|
why does Gen. Clark hate america?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| josh4 |
| quote: | Gen. Clark won't back off critique of McCain
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent 33 minutes ago
Retired Gen. Wesley Clark rejected suggestions he apologize Tuesday for saying John McCain's medal-winning military service does not qualify him for the White House. Elaborating, Clark said a president must have judgment, not merely courage and character.
Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential hopeful, said Clark's comments had been inartful. McCain said Obama should go further than that.
"I think the time has come for Sen. Obama to not just repudiate Gen. Clark, but to cut him loose," McCain said en route to Colombia.
One ally of the Republican presidential contender accused Obama of "winking and nodding" when he should be condemning Clark and his comments. "This is now about Obama, not Wesley Clark," added Orson Swindle on a conference call with reporters organized by the McCain's campaign.
Swindle, a retired colonel and — like McCain — prisoner of war in Vietnam, added that Obama should tell his surrogates to "knock this crap off."
Clark set off the controversy Sunday when he said McCain's wartime experience as a Navy pilot and his command of an air squadron in peacetime did not provide him with experience needed to become president.
"I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," he added at the time.
McCain frequently emphasizes his military service as he campaigns for the White House.
Obama, who did not serve in the military, frequently cites his opposition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq as evidence of the judgment needed in a commander in chief.
Despite criticism from Republicans, Clark declined to back down in an interview Tuesday morning with ABC. "The experience that he had as a fighter pilot isn't the same as having been at the highest levels of the military and having to make ... life or death decisions about national, strategic issues," he said.
Asked whether he felt he owed McCain an apology, Clark responded, "I'm very sorry that this has distracted from the message of patriotism that Sen. Obama wants to put out."
Later, in a National Public Radio interview, Clark was asked about his statements in 2004 that Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, had "heard the thump of enemy mortars. He's seen the flash of tracers" and could lead in a time of war.
"I think that you can always cite a candidate's service in the armed forces as a testimony to his character and his courage. But I don't think early service justifies moving away from looking at a candidate's judgment," he replied.
McCain's campaign responded with its second conference call by surrogates on this subject in two days.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., rebutted Clark's claim by arguing that McCain's years as a prisoner of war and the mistreatment he endured made him uniquely qualified to lead the campaign in the Senate to ban the use of torture in the interrogation of detainees in the war on terror.
"Nobody could have taken the floor and spoken about detainee policy" the same way, Graham added.
Obama, campaigning in Ohio, said he did not believe Clark's intent was the same as critics who four years ago challenged Kerry's account of his own wartime service in Vietnam. The so-called Swift Boat ads are widely blamed by Democrats for playing a role in Kerry's defeat.
"I don't think that Gen. Clark had the same intent as the Swift Boat ads of four years ago. I reject that analogy," Obama said.
He said McCain "deserves the utmost honor and respect for his service to our country."
At the same time, he said his admonishment — in a Monday speech on patriotism — against devaluing McCain's military service had been in early drafts of the speech, and was not added at the last minute in response to Clark.
"The question is why, given all the vast numbers of things that we've got to work on, that would be a top priority of mine," he said. "The fact that somebody on a cable show or on a news show, like Gen. Clark, said something that was inartful about John McCain, I don't think is what is keeping Ohioans up at night," he said.
On Monday, Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said, "Sen. Obama honors and respects Sen. McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by Gen. Clark."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080702...pr/mccain_clark |
hahaha I agree with Clark's take on the issue. Just because you've served in the military or been a prisoner of war isn't defacto qualification to be President in and of itself. It certainly looks good on a resume though! Naturally the media machine and right wing will be all over this as an opportunity to find Obama guilty by association. I wonder if hes going to disown Clark. We'll see how long the story stays in the news. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
I really haven't understood the backlash on this one. It's not as though Clark attacked his service, he just said that it doesn't qualify him to be President. Why is McCain making this an issue and more importantly, why the did Obama back down?
Edit: Josh, he did disown him. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
Ive never understood america's pre-occupation with presidential military service. The only reason I would care would be that perhaps having served in war a president might be less likely to send young men and women to their deaths.
But if I was counting up everything that I would consider important in a leader, military service would be nowhere to be seen.
to me, being shot down in war doesn't mean you'd make a good president, it means you werent that good a pilot ;) |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
i've been saying the same thing for months.
In any event, most, but not all, people in the military are unqualified for many jobs (hence the high unemployment rate of recently discharged soldiers). There must be a reason employers don't want to hire ex-soldiers, so why the should we hire as president an ex-POW airman? in fact, i would even go so far as to say many in the military couldn't manage a mcdonalds, let alone lead a country. Obviously there are exceptions. So the notion that McCain's service is somehow a qualifying factor is ridiculous.
