Wesley Clark boldly goes where few have gone before

Perhaps because of the four stars on his shoulder, retired Gen. Wesley Clark is bolder than most when it comes to criticizing John McCain’s efforts to connect his military experience with his presidential qualifications. Indeed, Clark has been pretty tough in pushing back against the Republican nominee’s pitch.

Clark, for example, spoke with the Huffington Post a few weeks ago, and was unrelenting in his criticism. “I know he’s trying to get traction by seeking to play to what he thinks is his strong suit of national security,” Clark said. “The truth is that, in national security terms, he’s largely untested and untried. He’s never been responsible for policy formulation. He’s never had leadership in a crisis, or in anything larger than his own element on an aircraft carrier or [in managing] his own congressional staff. It’s not clear that this is going to be the strong suit that he thinks it is.”

Two weeks ago, Clark did it again on MSNBC. When the on-air media personalities noted that Obama, like McCain, has not been in a position to make leadership positions in a military context, Clark responded with the obvious point — Obama’s not the one making the claim.

Yesterday, on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Clark was just as emphatic.

“In the matters of national security policy making, it’s a matter of understanding risk,” Clark said. “It’s a matter of gauging your opponents and it’s a matter of being held accountable. John McCain’s never done any of that in his official positions. 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…. 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,” Clark said. “That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn’t a wartime squadron.”

Host Bob Schieffer noted that Obama hadn’t ridden in a fighter plane and been shot down. “Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president,” Clark replied.

It’s not especially surprising that Clark’s remarks aren’t going over well on the right. Several conservative bloggers have the outrage meter turned up to 11, and the McCain campaign issued a statement accusing the Obama campaign of wanting to “question John McCain’s military service,” and allowing Obama’s campaign surrogates “to demean and attack John McCain’s military service record.”

This morning on MSNBC, Mika Brezinski and Andrea Mitchell admonished Clark, insisting that his remarks weren’t “fair.” Yesterday, CNN’s Rick Sanchez accused Clark of trying to “Swiftboat” McCain.

I can appreciate the fact that Clark’s comments might seem intemperate, but the reaction is more than a little over the top.

First, there are no similarities between Clark’s remarks and the Swiftboat attacks. Clark never said, and wouldn’t say, that McCain lied about his service, or won medals he hadn’t earned.

Second, did Clark say anything that was, you know, false? To be sure, McCain served heroically, and endured torture and abuse that I can hardly imagine as a POW. The nation will always owe him a debt of gratitude for what he endured. But Clark’s point is that this service, four decades ago, does not necessarily constitute a presidential qualification today. We don’t hear that often, but that doesn’t make it outrageous.

Indeed, perhaps the most striking thing about Clark’s interview was Schieffer’s reaction when Clark dared to suggest that McCain’s experience during the war in Vietnam were heroic, but not entirely relevant to the presidential campaign. Clark got the same reaction a couple of weeks ago on MSNBC. No one, under any circumstances, is supposed to question what McCain perceives as his greatest strength. And when someone falls out of line, the media seems outraged.

I suspect this will be a major topic of conversation today, and the Obama campaign will be pressed to respond. Stay tuned.

No—they’re demeaning John McCain’s attempts at using his POW record as a cloak of his wartime/peacetime malfeasance. Deceitful subterfuge, by any other name, is still deceitful subterfuge. And as for his POW record, let me use McCain’s own words on that one:

“I really don’t think that matters.”

  • I hope Clark brought up some of the really stupid things McCain has said about military matters, rather than just saying what you outlined above. There are plenty of examples of McCain revealing that he earned his near-last place in his graduating class. I’m thinking “unarmed humvees”, Iran “training al Qaeda”, and speaking about future troop reductions in the past tense. McCain is a dim bulb, and it will really help if we can get the public to see that by reminding them early and often about the boatload of stupid things he has said (sometimes repeatedly).

  • Honestly, I’m suprised that Gen. Clark still gets on these shows. Usually, when someone questions or refutes the common theme on which the Corp Media has decided, they no longer get any airtime.
    Think about how Scott Ritter formerly appeared on air, but disappeared in the run-up to the Iraqi invasion.
    Perhaps not the best comparison, as Gen Clark was extremely well established as an on-air commentator, and his late 2004 run to be the Presidential candidate could have put him in a “can’t ignore” category.

  • I have a feeling Wes Clark isn’t going to whither before Andrea Mitchell. I hope he keeps it up. Simply putting John McCain on the defensive over military and security matters is a big plus. It will come down to an argument of ideas and concepts not some “free ride” based on bad luck.

  • Yahoo for Clark!!! Just the fact that all of these pundits change the subject from what was said to what they are saying he said proves that this is a winning note. They all pounced on the suggestion that Clark is implying McAce wasn’t a war hero. He was. He has repeated that notion each time he has been challenged. He’s saying that being shot down in a war doesn’t qualify you for dog catcher must less President. UNLESS you are running for Prisoner of War of the United States, something Obama doesn’t have any experience with, the attempts to create an aura of superiority for McAce on national Security is bogus. The pundits know this too. Their bosses won’t allow them to agree with clark. Period.

    By the way where were these as hole pundits when kerry was swiftboated? I saw no outrage other than from surrogates for Kerry. The Democratic senators didn’t even scream bloody murder, or if they did, the Free Liberal Press didn’t pick up on it. The lack of outrage at those GOP conventioneers wearing purple heart ban aids was nauseating…

  • Steve,

    earlier I read a posting suggesting Mccain killed a number of people during a stunt he tried while taking off on an aircraft carrier. Is that true?I went to FactCheck.org and couldn’t find anything. can you help?

  • Stevio, I checked that story and am inclined to think it’s bullshit, or, at the very least, exaggeration.This surprisingly literate and civilized USENET discussion links to a video that seems to show that McCain’s jet could not have ignited the one behind it.

    McCain may have been an immature asshole who deliberately caused a “wet start”, or it could have been an error, but I don’t think he bears responsibility for this disaster.

  • Being a Navy pilot does not make McCain an expert on all things military any more than my year in the Mekong Delta makes me one.
    Moreover, both McCain’s service and mine were decades ago. People change over time, hopefully for the better, but we do change. McCain’s behavior during his internment by the (then) North Vietnamese is not a lifetime guarantee that he will always act in a scrupulously high-minded way any more than the fact that I faced the enemy in stand-up firefights is a guarantee that I’ll always be courageous and cool headed. Subsequent experience has shown me that.
    The Republican’s sudden discovery of the virtue of serving in Vietnam sets the gold standard for hypocrisy after the way they downplayed Gore’s service there, lied about Kerry’s and trashed Max Cleland.

