Anti-war Democrats smell blood in the water, and their target on February 17 was war hero and former POW John McCain.
Mark the date — February 17, 2008. At a rollicking political rally in Houston for the presumptive Democratic nominee, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), it happened. It will happen again, and sooner rather than later.
When he rose to slay his Republican rival, Senator Obama's boisterous audience of 20,000-plus party faithful and lookers-on, took the bait. They lustily booed a genuine war hero, Senator John McCain.
Even the Arizona Senator deflects “hero” status. With his aw-shucks aplomb, he says those who did not come back from Vietnam are the real heroes. What McCain endured as a shot-down Naval aviator, tortured as guest of Jane Fonda's friends at the Hanoi Hilton, and what we then-called “baby killers” endured upon our returns stateside from RVN, is now shrouded in the mists of the 1970s. That was before many of the Illinois Senator's younger backers were born, or remember. 'Tis a pity.
Vietnam. Its ghosts arise today in the candidacy, again, this time of a genuine war hero, not an ersatz one, such as last time, who made Vietnam a centerpiece of his Rabbit-like run to be president. Ironic that the Democrat Party's most faithful yelled themselves silly in Boston, at their national convention, cheering a faux Vietnam war hero. Some of the same Boston delegates booed the Real Hero, John McCain, in Houston. What a difference party makes, eh?
Senator Obama tried to stem the foul tide of booing. He trotted out his “I-come-not-to-bury-Caesar” line, but was too late. He is “my friend,” Obama said of McCain, adding, almost parenthetically, he was a “hero.” The boos subsided, but only briefly. Senator Obama, who did not serve militarily, shushed the booing crowd, perhaps sensing a God-awful sound bite would revisit his candidacy, at least among us Vietnam war veterans, and others. He was too late. Booing ensued, only muted this time.
Perhaps the sound bite will be reminiscent of a tawdry “memorial service” for Senator Paul Wellstone in my home state, Minnesota. That was the political pep rally from hell. It sunk the return of a former senator and ex-vice president, as Wellstone's replacement, to the U.S. Senate — that dour Norwegian, Walter Mondale.
At the 11th hour of a late campaign, after exuding decency for and, yes, even respect for his Republican opponent, Norm Coleman, Mondale labeled him dismissively as, “you right winger.” (Gasp! One could almost feel the "whoosh" of air rushing out of Mondale's sails in that crowded Minneapolis theater where the single debate took place. Thus Mondale was denied a return to the Senate in Wellstone's presumably owned seat.)
Such tactics are not new to the Left; perhaps strident labeling reinforces their feelings of political moral certitude? Who knows? Being forever right, of course, is ego-important. Assuages guilt pangs of playing the reactionary card? Merely rank speculation, that. At least it assumes a subtle conscience lurks somewhere!
Die-hard liberals appeal, same as the hard Right, to exuberance of aptly-named “bases.” Simplistically, easily, they put folks in “boxes.” (To wit: “You @#$%& right-winger.”) In doing so they do disservice to real debate. “Bases” might be invaluable as, well, as a “base” to build on, but the thoughtful “swing votes” — such as disenchanted white males, among them a legion of us veterans – will make the difference in the end.
Obama must have realized, in the glare of national TV, the faux pax of his whipped-up crowd that night in Houston, just hyped by the primary victory in Wisconsin, then stirred anew by his over-the-top demagoguery. Glibly, sincerely I thought, he tried to put a stop to the booing.
But he went on, inexplicably, to misrepresent grossly what his “friend” McCain's position was on the war in Iraq. Pretty clear, to anyone paying attention. McCain, no fan of Donald Rumsfeld, wanted to win, and badly, with sufficient forces to do the job. Obama, with his Harry Reid-like defeatist record, would duck out, and forget victory: “Bring the Troops Home,” at any cost, a la Vietnam, paralleling Nixon's “Peace with Honor,” America's worst defeat ever.
After the booing had stopped , Obama uttered a falsehood: “Senator McCain wants to fight the war in Iraq for another [sic] hundred years.” Well, jaws dropped in this house at that bombshell. It was “You right-winger” all over again. Did we hear what we just heard? Zounds! Of course, that was not even remotely what Senator McCain said, or implied. A Hundred Years' War? Shame on Senator Obama. Some “friend.” Rather, he was “Et tu, Brute!”
First, Iraq is not 100 years old, a product of Brit-led division after World War I. What McCain proclaimed was, as in Europe and South Korea, the United States would likely maintain a “presence” in Iraq long after the current mission (that Obama & Friends would forego) was completed.
