The Latest Outrage From Obama
July 1st, 2008 at 04:57pm Matt Margolis
In response to the attacks on McCain’s military service, Obama said the following yesterday:
“For those who have fought under the flag of this nation – for the young veterans I meet when I visit Walter Reed; for those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country – no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary. And let me also add that no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides.”
But, when asked today if Weasel Clark should apologize for his attack on McCain’s military service, he had a much different attitude.
REPORTER: Do you not feel that Clark owes McCain an apology?
SEN. OBAMA: I guess my question is why, given all the vast numbers of things that we got to work on, that that would be a top priority of mine.
I guess the real question is why Obama couldn’t have simply answers, “Yes, Clark owes McCain an apology.”
For someone who has made a point that “words matter,” he should also realize that a lack of words can matter too.
UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: And the Obamaniacs just keep doing it:
So I too honor John McCain. And, like General Clark, I acknowledge his sacrifice for his country. But being a prisoner of the Vietnamese and serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee does not automatically qualify one for the position of Commander-in-Chief — understanding risks, gauging your opponents and being held accountable does. We must end this glib obeisance to sacrifice and ask deeper questions: is a man who sings “bomb, bomb, bomb … bomb, bomb Iran” a man who understands risks? Is a man who says that we must keep our troops in Iraq until we achieve an ill-defined “victory” really know how to gauge America’s opponents. If we want to hold people accountable, then let’s stand behind my friend Wes Clark — and hold John McCain accountable for what he’s said. - Lt. General Robert Gard (Ret.), Vets for Obama, on the kook-left hate-site Daily Kos
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008
82 Comments
1. Cooldown | July 1st, 2008 at 5:34 pm
What an outrage, Obama calls for the end of Swift-boating. His main focus is on the economy, the civil war in Iraq, the war on terror, immigration, energy independence, global warming, and failing education system. How dare he talk about issues that impact 300 million people vs those that focus on John McCain.
Again if any con out there has any new ideas to solve some of these problems that haven’t been tried by repugs the last eight years, don’t hold back
2. Norman Postum | July 1st, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Let’s listen to what some vets have to say.
General Clark was right. Service as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces is only one of the roles of a president. General Clark did not attack Senator McCain’s ability to be president, he simply pointed out that his military service does not inherently qualify him for that role.
Chris LeJeune
Salt Lake City, UT
Iraq Veteran
Army
2003-04
General Clark is right. We should honor the service of any veteran who has suffered in war, but I don’t think that in itself qualifies one to be the Commander-in-Chief. And that’s the point General Clark was making. He wasn’t attacking Senator McCain personally, and anyone who says otherwise is being disingenuous.
Patrick Almand
Dallas, TX
Iraq Veteran
Army
2004-05
General Clark is on point in his comments about Senator McCain. There are many fine leaders in the military. Some–like Senator McCain–have persevered through the most terrible of circumstances. They are all heroes, but they do not necessarily possess the skills to lead the free world. If Senator McCain really wants to show his Commander-in-Chief credentials, perhaps he should start advocating for a sound national security strategy, rather than marching in the proverbial formation of eight years of failed Bush administration policy.
Richard Smith
Huntsville, AL
Afghanistan Veteran
Army
2007-08
Combat veterans understand that General Clark did not denigrate Senator McCain’s honorable service to this nation. In fact, it’s Senator McCain’s lack of support for the troops–like his opposition to the new GI Bill until recently–which dishonors and dismisses the selfless sacrifices made by our brave men and women in uniform. General Clark understands these things and is never hesitant to speak out about them. General Clark has our back and I have his.
Ernesto Estrada
San Francisco, CA
Iraq Veteran
Marine Corps
2003
General Clark’s criticism is accurate and well-founded. No one is disputing the fact that Senator McCain served his nation with honor, and I am forever grateful for his sacrifice. That being said, the question at hand is whether the senator’s military service alone qualifies him to serve as Commander-in-Chief. Despite Senator McCain’s horrific experiences in Vietnam, during his tenure in the Senate, he has been a staunch advocate of the disastrous war in Iraq and the Bush administration’s failed foreign policy. Senator McCain did not support the Webb-Hagel G.I. Bill or the dwell-time amendment, either of which would have reduced some measure of the emotional and financial stress on active duty service members and veterans. General Clark was not attacking John McCain’s military service–he was questioning whether he learned anything from that experience.
Casey Howard
Colorado Springs, CO
Iraq Veteran
Army
2005-06
In no way has General Clark questioned the honorable service or the patriotism of Captain McCain. Rather, he questioned the judgment of Senator McCain who has foolishly endorsed the failed neo-conservative foreign policy of the Bush administration.
Peter Granato
Washington, DC
Iraq Veteran
Army
2003-04
General Clark needs to be making these comments. Its the only way to get through the free pass the media is giving John McCain because of his honorable service as a POW.
