Today on Blogcritics
Home » Who’s Really Naive and Irresponsible?

Who’s Really Naive and Irresponsible?

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

In the past couple of weeks, anyone watching the news now knows exactly what Hillary Clinton (and some of her fellow candidates) thinks of her main rival for the Democratic nomination, Barack Obama. According to her, the man from Illinois is “irresponsible and frankly naïve.”

The incident that prompted Clinton to go negative this early into the campaign was the recent YouTube/CNN debate where Obama stated that he was willing to meet with America’s enemies in the first year of his Presidency. His other competitors piled on after he said that he was willing to order troops into the mountains of Pakistan to fight the real war against Al Qaeda.

What is shocking about Clinton’s criticism of Obama is that she used to agree with him. In February Clinton said, “You don’t refuse to talk to bad people. I think life is filled with uncomfortable situations where you have to deal with people you might not like. I’m sort of an expert on that. I have consistently urged the president to talk to Iran and talk to Syria. I think it’s a sign of strength, not weakness.” Now however, Clinton wants to ridicule Obama for following exactly that policy. Who knew that Clinton had taken on Mitt Romney as a campaign advisor?

As Obama pointed out after the debate, he “didn’t say these guys were going to come for a cup of coffee some afternoon.” But he is right about the need for meetings with these leaders. In the past six years, the Bush administration’s approach of not talking with foreign leaders has done nothing to help the war on terror, or bolster America’s image in the world. This sort of policy is how middle schoolers deal with each other, not how the world’s last remaining superpower, and its greatest democracy should conduct foreign affairs.

America should never fear to negotiate with its adversaries. And at some point, regardless of whether we want to or not, we will have to negotiate with our enemies. This is especially true in Iraq, where we will have to engage with Iran and Syria, so we can leave at least a somewhat stable country behind. And as Hillary Clinton observed before she changed her position, negotiating with our enemies is not a sign of weakness. Ronald Reagan knew this when he talked with the Soviet Union at the same time he called it an evil empire. Richard Nixon knew it when he went to China.

But somehow we’re supposed to believe that Clinton’s answer was more nuanced and seasoned. I guess it is by the standards of the Washington foreign policy establishment—the same establishment that was gung ho about the war in Iraq. This is not to discount these thinkers entirely. Rather, it is to suggest that we shouldn’t value the views of a handful of the Washington elite more than we do basic common sense or historical precedent.

Clinton obviously thought she could gain some advantage by attacking Obama’s remarks in the debate. To her chagrin, most Democrats agree with Obama. A recent Rasmussen poll found that a full 55% of Democrats think we should negotiate with our enemies, while only 22% agree with Clinton’s current position. The general electorate is more divided, but a plurality still favors such relations.

While Clinton and the other candidates are trying to demonstrate how tough they’ll be on terrorism, Obama is the only one who has given us a clear plan of how he intends to win the war on terror. He was criticized for indicating that he would send soldiers into Pakistan if he had to. But with terrorists in the mountains plotting another strike, we may have no other option. Before he is labeled inexperienced again, I would like to see a coherent strategy from his opponents about how to fight Islamic extremists.

At the end of the day, I find it incredible that Clinton (and others) has the chutzpah to make the charges she has about Obama. If she is so wise, and so clever, and so infinitively more experienced, then how could she have authorized George Bush to go to war without asking for an exit strategy, or at least bothering to read the National Intelligence Estimate? Now that is irresponsible and frankly naive.

Obama however, demonstrated a prescience and a political courage sorely missing from political leaders in Washington in the lead-up to the war in Iraq. In a 2002 speech Obama said, “I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.” That sure doesn’t sound naïve to me.

Powered by

About Marcus Alexander Gadson

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    Obama is clearly naive about foreign policy matters. He wants to flee from Iraq, where terrorists are, but invade Pakistan, which is an ally. He doesn’t know whether nukes are on the table or off. He thinks our military in Afghanistan is just blowing up civilians for sport, yet views this as the “real right.”

    Maybe the Democrats, if they want to be credible in 2008, should collectively take a deep breath, and seriously reconsider possibly nominating someone whose only real political experience comes from a little over two years as the Junior Senator from Illinois.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “real right” = “real fight”

  • REMF

    “He wants to flee from Iraq…”
    – “Tailgunner” RJ

    Not true. Obama has repeatedly stated, “We need to be as carefull getting out of Iraq, as we were careless getting into it.”
    (MCH)

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    To be fair, RJ, Obama did serve three terms in the Illinois State Senate and has travelled to various parts of the world, even living in Indonesia, and has held other jobs. He’s better qualified than a number of presidents, including Woodrow Wilson.

