"I mean, hello? This is supposed to be a qualification to be president? I don’t think so."
Why is a 73-year-old woman — feminist "icon" Gloria Steinem — talking like a teenager and making a mindcrushingly stupid attack on John McCain for the respect we give him for his years as a prisoner of war?
You might think she's lost her mind, but in fact, she's just using an old feminist rhetorical device:
But Woolf's vivid device is horribly abused in Steinem's hands. Judith Shakespeare fell into oblivion because she was denied access to education and opportunity. Joan McCain actually becomes a pilot and suffers the same fate as John McCain, but people, looking on, deny her credit simply because she is a woman.
And yet the audience laughs.
***
By the way, I'm surprised the Wikipedia entry for "A Room of One's Own" is so skimpy. I guess feminists are underrepresented among Wikipedians. If it wasn't Wikipedia, you'd be able to argue that women's accomplishments are slighted by the bad people who put together encyclopedias. In fact, that this entry is little more than a stub is evidence of female underachievement.
You might think she's lost her mind, but in fact, she's just using an old feminist rhetorical device:
“Suppose John McCain had been Joan McCain and Joan McCain had got captured, shot down and been a POW for eight years. [The media would ask], ‘What did you do wrong to get captured? What terrible things did you do while you were there as a captive for eight years?’” Steinem said, to laughter from the audience.The audience laughs because it's the ritual to laugh at this point. They take it on faith that men's accomplishments are valued more than women's. They may even recognize the device of naming the female version of the male hero. To ask us to visualize "Joan McCain" is to allude to Virginia Woolf's "A Room of One's Own": "Let me imagine... what would have happened had Shakespeare had a wonderfully gifted sister, called Judith, let us say."
But Woolf's vivid device is horribly abused in Steinem's hands. Judith Shakespeare fell into oblivion because she was denied access to education and opportunity. Joan McCain actually becomes a pilot and suffers the same fate as John McCain, but people, looking on, deny her credit simply because she is a woman.
And yet the audience laughs.
***
By the way, I'm surprised the Wikipedia entry for "A Room of One's Own" is so skimpy. I guess feminists are underrepresented among Wikipedians. If it wasn't Wikipedia, you'd be able to argue that women's accomplishments are slighted by the bad people who put together encyclopedias. In fact, that this entry is little more than a stub is evidence of female underachievement.
Labels: books, feminism, Gloria Steinem, McCain, military, rhetoric, Shakespeare, Wikipedia
posted by Ann Althouse at 9:09 AM
153 Comments:
I see that Mrs Clinton has already recognized that line was not very smart and distanced herself from it. It is simply out of touch to go after someone who was a POW for six years, and how refused repatriation until all of his fellow POWs were released. All that silly attack is going to do is further marginalize the rapidly fading elder women's movement--if that is even possible any more.
I hereby exercise my blogger's prerogative to puke all over Gloria Steinem.
McCain has been up front about his mixed feeling concerning his POW time.
He was shot down, breaking both arms and 1 leg. When captured, they shattered his shoulder and bayoneted him in the leg and stomache. given miserable treatment, he can not lift his arm above his shoulder yet today.
He resisted, broke, made statements, then got himself together and resisted till released.
He wasn't perfect, but he showed a lot of guts and had the respect of his peer POWs. That's good enough for me.
“Suppose John McCain had been Joan McCain and Joan McCain had got captured, shot down and been a POW for eight years. [The media would ask], ‘What did you do wrong to get captured? What terrible things did you do while you were there as a captive for eight years?’” Steinem said, to laughter from the audience.
We've had one or two women taken prisoner in Iraq. I don't think that was the public response.
That said, as a qualification for public office, it's slightly better than a talent for reading portentous phrases off a teleprompter (Obama), and only slightly behind having been Lady MacBeth to a public official for three decades (Clinton).
"marginalize the rapidly fading elder women's movement--if that is even possible any more."
Ouch that's gonna leave a bruise. You better be careful, they can break a hip very easily at that age. Just sayn'
I'd be more receptive if a lot of antiwar folks didn't hammer politicians for their lack of military experience. What are they going to say now?
I don't like militarism and I think military service is overvalued in a President. Other than Washington, the best Presidents had little or no military service. Civilians should control the military and in a democracy veterans should not have a greater voice than anyone else. I say that having served seven years. Respect for veterans is nice, but it's getting out of hand.
