Comments for McCain demands White House apology »
Posted By Eagle_Eye 7 months, 4 weeks ago in Political NewsIn an interview on FOX News, the Vietnam veteran and former Republican presidential candidate said the Obama administration owes veterans an apology after releasing a report last week suggesting that members of the military returning from Iraq and Afghanistan could fall victim to "right-wing extremism."
Read Full Story at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 40
-
100%
Eagle_Eye7 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA: "McCain also took issue with the report's suggestion that Timothy McVeigh's military background made him more susceptible to committing terrorist acts.
Reply
"Timothy McVeigh didn't learn to make that huge bomb while he was in the military," McCain said. "He learned it afterwards. So to point out one veteran who committed an act of atrocity I think is outrageous. And as a veteran and having thousands and thousands of friends of mine who are fellow veterans, I think a real apology is owed throughout the administration.
Appearing on CNN's "State of The Union" on Sunday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said the report is not meant to paint veterans themselves as "right-wing extremists."
"The report is not saying veterans are extremists, far from it," she told CNN's John King. "What it is saying is returning veterans are targets of right-wing extremist groups that are trying to recruit those to commit violent acts within the country. We want to do all we can to prevent that."-
50%
mesodude7 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thanks for posting this, EE. I feel embarrassed and disgusted that the GOP is pimping military vets in their non-stop attempts to smear Obama. These cons are absolutely filthy and unbalanced. Their desperation is getting quite serious.
Reply -
29%
Pecossam7 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Eagle_eye,
Reply
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to CNN's John King:
"The report is not saying veterans are extremists, far from it. What it is saying is returning veterans are targets of right-wing extremist groups that are trying to recruit those to commit violent acts within the country. We want to do all we can to prevent that."
Really, Janet? "We want to do all we can prevent that." Then I would suggest you tell those you suspect of IGNORING their oaths to NO LONGER run ROUGHSHOD over the Constitution of these United States. For OUR CONSTITUTION is what an enlisted Service Member swears allegiance to FIRST and FOREMOST.
"I,________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;....". The rest then states, ".....and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
Did you get that, Janet? "...I will SUPPORT and DEFEND the CONSTITUTION of the United States AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, foreign and DOMESTIC; that I will bear TRUE FAITH and ALLEGIANCE to the same;...."
It is very simple, Janet, even for Socialists/Communists to understand: If one will OBEY and HONOR the Supreme Law of these United States, the CONSTITUTION, then one need not worry about the returning Veterans confusing one for a DOMESTIC ENEMY.. On the other hand, if one is given to Unconstitutional Socialist/Utopian Goals and Actions, and does not give a darn how he (or she) strives for them (INCLUDING running ROUGHSHOD over OUR CONSTITUTION), then one may have BIG PROBLEMS, as most Veterans I know take their oath to the Constitution VERY SERIOUSLY. Do you understand, Janet? I hope I've clarified things for you and assuaged your fears.-
-
Neutral
Pecossam7 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
skyking2p,
Reply
And at what point would you consider a government out of control and requiring one who has sworn the Oath of Enlistment to act? Just how many transgressions are required before one is required to uphold their SOLEMN OATH? As the "Declaration of Independence" states:
"....But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, IT IS THEIR DUTY, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security..." If such is required of every citizen, how much more for the Soldier and Veteran who has taken the Oath of Enlistment?
Or are you one of those who believe that today's oaths are merely symbolic, all form and no substance? It is evident that most of our public figures hold that sentiment, at least that's the impression they give through their actions, or rather lack of action in some cases.
It would be interesting to know why you, and others, disagree with my comment and have marked it "negative". So I hereby issue a challenge to:
Ciera-Marie, Eagle_Eye, fsev41, hefaa1, and yourself, to state your reasons.
Thank you.
-
-
50%
willottica7 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wouldn't the oath they swear force them to support and defend the constitution against those who would maintain standing armies? (i.e. their own superiors)
Reply
So, simply by swearing the oath and joining a standing army, they have demonstrated their willingness to ignore some parts of the constitution and to abrogate their oath.
