Retired U.S. Gen. Wesley Clark, a supporter of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, has questioned whether Sen. John McCain’s military experience qualified him to be commander-in-chief.
Clark – referring to McCain’s experience, or lack thereof, in setting national security policies and understanding the risk involved in such matters – said, “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. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn’t held executive responsibility,” said Clark, a former NATO commander…
“He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn’t seen what it’s like when diplomats come in and say, I don’t know whether we’re going to be able to get this point through or not,” Clark said.
Schieffer noted that Obama did not have any of those experiences, nor had he “ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.”
“Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president,” Clark said.
Someone had to say it, sooner or later.
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Ok, lets throw Gen. Cluck in the Hanoi Hilton for 5 YEARS. Lets see if he would pass if offered a release until EVERYONE could come home from Vietnam that was a POW. No, McCain did not order bombs to be dropped. He did drop the bombs.
(Note I am a conservative, but I don’t know who to vote for yet for Pres.)
It seems that Wesley Clark is making it quite evident that he is kissing Obama’s ass to get a cabinet position or dare I say Vice Pres.? F**king politicians.
Really, if he is going to start casting stones about who is “qualified,” he should look at the person he supports first.
what a moron. and of course this will never hit the front page of digg.
Cue: Conservatives foaming at the mouth and falling over backward.
Getting shot down doesn’t have anything to do with being a good president. The big mystery to me is wondering how anyone be for that young green goof ball. He lies through his teeth like a sleazy car salesman. When he talks there is so much fluff I could open up a pillow company and kids stuffed toy factory and still supply the world with fluff. McCain will make a very good president. Democrats better stock up on pain relievers for November cuz it’s gonna hurt. 4 more years. Total of 12. Ouch. If only demz really understood how the world works they could get on with saving their energy, putting it into more productive endeavors, like mining coal.
Strictly speaking, being shot down doesn’t indicate anything more than the need for extra combat flight training. At least McCain can say he had the courage to serve unlike other politicians of which the number is too long to list.
Getting shot down doesn’t have anything to do with being a good president. It’s like claiming that someone would have to finish college in order to establish either the first or second most successful computer company in the world.
Don’t forget McCain’s a war hero! But then again so was Benedict Arnold. I’m just saying.
Another instance of someone pointing out something that doesn’t matter to the election at all. Does McCain being a POW mean he’ll be a better president? No. Does it mean he’ll be worse? No. Does it matter that Obama has a (somewhat) Muslim heritage? No. What matters is their stance on the issues. If you don’t agree with a candidate’s stance on the issues that are important to you, then don’t for them. Don’t base it off of this stupid worthless crap. If people would just vote with their brains and not their emotions.
If the choice is between a freshman Senator who has failed to vote (either absent or just a non-vote of “present”) on a majority of issues, and who has never seen ANY type of military service, or a man who was a POW of five years, who is a decorated war hero, and who has a long record of going on record with his votes in the Senate…which man do you think, based on that record, is better suited to be commander in chief? Which man has greater knowledge of what is involved in invoking war, of being at war, of watching bodies come home in bags? Which man has shown a greater ability to actually make hard decisions and to go on record with those decisions?
And then which man has little of the above, but is photogenic and able to sell “hope”?
If Clark was support Kerry against McCain, then maybe this wouldn’t be unbelievably stupid. But he is, and it is.
“But he hasn’t held executive responsibility,” said Clark, a former NATO commander…
“He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn’t seen what it’s like when diplomats come in and say, I don’t know whether we’re going to be able to get this point through or not,” Clark said.”
This applies to both candidates. So, Clark is saying that both candidates aren’t qualified.
Hmmm.
He hasn’t nearly started a war with Russia over an airport in Kosovo. He hasn’t criticized John Kerry with ‘He’s a lieutenant and I’m a general.’
I’m not sure Clark is right about the leadership bit. But then some of our best military leaders have made terrible, at the worst, to uninspired Presidents.
Men such as George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses Grant, Rupert Hays, and Dwight Eisenhower.
And then some of the best Presidents served as junior officers or in a civilian capacity to the military. This list includes Kennedy, both Roosevelts, and Lincoln.
