Wes Clark questions McCain's Leadership skills

[VegasGuy]

Ret: Air Force General: McCain "weak" on national security

Retired Air Force General Tony McPeak, a national security adviser to Barack Obama, dropped the hammer on Sen. John McCain today, telling the Washington Times, "It doesn't take very long to uncover national security issues that McCain is weak on...For McCain to think he has a monopoly on virtue in the national security issue is going to be shown a pretty flimsy idea very quickly."

How flimsy and how quickly? As it turns out, very. And critically, McPeak attaches himself to the Obama campaign as someone who got Iraq right. From the WashTimes:

"[McCain is] wrong about Iraq, and he's wrong in the past and wrong about his ideas going forward," Gen. McPeak said. "And that's the biggest single national security issue on the table."


Gen. McPeak added, "[McCain] supported the intervention to begin with. Then of course he attacked the execution and he was justified in doing so. But the idea that this was a good concept, poorly executed, won't stand the test of examination.

"Now, it was poorly executed, so he was right about that. But the concept itself was fatally flawed. So he was wrong there. And his idea that all we have to do is execute better and this will turn into a big victory for us is wrong.

"So he's going to have to carry the weight, the tonnage of bad judgment on that particular issue."

Not surprisingly, McPeak also found McCain's notion that the United States should not enter into talks with nations such as Cuba and Iran to be daffy as well, saying, "This whole idea that diplomacy is attending cocktail parties with your best friends, that's kind of dumb. It's a national security issue that McCain is wrong on."

McPeak has become the "most senior retired military officer" to back Obama.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/02/retired-air-force-general_n_104653.html

-VG

 

[nick177th]

I didn't see any threads addressing this subject. It there is, someone let me know and I'll delete this one. I'm just interested to see what the Fam thinks. I personally don't question Sen. McCain's resolve. Really I don't. I can't imagine being in the "Hanoi Hilton" for 5 minutes no less 5 years. However, Gen. Clark (yes, it's proper to call him Gen.. 4 and 5 star Generals are never "truly" retired they can be called back at anytime) makes a point wether you agree with it or not.

Does being a "war vet' automatically qualify you to be commander-in-chief? Hell, I'm a war vet and I dam sure ain't qualified to be President. I'm not questioning Sen. McCain's patriotism or anything of the sort. I'm just asking the question. The McCain campaign is trying to play this down as being a slam coming out of the Obama camp but, this cat is/was a 4 Star General. You can't discredit the opinion as just a rant. He commanded at a much higher level than Sen. McCain. He didn't really slam McCain. He just stated that the Senators credentials don't automatically qualify him to be commander-in-chief.

I know it's "taboo" to question a POW but, what do y'all think?

 

[QueEx]

Does being a "war vet' automatically qualify you to be commander-in-chief?

I think you answered you own question; and, I agree with your conclusion.

QueEx

 

[lilsexii]

He was right. However, what he didn't do was avoid belittling McCain's experience and that is offensive to most Americans on some level - not just veterans, POWs and their families. He could have said "with all due respect" or something along those lines. If he had, I think the fallout would have been less significant. Then all the pundits and the media could have a more productive debate over the validity of the assertion without the negativity and hostility that his lack of respect has conjured up and that's unfortunate for Obama.

 

[bankz]

Man i agree with Wesley Clark, he just speaking the truth. McCain could not hack it as a officer so he left the military and left a wife who stayed with piece of shit for 5 yrs while he was a pow. He just not display the core values of the US Navy Honor, Courage and Commitment.

 

[nick177th]

I thought this thought months ago but, I just pondered it. I mean McCain is not McAurthur, Patton, or Shwartzkoff. He was a pilot that got shot down. Does he have balls? Hell yeah. I would've folded like a beach chair up in that dam Hanoi Hilton. I don't think you should get a "pass" because you were a POW. It's not like he was a fleet Commander in the Navy. People are not looking at this objectively. They're getting caught up in the POW emotion of it.