  • “I can appreciate the fact that Clark’s comments might seem intemperate…”

    I disagree. Perhaps surprising, because we’re not used to hearing the truth, but not intemperate. Clark was quite evenhanded, giving credit where credit was due, but also being frank and realistic. I found it extremely refreshing. O course I don’t expect to hear much more of it, because the Democrats and MSM will freak–the Dems because they don’t want to hurt an opponent’s feelings, and the MSM because this conflicts with the simplistic scenario they’ve invented and are pushing.

  • Watching the show yesterday I had to laugh at Bob Schieffer’s reaction to Clark’s statement: “Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.”

    Old Bob was flat out flabbergasted. He tried to interject, “are you SURE about that?” But Clark skillfully ignored him and continued. I think that’s the best strategy to deal with tired old men like McCain or Schieffer. Ignore them and continue, leave them gumming their dentures and muttering about the good old days of war and glory.

  • I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.”

    But it sure is a good qualification to become a POW!

  • Breaking: McCain camp responds to Gen. Clark – Retired Adm. Leighton Smith (McCain campaign press release):

    “If Barack Obama wants to question John McCain’s service to his country, he should have the guts to do it himself and not hide behind his campaign surrogates.”

    Should be interesting to see how Obama responds – I would suggest Obama can basically (a) praise Gen. Clark and list his bio of leadership, and (b) note that to say Gen. Clark “questioned McCain’s service” would be a not accurate.

  • For crying out loud, in 2004, when running an Air National Guard deserter against Navy Cross recipient John Kerry, the GOP agreed — if not insisted — that military service — even heroic military service — didn’t qualify one to be President!

  • And I suppose that Keating Five doesn’t qualify McCain for chief law enforcement officer. Or that a messy divorce doesn’t make him a moral authority. Can we at least agree that singing on SNL qualifies him to be a diva?

  • Clark merely wants the MSM to check its math: Mitchell et al. have been adding McCain’s numbers for him (2+2=5), and Clark is trying to get the MSM to the correct value 4. I hope the Honorable General knows he’s working with idiots! -Kevo

  • Mika Brezinski and Andrea Mitchell worrying about “fair” are like a pair of Nazis worrying about “justice.”

    They’re both Republican hacks. In Mitchell’s case, she gets nightly practice in giving Republicans bj’s.

  • 1 question, since when is it the news “reporters” job to admonish anyone? Hurray !! for Wesley Clark, to bad the Dems in congress do not have 1/2 the spine he has!
    Can anyone spell immunity for the TelComs?

  • I love getting lectures on honoring military service from the folks who brought us the “purple heart band-aid.”

  • I watched Face the Nation live yesterday and Bob Schieffer was specifically implying that flying a fighter and getting shot down in some way made McCain more likely to become a good President. Wesley Clark responded that it was largely irrelevent as a qualification. I think Schieffer’s remark is the one that deserves rebuke. It was a ridiculous statement on his part.

    Republican Congressman Duke Cunningham was a vastly superior fighter pilot in Vietnam than John McCain becoming the first Ace of the war.

    Where is Duke Cunningham right now? Sitting in prison for taking bribes as a congressman.

    George H. W. Bush was trained as a pilot, was shot down and then had a largely ineffective presidency.

    George W. Bush was trained as a jet fighter pilot and he’s the consensus choice for the most incompetent president in American history.

    Does being a jet fighter pilot in fact qualify you to be a corrupt, ineffective and incompetent politician? There is at least history to support that conclusion but to tell you the truth, I think it is probably irrelevent to your qualifications as a politician and leader.

    Just what Wesley Clark said.

  • Clark was right….!!!!!!!

    McCain walks around like he is the only one fit for the White House because he served this country decades ago in the military. We have had a less than intelligent president with less than intelligent policies for the past 7 years. We need a thinker and great diplomat in the white house.

    Wes Clark was stating the facts. We should not base our vote on whether or not a person served in the military, carries a gun, or could we drink a beer with them. As you know most of our friends would not make a good president and I am certain if you look at these candidates it is clear that McCain and his ideals are from a time far ago. It is time to move forward and step into the future..

  • MaryL says: “Stevio, I checked that story and am inclined to think it’s bullshit, or, at the very least, exaggeration.This surprisingly literate and civilized USENET discussion links to a video that seems to show that McCain’s jet could not have ignited the one behind it.”

    The video you link to shows the fire after it started and it shows nothing that could disprove any cause. The USENET discussion basically has one guy saying “Unh uh!” There is nothing to suggest McCain could not have been the cause, as many more people believe.

    McCain was known for being a hot dog and wet starting an engine would certainly be the type of prank he would probably have played back then. Bombs do not just go off by themselves, and crews dealing with munitions are very careful and have established routines. Somebody did something. Many people believe McCain was that somebody.

  • Clark has again proven what a clot he is. Typically Donk in his pontificating. This man rose far too high in the military and was considered by all his contemporaries to have been punching above his weight for the last 5 years of his service. Sensible peopleg ive his opinion little weight.

  • The thing that completely baffles me about these kinds of issues is how on earth the “other” side is brought over into a more realistic stance.

    I mean in very practical terms.

    We can go on about how ridiculous the pundits and hosts may be, we can go on about how evil the Republican operatives are, and we can go on about how ignorant, shallow, and blindly partisan anyone believing that somehow McCain’s service is being attacked here – but to what end?.

    The problem, to my way of thinking, is how, as American citizens, do we bridge the “perception/awareness/knowledge” gap?

    Firmly planting our heels into “our” respective soil, regardless of which side we are positioned, doesn’t get any of us nearer to the other.

    Clearly both candidates have pluses and minuses, strengths and weaknesses, and still the parsing, spinning, and accusations keep going back and forth – they’re wrong, no they’re wrong, no I’m right, no I’m right.

    In the end, like in WW1, little ground is gained, carnage is abundant, and there seems to be in end in sight.

    Anyone have any thoughts? It’s a sincere question looking for sincere insight, not just more flaming of people who we see as being wrong.