If the Left keeps hammering war leaders for not having served then electing McCain seems to be a good response. Chickenhawk that.
Soon it will be Easter. But here is a bunny to look at now.
Respect for veterans is nice, but it's getting out of hand.
My own opinion is that veterans have truly gotten the shaft in the recent past. I's not clear to me my the military needs to cut corners in veterans' care.
And Steinem went on to say that being a secretary is the best preparation for taking over a job! (Or being the wife of the boss?)
You're right, the feminist establishment has become a ritualized, hollow shell.
The POW qualification for President is from being a mean old bastard, not from being a POW.
I'm not sure Joan is contemplated to be similar in the thought experiment.
People get honoring veterans completely wrong in any case, but that's another thread. They take it as soap opera.
i too have mixed feelings about McCain's being a POW. While I respect it, could we please stop talking about it?
Honestly, it happened 34 years ago. Being a POW/war hero is no qualification for being POTUS and I can think of several "war heroes" -McGovern/Kerry/Wallace - who would have been terrible Presidents.
I always that it absurd for Dole, 40 years after the fact to keep talking about his WW II experience. I think McCain should stop talking about the past and more about the future.
This must be the dregs HRC's kitchen sink.
I think Gloria Steinam is too old to be making such remarks as they clearly demonstrate the advent of her senility.
"And she claimed that if Clinton’s experience as First Lady were taken seriously in relation to her White House bid, people might “finally admit that, say, being a secretary is the best way to learn your boss’s job and take it over.”
So, taking her argument further, Hillary slept with the boss and got experience by injection? That gives feminism a real shot in the arm! (Sarcasm)
The real issue is one of stupidity. Women voting for Hillary because she is a woman is just as stupid as Blacks voting for Obama because he is Black, Italians voting for Giuliani because he is Italian, or Mormons voting for Romney because he is Mormon.
It will be such fun, though, watching those who crowed that Kerry was the better candidate because of his service in Vietnam (contrasted with Bush's service in the TX Air Nat'l Guard) now claim that McCain's service is irrelevant compared to Hillary's or Obama's complete lack of military service.
Of all the asinine arguments that emerged post 911, the "chickenhawk" argument was the most foolish. I suppose were Obama or Clinton to be elected, they would be unable to take the country into a war because they would be chickenhawks? Am I following that premise OK?
It will be such fun, though, watching those who crowed that Kerry was the better candidate because of his service in Vietnam
...and who were these people, exactly? Pundits with nothing better to write about, I'd wager.
Trying, and failing, to stay relevant.
Question; what do Old-School feminists have against hair products?
It could be argued McCain's experience as POW inculcated the real horror of war and so would cause greater reluctance to engage one. Whereas a woman, or a man for that matter, having never served feels less compunction.
And Steinem went on to say that being a secretary is the best preparation for taking over a job! (Or being the wife of the boss?)
Traditionally wasn't that the route, though? Back when we had male secretaries, at least. Around 1880. I think Lord Curzon got his start as a secretary/clerk for someone or other (probably Lord Salisbury), and he rose swiftly to become Assistant Secretary of State for India (hah! Secretary!), and then Viceroy in the waning years of Victoria's reign.
We've had one or two women taken prisoner in Iraq. I don't think that was the public response.
We made Jessica Lynch into a hero. While any combat vet reading between the lines would discover that she was captured because she & her crew did not properly PMCS their weapons.
[...]
"It will be such fun, though, watching those who crowed that Kerry was the better candidate because of his service in Vietnam"
...and who were these people, exactly? Pundits with nothing better to write about, I'd wager.
John Kerry himself. He made it the cornerstone of his campaign. Don't you remember the feeble [and wrong] salute coupled with "reporting for duty" at the Dem convention?
Powerline: This exemplifies, I think, the dilemma that Hillary's campaign faces. She is trying to convince Democratic voters that Barack Obama is not a serious, qualified candidate, while at the same time arguing that "being a secretary [read, First Lady] is the best way to learn your boss’s job and take it over.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/03/019933.php
I still have a pair of kneepads autographed by Steinem during the Clinton impeachment. Steinem doesn't really believe in the things she lectures us about, so I don't take her seriously.
