While I can applaud General Clark's service, I must severely disagree with the following statement:
Retired U.S. Gen. Wesley Clark, a supporter of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, on Sunday questioned whether Sen. John McCain's military experience qualified him to be commander-in-chief.
The McCain campaign called for Obama to condemn the remarks.
The dust-up began with Clark's appearance Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation," where moderator Bob Schieffer asked him about his interview with the Huffington Post earlier this month.
In the interview, Clark said McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, was "untested and untried."
When Schieffer asked to explain the comment, Clark said he was referring to McCain's experience, or lack thereof, in setting national security policies and understanding the risk involved in such matters.
"I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility," said Clark, a former NATO commander who campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004.
"He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not," Clark said.
Schieffer noted that Obama did not have any of those experiences, nor had he "ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down."
"Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," Clark said.
Well those are certainly powerful words. You'd think that General Clark's thoughts on that would be the same, i.e., military experience does not qualify you for the White House.
But let's take a look at what General Clark said about John Kerry.
This is a speech given by General Clark on July 29th, 2004:
Enough is enough! A safe America - a just America - that's what we want, that's what we need. And with John Kerry and John Edwards, that's what we will achieve.
John Kerry has lived the values of service and sacrifice. In the Navy, as a prosecutor, as a senator. He proved his physical courage under fire. He's proved his moral courage, too. John Kerry fought a war and came home to fight for peace - his combination of physical courage and moral values is my definition of what we need in a Commander-in-Chief.
And John Edwards, with his leadership and competence, will be a great member of this command team. John Kerry is a man who - in times of war - can lead as a warrior, and who - in times of peace - will heed the call of scripture to beat swords into plowshares. John Kerry will lead America with strength and wisdom. He has the will to fight, and the moral courage born in battle to pursue and secure a strong peace.
Under John Kerry we will attack and destroy the terrorist threat to America. He'll join the pantheon of great wartime Democrats.
So, when it's the Democrats who have someone with military experience, they play it up and call them a "war hero". When it is not, they play it down and say things like "riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president".
A tad hypocritical don't you think General Clark? We all know who's side you are on politically, but let's at least be honest here: You're playing down McCain's military experience because you know that if you try to denounce him any further then you already have, you'll alienate many voters.
So, do tell us General Clark, why is it that John Kerry has "proved his physical courage under fire", but McCain's 5 years as a POW any less of a qualification? In fact, I'd like to hear how when offered, McCain turned down his chance to be released when others were there longer then him, doesn't show anything BUT leadership?
John Kerry is a man who - in times of war - can lead as a warrior, and who - in times of peace - will heed the call of scripture to beat swords into plowshares. John Kerry will lead America with strength and wisdom. He has the will to fight, and the moral courage born in battle to pursue and secure a strong peace.
Sounds an AWFUL lot like McCain, but we couldn't have you praising your fellow soldier now can we? We mustn't let right and wrong get in the way of partisan politics.
You're being hypocritical AT BEST, you're being a partisan, political hack at worst.
Travis
7 comments:
TRAVIS YOU AND THE REST THAT ARE TRYING TO GIVE MCCAIN PRESIDENTIAL QUALS FOR BEING IN THE MILITARY DONT FLY BEING IN THE MILITARY DONT GIVE YOU ANY FOREIGN POLICY INSIGHT NO MORE THAN A CIVILIAN SITING AT HOME IN CALIFORNIA UNLESS YOUR JOB IN THE MILITARY CONSISTED OF WORKING IN THAT CAPACITY
MrClark has it right.Being held as a prisoner of war, doesn't make you Presidential. And anyway who better to tell the truth about it than another Veteran. Have respect but to say we should follow McCain just because of his past hardship is ridiculous!Maybe he and his supporters should support our own warriors & other middle class Americans for a change we can believe in!
Why would we want someone who finished at the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy 894/899 be the head of our country. If McCain can't do well there,how does he expect to lead our country.
You're right, being in the military doesn't necessarily give you the experience you need to be President.
HOWEVER
In 2004, everyone on the Democratic side were playing up John Kerry's military record, implying that it gave him a special insight on how to be President, including General Clark.
Now that the shoe is on the other foot, General Clark is downplaying McCain's military record. That's hypocritical, and I'm calling him out on it.
As a side note shutdownexxon, where is your source for McCain being almost at the bottom of his Naval Academy class?
I love a debate,,well Travis,, There is a large difference between now and then.We Dems were warning this country about how the Bush Presidency could cause havoc on the world.Time has shown that Dems were right on!We are in a heck of a mess in the world.Don't you agree?I also supported Kerry for Pres.because he is real, unlike the Republican swiftboaters!Wait a minute,,,,,,,,Did I hear someone say bomb,bomb,bomb IRAN!It wasn't Mr. Clark!
Indeed, I enjoy a healthy debate myself. :) I wasn't saying that Clark was right or wrong, however, I am pointing out that he's being hypocritical in his very similar points between Kerry and McCain.
As for the "bomb bomb Iran" quote, take a look at it on Youtube, WITHOUT it being cut down, you can plainly see he's joking with the person who asked the question, then got more serious and answered it.
If you'd like to take quotes out of context, I'd be happy to bring up John Kerry's "if you don't pay attention in school, you get to go to Iraq" quote. :)
I'd be curious though, how much of the America's ills can be properly placed at the feet of George W. Bush?
The mortgage "crisis"?
Oil prices?
Iraq? (ok that one's a gimme)
Iran's nuclear program? (which was going on LONG before he took office
The recession?
Global Warming?
I'd be curious about what really can be laid at his feet and what is known as Bush Derangement Syndrome. :)
Sure, Democrats have WARNED about things, but they haven't DONE anything about it.
For example:
Our debt is currently at roughly $9 trillion dollars. A LOT of money by any standard. But yet, Bush keeps asking for these spending bills and Democrats keep voting "yes".
They ask for universal health care, which Hillary's plan estimated the first year costs at $60 billion dollars.
Yet no one seemed to talk about how to cut $60 billion out of the budget to pay for it.
I'm all for plans that help my fellow Americans, especially, my HARD WORKING fellow Americans. I just can't stand the lazy people who want the government to hand them everything. But, if you want such programs, you have to tell me how you plan on paying for it. The wealthy are going to revolt one day. They are going to say "we are taxed too much" and they are going to move their wealth outside of this country.
So spending cuts are the only way that can truly take care of such an issue. :)
Now look what you've gone and done, you've gotten me off subject! :)
I think years of political experience gives you the tools you need to be President, as well as interacting with foreign heads of state. Something that I think we can agree upon that Obama is severely lacking to his political opponent.
I'll see if I have some time today to fix my "Radio Shows" link so you can hear about this exact subject that my friend and I debated upon. :) But here's a link to them for now:
http://www.imeem.com/groups/ka_szkAO,right_wing_politics/
Post a Comment