Sunday saw that asshole Wesley Clark again trashing McCain on television; now some creature named John Aravosis asks the following question:
Honestly, besides being tortured, what did McCain do to excel in the military?
When Obama loses in November, these schmucks can look back at such tactics and pinpoint where it all started going downhill.
These same people whine like little bitches at the slightest criticism of Barack Obama. But they go right into the gutter when attacking John McCain.
It really is contemptible, but what do you expect from these people?
Yes, we all know that John McCain was captured and tortured in Vietnam (McCain won't let you forget). A lot of people don't know, however, that McCain made a propaganda video for the enemy while he was in captivity. Putting that bit of disloyalty aside, what exactly is McCain's military experience that prepares him for being commander in chief? It's not like McCain rose to the level of general or something. He's a vet. We get it. But simply being a vet, as laudable as it is, doesn't really tell you much about someone's qualifications for being commander in chief. If McCain is going to play the "I was tortured" card every five minutes as a justification for electing him president, then he shouldn't throw a hissy fit any time any one asks to know more about his military experience. Getting shot down, tortured, and then doing propaganda for the enemy is not command experience.There's even more ugliness here. Another one being cute by now calling the blog Brilliant Hussein at Breakfast. So clever.
Four years ago, John Kerry's three-month stint in Vietnam was enough to qualify him, until it all unraveled by being exposed by the Swift Boat Vets for Truth.
Now McCain's military experience doesn't matter.
Nothing like being consistent.
You stay classy, Democrats!
Update: AJ Strata goes nuclear on Aravosis while Ed Morrissey shreds Wesley Clark.
Update II: Glenn Reynolds links. Thanks!
Further thoughts here on the attacks on McCain's military service.