I'm not saying that makes them dangerous criminals. What I'm saying is that the oath likely doesn't mean a lot vis-a-vis the "defending the constitution" part. A lot of people likely say the words without really understanding the meaning and implications of them.-
Neutral
Pecossam7 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
willottica,
Reply
No it would not, because the Military is funded by Congress every two years as provided for in the Constitution. By placing that provision in the Constitution, the Founding Fathers ensured that any concerns about the Military would have to be addressed at least every two years.
-
-
-
50%
Spadecaller7 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thanks EE.
Reply
McCain is the last person Americans should trust (right wing or left) when it comes to character evaluation. After choosing Sarah Palin for a running mate, it is quite clear he is not the most insightful person - to put it mildly.
When he was campaigning and the extreme right wing of his party began acting out in front of the cameras on national TV, he was forced to defend Obama from the scurrilous attacks about being a Muslim terrorist. Most people know that he did that to protect his own image and not to protect Obama.
After McCain tried to portray Obama as a frivolous big spending President who was ready to have a new fleet of presidential helicopters built ( which was false), it became clear to me that McCain had a severe case of sour grapes.
Furthermore, it was Bush's own intelligence that reported the concern of some veterans becoming involved in extremist activities following their discharge. No group of people, including veterans, are exempt from misconduct and criminal activity. So what is McCain's real problem? I'm sure anyone can guess.
-
-
77%
Eagle_Eye7 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
fta: ""But when you read the report, what it was saying is that, look, we have a threat of terrorism within our own shores and one of the groups being targeted to see if they will be aligned with that are some of our veterans," she said."
Reply
I think they are trying any way they can to blow things out of proportion to just keep shiz stirred up with their rantings. -
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive3 Replies
-
73%
not2needy7 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA:
Reply
Obama administration owes veterans an apology after releasing a report last week suggesting that members of the military returning from Iraq and Afghanistan could fall victim to "right-wing extremism."
Also FTA:
"The last people on earth we need to worry about are our veterans," McCain said. "And by the
way, after the Vietnam War, for years there was this portrayal of the Vietnam veteran as crazed and committing — having committed war crimes. There were all of these problems they were going to have. Studies years later have proven that it's totally false."
John McCain is a nut! He needs to go to the house, set down and stfu!-
-
86%
Ciera-Marie7 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's it exactly. What comes out of his mouth is different from his actions. Ask anyone here to prove McCain's support of vets, they can't. Call them on his voting against Vets every single time they will then say because this bills they were with were full of earmarks. Yet McCain has no problem taking earmarks. Earmarks that don't benefit the Vets of Arizona (their Stand Down was in February.). Wonder if McCain has ever attended a Stand Down for homeless vets?
Reply-
80%
not2needy7 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What got me was when he said that the nation didn't need to worry about the vets. Elitists like McCain have no idea that NOT ALL vets are millionaires when they return. I also take issue with his idea that all the Nam vets had nothing wrong with them when they returned, after having been exposed to agant orange, missing arms and legs the way our vets are returning today. But he thinks there's nothing wrong with that, and they need no help.. He's a nut job, and i stand by my statement, he needs to go to the house and stfu. God definitely had his hand on this nation when McCain wasn't elected president,.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Pecossam7 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ciera-Marie,
Reply
Oh, you mean the one that may have slaughtered the English language but at least didn't depend on a teleprompter, like Mr. "57 states" Obama? You know, "THE ONE" that must take his teleprompter to bed in order to have meaningful dialog with Michell.
-
-
-
100%
chevydog7 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Think that there is a massive overreaction to "right wing extremism" on this forum. Not that we endorse it; we can't. But it the past it's been a few loudmouths with lithograph machines. Now with technology advances it's a few loudmouths with PC's and websites. Think that if I were a returning vet and anyone came close to intimating that I might be inclined to associate with this kind of people, I'd be rightly miffed. Think I'm with McC more than not on this one.
Reply
Yes, what Timothy NcVeigh did was horrid; no question. But if one looks at the (relatively short) history of politically-inspired violence in this country, more has come from the left than from the right. Think of the Weathermen and other student revolutionaries of the early 1970's. They were mostly the children of well-to-do progressive parents (some classless people today might use the term "liberal").
