General Takes Swipe at McCain

[ds52262]

Let me begin by saying I don't have a dog in this fight. (Couldn't care which one is the next President becuase I believe they will both be bad for America).

That said having had the less then enjoyable experience of serving during Gen Clarks Tenure in Europe I found him to be a horrible leader. He was known for destroying careers and not in a good way. It is my firm belief that had Scott O'Grady's fate been in the hands of Clark he would be dead today. Thankfully he hadn't been made Supreme Allied Commander yet and was only the chief negotiator in the Balkans.

While I wont vote for McCain or Obama for that matter. I would much rather be in a foxhole, cockpit, or prison cell with him then Clark anyday of the week.

" Gen. Wesley Clark, acting as a surrogate for Barack Obama’s campaign, invoked John McCain’s military service against him in one of the more personal attacks on the Republican presidential nominee this election cycle.

Clark said that McCain lacked the executive experience necessary to be president, calling him “untested and untried” on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” And in saying so, he took a few swipes at McCain’s military service.

“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,” Clark said.

“I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.”

From a rueter news story

[bossf51]

Sorry to say DS but many in the lunatic right wing agree with Clark's assesment of McCain...just listen in on Rush Limbaugh some time or read the conservative blogs that state that McC is to blame for being shot down over 'Nam. I thing that's kind of absurd but frankly not much in McC's career distinguishes him as a military leader. He is also attacked on the right for "collaboration" with his captors, throwing his fellow prisoners "under the bus" and other crimes. So don't take on Wes Clark over this issue.:thumbdown:

[ds52262]

"Lunatic right'" ok no biases there....As I said I have no dog in the hunt. I will not vote for either Obama or McCain. My issue is with General Clark. I served under his auspicous career in Bosnia, and was enourmously disappointed. It was my opinion he cared about one thing and one thing only, his own personal advancement. No McCain endorsement at all but I'll take someone who chooses to stay in a POW camp when he could leave over a man I am certain would have left an airman behind before taking any risk. Just like Barry McCaffrey he (Clark) chose politics over his subordinates, and I am sure he would throw anyone under the bus if it advanced his goals.

While were on the issue of General Clark there are still questions regarding his role in the Branch Davidian's being roasted in WACO. Yes he was a usefull tool to advance politics in a hostile environment, but again a shamefull man.

One of the major problems with the Flag rank military leadership in the 90's was people of principle left at 0-6 and yes men remained. All the recent noise regarding the "Nuclear Issues in the Air Force" can be directly attributed to Gen McPeak. In an effort to advance the drawdown and expand the peace dividend he dismantled SAC the Strategic Air Command. Breaking up SAC is more responsible for the security issues then anything the SecAF or CSAF could ever have done or failed to do.

Oh by the way don't excuse the Likes of General Powell either. Many times his actions were driven by politics and not the best interest of the men he commanded. As chairmen of the JCS he pushed to get Shwarzkopf to stop in the Desert (I was a part of that one too). We should have finished things right then and there. Instead we allowed Air force and Naval Aviators to be targeted for 12 years with very little response.

We have forgotten that the purpose of the military is to succeed and are ashamed of the idea we might be successfull.

[LineInTheSand]

I guess that "other guy" working in Chicago must have that "executive" experience...then again...what executive experience did Clark have when he "ran"?



I got my absentee ballot info updated, and will do what I should, VOTE! :thumb:

[ds52262]

I am deeply concerned by the fact I believe Obama will be the next President, and has much more in common with the Ladies of Code Pink who protest outside the Marine Recruit Center in Berkley Ca. They are his base of support.

On the other hand McCain gives me no hope either. I believe he will do whatever my Senior Senator Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi want in the name of Bipartisanship.

My real concern is like physics I believe there is a reaction to every action, and as enthusiastic as the Democrats are I fear they will leave little room for negotiation. The results could tear the fabric of the country forever. Point is when you back someone in that corner you must be ready for the violent reaction to follow.

As I look at the exhuberence being displayed and lack of tolerance for other opinions. Political Correctness is used to silence the speech of others. Today if you disagree with Obama it is becuase you are displaying racism not becuase you may have legitimate disagreement. I am not sure I want my taxes raised, or my healthcare taken over by the same people who control public education, the DMV, and the Post Office. All those agencies function just not efficiently no matter who is in congress or president. If you have money you opt out Private School, UPS/DHL, a DMV service to wait in line for you. The promise of change will not go empty this time and with that change will be a reaction. I hope we all are ready for that reaction.

[The Commissioner]

The upcoming election of the first sitting senator to the president since JFK in 1960 is unique in itself. If my memory of history serves me correctly, the only other sitting senator to move to the White House is Warren G. Harding.

Americans, by their behavior at the polls in the presidential general elections, tend to prefer former state governors, vice-presidents, or generals for their chief executives. There is a reason for that: American voters don't feel the US Presidency is an entry-level executive office.

Senators McCain and Obama have both overseen Senate office staffs, so that makes them equal in this area of 'executive' experience. Both men have written books, but I don't see that being an executive function. Both are successful campaigners, but it's difficult to know the degree that either of them managed their campaigns.