Ms. Steinem and other 60's icons like Tom Hayden have come out of the wood work and speaking or writing a lot of drivel lately. The problem is they refuse to acknowledge that the 60s are long over.
Politics has moved on. They are like Jesse Jackson; living in the past and always seeking relevancy in their irrelevancy.
You know, I wouldn't give Jessica Lynch any crap about getting captured. Nor would I question the actions of any of the women listed on this Wikipedia page just because they are women(War Criminals and Abu Gharaib guards are right out though.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_warfare_(2000-present)
You know, I wouldn't give Jessica Lynch any crap about getting captured.
[shrug] Military values are different from American society. For example, in the Marines, if you see someone doing something wrong and don't step up to correct them, you're just as guilty as they are.
And I'm not giving Lynch crap about getting captured. I'm noting that it was due to her own negligence and that we made her a hero for it.
Fen said...Don't you remember the feeble [and wrong] salute coupled with "reporting for duty" at the Dem convention?
My curiousity is piqued. Wrong? Because he saluted indoors while not under arms, like a dogface? Not questioning your call, just wondering what the crime was :)
BTW: for the rest. Officers of the Naval service don't normally salute inside or without head gear. as I understand their bizarre rituals :)
Fen, and look where that got him. It's not like anyone believed him.
And becoming a hero for incompetence is the American Way! See Tenent, George.
I suppose were Obama or Clinton to be elected, they would be unable to take the country into a war because they would be chickenhawks?
The term chickenhawk is exclusively reserved for use by Dems as something to call Repubs. Elsewise FDR would be the prototype for the concept, but they wouldn't ever want to go there.
Zeb,
FDR did 7 years as an Asst SecNav when that sort of position had power. meaning before DoD. 1913-1920.
I think he knew a lot more about our military than Hillary or Barak.
"BTW: for the rest. Officers of the Naval service don't normally salute inside or without head gear. as I understand their bizarre rituals :)"
You have got that exactly right. Plus, he wasn't wearing a uniform.
Wasn't Steinem just saying that we treat the experiences of women differently than the experiences of men? And I agree with that as I recognize it is changing in our society.
However, I do think that the act of surviving nearly 6 years of torture in prison and coming home to build a successful life shows character, determination, and a grip on reality that I want in my president.
BTW: for the rest. Officers of the Naval service don't normally salute inside or without head gear. as I understand their bizarre rituals
It isn't just officers. Naval personnel don't ever salute without their covers, and covers are not normally required indoors, so salutes aren't usually required indoors (there are exceptions to the latter). I'm sure the reasons derive from the rigors of shipboard life, especially in the days when the ships were of wood and the men were of iron.
Bottomline, Kerry's faux pas was saluting without his cover. I'm sure he knew better, but he didn't care. He had a bigger point he wanted to make.
My curiousity is piqued. Wrong? Because he saluted indoors while not under arms, like a dogface? Not questioning your call, just wondering what the crime was :)
Never learned to render a proper salute
For the civillians here, its a military thing. For perspective, imagine a self-proclaimed "star quarterback back in college" who can't throw a proper spiral.
Fen: that is a genuinely crappy salute--but, of course, it is Kerry attempting to execute it.
The Drill Sgt,
Yeah, I know about FDR's Assistant Secretary of the Navy thing. I'm of the opinion that he got that political appointment to help shore up his bona fides because he was such a sorry comparison to his cousin Teddy. It's not a coincidence that this was precisely the same position that Teddy had previously held, at least before Teddy resigned it to form up the Rough Riders, and to ultimately lead the charge up San Juan Hill.
The Spanish American War was going on when FDR was between the ages of 17 and 21. He could've joined up. he didn't.
But the point isn't to disparage FDR on that basis. He acquited himself quite nicely as a war time president. And I'm sure he did know a lot more about the military than either Hillary or Barack. The point is the selective use of the term.
"Bottomline, Kerry's faux pas was saluting without his cover."
So the election was lost for want of the magic hat when he needed it most? Further proof that God truly loves America.
Kerry's faux pas was saluting without his cover.
Nah. I go easy on former vets in the political ring re that kind of thing. The faux pas was the salute itself. Check the pic I linked.
