The Candidates’ Bracelets (Updated)
[Guest post by DRJ]
During the first Presidential debate, John McCain explained he wears a bracelet he was given by the mother of Matthew Stanley, an American soldier killed in Iraq. Matt’s mother wanted McCain to do everything in his power to make sure “my son’s death was not in vain.”
Barack Obama responded “I have a bracelet, too” and recounted its receipt from the mother of Ryan Jopek, the soldier whose name is on his bracelet. Ryan’s mother wanted Obama to “make sure that another mother’s not going through what I’m going through.”
McCain and Obama each wear bracelets to make a statement but the messages they draw from them could not be more different. As Charles Hurt at the New York Post explains:
“Here lies the difference between these two men:
Obama will accept defeat if continuing on hurts too much. For McCain, any mission where defeat is an option is a mission not worth fighting in the first place.”
How we view this comparison says as much about us as it says about the candidates.
UPDATE: I previously read online and comments here have mentioned the Jopek family may not want Obama to mention their son. The stories indicate the Jopeks are divorced, that Ryan’s father is in the Reserves and has served in Iraq, and that Ryan’s mother may now want this to be a private matter between her and Obama.
I think the candidates’ views regarding what the bracelets signify to them are newsworthy and important. However, we don’t need to talk about the Jopek family in order to discuss that topic, and I would appreciate it if you would leave Ryan and his family out of this discussion.
— DRJ
Or maybe Obama will end a war that wasn’t worth fighting in the first place but was fought anyway, instead of causing unjustified pain by waging that same war for the sake of his own ego.
Just because a “mission” is fought doesn’t mean it’s worth fighting. That’s circular logic.
“Why are we fighting?
Because it’s worth it.
Why is it worth it?
Because we’re fighting.”
Leviticus (41975c) — 9/28/2008 @ 12:03 pmThere is now a story regarding the parents of the soldier, who reportedly previously asked Obama to stop using their son’s name in this manner – I think that’s a point that’s been lost in this affair so far:
http://www.dehavelle.com/2008/09/barack-obamas-bracelet/
If true, than Obama’s behavior in this matter is beyond scummy – it’s deplorable.
Dmac (e639cc) — 9/28/2008 @ 12:22 pmThanks Leviticus, but we knew you didn’t get it.
Dmac, yet again, we learn just how dishonest Obama is, about things that he should have the sense not to sully with such lies.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/28/2008 @ 12:43 pm“Or maybe Obama will end a war that wasn’t worth fighting in the first place but was fought anyway”
You mis-spelled the word L-O-S-E.
Obama will ‘end’ wars by losing them. We know that because Obama’s 2007 de-escalation act would have lost the war already.
McCain will end wars by winning them and bringing the troops home with honor.
THAT IS THE REAL DIFFERENCE.
Freedoms Truth (cfa2f1) — 9/28/2008 @ 12:49 pmThanks, Dmac. Another person made this comment on a related thread (but didn’t have a reference).
If indeed demonstrably true, this is the kind of thing that alone should cost Obama the election (one of at least 6 things now). Only the most entrenched Obama supporter will not be offended by manipulating the death of a child against a parent’s wishes.
I can’t believe someone can and will make such clear and verifiable out-right lies that are recorded for all to see unless they are incredibly arrogant, foolish, or both. Only a die-hard partisan sticks with the incredibly arrogant. If McCain won’t do it, some 527 needs to put this out.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/28/2008 @ 12:49 pmWe see here how much Obama supporters care about these things. I’m sure Levi subscribes to the Vietnam philosophy that “If it isn’t worth doing, it isn’t worth doing well.” The trouble with this philosophy is that it is hard to see the end point. Where do things that are not worth doing end and those that are worth it begin ? They have trouble with this. I think this may be a consideration in understanding the name that Michael Moore chooses for his supporters and allies.
Slackers.
It fits.
Mike K (155601) — 9/28/2008 @ 12:57 pmI’ve updated the post regarding comments about the Jopek family.
DRJ (c953ab) — 9/28/2008 @ 1:02 pmPersonally, I wish that neither one of them would politicize the very real and personal suffering of military families, but McCain and the GOP have eventually pulled this tactic on having some special patriotic understanding or ownership of the issue and I can see why Obama would counter, but I hope next time he just tells McCain to knock it off and stop using this technique perfected by Bush and Cheney to manipulate the country and it’s unseemly and grotesque.