    What scares me is that he’s 2 years younger than I am.

    Dave

  • STM

    He’s not going to be President. Age and experience notwithstanding, the big problem in conservative America is: he’s black.

    Same goes for Hillary – which means, unless the Democrats come up with a viable third major option (or even just a viable option, full stop), there will a republican in the white house again.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    What? Hillary is Black???

    Stan, you misjudge the GOP. We freed the slaves, we passed the civil rights acts and we love our black brothers and sisters.

    The keynote speaker at the Texas straw poll convention this fall is Michael Steele, a black yankee. If he’s welcome in Texas, that says a lot about the GOP’s acceptance of blacks.

    J. C. Watts remains one of the most popular GOP speakers and leaders. If he ran for the GOP presidential nomination he’d be in the top 3 in the current field.

    I’ve always believed that the GOP’s best route to the white house is with a black candidate.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    “The keynote speaker at the Texas straw poll convention this fall is Michael Steele, a black yankee. If he’s welcome in Texas, that says a lot about the GOP’s acceptance of blacks.”

    I think it says more about the Texas GOP’s acceptance of a Yankee.

    Shame on y’all!!

  • Dr Dreadful

    Ah, the lost art of diplomacy.

    For God’s sake, RJ, talking to your enemy is not the same as kissing his ass. Something Obama, rare among Yankee politicos, seems to understand very well.

    As most great leaders through history have understood, talking to your enemy helps you understand him. What he wants. What his grievances are against you and why. What makes him tick.

    So negotiate with him by all means. Make a peace if you can. But learn. It’s easier to find out about your enemy if you’re not expending all your energy and resources fighting him. Prepare.

    Then, the instant he breaks the truce or tries to attack you, use what you have learned about him, and crush him.

  • http://www.libertyrepublican.com Dave Nalle

    NIxon loved to talk to his enemies. He mostly lied, but he had a hell of a time, at least until they started lying right back to them.

    Dave

  • STM

    Dave: “NIxon loved to talk to his enemies. He mostly lied.”

    Lol. Classic. On the other hand, Nixon did talk where he really needed to talk – China being the obvious one. He actually did a of good not just for the US, but for the world. He also took the US out of the Vietnam War, which was a pretty ballsy thing to do in terms of the way it was done.

    Pity about the small matter of … “deepthroat”.

  • Brad Schader

    Obama, to me, has one major problem- he has been running for President since before he even made the Senate. He has yet to be a Sentator simply because he has been campaigning for President since before he was in the Senate. He may bash Hillary for voting for the war, but the truth is that he was not in Congress when the vote was made and therefore we will never know how he would have voted AT THAT TIME. Hindsight is 20/20.

    I do not support Hillary, but she is correct about Obama- he is naive when it comes to politics. Maybe after a term or two he won’t be, but right now he is.

  • moonraven

    I think Hillary is too green.

    Her condemnation of other candidates’ saying they would meet with Chavez is downright silly–especially when one considers that she is talking about the guy who:

    1. Provides heating oil so that US citizens do not freeze to death because their own government has decided they are as dispoable as kleenex;

    2. Controls what OPEC countries charge for barrels of petroleum;

    3. Ditto for the largest petroleum reserves on the planet;

    4. Ditto for one of the major natural gas reserves;

    5. Is one of the most influential people on the planet.

    The question here is not whether Hillary and Co. shold deign to engage Chavez, but whether Chavez should deign to tallk with ANY of them.

    He doesn’t have to. He can sell all the petroleum PDVSA can produce to China, India and a long lilne of other countries and cut off the supply to the US in a heartbeat.

    Foolish, self-destructive gringo lemmings….

    Time to flush the toilet.

  • Nancy

    Hillary is fast losing credibility with me; the more I see of her, the less I like her & the less inclined I am to vote for her among the Dems. However, thus far, I’d still have to take Lady McBeth over any of the GOP candidates.

  • Dr Dreadful

    MR, while I am concerned at some of President Chavez’s power consolidation manoeuvres, I have to agree with you in general terms.

    Like it or not, Chavez is Venezuela’s legitimately elected leader. The fact that this was in large measure due to an election boycott is the opposition’s own silly fault and they’re now stuck with him.

    While we’re on the subject, it’s worth remembering that America’s other great demon, Ahmadinejad, was also legitimately elected. Notwithstanding that his win, as I remember, was unexpected and surprised even a lot of Iranian observers.

