US News
McCain camp slams former general for downplaying military record
Jun 30, 2008, 20:00 GMT
On the Web
Similar articles
- Republican hopeful Romney blasts Obama on foreign policy
- Republican candidate Romney blasts Obama on foreign policy
- 'I hate war,' ex-POW McCain says
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. Romney lags behind a surging Santorum in US polls
- 2. Whitney Houston to be buried Saturday in small family funeral
- 3. Obama, Democrats get Republican raspberries for Valentine's Day
- 4. Obama calls for quick passage of payroll tax holiday extension
- 5. Report: Director Oliver Stone's son converts to Islam
Older Talkback
page: 1
...neither does winning the DFC
...or five years as prisoner of war.
...or 20 some years in the United States Senate
...or the numerous pieces of legislation introduced
and, General...sir...
...or hanging around with the former weather underground
...or a Harvard degree
...or campaigning with the wife of a president who pardoned Puerto Rican terrorists
...and General...sir....neither does being relieved of command entitle you to be the arbitor of what does qualify to be a good President.
He made a very specific point in that McCain's military record, as fine as it is, does not demonstrate any 'staff' experience in the military. Clark's military record is far deeper. Since McCain is running based on his MILITARY positions rather than his CONGRESSIONAL record (also a fine record of service), people's turning McCain into another Eisenhower is unwarranted.
Obama has never presented himself as anything but what his own history reflects. Clark is actually my choice for Obama's VP, based on his experience, military qualifications and intellect (but no electoral votes). Bush has never questioned what his own Generals have to say, and before Petraeus, also a brilliant tactician, we paid a severe price for that incompetence, as the new 700 page Pentagon report reveals.
Clark's own resume DOES contain that kind of leadership:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark
Commands held:
Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe,
United States European Command,
United States Southern Command
Awards:
Defense Distinguished Service Medal (5)
Army Distinguished Service Medal (2)
Silver Star
Legion of Merit (4)
Bronze Star (2)
Purple Heart
French Ordre national du Mérite
German Merit Cross of the Federal Republic (Order of Merit)
======================
John McCain's service record:
Rank Captain
Battles/wars Vietnam
Awards Silver Star Medal,
Legion of Merit,
Distinguished Flying Cross,
Bronze Star Medal
Purple Heart Medal,
Meritorious Service Medal,
Air Medal,
Navy Commendation Medal,
Combat Action Ribbon,
Prisoner of War Medal,
(partial list)
has as much regard for the truth as does Bush. As for those medals, damned near everybody got them. They were handed out like candy. They have no meaning or significance. If you wiped your arse after crapping, you got a medal.
If he wants to enter the race, so be it. The fact is, McCain has never really trotted out his resume', the press even ignored it for a long time. In fact, he;s been chided for not doing so, to the satisfaction of certain republicans who would like him to do more.
General Clark is exactly what he appears to be, another political apparatachink, asking for the VP slot. Also, neither does being a lifetime military man qualify you to be President.
Go get a mandate general.
I knew a guy who got a purple heart for getting hit by an amry truck. That said, anyone who has ever landed successfully on a carrier has nothing to apologize about for his flying, let alone going into downtown Hanoi. They do not just hand out the DFC with a box of cracker jacks.
There isn't going to be any phony National Guard docs for Johnny, he's the real thing, no matter what Clark says, and Clark has one flaw that does not qualify him to be VP: He does not recognize that it is the role of the military to carry out the will of the civilian leadership, no matter how much he disagrees.
My Russian friends think Clarke is an ass. Few recall how in former Yugoslavia he ordered Brit commander to 'take' airfield that had already been occupied by Russkies under Clarke's nose. Clarke gave an irrational order and the Brit commander refused to obey.
Thank god.
In short, Clarke gets reassigned stateside with 'promotion.'
McCain has a noble back-story, but his resume is in Congress. In terms of accomplishments, what he has to run on is his Congressional record.
I don't buy the 'earmarks' statements, as Congresspeople seek funds for their districts all the time; and even horse-trade for votes. What's the difference between rebuilding infrastructure destroyed by storms and 'earmarks'?
McCain is essentially running on Bush's record on Iraq, and cannot detach himself from it. He has admitted that his own economic record is lacking. He seems to strike exactly one note - fear.
On the other hand, Obama represents 'change', and a distance from Bush's policies.
Check the 700 page Pentagon report reelating to Bush's policy failures, and poor judgment as to commanders.
McCain becomes an extension of that, inevitably. He has no course of action aside from a continuation of where we are. Since when is McCain a diplomat? He's known for a short fuse, which would make him John Bolton's successor, in terms of attitude.
The question now is what Bush will hand off to him, including potential actions against Iran, and the outcome of that. Also, oil prices, and the economy - those 'pocketbook' issues which people vote on.
In this election, the electorate is also sick and tired of the GOP'ers in Congress who constantly argue, and who've supported Bush's failed policies. With a 'true' majority in Congress for the Democrats, and a Democratic President, some of those early promises could actually be fulfilled.
..is not improvement.
Re:'Bush has never questioned what his own Generals have to say, and before Petraeus, also a brilliant tactician, we paid a severe price for that incompetence, as the new 700 page Pentagon report reveals.'
Bush failed to question Sec. Def. Rumsfeld and ignored his generals. Let's keep the record straight. There were more than a few Generals on active duty and off active duty who warned EVERYONE about the probable aftermath of a war in Iraq. Several of those Generals spoke up knowing that their objections would end their careers. And, quite a few of them retired well before they needed to because of Donald Rumsfeld.
To his great credit, it was John McCain who backed General Petraeus the most, more than even George Bush did.