 

[QueEx]

He was right. However, what he didn't do was avoid belittling McCain's experience and that is offensive to most Americans on some level - not just veterans, POWs and their families. He could have said "with all due respect" or something along those lines. If he had, I think the fallout would have been less significant. Then all the pundits and the media could have a more productive debate over the validity of the assertion without the negativity and hostility that his lack of respect has conjured up and that's unfortunate for Obama.

You raise some interesting points. I haven't seen or read yet what Clark said (other than in this thread). I'm going to keep your comments in mind when I read them.

QueEx

 

[nyyyyce]

I thought this thought months ago but, I just pondered it. I mean McCain is not McAurthur, Patton, or Shwartzkoff. He was a pilot that got shot down. Does he have balls? Hell yeah. I would've folded like a beach chair up in that dam Hanoi Hilton. I don't think you should get a "pass" because you were a POW. It's not like he was a fleet Commander in the Navy. People are not looking at this objectively. They're getting caught up in the POW emotion of it.

Exactly.

Its not just this. Every time you mention McCain you are not obligated to mention how much you respect his service - its not a requirement. If it is about judgement then you hammer Mccain's war vote, backing the failed surge and his flip flop on the GI Bill. Obama has the upper hand, but, as usual, forfeits it.

Clark was telling the flat-out truth. If more people actually said the same thing then McCain would not get a pass. Obama, essentially, undercut anyone that would be willing to back him up against McCain. This -ish is so F-N irritating.

 

[PoppaSo]

I didn't see any threads addressing this subject. It there is, someone let me know and I'll delete this one. I'm just interested to see what the Fam thinks. I personally don't question Sen. McCain's resolve. Really I don't. I can't imagine being in the "Hanoi Hilton" for 5 minutes no less 5 years. However, Gen. Clark (yes, it's proper to call him Gen.. 4 and 5 star Generals are never "truly" retired they can be called back at anytime) makes a point wether you agree with it or not.

Does being a "war vet' automatically qualify you to be commander-in-chief? Hell, I'm a war vet and I dam sure ain't qualified to be President. I'm not questioning Sen. McCain's patriotism or anything of the sort. I'm just asking the question. The McCain campaign is trying to play this down as being a slam coming out of the Obama camp but, this cat is/was a 4 Star General. You can't discredit the opinion as just a rant. He commanded at a much higher level than Sen. McCain. He didn't really slam McCain. He just stated that the Senators credentials don't automatically qualify him to be commander-in-chief.

I know it's "taboo" to question a POW but, what do y'all think?

DAAAAMM CLARK a 4 Star General....Shit then He's better qualified to be President than McCAIN !!!

 

[Bain316]

Clark was on point. My cousin is deployed to Iraq four times and that don't make him qualified to run the country if got his career in line.

 

[NnubianN]

He was right. However, what he didn't do was avoid belittling McCain's experience and that is offensive to most Americans on some level - not just veterans, POWs and their families. He could have said "with all due respect" or something along those lines. If he had, I think the fallout would have been less significant. Then all the pundits and the media could have a more productive debate over the validity of the assertion without the negativity and hostility that his lack of respect has conjured up and that's unfortunate for Obama.

I agree with what Gen Clark said. He put it as "pilitically correct" as he could without coming off as a pansy. Remember, this is a military man, not a politician, even if he did run for president. He'll speak bluntly when the occasion calls for it. Obama needs some more people who'll stand by their opinion when they believe it's correct. I respected how Clark reiterated his opinion, not backing off one inch, despite what Barack Obama said in front of the mikes when asked to comment. BO was respectful of Mac's military record, but he has also stated in the past that being a POW doesn't quantify as executive experience.

Most of this fallout is from media hype trying to scare up a story to justify air time. If the Repub candidate wasn't so pathetic as a candidate this would be a non issue. Let me put it bluntly: Usually attacks of this kind take place when there's a lack of issues to talk about. There is no END to the issues that could be discussed instead of this dead weight albatross; except Mac falls on the wrong side of all of them EXCEPT the military issue and that's not exactly a winner. Repubs (and the media) need something to strike at Obama on.