Elliot Anderson
Las Vegas, NV
Afghanistan Veteran
Marine Corps
2004-05
General Clark and John McCain are both equally honorable patriots. However, if we can’t have an honest and open debate about policy and military experiences, then the significance of this campaign will be greatly diminished. This is something on which John McCain has based his entire campaign and, therefore, General Clark was totally justified in pointing it out.
David Brignac
Baton Rouge, LA
Afghanistan Veteran
Army
2006-07
As a third-generation Army veteran, I’ve been fortunate to know many admirable men and women with service in the Armed Forces, but I’m also rational enough to understand that military service alone is not a qualification to be President of the United States . Having the foresight to avoid unnecessary wars and the compassion to fund health care and education for returning veterans is also essential; unfortunately, Senator McCain seems to focus solely on sending troops to war while ignoring other problems facing our nation. With American jobs going overseas, home values plummeting, and our nation’s educational and health care programs under-funded, we need a national strategy focused on resolving our problems both home and abroad. While John McCain’s Veteran and POW status makes him a hero to me and many others, his background in no way qualifies him to tackle the challenges facing our country.
Aaron Bailey
Ann Arbor, MI
Afghanistan Veteran
Army
2007
3. Willem van Oranje | July 1st, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Since when is praising McCain’s military service an attack?
This is what General Clark said:
Have Republican minds turned to mush in the last years?
4. neocon | July 1st, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Norman.
Well I guess then that this is a non-issue considering you have found 9 veterans that have come out in support of Clark.
Question: If I can find 9 scientists that question AGW, can we then open that subject up for debate? Or would those scientists be considered shills?
have a nice day
peace, neocon
5. neocon | July 1st, 2008 at 5:54 pm
I just don’t think that community service and 2 years in the Senate qualifies someone for the Presidency.
peace, neocon
6. Willem van Oranje | July 1st, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Oh neocon, you probably missed this. Did you know that Obama is getting more money from military personnel than McCain does?
Obama has collected $327,000 thus far.
McCain has collected $224,000.
7. neocon | July 1st, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Willem,
And that matters how?
I GUARANTEE a McCain win.
have a nice day
peace, neocon
8. neocon | July 1st, 2008 at 6:28 pm
“And did not neocon change the subject from soldier that would disagree with his political views whom he cannot say anything bad about or he boxes himself in on the “support the troops” thing along with the duct tape of the 1st amendment.” - Pain
Pain,
Could you please interpret this incredibly poorly written and structured assertion. Seriously, it doesn’t even make sense as it’s written.
The again, you don’t make much sense with perfect sentence structure and grammer, so maybe I am asking a lot.
Anyway, your last paragraph clearly reveals that Clinton was not focused on world events happening around him, hence the “4″ instances that Bush faced once and remedied.
Thanks for highlighting that.
have a collective day
peace, neocon
9. Casper | July 1st, 2008 at 7:12 pm
neocon,
“I GUARANTEE a McCain win.”
Want to make a bet on that?
10. FmrMarine | July 1st, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Once more
o hussein is an al sharpton, je$$e jackson wanna be - community activest,from of ALL places the MOST corrupt political machine in American history…Chicago.
Led by the infamous daily’s.
He is a government paid lackey, NEVER WAS- who belonged to a RACIST cult, and rubbed elbows with the lunatics from the nation of islam.
He spent a couple of years as a state rep. and won the US Senate seat with a 11th hour smear
11. 42 | July 1st, 2008 at 7:54 pm
“In response to the attacks on McCain’s military service”
What attack? Someone, please tell me, how was what Weasel Clark said an attack on McCain’s military service?
12. neocon | July 1st, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Casper,
I actually made a bet that Bush would beat Kerry in ‘04 with USA, a liberal poster that use to frequent here.
As of yet, I have not been paid. So forgive me if I seem reluctant to trust another liberal to pay up.
have a nice day
peace, neocon
13. Fredrick Schwartz | July 1st, 2008 at 7:59 pm
11. FmrMarine | July 1st, 2008 at 7:45 pm
And in 6 months you’ll have to stand when he walks into a room like everyone else and refer to him as Mr President.
Just like I would if I had the honor to meet George W Bush before he leaves office.
14. neocon | July 1st, 2008 at 8:04 pm
I’d make sure I wasn’t in the room.
peace, neocon
15. Fredrick Schwartz | July 1st, 2008 at 8:15 pm
9. neocon | July 1st, 2008 at 6:28 pm
You mean ‘”grammar.” So you are saying that Clinton was distracted with Monica Lewinsky or the Impeachment scandal the whole time and that explains why there were four major terror attacks that killed Americans and since there have only been one since Bush took office it means he’s focused on the issue?