And, let's not forget what General Clark had to say about the troop surge in Iraq.
www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/wesley-clark-bushs-surge-wil l-backfire-431053.html
Snippet:'The truth is that, however brutal the fighting in Iraq for our troops, the underlying problems are political. Vicious ethnic cleansing is under way right under the noses of our troops, as various factions fight for power and survival. In this environment security is unlikely to come from smothering the struggle with a blanket of forces - it cannot be smothered easily, for additional US efforts can stir additional resistance - but rather from more effective action to resolve the struggle at the political level. And the real danger of the troop surge is that it undercuts the urgency for the political effort. A new US ambassador might help, but, more fundamentally, the US and its allies need to proceed from a different approach within the region. The neocons' vision has failed.'
NoharnessJun 30th, 2008 - 21:09:47
Re:'Bush has never questioned what his own Generals have to say, and before Petraeus, also a brilliant tactician, we paid a severe price for that incompetence, as the new 700 page Pentagon report reveals.'
Bush failed to question Sec. Def. Rumsfeld and ignored his generals. Let's keep the record straight. There were more than a few Generals on active duty and off active duty who warned EVERYONE about the probable aftermath of a war in Iraq. Several of those Generals spoke up knowing that their objections would end their careers. And, quite a few of them retired well before they needed to because of Donald Rumsfeld.
==============
Indeed, many well-informed people, in either the military or civilian side, had to lave - Shinseki was one example. Why did Powell leave? Bolton is one of the hoodlums here, along with Rumsfeld.
==============
And, let's not forget what General Clark had to say about the troop surge in Iraq.
www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/wesley-clark-bushs-surge-wil l-backfire-431053.html
Snippet:'The truth is that, however brutal the fighting in Iraq for our troops, the underlying problems are political. Vicious ethnic cleansing is under way right under the noses of our troops, as various factions fight for power and survival. In this environment security is unlikely to come from smothering the struggle with a blanket of forces - it cannot be smothered easily, for additional US efforts can stir additional resistance - but rather from more effective action to resolve the struggle at the political level. And the real danger of the troop surge is that it undercuts the urgency for the political effort. A new US ambassador might help, but, more fundamentally, the US and its allies need to proceed from a different approach within the region. The neocons' vision has failed.'
(Petraeus has said much the same - the problem is political, not military. Check the 700-page report from the Pentagon as to how many screwups there were, including Bremer and Franks)
..this must be some of that NEW campaigning Obama was talking about. Looks to me a lot like the OLD campaigning...
Some of the things that the Wikipedia reports on General Clark:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark
Snippet:'Clark received another call from General Shelton in July 1999 in which he was told that Secretary Cohen wanted Clark to leave his command in April 2000. Clark was surprised by this, as he saw SACEURs as being expected to serve at least 3 years and often asked to stay on for a 4th, while this date would give him less than 3 years of service at the post.[76] Clark was told that this was necessary because General Joseph Ralston was leaving his post as the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and would need another 4-star command within 60 days or he would be forced to retire. Ralston was not going to be appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff due to an extramarital affair in his past, and the SACEUR position was said to be the last potential post for him.[77] Clark said this explanation 'didn't wash' because he believed the legalities could have been sorted out to let him serve a full 3 years.[78] Clinton signed onto Ralston's reassignment, although David Halberstam wrote that both he and Madeleine Albright were angered at Clark's treatment. Clark spent the remainder of his time as SACEUR overseeing peacekeeper forces and, without a new command to take, was forced into retirement from the military on May 2, 2000.[79][80]
Rumors persisted that Clark was forced out due to his contentious relationship with some in Washington D.C.; however, he has dismissed them, calling it a 'routine personnel action,' and the Department of Defense said it was merely a 'general rotation of American senior ranks.'[81] However, a NATO ambassador told the International Herald Tribune that Clark's dismissal seemed to be a 'political thing from the United States.'[82] General Hugh Shelton would say of Clark during his 2004 campaign that 'the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote,'[83][84] though Shelton never elaborated further on what these issues were.[85]'
Put Clark and Obama together and what have you got?
A really nifty bomb.
Great fun here ,the republican dirty trick department is now trying to slander Wesley Clarke ;just sompare the military records of McCain and Welsey Clarke,see who has most experience in the army and then come back to debate .Do you guys not care shaming yourselves with this sort of comments?apparently not .To the readers ,take good notice how your top brass is treated by the republicans once they speak out .Suddenly they are but burocrats or traitors .
... This is one guy expressing an opinion, on his own. The fact that the 'guy' was a general with multiple commands gives it weight.
Insofar as 'remarks' - some of the stuff coming from preachers that McCain had to disown is far more damaging, and he took too long to do it; just as Obama was far too forgiving about his own pastor.
'Change' means doing the opposite of Bush, and according to all polls, that's what the American voter is looking for. The economy is probably a bigger problem now in the minds of the voters, as well as gas prices.
One useful debate would be energy policy, as well as global warming - and let both sides bring Powerpoints. Let's get political debate into the 21st Century.
Right now the oil deals in Iraq make this entire war look like it was about oil, while Afghanistan becomes a greater problem by the day.
www.washtimes.com/weblogs/potus-notes/2008/Jun/30/bush-diplomacy-middle -east-complete-failure-says-p/
Pakistani ambassador: U.S. diplomacy a 'complete failure'
Q: We talk a lot in the U.S. about getting Osama bin Laden. It's important to the Bush administration; it's important to a lot of people, apparently, in the U.S. public. Is it important to the Pakistani people?
A: It is important to the Pakistani government that anyone who is a symbol of global terrorism should not be allowed to operate from any part of Pakistan or any of its neighboring countries. The Pakistani people have a different view. There is a complete failure of U.S. public diplomacy in the Muslim world, of persuading people of the U.S. case, which to me is a very good case. But somehow there has been a weakness in communicating to the Muslim people that Osama bin Laden is an enemy of Islam, and Muslims, as much as he is an enemy of the United States, or terrorism is an enemy of Islam and Muslims as much as terrorism threatens the United States. . . .