We Clark will have spoken on GMA by the time you read this. Did hehe waffle on his remarks?

 

[nyyyyce]

I agree with what Gen Clark said. He put it as "pilitically correct" as he could without coming off as a pansy. Remember, this is a military man, not a politician, even if he did run for president. He'll speak bluntly when the occasion calls for it. Obama needs some more people who'll stand by their opinion when they believe it's correct. I respected how Clark reiterated his opinion, not backing off one inch, despite what Barack Obama said in front of the mikes when asked to comment. BO was respectful of Mac's military record, but he has also stated in the past that being a POW doesn't quantify as executive experience.

Most of this fallout is from media hype trying to scare up a story to justify air time. If the Repub candidate wasn't so pathetic as a candidate this would be a non issue. Let me put it bluntly: Usually attacks of this kind take place when there's a lack of issues to talk about. There is no END to the issues that could be discussed instead of this dead weight albatross; except Mac falls on the wrong side of all of them EXCEPT the military issue and that's not exactly a winner. Repubs (and the media) need something to strike at Obama on.

We Clark will have spoken on GMA by the time you read this. Did hehe waffle on his remarks?

no truer words.

 

[QueEx]

He was right. However, what he didn't do was avoid belittling McCain's experience and that is offensive to most Americans on some level - not just veterans, POWs and their families. He could have said "with all due respect" or something along those lines. If he had, I think the fallout would have been less significant. Then all the pundits and the media could have a more productive debate over the validity of the assertion without the negativity and hostility that his lack of respect has conjured up and that's unfortunate for Obama.

LIL, I tried to no avail to find a postable video of Clark's words. I did find this on a CBS website:

CLARK ON McCAIN....Today's outrage of the hour involves Wesley Clark. On Face the Nation yesterday he noted that John McCain doesn't really have any wartime command experience:

• SCHIEFFER: Can I just interrupt you? I have to say, Barack Obama hasn't had any of these experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.

• CLARK: I don't think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.

That comment seems to be the extent of Clark's comment and I can't see where Clark disrespected McCain. I agree with that being a fighter pilot, alone, does not make one imminently qualified to be president.

I think Obama may have been too quick to disavow Clark's comment. Its becoming more and more obvious (to me at least) that the McCain camp's strategy is to wait on e-v-e-r-y word uttered by Obama and/or his so-called surrogates to try to twist them into: Obama says he is a different kind of candidate and that he is above the fray, but what he says and what he does are different."

QueEx

 

[nick177th]

I was hoping that a McCain supporter or two would've chimed in on this but, no luck. I can't believe Bob Schieffer said what he said. Sen. Obama isn't running on the fact that he's a war vet. Why would he say that "Obama doesn't have any of these expereinces either?" He never said that he did. I understand why Obama backed off of it. Instead of saying that he's questioning Sen. McCain's military resume' (as it pertains to being commander-in-cheif) they would have twisted it around to say he was questioning Sen. McCain's patriotism and service. By this morning, he would've been on the defense about something he didn't say.

Like I said, you can't discount what Gen. Clark said. This guy only had a hand full of people in uniform that out ranked him. That is to say, he was pretty much at the top of the military "food chain". Sen. McCain was no where near it. Gen. Clark really pin pointed his point last night on MSNBC. He said that what he was saying is that Sen. McCain was not in a position in the military to claim that he is MORE qualified to "command" the military. He was not in a position to make "strategic" decisions.

I saw something interesting last night. Pres. Bush claimed credit for the new G.I. bill and gave praise to McCain credit for it to. (He did give credit to some Democrats too). My point is McCain was fighting against the bill in it's present form. He said it was too expensive. Too expensive. However, you will hear Sen. McCain say that "we could never pay military personnel enough for what they do". But, making sure education is paid for people who serve is too expensive? I take that as a slap in the face. You could never compensate a service member for all that is sacrificed while serving.