The term chickenhawk is exclusively reserved for use by Dems as something to call Repubs
And I still don't understand their blindspot re the hypocrisy.
People who support the war have no credibility because they won't risk their lives by fighting in it?
Fine. Then those that oppose the war have no credibility because they won't risk their lives by staging a hunger strike to stop it.
For those civilian readers: The forearm and hand should form a straight line and the upper arm should be more-or-less perpendicular to the body.
wow fen
That was a truly limp wristed salute. I bet there was a retired Marine DI (ex Navy officer basic course tac) that chewed his way through his whole campaign hat when he saw that one.
Bush on the other hand I think does a credible salute for a Zoomie. My wife (the colonel)however still can't salute worth a damn, but she knows it. She's operating with several handicaps however.
The 3 best salute givers? Cavalrymen (lots of flair and individuality), Rangers (snappy), and Marines (uniform). In deference to Roger, I put them in that order.
And I still don't understand their blindspot re the hypocrisy.
People who support the war have no credibility because they won't risk their lives by fighting in it?
I have always countered that by saying you can't be all for crime prevention if you refuse to don a badge and go catch bad guys.
Also, the chickenhawk argument is only used in wars they disagree with. Needless you didn't hear it when Clinton was bombing Serbia. That of course was diffrent.
Of course the best salute performed by a candidate this year was the Italian salute offered by Mayor Giuliani in a exchange with Mark Green.
The 3 best salute givers? Cavalrymen (lots of flair and individuality), Rangers (snappy), and Marines (uniform). In deference to Roger, I put them in that order.
I don't know about those Sarge. I still think Benny Hill has the all time best salute.
Evenin all!
My Grandfather once told me when he was in the Polish army, they had to stop martial arts training because of all the saluting injuries.
I'm pretty sure he was joking.
That McCain thought he had shamed his dad when he did break says a lot about him and is still relevant. His father and grandfather are always with him -- it's a lineage.
He's Henry Vth!
He's Henry Vth!
Haha. It's funny because he's John Sidney McCain III, his father was John Sidney McCain Jr, his grandfather was John Sidney McCain Sr, and his great-grandfather was John Sidney McCain. And his son is John Sidney McCain IV.
His last male-line ancestor not named John Sidney McCain apparently died in 1863.
I'm retired military, and I'm starting to think that military experience is being somewhat overvalued in politics. A lot of this is collective guilt over the shabby way we treated our Viet Nam veterans.
I retired in 1994, and have been in the small business private sector ever since.
I really wish voters would put a value on private sector experience.
A senior officer on a military base or ship is a whole lot like a king. The military is by definition a top-down command system, a place where Authority always knows best. The Senate isn't much different, expect that unlike senior military officers, Senators answer to no one and never take personal responsibility for anything bad that happens. These environments may not produce the best civilian leaders.
Neither McCain nor Obmama have any private sector experience. Being a lawyer even in private practice is just brokering government power, it's not the private sector.
Hilary was on the BoD at Walmart, but that was really just legal bribery.
I wish for a candidate who was veteran who then went into the private sector.
Steinem isn't a feminist -- she's a female supremacist.
Being a lawyer even in private practice is just brokering government power, it's not the private sector.
Having been in private solo practice since 1983, I know that's not true. Rent, utilities, and other bills need to be paid. Payroll needs to be met. Customers (clients) need to be serviced and otherwise be kept as happy as possible. My personal income is at stake in there. It all amounts to being in the private sector.
Being a veteran and a lawyer, the problem I have is that people ascribe too much value to a politician's status of being a lawyer, and I know a lot of lawyers who think they know everything important there is to know by virtue of being a lawyer (and I know some doctors who think that way about being a doctor too). Being a lawyer is worth something, but it just isn't worth that much.
I guess feminists are underrepresented among Wikipedians.
Why are feminists underrepresented at Wikipedia?
Because people at Wikipedia are doing something useful.
I'm retired military, and I'm starting to think that military experience is being somewhat overvalued in politics. A lot of this is collective guilt over the shabby way we treated our Viet Nam veterans.
I think its more due to the fact that we're in a war more than anything else. Absent a military conflict, a President's military bona fides really don't come into question. On the other hand, a candidate's willingness to serve in the military does tend to provide more cred in that he/she was willing to take on a generally thankless and dangerous job rather than running straight into political office. I think it says something about an individual's willingness for sacrifice versus running straight for office.