The only people who “ride” a fighter plane are the TV anchors who get to sit in the back seat for publicity stunts. Pilots fly fighter planes and it takes an enormous amount of training & skill just to get the plane to go in a straight line. Now imagine being shot at from 50 directions at once.
Congratulations Gen. Clark, you’ve just insulted everyone who’s ever served in the U.S. Air Force.
That said, simply serving in the armed forces doesn’t qualify you to be commander-in-chief. Gen. Clark proves that point about himself with his own remarks.
Every time Clark opens his mouth, the less and less respect I have for him.
#13, Lyin’ Mike,
He hasn’t nearly started a war with Russia over an airport in Kosovo. He hasn’t criticized John Kerry with ‘He’s a lieutenant and I’m a general.’
Maybe not, but he did call his wife a “cunt”.
Those presidencies weren’t so bad. Washington kept the nation steady, stepped down to establish a transfer of power, and gave us the only memorable farewell address.
Eisenhower held the line on attacking the Soviets, got Europe out of Suez, and was a steady hand. Grant had corruption but overall things went well(shades of Clinton).
Jackson paid off the national debt, and challenged the Supreme Court.
#14, who’s Rupert Hays and when was he President?
And I’ve always been curious why people consider Kennedy to have been such a great President outside of him being young and charismatic with a pretty wife.
My question. Why is Clark wearing camouflage at the podium giving a speech? Is he expecting people to be shooting at him? Or is this all the clothes he has?
We all know these comments are designed with it in mind he wants to be the VP nominee.
#17 – Fissile One
>>Maybe not, but he did call his wife a “cunt”.
And don’t even bring up his endless flip-flopping. Or his utter and complete ignorance on economic issues, social issues, and most other issues that matter for being POTUS.
Not to mention comparing his wife to a “trollop” in the same breath with his “cunt” remark. Good thing she’s got money, otherwise he’d trade her in for a younger model, like he did with the last wife.
Haw!
Publicity whore.
#20 – Mr. C. Dvorak
>>My question. Why is Clark wearing camouflage at the
>>podium giving a speech?
Perhaps because the picture links to an article written in 2003, and the picture could have been taken any time between 1962 (when he went to West Point) and 2000 (when he retired). I doubt he was dolled up in camo’s when he made these remarks in 2008.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/jatras12.html
#23, especially true given that is the NATO symbol on the front of that podium.
Let’s see, Westley Clark calls McCain, “a hero to him,” then publicly reams him a new one. Wonder how he would treat a traitor? Oh yeah, he endorses them for president.
>>Wonder how he would treat a traitor? Oh yeah, he
>>endorses them for president.
Hey, he never endorsed Karl Rove or Dick Cheney for president! WTF are you talking about?
Finally! someone has put a end to it. But Obama may be opening up a pandora box he should not. I think both men have little to say about what qualifies as good presidential experience. Frankly, I am more concerned with House and Senate members then the president. This is where our government has faltered. I guess for McCain being isolated as a POW would give experience of feeling alone in case his ratings drop as fast as Bush if he’s elected. Otherwise I am not sure how that would be considered a electable quality.
Clark is not qualified to be the commander either.
That is why we dumped him in 2004.
This is sour grapes.
Cursor_
Clark has FAR more military experience and training that McCain. Clark was a HIGH level general, McCain was near deal LAST in his class. McCain was captured and tortured, which is HORRIBLE…but that doesn’t make him any more qualified to be President than ME.
The point Clark is making (rightly) is that McCain is full of shit to be talking about how ONLY he is qualified to talk on military matters, but he was briefly in the military and tortured. Clark, who has been in the military FAR longer, with far more training and experience (though no tortured) is calling McCain out…good for him.
McCain is a somewhat dim, lowly educated suckup who will say anything to anyone to get elected. Pick an issue of his and I’ll give you quotes where he changed his position depending on his audience.
#29 – So, who IS more qualified (forget Clark he’s not running) Obama? I think this strat will backfire as he’s attacking McCain on a point that Obama is himself weaker on, experience.