whatever reason to sign his or her name on the dotted line and accept the contract offered by the U.S. government to serve in the military.  Some might suggest, the all volunteer military is the
equivalent of mercenaries, but others believe serving ones country in the military is an honorable profession.

In truth the real mercenaries are those receiving huge amounts of pay who are contracted to serve. Un-noted by
many, are those such as the infamous Blackwater, real mercenaries, who fight for pay. Additionally, at this time
there are approximately 180,000 of those serving in Iraq, many foreign nationals, as the contractors can hire them more cheaply, while the estimate of troops in Iraq is about 140,000.  A very expensive "shadow military."

An Iraq vet speaks on this issue here:

http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1754

A change of topic speaking to the issue you brought up? Perhaps, but if McCain continues to support the on-going
occupation of Iraq for "a hundred years" he no doubt would also continue to use the contracted mercenaries .

IamMe, I was not referring to the volunteer troops, but the hirelings who serve as military contractors as in the article on the link.  There's in a big difference in a troop who chose to join for a myriad of reasons, and a person
hired as a contractor for the purpose of killing.

One reason that the military may not like McCain as much as people might think is that McCain was a staunch opponent of expanded Veteran's educational benefits.
Another reason they may not like him is because he's now lying about his opposition to it. Here are some details from The Carpetbagger:

In late June, the Senate approved a war supplemental spending bill, which included the Webb/Hagel GI Bill, expanding educational benefits for veterans. It passed 92 to 6, with John McCain failing to show up to vote. (Barack Obama was there, and he voted with the majority.)

The next day, McCain bragged to an audience in Ohio that “we … agreed to an increase in educational benefits for our veterans.”

Ali at TP noted that McCain made a related boast this morning.

OK, let’s unpack this a bit. First, McCain not only opposed the GI Bill expansion, he actively fought against it. Indeed, he bragged that his opposition to the bill was evidence of his character. McCain not only opposed the bill, he did so for all the wrong reasons. He even went so far as to say the GI Bill expansion would literally “hurt the military.”

And yet, he’s gone from characterizing himself as a supporter to arguing that he personally made the bill even better.

Second, McCain’s argument flatly contradicts what the VFW knows to be true.


In context, McCain was admittedly in a tough spot. The VFW championed the Webb/Hagel bill and made it one of the group’s top legislative priorities of this Congress, while McCain fought against the VFW every step of the way. McCain couldn’t exactly be honest, and address the organization today with an explanation on why he tried to deny veterans better educational benefits.

So, McCain chose Door #2 — he lied to them, and hoped the veterans in the audience wouldn’t know the difference. The result is a situation in which McCain adds insult to injury — he fought against better benefits for veterans, then he misled veterans about his own efforts.

It’s pretty much the opposite of “support the troops.”

--source thecarpetbaggerreport.com, today.

Tell me you didn't write that.  You can't possibly be serious.  You must have fallen and hit your head.