I'll admit I haven't been paying much attention to McCain's campaign so is he wrapping himself up in the POW flag for votes?
RCOCEAN,
"I always that it absurd for Dole, 40 years after the fact to keep talking about his WW II experience."
You are kidding, right? Dole barely ever brought up his WWII experience throughout his entire political life, including in the '96 campaign. As a matter of fact, would be willing to bet Clinton mentioned it more than Dole. Not so much in praising Dole, mind you. More along the line of "You're the past, I'm the future. Thanks for your sacrifice and now get out of my way."
What a nasty beast ... Gloria, you have messed up the lives of millions of women with your man hating nonsense ... please go into the night quietly and not acting like the fool you have always been ...
I'll admit I haven't been paying much attention to McCain's campaign so is he wrapping himself up in the POW flag for votes?
Nah. The Left is trying to tag him with PTSD, thats why they keep bringing up the POW thing.
What's truly astonishing here is not that Steinem made the remark, but that anyone noticed at all.
She and her followers have had absolutely no credibility and no impact on public opinion for the last 10 years -- if you tossed them into a pond, they wouldn't make a ripple.
“Suppose Tori Amos had been Tom Amos and Tom had got tied down and raped. [The media would ask], ‘What did you do wrong to get raped? What terrible things did you do while you were there as a captive that night?’” Steinem said, to laughter from the audience.
It gets less and less funny with each retelling.
Military experience is only respected by Republicans insofar as the person with the military experience is a Republican.
Kerry, Murtha, Wesley Clark... their records are regularly trashed because the lizard brains don't like their politics. Same thing with Iraq Vets: they're American heroes unless they oppose the war, in which case they're "phony soldiers."
The selectivity of wingnuts' "support" of the troops is just blindingly obvious. They're just handy props to use while they're telling everyone how tough they are for supporting disastrous wars.
they're American heroes unless they oppose the war, in which case they're "phony soldiers."
No dumbass. They are "phony soldiers" because, like Jesse MacBeth, they pretend to be soldiers [or Army Rangers] when they are not. And people like you embrace them.
Or, like Scott Beauchamp, they make up phony stories about the war. And people like you swallow their fabrications as fact.
Steinam. Austin, TX. Althouse's son lives in Austin and Althouse has been to Austin several times.
It's a great place to eat Norteno Mexican food and a great place to listen to music but the politics of Austin make Steinem look like Mr Rogers.
These feminist mutts only speak this way in places like Austin, TX and New York City and San Francisco.
I question their patriotism, ever one of them.
Interestingly enough, whenever a Woman who is right of center runs against a Man who is left of center, the Glorias support the Man.
So, playing "what if", what if our 21st Century Judith Shakespeare, were conservative or Gloria's Joan McCain were a, gasp, militarist?
I can see a reaction just like the Talia Shire shrink in the caveman commercial.
That's right fen. All the military members who oppose the war are impostors.
There is, IMO,absolutely nothing wrong with a soldier who opposes the war. Political opposition does most certainly does not make them a "phony soldier."
The phony soldiers are the Jesse McBeths of the world, who invariably claim to be Rangers or Seals, WHO HAVE NEVER SERVED, and stake out positions that attract media attention.
Does that distinction help?
No, dumbass. Just the phony soldiers. Are you innately this obtuse? Or did you take night classes?
Balfegor - That said, as a qualification for public office, it's slightly better than a talent for reading portentous phrases off a teleprompter (Obama), and only slightly behind having been Lady MacBeth to a public official for three decades (Clinton).
Agree, though if John McCain had not been passed over for Flag command on matters of temperment, and had successful executive experience in the military, he would be well up on a MacBeth. As is he still has vastly more experience than Clinton. But his POW "resume`" only counts on the character and guts side of the equation, not in the ability to lead or manage at the highest level.
****************
John Lynch - "I don't like militarism and I think military service is overvalued in a President. Other than Washington, the best Presidents had little or no military service."