    The same goes for Hamas in Palestine.

    One of the ironies of Western (and I’m not excluding my own country from this) foreign policy is that we tend to be all gung-ho for encouraging democracy in “developing” nations – until those nations elect someone we don’t like.

    I well remember the free election in Algeria of, oh, about 15 years ago, which returned an Islamic fundamentalist party to power. America and Britain, which had promoted and supported the vote in the first place, promptly encouraged the Algerian president to seize direct power and nullify the election result. Consequence: civil war.

    And still it goes on. Isn’t it about time we started dealing with the world as it is, not as we’d like it to be?

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Dr. D. you present a number of fine examples of why democracy is overrated.

    Dave

  • moonraven

    Our resident [Edited], Dave Nalle, waxes lyrical again about the beauty of living in a totalitarian state.

    Unfortunately, some of us remember that the US was SUPPOSED to be a representative democracy–not a shooting gallery.

    Doc, US foreign policy has always been about installing and propping up dictators in other countries in order to grab their resources.

    Now domestic policy has become its echo.

    Don’t make too much noise opening that cat food can.

  • Brad Schader

    US foreign policy has always been about installing and propping up dictators in other countries in order to grab their resources.

    Not so much thier resources as much as an excuse to keep the Military Industrial Complex running. Do you think it is by accident that every world leader we support we end up having to goto war with?

    US policy is simply this: Installing the Dictators of Today to Ensure an Enemy for Tomorrow.

  • moonraven

    Doc,

    Just a clarification on facts: the venezuelan opposition has never boycotted a presidential election. The one they boycotted was for governors and congresspeople in 2004.

    Of course they are reaping the results of their actions now, as the National Assembly prepares to vote on the constitutional reforms previous to submitting them to a popular referendum, but that is because they have believed that all the money the US has given them would result in Chavez being magically removed from the presidency.

    Chavez was elected president in 1998, 2000 and 2006–in all three of those elections there were opposing candidates (the oppostion even united behind Manuel Rosales in 2006 but Chavez won 63 percent to 37).

  • moonraven

    Brad,

    Actually, the military industrial complex runs BECAUSE of those purloined resources.

    The US did not install Saddam Hussein, but he was their poster child in the 1980s.

    But they did, in fact, install the Shah, as well as Augusto Pinochet, General Mobuto after the CIA took out Lamumba in the newly-independent Congo, Violeta Chamorro, several Guatemalan serial killers, the Somozas, Batista, etc.

    I do not remember that they waged war against any of those folks.

    Your axiom sounds good, but does not hold up under the light of history.

  • Brad Schader

    Mr,
    They simply did not choose to make those people villians. We have always waged war on former allies. It is what we do. It is not just us, we follow the pattern. We did not create it, but we are very good at it.

    Of course this is all opinion.

  • Nancy

    What other former allies have we waged war on besides those in the middle east – Vietnam? Korea? Japan/Germany (round II)/Italy? And before that, we warred against Germany (round I), Spain, and England. Actually, none of these were allies. It seems to me the business of setting up these banana or sand dune republics – arming & training people barely out of the middle ages with no inherited western tradition of ‘fair play’ or ‘rules of war’, then being surprised when they turn against us – is something that has developed over the past 50 years or so. And despite 50+ years of spectacular failure & betrayal, our fearless leaders, military & otherwise, haven’t learned a goddamned thing from it. On the contrary, they never forget their mistakes & so keep repeating them over & over & over & over ….

    Like this business of the military “losing” a quarter of a million (!!!) weapons + ammo. Oh – NICE play, Shakespeare. What military genius managed THAT one?! So why isn’t their head on a pike somewhere, mm? Is this another legacy of that arrogant, ignorant, consummate congenital fool, Rummy? Or just another typical foulup by a military complex so swamped with assets & access to money they have a bad habit of just leaving all their stuff around, and at the least, not bothering to account for it. After all, they can always buy more; the US taxpayer cash cow is neverending for them, isn’t it?

    Where I work now, everything you get has to be signed for & accounted for. If it isn’t – guess what? YOU pay for it. And if enough of it is missing or mislaid or unaccounted for – the head of dept. is held accountable, and heads roll – even management. Which is as it should be.

  • moonraven

    I believe someone said that insanity was doing the same thing over and over with the expectation of different results.

    Fits like white on rice for stupidity, too.