Peter (e70d1c) — 9/28/2008 @ 1:15 pmYou can see why Obama would counter with a lie, Peter? That’s about what I expect you to say.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/28/2008 @ 1:31 pm#1 Leviticus
It has to be circular or the loop of denial comes to a very bad place. Observe:
And we have to continue fighting oterwise these soldiers lives have been sacrificed in vain.
Why were they sacrificed in vain?
Because it was worth it.
Why was it worth it?
Because Bush and Cheney and the Republicans say so.
Why do they say so?
Because if they don’t, it will be seen as a tragic and forgivable act of betrayal towards American soldiers and their families and the American electorate.
System shut down. The center cannot hold…the worst are filled with conviction and the best are paralyzed by doubt…..etc…
Peter (e70d1c) — 9/28/2008 @ 1:34 pmYep, Peter, Democrats would never question anyone’s patriotism for political gain.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/28/2008 @ 1:37 pmGo ahead and polarize the debate. This is what you do on a continual basis.
One of these days that rage, might get you in trouble out in the real world, because your baseless provocative comment really deserves only two words, and one of them rhymes with “truck.”
In the meanwhile take notice of what this behavior is doing for you and the McCain campaign:
Gallup: Obama +8% RCP Average: +4.8%
Peter (e70d1c) — 9/28/2008 @ 1:44 pmIt would be informative to know exactly what Obama thinks would be worth fighting for. I assume he would agree ending slavery and freeing a whole class of people would be a worthwhile cause. But would he be willing to fight to free non-slaves who are prisoners of political oppression? Is it slavery he would fight against or would he also be willing to fight for freedom?
huey (3990bf) — 9/28/2008 @ 1:47 pmPolls Source: Real Clear Politics.
Peter (e70d1c) — 9/28/2008 @ 1:47 pmPeter, and you don’t polarize the debate? Baseless? Your commentary above clearly makes my comment not only not “baseless” but tied directly to your own words.
As for “rage”, projection is something you are going to want to work on.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/28/2008 @ 1:49 pmIf family and friends want to remember a dead son or daughter who died fighting for the USA, or if others also want to commemorate the deceased by wearing a bracelet, let them do it in peace. It’s not something for public consumption or for electoral posturing. McCain didn’t need to mention it during the debate, it’s admirable that he cares enough to wear it.
Same with Obama, if the soldier’s father doesn’t want him wearing his son’s bracelet, but the mother approves, Obama can wear it if it really means something to him, but he shouldn’t talk about it in public, not even if he’s asked.
Now, on the general topic of war: It’s almost always best to avoid hostilities, but if that’s not an option and you’re already in a war, you damn well better win it.
Ropelight (1be620) — 9/28/2008 @ 1:56 pmMcCain mentions Matthew Stanley at virtually every campaign appearance and his mother likes it because it keeps his and others’ memories alive:
DRJ (c953ab) — 9/28/2008 @ 2:01 pm#1 Leviticus:
It is worth it to those of us who value Western Civilization: to those of us committed to ideals such as promoting the idea that all men are created equal, that freedom isn’t something that should be the provenance of a lucky or privileged few.
It’s worth it because the enemy that we face is committed to imposing a political system that is the very antithesis of those kinds of beliefs…not just in their sphere of influence where their belief system arose; but throughout the world, using any means required to do so, but in any case, as much bloodshed as possible if victory is assured.
Don’t forget that the world has been thrown into disarray by groups with fewer members and less extreme views of who should be put to the sword to achieve their goals.
This group won’t go away by wishing them away. But the price isn’t any different now than in previous generations. Only by confronting them, with force of arms if necessary, will they be slowed. And that does cost the blood of patriots.
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 9/28/2008 @ 2:50 pmObama will accept defeat if continuing on hurts too much. For McCain, any mission where defeat is an option is a mission not worth fighting in the first place.”
During the debate, I’d immediately noticed the difference in meaning each candidate had placed on his bracelet, but hadn’t been able to articulate the thought so well. Thanks! Well done!
BillB (9cdf5f) — 9/28/2008 @ 2:56 pmWell said, EW1(SG).