Not true. Most of our best Presidents were military Vets. There is something to leading other young men in life and death service that "sharpens the mind" and prepares an executive leader to truly lead (or show signs of failure and flaws of character during their service that helps screen them out of later positions of high responsibility). Even Lincoln who is called "light" in military service was tromping through swamps with mens lives resting on his judgment in the Blackhawk War, prepared to kill or be killed.
John Lynch - - in a democracy veterans should not have a greater voice than anyone else. I say that having served seven years. Respect for veterans is nice, but it's getting out of hand.
As a Vet with 7 years of service as well (Gulf War extended me another year), I agree. Though I would listen to a Vet on military matters more than a Vegan anti-war Lefty. Just as I would listen to the Vegan on tasty eggplant dishes as having higher knowledge and credibility more than I would a Vet that only sampled eggplant in eggplant parmesian.
I'd add that some enlisteds and "no-military ever" civilians I knew had better judgment and leadership skills than some officers I knew, so just being a lieutenant back when does not an automatically, a superior Commander in Chief, make.
And I'll add that there were 562 Vietnam POWs. McCain is the only one that has sought high office. Suffering and sheer "victimhood" are NOT what people should go on in choosing anyone in a position of responsibility.
That holds true for the supposed "moral authority"
of other "survivors" of this or that in our Cult of Victimhood that use their victimhood as a club over other people to claim it gets them to the head of the line in getting what they want.
********************
Fen - You nailed it with Steinham and her Bill Clinton kneepads forever losing any right to open her ignorant Lefty mouth and be taken seriously.
*******************
Zeb Quinn - The Spanish American War was going on when FDR was between the ages of 17 and 21. He could've joined up. he didn't.
That is all ignorant. The War was declared in spring in 1898, when Roosevelt was still in high school, and 16. It was over in 109 days, in the summer of 1898.
In WWI, FDR was a powerful Assn't Secretary of Navy, running naval policy in the Americans and strongly supporting the modernization of the Navy then and as President that turned out to be such a help in WWII.
Yes, you can serve the military well as a civilian employee. Gain experience in military matters and command, even executive leadership..FDR did.
Jason-
I was saying that military experience, for wingnuts, doesn't count for Democrats or for veterans who realize what a disaster Bush has been.
The idea that there's some rash of antiwar activists posing as US special forces is yet another fever dream of the batshit crazy right so you all can continue to labor under the laughable idea that you are advancing the interests of the American armed forces with your slavish devotion to the manifestly idiotic policies of George W. Bush.
one minor nit Cedarford...
Stockdale ran as Perot's VP.
he was a lot smarter than that one debate showed.
I was saying that military experience, for wingnuts, doesn't count for Democrats or for veterans who realize what a disaster Bush has been.
No that is not what you said Doyle. Quit the whining wingnut-batshit insults and try to have an honest conversation. There are plenty of conservatives on this forum who can debate honestly with liberals. Your insistence on framing anyone as a wingnut who disagrees with your utopian view on how the world should be shows how immature you really are.
Grow up already
No that is not what you said Doyle.
Care to give me your summary of what point I was making with my initial 2:12pm comment?
Before Fen started in with the "OMG Scott Beauchamp the (pro-war) TNR editors are brainwashing fake soldiers to tell fake stories suggesting the Iraq War isn't awesome, OMG!" business.
Dolye: That's right fen. All the military members who oppose the war are impostors.
No dumbass. They are "phony soldiers" because, like Jesse MacBeth, they pretend to be soldiers [or Army Rangers] when they are not. And people like you embrace them.
Or, like Scott Beauchamp, they make up phony stories about the war. And people like you swallow their fabrications as fact.
Dolye: OMG Scott Beauchamp the (pro-war) TNR editors are brainwashing fake soldiers to tell fake stories suggesting the Iraq War isn't awesome, OMG!"
Not what I said. Here it is again:
"Or, like Scott Beauchamp, they make up phony stories about the war. And people like you swallow their fabrications as fact."
This post has been removed by the author.
Let's look at a more recent example: Obama's story at the debate about US troops having to use scavenged Taliban weapons.
The instant verdict of the Hot Air/Wingnut/Too Dumb to Breathe side of the blogosphere was to use its collective military wisdom to declare the story totally fishy and probably something completely fabricated.
The only reason for this conclusion was that it reflected badly on the administration. Not the troops, mind you. They would stand to benefit from better weapons procurement.
