Obama hits McCain's military credentials via Proxy, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times


reply posted on 30-6-2008 @ 12:00 PM by vor78
reply to post by Hal9000


I agree, I also believe that it was probably a case of Clark freelancing a bit and making an over-the-top attack on McCain. If memory serves, Clark made a bad habit of things like this back in his own '04 campaign.

I doubt it was sanctioned by Obama and I don't immediately hold it against him, either. I do think that Obama needs to publicly distance himself it, however. The longer he remains silent, the more it appears he agrees with Clark's statements.


reply posted on 30-6-2008 @ 12:02 PM by Benevolent Heretic
Originally posted by COOL HAND
Why doesn't Obama have the guts to make these kinds of accusations himself? Why does he have to get one of his paid hacks to take the flak?


Paid hack? Wesley Clark was the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe in the late '90s. He's no "paid hack". He definitely knows of what he speaks.

Secondly, I heard him say this a while ago. In fact, when he was still supporting Hillary:

In a March conference call with reporters while he was still backing Hillary Rodham Clinton, Clark said: "Everybody admires John McCain's service as a fighter pilot, his courage as a prisoner of war. There's no issue there. He's a great man and an honorable man. But having served as a fighter pilot — and I know my experience as a company commander in Vietnam — that doesn't prepare you to be commander in chief in terms of dealing with the national strategic issues that are involved. It may give you a feeling for what the troops are going through in the process, but it doesn't give you the experience first hand of the national strategic issues."


Source

I guess Hillary paid him to say it then...

Third, it's true. John McCain's service, while brave and appreciated, does not automatically qualify him to be CinC. His service didn't include executive responsibilities.

And finally, this is an important election. BOTH candidates are being hit hard. Sometimes by the other candidate, sometimes by the campaigns, sometimes by supporters and sometimes by some money going under the table. That's politics.

I'm fairly sure Obama is aware of Clark's thoughts. He did say it in March after all. Just as John McCain is aware that people are saying that Barack Obama, born in Africa, is a possibly gay Muslim racist who refuses to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and McCain doesn't say a thing about it. It's not the job of the candidate to comment on all the stuff that's being thrown about. At least what Clark is saying about McCain comes from someone who is qualified to give his opinion on the subject. And if Obama did comment on it, I'm quite sure he'd agree with it.

You know, after all the crap that's been leveled at Obama (much of it, I suspect, fed by the Republican machine and Rove), I gotta say, "quit crying". You see all the "Obama defense" and "Obama attack" threads here? This election isn't just about Obama. Eventually John McCain is going to get dirty.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
He knows first hand the horrors that await our soldiers captured by the enemy.


No argument! But that doesn't give him experience in commanding or leading anyone. That's what Clark is saying. My brother knows about the horrors, too, but that doesn't mean he'd make a good president.

[edit on 30-6-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]



reply posted on 30-6-2008 @ 12:10 PM by Benevolent Heretic
Originally posted by vor78
I do think that Obama needs to publicly distance himself it, however. The longer he remains silent, the more it appears he agrees with Clark's statements.


Why should he distance himself? What "attacks" exactly were said? From the original post Source


Clark said that McCain lacked the executive experience necessary to be president, calling him “untested and untried”
...
these experiences in no way qualify McCain to be president in his view:
...
But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn't a wartime squadron,” Clark said.
...
“I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.”


Now, what specifically (which of his statements) is everyone so upset about? Why wouldn't Obama agree with what Clark said?


[edit on 30-6-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]


reply posted on 30-6-2008 @ 12:11 PM by COOL HAND
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Paid hack? Wesley Clark was the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe in the late '90s. He's no "paid hack". He definitely knows of what he speaks.

He is an advisor to Obama, doesn't that scream paid hack to anyone else?

BTW, Clark is also the one who almost got us into a shooting war with the Russians in Kosovo. He lost all credibilty with me after that one.


