According to McCain it was four days before he requested medical attention in return for giving up information. Including The name, position and size of his ship and it's targets. Though he claims he gave the names of cities they already hit as targets.

Over all, I have a great deal of sympathy for his situation but it does seem odd for him to sign on to Bushs torture policies and make statements like "I will never surrender in Iraq !" while others are tortured and killed, after he surrendered info to save his own skin after only four days.

His military service includes crashing 5 planes, flying only 23 missions, getting captured, then giving up his entire ship and crew to save only himself. Not very heroic imho.
Sticking it out for five years, when he could have gone home on account of his famous dad and grandfather was about the only thing that seems truly respectable in his heroism.

Isn't McCain doing enough shitty stuff now to criticize? Economic policy, war policy, voting against vets benefit increases.... Don't you think that calling him out on what he did while he was being tortured is kind of a low blow? I don't really think this type of attack really helps anyone accept McCain. I mean, I'm the king lowlife around these parts, and even I think that is crossing the line.

Perhaps I am too much of an optimist, however, I wonder if he chose that as a sort of repentance after realization of the things you listed above. I think he is a very tortured man. And, believe me, while I have respect for him, I also am completely disappointed that this is the GOP's only option

We may need an ice pick here in a few minutes, but OMG, SMA and I are seeing, somewhat, eye to eye on SOMEthing! World peace CAN be achieved! I am convinced! LOL, sorry, that is a rather self important, short sighted view, I know, I know....

Worth noting that Grant was a big time War Hero and STILL turned out to be one of our crappiest presidents.
MIlitary experience might be nice, but there are other (and one could argue, more important) things to consider as well.

Probably the only person to top Grant on the list of worst and most corrupt presidents will be ol' Dubya

It is definitely a low blow. Stuff like this should be off limits, and for the most part it is. You won't hear Obama (or any of the people close to him) talk like this, and rightfully so. In fact, Obama almost always goes out of his way to talk about how much of a patriot and a hero McCain is. It's just the right thing to do. And you'd think with all of this talk about change, people would follow his example. But no. Partisan BS still rules the day. It's the same on both sides.

Forgive my... lack of understanding... but this is my first time in the news section and WOW, shit like this is news? Posted by someone with a "newswire" title?

Anyway... I fail to see how his being rich makes him a douche, and nor does being rich make one an elitist. Elitist means, as far as I know, feeling like one is morally or culturally superior, which no offense is just as often a liberal trait: "you eat meat and you are WRONG. I am RIGHT for not doing so", or: "you drive an SUV and therefore are evil and want the earth to die."

At the same time, I completely agree he's a douchebag for not supporting the troops and getting that bill passed. It might have had some horrid attachments, but we haven't heard anything from him about that. All we know is he was too pussy to show up.

In any case, I don't think there's the slightest indication that McCain's military experience has ever or will ever translate into a special ability when it comes to commanding the country during a time of war. If anything, as FTR has pointed out, it has made him even MORE inept as it grants him the ability to make poor decisions while simultaneously being able to use his time as a POW as a shield against the criticism that would call any other man's commitment to serving our troops into question.

This extends to his experience in general which, as far as I can tell, has never led him to do anything in his political career that a younger politician could not.

You're talking about moralizing, not elitism. Elitism is about status, not choices.

Meaning to say "47" and accidentally saying "57" is not even remotely close to the same thing as getting the Sunni-Shiite divide correct in a speech IN THE MIDDLE EAST, especially when your entire candidacy is based on your supposed expertise in foreign policy. If Obama was running for President on the platform that he was the country's best mathematician and he were giving the speech at MIT, that might be closer, but he ain't and he didn't.

(Oh, and hey, McCain made the "mistake" twice!)

That's really fascinating. I take it you would have said the same about that heathen Jefferson or that pansy Lincoln or that commie FDR, none of whom ever served in the military. By contrast, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Grant... those guys were AWESOME.