DRJ (c953ab) — 9/28/2008 @ 3:09 pmI’m pleased Matthew Stanley can be remembered in any way, it keeps his memory alive. We should honor our fallen soldiers, and give thanks for their service.
We also honor our veterans, especially our combat vets, wounded or not, who return home and contribute even more to the life of our nation.
My comment at #15 was intended to discourage the misuse of the honored dead, not to silence their names. It’s a special matter which does not lend itself to the bluster and scuffle of the political arena. I came home in 1968, it was a different time and likely accounts for a somewhat elevated sensitivity on my part.
Ropelight (1be620) — 9/28/2008 @ 3:14 pmI have a bracelet too and it reads “Don’t go to war on false pretence and lies.” It also reads ” When you make a mistake, own up and apologise and stop spinning it. It makes things worse.”
love2008 (1b037c) — 9/28/2008 @ 3:17 pmLovey’s bracelet actually reads “please be nice to me, because I’m special.“
Dmac (e639cc) — 9/28/2008 @ 3:23 pmGood point, Ropelight. I agree.
DRJ (c953ab) — 9/28/2008 @ 3:24 pmAnd before you get your undies into yet another Gordian knot of mock outrage, that kind of response is what happens when you interject idiotic comments into a serious discussion.
Dmac (e639cc) — 9/28/2008 @ 3:24 pm^ Look back at the UN resolutions and Saddam’s defiance, his past coddling of terrorists after anti-American attacks. Safe Harbor. Dangerous man. Genocide, torture, more on the way. Your bracelet didn’t get blown up anywhere with you wearing it. Be grateful.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 9/28/2008 @ 3:27 pm#25
love2008 (1b037c) — 9/28/2008 @ 3:28 pmDid somebody just fart? Disgusting!
There is no love in 2008, it’s pure hate.
Ropelight (1be620) — 9/28/2008 @ 3:33 pmIraq as dangerous as it was had nothing to do with 9/11. Absolutely nothing. It was a mistake that keeps being made.
love2008 (1b037c) — 9/28/2008 @ 3:34 pm#29,
So short sighted. No global grasp here. (Consequences, foes and alliances…)
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 9/28/2008 @ 3:39 pmWhy don’t you take your own advice.
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 9/28/2008 @ 3:41 pmWe have the same defeatist attitudes exemplified by the residents trolls here there were always a part of history. Go back to the Revolutionary War and see the ancestors of peter, lovesick and ad nauseum trolls sucking up to the British, Lincoln’s opponents and backstabbing Generals in our Civil War, Vietnam peace marchers. My god, these buffoons would be kissing Hitler’s ass aqnd enabling his horrible genocidal behavior. They do it now with Putin attacking Georgia or ImaDamnNutJob threatening to annihilate Israel with nukes. Assclowns of the world unite. Pity the traitorous scum like the NY Times editor and owner, Hollywood defeatist scum and Harry Reid/Pelosi cannot be shipped to more hospitable environment such as Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe or even the Monkey Man Chavez’ Venezuela.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 9/28/2008 @ 4:07 pmDon’t you love revisionist history? How many in Clinton administration called for Saddam’s removal? How many Clinton minions and dem Congressmen insisted Hussein had WMDs. How many of the world’s intelligence agencies acknowledged that Iraq had WMD? What the hell do to the Kurds to cause mass deaths from posionous gases? I don’t know why we didn’t attack both Iraq and Syria or why Israel didn’t wipe them out last go around. Now I read Bush doesn’t want Israel messing with Iran’s nuclear capability?
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 9/28/2008 @ 4:17 pmLove and other Obama idolators and apologists don’t even see the hypocrisy of Obama calling for attacks on ally Pakistan. It’s all about hating America first. Like we should give a rat’s ass that the European lice and UN rapists/thieves want the magic negro as potus. Let’s abandon Iraq asap and watch the genocide like we did the Vietnamese left to the commies .
DRJ, I appreciate and applaud your compassion and tastefulness in suggesting self-restraint in talking about the family of the slain soldier memorialized on the bracelet to which Sen. Obama referred.