Prior to the Senate, I don't believe Obama ever had to hire or fire anyone as a community activist, teacher, or a member of the Illinois Legislature. I don't think he's ever planned or executed a process that produced anything but intellectual property, namely his own speeches, articles, lessons, and books. Ignoring the time that McCain spent in captivity in North Vietnam, it is hard to imagine a career Naval Officer, particularly in aviation, without any responsibilities that weren't at least managerial in nature.

The remark by General Clark suggesting that Senator McCain lacks the executive experience to be President does more to harm Clark's credibility than the public's perception of McCain's qualifications. In fact, Clark's claim will likely cause undecided voters to investigate Obama's executive experience. The unintended consequence of Clark's misguided remark is that Obama may suffer the fate of the old cliche, "familiarity breeds contempt."

[bossf51]

Funny that the ex-generals who lean left are attacked while the clowns on Fox and elsewhere who were still on the government dole after retiring and claimed to be "unbiased" get a pass.:mad:

[TacticalNuke]

The upcoming election of the first sitting senator to the president since JFK in 1960 is unique in itself. If my memory of history serves me correctly, the only other sitting senator to move to the White House is Warren G. Harding.

Americans, by their behavior at the polls in the presidential general elections, tend to prefer former state governors, vice-presidents, or generals for their chief executives. There is a reason for that: American voters don't feel the US Presidency is an entry-level executive office.

Senators McCain and Obama have both overseen Senate office staffs, so that makes them equal in this area of 'executive' experience. Both men have written books, but I don't see that being an executive function. Both are successful campaigners, but it's difficult to know the degree that either of them managed their campaigns.

Prior to the Senate, I don't believe Obama ever had to hire or fire anyone as a community activist, teacher, or a member of the Illinois Legislature. I don't think he's ever planned or executed a process that produced anything but intellectual property, namely his own speeches, articles, lessons, and books. Ignoring the time that McCain spent in captivity in North Vietnam, it is hard to imagine a career Naval Officer, particularly in aviation, without any responsibilities that weren't at least managerial in nature.

The remark by General Clark suggesting that Senator McCain lacks the executive experience to be President does more to harm Clark's credibility than the public's perception of McCain's qualifications. In fact, Clark's claim will likely cause undecided voters to investigate Obama's executive experience. The unintended consequence of Clark's misguided remark is that Obama may suffer the fate of the old cliche, "familiarity breeds contempt."

Well-written, you ought to submit that as an editorial. :thumb:

[ds52262]

Boss51 I did not make the "Lunatic Right" comment. My complaint is with a 4 star General who has been auditioning for the white house since before he retired. His ambition has been destructive to the men and women he wanted to lead. He has consistently placed hinself before his subordinates (not the hallmark of a leader). His comments yesterday were just another example.

As for the Generals on the biased "FOXNEWS" I do not place a lot of faith in them either. Most of these guys are just dying for the face time, and another moment to seem important. One of the things I have admired about the likes of General Franks or Patreus is you don't see them rushng to the camera. They looked at a job and got it done. You can twist events, and toss out accusations about things that happened but they got the job done.

[Zaphod]

just listen in on Rush Limbaugh some time or read the conservative blogs that state that McC is to blame for being shot down over 'Nam.

I listen to Rush Limbaugh every single day, and not once has McCain's service EVER been called into the slightest question whatsoever.

Not once.

The remark by General Clark suggesting that Senator McCain lacks the executive experience to be President does more to harm Clark's credibility than the public's perception of McCain's qualifications.

Preach it.

My complaint is with a 4 star General who has been auditioning for the white house since before he retired. His ambition has been destructive to the men and women he wanted to lead. He has consistently placed hinself before his subordinates (not the hallmark of a leader). His comments yesterday were just another example.

You are not alone in this assessment. Several people who worked under his command in Bosnia (BTW, we still have troops there, don't we? I thought they were all supposed to be home by Christmas, 199X or something?) said the same things. Some were MUCH harsher.

One of the things I have admired about the likes of General Franks or Patreus is you don't see them rushng to the camera. They looked at a job and got it done. You can twist events, and toss out accusations about things that happened but they got the job done.

Agreed.

Always remember which side it was that called General Patreus, the man who turned Iraq around, "General Betray Us". HELL of a way to support the troops, eh? I guess it's better than having called them murderers, though...

Oh, wait! Murtha did that. Sorry. :rolleyes:

[bossf51]

Z I beg to differ with you on "comedian" Rush Limbaugh...during the primary he knocked McCain like it was his job and various callers went much farther and made statements that embarrassed me, a staunch blue stater. I admire JMCc for his service but I likewise feel that Gen. Clark served our country with honor and distinction.

[bossf51]

This is just some of the drivel the right-wing lunatic fringe is spewing about Mr. McCain.

Anyone who has had an adversarial relationship with John McCain will tell you that there are few with less self-control than the senator from Arizona. Many have questioned his ability to maintain a clear head in a time of crisis. For those of us who have seen these sparks of insanity from McCain, we know all too well that what lies beneath is something dark, ominous and certainly not presidential. John McCain makes reference to his service to our great nation by almost daily reminding us of his five and a half year captivity in the Hanoi Hilton. Yet few have been able to look beyond McCain, the POW, to examine his political record, as if it were taboo somehow to be critical of a former prisoner of war. But what about this former prisoner of war and his criticism of the very same people who fought to bring him home from the dark dank cell he likes to remind us about so much? - The POW/MIA Families of those less fortunate than McCain, those who still have yet to be returned to the soil they gave their lives for.