So if there is another terror attack on US soil or that kills a large number of Americans abroad that will means Bush is distracted too?
I want to be clear on this.
16. Casper | July 1st, 2008 at 8:20 pm
neocon,
Ok, here is the bet. If Obama wins, you send a Christmas package consisting of treats, DVDs, or whatever you think is best to a member of the military serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. I can provide you with a list of names if you need them.
If McCain wins, well, I will let you come up with that side of the bet. As for paying up, I will trust you at your word. However, if you don’t trust me, I would be more than happy to make some type of advance arrangements ahead of time.
17. Retired Spook | July 1st, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Casper, I’m curious. Are you an Obama supporter or are you just betting he’s going to win?
18. Casper | July 1st, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Retired Spook,
Both at this point. I don’t agree with everything Obama stands for, but I feel he will be a better president than McCain.
I like McCain, but I worry about where he stands with all of his flipflops over the last couple of years. I also disagree with his positions on Iraq and health care.
I am still trying to keep an open mind, and I reserve the right to switch up until the end.
19. Evergreen | July 1st, 2008 at 8:40 pm
5. neocon | July 1st, 2008 at 5:54 pm
I just don’t think that community service and 2 years in the Senate qualifies someone for the Presidency.
And you would also have us believe one term in the House of Representatives doesn’t qualify one to be president either. I believe Mr. Lincoln would disagree with you.
20. Casper | July 1st, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Retired Spook,
I should add that I do think it’s a good bet. This is Obama’s election to lose. The Republicans are hurting big time and there seems to be a lot more enthusiasm for Obama than McCain within the respective parties.
21. Gaijin | July 1st, 2008 at 8:44 pm
I want in on Joe Namath’s GUARANTEE. Six more months and some people are going to look like fools. I don’t plan on being in that category, but I guess only time will tell who will come out on top.
Peace, Gaijin
22. jayhay | July 1st, 2008 at 8:52 pm
The latest “outrage”? Wow, you guys just keep lowering the bar… Oh the concern! Oh the hand-wringing!
People are still dying in this stupid horror of a war (among other carnage left by Bush and his cronies), and the four of you in the 101st Fighting Keyboards are fretting because Clark said being a prisoner of war isn’t a prerequisite for being president, and Obama didn’t jump on your talking point to your satisfaction?
Seriously, you guys have your eye so far off the ball it’s just stunning.
23. neocon | July 1st, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Casper,
I liked your wager of helping the military and will tell you that I am helping my church do just that. The congregation sends out quarterly aid packages and gifts.
There are few guarantees in life but I just don’t see this election any other way. Obama offers very little experience and substance. He has never successfully reached across the aisle and accomplished anything of which he boasts that he will bring to the office. His energy policy lacks any substantive short term solutions and largely undefined and ineffective long term solutions, and his position on Iraq is looking more irrelevant every day.
Hillary was the Dems best chance at beating McCain, hence my prediction. However, I could be dead wrong though too.
peace, neocon
24. Tractatus | July 1st, 2008 at 9:04 pm
The latest “outrage”? Wow, you guys just keep lowering the bar… Oh the concern! Oh the hand-wringing!
Yeah, the Wingnut Wurlitzer has been getting quite a workout. Hell, look at Margolis–poor kid can’t even identify an “outrage,” but he’s been told that there is one, so he dutifully parrots the line.
25. Casper | July 1st, 2008 at 9:13 pm
neocon,
Is it a bet? I would be more than happy to send out an extra package this year, or I would be willing to do something different. I should warn you though. I’ve only lost one bet in the last ten years (darn Bears beat my Broncos).
26. neocon | July 1st, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Frederick darling,
Sorry, those two words just go together.
The #1 responsibility of the POTUS is to protect this nation, so if in fact there were another attack on this soil, Bush would most certainly deserve the blame.
Had you been around in ‘06, you would have seen the criticism of the Dubai port debacle from nearly every conservative here.
have a hellac day
peace, neocon
27. neocon | July 1st, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Casper,
It’s a bet. The winner sends out a Christmas package to the military charity of the winners choice, in the winners name.
have a hope and change kind of day
peace, neocon
28. Norman Postum | July 1st, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Deleted - off topic.
29. Kahn | July 1st, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Norman Postum - what was your source for those military quotes. A little tradition here.
I think it’s funny that Obama and his minions keep bringing this up. He loses this argument.
How will pulling troops out of the region make Iran behave?
How will no oil, coal, wind, solar or nuclear make us energy independent?
How will a massive tax increase on everyone making over $100,000 a year and a radical shift to socialism make our economy better?
How will suddenly giving government insurance to 15 million illegal immigrants keep our medical system from being overloaded and from forcing rationing?