Right after 9/11, the U.S. made an effort. I don’t know how many of you remember Dennis Ross going and speaking in Arabic on al Jazeera, making the case. But who’s is making the case now? U.S. officials are not always available to people for briefings. It’s more important to them to talk to the American media than it is to talk to the Arab media or the Persian-language media or the Urdu-language media. And so, supporters of bin Laden in the meantime are very active. So basically in psychological warfare, bin Laden has made more gains than he should have been allowed to make. And that is the reason why there is confusion.
RE:'(Petraeus has said much the same - the problem is political, not military. Check the 700-page report from the Pentagon as to how many screwups there were, including Bremer and Franks)'
I never had any illusions about the neocon's vision. The solution goes below politics. The 'solution' is cultural, if there is a solution. The Iraqis, if they ever do establish a government that responds to votes and not bullets, will end up forming a government with many similarities to the government of Iran.
Let's face it. The guiding light of Iraqi culture is the laws laid down by Mohammed in the Koran, not the tenets of the Scottish Enlightenment. It will take a long time to make a single nation out of Iraq. It will not be a nation that works the way ours does. It may have some superficial similarities, but similarities are all they will ever be.
RE: Let's face it. The guiding light of Iraqi culture is the laws laid down by Mohammed in the Koran, not the tenets of the Scottish Enlightenment. It will take a long time to make a single nation out of Iraq. It will not be a nation that works the way ours does. It may have some superficial similarities, but similarities are all they will ever be.
=================
After Bush Sr. asked the Shia in the east to rise up and overthrow Saddam, the U.S. troops from the Gulf War pulled out - and Saddam then lashed out at the Shia, draining their water supply, and otherwise punishing them. Since the Shia are the majority, Saddam had a lot to lose.
We backed Saddam since the Iran-Iraq war, which was a very bloody affair; and accounts for why Iran persists in its negative viewpoint of the U.S. position.
The Iraqi nation we see today was pasted together politically from diverse groups over the years, and there's nothing to sustain its integrity. The Catholic population in Iraq (est. 1 million) has been literally destroyed, but under Saddam they were free to hold services.
The increased oil revenues just give them more to fight over. The discussion of revenue splits should have been held years ago, when there was less to fight over.
RE:' We backed Saddam since the Iran-Iraq war, which was a very bloody affair; and accounts for why Iran persists in its negative viewpoint of the U.S. position.'
The source of the mistrust between the US and Iran predates the Iran-Iraq war by several decades, going all the way back to 1953 and Operation Ajax.
As for who backed Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, here is what the Wikipedia reports:
'Although Saddam Hussein's forces made several early advances, by 1982, Iranian forces managed to push the Iraqi army back into Iraq. Khomeini sought to export his Islamic revolution westward into Iraq, especially on the majority Shi'a Arabs living in the country. The war then continued for six more years until 1988, when Khomeini, in his words, 'drank the cup of poison' and accepted a truce mediated by the United Nations. There were more than 100,000 Iranian victims[66] of Iraq's chemical weapons during the eight-year war. The total Iranian casualties of the war were estimated to be anywhere between 500,000 and 1,000,000. Almost all relevant international agencies have confirmed that Saddam engaged in chemical warfare to blunt Iranian human wave attacks; these agencies unanimously confirmed that Iran never used chemical weapons during the war.[67][68][69] Iraq was financially backed mainly by the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact states, France and the People's Republic of China (which also sold weapons to Iran).'
=====================
While it is true that we did nothing to end this war, we did not start it and we provided little to nothing in the way of aid. No one anywhere outside of the Middle East favored the sort of fanaticism that inspired 'human wave' attacks. We had been obliged to deal with those during the Korean War.
'They do not just hand out the DFC with a box of cracker jacks.'
What does DFC stand for, Distinguished F*ckup Cross? After all, that screwup McCain bailed out of five aircraft. Does that make him an Ace, too? Or just an ace-hole.
You need to go back to our shooting down of the Iranian airliner, and the hostage crisis. We chose sides, and supported Saddam in his 8-year war:
www.juancole.com/2006/12/for-whom-bell-tolls-top-ten-ways-us.html
When Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980, he again caught the notice of US officials. The US was engaged in an attempt to contain Khomeinism and the new Islamic Republic. Especially after the US faced attacks from radicalized Shiites in Lebanon linked to Iran, and from the Iraqi Da`wa Party, which engaged in terrorism against the US and French embassies in Kuwait, the Reagan administration determined to deal with Saddam from late 1983, giving him important diplomatic encouragement. Historians are deeply indebted to Joyce Battle's Briefing Book at the National Security Archives, GWU, which presents key documents she sprung through FOIA requests, and which she analyzed for the first time.
www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Initially, Iraq advanced far into Iranian territory, but was driven back within months. By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive against Iranian human-wave attacks. The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. (It had been included several years earlier because of ties with several Palestinian nationalist groups, not Islamicists sharing the worldview of al-Qaeda. Activism by Iraq's main Shiite Islamicist opposition group, al-Dawa, was a major factor precipitating the war -- stirred by Iran's Islamic revolution, its endeavors included the attempted assassination of Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz.)
Prolonging the war was phenomenally expensive. Iraq received massive external financial support from the Gulf states, and assistance through loan programs from the U.S. The White House and State Department pressured the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing, to enhance its credit standing and enable it to obtain loans from other international financial institutions. The U.S. Agriculture Department provided taxpayer-guaranteed loans for purchases of American commodities, to the satisfaction of U.S. grain exporters.
The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East.
Following in the footsteps of his father and grandfather, McCain entered the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis. There, he was a friend and leader for many of his classmates,[10] and sometimes stood up for people who were being bullied.[5] He also became a lightweight boxer.[5][11] McCain had conflicts with higher-ups, and he was disinclined to obey every rule, which contributed to a low class rank (894/899) that he did not aim to improve.[10][12][13][14] McCain did well in academic subjects that interested him, such as literature and history, but studied only enough to pass subjects he disliked, such as math.[5] McCain graduated in 1958.[10]
Military service and marriages
John McCain's pre-combat duty began when he was commissioned an ensign, and started two and a half years of training as a naval aviator at Pensacola.[15] There he also earned a reputation as a party man.[6] Graduating from flight school in 1960,[16] he became a naval pilot of ground-attack aircraft. McCain was then stationed in A-1 Skyraider squadrons,[17] on the aircraft carriers USS Intrepid and USS Enterprise,[18] in the Caribbean Sea and Mediterranean Sea.