Yet, he doesn't mind throwing money away in Iraq on a daily basis. And I DO mean throwing it away. I know because I paid Iraqi contractors in Iraq the last time I was there. Remember the story about how much the Gov't. pays for a toilet seat? Well, trust. That story is not all that outlandish.

 

[nyyyyce]

LIL, I tried to no avail to find a postable video of Clark's words. I did find this on a CBS website:

CLARK ON McCAIN....Today's outrage of the hour involves Wesley Clark. On Face the Nation yesterday he noted that John McCain doesn't really have any wartime command experience:

• SCHIEFFER: Can I just interrupt you? I have to say, Barack Obama hasn't had any of these experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.

• CLARK: I don't think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.

That comment seems to be the extent of Clark's comment and I can't see where Clark disrespected McCain. I agree with that being a fighter pilot, alone, does not make one imminently qualified to be president.

I think Obama may have been too quick to disavow Clark's comment. Its becoming more and more obvious (to me at least) that the McCain camp's strategy is to wait on e-v-e-r-y word uttered by Obama and/or his so-called surrogates to try to twist them into: Obama says he is a different kind of candidate and that he is above the fray, but what he says and what he does are different."

QueEx

Clark said NOTHING that was out of line. Obama, again, distanced himself from another surrogate (Samantha Powers) that was telling the truth. This is a McBush/media creation. The actual content of what Clark said is, as usual, being overlooked, to hype this garbage. Obama took the bait.

 

[QueEx]

The media has had a lot to do with propagating the McCain distortion on this one.

QueEx

 

[nick177th]

Clark said NOTHING that was out of line. Obama, again, distanced himself from another surrogate (Samantha Powers) that was telling the truth. This is a McBush/media creation. The actual content of what Clark said is, as usual, being overlooked, to hype this garbage. Obama took the bait.

He had no choice if he wants to stay on message. Trust me, they would've splashed that shit on every front page. "Obama questions McCain's service". You KNOW that's how they would've played it. I guess it shouldn't but, it amazes me how many people don't read. They'll read the headline and leave it at that. And take it as "word". There's nothing wrong with "getting points" for serving. God knows they don't pay you enough money. But, to say you qualify to be commander-in-chief because you served is a stretch like a mutha fucka. we can even take it back to John Kerry. John Kerry was a "junior" officer. shit, I'm enlisted and I'm in charge of more military personnel than he was.

It's kinda like the "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" when it comes to the POW issue with Sen. McCain. His patriotism, or intestinal fortitude should never be questioned. NEVER! Dude even stayed with his fellow captives when he could've left. That truly shows you where his heart was at. But, this automatic commander-in chief qualification shit is bullshit.

 

[QueEx]

<font size="5"><center>Retired Gen. Wesley Clark
Keeps Up Fire on McCain</font size> <font size="4">
Clark Questions McCain's Judgment, Not Patriotism</font size></center>

ABC News
By JOHN BERMAN and MARK MOONEY
July 1, 2008

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark stuck to his guns today, insisting that Sen. John McCain's experience as a POW made him a true American hero but did not qualify him to be commander-in-chief.

It was the latest salvo in the pre-July 4th presidential skirmishes that revolve around each candidate's patriotism.

Clark, who was the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces during the Kosovo War and a one-time Democratic presidential candidate, told "Good Morning America" today he wasn't questioning McCain's patriotism or courage.

But he repeated the comments that have already been rejected by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama.

Clark, who described himself as "someone who came home from Vietnam on a stretcher," said being in combat doesn't necessarily qualify someone to be president.

"It depends on which level you served," Clark told "GMA."

Being a fighter pilot in the Navy "isn't the same as having been in the highest levels of the military and having to work with the president and other heads of the state and make those kinds of life or death decisions about national strategic issues."

Clark said McCain's experience as a squadron leader and his five years in a Vietnam POW camp "shows character and courage, but not necessarily judgment."

"I hope the American people will discriminate between someone's early experiences and the kind of judgment they take away from those experiences," Clark said.