So even before the Big Election, demagoguery has begun. With an anti-military, anti-victory tone, accompanied by the booing of a genuine American war hero. How sad. The late Allan Bloom, in The Closing of the American Mind, calls it hubris, the kind wherein insults are tossed at the worthy by the sullen insolent. So there!
Reasserting disaffection of us Vietnam veterans, just when we were coming around in the public mind as — let's see now — no longer “baby killers” (no thanks to Senator John Kerry), is a blow. Coming from those who did not serve militarily, such as Senator Obama, or aren't old enough to remember, only exacerbates the injury to the senses. (For them, Korea must be remote a war as hell, but just look at South Korea now – a booming quasi-republic.)
McCain, a decorated hero, grandson of an admiral who helped defeat the enemy in World War II, who spent five years in the hands of a brutal enemy in Hanoi, being booed at the Democratic frontrunner's political rally, is a cheap and dirty trick.
That Obama tried to stem his unloosed rip tide, was noble, and wise. But then, to launch into a total misrepresentation of his rival's position on Iraq, he squandered his redemption. Anything to “win”? Why, that's positivity Clintonesque.
Is the liberal wing of that party an untutored mob of the aggrieved, of real or imagined victims? Is it up to putting everyone in “boxes”? Served in Vietnam? Get thee into a box, you're a baaad GI. Think Mi Lai. Except, of course, if you are Senator John Kerry, or former Senator Bob Kerrey (D-NE). Then, presto!, you are a good GI. Party makes all the difference.
Taking an early-out, as Senator Kerry did (three months into a 12-month tour), likely from self-inflicted pin prick wounds, suggests an ignoble nature, unfit to serve. Then Kerry had the audacity, he did, to label those pesky truth-seeking swift boat veterans, as liars. Such is his Alice in Wonderland upside-down world. (My article "'Swifties' Sink the USS John F. Kerry" poses the options Kerry had, and left untaken.)
Back to the present: Defeat of America in Iraq was, and perhaps still is, a deeply-rooted political goal of the “Ds,” perhaps to clinch that next election for their side. Another thing, it would assail the hated President Bush and “his” War on Terror, likely to be vindicated by time, by the way, when no one's looking. Shhh.
Could Democrats' moral certitude be wrong? How things do boomerang; the surge appears to be successful, saving countless lives. Victory is at hand, if not in Pakistan. And guess who led the charge for freedom in an unaccustomed role – not hand-wringing politicians, but our military. Bully for them!
One wonders: Does decency toward our military (often erroneously called “troops,” a bit of a put-down, that) rationally occur among staunch Democrats? Or is lip service enough? Does empathy exist on that side for the soldier, the sailor, airman or marine? Or is it only sympathy for the war vets coming home wounded, thus to become members of the Democrats' aggrieved classes, victims all, ready to be tapped for votes?
Even with 3,000 corpses strewn on New York streets, at the Pentagon, and in a field in Pennsylvania, many hardcore on the Left still ask, evidently with a straight face: “What war?” Or, it's “his” war — meaning Bush's. Despite mountains of evidence, the bloody glove fitting, and they say miscreant Republicans are out to “scare” the public. Republican plot? Then why intercept terrorists' message into the United States? Threat? What threat? After all, our nation has not been directly attacked since 9/11.
If his boo-birds continue, if their stem-winding candidate continues to misstate McCain's views, to stir that Democrat “base” into a mob-like frenzy — well, that I believe is a recipe for their unlikely defeat at the polls in November. Snatching defeat is a distinct possibility here. Stay tuned.
And mark the date the booing began, February 17, 2008. You read it here first.
outing@earthlink.net
Read more articles by Gary Larson
I must say that this article is full of BS. You see, you are putting off the image of every Democrat being anti-war and anti-military. That is just wrong. I pride myself on being anti-Iraq war and pro-military. I used to be that right-leaning moderate that vote for a Republican candidate 90% of the time. Somehow, someway, I found myself in Iraq for a year and decided to expand my real knowledge of what was going on. I returned home with ailments from the war and found that I couldn't hardly get any help from the military or the VA. This made me dig further into the situation. After looking deeply into politics, somewhere that I was never really interested in until my command made it clear that we vote for Republicans in the military, as I seen that it was the Democrats that were fighting for my body armor, my healthcare, and my benefits. It wasn't the so called fiscally conservative Republicans.