McCain requested a combat assignment,[23] and in December 1966 was assigned to the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal flying A-4 Skyhawks.[24][25] McCain's combat duty began when he was 30 years old. In summer 1967, Forrestal was assigned to a bombing campaign during the Vietnam War.[12][26] McCain and his fellow pilots were frustrated by micromanagement from Washington,[27] and he would later write that 'In all candor, we thought our civilian commanders were complete idiots who didn’t have the least notion of what it took to win the war.'[26]
By then a lieutenant commander, McCain was almost killed on July 29, 1967 when he was at the epicenter of the Forrestal fire. He escaped from his burning jet and was trying to help another pilot escape when a bomb exploded;[28] McCain was struck in the legs and chest by fragments.[29] The ensuing fire killed 134 sailors and took 24 hours to control.[30][31] With the Forrestal out of commission, McCain volunteered for assignment with the USS Oriskany.[32]
John McCain's capture and imprisonment began on October 26, 1967. He was flying his twenty-third bombing mission over North Vietnam, when his A-4E Skyhawk was shot down by a missile over Hanoi.[33][34] McCain fractured both arms and a leg, and then nearly drowned, when he parachuted into Trúc Bạch Lake in Hanoi.[33] After he regained consciousness, a crowd attacked him, crushed his shoulder with a rifle butt, and bayoneted him;[33] he was then transported to Hanoi's main Hoa Lo Prison, nicknamed the 'Hanoi Hilton'.[34]
Although McCain was badly wounded, his captors refused to treat his injuries, instead beating and interrogating him to get information.[36] Only when the North Vietnamese discovered that his father was a top admiral did they give him medical care[36] and announce his capture. His status as a prisoner of war (POW) made the front pages of The New York Times[37] and The Washington Post.[38]
McCain spent six weeks in the hospital while receiving marginal care.[33] Now having lost 50 pounds (23 kg), in a chest cast, and with his hair turned white,[33] McCain was sent to a different camp on the outskirts of Hanoi[39] in December 1967, into a cell with two other Americans who did not expect him to live a week.[40] In March 1968, McCain was put into solitary confinement, where he would remain for two years.[41]
In mid-1968, McCain's father was named commander of all U.S. forces in the Vietnam theater, and McCain was offered early release.[42] The North Vietnamese wanted to appear merciful for propaganda purposes,[43] and also wanted to show other POWs that elites like McCain were willing to be treated preferentially.[42] McCain turned down the offer of repatriation; he would only accept the offer if every man taken in before him was released as well.[33]
In August of 1968, a program of severe torture began on McCain.[44] McCain was subjected to repeated beatings and rope bindings, at the same time as he was suffering from dysentery.[44] After four days, McCain made an anti-American propaganda 'confession'.[33] He has always felt that his statement was dishonorable,[45] but as he would later write, 'I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine.'[46] His injuries left him permanently incapable of raising his arms above his head.[47] He subsequently received two to three beatings per week because of his continued refusal to sign additional statements.[48] Other American POWs were similarly tortured and maltreated in order to extract 'confessions' and propaganda statements.[49]
McCain refused to meet with various anti-war groups seeking peace in Hanoi, wanting to give neither them nor the North Vietnamese a propaganda victory.[50] From late 1969 on, treatment of McCain and many of the other POWs became more tolerable,[51] while McCain continued to be an active resister against the camp authorities.[52] McCain and other prisoners cheered the B-52-led U.S. 'Christmas Bombing' campaign of December 1972 as a forceful measure to push North Vietnam to terms.[46][53]
Altogether, McCain was held as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam for five and a half years. He was finally released from captivity on March 14, 1973.[54]
McCain underwent treatment for his injuries, including months of grueling physical therapy,[56] and attended the National War College in Fort McNair in Washington, D.C. during 1973–1974.[16][55] Having been rehabilitated, by late 1974, McCain had his flight status reinstated,[55] and in 1976 he became commanding officer of a training squadron stationed in Florida.[55][57] He turned around an undistinguished unit and won the squadron its first Meritorious Unit Commendation.[56] During this period in Florida, McCain had extramarital affairs, the McCains' marriage began to falter, and he would later accept blame.[58][59]
McCain served as the Navy's liaison to the U.S. Senate, beginning in 1977.[60] He would later say it represented '[my] real entry into the world of politics and the beginning of my second career as a public servant'.[55] McCain played a key behind-the-scenes role in gaining congressional financing for a new supercarrier against the wishes of the Carter administration.[56][61]
McCain retired from the Navy on April 1, 1981[67] as a captain.[68] He was designated as disabled and awarded a disability pension.[69] Upon leaving the military, he moved to Arizona. His seventeen military awards and decorations include the Silver Star, Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross, Bronze Star and Navy Commendation Medal, and are for actions before, during, and after his time as a POW.
He didn't do one goddamn thing for the military.
Obama threw Wesley Clark under the bus with his crazy pastors, racist grandma and campaign finance reform... as well as many, many others.
'As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by General Clark,' said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.
Clark is a weasel. A kiss up, kick down, par for the course, nothing exceptional, dull normal IQ point weasel.
how the republicants on this site try to stifle any opinion but theirs. They spam it all to Hades with shite and shinolla, long, boring pieces of garbage that no one reads and uninformed propaganda are shovelled onto the threads with absolutely no thought. When that doesn't work they bring out the outright lies and call anybody who stands in their way a liar or worse. Thank the gods that all americans aren't as stupid as the right wingers who post here.
