McCain - unfit to lead? Options

[HammaTime]

All I can say is, Wow.

I just finished reading a piece that will be published in the October 16 issue of Rolling Stone Magazine on the life of John McCain. It quickly becomes painfully obvious that an awful lot of his former friends, associates and fellow POW's really detest the man.

It is a brutal, brutal take on the man and his legend:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstor...eal_john_mccain

[Robert]

I would at least partially agree with Geno.
There is a huge difference between war reporting being done in before the age of instant satellite video feeds. It's bad on two levels.
1) You got the possiblity for a huge fuckup like what happened with Rivera broadcasting live to the world ( including the enemy ) I'm with US Army Unit XYZ, we are currently located here, an plan on movie to this location later today. Actually drawing out a map in the sand to give their present location an future location.
2) I can understand the need to hold soldiers accountable on some level but when people are in a position of possible split second life an death decisions. The last they they need to be worry about is some dumbass reporter putting a camera in their face, trying to second guess what they did because it will make for good ratings.

Something else I though of concerning the Osama story. Back during the 2004 elections there was a lot of controversy regarding Osama
Why didn't bush get him...
Bush failed to get the job done....
Bush purposefully didn't get Osama because he made for a great specter to hold over everyone an keep them in fear.
I always thought that line of reasoning was incredibly short sighted. If Bush would have gotten Osama it would have guaranteed him the election. In all the discussion about why we didn't get Osama, I've suggested there might have been a secret decision not to get him because doing so would only increase Osama's potential as some folklore martyr to the cause. It's all a matter of perspective, to them he's like
Audie Murphy, Jimmy Doolittle, and Paul Tibbets rolled into one.
I can certainly see a discussion where the people in change would decide Osama marginalized an funding cut off being less of a threat then dead an transformed into some god sized martyr. Where he would become a rallying cause for extremist for decades to come.
I only mention this because he fits in really well with what the Major said about his orders where not to have Osama brought in by US personnel. Killed in a bombing would be okay but it would be unacceptable to have him captured alive or assassinated.

I'm really surprised there is zero discussion anywhere about the 60 minutes story,at least not any of the news discussion sites I frequently visit.

[HammaTime]

Geno, perhaps you'd like to familiarize yourself with this book:

http://www.amazon.ca/Memories-World-War-Ph...d/dp/0810950138

It offers photos taken by the 200 Associated Press photographers who covered World War II.

Any arguments about "instant" communication are completely bogus. Operational security is tantamount and easily enforced by the military, especially when it comes to providing access to still photographers.

During the Vietnam war we had video of battles on the evening news virtually every evening. I have yet to read a substantive and verifiable report that any of that coverage gave any advantage to the enemy.

Robert is right, idiots like Rivera shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a battle.

The silence on the 60 Minutes report tells me one thing, it must be very accurate.

Geno, I applaud your efforts to investigate the number of televisions in households during the 1940's, but that wasn't how the average person got their news on the war. The average news consumer in the 40's relied on radio, newspapers and something called Newsreels. These were, in essence, filmed news reports from the fronts that ran before a movie in all theaters across the country. Comparing televisions to that time is akin to comparing apples and oranges.

The New York Times reported recently on the Iraq war, "after five years and more than 4,000 American combat deaths, searches and interviews turned up fewer than a half-dozen graphic photographs of dead American soldiers."

Now, the issue here isn't that we want to see more graphic images, the issue is that these events haven't been covered openly and honestly. And that means we no longer have a free press, the state controls the images we see. Back when I was a kid, that was something that repulsed us about the Soviet Union.

But, this discussion shouldn't be about the messenger, it should be about the extreme allegation that someone in the chain of command didn't allow Delta Force to kill Osama bin Laden. Why??

I don't buy the argument that he was better left alive, and I REALLY can't believe that you would forward that argument. As stated in that interview, Delta Force was tasked with killing him, and doing it quietly. That means our very best fighting men were sent into a direct frontal assault on a fierce enemy, for no apparent reason. I can't believe anyone would think that was a sane thing to do with our very best.

Now we see the price our country has paid for letting that group of fighters escape. The price we are paying is being paid with every subsequent American body bag that has come out of Afghanistan since Al Qaeda and the Taliban have reconstituted themselves. Someone should be held accountable for that.

And that is my complaint about the current administration. NO ONE IS HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR ANYTHING!!

This post has been edited by HammaTime: 10/07/08 4:32pm