  • Amen. Getting your plane shot out of the sky (failing your mission) and then becoming a POW does not make you a “hero”. Taking the abuse he did is a true test of survival and heroic, but has NOTHING to do with military knowledge beyond the most basic level. That was over 40 years ago. Since he left the Navy, he and Oboma have about the same level of “military experience” Tell it like it is Gen. Clark.

  • Right and McBush, the corporate media invented ‘foreign policy expert’ , is the same McBush who asserted and claimed that the Iraq war would be over in six to seven months, that we would be greeted as ‘liberators’ ala Dick Cheney, and who utterly supported and promoted Chalabi as the one to take over Iraq for us. The same McBush who had access to all the intelligence that actually stated the opposite of what the Shit-Stain-In-Chief, Bush said about all the conjured up lies about ‘mushroom clouds’ equaling the ‘intelligence’ of Sadam having the wmd’s and all that crap: the State Departments own intelligence that refuted it all. Yet McBush pretended this did not exist. Yep a true foreign policy expert he is. And, by the way, how does a true ‘war hero’ make a propaganda film for the enemy like McBush did ? And how come McBush refuses to release his whole milatary records ? And how come the CORPORATE MEDIA, i should say the CORPORATE MAFIA, does not question this ? or insist that all of his records be released as they did about Kerry, foam coming from their collective rapid mouths then ? The Corporate Media/Mafia is a criminal enterprise committed to issuing lies and propaganda, fraud, to the American people in order to benefit the Corporations themselves. That is called Fascism.

  • Schieffer went on to ask what Obama’s executive credentials were and Wes Clark stated that Obama is running on his judgment and character. Obama has no executive experience to run on.

    Isn’t some military experience, of any kind, better than no military experience? Of course it is. That’s why pretending that this is about “executive” experience and not military experience in general is misleading. Wes Clark took a cheap shot in order to neutralize McCain’s advantage in military service, right before the 4th of July holiday.

    Knocking McCain’s military experience in no way builds up Obama’s military or executive experience (he has none). Given that it does not build up Obama, the sole purpose of Clark’s comment is to knock down McCain. That apparently is the kind of election campaign being run — a person’s military service is being knocked for no other reason than that the other candidate has no equivalent experience. That is the essence of the swiftboating done to John Kerry — the denigration of the other guy’s strength, not the fact that the swiftboaters told lies in order to attack Kerry. The swiftboaters made their attack to neutralize the facts about Bush’s evasion of military service, just as Wes Clark is providing cover for Obama’s lack of service. The motive is the same. The swiftboating was shameful because the brave service of a Vietnam vet was made an ugly campaign issue. Obama is now doing the same thing.

    I don’t like this kind of attack. I agree with those who feel that it denigrates the service of all of our vets to denigrate the service of any of them. McCain’s service as a POW should be respected because it was long, involuntary and horrific. Short of death and disability, McCain endured the nightmare feared by those who fight. His imprisonment embodied the jeopardy that all Vietnam vets placed themselves in by serving. Clark complains that McCain’s military experience was not “executive,” that McCain gave no orders to drop bombs, but he ignores that the experience of being in the military gives other knowledge, has other value, especially in terms of building the kind of character and judgment Clark touts in Obama. Obama has no military service so he missed a bunch of experiences, not solely executive in nature. Of course McCain talks about it. He lived it and he owns it.

    Obama needs to let this one go because he alienates a lot of military folks by pursuing it — even when he does it through someone like Wes Clark who wears a uniform. Further, it is unlikely Wes Clark will have any chance of running for the presidency himself again, or being a VP candidate, because he has now sacrificed his own good name on the alter of Obama’s candidacy. The people he attracts because of his uniform will be repelled by this comment which disrespects the wartime service of another vet.

    Elsewhere, TPM wonders why Obama is not running ads the way McCain’s campaign is doing. I believe that Obama is having more trouble with his fundraising than the campaign is letting on. I doubt the Hillary folks are coming through with donations and I believe he does not wish to spend money freely until he has some idea of what his future cash flow is going to be. Perhaps his own supporters are a bit tapped out, or maybe the FISA compromise hurt him. Whatever the reason, I think he is struggling and that is why he is using an inflammatory attack on McCain to grab news coverage (the tactic you use when you don’t run ads). A speech in Independence MO on patriotism isn’t going to walk this back for him, in my opinion. McCain may be running a lot of ads right now to prevent the perception in the polls of an Obama tidal wave, of the sort that did Clinton in right after Super Tuesday. If he can stay even in the polls, he will look more like a viable candidate and that will bring in future donations and support. Obama needs to counter this, but he is not doing so effectively.

    Obama had a problem with his perceived patriotism. Now it is worse. How smart was that? I don’t think this sort of campaign tactic says anything good about his character or his judgment. In fact, it is highly consistent with calling his granny a bigot in order to get the Wright fiasco off his back. And you ask why I don’t like the guy!

  • Although I will vote for Obama, I disagree with the timing of Clark’s input, and the McCain campaign has a slam-dunk opportunity to respond effectively. Obama and the DNC need to get organized and quiet all these sloppy statements from loosely and closely associated people.

    While Clark’s comments are sensible and easily arguable, they are poorly timed and poorly thought out – particularly in light of the recent thinking point on arrogance that is being injected into the mindless and mis-informed demographic. As we know, this demographic is large and fat, as evidenced by their fearless leader driving our bus for the last 8 years (sailor boy outfit and lollipop in mouth). One has to assume that if there is any calculation behind Clark’s comments, it is to get the “hero suitability” stuff out of the way and get to the real issues. If not, it is a fat pitch for the McCain campgain to knock out of the park and chant “hypocrisy” as we watch the ball fly over the “media networks” for the next few days.

    I’d much rather see someone that is uncomfortable or impossible to associate with Obama comment – like Chuck Hagel. Or perhaps George Carlin… who said that if God did not want us to *****b@te, he would have made us with shorter arms. Clearly McCain is not one of God’s creatures in this respect.

  • In fact, it is highly consistent with calling his granny a bigot in order to get the Wright fiasco off his back.

    Wasn’t it only yesterday Mary was claiming she has nothing against Obama except his lack of experience?

  • While Clark has waded into uncertain territory with this remark, I think it raises a good point. Despite the prevailing narrative that McCain has the advantage in issues of foreign policy and national security, I find some of his ideas rather kooky. The League of Democracies, for example, promises to be all of the decision-making paralysis of NATO and twice the disappointment.