The responsibility for invasions of their privacy, however — root and unfortunately branch — lies entirely with Sen. Obama. If their wishes (that their son’s name or his mother’s gift of the bracelet not become public topics) have been violated, it was Barack Obama, and no one else, who did that, and he did so in, quite literally, the most public forum imaginable.
I’m certainly not suggesting that the media should pursue them or dig into their family status and history. But the bracelet, what was said when the gift was made (i.e., Obama being told that its purpose was specifically so that he could remember their son’s name,) and Obama’s casual use of the bracelet as a political prop contrary to the parents’ wishes — those are now issues that bear upon the selection of the next POTUS and the relative fitness of the candidates. I don’t think that genii can be put back into the bottle. And it ought to be clear that every bit of the blame for that falls on the head of Sen. Barack Obama.
Beldar (732de3) — 9/28/2008 @ 4:24 pmFrom Jake Tapper’s blog:
I wasn’t able to get through to Tracy Jopek, but she spoke to a reporter at the Associated Press today. She confirmed her ex-husband’s recollection that she’d emailed the campaign to ask them to request that the senator not mention her son on the stump.
But she said she was “ecstatic” that Obama mentioned her son’s hero bracelet during Friday’s debate. That’s because he was responding to McCain citing a different griveing mother’s hero bracelet as a way to back his political views of the war in Iraq and citing the bracelet she’d given Obama was a good and appropriate way to remind people there are different views on this issue.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/bracelet-wars.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-wi-obama-bracelet,0,6413408.story
Update post please.
And enough with politicizing this.
Peter (e70d1c) — 9/28/2008 @ 4:28 pm#34
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 9/28/2008 @ 4:29 pmWhy don’t just respect DRJ’s request and keep the family out of this? Mmm?
Not quite.
Mother ecstatic Obama mentions son in debate.
Peter (e70d1c) — 9/28/2008 @ 4:33 pmLove2008:
Mine reads: “Only Americans vote in American elections.”
Xrlq (62cad4) — 9/28/2008 @ 5:03 pmIt also reads “When you make a mistake, own up and apologise and stop spinning it. It makes things worse.”
Guess love2008 won’t be voting Obama then, since Obama has never owned up to his mistake on the surge.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/28/2008 @ 5:05 pmI understand your point DRJ, and as we are guests in your virtual meeting house I will not press the issue anymore than to say I also agree with Beldar. Obama is the one who put it into play. I think whether or not a candidate was willing to disregard the wishes of a family to make a political point on national TV has a great deal to say about what the bracelet means to them. If Ryan Jopek’s mother did give the bracelet to Obama and she was happy that he mentioned her son on national TV, then Obama is exonerated and the topic is dropped. That said, we also know how credible the AP can be.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/28/2008 @ 5:12 pmxelq – Whoever did your bracelet screwed up – they left off the word “registered.”
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 9/28/2008 @ 5:13 pmMy opinion on the relevancy of the Jopeks hasn’t changed. They are divorced so I’m not sure the former husband can speak for his ex-wife, and reports on her feelings vary significantly. Thus, while I have no problem with efforts by the media and blogs to chase this down, I don’t see the point of talking about the Jopeks as long as it’s not clear what role they want to play.
To me, the point is what do these soldiers’ deaths mean to the candidates, and it’s clear they mean very different things. Obama sees a soldier’s death as an unnecessary sacrifice in a war he’s willing to lose. McCain sees a soldier’s death as a noble sacrifice in a war he isn’t willing to lose.
DRJ (c953ab) — 9/28/2008 @ 5:32 pmI’m all for remembering the dead but politicians using them for any end is ignoble. Both candidates should keep their bracelets within their sleeves or, better yet, in their iconostasion.
nk (5335a4) — 9/28/2008 @ 5:35 pmObama had a choice to say nothing but in order to play tit for tat with McCain and in a shameful act of self-promotion, he spilled it.
That McCain knew that the family was in perfect sync with him bringing their son’s death to the public eye as it furthered their son’s legacy of sacrifice, it was far less offensive.
I think the bracelet simply and beautifully personified the immense cost of freedom to McCain.
To Obama, it was less clear to me what the bracelet signified to him. I was so embarrassed and disgusted by the self-promoting act of oneupsmanship that nothing he said about it could erase that gratuitous play.