How will removing conservatives from Armed Forces Radio, bringing in the “Fairness doctrine”, stiff arming FOXNews (the only neutral news network), and pouring money into liberal smear organizations promote healthy political dialogue?
Oh yah. Hope.
30. Kahn | July 1st, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Norman, your last post is crap. Preferential treatment? Bad judgement? Go F&%k yourself.
I thought Obama said NOT to attack McCains service? So much for that.
Well, I say you’re a douchebag.
And yes - he retired as a captain but was offered Admiral…. so I guess thats wrong.
What a jerk you are.
But please keep it up. ANY liberals care to take Norman to task for these statements? ANY?
31. Willem van Oranje | July 1st, 2008 at 10:09 pm
You guys should ask Chris Crocker to do a “Leave McSame ALLLLOOOOOONE” video.
It has the same level of histrionics.
32. Willem van Oranje | July 1st, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Kahn, Rear Admiral.
33. Kahn | July 1st, 2008 at 10:12 pm
WVO - does that mean your condemning Norman? Little unclear on that.
Oh and Norman…. you quote sources? Don’t add liar to douchebag on your resume.
34. FmrMarine | July 1st, 2008 at 10:12 pm
possombrain
>>>Graduated at the bottom 2% of his class>>>
That is like saying you were on the bottom 2%of the Billionaires list…just plain stupid.
1.crashed 5 planes –? prove this.
2.Shot down because of poor judgment?
like carrying out flight PLANS!?
So everyone who was shot down it was because of lack of judgment…WTF??
Preferental treatment??
again proof…..
before McCain was in the senate, he was a congressman.
earbama? a “community activist” codeword
race hustling, pimp living off the taxpayers.
35. Norman Postum | July 1st, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Deleted - off topic.
36. Ricorun | July 1st, 2008 at 10:20 pm
neocon: His energy policy lacks any substantive short term solutions and largely undefined and ineffective long term solutions…
Interestingly, that’s the issue I think McCain is weakest on and Obama is strongest. And as far as “substantive short term solutions”, even McCain admits his solution is little more than “psychological”. The renewable energy wave is coming, and the candidates can either help to push it along, stand in the way, or stand to the side. IMO I think Obama is too ambitious, but he has the right idea. McCain’s is pathetic. He wants to drill deep offshore, but not in ANWR. Okay fine, I’m all for that. But to think that’s going to materially affect anything, especially in the short term, is ridiculous. In fact, chances are “leaving it to the states” won’t have any effect at all, because most of them don’t want to drill. Second, he wants to rescind tax credits for renewable energy but provide the nuclear industry with billions of dollars in subsidies. That’s nuts! For one thing, the tax credits to renewables would not only be substantially cheaper, but they would have a much more immediate effect. It takes about two years to build a wind farm, or a solar thermal plant. It takes a decade to build a nuclear plant. McCain’s battery prize might have some merit, but it’s so vague that it can’t be evaluated. As far as energy efficiency goes, he has hardly said a word about it. And that’s a shame because that’s the most obvious, easiest, lowest cost and largest facet involved in reducing our foreign energy needs. Obama has it pretty well scoped out — policy, incentives, industrial and intellectual support, everything.
You can praise McCain and knock Obama on other issues, but energy isn’t one of them.
37. Casper | July 1st, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Norman Postum,
Congratulations, you are now a swiftboater and I don’t mean that as a compliment. If you want to debate his policies or question his judgment, then make a coherent argument. What you are doing is despicable.
38. Willem van Oranje | July 1st, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Kahn, I didn’t hear you when Kerry’s service was attacked with smears and lies. On the contrary, I saw you repeating the lies and smear.
What Norman said wasn’t nice but is still grounded in truth. He isn’t the first who have said this. Many veterans have voiced exactly the same about McCain.
39. Kahn | July 1st, 2008 at 10:55 pm
WVO - what lies? I’ve said I give him the benefit of the doubt on his medals. But his actions with the Winter Soldier Program, his throwing away his medals, and his claims about Cambodia were the OTHER Swift Boat ads and they were all 100% true.
FYI, I met Kerry when he visited my school when he was a big shot in the Viet Nam Vets Against the War. I asked him if he didn’t think his fellow vets might think he was betraying them. Guess what, they did.
But for the record, because you didn’t know this - you refused to condemn Norman.
40. neocon | July 1st, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Norman,
Your discovery of wikipedia is as embarrassingly idiotic as your presumptions aout McCain. One can only speculate about McCains mental preparedness, but as evidence by your post, your extensive brain damage is clearly evident.
You may want to post over at the pitchfork. There I am sure your post will receive warm regards, here you’re just exposed.
have a hellac day
peace, neocon
41. neocon | July 1st, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Rico,
You’re dead wrong. McCain offers the tax holiday which will save people up to twenty cents a gallon. I’ll take that any day of the week right now as I am sure will millions of others. To say that that is a gimmick is to be completely out of touch with the average person.