Furthermore, as PKC said, his status for 5 years as a prisoner of war means absolutely nothing with respect to being president. As usually, a US senator can't distinguish between qualifications for being president and qualifications for testifying about prisoner treatment (senator graham). I fail to see the connection his stupid ass was trying to make between qualification to talk about prisoner abuse and qualifications for president. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
Furthermore, as PKC said, his status for 5 years as a prisoner of war means absolutely nothing with respect to being president. As usually, a US senator can't distinguish between qualifications for being president and qualifications for testifying about prisoner treatment (senator graham). I fail to see the connection his stupid ass was trying to make between qualification to talk about prisoner abuse and qualifications for president. |
the irony being of course that mccain's years of torture didn't preclude him from weakening his stance on it when push came to shove. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | [Originally said by Groundhog Boy
I really haven't understood the backlash on this one |
b/c it was pretty f**king insulting but Clark gets the obligatory pass from the left apparently.
now it's about whether military service alone makes one qualified to be POTUS. WRONG! thats just the "distraction"
do you people think in the least bit McCain has pinned his entire Presidential campaign existence on his military "experience" as Wes Clark so "inartfully" described? no, right?
no one, Repugnican or Dem, would give two s what Clark says about anyone if he didn't work for Obama. but he's says some pointless and offensive crap about McCain and now the topic du jour is something completely different.
Clark opened his stupid partisaned mouth and f**ked up. end of story. next:rolleyes: |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
Clark opened his stupid partisaned mouth |
oh come now, how are we meant to take you seriously when you post stuff like this? youre the biggest partisan on here besides trancer-x! :p
why is it "insulting" btw? its quite obvious that a stint in the military does not a priori make one suitable for the office of the president.
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
do you people think in the least bit McCain has pinned his entire Presidential campaign existence on his military "experience" as Wes Clark so "inartfully" described? no, right? |
he certainly doesn't mind using it as part of his campaign though. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
i've been saying the same thing for months.
In any event, most, but not all, people in the military are unqualified for many jobs (hence the high unemployment rate of recently discharged soldiers). There must be a reason employers don't want to hire ex-soldiers, so why the should we hire as president an ex-POW airman? in fact, i would even go so far as to say many in the military couldn't manage a mcdonalds, let alone lead a country. Obviously there are exceptions. So the notion that McCain's service is somehow a qualifying factor is ridiculous.
Furthermore, as PKC said, his status for 5 years as a prisoner of war means absolutely nothing with respect to being president. As usually, a US senator can't distinguish between qualifications for being president and qualifications for testifying about prisoner treatment (senator graham). I fail to see the connection his stupid ass was trying to make between qualification to talk about prisoner abuse and qualifications for president. |
this isn't about his POW experience. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
oh come now, how are we meant to take you seriously when you post stuff like this? youre the biggest partisan on here besides trancer-x! :p |
i'm not McCain's surrogate.
| quote: | | why is it "insulting" btw? its quite obvious that a stint in the military does not a priori make one suitable for the office of the president. |
b/c it diminishes his entire military career to "riding in a fighter jet and being shot down" as a former decorated combat officer himself, Wes Clark should know better. but he doesn't, b/c he's diminished himself as just another partisaned surrogate.
| quote: | | he certainly doesn't mind using it as part of his campaign though. |
why shouldn't he be able to use any or all of his military experience as "part" of his campaign? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
why shouldn't he be able to use any or all of his military experience as "part" of his campaign? |
relevance? and i didnt say he couldn't use it, but if he does use it he should be prepared for critiques of it. i think clark's assessment is completely right - what does serving in vietnam as a fighter pilot have to do with leading america in the 21st century? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
and i didnt say he couldn't use it, |
of course you didnt.
| quote: | | but if he does use it he should be prepared for critiques of it. |
of course he should. the valid critiques and the outright insulting ones as well.
| quote: | | i think clark's assessment is completely right - what does serving in vietnam as a fighter pilot have to do with leading america in the 21st century? |
nothing. in fact, if you knew McCain's ENTIRE military record you'd agree that his so-called "assessment" is pretty f**kin shallow. Wes Clark didn't have to say it, did he? we're in pretty much agreement that military records aren't the end al be all of POTUS nominations. when have they ever been? |
|
|
| mndeg |
| it's all about appeal to the average american. plus emotional arguments are generally more powerful than logical ones. especially for people who don't understand logic. |
|
|
|
|