Did you vote for W? Because if so, your whining about the paucity of Obama's experience rings incredibly hollow.

Subrosa said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Nolan_Void said:Besides all that there is the obvious, that the man can't even keep the leaders of foreign countries straight, particularly the ones we are dealing most delicately with at the moment.

Unstable, unreliable, unsuitable to be president of the United States of America. I'll keep my fingers crossed until he loses.

Rude_Ruca said:Well, Barack Obama DID miscalculate the number of states in the US.....something along the lines of Campaigning in all 57 states....hm, I am sure there is a youtube around here somewhere with that on it. Oh, but that's right, he was tiiiiiired.....

Subrosa said:Meaning to say "47" and accidentally saying "57" is not even remotely close to the same thing as getting the Sunni-Shiite divide correct, especially when your entire candidacy is based on your supposed expertise in foreign policy. If Obama was running for President on the platform that he was the country's best mathematician, that might be closer, but he ain't.

Whoa, whoa whoa, there, 'brosa....sheesh....and my statement must carry SOME weight, or your beloved messiah wouldn't have resorted to recruiting ex-military personnel as his VP. And, no, my assertion was situational. My god! Do you always assume everyone is making generalizations ALL of the time.....must be a lawyer thing

Wow, shocker....wasn't surprised by that reply AT ALL.....and no, I didn't vote for W. I knew it wouldn't have mattered anyway, because I live in Maryland, a traditionally democratic state, and Kerry won here anyway. I wrote in Colin Powell, actually. I have been hoping for him for a while.

I think that criticizing McCain for giving up information under duress is a low blow. That said, one of the Republican talking points this fall will undoubtedly be his experience as a member of the Armed Forces, while Obama has never served. By all accounts, McCain wasn't a particularly good soldier (his giving up of information under torture aside). Add to that the fact that he seems willing to set a different standards for other veterans than those that he accords himself, such as collecting a sizable pension when other soldiers were denied theirs for precisely the same thing for which McCain is touted as a hero.

This is also completely aside from the fact that many Americans do not feel that the sole, nor even the main function of the POTUS is as the supreme commander of our Armed Forces.

But he hasn't picked an ex-military person as his VP yet, and the majority of the people on his shortlist for VP have no significant military experience.

Furthermore, McCain and Kerry's military experience didn't do anything to faze Bush (in fact, they proved to be liabilities as they were used to paint them as traitors), so I really do think a history with the armed forces isn't all it's cracked up to be when it comes to getting elected.

Heh, well, and from my posting on this, I am sure you already know what I am going to say to that: He really should and he probably will- if he hopes to win over ANY state that was red before (and/or that 25% left of Bushies). That is what it is going to come down to, I think. Also, in terms of Kerry, you should remember, there was a lot of hoopla about former military servicemen who felt that Kerry's post Vietnam actions were traitorous. Additionally, I think what his not winning came down to (no matter your belief in the whole vote counting debacle) people were turned off by the played up "Kerry is a flip-flopper"-notion. God! was I ever tired of hearing that by the end of that election!!!

Please point to where I said that military experience was not valuable. Moreover, if you'd bothered to read past the headlines, Obama is looking at military and non-military personnel. So, yeah. That means absolutely nothing. If he picks a military guy, great. If he doesn't, great. I certainly have faith that he's going to be a far better Commander in Chief than McCain would be for the simple fact that he's never voted for or supported completely nonsensical, destructive and illegal wars. The Sunni-Shiite thing is just icing on the proverbial cake, if you will.

I don't know if it's a "lawyer thing" or not, but your "given our current and potential military situations" caveat could pretty well be said about all three of those non-military guys I listed too. There were some pretty big wars then too, ya know.

My point is not that Obama is better than McCain because he didn't serve in the military. My point is that your reasons for slagging Obama in comparison to McCain in this thread are silly. If you want to vote for McCain, by all means go right ahead. But if you're going to make a case for your guy, don't be surprised when people challenge you on your reasoning.

Uh huh.