    Moreover, the Bomb Iran/Barbara Anne gaffe indicates to me a certain immaturity and ignorance of the consequences of his actions in the media spotlight. As a US Presidential candidate, he must realize that he is a subject of scrutiny not just for the electorate of the US, but of nations around the world. No doubt, the Iranian regime’s paranoia is only increased by the prospect of a President so flippant about employing military force against them.

    To be fair, the substance of Obama’s foreign policy usually puts me off as well, but his more conciliatory language bodes well for more peace and international cooperation should he achieve the presidency. His inexperience, I think, is balanced out by the strengths of his advisers, who should be subject to as much or more scrutiny than the candidates (regarding their policy positions and experience, not their personal lives).

  • Mary, Mary, Mary, there is just no pleasing you when it comes to Obama…you say ..” a person’s military service is being knocked for no other reason than that the other candidate has no equivalent experience. That is the essence of the swiftboating done to John Kerry —”…no, the essence of the swiftboating were the lies stating that his entire military experience were a lie, a vast conspiracy by the military itself. Big difference…simply stating facts that this is not in and of itself qualifications for leadership is politics at it’s best or worst.

    ..”Clark complains that McCain’s military experience was not “executive,” that McCain gave no orders to drop bombs, but he ignores that the experience of being in the military gives other knowledge, has other value, especially in terms of building the kind of character and judgment Clark touts in Obama.”..couldn’t the same be said of community organizer?

    How many points you shooting for today?

  • EJ:

    You are seeking solutions while the R and D sides, and especially the Rethugs, seek to maintain control via subterfuge.

    By maintaining a perpetual propaganda war that is dripping with heavy-handed rhetoric, the masters keep the plebes occupied at the ringside of the Colosseum and, thus, the status quo remains.

    I, too, would like to see our country and countrymen move forward, and that is why I place so much hope in our country’s future thru Obama. He is not the end-all, but he does seem to honestly want to move the conversation intelligently and judiciously forward.

  • This is so stupid. Wesley Clark’s comments agianst McCain would be more applicable to Barack Obama!

    How can any comment he made agianst McCain not also apply to Obama two fold? Clark’s arguement makes me wonder if he has not lost touch with his sanity!

    Using Clark’s logic, McCain may not be qualified to be President, but Obama is not even qualfied to be dog catcher! How many millions of dollars of equipment did McCain command? How often did McCain get placed in situations were he could have been killed? Obama did what, the Harvard Newsletter? Took the risk of a paper cut?

    So McCain being in the military is not good foreign policy experience, but Obama being in the 8th grade in Indonesia is!

    Thinking like that is scary. It borders on mental illness.

  • During the war in Bosnia:

    General Clark would have started World War 3 because he wanted to confront the Russian Troops over the Pristina airport.

    His plan was blocked by General Sir Mike Jackson, K-For’s British Commander. Who stated, “”I’m not going to start the Third World War for you.”

    General Clark then was (fired) removed from command.

  • Using Clark’s logic, McCain may not be qualified to be President, but Obama is not even qualfied to be dog catcher!

    No, that’s your own peculiar logic, but it’s not Clark’s.

    Clark is saying that McCain’s military service is irrelevant to the question of whether or not he’d make for a good president. Likewise, he’s saying that Obama’s lack of military service is irrelevant to the question of whether or not he’d make for a good president.

    This is a fairly simple idea and fairly uncontroversial. If you disagree so vehemently, tell me just exactly what lessons McCain learned in a POW camp that are applicable to the duties of the Oval Office?

  • You people forget one important thing….Senator McCain has been a Senator a lot longer than Obama….I say no more

  • Thinking like that is scary. It borders on mental illness.

    Judging from the nonsense you’re writing, it sounds like you speak from experience.

  • How can any comment he made agianst McCain not also apply to Obama two fold? Clark’s arguement makes me wonder if he has not lost touch with his sanity!

    This is the type of argument being utilized by the right. Clark stated that being shot down does not qualify one for being President. He is not saying that it makes him unqualified. Just like Obama’s lack of military experience does not qualify him, neither does this.

    The only difference is, as Clark stated, McCain is claiming that being a POW makes him uniquely qualified, which it does not.

    Overall I find these comments very refreshing. They give the respect to the service John McCain gave and recognizing him as a hero, but at the same time acknowledging that heroic service does not necessarily translate to leadership capabilities.

  • i think this is a strange statement coming from Clark of all people. his service as NATO commander lacked a lot to be desired, not to mention his targeting of civilian institutions in Serbia. cluster bombs in a market, a passenger train, bridges, infrastucture,,,all against U.N. mandate. i simply can’t take his word seriously as a military commander.

  • Good for Clark. The press believes that McCain’s military service gives him a blank check and a free pass for all things to do with foreign policy, and keep turning a blind eye to his many mistakes, his many errors, and his countless flipflops and inconsistencies on these issues. They need to be called out for it, and now, before it’s too late.

    Yes, he served honorably. That entitles him to our respect, but that doesn’t entitle him to a free pass.

  • Dumb move. But this arguing over who said what and who did what, who’s morally superior, who’s got more character and judgement… all a waste of time.

    2 points: 1. This is a political campaign in a fickle, rich, and relatively dumb country. 2. We are in enmeshed in circumstances that make it difficult to decipher the best course of action – change course on our current policy, try to manage our current policy, or pursue our current policy. That’s it. That’s the election.

    When you consider these 2 points, it boils down to understanding our realities, our countrymen (especially the dumb, the fanatical, the loud, the frantically outraged, and the morally spazmotic), and most importantly, our children – then making a choice. Allowing the inevitable pettiness and high school president mentality to affect our thinking and perceptions is a waste of time and energy.

    Most intelligent people have already made their choice – it’s the remaining undecided moderate intelligence that the Obama campaign better start acknowleding. A few ham bones on regular guy nonsense would be nice for the morons as well. Win the moderately intelligent undecideds and a good amount of the lemmings will follow.

  • It’s not just the fact that McCain’s plane was shot down, resulting in McCain spending 5 years in a prison camp … it’s the fact that McCain, being the son of an Admiral, could have gotten early release … but, being a man of ‘real character’, McCain chose to spend addition years as a prisoner, in order to be fair to his fellow prisoners. This depth of character, honor, and commitment to America is what separates John McCain by a country mile from weak men, who are all talk, like Barrack Obama, or Wesley Clark.