Since his return from Hanoi, McCain has …

~Ignored pleas of POW/MIA Family Members for his political influence in the overall POW/MIA Issue as well as with their individual cases

~Verbally abused POW/MIA Family Members in public and private

~Attempted to negatively influence those who testified before the 1992 Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs

~Diminished legislation that gave oversight and protection to the families

~Dismantled protection to any future servicemen that go missing.

Yes, John McCain, the American politician, the man who many think would and should be the primary advocate and activist for the POW/MIA Issue is in fact the Issue’s primary adversary. You read correctly, the Issue’s primary adversary. John McCain has not provided one positive contribution to these same families that fought along side the first Mrs. McCain for close to six years to bring home all of those who were known to be captured by the Vietnamese. One would think that McCain would feel almost beholden to these fine American military families who united in one of their darkest hours to keep the POW/MIA Issue in the forefront of the War in Vietnam. Yet, nothing could be further from the truth.

Cruel Encounters with McCain by POW/MIA Family Members

In the beginning, when McCain’s political aspirations began to pan out at the national level, many POW/MIA families made the erroneous assumption that John McCain would be a logical ally as they still fought with the Department of Defense for answers on the fate of their loved ones. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. There are many very well known encounters between John McCain and POW/MIA family members. Here we will quickly focus on three of these encounters. The first is with the family of fellow Air Force pilot David Hrdlicka’s wife Carol and Jane (Duke) Gaylord, mother of missing civilian Charles Duke.



Col. David Hrdlicka, USAF while in captivity

A recent statement put out in January of 2008 by Mrs. Hrdlicka’s attorney reads;

According to Mrs.Carol Hrdlicka, when POW/MIA family members confronted Sen. John McCain in the halls of Congress after the conclusion of the Committee’s Report, he shoved the wheelchair of handicapped POW mother Jane Gaylord out of his way knocking it into her niece who was behind the chair attending to her aunt and she was pushed up against a wall. Subsequently Mrs. Gaylord filed a complaint for assault against the Senator but the matter was squelched by the powers that be. As Senator McCain attempted to jump on an elevator to make a quick escape from the POW/MIA family members gathered, he shouted at Mrs. Hrdlicka, “You don’t know what I’ve been through”(indicating he was a former POW and inferring Mrs. Hrdlicka had no comparable experience or appreciation of his great suffering and sacrifice). As the door to the elevator began to close around the cowering Senator who was making good his get-a-way, Mrs. Hrdlicka raised a large photo of her POW husband Col. David Hrdlicka and thrust it at the elevator doors to show the Senator that she did indeed share in the suffering of POWs and family members and shouted that she had clear proof her husband David was still alive in captivity. Unfortunately, Mrs. Hrdlicka’s cries and pleas for help from government officials bent on closing the chapter on POWs fell on deaf ears and blackened hearts!“

[bossf51]

For years, the mainstream news media has refused to stop idolizing the so-called straight talking maverick John McCain long enough to question the mental health consequences of the years he spent as a "special" prisoner of the communists in North Vietnam.

McCain, the presumptive Republican candidate for President, who could one day have his finger on the "red button," claims the communists subjected him to 5 ½ years of nonstop indoctrination sessions so intense that he attempted suicide.

Unfortunately for McCain, after his bomber was hit by anti-aircraft fire near Hanoi on October 26, 1967, he parachuted into the hands of an evil communist enemy who 7 years earlier had adopted Soviet methods of prisoner interrogation.

At that time, the Soviets were perfecting techniques designed "to put a man's mind into a fog so that he will mistake what is true for what is untrue, what is right for what is wrong, and come to believe what did not happen actually had happened."

Psychiatric Journals are flush with reports concluding that former POWs may remain entangled in "harsh psychological battles" with themselves for decades after returning home including difficulty in controlling intense emotions such as anger and stress.

In political circles, McCain, sometimes referred to as "insane McCain," is well known for having a "volcanic" temper which his colleagues say often erupts into vulgar language and personal insults.

Democrat Paul Johnson, the former mayor of Phoenix, experienced McCain's in your face temperament up close. "His volatility borders in the area of being unstable," Johnson said. "Before I let this guy put his finger on the button, I would have to give considerable pause."

The Journal of America Medicine reported in an 1996 article that being a former POW is associated with "increased cumulative incidence rates of chronic disorders of the peripheral nervous system, joints, and back and an increased hazard rate of peptic ulcer."

The 71 year-old McCain most certainly suffers pain and the weakening effects of chronic arthritis. He broke both arms when he was forced to eject after his bomber was hit. He says the Vietnamese periodically re-fractured his bones during years of interrogation and torture which rendered him permanently incapable of raising his arms above his head.

McCain has never been publicly vetted about what and how much medications he is taking. Aside from his anger and arthritic pain issues, McCain has had reoccurring bouts of malignant melanoma, a deadly form of cancer that can spread quickly throughout the body.

These facts alone beg the question on how a President McCain, in the absence of his campaign staff handlers, would deal with a snap decision that had to be made "if the White House phone rang at 3 a.m."