I find it natural as a soldier to want to promote another veteran, but to be realistic, you have to look into their record just as you would someone who wasn't in the military. With more and more soldiers being wounded by the day and scandals popping up everywhere about bad contracts and contractors, this is what a true American does. They choose the party that will suit them and their views based on facts and not some low-down article like the one above. I realize that you have a true hatred for the Dems, but you ought to look deeply into who is helping you and our brothers and sisters in arms right now, get the benefits the so well deserve and have paid for in blood. You can deny social medicine to our civilians, but remember that we use this social medicine or universal healthcare everyday through the DOD and the VA. Its good enough for us, right? Well maybe not since our system has been broken for the last 35-40 yrs. Thinking back, thats just about the time that the Republicans started courting the military vote.
Let's get into McCains voting record on Veterans issues. You can find this info at Project Vote Smart (www.votesmart.org) or through the Library of Congress. So here we go:
WASHINGTON, Feb. 15 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — After casting himself as
a "Maverick" in 2000, the new John McCain is walking in lockstep with President Bush, pandering to the right wing of the Republican Party, and embracing the ideology he once denounced. On the campaign trail McCain has callously abandoned many of his previously held positions, even contradicted himself, in a blatant attempt to remake himself into a candidate Republicans can accept in 2008. So just who is the real John McCain?
McCain Myth: John McCain can be trusted to stand up for
veterans and military families.
Throughout this campaign, John McCain has relied on the support of fellow veterans and promised to make veterans' health care his "top domestic priority." [Associated Press, 12/12/07]
In reality, John McCain has consistently put his campaign ahead of veterans and military families by pandering to the right wing of his Party on tax cuts. Faced with a choice between joining Democrats in trying to increase funding for veterans and military families by eliminating some of President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, John McCain chose to cozy up to conservatives by preserving the tax cuts he once opposed. Putting his campaign ahead of our veterans, McCain voted against Democratic efforts to improve care at veterans' hospitals, provide mental health services to soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder and substance abuse problems,and prevent veterans and military families from paying higher fees and co-payments for medical services.
With the one-year anniversary of the revelations of the shameful conditions at military hospitals like Walter Reed coming on Monday, can America's veterans and military families really afford another four years of a Republican President who puts politics and his party ahead of our nation's veterans and wounded warriors?
McCain & Veterans' Health Care
McCain Has Repeatedly Voted Against Increasing Funding for Veterans Healthcare to Keep Tax Cuts for the Rich. John McCain has repeatedly voted to keep intact tax cuts for the rich, rather than provide American veterans with adequate healthcare funding. McCain has repeatedly voted against amendments in the Senate that would have added funding for healthcare services, but eliminated tax cuts for the wealthy. Funding would have covered such important services as improving care at veterans' hospitals, providing mental health services to soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder and substance abuse problems. [2006 Senate Vote #7, 2/2/06; 2005 Senate Vote #343, 11/17/05; 2003 Senate Vote #74, 3/21/03]
2006: McCain Voted Against Eliminating Increased Fees And Co-Payments For Veterans Health Care Program By Closing Corporate Tax Loopholes. In 2006, McCain voted against the Kerry amendment that would eliminate increased fees and co-payments for veterans in the TRICARE health care program by raising the discretionary spending limit by approximately $10 billion. The provisions would have been fully offset by eliminating creating corporate tax breaks. [2006 Senate Vote #67, 3/16/2006]
McCain Stood Out in Opposing Veterans' Healthcare Funding. McCain was one of only 13 Republicans to vote against an amendment that added over $400 million for inpatient and outpatient care for veterans. [2006 Senate Vote #98, 4/26/06]
McCain Puts Politics Over Vets; Would Rather Be Out Campaigning Than Supporting Our Troops. McCain missed an important vote this year that supported the funding of the troops in Iraq and guaranteed them adequate medical care upon returning home. [2007 Senate Vote #76, 3/15/07]
Now this is just the tip of the iceburg for McCain. If you want to get into the surge, we can debate that too. Now tell me, what was the purpose of the surge? The surge was a new tactic that was created to decrease pressure on the Iraqi Parliament to pass legislation and benchmarks. Guess what? They only passed 3 of the benchmarks before Gen Patraeus or Crockers testimony back in September. We were initially going to insert 21,500 troops into Baghdad to secure the city. We did that with much success. We move to Diyala province and took that over too. We move to many cities around Baghdad and secured them as well. Now what on God's green earth made anyone think that our troops (the best and most powerful force in the world) couldn't create the space needed? Not even the Democrats thought that our troops couldn't do this. They were arguing that the Iraqi Parliament wouldn't pass legislation in a timely manner unless there was major diplomacy between the Sunni and Shia militias. So, tell me? Did every aspect of the surge work? The answer is NO! Our troops done their job, but the Bush Administration failed our troops again.
