"To see McCain resort to playing the POW card when answering legitimate questions, in my mind, cheapens that experience.

[Gary J Carter]

"To see McCain resort to playing the POW card when answering
legitimate questions, in my mind, cheapens that experience.

And by cheapening his own experience in war, he degrades all of our
experiences in war. He turns the horrific incidents we've all seen,
touched, smelled, and felt into a lame excuse to earn political
points. And it dishonors us all."
-- Brandon Friedman, a veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan
Dear Connie,

John McCain has been exploiting his prisoner of war experience every
chance he gets. He has used this story to justify everything from not
knowing how many homes he has to his healthcare plan to his marital
infidelities to his taste in music. The McCain campaign is even using
his POW story in paid ads. But now a veteran who was a prisoner with
McCain in Vietnam is explaining loud and clear that being a POW does
not qualify McCain to lead our country.

Dr. Phillip Butler knew McCain as a fellow POW. Watch and listen!

http://bravenewfilms.org/watch/291503141/51429

We are sure this video will draw an onslaught of right-wing attacks,
but we bring it to you because it is our job to continue to convey the
truth together and give these issues national attention. As Dr. Butler
has said, McCain does not have the temperament to have his finger near
the red button. Get this video to everyone you know: friends, family
members, coworkers, and especially those who don't share your
political views. The video is designed to reach them. Get it on your
social networking sites like Digg. And get it to every blog,
newspaper, and TV station that has ever overplayed McCain's POW story.
It is time to fight back with truth!

The mainstream press has already begun to call out McCain for
overusing his POW story. And it's cut across all political
persuasions.

"Whether he's deflecting criticism over his health-care plan or
mocking a tribute to the Woodstock music festival, Senator John McCain
has a trump card: the Hanoi Hilton. - Edwin Chen, Bloomberg
"Noun, Verb, POW" - Andrew Sullivan, The Atlantic Monthly
"The McCain campaign's constant invocation of the candidate's POW past
is weird bordering on irrational..." - Ana Marie Cox, TIME
"I think they are going to it way too many times." - Howard Fineman,
Newsweek
Remember how Joe Biden got the press to refer to Rudy Giuliani as "A
noun, a verb, and 9/11"? Well, let's actually take Andrew Sullivan's
lead here and get the media to boil McCain down to a similar phrase:
"A noun, a verb, and POW." Considering how often the McCain campaign
invokes his POW story, isn't that what they're already doing?
Yours,
Robert Greenwald
and the Brave New team

---
Paid for by the Brave New PAC and not authorized by any candidate or
candidate's committee. Brave New PAC is supported by members like you,
please consider making a donation. To stop receiving the latest videos
from us, click here. We are located at 10510 Culver Blvd., Culver
City, CA 90232.

[Bob Harrington]

Post by Gary J Carter
"To see McCain resort to playing the POW card when answering
legitimate questions, in my mind, cheapens that experience.

And still - D'Obama's got nothing but desperation.

[M***@tor]

On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 03:28:46 GMT, Bob Harrington

Post by Bob Harrington

Post by Gary J Carter
"To see McCain resort to playing the POW card when answering
legitimate questions, in my mind, cheapens that experience.

And still - D'Obama's got nothing but desperation.

It is un-American to just settle for the lesser of two evils. The
system has to change AND the mentality of you always in denial
neoturds has to change. Otherwise the US just spins around in the
toilet as it is being flushed.

[D. Stussy]

Post by Gary J Carter
"To see McCain resort to playing the POW card when answering
legitimate questions, in my mind, cheapens that experience.

That's your opinion. It actually strengthens his position in that he knows
what it means when our military fails (i.e. soldiers get captured). Knowing
the price of failure is important in making decisions.

Obama has no experience in even making basic decisions. Voting "present"
100+ times is not making a decision - but the lack of one. By failing to
sponsor a single bill, he's not even an experienced legislator. This means
his qualifications are a farce and he has no business even running for the
office. Palin was correct: Even her limited experience is more than
Obama's, yet she's not running for the #1 position but #2. Having the #2
attack the opposing #1 as weaker is the correct tactic.

Note that this argument has nothing to do with which party is sponsoring
them. The argument would be the same even if the parties were reversed.

If the Democrats had any sense, then they should have swapped and put Biden
in the #1 slot, with Obama #2, or they should have chosen Hillary as #1.
The party has made a clear, fatal mistake - similar to when the Republicans
selected Dole to challenge [Bill] Clinton in 1996.

[Bill Z.]

Post by D. Stussy

Post by Gary J Carter
"To see McCain resort to playing the POW card when answering
legitimate questions, in my mind, cheapens that experience.