McCain's POW experience is unique. His communist captors considered him the "crown prince" of U.S. POWs because his father, Adm. John McCain, was commander of all U.S. forces fighting in Vietnam. Because the communists believed he was from a "royal family" and would when finally released return to the United States to an important military or government job, they held him for two years in "solitary confinement."


No U.S. POW had any communication with McCain or knew where he was being held during at least 8 to 12 months of McCain's first two years of captivity. He has either been unable or unwilling to account for the months he was missing from the POW system.

Within days of McCain's shoot down and after being told the identity of his famous father, the Vietnamese rushed him to Gai Lam military hospital (U.S. government documents), a medical facility normally unavailable to treat U.S. POWs. McCain was kept at Gai Lam for six weeks under the control of Soviet medical specialist anxious to test the use of their "mind and behavior modification" drugs on such an important prisoner.

McCain said the communists were so effective with their interrogation techniques that he broke on the fourth day after being captured and began cooperating. "Demands for military information were accompanied by threats to terminate my medical treatment if I [McCain] did not cooperate. Eventually, I gave them my ship's name and squadron number, and confirmed that my target had been the power plant." Pages 193-194, Faith of My Fathers, by John McCain.

During the Cold War, the Soviets and the CIA began competing with secret experiments on prisoners aimed at honing the use of "chemical and biological materials capable of producing human behavioral and physiological changes." The experiments included isolation, sleep deprivation, humiliation, alternating with long hours of interrogation.

Since the Russians and Chinese (and our own CIA) have proven they can in a relative short time alter the basic emotional and behavior patterns of captives, it is fair to assume that McCain's unpredictable and often volatile temperament is directly related to his treatment as a 5 ½ prisoner of the communists.

The American public was first exposed to Soviet "brain perversion techniques" during Korean War when the communists launched a propaganda offensive featuring filmed and recorded testimony of captured U.S. servicemen confessing to war crimes including the use of germ warfare.

By the end of the Korean War, "70 percent of the 7,190 U.S. prisoners held in China had either made confessions or signed petitions calling for an end to the American war effort in Asia. Fifteen percent collaborated fully with the Chinese, and only 5 percent steadfastly resisted."

Military officials were especially alarmed when a significant number of the U.S. prisoners refused to recant their confessions as soon as they returned to the United States.

Beginning in 1960, KGB and Chinese agents directed the Vietnamese in establishing Vietnam's original interrogation guidelines for U.S. prisoners. They suggested interrogation techniques and issued specific intelligence requirements to be extracted during prisoner interrogations.

Official American position on POW confessions was that they were false and forced while privately expressing grave concern that the collaborations proved the communists had developed techniques that could "put a man's mind into a fog."

Psychologist have identified behavior in which a former prisoner emotionally bonds with an abuser as the Stockholm Syndrome. McCain was a strong advocate for prosecuting Bosnian, Yugoslavian and Iraqi war criminals and is adamantly opposed to any form of normalized relation with Cuba until it allows "free elections, human right organizations and a free and independent media."

Yet, McCain has resisted any kind of war crimes investigation of his former Vietnamese torturers. Prosecution and subsequent trials could bring to justice the Vietnamese torturers known by the American POWs as the Bug, Slopehead, the Prick, the Soft Soap Fairy, Rabbit, the Cat, Zorba and many others who were responsible for the murder in North Vietnam of at least 55 U.S. POWs and the brutal torture of hundreds of others.

In November 1991, Tracy Usry, chief investigator of the Minority Staff of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, testified before the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, that the Soviets interrogated U.S. prisoners of war in Vietnam. McCain became outraged, interrupting Usry several times, arguing that "none of the returned U.S. prisoners of war released by Vietnam were ever interrogated by the Soviets."

Former KGB Maj. Gen. Oleg Kalugin testified during the hearings that the KGB did interrogate U.S. POWs in Vietnam. Kalugin stated that one of the POWs worked on by the KGB was a "high-ranking naval officer," who, according to Kalugin, agreed to work with the Soviets upon his repatriation to the United States and has frequently appeared on U.S. television.

Col. Bui Tin, a former Senior Colonel in the North Vietnamese Army, testified on the same day, but after Usry, that because of his high position in the Communist Party during the war he had the authority to "read all documents and secret telegrams from the politburo" pertaining to American prisoners of war. He said that not only did the Soviets interrogate some American prisoners of war, but that they treated the Americans very badly.

McCain stunned onlookers at the hearing when he moved to the witness table and physically embraced Col. Tin as if he was a long, lost brother.

In 1949 Dr. Andrew Salter authored Conditioned Reflex Therapy, a pioneering work in the field of psychoanalysis. Ten years later, as Richard Condon was writing The Manchurian Candidate, he asked Dr. Salter to help "design" the brainwashed character for the book and subsequent movie.

More than 40 years later, in 1992, during the C-SPAN broadcasts of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, Dr. Salter watched the hearings from his New York City apartment. Salter became fascinated with McCain's overly aggressive and angry behavior toward witnesses, especially family members of men still missing in action. After a few hours he called a friend telling her, "the signs are all there, I'm afraid Senator John McCain has been brainwashed."

