Thursday, October 23, 2008

New perspective...

I read something today that gave me a new perspective on Obama’s associations, and it’s something that his defenders need to hear. For the past several weeks, all I’ve heard from the Obamatrons is that his association with Bill Ayers doesn’t matter, his friendships with Reverend Wright and Father Pfleger are inconsequential or, as Obama says, are just a distraction from the “real issues”, as though a man’s character is not an issue.

So, I rely on my military roots for this assessment. Having served a total of 11 years of active and reserve duty I can speak from experience. During this time, I had a security clearance as all active duty members have. This isn’t exactly an easy process. It’s more than just signing a piece of paper and then being granted a clearance. There is some probing involved. During my active duty time, I also wrote a book and in order to have it published I had to get it cleared through the Pentagon. Yes, they actually read my book page by page before allowing me to publish it. In fact, maintaining this very web site while on active duty required that I follow certain rules, one of those still apply in the sense that I am not allowed to divulge any sensitive information regarding national security (not that it matters since I was never privy to such information, but the rule still applies and I was briefed on it after I separated from service). The point is a security clearance is a serious thing.

And based on Obama’s prior associations, I can safely say that obtaining an upper-level security clearance would be impossible for him. The minute the Pentagon discovered his Wright association alone – never mind the one with a domestic terrorist – he would be denied access to any significant national security information. If he joined the military, he would not be granted the most basic security clearance. Yet, as President and Commander in Chief, Obama would have access at the highest level. This man wouldn’t be qualified to be a White House staffer, much less President unless, of course, the American people voted to put him in charge. And there are some who believe his associations don’t matter? Yeah, right.


Dan Trabue said...

Sorry, not buying it. Still sounds like you're grasping at straws.

We, the people, have heard about Ayers and Wright for months now. ALL the "news" about them is out there.

Most of us don't care. It's not an issue.

I'm sorry that some minority percentage of you think it is, but most of us simply do not think it is an issue.

Move on.

Or not, but you're not getting anywhere with it so it doesn't help your case any to dwell on this non-issue.

(And we DO think character matters - most of us, I'd suggest - and we LIKE Obama's character, or at least as much as one can ever like the character of a politician.

Auntyem said...

Goodness, John,

President Bush and his staff, the FBI, the CIA, the Pentagon, etc. have "access at the highest level" and have had every agency vetting Obama. If there was anything illegal or subversive in his background they could get him on, it would have been done long ago.

People are clutching at straws when they can't find anything such as membership in an anarchist group or communist party, and they try to denigrate him for any associations with suspect people who were not prosecuted for any crime, except for Resko, but that was Resko's crime.

I hate it too that Ayers got away with what he did due to a technicality and that he crows about it. He and Jane Fonda should be sitting in jail in Gauntanamo. I don't like it that Rev. Wright rages with his pent-up resentment and infects his parishioners with hate for "rich white people" (he does his darndest to live like them though, and he has white blood himself), but the US Govt doesn't classify that as a crime, especially for the parishioners. But none of that would have come to light if the extreme right-wing media had not worked overtime to find something, anything to try to smear him.

Obama is half-white, talks like the man on the six o'clock news, is temperamentally steady, learns easily: he's like Gen. Powell. Gen. Powell didn't endorse Jesse Jackson when he ran for president, so why should people say that Gen. Powell is endorsing Obama only because he is black? I think it is because he was made a patsy in front of the UN over the WMDs that didn't exist after all.

The right wing media, the Hannitys, the Limbaughs etc. have clutched at straws to smear Obama, to swift boat him, and it has back-fired, I think.

I don't like what I hear from some white people at Palin's rallies---they use the N word, carry little toy black monkeys with the word "Obama" across their chests, etc. McCain himself had to defend Obama against an old lady with messy white hair when she said she thought Obama was an Arab. (I think she meant Muslim).

All of this is going to cause some racist nut to assassinate Obama should he become president. It will only make him a martyr and a saint in some quarters, and the social movements against the status quo will continue with even more determination from blacks and whites.

Port Orchard, WA

Kristina said...

Sigh. The fact of the matter is that Dr. John is right. There is no way he would get a clearance. And I believe that was the point of the post.

By the way, Dan. I haven't seen you around here, lately. Is everything okay?


Of course, Dr John is correct. Also, Dr Martin Luther King was also right when he stated:

"A man must be judged, not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character"!

