Wesley Clark criticizes McCain, Refuses to Back Down

The Other Guy

Spam King
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080702/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_clark

I think the man makes a valid point. It's one thing to go and get shot. It's another to be a commander.

I know you're going to say, "At least McCain HAS a military record, which is more than Obama Osama Evil Satan Devil Man 3000 can say, but it didn't seem to matter in the '04 election, when John Kerry won a Silver Star in Vietnam and George Bush valiantly defended America from an airbase in Texas...
 
Senator McCain did have a Command position while in service.
Additionally, when he was shot down, he had volunteered for that mission. No matter how you slice it, President McCain is the wise choice for November for those that love the USA.
 
The so-called general decided that that didn't matter because thats what is convenient to say for the crap he's trying to do. By the way, who here has ever been "riding in a plane?" (Runway is not what was being discussed when words were spoken by this general) I've flown in a plane before. This guy's a General?

That effects leadership because he has shown on more than one occasion that he's willing to take chances, willing to do things others don't want to (I highly doubt President McCain would ever ask anyone to do anything he hasn't done before or is willing to do himself). As well as much more but I don't feel like writng a book for the forum.
 
Last edited:
I support and thank McCain for his service as a US Navy Fighter Pilot. Being a Fighter Jock isn't like being a ground pounder and a dirt chewer. It's also not like being a Theater Area Commander. But it's all in the name of serving one's country.

Was he a Commander of troops? No, but that doesn't mean the training and skill needed to be a fighter jock was like me being a ground pounder. It takes a lot to be a fighter pilot. It's not exactly easy... It takes some good skill there. The same skill and attention to detail that one needs to command troops.

I believe that Wesley Clark went for the low blow there. I have more respect for a man that served his nation period then a man that did not. Whether they served by being in the infantry, working as a cook on a nuke boat, or fixing planes on a tarmac in Iceland.

As for Obama... I don't respect him not because he didn't serve but because is a damn socialist. There are some that served and are still damn socialist.

Kerry served and I respect him for that. I hate him for everything else he did. To the brave men and women that fought and died in Vietnam and he was back in the States calling them baby killers and such. I hate him for what he did to tis nation as a Senator and how he voted against our men and women in uniform every damn time something came up. I hate him for his socialist views.

I respect Bush for being a Fighter Jock. Did he skimp out of a possible draft to Vietnam? Yes. But did he flee to Canada and hide out? No. He went and and enlisted in the US Air National Guard and served as a fighter jock for a F-106 Delta Dart. Not a easy aircraft to fly. These puppies were armed with AIM-26 Falcon and AIR-2 Genie Nuclear Tipped Missiles. Its not like he went and became a desk jocky and shuffled papers.

The Guard could have been called up if there was a major flare up with the WARSAW Pact or the damn President/Congress could have changed their minds and said that the Guard goes to war just like now. So I have more respect for Bush 43 because of that then for Bill Clinton.
 
I'm not knocking McCain's military service, and I don't believe General Clark is either. I believe he's asking what he did in the military to get such commanding skills that he claims are requirements to be President.

5.56X45mm said:
The Guard could have been called up if there was a major flare up with the WARSAW Pact or the damn President/Congress could have changed their minds and said that the Guard goes to war just like now.
I still get the feeling that the senator's son would remain in the US...

This guy's a General?
Yes, and a well decorated one. 4 stars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark
 
At least McCain's will put his hand over his heart when they play the National Anthem. Cal me stupid but Obama just seems a little un American to me. I'd prefer a man who has respect for his country than a man who promises more change, I remember the last one that said change, he got in........no change...no wait taxes changed......they went up
 
I am sorry but General Wes Clark is right,

Getting shot down and being made a POW doesn't qualify you to be president. Being a flyboy is not a White House qualification, and historically pilots haven't made the greatest presidents anyway (Bush x2, LBJ).

Nobody is knocking McCain service (although some of you are knocking Clark's military service) which is just as Heroic. (I'll get to that later).