Dana (4d3ea0) — 9/28/2008 @ 5:58 pm#22
SteveG (71dc6f) — 9/28/2008 @ 6:04 pmThick wrists or very small writing?
#22
Thick wrists or very small writing?
Comment by SteveG — 9/28/2008 @ 6:04 pm
Neither. A two-faced, oily, smarmy, little freak dropping a turd.
nk (5335a4) — 9/28/2008 @ 6:09 pmObama represents, and is deeply beholden, to the wing of his party that thinks our soldiers are killbots.
SteveG (71dc6f) — 9/28/2008 @ 6:20 pmMcCain is deeply offended by those people… and it needs to show
Obama wishes that we not sacrifice soldier’s lives in unnecessary conflicts.
That’s why he recommends invading Pakistan, an ally, in pusuit of one man, Osama Bin Laden. Obama’s repeated insistence on this course of action should be added to MD from Philly’s long list of reasons that instantly disqualify Obama from serving as CIC.
Bin Laden may be a top member of Al Queda, but it has become fairly apparent that the danger of Al Queda emanates from its loose structure, which renders top-down strategic solutions moot. This is a war of ideology, not an Austin Powers movie.
His failure to recognize this elemental fact, especially after the amount of research into AQ that he has access to, should persuade even his most ardent supporters that he is unequivocally unfit for any executive position dealing with military strategy, much less the Presidency.
Apogee (366e8b) — 9/28/2008 @ 6:34 pmThis is a war of ideology
This can’t be stressed enough. And that is what Obama and his followers simply cannot grasp. Perhaps to do so would be admitting there are absolutes and thus make it far less possible to believe that all it would take is a collective kumbiyah moment then there would be redemption and transformation and reconciliation. The ideology of OBL and AQ is evil. And it is non-redeemable and non-negotiable.
Obama reminds me of a child not ready or mature enough to take the brutal truth right in the face.
Dana (4d3ea0) — 9/28/2008 @ 6:46 pmDid somebody just fart? Disgusting!
Yet another cogent witticism from our resident brain cramp.
Dmac (e639cc) — 9/28/2008 @ 7:02 pmPeter,
Nice research but between the ex-husband and AP it’s like playing catch up. Like the Obama team called her up for a favor.
And the point is, he used the bracelet as a political prop – – after promising the soldier’s mother privacy.
Same night, similar problem: This should sound an alarm to this guy’s inferior judgement.
Henry Kissinger believes Barack Obama misstated his views on diplomacy with US adversaries and is not happy about being mischaracterized. He says: ‘Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality.”
Obama’s just always presuming what people think or feel, especially if it suits his political needs. That slap-down from Kissinger was richly deserved.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 9/28/2008 @ 7:25 pmTo me, the point is what do these soldiers’ deaths mean to the candidates, and it’s clear they mean very different things. Obama sees a soldier’s death as an unnecessary sacrifice in a war he’s willing to lose. McCain sees a soldier’s death as a noble sacrifice in a war he isn’t willing to lose.
Comment by DRJ — 9/28/2008 @ 5:32 pm
I agree as far as your statement goes,
but
if one candidate sees it as supporting the wishes of the dead soldier and his family, and the other candidate sees it as an opportunity to use it for political gain whether the family wants you to or not, I think that is an overriding point.
Had McCain wanted to belabor the point, as any conservative could, let’s make the issue clear.
Is the issue that:
A) 1. conservatives/repubs like wars and don’t mind sending children off to die (as long as they aren’t your own- oops, McCain went, some of his kids are there now, can’t use chicken-hawk)
A) 2. libs/dems are smart, moral, and human enough not to send people to war
Or
B) 1. conservatives/repubs don’t like wars and hate sending anyone’s children off to war unless they think to avoid war in the short term will end up in more dieing in the long run, and think that Iraq was necessary in this light
B) 2. liberals/dems think armed conflict may be necessary at times but this was not one of those
Or a combination. I think Obama would like to agree to A)1 and B)2- that conservatives are blood thirsty brainless savages
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/28/2008 @ 7:39 pmas opposed to libs who theoretically would go to war if necessary (to appease those with common sense), but don’t see the point of it (unless it is someone else fighting the evil us, like Bill Ayers and buddies killing American police/soldiers/whoever that is standing in the way of the revolution)
As Obama had promised . . .