And drilling will help. Had Clinton not vetoed the ANWR drilling legislation in 1995, do you suppose things would be different by now? To think that we can transition to alternative energies within a decade is also preposterous. We will need our domestic crude resources to see us through the transition to more sustainable energies, which is imperative.
McCain has more realistic, sensible approaches to these issues hands down. It isn’t even close.
peace, neocon
42. Kahn | July 1st, 2008 at 11:41 pm
neocon - what alternative technologies? They’re against everything except magic.
43. Kahn | July 1st, 2008 at 11:52 pm
WVO - the brave Dutch
http://home.earthlink.net/~markallenbrown/RestrictionsOnJews.htm
How many Jews are left in Holland NOW WVO? I wonder which one of your neighbors turned over the Franks?
44. Willem van Oranje | July 1st, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Deleted - off topic.
45. Willem van Oranje | July 2nd, 2008 at 12:09 am
Kahn, you know nothing about me or my family during the war. Yet here you are, smearing me and my family.
Shame on you. Especially when you would have known what happened to both my fathers and my mothers family.
Again, I have nothing but the utmost contempt for you.
46. gotbrains? | July 2nd, 2008 at 12:29 am
Deleted - off topic.
47. Willem van Oranje | July 2nd, 2008 at 12:48 am
Another question Kahn. How many Jewish refugees might have been alive had the US allowed them entry shortly before and during WWII?
You think the US acted admirably? Ever heard about the Voayage of the St Louis?
48. gotbrains? | July 2nd, 2008 at 1:14 am
Deleted - off topic.
49. Kahn | July 2nd, 2008 at 1:20 am
WVO, I mentioned not you nor your family. Only your nation and your neighbors.
But now you see how an especially awful thing can make you feel angry when it did not even refer to you.
The Obama sponsored attacks on McCain are similar.
50. Kahn | July 2nd, 2008 at 1:26 am
gotbrains.
1. Annapolis
2. Naval Aviator - Carrier based Fighter pilot - not so easy
3. The Forest Fire - he could have gone home after it, he refused
4. Combat pilot.
5. Severely wounded
6. Offered release and refused
7. Tortured
8. Rose to rank of Captain, offered Admiral and retired instead.
9. House of Representatives
10. Senate
11. Proven compromiser who’s been willing to reach across the aisle to get things done
12. Honest
13. Offers short term and long term solutions to energy shortage
14. Understands conflict and the price
It’s the package. You all say Clark didn’t disparage him, and then YOU do instead. This does not help your side. See past the BDS and realize that McCain is not Bush. And FYI - Obama is not JFK. JFK’s resume looked more like McCains than Obamas.
51. Macker | July 2nd, 2008 at 1:27 am
Obama nor General Clark has any room to talk due to the fact that Clark almost started a shooting war with the Russians by attempting to occupy Pristina airport ahead of the Russians, and three of his subordinates told him they weren’t going to start WWIII over his command.
McCain has honor; Obama, dishonor…or should I say Taqiyya?
52. Kahn | July 2nd, 2008 at 1:32 am
Oh yes Willem, the Democrat controlled government could have let in more Jews that were trying to escape the European NAZI’s. We also could have bombed the tracks to stop the trains taking them to the camps. Just outside Amsterdam probably would have helped.
Don’t like being attacked? Keep your f*cked up European B*llsh%t to yourself. We don’t need to be lectured by you. Even when a genocide popped up on your very doorstep in the Balkans, AGAIN you did nothing.
There is no moral high ground behind the dutch dikes.
53. Kahn | July 2nd, 2008 at 1:34 am
Oh wait? Is that a group of Dutch Commandos jumping into Dafur? Awww nope.
54. Ricorun | July 2nd, 2008 at 1:46 am
neocon: You’re dead wrong. McCain offers the tax holiday which will save people up to twenty cents a gallon.
Until Labor Day. Then what? Additionally, what happens to the projects that depend on that money — the bridges, the road improvements? Do you think the maintenance on those will happen as if by magic? Face it, the gas tax holiday is just an exercise in kicking the can down the road a bit.
And drilling will help. Had Clinton not vetoed the ANWR drilling legislation in 1995, do you suppose things would be different by now?
First of all, 1995 was 13 years ago. Why wasn’t that decision revisited before now? Well apparently, everyone of any consequence was against revisiting it until last week. That includes Bush, his brother Jeb (when he was Gov of FL), Gov Crist, McCain, and Sen Martinez. But again I reiterate — they have only passed the buck to “the states”. And the people in most of those states don’t want it, for fear it will destroy other industries they rely on. Those are real fears, and they aren’t just about “greenies”. As a rule, greenies don’t own hotels, or resorts, or marinas, or golf courses, or boats, or canneries, stuff like that.