During the Senate Select hearings, McCain opposed all efforts by the POW/MIA families and activists to have the Select Committee expand its investigation to study how successful the Vietnamese, Soviet, Chinese and Cuban interrogation apparatuses were at exploiting American prisoners of war.

News pundants have elevated McCain to "the most popular national political figure in the country" by repeatedly describing him as a "war hero" based on his refusal accept a communist offer of "early release" from captivity.

What the media has carelessly refused to acknowledge is that the camp's senior ranking U.S. POW (SRO) had issued unquestionable orders that if a POW was to be released, "it would be the longest held prisoner" Because McCain was not the longest held POW, he would have faced a military court-marshal if he had accepted the offer.

It is incumbent upon McCain to prove to the American people that the 5 1/2 years he spent at the mercy of communist interrogators did not leave him with mental health issues that could hinder him in making snap decisions "if the White House phone rang at 3 a.m."

Is McCain taking any kind of pain or "nerve" medicines? If so, do the medicines cause emotional and physical reactions?

McCain was once treated for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) which is said to get worse over time for former POWs, what is the status of his treatment?

[Zaphod]

Z I beg to differ with you on "comedian" Rush Limbaugh...during the primary he knocked McCain like it was his job and various callers went much farther and made statements that embarrassed me, a staunch blue stater.

Yes, he was and remains very critical. So do I, despite the fact he has my vote this November. McCain deserves the criticism for the way he has behaved as a Senator these past several years, and the only reason he's getting my vote is because a vote for anyone else will put the unapologetic Marxist running as a Democrat into office.

However, never once has Rush disparaged McCain's service to this nation nor his ordeal as a POW in Vietnam as you have claimed. NOT ONCE.

[Zaphod]

This is just some of the drivel the right-wing lunatic fringe is spewing about Mr. McCain.

It would help if you cited precisely which member(s) of the "right-wing lunatic fringe" said all that. I've never heard it on Rush, or Hannity, or Beck, or anywhere else that mainstream Conservatives are heard. You sure you haven't stumbled across the DNC's opposition research? After all, they're the ones who speak like that all the time...

As for Wesley Clark, I can respect his service, but the fact is that he is a typical left-wing socialist dirtbag who just happens to have worn the uniform. His service gives him no more immunity from criticism than does McCain's or Kerry's, provided the criticism is valid.

[bossf51]

Unlike you or I or Sen. O'Bama or Rush Limbaugh, Wes Clark came home from Vietnam on a stretcher with the wounds to show for it. He was valedictorian of his class at West Point, a Rhodes Scholar and Silver Star winner. He's entitled to his opinion as are you and I...that's what we stand for.

[Zaphod]

Unlike you or I or Sen. O'Bama or Rush Limbaugh, Wes Clark came home from Vietnam on a stretcher with the wounds to show for it. He was valedictorian of his class at West Point, a Rhodes Scholar and Silver Star winner. He's entitled to his opinion as are you and I...that's what we stand for.

I've never said anything to the contrary. Unlike those on his side, however, I do not go around trying to silence the opposition while pretending to be the sole defender of Free Speech. His side does. All the time. Political "correctness", the "fairness" doctrine, edicts silencing the military from giving press conferences because they are "spreading propaganda", etc. It is as undeniable as the sun rising in the east each morning.

We're still waiting for the citations proving your accusations against Rush Limbaugh and the other members of the "lunatic right wing"...

[bruno]

Unlike you or I or Sen. O'Bama or Rush Limbaugh, Wes Clark came home from Vietnam on a stretcher with the wounds to show for it. He was valedictorian of his class at West Point, a Rhodes Scholar and Silver Star winner. He's entitled to his opinion as are you and I...that's what we stand for.

Wes Clark is now a professional politician and as such his opinions ought to be judged that way. As for his heroism- unlike Boss51' s unsubstantiated and extremely long winded diatribe against John McCain, i haven't seen anyone question Clarks, service or his actions in Vietnam, but I might ask 51- just how many senior Army officer's flocked to Clark's standard in the last presidential election? If you took a poll you might find that there were very few and that his reputation at the time among his peers and subordinates was that he was a politician well before the time that he decided to run for office. His opinion is his opinion but it sure isn't gospel and it seems to me tinged with a great deal of self interest.

[The Commissioner]

Wes Clark is now a professional politician and as such his opinions ought to be judged that way. As for his heroism- unlike Boss51' s unsubstantiated and extremely long winded diatribe against John McCain,

I think Bossf51 was merely cutting and pasting the anti-McCain propaganda that's been out there forever and most recently dredged up by folks who didn't want McCain to be the Republican nominee.

Funny how an offhand remark about a 'macacca' was enough to derail Senator Allen's re-election campaign in Virginia but all the allegations of brainwashing, collaboration with the enemy, crashing aircraft, temper tantrums, abuse of constituents, etc. never seemed to keep McCain from being re-elected.

I agree with Bruno's point about Clark's current role as a politician. The danger that Clark brings to the Obama campaign is his claim that McCain "lacks executive experience" and the subtle way he suggests that McCain shouldn't be commander-in-chief. Obama can't rise to the same level of military experience ("I called out the National Guard") that Governor Bill Clinton claimed. Compare Clinton's, Obama's, and McCain's military experience and frankly, there is no comparison.

