Wesley Clark insults McCain's military and senate record "No exec. experience"
By Taskr36
@Taskr36 (13963)
United States
June 30, 2008 6:22pm CST
So this moron supports Obama, a guy without a single day of military experience and hardly any political experience. That's fine, but somehow he decides that it's ok to criticize a former POW and long time senator who's been on the Senate Armed Services Committee and traveled all over the world. Apparently a couple years in the senate dwarf military command and decades as a senator. Naturally Obama will say he disagrees with this and didn't know Wesley Clark was the kind of person who would say this. We've already established that Obama neither knows, nor understands the people who work for him. In actuality, it seems clear he is letting people like Clark do his dirty work while he smiles at the camera and says he does not support these statements.
"The latest dustup began on CBS's "Face the Nation." Clark, the former supreme commander of NATO under Bill Clinton, said McCain's military service was not the same as executive experience.
"In the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk," Clark said "It's a matter of gauging your opponents, and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war.
"He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world, but he hasn't held executive responsibility," Clark said. "That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn't a wartime squadron."
Clark has said as much before, but drew little notice. CBS moderator Bob Schieffer cited Clark's earlier remarks and noted that Obama hadn't had those experiences either nor had he ridden in a fighter plane and been shot down. "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," Clark replied."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/30/clark.mccain/index.html#cnnSTCText
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080630/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_clark
3 people like this
7 responses
@Gargoyle0134 (1257)
• United States
1 Jul 08
Clark didn't dishonor McCain's military sacrifice and said himself that he honored his service to his country. All he said was that, just because he was shot down and captured..it does not mean he'd be a better president.
It's true. I am a military vet and highly honour McCain's service and that he went through so much while kept imprisoned. He showed real guts! But he also made an unwise choice when given the chance to come home...stayed back there for more torture and could possibly have helped those over there BY coming back and helping recover them quicker wiht the information he had? But..that is not a reason to believe he'd be a better foreign policy maker or a better White house manager. I fact..it showed he may be quick to anger/not think things through and be more impulsive than we may like.
No offense to McCain at all. He's a good man. But can he manage the entire country's affairs well? The president does not spend ALL his time on war. A president should be calm and level headed and not impulsive. What about the other here-at-home issues that need dealing with..emergencies that are weather related, hunger, employment increases and other domestic policies and those in countries we do get along with? Why would he be better at those than anyone else?
Clark had a point. Let us not blow it out of proportion. McCain has guts. But..hard to say if he'd be a good micro-manager in the White House.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
6 Jul 08
" "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," was probably the most disrespectful remark he could have made about McCain's experiences."
Sorry, I think he was absolutely right! That ALONE does not make him qualified to be President! How was it disrespectful when it was the interviewer that said those words about being shot down first?
Once more I must ask - does the fact he was a POW make him beyond reproach for anything negative he may have ever done? Does that automatically make him the only person qualified to be President and does nothing else matter? The temper he can't control (possibly signs of PTSD) the poor memory or penchant for lying, whichever it may be, are all those things acceptable and not even mentionable because he was a POW? If that's the case then once again I'll suggest we cancel the election and let him be declared our new leader for life. Let's declare martial law.
Annie
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
6 Jul 08
Annie, you keep saying that. being a POW doesn't change his stance on the issues, his temper, or anything else you don't like about him. I've never said you can't attack him on any of those issues. Those are all perfectly valid. The only reason criticizing his military record draws anger is because Obama has no military record.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
1 Jul 08
Have you ever heard that the word "but" negates everything that comes before it? Read your post and you'll see that everytime you've said something positive about McCain you've followed it with the word "but".
The fact is that he spoke of McCain in a dishonorable fashion. He acted as though McCain's experience was meaningless and did nothing to qualify him for the presidency. Meanwhile he's supporting a man with zero military experience and a piddly fraction of senatorial experience. He even had the audacity to say that McCain's command of a large squadron didn't count because it wasn't a "wartime squadron".
"Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," was probably the most disrespectful remark he could have made about McCain's experiences.
@gewcew23 (8007)
• United States
1 Jul 08
This is not the Clark I know, well of course Obama you do not know him you need not even know about your friends. What about your career Clark, you were a Clinton appointee to NATO command and then got fired by Clinton. Obama does no have any military experience. Obama does not have any executive experience. The only experience that Obama brings to the table is a lawyer and do we really need another lawyer.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
1 Jul 08
Clark is just acting as an attack dog for Obama. Obama doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to military and political experience so he hires an attack dog like Clark with military experience to insult McCain's record. This then allows Obama to avoid the backlash of hypocrisy while claiming he had no idea Clark would say such a thing and ocmpletely disagrees with it. It's pretty standard politics and it's been done before.