That's your opinion. It actually strengthens his position in that he knows
what it means when our military fails (i.e. soldiers get captured). Knowing
the price of failure is important in making decisions.

Perhaps you'd care to explain exactly how some failure on the part of
the U.S. military led to McCain being captured, unless you believe the
failure was starting the war in the first or attacking a city where
the enemy would try to shoot back. In either case, you should vote for
a "peace" candidate - the only way to prevent U.S. planes from being shot
down is to not fly them over hostile areas that have the means to shoot
back.

Post by D. Stussy
Obama has no experience in even making basic decisions. Voting "present"
100+ times is not making a decision - but the lack of one. By failing to
sponsor a single bill, he's not even an experienced legislator.

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html>
discussses Obama's legislative record, citing one bill in particular,
a complex case involving negotiating with a number of parties to make
progress. (And note that newspaper opinion pieces often have word-count
limits imposed by the editor, so there was most likely only room for
one example.)

If you are going to criticize his record, at least try to represent
what he actually did accurately.

[D. Stussy]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by D. Stussy

Post by Gary J Carter
"To see McCain resort to playing the POW card when answering
legitimate questions, in my mind, cheapens that experience.

That's your opinion. It actually strengthens his position in that he knows
what it means when our military fails (i.e. soldiers get captured).

Knowing

Post by Bill Z.

Post by D. Stussy
the price of failure is important in making decisions.

Perhaps you'd care to explain exactly how some failure on the part of
the U.S. military led to McCain being captured, unless you believe the
failure was starting the war in the first or attacking a city where
the enemy would try to shoot back. In either case, you should vote for
a "peace" candidate - the only way to prevent U.S. planes from being shot
down is to not fly them over hostile areas that have the means to shoot
back.

The failure WAS that he was shot down and thus did not return from his
mission. Duh.

[Bill Z.]

Post by D. Stussy
The failure WAS that he was shot down and thus did not return from his
mission. Duh.

Nope - that was not a failure of the military (which is what you claimed)
or even a failure on McCain's part, but a random event. The more time
you spend in an area where people are shooting at you, the more chance
you have of being hit.

A failure on the part of the military that would lead to U.S. soldiers
being captured would be more like sending a ship as a backup to allow
them to escape only to find that the ship had 1/4 the needed capacity.

[D. Stussy]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by D. Stussy
The failure WAS that he was shot down and thus did not return from his
mission. Duh.

Nope - that was not a failure of the military (which is what you claimed)
or even a failure on McCain's part, but a random event. The more time
you spend in an area where people are shooting at you, the more chance
you have of being hit.
A failure on the part of the military that would lead to U.S. soldiers
being captured would be more like sending a ship as a backup to allow
them to escape only to find that the ship had 1/4 the needed capacity.

... He WAS captured.

[Bill Z.]

Post by D. Stussy

Post by Bill Z.

Post by D. Stussy
The failure WAS that he was shot down and thus did not return from his
mission. Duh.

Nope - that was not a failure of the military (which is what you claimed)
or even a failure on McCain's part, but a random event. The more time
you spend in an area where people are shooting at you, the more chance
you have of being hit.
A failure on the part of the military that would lead to U.S. soldiers
being captured would be more like sending a ship as a backup to allow
them to escape only to find that the ship had 1/4 the needed capacity.

... He WAS captured.

A missile, shell, or flak hit his plane. It's a random event, and you
can't reasonably call that event a failure on the part of anyone
unless you believe that we shouldn't have been attacking Hanoi in the
first place. So, is that the case? It's a simple question - "yes" or
"no" will suffice.

[mrmcafee]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by D. Stussy

Post by Bill Z.

Post by D. Stussy
The failure WAS that he was shot down and thus did not return from his
mission. Duh.

Nope - that was not a failure of the military (which is what you claimed)
or even a failure on McCain's part, but a random event. The more time
you spend in an area where people are shooting at you, the more chance
you have of being hit.
A failure on the part of the military that would lead to U.S. soldiers
being captured would be more like sending a ship as a backup to allow
them to escape only to find that the ship had 1/4 the needed capacity.

... He WAS captured.

A missile, shell, or flak hit his plane. It's a random event, and you
can't reasonably call that event a failure on the part of anyone
unless you believe that we shouldn't have been attacking Hanoi in the
first place. So, is that the case? It's a simple question - "yes" or
"no" will suffice.

Being shot at is not a random event. It is done with purpose. Attack
aircraft pilot are trained to evade such defense. McCain failed to
evade. He failed to return to his ship, thus causing the loss to the US
Navy a multi million dollar aircraft, and a highly trained (well in
McCain's case a trained) pilot. It is called mission failure.