  • This is why I want Clark as veep.
    He won’t back down. He can attack with power.
    The Stars and Service give sharpness to his bite.
    His comments sink deep…

    I am sick of playing defense.
    Clark is instant offense that knocks the repugs back…
    He has got Barack’s back…

    Obama/Clark is an unbeatable ticket.

  • Heather, no one is saying that Obama has any military experience. Hes never been in the military never gone to war none of that. I don’t much blame him. To see all the veterans around now, homeless, injured, suffering from PDS and killing themselves, I personally want no part in that. Instead Obama furthered his education. All we are saying and I believe i speak for everyone when I say this, is that McCain’s military experience does not qualify him for being the president. It doesn’t with anyone, Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative. “So McCain being in the military is not good foreign policy experience…” no, its not. I don’t get how being in the military to kill people in other countries is good “foreign experience”

  • Now this is courage – calling out John McCain on his holier than thou military record – or now we see – lack of one. I did not know any of this until Wes Clark said it- How come no one has been so clear and precise on McCain’s military record. Someone needs to ask McCain straight up: what battles did you command? What armies did you command? How many men in wartime did you command? If its just that plane ride and a POW stay – not diminishing its dramatic and painful reality – but like Wes says – how does that qualify you to be President? Get out the swift boats, boys, it’s gonna be a bumpy ride to November. Good going Wes. We need to hear more on this so people can not be clouded with McCain’s arrogance on his alleged military record and what it really consists of.

  • About two weeks ago I said the same thing on the blog but nobody listened to me because I am not a 4 Star General. What I said was piloting a plane and bombing is no qualification for Foreign Policy experts. It does not qualify anybody to work at State Department. I added also that there are many people in the army today who has no clue about foreign affairs. Most of them did not know where Iraq was or could not even pronounce the name right until they were shipped to Iraq to kill the innocent. Where did Mccain obtain her expertise in Foreign policy, in the plane in the air or at the hosptial in Vietnam. Kerry knows far better than him and Bush but Conservatives distorted his achievements. General Clark thanks your truthfulness and boldness. A soldier among soldiers. Thank you. Obama continue to have good judgement and not stupidity of airplane, bombs and foreign policy.

  • I find it interesting that Wesly Clark would put down John McCain’s military leadership abilities when Wesly Clark made such a disaster of the Vietnam war with his poor leadership. General Clark was in command of the Vietnam war and that war goes down in history as the most diastous war in my life time. We lost over 58,000 military in that war under his leadership and he dare judge McCain.
    The President Kenndy and Johnson Vietnam war was far more costly than the Iraq war will ever be and I don’t see any news media addressing that fact. Instead they use people with inadept military backgrounds to critize those with outstanding military leadership background on national television. What a farce!

  • I find it interesting that Wesly Clark would put down John McCain’s military leadership abilities when Wesly Clark made such a disaster of the Vietnam war with his poor leadership. General Clark was in command of the Vietnam war and that war goes down in history as the most diastous war in my life time. We lost over 58,000 military in that war under his leadership and he dare judge McCain.
    The President Kenndy and Johnson Vietnam war was far more costly than the Iraq war will ever be and I don’t see any news media addressing that fact. Instead they use people with inadept military backgrounds to critize those with outstanding military leadership background on national television. What a farce!

  • John McCain is old school, along with Don Rumsfeld and Dick Chenney all of whom believe America can still muscle its way around the world with tough talk and military threat. Electing McCain is like making Rumsfeld the President because of his millitary experience. Remember ‘SHOCK AND AWE’ anyone?

  • If you look at other countries around the world you will see that some are ruled by guys wearing military uniforms – Cuba, Venezuela, Pakistan, former Iraq, and others that are ruled by intellectuals and businessmen. Which is it to be for the US?

  • I love hearing the GOP use the term “swiftboating” as though is were a bad thing. Buttwipes.

  • Clark alleges that McCain doesn’t have the military experience to be commander in chief, well then Obama has even less. He never served and has only been in publis ofgfice a short time… Clark is losta nd only attempting to make a name for himself. Maybe as Obama’s VP???

  • My dad’s ship made 13 crossings of the English Channel on D-Day. He was shot at, and he shot back. He saw ships sunk by enemy mines. The ship later took part in the Southern invasion of France, again under enemy fire. Later on, his ship went to the Pacific Theater where he became ill and was hospitalized on Guam. He was flown to Hawaii. During the flight, the plane nearly crashed from unknown causes. After he recovered, he spent the remaining 14 months of the war on Pearl Harbor at the airfield. He’s a proud American. Does this quailify him for President?

  • General Clark was in command of the Vietnam war and that war goes down in history as the most diastous war in my life time.

    Uh, no, Wes Clark was not “in command” of the Vietnam War. He was a captain during the war, and was shot several times, but he wasn’t “in command.” Care to try again?

  • Leonard –

    Your statements regarding Wesley Clark are misleading. He did not command the US military efforts in Vietnam. He was a combat commander of a single company during that war, I hardly think the failures of the whole thing can be chalked up to him.

    Attempts to impugn Mr. Clark’s military record, whether they are accurate in their allegations or not, are utterly irrelevant to the substance of his claim: John McCain’s experience as a pilot and POW do not make him a foreign policy expert. McCain and his supporters must address that claim, and make clear why he is a “foreign policy expert,” rather than trying to attack Wesley Clark’s credibility.

    Caldy –

    I think what you’ve said is a little alarmist. Plenty of US presidents have been ex-military, and we haven’t taken the path of junta yet. I highly doubt that a McCain presidency would result in nationwide martial law. It’s as preposterous as the idea that JFK would defer to the Pope because he was Roman Catholic.

  • And everyone thinks Obama will be able to get us out of this war honorably, yeah right, what does he know about foriegn policy? And Obama is going to reinvent the Government, yeah right, he will say what ever it takes to get elected? Clinton had his chance to get Bin Laden and failed, now he is all defensive about it.

    Tyhe democrats will end up giving this country away

  • Airborne to Leonard Bynum, Clark now had the expertise to make these types of calls… I was embarrased to be in the same Army as Clark

  • And everyone thinks Obama will be able to get us out of this war honorably, yeah right, what does he know about foriegn policy? And Obama is going to reinvent the Government, yeah right, he will say what ever it takes to get elected? Clinton had his chance to get Bin Laden and failed, now he is all defensive about it.

    Tyhe democrats will end up giving this country away

    Better trolls please?

  • It is funny to that Clark questions the military leadership qualities of a person when his candidate ( Mr. Obama) has never even had a real job in his life.