Do we need to go into the body armor issues? How about Soiux Manufacturing that was just sued for millions because they were screwing our soldier that are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan? Guess what? They were awarded another chance by the Bush Administration to screw us over again. They are now making our MRAP vehicles that we so despirately need, along with the same failed kevlar helmets. I might mention that these helmets were woven with 22 strand of kevlar, rather than the required 23. They made up the weight difference by adding more resin, which only made the helmets more brittle. That might explain why we have so many TBI patients returning from Iraq.
All I'm saying is that you might want to look up the facts before you go running your mouth. I've done my research, so do yours. I might also add that you should take a look at Obama's record on veterans issues. Its funny that he received better ratings than a guy who is a war hero, a POW, and received major benefits throughout his life including the use of the GI Bill that the Republicans refuse to pass right now for our returning service members. Put all that together and then tell me why you would vote for someone with their own agenda at play….
Comment by Josh | February 21, 2008
I found it rather strange that Josh had absolutely nothing to say about the substance of this article. Josh, do you think that John McCain deserved the boos? That is, after all, the subject of the article.
Comment by stutzenbach | February 21, 2008
Do I think McCain deserves boos? As far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't boo him, but to think it is un-american to boo him is outrageous. We fought for a democracy. One that has freedom of speech, no matter what the circumstances are. Now tell me, why do you think they were booing? Was it because he is a Republican? Was it because of his record? Or was it because he was a POW war hero? Lets be honest with ourselves. They were booing him because he is a conservative or maybe his record. Not because he is a war hero or a former POW. Thats very misleading in this article. Obama sees this man as a fellow colleague, a war hero, and a man that is also a friend. Obama sits on the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs and has stated that he is looking to expand our military forces. I think that Obama is a very moderate Democrat that is very pro-military, but anti-Iraq war, not just anti-war. Lets face it. I'm not a pacifist and I believe that some wars are inevitable, but Iraq is a different story.
Comment by Josh | February 21, 2008
Any person running for the office of President (and by extension the position of Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces) should be required, by law, to release all military records relating directly or indirectly to his/her military service. There should be no exception.
During the last election process, the issue of John Kerry's suitability to be Commander in Chief became an unavoidable issue. Despite repeated promises, by Senator Kerry, to release his entire military record, he never did. Undoubtedly, Senator Kerry had very good reason to believe that the release of his records would permanently damage, if not destroy, his reputation and personal honor. In the end, Kerry was willing to lose his bid for the White House rather than subject himself to the scrutiny of researches and military historians.
In the present election cycle, a very similar circumstance has arisen. Another,
"Hero" of the Vietnam War seeks the White House. The citizens of this country are expected to accept, at face value, the media's version of Senator Mc Cain's
POW "Hero" status. Anyone who questions the official "history" of Mc Cain's
"distinguished military service" is attacked, has his/her patriotism questioned or branded an agent of the Democrats. This is pure unadulterated nonsense.
Senator McCain admitted (in his book, Faith on my fathers) he knew he was being treated more leniently than his fellow prisoners. He also stated, quite directly, that he had disgraced himself by confessing to be a war criminal (A self-serving admission that ignores the fact that McCain is known to have made more than two dozen broadcasts while held captive.).
Every time I listen to John McCain talk about honor and integrity, I want to puke! Even more sickening, is the endless harping on his wartime
captivity and supposed heroics. It is a stark measure of just how thoroughly corrupt and dishonest this man actually is.
McCain's only claim to fame is his POW experience. There is no doubt, whatever, that had McCain not been the son and grandson of Navy Admirals, we would never have heard of him. He probably wouldn't have survived.
Anyone who witnessed McCain's despicable behavior while serving on the Senate Committee for POW/MIA's, cannot help but be astounded by his irrational and manic performance. It is widely accepted that the Committee's conclusions are little more than a continuing effort to keep the truth from the American people. The fact that McCain was so deeply involved, in what can only be described as a charade, is proof that he lacks even a modicum of personal honor.
The media, old and new, are fully aware of these issues but, continue to treat McCain with kid gloves. When are you people going to stop pandering? When are you going to start asking the really tough questions?
As a life long Republican, Marine combat veteran of the war in Vietnam, I want to know the information Senator Mc Cain has so earnestly tried to hide. I want to know what his POW debriefing documents say. In fact, I want to know what is contained in all of the debriefing documents Senator MC Cain had Classified
and kept out of the public domain. The mantra of "for reasons of National Security" is as wholly unjustified just as the absurd notion that keeping thousands documents secret is necessary to protect the families of those left behind.
Honor? Integrity? I simply can't buy it. I certainly won't be voting for him.
Comment by mikeusmc | February 21, 2008