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 9/28/2008 @ 7:40 pmPeter actually researched something? I demand proof! Someone needs to research this.
Icy Truth (feba14) — 9/28/2008 @ 10:24 pm^ Mary Mapes can research it. She has time and incentive.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 9/28/2008 @ 10:35 pmWhy don’t you all read the link Peter provided and hide your heads in shame? Facts can really be a b*tch!
In an interview with the Associated Press today, Brian’s ex-wife confirmed today that she had asked the Obama campaign to ask the candidate to stop mentioning her son on the stump.
But — and here’s where it gets complicated — according to the AP story, Tracy Jopek also said she was “ecstatic” that Obama mentioned her son’s hero bracelet during Friday’s debate. That’s because he was responding to McCain citing a different griveing mother’s hero bracelet as a way to back his political views of the war in Iraq and citing the bracelet she’d given Obama was a good and appropriate way to remind people there are different views on this issue.
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 9/29/2008 @ 12:06 amBut then again most of you folks have never been known to argue based on facts. Instead you prefer to haul out insults and abuses on people who just don’t agree with you. Especially when they have a good reason not to.
#28
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 9/29/2008 @ 12:14 amThere is no love in 2008, it’s pure hate.
Tough luck. If it is love you are looking for, I think you came to the wrong place. Go to Jesus, He loves you unconditionally. 🙂
#31
own up and apologise and stop spinning it. It makes things worse.
Why don’t you take your own advice.
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 9/29/2008 @ 12:28 amHey! You. I asked you to provide evidence about your assertions in a previous thread but you didn’t. Oh well, why would I expect you to. You don’t have it.
Thick wrists or very small writing?
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 9/29/2008 @ 12:37 amBoth. 🙂
#26
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 9/29/2008 @ 1:06 am^ Look back at the UN resolutions and Saddam’s defiance, his past coddling of terrorists after anti-American attacks. Safe Harbor. Dangerous man. Genocide, torture, more on the way. Your bracelet didn’t get blown up anywhere with you wearing it. Be grateful.
None of the above justifies the invasion. You are not the police of the world. You can’t just invade a sovereign nation on the bases of someone’s bad behaviour. Wars are waged as the last option. The major reason the war had any support then was because Bush claimed that Saddam had and was pursuing a WMD program. That seemed like a real and present threat that needed to be responded to-if it was true. It turned out it wasn’t. It also turned out that Saddam did not have any ties with AQ. So, tell me again, why are we still fighting in Iraq? How does this war truthfully translate to the war on terror? Shouldn’t we have focused more on where the enemy was and destroyed them completely, instead of this distraction? How has going to Iraq destroyed or even reduced the real threat of global terrorism? After seven years, can Bush really say he has kept his word to the victims and families of the 9/11 attack by bringing justice to the perpetrators, as he promised? Honest Answers, please.
love2008 – you really believe that you are in charge of something.
What has occurred in your life to make you feel so small?
Apogee (366e8b) — 9/29/2008 @ 1:14 amLove2008-
By breaking the prior agreement to end the prior invasion, Iraq provided reason to invade.
Anything else is a bonus.
Foxfier (15ac79) — 9/29/2008 @ 1:20 amTo me, the point is what do these soldiers’ deaths mean to the candidates, and it’s clear they mean very different things. Obama sees a soldier’s death as an unnecessary sacrifice in a war he’s willing to lose. McCain sees a soldier’s death as a noble sacrifice in a war he isn’t willing to lose.
Comment by DRJ — 9/28/2008 @ 5:32 pm
I agree as far as your statement goes,
but
if one candidate sees it as supporting the wishes of the dead soldier and his family, and the other candidate sees it as an opportunity to use it for political gain whether the family wants you to or not, I think that is an overriding point.
If an adult joins the armed forces of the US of A, after 9/11, after Iraq started, or re-signes up after those events happed, then you can assume that they knew war was in the offing, and wanted to defend their country.
Whatever their reasoning.
To try to accuse folks of “using” them, when they joined– and I’m going to do something many seem loath to do, and assume that the folks are both sane and smarter than a five year old– then you must assume that they managed to trick several thousand of the most cynical, practical, patriotic people on earth into some kind of random “waste my life and the lives of thousands like me” scheme.