  • Brad Schader

    Look beyond the 20th century. Vietnam and Korea were actually just part of the Cold War with the Soviet Union (communists) and they were an ally. Korea we are technically still at war with as well (a cease fire is not a peace agreement.) Iraq/ Iran were allies. Japan was not. They do not fit the mold.

    But this really has nothing to do with Obama not being qualified to be President.

  • moonraven

    Wrong again, Brad.

    It has everything to do with his not being qualified: He would just perpetuate the war-mongering bully on the corner posture and actions the US has been known for since its inception.

    For a really excellent piece on the Iran Contra Gang’s anti-Chavez desperation, see the Common Dreams sitre today–which also boasts a piece on Rove’s legacy by a REAL journalist and great human being, Bill Moyer.

  • Brad Schader

    Not “Wrong again” considering this is an exchange of opinions. Please be care on that high-horse. The view is great, but the fall really hurts.

  • moonraven

    Wrong AGAIN.

    I think you’ve managed enough sweepingly incorrect comments to be on your way back to the dugout now:

    Birds do NOT fall off horses.

  • Doug Hunter

    MR, I always love having a view into bizarro world. It’s funny how you leftwing nuts worship real dictatorial fucks like Chavez and Fidel all the while screaming and pointing fingers at Bush (who has no similar aspirations) accusing him of totalitarianism.

    Chavez is but another self important oil dictator who will end up in history’s garbage heap along with his fellow losers. Perhaps he will serve a purpose though. Those in power in the US might see another OPEC lunatic and decide it’s time to get serious about alternative energy.

  • REMF

    “It’s funny how you leftwing nuts worship real dictatorial fucks like Chavez and Fidel all the while screaming and pointing fingers at Bush (who has no similar aspirations) accusing him of totalitarianism.”
    – Doug Hunter

    Not that I’m a fan of Chavez or Fidel, but at least they weren’t a deserter fuck, ala the rightwing chickenhawk’s poster boy, GW Bush.
    (MCH)

  • REMF

    “We have always waged war on former allies. It is what we do. It is not just us, we follow the pattern. We did not create it, but we are very good at it.”
    – Brad Schader

    And it might be significant to note that the “we” being referred to are those who have the grapes to put their money where their mouth is and actually serve.

  • Brad Schader

    No, the “we” is humanity. I do serve my country. I pay taxes and I vote. Dying and/or killing is not the only or the best way I believe one serves their country.

  • Brad Schader

    I love “patriots” who have seen Starship Troopers one too many times.

    Jean Rasczak: We talked about the rights and privileges between those who served in the armed forces and those who haven’t, therefore called citizens and civilians.
    [to a student]
    Jean Rasczak: You. Why are only citizens allowed to vote?
    Student: It’s a reward. Something the federation gives you for doing federal service.
    Jean Rasczak: No. Something given has no basis in value. When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you’re using force. And force my friends is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Brad, I suspect that REMF has never even read the book, and bases his philosophy mostly on the movie. At least in the book the rationale behind the philosophy is explained, while the movie merely glorifies it.

    Dave

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    “at least they weren’t a deserter fuck”

    I read that first as “dessert fucker.” Jason Biggs breathes a sigh of relief.

  • Martin Lav

    “Where I work now, everything you get has to be signed for & accounted for.”
    Moonraven

    That’s because what the “state” gives you is what the “state” wants back. Socialism at work…

    [Martin, please don’t mock people by messing with their names. Thanks. Comments Editor]

  • alessandro

    Wrong!

    Hilary: I don’t get it.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Unfortunately, some of us remember that the US was SUPPOSED to be a representative democracy

    Then you remember wrong. Where does it say this in any of the founding documents? The US is a federal republic, designed in the constitution to absolutely minimize the role of direct democracy in the governing process and to encourage consensus government and division of powers instead.

    I think James Madison said it best:

    From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

    Dave

  • STM

    Phfft! Semantics, Nalle. The meanings of words change over time. Democracy, in the current context, is taken to mean the very kind of society that is the US – as you know better than most. I say, if it’s as a good enough word for virtually every US president since (and including FDR), it should be good enough for eveyone. You are nearly as bad as those right-wing loonies who have been terrorising me on that Selwyn Duke thread in your persistence with this piece of hair-splitting, navel-gazing nonsense :)

  • Clavos

    Stan,

    You may be right in the sense that sheer use of the word “democracy” by prominent politicians and others throughout the twentieth century has led to a sort of de facto assumption that we are a democracy, but Dave is correct when he says that was not the intent of the founding fathers.

    I for one, am no great fan of pure democracy. IMO, it amounts to nothing more than mob rule and usually results in a tyranny of the majority.