Drilling might help (at least it couldn’t hurt), but it’s unlikely to happen. And I suspect McCain and the others know that. Otherwise they would have done something about it before now. I’m not a big fan of Clinton, but let’s face facts: none of these guys were in favor of lifting the off-shore drilling moratorium until last week. Whatever else you can say about it, it’s ridiculous to blame it on Clinton. And as I’ve already said, because they have only advocated transferring control to the state level, it is unlikely to have much material effect anyway. In short, that’s not foresight, that’s pandering.
To think that we can transition to alternative energies within a decade is also preposterous.
I agree. And let me repeat: I’m in favor of drilling whereever we can find oil with relative ease. Conventional sources are far more preferable than tar sands and/or oil shale. And frankly, I think “greenies” have to come to grips with all that — like you said, we’re not going to cure our oil additiction in a decade, or two decades, or even three. But by the same token, even if we start drilling tomorrow (which is unlikely in most places — they haven’t even been explored yet) we’re not going to see any kind of bump in our domestic oil supply for at least another decade. And to think otherwise is also preposterous.
It’s quite a dilemma we find ourselves in, wouldn’t you say? You can try to blame it all on Clinton, but most people understand that there’s been someone else in the White House for almost 8 years now. To require that Clinton should have had so much foresight while requiring little to none of the guy that succeeded him is a very difficult argument to make to anyone with any brains. You might buy it maybe, but not so many others.
We could argue whether it’s likely that investment in more efficiency standards combined with better battery technology will, in ten years time, result in better results than the same investment in oil exporation. That’s a legitimate argument. However, the way things are shaping up, the results are a no-brainer. After all, according to the EIA, the best we can expect if we drill all out (which isn’t going to happen, for reasons already stated), in ten years time we might reduce our dependence on foreign oil by about 500,000 bbls/day. That’s about 3.5% relative to current consumption, and that’s optimistic. I’m quite confident that for the same cost to society (i.e., transferring tax incentives away from the fossil fuel industry to renewable fuels and efficiency) we could reduce consumption by something on the order of 20%, and very likely even more.
The foregoing is a brief overview. But on this superficial level I’d say no, McCain does not have “more realistic, sensible approaches hands down.” And the disparity gets worse the deeper you get into it. I think guys like you really have to look into this stuff as soon as you can, because for one, I think if you do you’ll find this is a Really Good Thing for everyone involved. There’s a tremendously huge world market for renewable energy technologies. In other words, it’s good for business. For another, the more of it there is the more it will help to stabilize the fossil fuels markets. That will help both our trade imbalance and put the screws on the regimes that rely on high fuel prices for power. It’s hard to put a price on that, but it could be the hugest part. Suffice it to say that the less we rely on foreign fuels the more energy security and national security we attain. We have the ability. We have the innovation and ingenuity to make it happen. We just have to unleash it. If we start now will it be more expensive now? Definitely. If we start now will it save us money in ten years? Maybe. Maybe not. If we start now will it save us money in twenty or thirty years? Almost definitely, and perhaps fabulous amounts. It kinda depends on how smart we are. But one thing’s for sure, the longer we wait the less we stand to gain. We’re talking about a HUGE market. And it’s ripe for the pickings right now. Intellectual property alone could be worth many, many tens of billions of dollars, not to mention hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions of white collar and blue collar domestic jobs. But again, that kinda depends on how close to the ground level we get in.
55. Magnum Serpentine | July 2nd, 2008 at 2:19 am
General Clark should be awarded a medal for his comments against Team McBush. After all, team McBush is only trying to get mileage out of Vietnam in order to win a third term for McBush.
I know several generals, like Eisenhower, Pershing, Grant who are rolling in their graves over the actions from the last 7 and a half years of Team McBush.
General Clark has nothing to apologize for.
“The Constitution is just a piece of Paper,” george 2001.
56. Kahn | July 2nd, 2008 at 2:20 am
Heeeeyyyyyy Rico!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqR0Ui0g3wI
57. Republican minds want to know. | July 2nd, 2008 at 3:04 am
Very nicely debated Rico, I applaud and mostly agree with you. There are absolutely no short term cures for rising oil prices, yes there can be little band aids such as the tax roll back, but that just shifts the problems to other areas without fixing the fundamentals. Oil is finite and in a world with a population that is increasing exponentially it’s going to be gone at some point. Either new source of renewable energy or a way to increase current alternate sources in an economical way must be found. The one thing that oil does have going for it at the moment is that it is still here, which gives us some time to fix the problem if we start now.