[Bill Z.]

Post by mrmcafee

Post by Bill Z.
A missile, shell, or flak hit his plane. It's a random event, and you
can't reasonably call that event a failure on the part of anyone
unless you believe that we shouldn't have been attacking Hanoi in the
first place. So, is that the case? It's a simple question - "yes" or
"no" will suffice.

Being shot at is not a random event. It is done with purpose.

Being hit is a random event. The people shooting at him did not
have perfect aim nor completely accurate knowledge of where he would
be after a weapon was launched.

Post by mrmcafee
Attack aircraft pilot are trained to evade such defense. McCain
failed to evade. He failed to return to his ship, thus causing the
loss to the US Navy a multi million dollar aircraft, and a highly
trained (well in McCain's case a trained) pilot. It is called
mission failure.

They were trained to try to evade such defenses under circumstances
where the state of the art was not 100% reliable.

Now, if we want to criticize McCain, how about criticizing him on his
policies, qualification for the office, and judgement (e.g., his
choice for VP)? That's what is relevant for the upcoming election.

[mrmcafee]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by mrmcafee

Post by Bill Z.
A missile, shell, or flak hit his plane. It's a random event, and you
can't reasonably call that event a failure on the part of anyone
unless you believe that we shouldn't have been attacking Hanoi in the
first place. So, is that the case? It's a simple question - "yes" or
"no" will suffice.

Being shot at is not a random event. It is done with purpose.

Being hit is a random event. The people shooting at him did not
have perfect aim nor completely accurate knowledge of where he would
be after a weapon was launched.

Post by mrmcafee
Attack aircraft pilot are trained to evade such defense. McCain
failed to evade. He failed to return to his ship, thus causing the
loss to the US Navy a multi million dollar aircraft, and a highly
trained (well in McCain's case a trained) pilot. It is called
mission failure.

They were trained to try to evade such defenses under circumstances
where the state of the art was not 100% reliable.
Now, if we want to criticize McCain, how about criticizing him on his
policies, qualification for the office, and judgement (e.g., his
choice for VP)? That's what is relevant for the upcoming election.

I quite agree, but McCain wants to run on his record of being a POW.
Weren't you paying attention to his acceptance speech. That's what he
wrapped up with. And there were precious little of any issues. Just the
rah rah.

So far as his pick for VP, I don't care for her record of decision
making. She chose to get pregnant at 43, despite the grossly elevate
risk of conceiving a Downs Syndrome child. Guess what. She has 4 kids at
home, one of which is special needs, and a grand baby on the way. She
should have her hands full, yet she runs for VP? Now? Poor decision
making on her part and poor decision making on McCain's part to pick
her. Now let's talk about the merits of pressuring a 17 year old into a
shotgun wedding.

[Bill Z.]

Post by mrmcafee

Post by Bill Z.
Now, if we want to criticize McCain, how about criticizing him on his
policies, qualification for the office, and judgement (e.g., his
choice for VP)? That's what is relevant for the upcoming election.

I quite agree, but McCain wants to run on his record of being a
POW. Weren't you paying attention to his acceptance speech. That's
what he wrapped up with. And there were precious little of any
issues. Just the rah rah.

I ignored his acceptance speech - it won't change my vote - and I
don't consider being a POW as having any relevance to his
qualifications for the office, all the more so given the mess the
Bush administration made. We are going to need the smartest, most
competent individual we can find for the job as fixing the mess is
not going to be easy.

Post by mrmcafee
So far as his pick for VP, I don't care for her record of decision
making. <snip>

I'd ignore her personal life. What's far more telling is the "bridge
to nowhere" that it seems she actually supported while running for
office and only opposed when someone noticed the waste. BTW, I've
been in Ketchikan. It's population is under 8000, dry-land area about
3.4 square miles, and the airport handles under 500 people per day.
The catch is that the airport is on the opposite side of the inland
passage from the town.

It is simply incredible that anyone would not immediately notice the
complete waste of money in building a bridge spanning 1/2 mile of
water, high enough for a cruise ship or ocean-going ferry to pass
under, just to avoid a boat ride to the airport.

[mrmcafee]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by mrmcafee

Post by Bill Z.
Now, if we want to criticize McCain, how about criticizing him on his
policies, qualification for the office, and judgement (e.g., his
choice for VP)? That's what is relevant for the upcoming election.

I quite agree, but McCain wants to run on his record of being a
POW. Weren't you paying attention to his acceptance speech. That's
what he wrapped up with. And there were precious little of any
issues. Just the rah rah.

I ignored his acceptance speech

I didn't. It is supposed to be the event that frames the entire campaign.

Post by Bill Z.
- it won't change my vote -

The campaign created it to do just that.