We need a man who has the MANAGERIAL and EXECUTIVE knowledge and experience, flying a A-1 Skyhawk isn't required to be president. Being a non-combat Squadron Leader isn't a qualifier either, as it still lacks the experiance to make the top decisions (like when to drop the bombs and when not to).

Think of it this way:

A few years ago I was walking down a street in NYC and I was nearly hit by a slab of falling concrete that fell from a rooftop. OK, thats not the same as being in Combat so I cannot be POTUS, but doesnt that at least qualify me for Secretary of HUD?

And to those knocking Wes Clark
military service:

You need to check yourself. A little known fact:

On 1970, while Company Commander of A Company, 1st Battalion, 16th Infantry of the 1st Infantry Division Wes Clark was shot 4 times by a Vietcong. His wounds were in fact so severe that he nearly died on the Huey Medievac. He was in the Hospital for over a year.

The reason you dont hear about this is because unlike a certain presidential candidate, he keeps the incident private and choose NOT to mention it every 5 seconds.
 
Last edited:
The bottom line is there is no job that prepares someone for the job of POTUS. So all this talk is just opinion and speculation.

I think we all want the US to be a better place and a part of a better world, we just see different paths to that end. So why all the anger and name calling? Why can't we just respectfully disagree with someone?
 
I think we all want the US to be a better place and a part of a better world, we just see different paths to that end. So why all the anger and name calling? Why can't we just respectfully disagree with someone?
The simple answer there is no. :bang:
 
People generally get mad when debating about the course the country should take, because it is very important to them.

I agree that McCain deserves a lot of respect for his service, however it doesn't make me want to vote for him any more than if he had been a civilian.
 
Some people hold the belief that a person with military service automatically make a good president. This is not true.

- US Grant
- LBJ
- Jimmy Carter
- George W Bush (if you call serving in the Air National Guard and then deserting a "military career")

All of these had two things in common:

they all served in the military and they are all widely regarded as bad POTUS.
 
Some people hold the belief that a person with military service automatically make a good president. This is not true.

- US Grant
- LBJ
- Jimmy Carter
- George W Bush (if you call serving in the Air National Guard and then deserting a "military career")

All of these had two things in common:

they all served in the military and they are all widely regarded as bad POTUS.

I'd remove LBJ because he was neither a career military officer nor a bad president, he was "average".

However you can add Zachery Taylor, William Henry Harrison, and arguably Andrew Jackson.

The only one who was decent was Eisenhower, but in overall, military officers have made extremely poor presidents.
 
I'd remove LBJ because he was neither a career military officer nor a bad president, he was "average".

However you can add Zachery Taylor, William Henry Harrison, and arguably Andrew Jackson.

The only one who was decent was Eisenhower, but in overall, military officers have made extremely poor presidents.


I think Andrew Jackson was great but the other two I would agree with.
 
It's hard to evaluate Andrew Jackson, because not even Del Boy was around for the Jackson administration. :)

He served in the 1820s. He made some popular moves, but then again he also arranged the Trail of Tears...
 
Andrew Jackson is a controversial individual, there was no doubting his popularity and he did do some good, but he did some very questionable actions too. "The Trail of Tears" is one, his dissolution of the 2nd National Bank caused a economic meltdown in the US, and his active encourgement of the "spoils" system (giving federal jobs to cronies) has led to the corrupt system we have today. There is a tendency to confuse Andrew Jackson the war hero, with Andrew Jackson the President.

Which gets back to Easy-8 point that military-career people make poor presidents. I have no problems with Presidents who served in the military, but I think the career military individuals become too rigid and authoritative for the job. A president needs to be assertive but flexible.
 
Last edited:
The military and the civilian worlds are two very different worlds that don't understand each other very well.
Military leaders being good presidents... only in a dictatorship. And other than South Korea I can't think of any other case where this was true.
As for the rigid and authoritative, it's a bit of a stereotype. You can get quite a few of those who are NCOs but as far as officers go I think they are quite different. It's really funny sometimes when you see a movie and you have these high ranking officers acting like NCOs. But I think if there's anything they could have issues with, it's that in general people in the civilian world lack something called mutual respect when it comes to interaction between different lines of work.
 
Back
Top