  • STM

    Mornin’ Clav old boy. Nice to see you up and about this wonderful Sat’dee. Yes, it isn’t a democracy in the sense that the ancient Greeks saw democracy, and we do have our checks and balances. Legislative, judicial and executive branches of government and governments elected by the people. Still …

    But none of is the ancient Greeks, and we’ve been calling ourselves democracies for an awfully long time.

    I really do believe that as usage changes, it has come to mean something other than its original meaning. It is now about genuinely representative government founded on rule of law, and not about mob rule.

  • Clavos

    Mate,

    I think we’re pretty much in agreement; the difference is just semantic.

    I have a houseful of guests this weekend; my wife’s brother and his family are visiting. We’re using the boat as a “guest house” as the apartment is waaay too small.

    Can’t believe how fast these kids are growing!!

  • moonraven

    Interesting that the same folks who say they are not in favor of “mob rule” try to create precisely that on blogcritics–by any means they can conjure up, including cloning themselves to create the mob.

  • STM

    Morning MR. I can see you’ve woken up on the right side of the bed, as usual :)

  • moonraven

    If the right side of the bed is the left side, yes.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Stan, as I parsed it on another thread, there’s a difference between ‘big D’ Democracy and ‘small d’ democracy. Or more precisely a difference between a government based on democracy as the controlling structural mechnanism and a government with a different structure which uses democracy as a mechanism for limited citizen input at some point in the process.

    The US has the latter and there are those who would like to move it more towards the former. The problem is that eventually, when you replace the rule of law with the rule of the vote you run into problems and inequities.

    Dave

  • Baronius

    How dare you quote that chickenhawk James Madison? Just like you, Nalle, to support cowards and people “too sick” to serve in the Revolutionary War.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “[Obama] has traveled to various parts of the world, even living in Indonesia”

    Yes, that’s true. He went to school for a number of years in the Muslim country of Indonesia. So, that’s now a relevant prerequisite for the job of President of the United States of America?

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    For God’s sake, RJ, talking to your enemy is not the same as kissing his ass. Something Obama, rare among Yankee politicos, seems to understand very well.

    As most great leaders through history have understood, talking to your enemy helps you understand him. What he wants. What his grievances are against you and why. What makes him tick.

    So negotiate with him by all means. Make a peace if you can. But learn. It’s easier to find out about your enemy if you’re not expending all your energy and resources fighting him.

    Rudolf Hess flew to Scotland on a “peace” mission during WWII. And how did the great war leader Winston Churchill respond to this apparent attempt at negotiations by a high-ranking NAZI official?

    He had him imprisoned for life.

    Perhaps you believe Churchill should have had a serious talk with him instead, and discussed the terms of a possible ceasefire?

  • REMF

    “Yes, that’s true. He went to school for a number of years in the Muslim country of Indonesia. So, that’s now a relevant prerequisite for the job of President of the United States of America?”

    What difference does it make where he went to school, Tailgunner?

  • Baronius

    What difference does military service make, REMF?

  • REMF

    “What difference does military service make, REMF?”
    – Baronius

    Well, since you asked…if you’re in favor of an invasion/occupation, don’t send someone else to fight your battles for you; and if you’ve never served in action, don’t pretend to know what combat is like (Although I’m sure this will be censored)
    (MCH)

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Why on earth would that be censored? Chris censors personal attacks, not comments which [Personal attack deleted].

    Dave

  • Clavos

    “if you’ve never served in action, don’t pretend to know what combat is like”

    And if you have served in action, NEVER admit you killed anyone; you could wind up being tried for “war crimes.”

  • Baronius

    REMF – I guess my sarcasm went unnoticed.

    Obviously, military service, academics, and career tell you a lot about a candidate. None of them necessarily tell you anything about their character. None of them, including military service. Neither do they determine ideology. If they did, Kerry and McCain would have the same positions.

    You can’t let military service be the deciding factor in supporting a political position. You can’t dismiss Bush’s position and accept Rumsfeld’s, because they’re the same positions. It’s not just wrong, it’s logically impossible. I’m asking you to take a moment and think about that.

  • Dr Dreadful

    #47: That’s a nice story, RJ. Your point?

    Hess’s mission was not authorized by Hitler. Also, his plan was not to negotiate with Churchill, but with the PM’s political opponents. And Churchill did not just toss Hess in jail and leave him to rot, but had him interrogated at length by MI6 to see if they could get any useful intelligence out of him.

