PDA

View Full Version : "By the way, Senator... it's a 'flak' jacket, not a 'flack' jacket."

Cylinder
25th May 2007, 08:50 PM
Details of the back-and-forth between Sens. McCain and Obama over at NRO (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2QxOGJhNGRiNTg1OTQyOTQ5ODZiMzBjNGI2Y2RkOTU=):

Senator Barack Obama released the following statement today in response to statements made by Senator John McCain and Governor Mitt Romney on last night's vote.

"This country is united in our support for our troops, but we also owe them a plan to relieve them of the burden of policing someone else's civil war. Governor Romney and Senator McCain clearly believe the course we are on in Iraq is working, but I do not.

"And if there ever was a reflection of that it's the fact that Senator McCain required a flack jacket, ten armored Humvees, two Apache attack helicopters, and 100 soldiers with rifles by his side to stroll through a market in Baghdad just a few weeks ago.

McCain's response:

"While Senator Obama's two years in the U.S. Senate certainly entitle him to vote against funding our troops, my service and experience combined with conversations with military leaders on the ground in Iraq lead me to believe that we must give this new strategy a chance to succeed because the consequences of failure would be catastrophic to our nation's security.

"By the way, Senator Obama, it's a 'flak' jacket, not a 'flack' jacket."

Ouch.
Wheezebucket
25th May 2007, 09:03 PM
Burn!
Sir Robin Goodfellow
25th May 2007, 11:19 PM
My dictionary says they are interchangeable spellings.
bjornart
26th May 2007, 12:32 AM
Burn!

http://mediamatters.org/items/200705260002?f=h_topic

Fizzle! :rolleyes:
Khalid01
26th May 2007, 12:37 AM
My dictionary says they are interchangeable spellings.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flack

Dictionary.com agrees. This is a phenomenon where a word was first taken from a (German) acronym, and then was likely transcribed phonetically so a "c" was inserted.

Obama's use is much less of a blunder (if indeed a blunder at all), than, say, the president's habitual mispronounciation of "nuclear". But that non sequitur aside, McCain's wide side-stepping from Obama's reference to his tremendous security force is noted and of course his invocation of national security concerns which have unreasonably pushed this war forward from the beginning is noted as well.
Wheezebucket
26th May 2007, 01:23 AM
Oops, I'm apparently supposed to use roll-eyes smileys to make it clear I'm not serious. I thought the obvious idiocy of McCain's statement was enough, but hey, I'll throw one in for good measure. - :rolleyes:

And one more - :rolleyes: - because I resent having to use one. Text be damned!
Dr Adequate
26th May 2007, 02:22 AM
My dictionary says they are interchangeable spellings. You say "potatoe" and I say "potato".
Dr Adequate
26th May 2007, 02:33 AM
Ouch. Well may you wince.

I think McCain's going to take some flak for this. Oh, wait ...

Honestly, if there's one thing feebler than a spelling flame, it's a spelling flame from someone who can't spell.
This Guy
26th May 2007, 03:19 AM
I admire and respect McCain's service to our nation.

But I think he is a prime example of the Peter Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle) in action. He's gone as far as he can go and be competent (some might question how competent he is). He should be happy where he is, and shut up.
geni
26th May 2007, 04:32 AM
Both wrong. What they are wearing is full blown body amour.
Lemastre
26th May 2007, 04:57 AM
Both wrong. What they are wearing is full blown body amour.
"Amour"? Another joke, perhaps? Oh well, enough with spelling problems.
bjornart
26th May 2007, 05:13 AM
Oops, I'm apparently supposed to use roll-eyes smileys to make it clear I'm not serious. I thought the obvious idiocy of McCain's statement was enough, but hey, I'll throw one in for good measure. - :rolleyes:

And one more - :rolleyes: - because I resent having to use one. Text be damned!

Actually even a roll-eyes would have left the statement ambiguous. ;)
brodski
26th May 2007, 05:18 AM
Both wrong. What they are wearing is full blown body amour.

Is this a result of don't ask don't tell? :boxedin:
mr rosewater
26th May 2007, 06:01 AM
Details of the back-and-forth between Sens. McCain and Obama over at NRO (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2QxOGJhNGRiNTg1OTQyOTQ5ODZiMzBjNGI2Y2RkOTU=):



McCain's response:



Ouch.

Flak or flack, does a no vote absolve the U.S. of our responsibility in Iraq. For or against, we did it, now do we have a responsibility for a peaceful Iraq.
quixotecoyote
26th May 2007, 09:45 AM
Flak or flack, does a no vote absolve the U.S. of our responsibility in Iraq. For or against, we did it, now do we have a responsibility for a peaceful Iraq.

Ask first if we have the capability to create a peaceful Iraq. It sure doesn't look like it from here. Looks more like we broke things beyond our ability to fix them.
MelBrooksfan
26th May 2007, 10:10 AM
Ask first if we have the capability to create a peaceful Iraq. It sure doesn't look like it from here. Looks more like we broke things beyond our ability to fix them.

Then it becomes an issue of whether or not it is acceptable to pack up and leave them.
Beerina
26th May 2007, 12:39 PM
Ask first if we have the capability to create a peaceful Iraq. It sure doesn't look like it from here. Looks more like we broke things beyond our ability to fix them.

You mean beyond our political will at home to fix them. A draft to create a several million man army to lock the country up tighter than a barrel would do it. Being more vicious would do it.

Toodling along as we are is not doing it.