We are not stupid.
We are not foolish.
We are, mostly, patriotic– and even more practical.
And, hey? If you can’t manage to remember our names without checking? Screw you.
Foxfier (15ac79) — 9/29/2008 @ 1:29 amlove2008 –
Peter’s facts can be misleading things….
Foxfier (15ac79) — 9/29/2008 @ 1:31 am#61
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 9/29/2008 @ 1:32 amWhat are you talking about? Are you reading the same thread?
#62
Foxfier, how did Saddam break the agreement of the first invasion? Care to elaborate further?
Well, Foxy, are you gonna answer my question or not?
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 9/29/2008 @ 2:51 amHello.
……….Anyone home?…………..
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………Hello!……………………………………………………………………(crickets chipping)……………………….
What are you talking about?
You. Again, what happened to you to make you feel so small, that you have to lash out? In your own words:
But then again most of you folks have never been known to argue based on facts. Instead you prefer to haul out insults and abuses on people who just don’t agree with you.
You throw out an unsupported insult, and then accuse others of unsupported insults.
Because you disagree.
One more time – what happened to you that you feel so small?
Apogee (366e8b) — 9/29/2008 @ 3:06 amDid they also provide a reason to embellish intel and lie to the American people about WMDs and Saddam’s ties to AQ?
Peter (e70d1c) — 9/29/2008 @ 7:59 amLovey, it was nearly two AM. I did this strange thing of *going to bed.*
This article has information on the actual violations.
Peter-
1) WMDs were not a lie
2) You mean this link with AQ?
Never mind that there was never a claim that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, no matter what folks suppose when they’re surveyed.
Foxfier (15ac79) — 9/29/2008 @ 8:49 amYes, Senator Obama is wearing a HeroBracelet in the name of SGT Jopek. The bracelet was presented to him by his mother.
I am with HeroBracelets.org and Senator McCain and President Bush have both been presented HeroBracelts by the mothers of fallen soldiers. Recently, other members of the Jopek family have ordered HeroBracelets to “read exactly like the bracelet Senator Obama is wearing.”
So, from my direct experience, this is a non-issue.
Thousands are wearing HeroBracelets to honor the memories of soldiers and Marines they have never met and they do so out of respect.
HeroBracelets.org is a non-political organization that raises money through the bracelet sales for both the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund and the Military Order of The Purple Heart.
chris greta (fcdc73) — 9/29/2008 @ 9:11 amObama certainly agrees with you!!!
love2008: Didn’t Stashiu3 already haul your ass into the court of public opinion for lying, disappearing at questioning and baseless slander? You’re choosing to vote for an unqualified man who obstructs facts and tramples information is proof that you are a Socialist. A moderate liberal sort of likes America, is the main difference.
BHO knows he’s not qualified and that’s why he chose Biden. There’s goes Hope and Change. I kinda tossed it out anyway with the public funding.
Wish it were just a cheap Hollywood remake, but it’s this goon’s campaign style: Trample, lie, intimidate and oppress. But it’s your candidate, honey. “Way deep inside you.” You already said why you’re voting for the thug. Pathetic.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 9/29/2008 @ 11:32 amObama made a promise of CONFIDENTIALITY. Maybe he’ll do this again after he meets with Iran. (/s)
Glad she was okay after he did what was politically expedient. Should we all be so forgiving to a con man.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 9/29/2008 @ 11:38 am#71
love2008 (1b037c) — 9/29/2008 @ 1:08 pmLove2008, blah blah blah….I hate Obama…blah blah blah! Even when I know the truth, it hurts to say it when I know it helps Obama blah blah blah. Blah blah blah…..blah….Hey Obama, BLAH YOU! BLAH YOU VERY MUCH YOU BLAHING RACIST PIG! BLAH YOU!!!!
VERMONT N.
I think you should take a time out, love2008. If you don’t like what Vermont Neighbor says, either respond to the substance or don’t respond at all.