  • Not to diminish John McCain’s wartime experience and heroism. Having been a POW is a horrible experience I’m sure. However, I am from a military family, and I grew up in neighborhood with everyday men from World War II. These men did extraordinary things when called by their country. My uncle, a Navy pilot, had just flown off the Langley when it was sunk by the Japanese. (For those who do not know the story of the Langley, look it up). My uncle had also been a POW in World War II in the Philippines, escaped the prison living in the jungles, eating frogs and lizards. He was in a plane that shot down by the Japanese. He survived for several days, injured, in a life raft in the Pacific Ocean. He went on to fly missions in Korea, China, and Vietnam. He flew some of the last missions in Vietnam. He is now buried in Arlington National Cemetery. When I was growing up, my next door neighbor had served under General Patton during World War II. He was in the Battle of the Bulge (look it up). He called himself one of “Patton’s Boys”. My husband was in Vietnam and had a gun barrel shoved in his mouth by the enemy. To this day, he says, “Why he didn’t pull the trigger, I’ll never know.” He sometimes still has nightmares, although not as often as when we first married 30 years ago. OK, we get it. McCain is a war hero, but I would venture to guess many American families have stories like mine.

  • Wasn’t it General Westmoreland in command during Vietnam? I remember seeing at an airfield once. My family was Navy and flyers. My uncle learned he was at the airfield, we all went there to see him.

  • WackoAE: A requirement for military service would immediately disqualify about half the American population from a presidential run.

    You know? Women?

  • Gen. Clark is right. I’m sorry for all that Mr. McCain went through as a POW, and I am grateful as a citizen of the USA; however that doesn’t make him a presidential candidate. I think Mr. McCain would do better to just talk the facts on NOW and how he intends to fix them. The problem is he doesn’t have an opinion or the knowledge on issues unless he relies on Bush’s knowledge and the way he handles things…..and we all know what history is going to say about those things.

  • Contrary to the McCain camp propaganda. Wes Clark did not attack McCain’s millitary service. He answered a simple question, which applies both to McCain, Obama and every other American seeking to become President. Serving in the millitary does not make you a better candidate for President. Otherwise John Kerry would have been elected. GW Bush never did serve. This does not deserve a response from the Obama camp.

  • If a McCain Supporter can call Obama, John Kerry with a tan. Gen Wes Clarke is entitled to his opinion. Yeah you could call the John Mcain of almost 40 years a brave and courageous man, who served his country, and deserves all the respect and accolades that those action deserve. However, that was almost 40 years ago and he is not the same man, it impossible for him to be. Events leave marks on us, they change us, but time has a way of altering how we view things, even when we look at them with 40 years of hindsight. The fact is, where no one wants to go is that John McCain is TOO old! I f he wants to do daring, and youthful things, go rock climbing, take hip-hop dance lessons, he missed the boat to run a country, it’s just that simple..
    I am over fifty, I use to have one of the best figures around, I literally used to stop traffic when I walked down the street. Does that qualify me to wear a bikini and compete for Miss America? I danced for over twenty years, so with all that experience I should have a solo spot in the Rockettes??
    Why is everyone tip toeing around that fact?
    Perhaps my analogy seems a bit simplistic but it is a fair one.

  • I don’t see the quotes here as anything to get upset about. In fact, in a cool headed way, I’d agree with his statements. Getting shot down from a plane has nothing to do with being qualified for ANYTHING other having the luck to survive such a horrible affair. As far as understanding ones opponent and making sound judgements, well that’s obvious. What seems to be at play here is whether or not these very ‘patriotic’ and militaristic deeds play into the way McCain would like to spin them as presidential qualifications.

  • Good thing military service is important. That explains why chicken hawk cheney and no show for physical bush have been so wonderful for our country.

  • Wesley Clark made the point that I — and I expect many others — have thought from the beginning of McCain’s campaign: What relevance does sitting in a POW camp for 5 years have as a qualification for sitting in the Oval Office?

    Like most, I have been squeamish about pointing this out. I have the utmost respect and admiration for John McCain’s military service, but that service lacked any real command experience. That’s a fact that, Rush Limbaugh and his ilk aside, McCain cannot ignore.

    No one is now or has previously criticised McCain’s service. Let’s get that dodge out of the way immediately. Repeat — no one is questioning McCain’s military service. But if he wants straight talk, let’s hear him explain how his service qualifies him as a more experienced commander.

    I suggest that his service, exemplary as it was, and I cannot add enough emphasis on exemplary, dates him as far as a commander in today’s world. Some of his comments come off as still fighting the Vietnam war and the Cold War.

  • If you’re still on the thread Stevio, McCain’s mishap occurred on the USS Forrestal in 1967, when a jet he was doing the pre-flight prep for accidentally launched a Zuni missile on the flight deck. The cause was found to be due to an accidental “power surge” but clicking the launch button would create a power surge.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_USS_Forrestal_fire

    Total casualties and damage: The fire left 134 Forrestal crewmen dead and 161 more injured. Many planes and armament were jettisoned to prevent them from catching fire or exploding. Twenty-one aircraft also sustained enough damage from fire, explosions and salt water to be stricken from naval inventory, including seven F-4 Phantom IIs and three RA-5 Vigilantes.

    I guess McCain forgot his lucky penny that day…

  • Yes, military service is not a requirement for president, but attacking McCain’s experience when the candidate you are supporting has less is not a smart political move. I find it interesting, however, that in 2004, when John Kerry had more “experience” than George Bush it was something to consider, but now when the tables have turned we must remember that miliary experience means nothing…interesting….

  • McCain graduated 894 in a class of 899. He crashed his plane 5 times and once into telephone wires. He spent 5 1/2 years as a POW in a dark hole. When he got home, he ditched his handicapped wife for a 24 year old after having cheated on her for 18 months. After becoming a Senator he accepted over $100,000 from Keating as a favor to pedal influence over regulators investigating Keatings S&L scams. After getting busted, McCain still did not give back the money. Then after declaring that he was a “campaign finance Maverick” he created a not-for-profit and allowed the lobbyist to donate money to that and to run that organization. After having lost his last bid for election to the highest office in the land, he ran again, and went broke early in the campaign. After making a comeback, we now find out that he and wife Cindy are in default on a piece of property that they have failed to pay the real estate taxes on for over 4 years. He is currently 71 years old, will soon be 72, has had 4 bouts with cancer and 5 surgeries. Come on people. What about him makes you or anyone think that he is qualified to be President of the United States of America?