1 person likes this
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
1 Jul 08
This is the new politics of Change. Let someone do your dirty work and then say I don't know this person. How many of these people are going to end up in Obama's Administration. Obama is the same old way of doing things. tell lies about your opponent and then retract it in the back of the paper later. If you can't find any facts make up something or distort the facts. General Clark said
"In the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk," Clark said "It's a matter of gauging your opponents, and it's a matter of being held accountable."
When you think about the training that a Military officer receives is to just such things. As a fighter pilot Senator McCain had to assess a situation and make a decision, act on it and be able to explain it later. As a Military Officer your decision effects the lives of others. When you are in combat you are doing exactly what General Clark said McCain lacks. As a Senator, you can take your time and study a situation, ask other people and make a decision. If you change your mind before the vote you can change your mind. If you don't want to make a decision you can vote present and let someone else make the decision. You can also sit back and wait until the event is over then you can hold hearings and second guess everyone who had to look at the event, analyze the risk, and make a decision in a matter of moments. When the phone rings at 3:00 AM I want someone who can make the decision and not vote present.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
1 Jul 08
"In the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk," Clark said "It's a matter of gauging your opponents, and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions."
Apparently Clark also thinks that McCain didn't understand the risks of being a fighter pilot. He also didn't gauge his opponents when he chose to stay as a POW rather than take preferential treatment and be realeased out of order. Certainly McCain was never held accountable for anything he did in his military career. We all know POWs are just treated like celebrities and get wonderful treatment.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
5 Jul 08
I'm really confused by this whole uproar over what Wesley Clark, just recently an Obama supporter, said in that relatively short interview. What I'd like to know, and I'm very respectfully asking all of you right here and now, is what IS OK to say about McCain? Should we simply cancel the election and swear him in? Seriously, nobody has attacked his service to our country. His years in the Senate are certainly fair-game, in my opinion, and the fact of his many flip-flops on every issue are certainly relevant.
From this and other discussions regarding Wesley Clark's comments and all that has followed, I have to wonder if perhaps we should change our Constitution to make it so only some who has served in the military during a time of war is allowed to run for President. Also, maybe our freedom of speech when it comes to criticizing anyone for anything, related or unrelated to their military service, once they have served should be revoked. It's increasingly clear anything that's said either for Obama or against McCain is going to be taken as an attack against McCain! So, tell me, what can be said or should we just have the Inauguration without holding a vote?
Annie
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
6 Jul 08
This is a real case of where we're going to have to agree to disagree! I still don't think Clark said or did anything wrong at all and I think I'd feel the same way no matter who supported whom or who said what about whomever. I find it ironic that some of the very same people who generally hate anything connected with Congress think it's something to hold in high esteem in McCain's case. Personally, I respect and appreciate his service to our country, I can't even begin to imagine the horrors he endured as a POW and I form my opinion on his Senate career the way way I do with any other Senator. Since I don't share many of his political views, of course depending on the day or even the time of day it is, I haven't been a big fan of him as a Senator through the years. To some people his military service is an issue in deciding his qualifications to be President; at this time in our nation I'd prefer to not have someone who has had war on his mind his entire life as our next Commander-In-Chief. That isn't meant disrespectfully at all and it's simply my opinion.
Annie
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
6 Jul 08
Annie, as I've said before freedom of speech allows people to say any sort of hateful, ignorant, or just downright stupid things they want to say. What this freedom also allows is criticism of people who make these statements. Wesley Clark had and continues to have every right to insult McCain's record. He could also say McCain is a blue giraffe that turns into a walrus during the full moon. The fact is that when he criticizes McCain's record, he opens himself up to other people exercising their own rights to free speech and criticizing him.
I don't think military experience is, or should be a requirement for the president. I do however think it is a valid qualification that should be considered when choosing a president. I also think that it is nonsensical to say one man's exceptional experience is insufficient while supporting a man with almost no experience. I would have respected him if he'd just dealt with the issues the way most people supporting Obama and McCain have done.
1 person likes this
@moonlitmagikchild (22181)
• United States
1 Jul 08
i know i cant believe clark saying all that its insane!!
