Never said anything about his permanence as a war hero … making things up here, but go for it.
Never said anything against his war recored. I consider him a great war hero.
Just saying … his war record has nothing to do with his eligibility to be POTUS.
“Just saying … his war record has nothing to do with his eligibility to be POTUS.”
Nothing? Nothing at all?
How about in comparison to his opponents?
From WWII onward, only Bill Clinton had no military service.
FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Carter served from the dem side.
Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Bush wore the uniforms of the US military.
Clinton and Obama don’t fit into the category of people willing to put on the uniform, and serve their country.
Far from “nothing” I think in the context of this election, it has a lot to do with it.
It gives him a far different perspective about the military, war, service and sacrifice.
He is far from the ideal candidate, but he is by far the best of the viable alternatives.
his war record has nothing to do with his eligibility to be POTUSAnd I'm just saying, your stating the obvious, your stating what's been stated in FR about a billion times. The posted article did NOT say that his war record makes him a worthy presidential candidate. I'm not saying that. No one on this thread is saying that. But you and others must make sure that anytime McCain's war record is even mentioned that it only be mentioned along with the familiar drumbeat of reasons why he's not a good presidential choice. I agree with those reasons. I disagree with the reflexive need of many in FR to repeat them ad-infinitum, even when they're off-topic. Even when it's practically rude to do so.
There are some in FR who just can't stand to hear about McCain's war record and when it's brought up must instantly start with the friggin' LIST. I'm not saying you're one of them; I'm just saying that's the way it is around here.