DRJ (c953ab) — 9/29/2008 @ 1:12 pmI am sorry DRJ, it’s just that most of her comments are filled with antagonism and spite. There is a difference between not prefering a particular candidate and outright animosity. Hey, this is politics. We don’t need to make enemies here. We can agree to disagree without calling names and insults. For instance,
love2008 (1b037c) — 9/29/2008 @ 1:42 pm“love2008: Didn’t Stashiu3 already haul your ass into the court of public opinion for lying, disappearing at questioning and baseless slander? You’re choosing to vote for an unqualified man who obstructs facts and tramples information is proof that you are a Socialist. A moderate liberal sort of likes America, is the main difference.”
Let her point out where I lied. I simply said the woman in question, though she would have preferred Obama not use her son’s death on the stump, was “ecstatic” when he mentioned him. The purpose of that was to deflect McCain’s attempt to invoke the dead for his own political advantage. Moreso, the two accounts reflect the difference of opinion on this war. While some want it to continue, a greater number want out.
And on a side note, DRJ, I respect you a lot. You know I don’t make trouble. Most times we get the way we are because of the way people act towards us. On this thread I have encountered the worst kind of people. Proud, arrogant and down right abusive. I have also encountered nice people like you, no one I know, Icy Truth, Scott, and yes, even Stashiu3. We can get along fine if folks will learn to respect others. Even when we share different political view points. You don’t have to ban people simply because they go against the grain of how folks on this blog reason. What keeps any blog exciting is the back and forths between people of opposing views. If all you have are people who sing the same hymn, you will make it boring, even to the members. That is why Patterico P. is one of the best. Keep it that way.
Well, see ya.
love 2008 –
You just wrote in another thread not to blame the media for our own problems.
You are so off the mark, you also claimed that if Hobo weren’t black, he’d have “taken McCain down by now.” A white man with Obama’s lack of legislation or experience wouldn’t even be on the ticket!! And 90% of the black population supports Obama, despite the negative baggage he carries (another point you brought up). It’s his past, his own racism and his Socialist agenda that’s the problem. His color is being used by Obama, his handlers and the media. Come on here. Basics 101. Thank God McCain got this guy under control when he tried pulling the racist card for the 99th time. Even Obama had to back off at that point.
Looking at the polls, I’d say he’s got the racist vote all sewn up! Check the trends. My statement has no spite or antagonism. Just truth.
You have to remember what Emil Jones said: “I’M GONNA MAKE ME A U.S. SENATOR!”
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 9/30/2008 @ 11:07 amI didnt know you were part of the media, VN.
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 9/30/2008 @ 11:13 amSo you have a split-definition of when it’s okay to blame and when it’s not okay? It’s okay to penalize Sarah Palin with disproven rumors regarding her life and career, but ignore the upcoming criminal proceedings relating to a potential President-elect. Sorry… that makes no sense. Obama with the halo stuff.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 9/30/2008 @ 12:08 pm#78
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 9/30/2008 @ 12:53 pmThe media has been on Obama’s so called dark side and we know almost all there is to know by now. He has also faced direct questions and attacks for some of his gaffes. He contested a primary with a very formidable political machinery called the Clintons, and won. He has come a long way. He has seen a lot of fire too. I don’t support any attempt by anyone to hide any useful, truthful stuff about him. I think he should be thoroughly vetted. On the other hand, Sarah Palin has been kept away from the media. They have been doing everything not to let the searchlight beam upon her. Now we know why. She is not ready. She wasn’t fully vetted by the McCain campaign. In a panic to deflect Obama and take the spotlight from him, they rushed for her. The nonsense she has been spewing out on these recent interviews had nothing to do with the media.
The media did not put words in her mouth. They simply reported what she said.
You like to talk about the Rezko stuff as though there is any issue there. Obama has already been cleared of any criminal involvement. But I am sure that is not the kind of outcome you would have liked. I understand.
Comment by love2008 — 9/30/2008 @ 12:53 pm
A comment from an alternative universe.
AOracle (7b9099) — 9/30/2008 @ 1:23 pmThe $250,000 that Tony Rezko raised for Obama is chump change. Everyone knows that. And they call me Ms. Huffington. Catch me on the yacht, where all the dirty dealin’ Dems hang out.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 9/30/2008 @ 5:47 pmSarah Palin just taped another interview with Katie Couric, according to a post from Dana IIRC. I heard Governor Palin earlier today on Hugh Hewitt.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 9/30/2008 @ 5:58 pmlove 2008 –
See info above.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 9/30/2008 @ 6:11 pm