If I am Obama or his campaign manager, I will pull Wes Clark aside and tell him to talk about the reasons why he thinks Obama can function as commander-in-chief rather than why McCain isn't qualified for that responsibility.

[ds52262]

Look General Clark was auditioning for VP. It is plain and simple. Sen. McCain doesn't matter this election has already been decided just like 1996. The media selected Sen. Dole to lose to Bill Clinton and he faithfully played his role.

Obama lacks any connection to the military and has much more in common with Code Pink then anyone wearing a uniform. He will be called upon to lead and dismantle as much of the military as possible by his supporters in the next 4 or 8 years. This will require a surrogate who can lend him the credibilty in this arena, enter General Clark. Don't worry he wont be the last we will see more like Gen McPeak, Gen Zinni, and maybe we can see a John Murtha for Sec Nav.

The attack and yes it was an attack was about discrediting Sen McCain over the 4th of July, and diminshing him. Sen McCain did himself no service in his weak response.

Boss51 your side has already won the battle. The problem is 40% of the country do not want what your selling. Of that 40% you can bet that some will not sit by while they see their liberties being taken, and their money confiscated. We have a state senator in Nevada who during a budget crisis a few years back declared that the people who disagreed with her position were irrelevent. I see those same messages coming from the Democratic Leadership nationally today.

My biggest fear is as you paint that 10% in a corner you will eventually force them to react. (Disclaimer I do not advocate violence in any way). I am afraid they will react violently though. The battle for political superiority may have tilted in the Democrats favor, but i fear it could result in large scale civil disorder or even civil war.

[Zaphod]

It is plain and simple. Sen. McCain doesn't matter this election has already been decided just like 1996.

I wouldn't bet the farm on that, yet...

[bossf51]

Funny how any ex-military man who supports a Democrat gets attacked...I am thinking of Zinni, McCaffrey, Shinseki, Adm. Crowe, Wes Clark, etc. etc. I suppose Admiral Fallon will be the next guy you go after.

The right-wing nutz who go on Fox touting the war while on the Pentagon payroll get a free pass.:eek:

[Zaphod]

Funny how any ex-military man who supports a Democrat gets attacked...I am thinking of Zinni, McCaffrey, Shinseki, Adm. Crowe, Wes Clark, etc. etc. I suppose Admiral Fallon will be the next guy you go after.

If he opens his mouth and says stupid stuff, you're damned right I'll go after him, and considering that casualties are down 80% in Iraq and that 15 of 18 milestones are now showing satisfactory progress, he will be hard-pressed to try and convince anyone that Iraq is the debacle the other clowns claim it is.

The right-wing nutz who go on Fox touting the war while on the Pentagon payroll get a free pass.:eek:

And who are they, considering it's illegal for active-duty military personnel to make political statements under the guise of representing the military?

Oh, and I'm STILL waiting for specific quotes from Rush trashing McCain's service...

[justawife]

Zinni endorsed W 2000. He went to work for the admin. --working in the middle east. He quit, because nobody listened to him in the white house. He said he would never endorse anyone again.

Spouse work for him at CENTCOM. One the smartest Generals my spouse work for, was always thinking 3 steps ahead of any actions. Franks was a bubba, once brought a BBQ brisket to the King of Jordan. It was a joke. Spouse worked some of it. Franks was not a deep thinker, very much rush in get it done then figure it out the plan.

McPeak was not a great General, but many of the endorsers are good people.

[justawife]

I believe the generals being referred to are the ones being given special briefings and tours in Iraq, so they give the pentagon's slant on things.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[bossf51]

Thanks JAW for having my back so to speak.

These are retired generals who remained on a government payroll and posited themsleves as "analysts" on Fixed News and elsewhere.

[bossf51]

I never said that RUSH HIMSELF made these comments...rather the callers to his show. RUSH DID knock McCain on a variety of other issues and even urged people to vote for Hillary at one point :eek:

[Zaphod]

Thanks JAW for having my back so to speak.

These are retired generals who remained on a government payroll and posited themsleves as "analysts" on Fixed News and elsewhere.

If they are retired, then they are not on the government payroll. If they are being hired as consultants, then they have no requirement to keep their opinions to themselves as they are no longer active duty. Besides, are THEY not entitld to THEIR opinion, or is it only leftist moonbat political hacks like Wesley Clark who are permitted to grace us with their wisdom?

I find it laughable that you, a self-confessed journalist, can be critical of people "positing themselves as analysts" when your entire profession has turned into nothing but one big (and almost entirely ONE-sided) analysis churn. It's no longer enough to report what happened; now you have to tell us what to think about it, too. I also find it interesting that you, a self-confessed journalist, can be so blatant about your bias ("Fixed News", et al). At least you're honest about it, although I'd be willing to bet that you consider your work product to be completely UNbiased. :rolleyes:

But I'm not surprised by one thing you've indicated, which proves my earlier point: Liberals are all for free speech, provided they agree with it. Keith Olberman can foam at the mouth about how Bush is the Anti-Christ, but let a retired general appear on the competition of the Communist News Network and offer an opinion not in line with MoveOn.org, and suddenly the very foundations of democracy are in danger.