Good grief, just give the link, or specific excerpts. Anyone who can read M&C can read Wikipedia.
Obama needs that military 'face', and there are a number of people who can provide it. Everyone seems to forget that Bush's own military career involved avoiding the draft, and missing drills - and failing his flight physical and losing his cockpit. As far as diplomatic of foreign relations experience, Bush had none - remember the foreign leader 'pop quiz'?
His father, on the other hand, was the 'real thing'.
Expertise in the Cabinet and advisors is what's needed, and McCain will be the resurrection of the Neocons, who now face political oblivion for a series of poor decisions; as well as downright arrogance from Feith, Bolton, and the rest of the brainwashed who advised Bush. The Cheney we see now is not the Cheney of the early 1990's who questioned whether going after Saddam, and nation-building in Iraq, was even practical.
Obama does need some bi-partisan Cabinet appointments, and the ideal model there was Lincoln - but it's a different world today. Clinton had William Cohen at defense, a fine and bright man who did his job despite whatever political differences existed.
The major difference under Obama has to be the inclusion, in some manner or another, of people like Lugar and Warner, with estimable service records, and some OBJECTIVITY on the situation - rather than McCain's blindness in terms of what can be done, and how long it will take.
There are hundreds of millions of tons of equipment in Iraq that cannot be easily extracted - getting the troops out is a harder job. There needs to be a drawdown; but that needs to be preceded by a President who TELLS the Iraqi Government to get their issues settled, and assists in that effort with diplomatic support.
This is a horribly difficult job based on the fraud and corruption in the Iraqi ministries, but the current McCain path only makes things worse by making al-Maliki more dependent on our presence; while more and more Iraqis would prefer a situation where U.S. forces can leave.
We also need to deal with Afghanistan in a major way, and the resurgence of the Taliban. Having Iraq as 'Job 1', which it never was except for the Admin.'s lies on WMD (which Cheney even today perpetuates), is a distraction from the work that has to be done on the economy, jobs, homeland defense, health care, and the rest of what the voters have their eye on.
All this chatter on 'religion' and 'patriotism' is nothing but an attack device, and has nothing to do with being President. That involves defending the country; and seeing to it that we provide a safe place to live, and an economy where upcoming generations will find jobs. It would also be nice if the bridges did not fall down.
'it's interesting,'
how you can not come up with an intelligent rebuttal for what you admit that you ignore...
Actually, no, it is tedious.
It's all predigested right-wingnut spam, not worthy of directly commenting on.
RE:'There needs to be a drawdown; but that needs to be preceded by a President who TELLS the Iraqi Government to get their issues settled, and assists in that effort with diplomatic support.'
You may as well ask the President of the United States to command the tides, or to round off pi to exactly three, or better yet, repeal the law of gravity. This is one of the fictions perpetrated by some of our Democrat Senators is just as silly as some of the nonsense the Neocons believed in. The job will not be done for decades. If we leave before the job is done, Iraq will fly into warring pieces.
Having pointed out the truth in this matter, let me add that you might well get your way. Our course in Iraq is wholly dependent upon what sort of Status of Forces Agreement the Bush Administration strikes with the Iraqis. Personally, I am betting that the Shia will want us to stay for a while. I think the Iraqis have had a belly full of fighting and want it to end, but they know that it will start all over again if we leave any time soon.
The trick for the Iraqis is to keep us there while keeping us out of their hair--until they want us in their hair. It is a crazy situation.
RE:'All this chatter on 'religion' and 'patriotism' is nothing but an attack device, and has nothing to do with being President.'
It has everything to do with being President. It has always had everything to do with being President and it always will.
RE:'That involves defending the country; and seeing to it that we provide a safe place to live, and an economy where upcoming generations will find jobs. It would also be nice if the bridges did not fall down.'
Well, the bridges are not falling down for a lack of money. The bridges are falling down from criminal negligence. Yes, I said criminal neglegince and I meant it. If upcoming generations want jobs worth having, we will need to change several things, starting with our creaking and inefficient education system. We will also need to do something about recapturing our industrial base, but that would involve some things that Democrats simply will not yield ground on.
As for defending the country, I think we need a larger fleet of smaller ships. We need better body armor for our troops and better transportation, training, education and logistics systems for them. We need a larger flights of smaller cheaper aircraft, at least a third of which are piloted remotely. We need to start replacing our current fleet of boomers with better, possibly smaller ones. No, Virginia, we will NOT be getting rid of nuclear weapons anytime soon.
But the single most important thing we could do that would have the greatest impact on our defense posture is to become independent of imported oil. I mean completely independent. This can be done, but it will take more time than any of us like. It seems we are doomed to travel down several dead end roads first.
RE:'It's all predigested right-wingnut spam, not worthy of directly commenting on.'
That's why you are commenting on it, right, Jenny? Do you hate everyone equally or just those of us do not suffer from Adult Attention Deficit Syndrome? My guess is that you hate all of us about equally. All you ever do spew hate and you never but never engage anyone in worthwhile discourse. That sort of thing, you always complain is 'Bo-o-o-riiiiiing!'
Why don't you go read a nice comic book. I mean go all out! Fill the tub with hot water and bubbly stuff. Take a pitcher of margaritas with you.
RE:'All this chatter on 'religion' and 'patriotism' is nothing but an attack device, and has nothing to do with being President.'
It has everything to do with being President. It has always had everything to do with being President and it always will.
==============================
No, it has NOTHING to do with being President. Preacher, perhaps, but not President. These are false issues. No one running in either party was 'non-religious' or 'unpatriotic'. Ridiculous; except to those who think that a drunk who 'finds himself' at the age of 40 is more worthy than someone who was sober, in the first place.
One imbecile actually said, in front of a news camera, that 'We don't need no more Hoosains ...'.
What we need is objectivity, diplomacy, and professionalism; not to mention a functioning medulla.
Someone with an actual vocabulary would be nice, as well.
