I completely agree with Jim Webb’s son. I had no problem with his father’s answer in the debate that the enemy he’s most proud of having is the man who almost killed him with a grenade in Vietnam. Of course, that enemy soldier “is no longer around.”
I guess some people thought it was hard to hear someone sound like they were proud to have killed a man, but I thought it was harder to hear Hillary Clinton say that she is proud to consider the Iranians her enemy.
I’d rather a politician be proud of the episode that won him the Navy Cross than proud to hate an entire nation of people.
And if that’s a distortion of what Clinton intended to say, well, so too is it a distortion to suggest that Jim Webb was saying he was proud of killing a man.
What he did was save another soldier’s life at great risk to his own.
I don’t support Jim Webb’s presidential aspirations, but I have no issues with his service to the country or his debate response.
Like I said in the other thread, I don’t think she meant it as a racist remark. That would be very out of character. But it is clearly a very belligerent and irresponsible remark that should make one very concerned about her intentions regarding the mideast. I wouldn’t want the probably-illusory racism to drown out the fact that she is proud to call Iran an enemy – that clearly implies she wants them as an enemy, which has very dark and dangerous implications.
I didn’t watch the debate either in “real” time or otherwise, but I’ve read about HRC’s Iran comment. From where I sit, I don’t see how it’s all that different from John McCain thinking he’s a laff-riot when he bragged about “bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran.”
HRC has always been, in my mind, a very belligerent war hawk. Her comment is unsurprising to me. Not a supporter.
“Well, in addition to the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies…the Iranians…probably the Republicans.”
I don’t see the problem with including the Iranian gov’t in that list. She sees the NRA as her political enemy too, mentioned it first even, doesn’t mean she’s gonna declare a shooting war on them, or on the Iranians either. The Iranians have been screwing us over in the ME for decades now, starting with the hostage affair, their support of terrorist groups , “death to america” , etc etc. It’s good that we are at least talking to them now, but that doesn’t mean their gov’t is suddenly our friends.
The Iranians have been screwing us over in the ME for decades now, starting with the hostage affair,
yes, history started in 1979 and doesn’t include the 80’s. and saudi support for groups that have attacked the US is unimportant compared to iranian support for groups that have not attacked the US. sounds like hillary is the perfect candidate for a deep thinker such as yuorself.
Where did I say history began in 1979? Elements of the saudi gov’t that support wahhabism and terrorists aren’t our friends either. That doesn’t contradict anything I said. If she had included them I wouldn’t have had a problem with that either.
It makes no sense to go to war with drug companies or the NRA in a literal sense. What would that even mean? Nor is there necessarily a reason it is better to be on good terms with them. Going to war with Iran is a perfectly coherent and practicable idea, one which was under serious consideration less than a decade ago. Such a war would clearly have serious negative consequences for all involved. There are, therefore, very good reasons to improve relations with Iran, and, at a minimum to avoid war. There are not necessarily compelling reasons to improve relations with the NRA or drug companies.
And the hostages? Are you kidding me? We overthrew their democratic government to install a police state, supported Saddam Hussein in his war on them, feeding a protracted war that cost them almost a million lives (the famous “use of chemical weapons by Saddam Hussein” was part of the war, and, although the Kurds were technically “his own people”, they had sided with the Iranians, whom he also gassed. The US supplied recon so Saddam could target these attacks, and defended them in the UN) and destroyed their economy, shot down a civilian aircraft in their own waters (and we still beat our chest over Ghaddafi having done this, though not in US waters), and imposed a prolonged set of sanctions that kept the nation in poverty. And you think it legitimate to still be upset 36 years later over a few dozen people held against their will for a year and a half and returned unharmed? By 1971, Europe had long forgiven Germany for WW2 and the Holocaust, at least to the extent of anything that would influence policy. And you still want our President to be someone who holds a grudge for decades over a few dozen hostages? In face of everything I said above? And that’s all you got. Iran has sponsored no terrorism against the US, and “death to America” is just rhetoric. Get over it.
“And you still want out President to be someone who holds a grudge for decades over a few dozen hostages?”