And HEAVEN FORBID that the Pentagon try to give its "slant" on things, eh? Oh, no! That's propaganda! Only the approved MSM line that America is evil, Iraqi Freedom was an illegal invasion, that our troops are murderers and rapists, and that the entire country is burning into ashes is allowed. Let the Pentagon point out that security is up, violence is down, progress is being made, and that the bulk of the Iraqi people actually want to live in freedom, and somehow that's putting a "slant" on things. :rolleyes:

I never said that RUSH HIMSELF made these comments...rather the callers to his show. RUSH DID knock McCain on a variety of other issues and even urged people to vote for Hillary at one point :eek:

In all the time the debate over McCain has raged, a total of maybe TWO callers have ever said anything even remotely critical of McCain's service, and Rush smacked them down pretty quick (along with numerous subsequent callers). Nice try trying to pass the blame, though. As for the other criticisms of McCain, they were all spot-on.

As for urging people to vote for Hillary, he did that to help ensure that the Democrat primary battle would continue as long as possible, with Clinton and Obama beating the snot out of each other with racist, sexist, and America-hating comments galore. It worked like a charm. Heaven knows that McCain and company aren't going to do it. After all, they agree with a lot of the bilge the other side is spewing! :mad:

If you're going to beat up on Rush and his show, at least listen to the show and know what you're talking about.

[Zaphod]

Interesting article that casts some new light on Wesly Clark. I have only posted the first half of the article because the remainder deals exclusively with Obama, who is not the subject of this thread. I find the part in red to be of particular import to the original topic.

Formed on the Anvil of His Captivity
Tony Blankley - TownHall.com
Wednesday, July 02, 2008

As of today, Sen. Barack Obama is about halfway through his "patriotism theme week" message cycle. As of 2008, Sen. John McCain is about seven-ninths through his patriotism theme life cycle. I guess that is the difference between the new politics and the old patriotism.

The Obama campaign launched its new politics patriotism week last Sunday, with retired Gen. Wes "Speichellecker" Clark smearing John McCain's war record -- even to the point of the former general saying that "riding" in a fighter plane and getting shot down are not qualifications for being president. Well, in fact, McCain wasn't riding, of course. He was the pilot in his 23rd mission over heavily defended enemy territory when he was shot down by a Soviet missile. But when Wes "Camera Hound" Clark goes on a mission, he always aims low.

This is the same Gen. Clark who, while leading the bombing campaign against Serbia from his desk, was reprimanded by President Clinton's secretary of defense, William Cohen, to get his "f------ face off the TV. No more briefings, period. That's it." During that bombing campaign, Gen. Clark didn't even go along for the "ride."

And it is the same general who was removed prematurely from his European command on the following explanation of then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Hugh Sheldon: "The reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues." This is the man who the Obama campaign -- which is above politics as usual -- sent out to smear a genuine war hero. Of course, after 24 hours, Obama disassociated himself from his surrogate's smear attack. This is becoming a pattern of Obama's new politics. Wes Clark is the seventh prominent Obama supporter to disparage Sen. McCain's military service. Obama is beginning to reveal Nixonian political instincts.

But Wes Clark is right. Merely being a war hero is not qualification for the presidency, although it is a hell of a start when compared with those of us who never served in uniform. And the more than five years as a prisoner of war with constant torture that McCain suffered through is also not qualification for being president -- even when compared with Obama's tough seven years of service at Columbia undergraduate and Harvard Law School.

As the Commish said, Clark's comments said more about Clark than about McCain.

[bossf51]

Z believe it or not I am a fairly regular listener of El Rushbo's(see I listen, ha ha). I enjoy some of his commentary and laugh at most of the rest. I may be wrong but he along with Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter and other darlings of the far right at various times stated that they would sooner vote for Hillary than McCain...the thought being that if HRC was elected, the country would go to hell in a handbasket and the "real" Republicans would once again take over. Or did I dream this? :shake: Mr. Snerdly? Are you there? HA HA

[Zaphod]

I may be wrong but he along with Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter and other darlings of the far right at various times stated that they would sooner vote for Hillary than McCain...the thought being that if HRC was elected, the country would go to hell in a handbasket and the "real" Republicans would once again take over. Or did I dream this? :shake:

No, you didn't. I cannot speak for Laura Ingraham, but Ann Coulter has definitely said that she would rather vote for Hillary than McCain, presumably because if you're going to vote for a Liberal, you may as well vote for a REAL liberal as opposed to a part-time one.

Whether that strategy has any merit can definitely be debated, and believe you me it IS HOTLY debated on the other website I frequent which is chock full of both McCain supporters AND detractors.

Some may believe that Ann was exercising some measure of hyperbole. Maybe she was and maybe she wasn't. It doesn't change the fact that her point was clear: McCain is NOT a Conservative. Neither is Bush, for that matter. They are Republicans, with McCain being a part-timer at that.

[bossf51]

OK Z thanks I was hoping I wasn't having a sixties acid flashback(Just kidding folks).

:eek:

[justawife]

I first want to say that I'm an Independent. I look at both sides.

The Generals are on the payroll in a indirect way. They own or are presidents of companys that have contracts with the pentagon. Some feel that "they go with the party line" to protect their $ interest/contracts.