Post by Bill Z.
and I
don't consider being a POW as having any relevance to his
qualifications for the office, all the more so given the mess the
Bush administration made.

Agreed.

Post by Bill Z.
We are going to need the smartest, most
competent individual we can find for the job as fixing the mess is
not going to be easy.

I think that's going to be Obama. Time for a new direction, one that is
oriented toward traditional American values.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by mrmcafee
So far as his pick for VP, I don't care for her record of decision
making. <snip>

I'd ignore her personal life.

Personal life is where most people make their most telling decisions.
Palin's decisions so far have resulted in a Downs Syndrome child and a
teenage pregnancy. From what we hear they will result in a shotgun
wedding to boot, with a divorce to follow shortly there after. Not good
decision making.

Post by Bill Z.
What's far more telling is the "bridge
to nowhere" that it seems she actually supported while running for
office and only opposed when someone noticed the waste. BTW, I've
been in Ketchikan. It's population is under 8000, dry-land area about
3.4 square miles, and the airport handles under 500 people per day.
The catch is that the airport is on the opposite side of the inland
passage from the town.

In general, I don't oppose using federal funds to develop the
infrastructure if rural areas. If we don't do that, those areas will not
be able to be developed at all and we as a nation fail to reach out
fullest potential. That said, it has to make sense.

Post by Bill Z.
It is simply incredible that anyone would not immediately notice the
complete waste of money in building a bridge spanning 1/2 mile of
water, high enough for a cruise ship or ocean-going ferry to pass
under, just to avoid a boat ride to the airport.

[Bill Z.]

Post by mrmcafee

Post by Bill Z.
I ignored his acceptance speech

I didn't. It is supposed to be the event that frames the entire campaign.

Some of us don't care how he frames it. We care about the candidates'
competence, ability, and policies.

Post by mrmcafee

Post by Bill Z.
- it won't change my vote -

The campaign created it to do just that.

What is was created to do won't change my vote.

Post by mrmcafee

Post by Bill Z.
We are going to need the smartest, most
competent individual we can find for the job as fixing the mess is
not going to be easy.

I think that's going to be Obama. Time for a new direction, one that
is oriented toward traditional American values.

One can only hope.

Post by mrmcafee

Post by Bill Z.
I'd ignore her personal life.

Personal life is where most people make their most telling
decisions. Palin's decisions so far have resulted in a Downs Syndrome
child and a teenage pregnancy.

Teenagers don't always follow their parents' advice.

Post by mrmcafee

Post by Bill Z.
What's far more telling is the "bridge
to nowhere" that it seems she actually supported while running for
office and only opposed when someone noticed the waste. BTW, I've
been in Ketchikan. It's population is under 8000, dry-land area about
3.4 square miles, and the airport handles under 500 people per day.
The catch is that the airport is on the opposite side of the inland
passage from the town.

In general, I don't oppose using federal funds to develop the
infrastructure if rural areas. If we don't do that, those areas will
not be able to be developed at all and we as a nation fail to reach
out fullest potential. That said, it has to make sense.

If you are familiar with this part of Alaska, it doesn't make sense.
These are small, isolated communities with no potential for growth:
judging from Google maps, you cannot reach Ketchikan by car from any
distant location. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketchikan> under
"transporation" lists marine and air transportation only.

If you scroll down to the bottom, you'll see the surrounding area,
which is mountainous enough to make sprawl infeasible.

The road system is local only, with no connection to anywhere else.

[sam99]

Post by mrmcafee
Personal life is where most people make their most telling decisions.
Palin's decisions so far have resulted in a Downs Syndrome child and a
teenage pregnancy.

Gee, she courageously gave birth to a special needs child, that's terrible.

I wasn't aware she was pregnant as a teen, new rumor mill spite?

[Gary J Carter]

Post by sam99

Post by mrmcafee
Personal life is where most people make their most telling decisions.
Palin's decisions so far have resulted in a Downs Syndrome child and a
teenage pregnancy.

Gee, she courageously gave birth to a special needs child, that's terrible.
I wasn't aware she was pregnant as a teen, new rumor mill spite?

Her daughter is pregnant, not her.

[Dimetrodon]

Post by Gary J Carter

Post by sam99

Post by mrmcafee
Personal life is where most people make their most telling decisions.
Palin's decisions so far have resulted in a Downs Syndrome child and a
teenage pregnancy.

Gee, she courageously gave birth to a special needs child, that's terrible.
I wasn't aware she was pregnant as a teen, new rumor mill spite?

Her daughter is pregnant, not her.

Why yes, pity the OP called the teen's pregnancy _HER DECISION_ then,
isn't it, shitwit?