Agree with you 100% Tchocky. McCain's campaign manager even used his POW status in hitting back at the Obama camp when it criticized him for not knowing how many houses he owned. He said something along the lines that McCain spent x number of years in one house as a prisoner of war. It seems that this is going to be used ad nauseam by them when they have their backs to the wall.

"This is a guy who lived in one house for five and a half years -- in prison," referring to the prisoner of war camp that McCain was in during the Vietnam War.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the...ort_obama.html

It is even starting to get the goat of his fellow prisoners at the time.

http://www.alternet.org/election08/95825?page=1

Sounds more like John Kerry you are describing.

It's fun to look over right-wing coverage of John Kerry's campaign - http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...olo/index.html

Right, left, middle, it doesn't matter, they're all politicians.

What got me about that guy was the droves of Vets who called him on the carpet for lying about his service. All these politicians are filthy rich, so that point is moot to me. You will not be seing veterans enraged with McCain, he was the real deal. But now he is just another politician, like the rest. They will tell us what we want to hear and then perform another agenda altogether.

There are a few guys who were in Hanoi with McCain saying that they won't vote for him, and Obama is getting 6 times as many donations from active-service military.
There isn't an organised, well-funded campaign against McCain's service, like there was against Kerry's.
All there's been so far is Wes Clark telling the truth, and everyone on both sides falling over themselves to knock him for it.

I was just the opposite. The questions of Kerry's service were valid, but not proven absolutely. And I didn't mind that he came back and protested the war. Lot's of Vietnam vets did that, myself included. What bothered me was that he ran on his war record, and tried to deny his anti-war record. He was so hard-core against the war, but he wouldn't mention that in his campaign.

That's one of the things that turned me off about Clinton. When the anti-war draft-dodging accusations cropped up the 'hemmed' and 'hawed' and pretended it didn't happen. If he had stood up and said "You're damned right I protested against that war! It was a bad war and I'd do it again!", I might have voted for him.

But we agree about politicians - anyone who is willing to run for president shouldn't be allowed near the job. The only one you can trust is the one who actually doesn't want it, and the last one of those we had was Washington himself.

No Tchocky that's not an accurate summation and you know it.

From the article:
1. So how many privates and specialists (who make up the great majority of the army) do you think can afford to donate more than $200 bucks to a political campaign?
2. How does candidate A get 6 times as many donations but only receives a mere 27% more of the total? Saying he tells the truth is like saying you could trust the Russians to give accurate war reports...
3. Could 859 service members who are rich enough to donate that kind of scratch be representative of which candidate will get the most votes in November?

Oh and Wes Clarke is a politician, not a general. Anything he says is biased and slanted to the advantage of his party, the Democrats.

*Looks at the title of this thread*
*Spits out drink*
*Laughs histerically*
:D

Wes Clark is IMO lower than Whale ****. I would never salute the man. He is an anomaly in that he made general. He is a socialist in his politics and should be keelhauled with Madelyn Halfbright and slick Willy for war crimes against the Serbs.