  • Clark has made this same basic point before in mid June on Morning Joe. Here’s the YouTube. It didn’t cause much of a dust up. Why? In mid June, Clark didn’t bring up McCain’s POW status on his own, rather the interviewer brought it up in response to Clark’s claim that McCain had no relevant foreign policy experience. Once it was brought up Clark honored McCain’s POW experience, but reiterated that it wasn’t relevant.

    On FTN, Clark brings up and dismisses McCain’s POW experience very likely in anticipation of the pushback he had already received on MSNBC in mid June. I think Clark raising the issue on his own is the reason the right is pushing back so hard on this.

  • Thank You Wes Clark!!!!!! I have been waiting for someone anyone to say this!!You spoke the tuth now the MSM will go darn crazy!Why didn’t they go nuts when they did it to John Kerry!Please don’t stop cause its the truth!!!!

  • Clark’s Arkansas buddies, the Clintons are “done” so he now want to hook up a political ride with Obama. He has shot that now so Wesley shut up and go home.

  • This is golden. Please, please, please keep Clark out there attacking McCain’s military service. Stir up the leftist blogosphere with “McSame is War Criminal!” There’s no better way to ensure a McCain victory in November. The wacko fringe on the left will cheat themselves out of the White House again. Beautiful.

  • “I believe that Obama is having more trouble with his fundraising than the campaign is letting on.” -Mary

    Mary, quite contrary, must be smoking what her garden grows. So explain why Obama turned down public funds?

  • You’re exactly right ConservoJerry. We’ll hit ’em with more contemporary facts: that he’s old, cantankerous and can’t remember shit. When I asked my 80 year old Mom if she thinks anyone at her age would have the daily stamina to be president, she LOL’d.

  • Umm..Wesley Clark is a loose cannon and not very well regarded in the military.

    Speaking from the center, I must say he’s more a detriment than an asset to Barrack Obama, I think Obama has done well to distance himself from Clark and he should continue.

    The moderate right, and the rest of America don’t really “get” the role of the Commander in Chief. It is not really a military position and senior service, in my opinion, is more harmful than helpful. A president needs to be strategic in thought and most generals tend to be way too tactical.

    The last President to serve at a senior level was Eisenhower and I think he was very responsible for establishing the climate of the Cold War era. Before him, the previous presidents with executive military experience were from the Civil War and other than George Washington, I think the generals as presidents thing hasn’t really worked out so great.

    I think military service give you a good perspective, and is important from a life experiences perspective.

  • Yes, MissMudd, he is old and cantankerous. He’s got A LOT of road-wear… probably too much (That’s why a strong veep is important). But I still prefer a right-of-center old fart with real bi-partisan skins on the wall to an affable and eloquent upstart with a serious, uncompromising leftward lean. Obama talks a good game when he refers to a new era of politics, but his actions and actual votes betray him. Grampa McCain has an actual record of going across the isle and in doing so has royally pissed off his base. He’s taken hits from every side to do what he sees as right. It takes courage. Our young Senator from Illinois has never varied from the party line even a little. I think Gramps is actually the candidate that is more likely to bring a new era of bi-partisan efforts to Washington than Obama. I give Obama points for style, but that’s not enough. I think he needs a little more road-wear.

  • Sen. John McCain is not a hero. Certainly not any more so than the thousands of other military men and women that served and were prisoners. Simply having military experience is not a qualification for president. That would be like someone being part of the Peace Corp. and being qualified to run the UN. Simply ridiculous.

    Besides, when Sen. McCain was being tortured, wasn’t that the same time that Obama was receiving his jihadist orientation in a radical muslim school?
    When McCain was running a US Navy battle group, wasn’t Obama trying to distance himself from the teachings and influence of a radical muslim American hating father?
    While McCain was creating a large pool of domestic and international experience, wasn’t Obama atttending a white hating racist church?

    What I long for is a Protectionist candidtate. One that will bring the military home to secure our borders and our seas. A candidate that will stop the flow of money to other countries that will invariably take the money and use the gains to turn against us. I want a candidate that will simplify immigration policy and say-if you are here illegally, there is the door! We need a candidate that looks after the American people, and not the politicized issues affecting America. There is a difference. More importantly, we need a constitutional amendmnet that make any election that less than 50% of the registered voters participate, invalid.

    Of course, our nation’s public are mostly apothetic, and too lazy to become truly involved in the issues that affect them. Either way, the few that bother to vote will have a very hard choice come November. Good luck to all. We are going to need it.

  • my prediction: obama’s bone-headed response to the flurry about clark’s statement is going to mark the point where obama’s candidacy started to slide into a no-win situation.

    that obama “condemned” this statement is so wrong, it’s hard to believe he’s even close to the same person he was two weeks ago.

  • Wes Clark went on to say that Obama was running not on executive experience but on character and judgment. Earlier, Jane asks whether military service in several theaters qualified her father to be president. If someone has the other qualifications needed to run, the lack of military experience is a liability and its presence is an asset. Why? Because it bears on the issue of character and judgment. For a man to have evaded military service in WWII would have made him unemployable and unmarriageable because he would be viewed as lacking both character and judgment. There were physical attacks made on suspected draft dodgers and such a person was reviled. Only with the undeclared wars (Korea and Vietnam) did this become less true, as moral objections to war were differentiated from cowardice. Clinton had difficulty explaining why he didn’t serve in Vietnam when he ran, as a matter of character, not experience. Bush’s character was being questioned over his evasion of service. Now that we have a volunteer military, one cannot accuse Obama of being unpatriotic because he didn’t service, but most people who plan to run for office do so, because it demonstrates one’s patriotism, one’s commitment to country and self-sacrifice, and because it provides a basis for interacting with military leaders through shared experience. It is glue in the same way as playing a sport provides a meeting ground and metaphor for businessmen. Obama missed a lot when he chose not to serve. I think the judgment of someone choosing to run for office without military service is questionable — and I feel that way about Clinton too, although he had the background of the Vietnam war and the lure of a Fulbright to deal with. Kerry did what most politicians do, although his actual experiences were exceptional.