Clark wasn't the only Democrat downplaying McCain's war experience. Informal Obama adviser Rand Beers said that McCain's long stretch in the Hanoi POW camp probably hampered rather than helped his perspective about the effects of war on Americans.

"Because he was in isolation essentially for many of those years and did not experience the turmoil here or the challenges that were involved for those of us who served in Vietnam during the Vietnam war," said Beers, a Marine veteran who served in Vietnam.

"So I think," Beers continued, "to some extent his national security experience in that regard is sadly limited and I think it is reflected in some of the ways that he thinks about how U.S. forces might be committed to conflicts around the world."

Combat experience -- or lack of -- routinely becomes part of the debate during a presidential campaign, but it is rarely decisive in an election.

The elder President George Bush was a fighter pilot who was shot down in World War II while Bob Dole's World War II injury -- a paralyzed right hand -- had no effect on his losing the Republican bid. Democratic Sen. John Kerry won three Purple Hearts and two medals in Vietnam but was actually attacked over his war record.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2008/story?id=5283442&page=1

 

[nick177th]

<font size="5"><center>Retired Gen. Wesley Clark
Keeps Up Fire on McCain</font size> <font size="4">
Clark Questions McCain's Judgment, Not Patriotism</font size></center>

ABC News
By JOHN BERMAN and MARK MOONEY
July 1, 2008

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark stuck to his guns today, insisting that Sen. John McCain's experience as a POW made him a true American hero but did not qualify him to be commander-in-chief.

It was the latest salvo in the pre-July 4th presidential skirmishes that revolve around each candidate's patriotism.

Clark, who was the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces during the Kosovo War and a one-time Democratic presidential candidate, told "Good Morning America" today he wasn't questioning McCain's patriotism or courage.

But he repeated the comments that have already been rejected by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama.

Clark, who described himself as "someone who came home from Vietnam on a stretcher," said being in combat doesn't necessarily qualify someone to be president.

"It depends on which level you served," Clark told "GMA."

Being a fighter pilot in the Navy "isn't the same as having been in the highest levels of the military and having to work with the president and other heads of the state and make those kinds of life or death decisions about national strategic issues."

Clark said McCain's experience as a squadron leader and his five years in a Vietnam POW camp "shows character and courage, but not necessarily judgment."

"I hope the American people will discriminate between someone's early experiences and the kind of judgment they take away from those experiences," Clark said.

Clark wasn't the only Democrat downplaying McCain's war experience. Informal Obama adviser Rand Beers said that McCain's long stretch in the Hanoi POW camp probably hampered rather than helped his perspective about the effects of war on Americans.

"Because he was in isolation essentially for many of those years and did not experience the turmoil here or the challenges that were involved for those of us who served in Vietnam during the Vietnam war," said Beers, a Marine veteran who served in Vietnam.

"So I think," Beers continued, "to some extent his national security experience in that regard is sadly limited and I think it is reflected in some of the ways that he thinks about how U.S. forces might be committed to conflicts around the world."

Combat experience -- or lack of -- routinely becomes part of the debate during a presidential campaign, but it is rarely decisive in an election.

The elder President George Bush was a fighter pilot who was shot down in World War II while Bob Dole's World War II injury -- a paralyzed right hand -- had no effect on his losing the Republican bid. Democratic Sen. John Kerry won three Purple Hearts and two medals in Vietnam but was actually attacked over his war record.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2008/story?id=5283442&page=1

Wow. Dude took a bullet/shrapnel for this country on more than one occasion and they attacked his war record. Unbelievable. Unless this cat was shot in the back (which I'm sure he wasn't), how can you question this guy's war record? I don't give a dam what his views are, he took a bullet. John Wayne was an American hero and never put on a uniform (other than in the movies as far as I know). This guy put his life on the line and they ridicule him. Sickening.

 

[jimstarz]

obama 09

 

[nyyyyce]

<font size="5"><center>Retired Gen. Wesley Clark
Keeps Up Fire on McCain</font size> <font size="4">
Clark Questions McCain's Judgment, Not Patriotism</font size></center>

ABC News
By JOHN BERMAN and MARK MOONEY
July 1, 2008

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark stuck to his guns today, insisting that Sen. John McCain's experience as a POW made him a true American hero but did not qualify him to be commander-in-chief.