One thing I do disagree with you on is the timeline. If proper incentives are given to achieve success I do believe it can be done in 10 to 15 years. I say to achieve success because I worry that government funded research may prove to be more profitable than the solution. What I would like to see is McCain’s prize money for the most efficient battery broadened. More efficient batteries I’m sure will play a role in the final product but what I would like to see is a set of criteria to be met that includes efficiency and economic viability. Personally I don’t care if it is better batteries, better motors, conductors or a whole new type of system that no one has thought of yet just as long as it diminishes, or preferably eliminates, our dependency on oil.
Well now that the theme of the thread has been completely altered, I’m going to bed.
Remember it doesn’t matter what you believe, just know why you believe it.
good night all
58. gotbrains? | July 2nd, 2008 at 5:07 am
#50. Kahn | July 2nd, 2008 at 1:26 am
What is the point of your list? Everyone agrees that all of the items in your list constitute McCain’s record of service - no one would dispute that. Again, Gen Clark was making the following valid points: 1) McCain served his country with the highest honor and distinction, for which we are all grateful, and 2) combat service in itself, while admirable, does not mean you are automatically better informed on national security and foreign affairs, nor necessarily make one more qualified to be president than someone who has not served in combat.
Khan - if you so rabidly disagree with what Gen Clark has said, then I assume in the 2000 primary you supported combat veteran McCain over Mr Bush, who had never been to war - correct? And I also assume you voted for combat veteran John Kerry over the same Mr Bush - correct?
If you didn’t vote for Senators McCain and Kerry, then I assume you judge Gen Clark’s comments to be valid. You must have decided that combat experience alone did not make McCain nor Kerry automatically better qualified than Bush to be president. (of course, I happen to think McCain and Kerry were better choices for president - but not solely because they had seen combat while Bush hadn’t).
59. gotbrains? | July 2nd, 2008 at 5:26 am
Khan - Also in response to your post #50,
You write, “You all say Clark didn’t disparage him, and then YOU do instead”.
No Khan, I didn’t disparage Senator McCain in my post #48. I didn’t say one thing bad about Mr McCain - not one (which you could verify had the post not been deleted). My point was that Mr Bush disparaged Sen McCain in 2000 - and did so repeatedly and in the most disgusting manner. And that is not my contention - it is what Sen McCain himself wrote in his book Worth the Fighting For. You will never see Mr Obama or any of his surrogates attacking Mr McCain in the vicious and dishonorable manner that Mr Bush did.
If you are so up in arms over comments from Gen Clark, then do you disavow the slanderous attacks made by Mr Bush on John McCain during the 2000 presidential primary? Do you support Bush’s contention during that campaign that McCain had “abandoned veterans”?
60. Norman Postum | July 2nd, 2008 at 7:16 am
FmrMarine | July 1st, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Sorry, FmrMarine: The sources were given in Post 35 but this site will not allow their publication.
I guess you will have to do your own investigation.
61. js | July 2nd, 2008 at 7:47 am
for some reason, the demoncrats like to uphold the military record and represent that it makes thier man kerry such a great leader and superior to the competition, but when faced with a real war hero, they try to say just the opposite…..yet…denegrating the service record of mccain as irrelevant doesnt sound like swift boating….its the words of a failure….clarks is not much more than an ant on the bottom of the pile of failure in reality…and he is not one to speak about when it comes to records….since our military, under his command, commenced dropping bombs on the civilian populations of kosovo….
and truth be known, the absence of action to resolve the energy crisis we are facing will not cure it, and khan, all the swift double talk doesnt change that….the failure of the US to commence an aggressive program to extract oil for our own consumption only fan’s the fire of enthusiasm of those who are raping our economy….while we sit back and do nothing but talk BS….
62. Sumofabit | July 2nd, 2008 at 9:12 am
Obama never really apologized for his relationship with Wright or disowned him so why would he now do the honorable thing and demand the same of Clark.
The good news is that Clark most likely sunk his chances of a seat anywhere in the White House after this.
63. Kahn | July 2nd, 2008 at 9:22 am
gotbrains - that military service ALONE is not enough, but it is an important part of the whole.
Your posts speak for themselves. It’s obvious that few liberals have any military experience and scant understanding of duty or honor.
64. gotbrains? | July 2nd, 2008 at 9:48 am
So Khan - then you supported McCain in 2000, and Kerry in 2004?
It’s a simple question.
65. js | July 2nd, 2008 at 10:11 am
simple questions that are simple minded dont deserve answers
66. Tom Thumb | July 2nd, 2008 at 10:49 am
Bush never served in the military, I mean, not really. He was bumped to the top of a list for the Champaign Unit in the TX National Guard to avoid service, trained on a plane that the US had already decided they would never use in VN to ensure he would never be called, then went AWOL.
67. Danish Artist | July 2nd, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Tom Dumb,
Bush isn’t running and those tired old liberal talking points are just that “old”.
FYI, Dan Rather was fired for using falsified documents that support your AWOL claim.