As for McVeigh, his knowledge of bombs was commonplace. What wasn't as common was having a source for a detonator. In the 1970's I worked at a nitrogen chemicals plant in MO. It was both interesting and spooky to read of explosions made with the same stuff that I was carrying around 300 lbs of in my car routinely.-
50%
willottica7 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There is also the very real fact that in order to go to war you have to be willing to kill and die for a cause. This is something necessary for terrorist activities, and something that I would wager a large number of the population just wouldn't be able to do. Furthermore, military training, by necessity, desensitizes soldiers to violence and death.
Reply
There is nothing to say that veterans will be more likely to side with right-wing extremist groups, but they do have training which would make them more dangerous if they do. This would make them more attractive to such groups.
It's not a nice thing to say. And most veterans wouldn't dream of joining up with a bunch of wingnuts -- but some would, and each one of those that would is more dangerous than an ordinary citizen joining up.-
Neutral
Pecossam7 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
willottica,
Reply
An American Soldier hopes he never has to take a life, and treasures it just as much, if not more, than the common citizen. When a Soldier is forced to fight, his (or her) focus is on those around him, his "Buddies", watching their backs KNOWING they are watching his. They wish to LIVE, and kill he will (and it is not MURDER) to ensure the lives of his fellow Soldiers.
Are you of the age where military service is no longer possible for you, or are you one of America's young who believe military service is "beneath" you? If you are of military age, I encourage you to ENLIST NOW so the next time you opine on the subject, you'll know what you are talking about.-
100%
willottica7 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm not American. So I won't enlist.
Reply
I don't think military service is "beneath" me. I considered joining for a time. But when it came down to it, my moral convictions forbid me to join an army that engages in non-essential wars.
I am a pacifist. I've never been punched, nor thrown a punch. I imagine that if required to in self-defense, I would. But when people have tried to pick a fight with me, I've answered "no thanks." It was amazingly effective.
If it comes to a decision between leaving the middle east and resigning ourselves to less oil or more expensive oil vs. killing those who would rather we leave their countries, I say we leave their countries. No amount of cheap oil is worth killing for.
I have no doubt that a soldier doesn't want to take a life. But he must be willing to. And he must be willing to do so based on an order from a superior officer. I have standing orders from my superior officer: "Thou shalt not kill". And I don't believe I'll ever meet the military commander who can claim superiority in the chain of command.
I would join the National Guard, or the Reserves, where I will not be called upon to kill except in defense of my own life or that of my neighbour. But I will not join a military, however well intentioned, that engages in wars tens of thousands of miles from my home, and kills those (innocent or not) who would pose no direct threat if we weren't incurring upon their homeland.-
Neutral
Pecossam7 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
willottica,
Reply
I respect your convictions. But concerning the National Guard or the Reserves, they are frequently ACTIVATED and sent to the same places as the Regular Army. You might find it of interest that the 148TH EVAC, a National Guard Medical Unit, whose home base is (or was) Camp J.T. Robinson, AR., was one of the LONGEST SERVING Army Units stationed in Saudi Arabia during the First Gulf War. They were one of the first (if not THE FIRST) National Guard Units "Federalized". Just thought you'd like to know.
-
-
100%
willottica7 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I look at Iraq/Afghanistan as a shooting gallery. There's only one door to this shooting gallery that I can enter through. It leads to the end of the gallery where the targets are. Now, I can choose to enter with my buddies, and kill all those who are shooting in my direction (at the targets), in order to defend my life and the lives of my buddies.
Reply
Or I can decide not to enter the gallery. My life is not in danger. My buddies lives are not in danger, and I don't have to kill anyone.
I'll stay outside.
If, for someone reason, it's IMPERATIVE that I enter (for instance, the only medicine that will save the life of my child is in a cabinet inside the gallery, or I know for a fact that one of the shooters is training to kill me or my family), then my entrance will be as discreet as possible. I will crawl along the floor to stay away from the bullets, and look as non-threatening as possible. If the guy who wants to kill me can't be had in the gallery without taking out others, I'll wait until he's somewhere else, where innocents won't have to die.
I do not blame the soldiers, but the commanders who send them on the missions. But knowing the mission possibilities ahead of time, I would not join the soldiers.
-
-
-
-
loading ...
Submit a Story
Advertisement
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.