And of course they were proven totally wrong. The grownups in the military said they had no reason to doubt the story was true.
Even the Beauchamp thing ended up hinging on whether on story took place in Kuwait or Iraq, right?
But by all means, continue your pursuit of truthe, wherever it may lead :-)
I swear you folks are adorable.
And didn't Jamil Hussein end up existing, too?
Even the Beauchamp thing ended up hinging on whether on story took place...
No Doyle. That story was entirely false, and Beauchamp was never able to corroborate a single thing he claimed. It was total bullshit, from start to finish.
John Lynch said " Other than Washington, the best Presidents had little or no military service."
Hmmm. GHWBush. Military service was four years+ in Navy, including being shot down near Okinawa. No Check.
Reagan. Military service was stateside making propaganda films. Check.
LBJ. Military service was in Congress almost exclusively. Check.
JFK. Military service was four+ years in Navy, including being sunk by Japanese Navy. No check.
Eisenhower. Long military career capped by service as Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. No check.
FDR. Assistant Secretary of the Navy. No check.
Calvin Coolidge. No military service at all. Check.
Woodrow Wilson. No military experience at all. Check.
Theodore Roosevelt. Assistant Secretary of the Navy. Leader of the Rough Riders volunteers in the Spanish-American War. No check.
Abe Lincoln. Volunteer in Illinois milita, 1832. Saw no significant action. Check.
Andrew Jackson. Commander of U.S. forces at battle of New Orleans, 1815, and many other military actions. No check.
Thomas Jefferson. No military experience. Check.
So, I'm not sure the sweeping statement John Lynch made is supportable. But this much is certain; the presidents that have take America to war, ending in the deaths of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of American boys, have had almost no military experience. While it is the ex-military who are routinely tagged as warmongers, it is the life-long civilians who lead us to death and destruction.
Generally speaking.
While it is the ex-military who are routinely tagged as warmongers, it is the life-long civilians who lead us to death and destruction.
I would also add the failures of diplomacy and over-reliance of "soft" power to that list. For example, if Clinton had responded to the suicide attacks on the Khobar Towers and USS Cole as acts of war instead of acts of criminals...
It could be argued McCain's experience as POW inculcated the real horror of war and so would cause greater reluctance to engage one. Whereas a woman, or a man for that matter, having never served feels less compunction.
My biggest fear about HRC becoming President is that she'll do something goddam stupid with the military to prove she has balls. While McCain has nothing to prove to anyone.
This is not exclusively a female thing; I think Ehud Olmert's poorly-thought-out invasion of Lebanon arose from the same need to show he had stones.
Dolye: They would stand to benefit from better weapons procurement. And of course they were proven totally wrong. The grownups in the military said they had no reason to doubt the story was true.
Another lie by Dolye. Go figure.
Also via Ace: "Obama claimed our troops HAD TO — not chose to on occasion — capture the very weapons with which they were expected to fight the enemy."
Doesn't even Ace concede that the story checked out?
et's look at a more recent example: Obama's story at the debate about US troops having to use scavenged Taliban weapons.
... which, of course, turned out to be a complete lie.
The truth, when it came out, was that US forced used captured Taliban weapons -- not that they had not, not that they were forced to capture enemy weapons because that was easier than getting them from the US government, none of the horseshit that Obama tried to peddle.
Just that our troops had made use of captured weapons. Like they have in every war they've ever fought.
While certainly ALL of the anti-warriors are not phonies, the ones that make the most press are. Same thing happened during Viet Nam, and John Kerry, of course, was in the leadership of the Viet Nam Vets Against the War. He may have been the only true veteran of the theater in that organization as the JAG never could find ONE of those hundred-odd persons (including Kerry, eyewitness to Jenjhis Kahn-like depredations, or so he said when not under oath) to go on record with their fabrications. Not one. It Iraqi Vets Agains the War suffer from nearly the same disability: nearly all the principles are NOT what the name claims, and the main cat whose name escapes me and who actually IS an Iraqi veteran has lately turned sides. But for the Doyle's of this world none of this matters. The fraud, whether new or antique, is a Greater Truth. It indicts the hellish Bush. And Cheney. And you and me, of course. At the same time, supporting the liars, he denounces anyone with the temerity to believe contrarily to him a loon, a magpie, a fraud. Pathetic. You should check that mirror. But the day is long gone when a liar like Kerry can operate with impunity. Liars and Doyles go hand in hand but it is more difficult to maintain a stellar level of ignorance since the days of Walter Cronkite. Yes Doyle. It is a rash, it is a plot; this program of Kerryesque slanders like Haditha, the parade of Hollywood lies, Beauchamp and MacBeth. It is a lie and the oldest lie known to history: the pathetic carping of cowards agains the better men on whom they rely for their squandered liberty. Word.
