Posted by
Archer on Wednesday, July 02, 2008 8:01:34 PM
This
past weekend former Democratic presidential hopeful and current Obama supporter
Wesley Clark went on television and stated that being shot down while flying a
fighter jet does not qualify someone to be President referring to John McCain's
military experience in Vietnam. As if to say it was all dumb luck that he just happen to be in that particular jet at that particular spot at that particular time in
that particular country and oh yeah, there just happen to be a war going on
too. It seems to me that senator McCain chose to put himself in those
particular circumstances for whatever reasons. Perhaps we as Americans
should consider what could possibly motivate someone to make those types of
choices and take those risks when deciding who should be President and not let
others dictate to us who is or is not qualified. In any case the statement
demands the obvious question, "O.K..., what qualifications for President of
the United States does the man you are supporting possess and how do they
qualify him for the job?"
Shortly after those comments were made Senator Obama himself was yet again
on television "distancing" himself from remarks made by the latest addition to
his camp saying that a man of Senator McCain's record of military service
should never have his patriotism or devotion to his country questioned. He
went on to describe McCain as, "a man who was physically tormented."
Now this I found extraordinary. Why did Senator Obama choose to use
tormented in place of tortured? I recall words like "torture"
and "atrocities" used to describe the situation in Abu Ghraib and even
in Guantanamo. I would have to assume that Senator Obama does not
disagree with those characterizations. Many Americans seemingly accepted
it as the truth. But why not employ the torture word when describing
Senator McCain's ordeal in Vietnam? A man who to this day clearly does not
have a full range of motion in his arms as a result of the punishment his body
endured. Could it be that the use of the word only where legitimately
applicable would result in a consensus as to what torture is and is not?
And could that be seen as anything other than progress and in, "...change we can believe in..."? We'd have
to ask Senator Obama.