'And I, unfortunately, have been to too many disasters as president.' --George W. Bush, discussing flooding in the Midwest, Washington, D.C., June 17, 2008
'There is some who say that perhaps freedom is not universal. Maybe it's only Western people that can self-govern. Maybe it's only, you know, white-guy Methodists who are capable of self-government. I reject that notion.' --George W. Bush, London, June 16, 2008
'Your eminence, you're looking good.' --George W. Bush to Pope Benedict XVI, using the title for Catholic cardinals, rather than addressing him as 'your holiness,' Rome, June 13, 2008
'The German asparagus are fabulous.' --George W. Bush, Meseberg, Germany, June 11, 2008
'One of the things important about history is to remember the true history.' --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., June 6, 2008
(How about 'No President left behind'?)
RE:'No, it has NOTHING to do with being President. Preacher, perhaps, but not President. These are false issues. No one running in either party was 'non-religious' or 'unpatriotic'. Ridiculous; except to those who think that a drunk who 'finds himself' at the age of 40 is more worthy than someone who was sober, in the first place.'
Perhaps they should not be issues, but they ARE issues, they have always been issues and they will continue to be issues in the foreseeable future. There is nothing false about them. To the majority of Americans, the majority of them being religious and the majority of them being patriotic, these are and always will be important issues. I am an atheist. I would agree with you that they should NOT be an issue. My atheism rules out my running for office. It's a non-starter. But the truth of the matter is that they are issues. They will be questioned in every election, just as they have been questioned in every election in the past. Thomas Jefferson, for instance, was given a horrible time by the press because he was a Deist. Is refusal to support any one organized religion over another greatly weakened his presidency.
RE:''There is some who say that perhaps freedom is not universal. Maybe it's only Western people that can self-govern. Maybe it's only, you know, white-guy Methodists who are capable of self-government. I reject that notion.' --George W. Bush, London, June 16, 2008'
Well, you should remember that the President does not speak English. He speaks Texican. Texican to English is about the same thing as Scottish is to English.
To be honest, I do a fairly poor job of speaking English. I kin write a lot purdier than I kin talk.
But why bother with this? President Bush is on his way out. Unlike The Clintons, there is NO possibility that he will ever walk through the White House door again, unless he is there as a guest.
Boo, boo hoo! Poor McCain, and it has not even started. Too bad that what Clark said was true, that is what hurts you the most!
'Good grief, just give the link, or specific excerpts. Anyone who can read M&C can read Wikipedia.'
Unlike what you have posted the Wikipedia entry has some relevance to the topic at hand.
'Obama needs that military 'face', '
Typical. He needs form instead of substance, sizzle instead of steak. Obama is incredibly unqualified to be Commander and Chief. Changing his 'face' wont change that fact.
'Everyone seems to forget that Bush's own military career involved yada yada the same old line from kos...'
Bush is not running for President therefore his record, fantasy or fact is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
'Expertise in the Cabinet and advisors[sic] is what's needed, and McCain will be the resurrection of the Neocons,'
Calling McCain a neocon is idiotic.
McCain was right about the boots on the ground.
McCain was right about the up-armored Humvees.
McCain was right about the the body armor.
McCain was right about the ammunition.
McCain was right about Rumsfeld.
McCain was right about needing counterinsurgency tactics.
McCain was right about Iran.
McCain was right about General Petraeus.
Consistently McCain has been out in front on what needs to be done to achieve victory. He has consistently been right and has consistently advocated the best people to do the best job. Had we listened to him Iraq and Afghanistan would be over by now.
'Obama does need some bi-partisan Cabinet appointments, '
Obama is an idiot who has stated that he is going to pull our troops out regardless of the situation on the ground. His big plan if it goes bad? Re-invade..Effectively starting the whole thing from scratch. It is unfathomably stupid.
'The major difference under Obama has to be the inclusion...'
Obama has told you what he is going to do: Withdraw from Iraq, snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory. He is going to directly negotiate with Iran and appease them. (effectively selling out Israel and enabling the mullahs to stay in power indefinitely..) Obama has also stated that he intends to thoroughly emasculate the US military to pay for gigantic domestic welfare programs and socializing entire industries when the congress can't even socialize a cafeteria.
'All this chatter on 'religion' and 'patriotism' is nothing but an attack device, '
It goes to Obamas character, or lack there of. He is a dangerous incompetent who is not qualified to be commander and chief of the US military.
Was McCain right about Iran?I don't think so,still awaiting the first piece of evidence linking Iran to terrorism,nuclear weapons or the insurgency in Iraq .Anybody anything ?For clarity and sanity :statements by Bush,Limbaugh and others are far from being evidence .For the definition of the wor evidence see wikipedia.Go ahead and make my day.except from the usual propaganda from pentagon ,white house and other dubious sources there is nothing worth mentioning.
Clark questions McCain's ability to run a country simply based on his war record. Obama stands up, looking saintly yet again, to defend the war hero while pitching his own patriotism. Looks like a setup to me. What do you want to bet that Clark is offered the vice presidency for this little service?
RE:' What do you want to bet that Clark is offered the vice presidency for this little service?'
Oh, I think he was in the running for that slot as soon as Hillary let go his shirttail. The Obama-rama has great big gaping hole in the area of defense.
Now THIS is a head spinner:
www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldberg1-2008jul01,0,555 4665.column
tony from belgiumJul 1st, 2008 - 10:14:21
Was McCain right about Iran?
sp4 - every bit
I don't think so,still awaiting the first piece of evidence linking Iran to terrorism,
sp4 - perhaps it was president alphabet soup invoking Hizbola as an army of Iran, last year???
nuclear weapons
sp4 - oh, I don't know...3000 centrifuges...a dozen nuclear facilities...
or the insurgency in Iraq .
sp4 - captured weapons, captured Iranians, cross border interdictions,
Anybody anything ?For clarity and sanity :statements by Bush,Limbaugh and others are far from being evidence .
sp4 - that still doesn't make them wrong
For the definition of the wor evidence see wikipedia.
sp4 - for definition of the war evidence go see how the european governments are now stepping in to help..too late as usual, but we appreciate the sentiment...