[bossf51]

That's right JAW...it's a conflict of interest...very common in D.C. On both sides of the aisle...they should not hold themselves out there as being "objective" if they are feeding from the government trough.

[Zaphod]

OK Z thanks I was hoping I wasn't having a sixties acid flashback(Just kidding folks).

:eek:

LOL. Nah. Facts are facts. :biggrin:

I first want to say that I'm an Independent. I look at both sides.

Just in case it needs to be said, I have zero issue with anyone evaluating both sides of an argument. In fact, to do otherwise is to make decisions without all the facts, which is foolish.

That said, I have found one side to be almost always wrong, and the other side to be almost always right. I make no apologies for thinking so.

It may surprise you that I used to be QUITE liberal in my views. :eek:

Some feel that "they go with the party line" to protect their $ interest/contracts.

Well, that's business, for you. Were I they, I would keep my mouth shut and offer the services for which I am being paid rather than trying to get my name out there. Companies that mix business and politics (especially those whose business itself has nothing to do with politics) are simply practicing bad business. If I were a restaurant owner, for example, I would cater to anyone who liked my food and paid me for it. I wouldn't be out making political statements and thus alienating X% of my customer base. Not smart!

[The Commissioner]

Liberals are all for free speech, provided they agree with it. Keith Olberman can foam at the mouth about how Bush is the Anti-Christ, but let a retired general appear on the competition of the Communist News Network and offer an opinion not in line with MoveOn.org, and suddenly the very foundations of democracy are in danger.


Sig line potential right there.

[justawife]

I tend to believe that are grains of truth in most peoples arguments-- Both sides.

People spin so much that the facts get lost.
McCain has stated tha Obama's tax plan will raise taxes, but a non partisan group did an analysis of both of their tax plans and found that +85% would pay less with Obama. Even though we are very upper middle class, I would receive a larger tax cut under Obama's plan. That surprised me.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411693

So yes he will raise taxes but a majority of people would not see it. The grain of truth is there.

Obama says that McCain will offer tax cuts to the rich. In the Analysis it showed that lower incomes will receive a tax cut, but the amount of money upper tax brackets is much higher.

McCain's tax plan will give tax cuts to the rich, the grain of truth is there.

[Zaphod]

So yes he will raise taxes but a majority of people would not see it. The grain of truth is there.

Unfortunately, the people who would see it are the ones who use their money to create jobs through spending and investments.

McCain's tax plan will give tax cuts to the rich, the grain of truth is there.

Suits me. They already pay an ungodly disproportionate percentage of taxes, especially in relation to the benefits they reap from them. The same can't be said for the bottom of the ladder.

[The Commissioner]

McCain has stated tha Obama's tax plan will raise taxes, but a non partisan group did an analysis of both of their tax plans and found that +85% would pay less with Obama. Even though we are very upper middle class, I would receive a larger tax cut under Obama's plan. That surprised me.


I don't know that "Obama's tax plan" will raise taxes. But the proposals in his campaign speeches, which sound like a letter to Santa Claus from every liberal special interest constituency out there, will cost a lot money if implemented. The amount of non-entitlement 'discretionary' dollars available, as a percent of total tax revenues, is likely to decrease now that the baby boomers are starting to retire and the economy is slowing down. Where Obama plans on getting the money doesn't give much comfort to this Dad whose son is heading down the road of a military career. Let's hope the 'peace dividend' that Obama will have to tap is won by the military, not by liberals in Congress.

[Luigi59]

No society has ever taxed its way into prosperity.

[Just_A_Mom]

I just want to add that I think it is pretty awesome that John McCain got those hostages freed in Columbia. Finally! Isn't that Reaganesque?
Makes me want to vote for him. :wink:

[USA321]

Can I just say that the generals remarks are absurd. Yes, people can argue that by serving in the United States military that doesn't make you qualified to serve, which I can not argue. Not every soldier, sailor, or airman has the experience to be a political leader of such prestige and importance. The fact of being an Armed Service member just shows a dedication to your country and to do what is right. And frankly, his military career which included the USNA, being shot down in Vietnam, and being a POW qualify the Senator to know the cost of war. And frankly I would prefer a man who knows the true meaning of war to lead during a time of war. Further more, coupled together with his military career, he has spent two terms in the United States congress, and 4 terms in the United States Senate. That is well over 20 years of political leadership and experience. So I think the General's remarks were uncalled for and totally unwarranted. The man did his job in Vietnam and to try and discredit his service is appalling.

[wpmom2011]

usa321 -

Here, here! I've been reading this thread for days, and you've just written beautifully what I've been thinking for days.

[ds52262]

The reason I made the original post was the great exception I take to Gen. Clarks use of his uniformed status to advance his personal politics. He stopped being a servicemember years ago and became a politician years before taking the uniform off.

I dont like McCain and cannot in good concience vote for him, but I will not stand by while someone like Gen Clark attempts to discredit him. As I said before I served under his command and found him to be a contemptable human being. That said he was a General and I was a simple Sergeant, I respected the rank not the man.

As for the rest of the noise around the topic it is the Democrats year and they intend to punish the opposition. If you do not follow their line they will make an example of you. There language of unity and bringing the country together does not match up with the angry words like (Right Wing Lunatics). I saw a book today at Barnes and Noble titled "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" I believe that speaks volumes.