    Why are generals so often drafted as presidential candidates, even when we do not know their party affiliation (partly because military professionals eschew politics)? They are viewed as men of demonstrated competence, effectiveness, leadership and judgment. The military does demand courage and build character. When so many people who were in McCain’s position might have come home and been derailed, homeless or alcoholic for life, he became a Senator. That demands respect because it demonstrates courage, judgment and character during the time after his return, not just during his service and imprisonment. I don’t like McCain and I won’t be voting for him, but I do respect what he has made of his life and I respect his service. Wes Clark can question his competence as a leader, but he should not do so on the basis of his military service. There must be a million decisions McCain has made that could be used to attack his executive experience. The focus on undermining his military credibility was deliberate and I think it was wrong.

  • Well Conservo, I know a lot of folks who feel that way about McCain, esp. military dudes. Road wear aint a bad thing (lord knows I got blisters on my own ass) being seasoned and all, but he’s just too wishywashy for my taste. You know? I sniff a wee bit of senility setting in. Sort of like the feeling I had about Reagan.

    Plus I like the international excitement Barack has generated. Don’t get me wrong, he’s far from perfect but I feel he’s smart enough to surround himself with sound sane people and will do the right things.

  • Ha-ha. Obviously retired Gen. Wesley Clark hit the GOP where it hurts. For so long they discredited honorable military personnel and now they are offended because a real hero said about old fart McSame. And all of the repugs in here crying foul were probably o.k. when the same tactics were used by Karl Rove.

  • you mean forced into retirement Gen. Wesley Clark….again, his own standing in the military and credentials as commander of NATO forces in Kosovo and Serbia lacked a lot to be desired. i don’t think most know his role and atrocities against Serbs. he was forced into retirement as a result of having a big mouth and being politically wishy-washy,,,oh,,and bombing civilian targets. look up his commanding role in the Kosovo conflict,,,he shouldn’t be criticizing another person’s command experience.

  • I’m sure Clark would also assert about JFK “riding on a boat that gets sunk by a destoyer doesn’t make you eligible to be president”. Is JFK any less of a hero? Is Wesley Clark’s son fighting in Iraq at this moment? Does McCain tout his military record or that his sons are risking their lives in the military? No, because he has class. He never brings up his military record. His campaign has lashed out in defense when acosted by the democrats but McCain doesn’t plug his service, unlike Kerry who couldn’t end a speech without staing his Vietnam vet credentials.

  • Funny how the liberals always state to be for the little guy, the foot soldier or aviator who does the dirty work and pays the ultimate price while the elitist generals send them to their doom. But when the general who sent troops to their death in Bosnia, as well as ordering the air raids that killed many civilians, is a liberal political mouthpiece, then it’s the evil John McCain who was following his commanders orders that is the war criminal. Disgraceful! Has Jack Murtha appologized to the Haditha soldiers yet? Name a liberal war hero whose credentials and love of country rival Jimmy Stewart, Audie Murphy and Alvin York!

  • Why is this controversial? Being a fighter pilot does not qualify a person to be president. That is a simple truth. That does not disparage a fighter pilot’s skills or patriotism. I know several fighter pilots (I am an Air Force vet) and they are great guys, but I would not want any of them to be president (you guys know who I am talking about!).

    I also don’t think a soldier or marine patrolling in Iraq is necessarily qualified to be president just because they have shot at bad guys — there are many other qualifications that are needed. That does not mean they are not heroes — not all heroes get to be president and not all presidents are heroes.

    This thing is really getting blown out of proportion and is simply showing what a thin skin John McCain has. How about the thousands of people who attacked John Kerry’s combat experience? Or the chickenhawks who said Max Cleland was not a patriot? If you dish it out, expect to take it. What goes around comes around.

  • This is a classic example of taking a quote out of context, giving it a bit of a twist, then making a public display of grandiose knee-jerkery! Ideally, the highest office in the nation should go to the most qualified, not bestowed on one for his military service, regardless of how noble. The fact of being a prisoner of war does not meet the basic job requirements of president, nor does it make one suited for that position. The US is now possibly at the most precarious point since its founding. It is going to take exceptional wisdom, the ability to communicate with others, and very strong diplomatic skills to get this country through the next decade. This absolutely requires a calm temperament, not belligerence. It will require reasoned diplomacy, not a cussing-out.

  • You’re absolutely correct, Fabian. Riding in a plane and getting shot down doesn’t qualify you to be president. Riding on a boat and getting rammed by another boat however helped to qualify JFK and help him win the presidency. And has Jack Murtha still not appologized yet?

  • A flyer passing out community activist slash senator by adultery default surely is the most qualified presidential candidate. As for Wes, the commander of troops and tanks at Waco, the commander who ordered bombing of civilian targets in Kosovo, the man forced out of the military due to “character and integrity issues”, he’d be a brilliant VP.

  • Two wrongs don’t make a right. Denigrating Kerry’s service in 2004 was wrong, and doing the same to McCain in 2008 is wrong. This type of “politicking” is one of many reasons that I am an Independent and need not be trapped by misplaced loyalty to either the Elephants or to the Donkeys. By the way — Obama is a smoother politician than Clark, obviously, and quickly realized that Clark’s angle on McCain is not a winner. Mary’s post was precisely on the money about why military service is an asset. It is not so much about judgement or even the experience. Military service shows patriotism and the willingness to serve your fellow citizens in a way that risks the ultimante sacrifice. It’s not an automatic quaification — but it shoud be considered an asset. That’s why I have little regard for chickenhawks like Cheney on the Right, and the knee-jerk anti-military element on the fringes of the Left. Finally, the alarm and rancor are too intense in some of these posts. I believe that either McCain or Obama will be a better President than the last two Administrations. Despite stark political differences, they are the best combination of candidates we’ve had in a very long time.

  • Clark didn’t attack McCain’s service in any way. He just said it wasn’t a qualification for president. This is the usual republican distraction because they don’t have anything real to say.

    If he was going to attack McCain’s service he might mention that he (Clark) graduated 1st at West Point and McCain almost dead last at the Naval Academy. And McCain didn’t crash just one jet, he crashed 4! So if crashing a plane was a great qualification for president there wouldn’t be anyone better than McCain.

    One other thing about McSame. He has been given special privileges by his daddies his entire life. His dad and granddad were admirals and that’s what got him into the Naval Academy and not thrown out despite lousy grades and multiple demerits. His wife’s daddy fronted him the money, venue and political capital to get him into politics. Do we really want another president who gets his way paved for him by others?

    Obama and Clark earned their places of leadership on their own merit. Neither has anything to apologize for here.

  • Comments are closed.