LOL. Okay, guys I give up. There is no factual information on earth which could ever call into question the idea that the Iraq Was has been a nonstop Freedom Party which we can only hope goes on all night.
George Bush will be spirited up to heaven on the wings of four star angels for all the good he's done.
Anyone who says otherwise is a liar, an American hater, or a covert Islamofascist like Barack Hussein Obama.
Happy?
the pathetic carping of cowards agains the better men
Bwahahah!
Yes, keep this up fellas. We're tapping a rich mine of lunacy here. Keep it coming.
Doesn't even Ace concede that the story checked out?
Nope. He accuses your side of a bait & switch:
"Tapper sternly scolds bloggers for calling bullshit on Obama, but right there, he himself calls bullshit -- he just wants to pretend Obama's got it right. The source himself denies he had to "capture" enemy weapons and equipment to fight -- he is claiming that he did in fact use such weapons on occasion, but that is different than warfare generally... how?"
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/255523.php
For example, its not unusual for our forces to capture and use AK-47s. The M16A2 is a more accurate weapon at medium to longer ranges. But the AK is good at short range, is designed with low tolerances so it can take a beating, and its sometimes useful to have the enemy hear their own AK fire ["oh it must just be Omar's crew] rather than the American M16.
Bottom line is, yes, we routinely capture and use enemy weapons. Contrary to Obama's statement about the "anonymous Captain" [which he got second-hand through a staffer] we do not do so because we are forced to.
And didn't Jamil Hussein end up existing, too?
It is likely that he exists, although the story he was cited has having confirmed turned out to be fake. So he's a Beauchamp, not a TANG Memo. :)
Why would American soldiers use the weapons they captured if they already have enough of their own weapons and their own weapons are superior?
In any case, the story the captain told was clearly to illustrate supply problems, not as an interesting fact about the situational virtues of the AK-47.
Oh, I love this part. Where the Lefty sez, "Hey, you win. You're right and I'm wrong. Ha ha, just kidding." but marches off yet more impressed with his own righteousness. One can presume if he/she/it had any insights supportive of his baseless positions, we might hear it. I restate that this pathetic flatulence is naught but... well, as I said. History will judge. But if you are impatient, check the membership and activities of those two august organizations. If you care.
BTW, I don't understand your comment re how this reflected poorly on the administration. Its Congress [waves to Obama] that funds the logistics of the war. And its those weasels on the left who have tried to defund the troops so they will be forced to "redeploy" to Okinawa.
History will judge.
Indeed, and you folks are gonna look like apes.
LOL. Okay, guys I give up. There is no factual information on earth which could ever call into question the idea that the Iraq Was has been a nonstop Freedom Party....
Criminey. Both of your examples were demonstrated to be entirely and utterly false, and you think it proves we're warmongers.
Jenny?
Things got a little out of hand.
It's just this war and that lying
son of a bitch Johnson and...
I would never hurt you. You know that.
Yeah Doyle, it's the right that makes you peddle bullshit like it's truth.
FDR. Assistant Secretary of the Navy. No check.
"Assistant Secretary of the Navy" is not a military position.
Why would American soldiers use the weapons they captured if they already have enough of their own weapons and their own weapons are superior?
Because the term "superior" is situational dependent.
Again: its not unusual for our forces to capture and use AK-47s. The M16A2 is a more accurate weapon at medium to longer ranges. But the AK is good at short range, is designed with low tolerances so it can take a beating, and its sometimes useful to have the enemy hear their own AK fire ["oh it must just be Omar's crew] rather than the American M16.
Bottom line is, yes, we routinely capture and use enemy weapons. Contrary to Obama's statement about the "anonymous Captain" [which he got second-hand through a staffer] we do not do so because we are forced to.