No, absolutely not. But I do want a president who is clear eyed concerning who are our friends and who are our enemies. You write as if the hostage crisis is the only Iranian transgression against US interests and international law, as opposed to the first of a long list. In broad terms, as I said before,
they have a long history of state support of international terrorism against the US and it’s allies. One might also add that the mullahs running Iran are a bunch of medieval misogynist fucks.
I agree with Clinton, they are good enemies to have. And as I also said, I’m glad we are talking to them now.
I’ll tell you, without you having to ask, what does bother me about Clintons foreign policy stance so far. Her comments on the need for a Syrian no fly zone. That’s one briar patch we would do better to stay out of. Let the Russians have it.
My father fought in WWII. He’s proud that he fought Naziism, not that he shot Hans Schmidt. If the enemy he was proudest of having was some anonymous German schmuck he’d killed, that’d be extremely … weird.
And he’s a Jew, and that was WWII.
The more I think about this, the more uncomfortable I am with the sentiment. This is how we keep sending troops into unjustified wars: “Ignore the big picture, that doesn’t matter, just keep fighting out of loyalty to your buddies and hatred of the ragookheads who are your real enemies.”
It’s dangerous.
Isnt that basically the reason why most soldiers will continue to fight though? Breaking that could be a huge blow to effectiveness if it doesnt fail.
I don’t doubt the power of tribalism, I’m just not sure that it’s what we want our presidential candidates touting as their proudest moments.
And the question, contra Boo, wasn’t, ‘what episode are you proudest of?’ The question was ‘what enemy are you proudest of?’ And some random dead Vietnamese soldier just strikes me as bizarre enemy to be proud of.
Have known a lot of soldiers.
Never heard one brag (on national TV in this case) about killing one.
Hillary also mentioned the Republicans, btw. Convenient to leave that out in the “war hawk!” narrative.
By itself, it’d just be standard AMERICA FUCK YEAR idiotic boilerplate. But we’re talking about someone who:
No contrition at all, just dodging the issue. I don’t think O’Malley has been sufficiently contrite about his role in the Baltimore riots and that CompStats bullshit, but he’s at least willing to say I was wrong.
Subtle she’s not. And what Edward Snowden downloaded from government files got into wrong hands? Who does she mean? Glenn Greenwald. NYT, Guardian, Russians, Chinese, Disney Land?
Many of us have had relatives in combat. My dad fought in WWII from 1944-1945. My grandfather was in WWI, but on the Austria-Hungarian side. In fact, I think I have 4-5 relatives who were in the A-H army.
I am 100% sure that at least one of those several persons killed someone. I never asked my dad if he killed anybody. We have his diary, but he doesn’t talk about killing anybody. He didn’t talk about the war much until about 2001, when my sister got him to open up. His division, the Rainbow (42), was responsible for opening Dachau. He found some important Luftwaffe papers at one point.
As Patton said, “The point is not to die for your country. The point is to get that other son-of-a-bitch to die for his”. If people are not clear that combat means people killing other people, and that skill in combat means killing more guys more quickly, they should figger it out fast.
The additional point is that getting into one of these “I’ll kill that SOB before he gets me” should be a slow careful process. And lying your way into it, like Cheney, Bush, and that crew of assholes did, should be a serious offense.
If we get into a war, it had better be for a good reason. And then we should ensure that our guys kill as many of the other SOBs as possible. As fast as possible too.
maybe it was more the creepy smile after he said it, Trevor Noah had a lot of fun with that last night
While two wrongs don’t make a right apparently one right and a Clinton makes a wrong.
well, it’s what she did say.
Jim Webb didn’t say what people are attributing to him.
No. Killing some poor schmuck because both of you are poor schmucks in a armed battles order by TPTB in your respective countries is never something to be proud of. The combatants on both sides are only doing what they have to do to survive.
Sadder still is that the soldier Webb killed likely had a more personal reason for participating in the war than Webb did. His country, his family, his livelihood. Webb could return to his country and whatever happened in Vietnam after he left had no impact on his life, family, etc. (And I don’t care that his third wife was once an Vietnamese refugee.)
>Sadder still is that the soldier Webb killed likely had a more personal reason for participating in the war than Webb did. His country, his family, his livelihood.