Go ahead and make my day.except from the usual propaganda from pentagon ,white house and other dubious sources there is nothing worth mentioning.
sp4 - except that Zarkosy, Merkel and Brown are now stepping up to the possibility of the Iranian nighmare....tell us, Tonny, what do they, and McCain, and Rush, know that we all, except you, know?
After all the months of reading comments--it is Tonny that always evades the point and makes up dribble--When confronted with facts he either says he doesn't believe them or changes the subject--He is a True Narcicist--I wonder how often he must clean his ears, considering where his head is most of the time--I bet he keeps a mirror by his chair so he can kiss himself
'tony from belgium
Was McCain right about Iran?I don't think so,still awaiting the first piece of evidence linking Iran to terrorism,nuclear weapons or the insurgency in Iraq '
Oh my god you are completely on another planet.
And as usual the neocons could not present one single piece of evidence .Quite simploy there is none,the whole case against Iran rests on the same bull that was used to start a war against Iraq,perhaps time to recognize that .Only a month ago a big weapon cache was found pertaining to Al Sadr.The pentagon was quickly to claim the weapons were of Irni origin:only to be denied that claim after investigation by the Iraqi army .Of course the US claim was all over the media,the investigation performed by the Iraqi army was not.However the white house cancelled it's presentation of the weaponry staged to be another step towards war .And so it goes with all the claims made by Bush,you'll never find any hard evidence to link anything to Iran .
And as usual the neocons here have only their insults and wishfull thinking to oppose.Time to call it a day boys and go back to your dreams,or come back with facts .Meanwhile failure to produce any evidence is definitely proving you all to be liars .And that is the only logical conclusion.Dare I say there are precedents to that lie ?Just check WMD and Saddam,Al Quaida and Saddam and all the other lies usede by the White House .Since yesterday the oil that belongs to Iraq is for sale again.Now that was the real reason for going to war .It ha been revealed meanwhile that until ten the oil was offered to a few Us companies without bidding ,the usual scenario.Now that leaves the oil companies with the profit and the american people wih the bill.Definitely republicans and oil tycoons are good buddies.
all these people who are dissing Obama do it for two reasons. He's black and he's got more mony than them. Racism and jealousy. Obama is a far better man than the cross burning, white sheeted rednecks on this site.
Of course alegations by McCain are not evidence either ,the poor guy is utterly uncapable of producing any ,just like the rest of the republicans .Again only hot air is prodiced?Do I ned to clarify that centrifuges are used for civil nuclear power ?Do I really ?Have you forgotten that 21 US intelligence agencies have all admitted tha Iran gave up it's military nuclear program in 2003?Well then...
Why so many POW Websighthat saying McCain is The All Time Songbird of Hanoi?
Call me a liar all you want, but until the SONGBIRD gives access to other POW papers so many News Organization are demanding, wondering why he is still holding on to those,,,,,, papers!! He will never clear his name. Not even his Father can help him out now. It's about time this Trader of the US Constitution confronts his past traderisum to the USA.
Received special treatment in a secluded N. Vietnam hospital, where no other POW could go, thanks to his Oldman The Admiral. So many POW's suffered in the real prisons on North Vietnam, while he had a room all to himself with only one Guard at the door. Lets give his Daddy a big hand jester over that one . This is all over the papers of Vietnam as of yesterday.............They all laugh at him openly, for saying he suffered while being a POW!! What a Laugh !!
Did not really fly in that many combat area's by the old standards that were used in Vietnam. Lets give a big salute to his Oldman The Admiral over this manipulation of others in the military to say he did !!
Damaged over 23 aircraft, most were never able to fly again.
Almost sunk an aircraft carrier, but managed to kill a few of his own crew members, then with the help of 'DADDY' they blamed it on wiring!!
To: McCain, time to call your 'daddy' or write another book with the truth in it this time........
McCain is a nothing more then a trader !!
And so it is..................
By all means, let's be sure we let all of the racists and misanthropes get in their say. By doing so, we allow them to reveal themselves for what they are.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc2FCJ7zWEQ
I don't like John McCain's politics. I think he will make a terrible president and I think he is an unmitigated disaster for the Republican Party. But Old School is telling an outright lie.
The accident aboard the USS Forrestal (CV-590) in 1967 was caused by a Zuni rocket launched by bad wiring on an F4 Phantom fighter. The rocket struck the fuel tank of on of three A4 Skyhawk ground attack aircraft. One of the aircraft struck might have been Lieutenant Commander John McCain's aircraft, no one can say for certain. I will repeat the rocket that caused the incident aboard the USS Forrestal was fired from an F4 PHANTOM. John McCain flew A4 Skyhawks.
Old School, or Jenny, or whoever is besmirching not only John McCain, but John McCain's father, both of whom honorably served their country during two very unpopular wars.
So here's to you, Old School. You are a lying miscreant.
is a drug addict.
Is any of this stuff concerning the accdident on the aircraft carrier even relevant .An accident neither qualifies or disqualifies anybody to become your next president .It is also trivial in such sense that it doesn't reveal anything about the political program of the candidate .Will McCain be a better or worse president because he had an accident on an aircraft carrier:completely irrelevant .case closed.
Exactly, precisely, concisely what lies has Obama told you, personally? None, You've never met the man. It sounds like you're just another one of those jarheads who can't think for themselves and rely on other idiots to feed you your opinions. Pull your head out and breathe some oxygen.
McCain was spending time in Hotel Hanoi when Obama was smoking dope and experimenting with Coke by his own admission. Maybe neither situation actually prepares someone for the presidency-who knows. But to say that anyone that finds fault with Obama and his policies is a racist is simply childish. He has definite Marxist leanings that I and many others don't agree with and I wouldn't agree with his policies if he were white or purple with polka dots. The policies and records of both candidates should be judged and decided upon. Name calling and penis references really should be avoided as they serve no purpose but only point out the ignorance of those that use them.