    Hess responded by turning loopy, which he probably was in the first place if he thought his crazy plan would work.

    Not really a parallel for what I’m saying.

    And if I’m understanding your opinion correctly, negotiating with your enemy never works. Strange. I don’t feel like a diffuse cloud of radioactive dust drifting aimlessly about the globe…

  • REMF

    “You can’t dismiss Bush’s position and accept Rumsfeld’s, because they’re the same positions.”
    – Baronius

    The difference is, GW Bush has publicly lied about his desertion from the service, and Rumsfeld has not.

    In May of 1972, Bush was permanently grounded from flying when he missed a mandatory physical. When he was later transferred to Dannelly AFB in Sept. 1972, he never showed up.

    In GW’s 1999 autobiography, “A Charge To Keep,” he wrote, “I wasn’t flying at Dannelly, because they didn’t have the same kind of planes there.”

    He lied, Baronius. He’s a liar. What else has he lied about it? Think about it.
    (MCH)

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    And MCH demonstrates why he is the poster boy with what’s wrong with America today, because he admits to making his decisions based on personalities and spin rather than on the actual substance of issues and peoples positions on them.

    Dave

  • Baronius

    It’s more than that. Even Bush’s harshest critics have him serving for four years, then some botched paperwork, and an honorable discharge. That could mean any number of things. It could be he was too stoned to find Dannelly, or family influence, or he was flying experimental aircraft in Nevada, or he made a pass at a commanding officer, or he attempted suicide after a mission in Thailand. All we know for certain is that the records are wrong and no one’s talking. In the military, that usually means something.

  • Zedd

    Doc

    Ditto to #14

  • Zedd

    MCH

    Keep plugging!! You are a real hero. Very few men have your resolve. You are neither a follower nor a show off. Your message is simple, consistent and to the point. Though they may dance around the issue, no one can deny the weight of what you represent.

    With everything that we engage in on BC what you represent is significant. Your message is about life and death, pain and suffering, honor, respect, duty and resolve and more. As I gab on about all manner of topics engaging in my folly, I have to pause and say, I respect you.

  • Clavos

    Gag…

  • REMF

    Zedd;

    Thanks, I appreciate it. Am no a hero, though.
    :o)

    – MCH

  • REMF

    “And MCH demonstrates why he is the poster boy with what’s wrong with America today…”

    What are you the poster boy for, Nalle? “Phonies Are Us”…?

  • Baronius

    Zedd, you and I both get to learn something today. I discovered that REMF has admirers. Your lesson is that someone can and does deny the weight of what REMF represents.

  • Clavos

    “Your lesson is that someone can and does deny the weight of what REMF represents.”

    Many someones, in fact.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Your message is about life and death, pain and suffering, honor, respect, duty and resolve and more.

    No, his message is about directing attention to himself and lack of respect for anyone else’s rights, beliefs or opinions.

    Dave

  • REMF

    “No, his message is about directing attention to himself and lack of respect for anyone else’s rights, beliefs or opinions.”
    – Dave Nalle

    No, my message is about exposing the hypocrisy of phonies.
    (MCH)

  • Dr Dreadful

    At least he’s consistent.

    More than can be said for some commenters around here!

    ;-)

  • bliffle

    The sheer baldfaced chutzpah of #56 is simply stunning.

  • Clavos

    “No, my message is about exposing the hypocrisy of phonies.”

    No, your “message” is a monolithic, boring, and endlessly repeated specious theory that those who have not served in the armed forces have no right to lead the country in time of war.

    And, by extension, your “message” is also that service in the military somehow makes one special, which also is specious; those who have served in the military are, as a group, no better or worse than any other group.

    And thirdly, you deliver this “message” by stalking certain individuals on this site incessantly, endlessly and mindlessly repeating the same simpleton obsession.

    You have no “message,” MCH, you’re merely a stalker.

  • moonraven

    Uh, YOU are also a stalker, clavos.

    You have spent the past year stalking ME, for example.

  • Baronius

    Clavos, I guess we’re not supposed to agree with each other, but I’ve got to tell you I’m in awe of your comment #69. It’s the Gettysburg Address. I’m actually feeling a little guilty about co-opting this thread for a prolonged critique of a fellow poster, but it’s probably going to be like water off a duck’s back. At least it provoked a slight variation in REMF’s response.

  • Clavos

    Baronius,

    Thanks for the props.

    Given the source, I’m flattered.

  • REMF

    “Four score and seven years ago, John Kerry’s 1971 speech screwed everything up for us five years earlier, in 1966…”