Yes. Webb is glorifying machismo in the service of an immoral cause. He’s a Republican through and through.
That is such bullshit.
He’s saying that he’s proudest of his service to the country and his Navy Cross, and of having saved the life of a fellow soldier. That he’s proud of his service in an immoral war may strike you as weird or “Republican” or inappropriate, but it’s not weird to me that a solider is proud to have done his duty and to have done it well.
And I say that as someone who would have opposed that war and probably sought to avoid fighting in it for moral reasons.
The question wasn’t what have you done that you are most proud of. It was very specific as to the candidate’s political actions that led to that candidate becoming an enemy of some other individual or organization.
Webb’s answer had nothing to do with any political action he’d taken, anything he personally did create an enemy, and there was nothing personal against Webb in that enemy soldier’s act.
Something like this is what Cooper was going for:
LOL WHUT!!! Spoken like an armchair general.
Look I wore our countries uniform. People are dead because I did. Don’t feel bad about it all. Feel rather proud about it. Both the before 9/11 service and the post 9/11 service.
Why did I do it? Whelp, my dad was rescued from Auschwitz by the Americans. Dad then fought for the Americans in the Korean War. Time came and I served. Don’t feel bad about it, don’t regret it, and I don’t fret about the problems with our foreign policy as it relates to my service. I do fret about them as it relates to our foreign policy in general. And yes, there is a difference there, which anybody in the military, intelligence, or diplomatic fields will tell you.
Sure, Webb fought in a bad and stupid war. Hell, he’s the first one to say it and point it out. That mistake is why he was against Iraq when so many Democrats were for it. It is his experience in combat that drives him to avoid sending others into the suck.
A question was asked, everyone but Webb vomited bullshit answers. Webb pointed out that, unlike the rest of them, he had actual enemies. Not arguments, but real mortal enemies. He happened to kill a few of them in the process of keeping himself, his friends, and those under his command alive. He’s proud of that! He should be! He’s a real deal war hero. Not some bullshit chicken hawk. That doesn’t mean he’s proud of shooting a guy. That means he’s proud of his service, doing his best, and being a good Marine. For which, he is highly decorated.
Maybe there is just that huge a disconnect between us veterans and “the blogging left”, but nobody who wore the uniform could be confused about what Webb meant. And Webb has been one of the most outspoken Democrats on the issue of Iraq having been a mistake and nearly assaulted GWB in White House over it. He’s a huge critic of the war he fought as well. He’s not a war monger or a death merchant, he’s the polar opposite. As only a man who has seen and dealt death can be.
Like it or not Webb is good for our team D. I’m not advocating we make him president, though he’s qualified and better than any on team R, but on matters of war he sure as shit knows what he’s talking about and has been more right than wrong. As SECDEF or SECSTATE, well it’s hard to find a better option than Webb.
Jim Webb killed people. So fucking what? Jim Webb was a Marine. And by all accounts Jim Webb was a fucking amazing Marine. Furthermore, Jim Webb’s son, is an enlisted fucking Marine in an era where that’s rare among elites. He married a refugee from the country he fought. This is a man and family that walks the walk and doesn’t bullshit. A family with a history of public service. He’s earned the right to point that out and crack a grin over it!
I don’t often agree with you, but I agree with you here.
Yeah, I was not comfortable with Webb’s comment, but I understand where it came from and why he would say it. I don’t think any of us are in any position to criticize him for it.
“I don’t think any of us are in any position to criticize him for it.”
Why on earth not? What constitutes a position to criticize? Is anyone in that position?
Decorated Marine thinks enemies are mortal ones, not his fellow citizens. Is proud of his service including killing a man while taking the blast from a grenade to save a fellow Marine.
Very few people have the experience to judge that one way or the other.
You a combat vet? You a vet? Ever wear a uniform? Where are your medals? Because those things right there are what qualifies you to judge him. Unless you have two of the four, your opinion doesn’t fucking count.
I’m qualified, what he said was fine. He’s proud of his service for which he was decorated. He also didn’t like or agree with the war he fought in and spent decades trying to fix relations with the nation he fought and keep us out of conflicts. There’s no problem here or issue. It’s perfectly reasonable and he should be commended for his military service and his public service after the fact… even if you don’t agree with the war he fought. And any sane person can see this.