I've change my timeline before any of you do the math and jump on me for it. McCain was released when Obama was around 8 which is fairly young to start smoking dope so add 3 or 4 years after McCain went thru the hell he did for Obama to start experimenting.
Clark said that 'riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down doesn't quality a person to be president'. I don't see anything wrong or derogatory in this statement at all, and I would completely agree to that. People get their shorts all in a bunch over nothing!
RE:'Clark said that 'riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down doesn't quality a person to be president'. I don't see anything wrong or derogatory in this statement at all, and I would completely agree to that. People get their shorts all in a bunch over nothing!'
Wesley Clark is full of beans on this one. Anyone who can do what John McCain did is someone who remains steady when the pressure is on. General Clark was more than a little nervous in the service and should keep his filthy mouth shut.
gosh, I'm not a personal friend of Clark, so can't second guess how nervous he is. I still don't think that statement was derogatory - being shot down doesn't mean you have the know how to deal with military problems anymore than Obama or Hillary or what about Bush, Cheney or loser Rumsfeld??
...Clark made the statement because Obama cannot match McCain's resume' as his will NEVER be as good. This means the only way they can deal with McCain is attack HIS resume' and try to undermine it, evening the playing field.
Best of all, Obama gets to do the 'church uplift thing' while he gets Clark to attack the Candidate. The libnazi drive-by media contributes their part by treating Clark like the Candidate, with full coverage.
It all has a very Clintonesque feel, i.e. the same way the Clintons attacked Obama, and the press is willing to help.
Clark was interviewed by NPR and they tore him a new one. He was a quivering mess. She nailed him point after point. For example, he claimed that McCain's tactical military experience was not 'big picture strategy level' and therefore would not inform command decisions as President, then NPR gal quoted him praising Kerry in 2004 campaign for his service as foot soldier and how that would help him as President.
He tried to spin McCain's squadron leadership as not being 'executive' enough. when that failed, he claimed it wasn't 'strategic' enough.
Every time he opened his mouth he got nailed for his BS.
It is pretty sad that a guy like that made it so far in the armed forces.
The bottom line is that McCain's military, combat, pow, and leadership experiences proved his mettle on many levels in ways that Obama - and frankly anyone who hasn't been through that, could comprehend. If any positive value can be attributed to them, then these are positives that Obama surely does not have and it makes no sense to criticize McCain along these lines.
Clark comes off looking like a total ass. He has totally discredited himself.
Thanks for the reply - I can't tell you how much better I feel!!! All that talk back and forth about and to each candidate is so much garbage. Most citizens (hopefully) with half a brain will be able to sort it out for what it's worth in the long run. I don't care if McCain spent 5 years living in the treetops under his parachute,or whatever, it still doesn't mean it would make him better able to lead the military as President. I don't discount his service in the military or make light of his imprisonment, but it was what it was. I don't think my experience with a broken leg will necessarily make me a better doctor or reading a million books will make mke me the better author........!
@ previous
What you said is pretty thoughtless.
Of course someone who has been in combat and risked his life has a far deeper understanding of the implications of combat, than someone who has not done it. Someone who has taken responsibility for not only his own life but for the lives of those serving under him has a deeper understanding of the gravity of military decisions.
'it still doesn't mean it would make him better able to lead the military as President.'
All things being equal, of course it does. One of the main roles a President plays is that of Commander in Chief of the armed forces.
I wasn't down-playing McCain's service. I have had relatives who were also pow's, and it was a tough haul, but that doesn't necessarily mean he would excel as a military head. We all know the gravity of decisions, but it takes someone who can relate to foreign leaders and has good leadership qualities and planning. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't, but just because he was a pow isn't the main qualification. And, perhaps, there is way too much emphasis put on this by the McCain group and the opposition. Let's hear what can be done to repair the problems created in this administration!
@ previous
'that doesn't necessarily mean he would excel as a military head.'
There are no guarantees of anything by either candidate. Heck, didn't Obama just vote in favor of FISA?
This is a contest between 2 individuals: McCain and Obama. On any given issue or qualification you need to compare their experience and achievements. On this issue of military experience and leadership, and the character traits reflected in self sacrifice and service to one's country, McCain is clearly the superior candidate. While 'past performance is no guarantee of future results', you can still make reasonable assumptions. If you choose to ignore McCains background and experience and instead place higher value on aspirational oratory, then Obama is your man.
Obama is definitely a bright fellow, and rhetorical skills are critical for top flight managers. It will be interesting to watch the debates.
Thanks for giving me a new 'handle' so to speak. I somewhat agree with you - I just meant that I feel they were putting too much emphasis on McCain's pow status in regard to his being a great military leader. I'm sure it will give him more insight, of course, but there is more to leading involved. Maybe he is very intelligent - time will tell, and hopefully, the debates will give us all food for thought. McCain's temper and some of his 'smart' retorts to questions, are a little worrisome in his ability relate.
Well previous, we can both agree that it will be a mistake for McCain and/or his handlers to hang his hat exclusively on his military experience. In fact he should focus all of his energies elsewhere because his military experience speaks for itself.
McCain can actually be refreshing at times when he speaks his mind. He will probably never make my legs tingle, but if he is sincere and sensible that's enough.
McCain makes your toes curl. I bet your butt is just quivering in anticipation. McCain and Charles, two Navy 'men.'
That's pretty sick - but coming from you not surprising. You have a twisted imagination that unfortunately impacts your judgement.
I actually don't have a horse in this race and I think there are positives/negatives about both candidates. We'll see how the campaigns evolve.
There ARE a lot of sickos who comment on this site - they just show their own stupidity, and probably won't vote or understand how anyway! They cover up their lack of intelligence with comments as disgusting as they can think up.
page: 1
Your Talkback on this Story