I would only add that it is reasonable to assume serious flaws
in the 'character' of Obama when he Deliberately Lies about his long "association" w/ William Charles Ayers (1995) as "just a guy in the neighborhood". He launched his political career in this unrepentant bomber's dining room at a neighborhood 'Meet and Greet', and that's not all;

Another one, a Long Association with MUSLIM TERRORIST PLO LEADER KHALIDI, the good friend of that disgusting little nazi-runt Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, the Iranian koo-koo that called Israel a 'Stinking Corpse'. Come alive, folks!

Read, "Judging The Man" on Snake Hunters October Post.

Top-Security Clearance? Hah! reb

Dan Trabue said...

Thanks for asking, Kristina, I'm fine.

Dan Trabue said...

And by the way, I'm not doubting that in the real world, Obama might not be able to get a security clearance. Just like I probably couldn't get one.

And if rules were applied fairly and equally, it may be true that McCain couldn't get one either. I mean, he has terrorism-supporters (like Ollie North, whose support of terrorism led to the loss of tens of thousands of lives) endorsing him. He has convicted criminals (like G Gordon Liddy) who've been advocates of violence holding fundraisers for McCain at their house.

Of course, those are "good" terrorist-supporters, so McCain is probably good to go.

George G said...

Dan you are correct those are "good terrorist". If we had listened to Col. North. Osama bin Laden would be dead already. If we had supported the Afghanis after their war with the USSR we wouldn't have the problems we are having right now. Well other than the fannie may and freddie mac. Problems caused by both GOP and Demos.
But I digress. You say no body cares about Ayers. Well I do. He advocated the bombing of public buildings. People got hurt, some died!! People still go after 3rd Reich Nazis and rightly so. The went after the guy who blew up the FBI building in Oklahoma city. I think they should arrest Ayers and hang his hide. But I am just natural born citizen. Just another Joe Schmoe who doesn't matter to anybody.

Dan Trabue said...

To be clear, when I say "we have heard about Ayers and Wright and we don't care," what I'm saying is that the majority of the US - your fellow concerned citizens, church members, neighbors, moms and dads - has heard the attempts to link Obama to some of the negatives of Ayers and Wright and we're not buying there is anything there.

I'm sorry you're in the minority on this point, but that appears to be the case. It does not mean that we don't care about character (clearly, we do), but we don't think there's anything significant in Obama's relationship with these two men that would preclude him from successfully being president.

Many of us DO have a problem with McCain in that he refuses to repudiate the actions of North, who is endorsing McCain and whose support McCain accepts.

The difference Obama/Ayers and McCain/North is that Obama has clearly rejected Ayers' terroristic actions, while McCain has not done so with North.

Character does matter and we find McCain sometimes lacking.

John Washburn said...

So are you drawing some moral equivalence between Ollie North and Bill Ayers? Yikes.

I don't recall North ever advocating for the overthrow of the US government. North never spoke of "re-education camps" for those who resisted his desired coup de'tat. North never said that those who failed to be re-educated would have to be "eliminated". North never attacked US government buildings.

You may consider some US military actions as acts of terrorism, but that would put you in the minority. North served his country with honor and fell on the sword in the name of combating communism, subsequently losing his career and his good name. He is a patriot, and so is John McCain. I wouldn't dare say the same thing about Bill Ayers.

Your comparison is very thin.

And John McCain never endorsed Libby's or North's writings. McCain didn't have a 20 year relationship with a racist preacher. He didn't negotiate a home loan with a felon. He never served on an administrative board with a domestic terrorist. He didn't give $800K to a group responsible for voter fraud, and if he ever did he would be quick to denounce their actions. You're talking about endorsements. I'm talking about known associations.

Saying Obama is a man of good character and judgment reflects poorly on one's own credibility.

Dan Trabue said...

As does suggesting that North is a man of good character.

I'd question your position that my being opposed to the illegal acts of North (illegally selling weapons to IRAN!! in order to illegally provide support FOR TERRORISTS!! in Nicaragua) would put me in the minority in our country. Do you really think that the majority of folk supported those actions?

1. They were illegal.

2. They provided weapons TO IRAN.

3. They led to the deaths by terroristic means of tens of thousands of innocent Nicaraguans.

EVEN IF the majority of the US thought those were okay (and I don't for a minute think they do), I'd still be opposed to North's actions because terrorism is always wrong.