You a combat vet? You a vet? Ever wear a uniform? Where are your medals? Because those things right there are what qualifies you to judge him. Unless you have two of the four, your opinion doesn’t fucking count.
Ridiculous. Who says? You?
“Unless you have two of the four, your opinion doesn’t fucking count.”
Do you also think that people who aren’t cops can’t have opinions about law enforcement? Many police officers would agree: you haven’t been there, on the streets, your opinion doesn’t count. And is this why women don’t have worthwhile opinions about things military?
Webb didn’t say that he’s proud of his service, including killing a man while saving a fellow Marine.
It’s interesting that this friend of Wall Street also names health insurance and drug companies in her list of proudly-earned enemies. Wouldn’t this indicate that her list should be taken with a grain of salt?
My only problem with it was that it seemed like he was trying to force that in there because it wasn’t an answer to the question that was asked. Here was the question (emphasis mine):
That’s what made it weird / creepy to me – it was like he was stretching the question just to make sure everyone knew that he killed a dude.
I also kind of viewed it as a veiled threat towards Anderson Cooper considering Webb’s treatment during the debate. (not in seriousness, but the thought did occur to me since he was clearly upset about the format / moderation).
Yes, he was upset that he wasn’t accorded the same level of attention and deference as the other candidates that have been building campaign operations, engaged in fundraising, and polling above 1%. As if he’s so special that he can skip all that and be an authentic contender on the basis of appearing at one DEM debate.
does that mean Hillary also didn’t answer the question?
No — because Clinton has been in political office her entire life.
what do you mean? I’m thinking how can she say she’s made the Iranians her enemy by what she’s done? comment on Iran reads like she considers Iranians her enemy, not that she did something to make them her enemy. anyway, I find her Iranian response pathetic pandering but I missed that part of the “debate”
Easy to get cross-ways in threads. Thought this one started with the fact that Webb went outside the question that was specific as to when the candidate would have made someone his/her enemy — specifically while in political office.
Technically, Clinton did hold political office when the health insurer went after her.
Agree with you that there’s nothing in the public record that Clinton has done that would have made Iran her enemy. Nor any statement from Iranian officials that they view her as an enemy based on her own actions.
Didn’t need to see the debate to understand this last part — a single question that each were asked to answer. Clinton’s inclusion of “the Iranians” on her list of enemies she’s proud to have been pandering but only to an audience that’s stuck in 1980 (as she may also be) and/or anti-Iranian Israel firsters (of which she is one).
The Democratic party is the big tent party.
I don’t support Jim Webb for President, but I’m glad that relatively conservative people who aren’t batshit insane make the Democratic party that much more heartier.
Ultimately, it’s up to people like Webb to create a new conservative party that isn’t batshit insane out of the right wing of the Democratic party, while people like Sherrod Brown, Warren, etc, carve out an actual liberal party out of the left wing of the Democratic party.
ot: UH HUH
UH HUH
…………………
No more `shock and awe’: Jeb Bush now just another presidential aspirant
By Philip Rucker and Matea Gold
October 15 at 10:08 PM
Jeb Bush entered the presidential race as the “shock and awe” candidate whose fundraising dominance was poised to make his campaign an unstoppable juggernaut.
He is not that candidate anymore.
After reporting Thursday that he has less cash in the bank than three other Republican candidates, Bush effectively cemented his status as just another aspirant in a presidential race where the surest predictions have been proven wrong time and again.
Bush — a former Florida governor who relied heavily on his family’s network to amass a $103 million war chest at his allied super PAC earlier this year — announced Thursday that he collected contributions for his actual campaign at a drastically slower pace during a difficult summer.
Bush raised $13.4 million from July to September, and started October with just $10.3 million on hand after spending about $11.5 million — or 86 percent of the total over the quarter. This leaves Bush with less cash in the bank than three opponents, including Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), whom Bush allies see as his chief rival for GOP establishment support.
https:/www.washingtonpost.com/politics/jeb-bushs-fundraising-pace-dropped-sharply-in-third-quarter
2015/10/15/b7eeaae8-7352-11e5-8d93-0af317ed58c9_story.html