Secondly, I heard him say this a while ago. In fact, when he was still supporting Hillary:
But having served as a fighter pilot — and I know my experience as a company commander in Vietnam — that doesn't prepare you to be commander in chief in terms of dealing with the national strategic issues that are involved. It may give you a feeling for what the troops are going through in the process, but it doesn't give you the experience first hand of the national strategic issues."

Spoken like someone who has no idea what he is talking about. I wager that Naval Aviators have a better handle on national strategic issues than people give them credit for.

If service in the military does not qualify someone to be the commander in chief of the military, than what does. Look what happens to the military anytime we have elected someone who did not serve.


Third, it's true. John McCain's service, while brave and appreciated, does not automatically qualify him to be CinC. His service didn't include executive responsibilities.

Again, this just shows how little Clark knows. McCain had command of an entire squadron, which is full of executive responsibilities. But, don't let that stop you from supporting someone with no executive responsibility experience.


reply posted on 30-6-2008 @ 12:26 PM by SaviorComplex
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Paid hack? Wesley Clark was the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe in the late '90s. He's no "paid hack". He definitely knows of what he speaks.


And according to the memoirs of General Mike Johnson, Clark almost started WWIII over the Pristina International Airport.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Just as John McCain is aware that people are saying that Barack Obama, born in Africa, is a possibly gay Muslim racist who refuses to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and McCain doesn't say a thing about it.


There is quite a difference here. No one in McCain's campaign is saying those things about Obama. But General Clark is a policy-advisor to the Obama campaign.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
This election isn't just about Obama. Eventually John McCain is going to get dirty.


Of course he is. Everyone seems shocked, upset, and outraged when a campaign goes dirty. But every campaign goes dirty, because dirty works.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
No argument! But that doesn't give him experience in commanding or leading anyone. That's what Clark is saying. My brother knows about the horrors, too, but that doesn't mean he'd make a good president.


On the contrary, I feel that experience would help to make a good President. With McCain or people like your brother as Commander-in-Chief, knowing what our soldiers may face firsthand, they would more carefully weigh the options before sending them into harm's way.


reply posted on 30-6-2008 @ 12:29 PM by vor78
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic




The entire line of attack is basically just mud-slinging, IMO. He gives no indication that McCain did anything except perform the duties required of him while in the Navy.

I think his argument that McCain's peacetime service as a squadron commander somehow doesn't count is particularly offensive. He may not have given the order to drop any bombs while in that capacity, but he likely did everything else required of the job. Such attacks diminish the service of all peacetime military members, IMO.

I know you're an Obama die-hard, but understand: I don't blame Obama for this. I do, however, think it would be a smart move politically for him to disavow those comments. Unless he's presenting evidence of wrongdoing by McCain during his naval service, Clark is just hurting his candidate, I think. Attempting to diminish the impact of McCain's very honorable service record is a political loser, IMO.

[edit on 30-6-2008 by vor78]


reply posted on 30-6-2008 @ 12:35 PM by evanmontegarde
I've been doing some more research into this entire issue.

The most important fact here is that in no way was Wesley Clark attacking McCain's service record. He unequivocally did not state that McCain was not qualified to be President, or that his military service made him unqualified.

What he said was a reinforcement of Article II, Section I of the US Constitution. Let me quote that for those who may not be familiar with it:



No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.


Now, here is the exact quote of Welsey Clark:



CLARK: He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn't a wartime squadron. 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, do you want to take the risk, what about your reputation, how do we handle this publicly? He hasn't made those calls, Bob.

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.


All Clark was doing is defending the Constitution - That the any qualifications required to be President are 35 years of age, natural born citizenship, and fourteen years a resident.

And for those attacking Wesley Clark personally, do you even know who he is?

He was first in his graduating class at West Point. He served in Vietnam and received numerous medals. And, most importantly, he led the US military campaign in Kosovo in 1996 - A campaign that had zero US combat deaths.

He's more "qualified" by your definitions to be Commander in Chief than McCain or Obama is, frankly.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^