It was the latest salvo in the pre-July 4th presidential skirmishes that revolve around each candidate's patriotism.

Clark, who was the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces during the Kosovo War and a one-time Democratic presidential candidate, told "Good Morning America" today he wasn't questioning McCain's patriotism or courage.

But he repeated the comments that have already been rejected by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama.

Clark, who described himself as "someone who came home from Vietnam on a stretcher," said being in combat doesn't necessarily qualify someone to be president.

"It depends on which level you served," Clark told "GMA."

Being a fighter pilot in the Navy "isn't the same as having been in the highest levels of the military and having to work with the president and other heads of the state and make those kinds of life or death decisions about national strategic issues."

Clark said McCain's experience as a squadron leader and his five years in a Vietnam POW camp "shows character and courage, but not necessarily judgment."

"I hope the American people will discriminate between someone's early experiences and the kind of judgment they take away from those experiences," Clark said.

Clark wasn't the only Democrat downplaying McCain's war experience. Informal Obama adviser Rand Beers said that McCain's long stretch in the Hanoi POW camp probably hampered rather than helped his perspective about the effects of war on Americans.

"Because he was in isolation essentially for many of those years and did not experience the turmoil here or the challenges that were involved for those of us who served in Vietnam during the Vietnam war," said Beers, a Marine veteran who served in Vietnam.

"So I think," Beers continued, "to some extent his national security experience in that regard is sadly limited and I think it is reflected in some of the ways that he thinks about how U.S. forces might be committed to conflicts around the world."

Combat experience -- or lack of -- routinely becomes part of the debate during a presidential campaign, but it is rarely decisive in an election.

The elder President George Bush was a fighter pilot who was shot down in World War II while Bob Dole's World War II injury -- a paralyzed right hand -- had no effect on his losing the Republican bid. Democratic Sen. John Kerry won three Purple Hearts and two medals in Vietnam but was actually attacked over his war record.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2008/story?id=5283442&page=1

Clark was originally in Hillary's camp. Those -itches don't back down for no one. I can honestly say that is a major plus in this instance. Plus he is telling the truth. There is no need to fall back or "reject" and "denounce" anything.

 

[bizzyboddy]

Here is Wesley Clark on Dan Abrams show, its on the main board.

http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=280085

 

[toyracer]

Does being a "war vet' automatically qualify you to be commander-in-chief?

No, it is not automatic, but General Clark has to be more consistent... four years ago he thought that that was enough for John Kerry... and a litany of others...

Here is an excerpt from his speech at the 2004 DNC:

"John Kerry has heard the thump of enemy mortars.

CLARK: "He’s seen the flash of the tracers. He’s lived the values of service and sacrifice. In the Navy, as a prosecutor, as a senator, he proved his physical courage under fire. And he’s proved his moral courage too."

"John Kerry fought a war, and I respect him for that. And he came home to fight a peace. And I respect him for that, too."

(APPLAUSE)

"John Kerry’s combination of physical courage and moral values is my definition of what we need as Americans in our commander in chief. And John Edwards with his leadership and extraordinary intelligence, he’s going to be a great member of that command team."

(APPLAUSE)

"John Kerry is a man who in time of war can lead us as a warrior, but in times of peace, he will heed the call of scripture to lead us in beating swords into plowshares."

(APPLAUSE)

"John Kerry will lead American with strength and wisdom. He has the will to fight. He has the moral courage born in battle to pursue and secure a strong peace. Under John Kerry, I have no doubt — and neither should any American — that we are going to attack and destroy the terrorist threat to America."

(APPLAUSE)

CLARK: "John Kerry will join that pantheon of great wartime Democrats: great Democrats like Woodrow Wilson, who led us to victory in World War I; great Democrats like Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, who turned back the tide of fascism to win World War II; great Democrats like John Kennedy, who stood firm and steered us safely through the Cuban Missile Crisis; and great Democrats like Bill Clinton, who confronted ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia, and with diplomacy, backed by force, brought peace to a shattered land."