And during the 2000 and ‘04 elections, military service was important to you libs (one candidate was a reporter with a personal body guard, the second was a disgrace who gave himself 3 quick medals for an automatic trip home) no matter was that individual did for the service.
Now, like ‘92 & ‘96, military service does not matter.
Why can’t liberals be consistent?
68. Jay Gaultieri | July 2nd, 2008 at 12:44 pm
It’s been brought up before on this blog that in 2000 Bush claimed that McCain’s wife was a drug addict and that his daughter was a bastard mulatta from an adulterous affair with a Black whore. It has never gotten a response and it never will. Bush has never rescinded his statements either. Not too many months ago these very same folks who now praise McCain were insulting him because he was seen as too moderate.
The minute something like this is brought up, the minds of the ten or so grumpy old men who post here in favor of Bush just tune it out. They will never change.
69. Kahn | July 2nd, 2008 at 12:59 pm
gotbrains - no. McCain was out of it before the election hit my state. And, my Secret Service friends love the Bush Family.
Kerry pissed away his military credibility with the V.V.A.W., the Winter Soldiers, throwing his medals, flawed testimony, and by being a solid limousine liberal.
As I said, a part of the whole picture.
Jay - point to an actual credible quote of George W. Bush saying those things. A sound bite MP3 would be best. Otherwise, well i don’t think so.
You liberals are stupid to pick - and sustain this fight. It makes McCains numbers go up and Obamas go down. No use arguing about it, it does.
70. Tractatus | July 2nd, 2008 at 1:21 pm
McCain has more realistic, sensible approaches to these issues hands down. It isn’t even close.
Funny how when it comes to being factually correct, neither McCain nor, by extension, you are even close.
71. Obama’s False ̵&hellip | July 2nd, 2008 at 5:55 pm
[...] The Latest Outrage From Obama [...]
72. neocon | July 2nd, 2008 at 5:58 pm
nhak,
Why would anyone deny that when it could never be proven one way or the other?
I can tell you it is similar to the NYT attack on McCain just a few short months ago about an illicit affair with an intern, that was featured on PAGE 1.
Yet it was completely false, and the retraction was never found.
Why do you suppose they would do that?
have a disparaging day
peace, neocon
73. neocon | July 2nd, 2008 at 6:00 pm
nhak,
Are you restricting the free speech of african-american and latino conservatives?
Does their voice count?
have a free young, white liberal kind of day
peace, neocon
74. Jay Gaultieri | July 2nd, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Kahn–
Here’s one of several links.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/03/21/the_anatomy_of_a_smear_campaign/
Don’t like that a google search will turn up as many examples as you’d want. You won’t do it of course.
75. Dasein Libsbane | July 2nd, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Gautieri,
As long as we’re posting editorials instead of facts, how about this, No evidence that GWB or his campaign was involved in the SC whisper campaign. In fact, there’s deep suspicion that any such smear campaign ever really existed.
76. Some Assembly Required | July 2nd, 2008 at 6:30 pm
“Jay - point to an actual credible quote of George W. Bush saying those things. A sound bite MP3 would be best. Otherwise, well i don’t think so.” - Kahn
This begs the question, of what you think about the Rezko charges and the Wright issue?
Theres this whole guilt by association mess that seems to be the new tactic for you wingers. Considering your defense for Bush’s Campaign in 2000 was that he did not personally say these smears.
I’m sure you’ll play Obama’s issues off as being a different situation, and you may have a point. But what it entirely boils down to is guilt by association with both cases. So I ask you, can you in good conscious defend bush while condoning Obama?
If you can, I believe there is a word for that…
77. Some Assembly Required | July 2nd, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Sorry, that question should read as follows
“So I ask you, can you in good conscious defend bush while condemning Obama?”
78. Jay Gaultieri | July 2nd, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Sure, Mr. Dasein Libsbane, here’s another link from the New Republic—another link which you will call “liberal” because it doesn’t agree with what you already had decided on anyway.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=bbd23d59-2190-4065-8a09-44e8b0be7ba2
Look, you could have been there while Karl Rove was planning the damn smear campaign himself and you’d still turn your head to me who was also standing right there and say it never happened.
79. radio controlled plane&hellip | July 11th, 2008 at 11:09 am
radio controlled plane
I have been searching for sites have content related to radio control racing hobbies to tell them about the Engine Analysis Software for tuning all Nitro RC Engines.
80. Health Insurance Health C&hellip | July 11th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Health Insurance Health Care Waste Management Small Business Health Insurance Florida
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
81. Jessie&hellip | July 14th, 2008 at 5:43 am
Financing Home Improvements
Excellent article.
82. Karan&hellip | July 16th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Karan
All I can say is WOW! Extremely nice layouts, awesome graphics and great articles. No matter how many times I come here, I am still impressed by the very professional appearance. Congratulations on a job well done.