(APPLAUSE)

"My fellow Americans, Democrats are leaders and Democrats are fighters. And John Kerry is a leader, a fighter, and he will be a great commander in chief."

 

[nick177th]

No, it is not automatic, but General Clark has to be more consistent... four years ago he thought that that was enough for John Kerry... and a litany of others...

Here is an excerpt from his speech at the 2004 DNC:

"John Kerry has heard the thump of enemy mortars.

CLARK: "He’s seen the flash of the tracers. He’s lived the values of service and sacrifice. In the Navy, as a prosecutor, as a senator, he proved his physical courage under fire. And he’s proved his moral courage too."

"John Kerry fought a war, and I respect him for that. And he came home to fight a peace. And I respect him for that, too."

(APPLAUSE)

"John Kerry’s combination of physical courage and moral values is my definition of what we need as Americans in our commander in chief. And John Edwards with his leadership and extraordinary intelligence, he’s going to be a great member of that command team."

(APPLAUSE)

"John Kerry is a man who in time of war can lead us as a warrior, but in times of peace, he will heed the call of scripture to lead us in beating swords into plowshares."

(APPLAUSE)

"John Kerry will lead American with strength and wisdom. He has the will to fight. He has the moral courage born in battle to pursue and secure a strong peace. Under John Kerry, I have no doubt — and neither should any American — that we are going to attack and destroy the terrorist threat to America."

(APPLAUSE)

CLARK: "John Kerry will join that pantheon of great wartime Democrats: great Democrats like Woodrow Wilson, who led us to victory in World War I; great Democrats like Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, who turned back the tide of fascism to win World War II; great Democrats like John Kennedy, who stood firm and steered us safely through the Cuban Missile Crisis; and great Democrats like Bill Clinton, who confronted ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia, and with diplomacy, backed by force, brought peace to a shattered land."

(APPLAUSE)

"My fellow Americans, Democrats are leaders and Democrats are fighters. And John Kerry is a leader, a fighter, and he will be a great commander in chief."

Good point. However, in my opinion, he wasn't saying that John McCain was not qualified to be C-I-C, he was saying that serving in the Military doesn't automatically qualify you. At least that's the way I took it. I don't question Sen. McCain's fortitude for a second. I know alot of guys that have been to escape and evasion school and I'm not even sure I could deal with THAT. I know the Hanoi Hilton was like a hundred fold tougher than E&E school. It's just politics. The Republicans know what Gen. Clark is saying. They just want to deflect it so it won't give people a chance to think about it.

Sen. McCain retired as a Navy Captain. Equivalent to an Army Colonel. He had roughly about 5,000 personnel in his charge. Gen. Clark was (in his last position) the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. He wasn't just in charge of American troops, he was in charge of ALL NATO troops (ultimately). As I stated earlier, there weren't too many people (uniformed or civilian) that were above him. In the context that I took his question, I think it's legitimate. Not saying wether he's right or wrong. I just think it's legitimate.

 

[QueEx]

<font size="4">
Military Experience and the Race for the Presidency

Some Interesting Facts:</font size>

• In the last 4 presidential elections, the candidate with the most military experience lost:
  2004 - Kerry v. Bush II: Kerry served in Viet Nam, Bush worked on a campaign, Kerry lost;
  
  2000 - Bush II v. Gore: Gore Served in Viet Nam, Bush worked on a campaign, Gore lost;
  
  1998 - Clinton v. Dole: Dole was a WWII hero, Some say Clinton avoided the draft, Dole lost;
  
  1996 - Clinton v. Bush I: Bush I was a WWII hero; Some say Clinton avoided the draft, Bush II lost.​

• The 2008 race is similar to the 1998 race:
  
  In 1998, Clinton had no experience; Dole was a war hero. Clinton won.
  
  In the 2008 race: Obama is, at this time, leading and the fighter pilot is trailing.​

QueEx