Wesley Clark tells it like it is

[Federal Farmer]

Really?? Defend it from what I said. The silver star sounds very much like a phony award - he was attacked, told his men to shoot back, and was rescued by another force. Were they handing out silver stars just for not surrendering?? It's clear more facts are needed about this incident. Of course the lib media is just as uninterested in that as they were about all of Kerry's fake purple hearts.

Lib, you seem like a nice enough guy, so it's real simple, have YOU been in combat? Were YOU in Vietnam? Have you been shot? If not, then on this one point, and until you have PROOF to support your accusations, do me a favor and STFU about it. If you ever do find proof that Clark led his men into an ambush because he was doing something stupid, or something he wasn't supposed to be doing, THEN I may reconsider, but until such proof is presented, as far as I'm concerned, he was doing what he was supposed to be doing, and that's all. Also, having a "Mike Team" on standby was SOP in case the unit doing the patrol was ambushed, so it sounds like everything worked the way it was supposed to.

The facts, as we know them, lead me to believe that while wounded, Clark managed to keep his head and direct that counter attack until reinforcements could arrive, so, as I said, until evidence to the contrary is presented, as far as I'm concerned, he EARNED IT, the hard way.

 

[dragonfly5]

What General Wesley Clark said was the absolute truth and everyone in their own mind really knows it.

All that's going on now is posturing. Saying someone has executive governing skills just because they flew a plane or were a POW is ludicrous on its face.

There are ex-military personnel who have encountered the same type things that are homeless wandering the streets. It's a totally individual thing. The case could probably be made that the physical & psychological damage inflicted on McSame actually weakens his position.

And yet again Senator Obama has taken the high road not wanting this election to be negative... that's all fine I guess... but it doesn't change the fact that General Wesley Clark was dead on in his assessment of John McSame.

This is someone who followed his families tradition and joined the Navy. Then got shot down and suffered during war time... but he's obviously no great chief executive...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iWYAOMYmp0

I agree completely!

BTW, the video is hilarious.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Lib, you seem like a nice enough guy, so it's real simple, have YOU been in combat? Were YOU in Vietnam? Have you been shot? If not, then on this one point, and until you have PROOF to support your accusations, do me a favor and STFU about it. If you ever do find proof that Clark led his men into an ambush because he was doing something stupid, or something he wasn't supposed to be doing, THEN I may reconsider, but until such proof is presented, as far as I'm concerned, he was doing what he was supposed to be doing, and that's all. Also, having a "Mike Team" on standby was SOP in case the unit doing the patrol was ambushed, so it sounds like everything worked the way it was supposed to.

The facts, as we know them, lead me to believe that while wounded, Clark managed to keep his head and direct that counter attack until reinforcements could arrive, so, as I said, until evidence to the contrary is presented, as far as I'm concerned, he EARNED IT, the hard way.

I would not expect any evidence from Lib, I never realy do.

But I agree 100%

 

[Libsmasher]

Lib, you seem like a nice enough guy,

That's correct.

so it's real simple, have YOU been in combat? Were YOU in Vietnam?

Completely irrelevent. Are you a farmer? No? Then you can't comment on price supports. Are you a petroleum engineer? No? Can't comment on the price of gas. Surrrrrre.

Have you been shot?

No. Have you ever ridden an italian bicycle?

If not, then on this one point, and until you have PROOF to support your accusations, do me a favor and STFU about it.

You're crapola is the old, totally IRRELEVENT "were you there argument" - come up with something better, a LOT better, or YOU STFU.

If you ever do find proof that Clark led his men into an ambush because he was doing something stupid, or something he wasn't supposed to be doing, THEN I may reconsider, but until such proof is presented, as far as I'm concerned, he was doing what he was supposed to be doing, and that's all. Also, having a "Mike Team" on standby was SOP in case the unit doing the patrol was ambushed, so it sounds like everything worked the way it was supposed to.

The point blew past you like an M-16 bullet. The issue wasn't whether he was doing what he was supposed to (does THAT deserve a medal???) or whether "Mike Teams" rescued people (who had screwed up), the issue is whether he deserved a silver star. The official citation is very sketchy and raises legitimate questions about whether the award was justified. Do you think EVERY medal ever awarded was justified??

The facts, as we know them, lead me to believe that while wounded, Clark managed to keep his head and direct that counter attack until reinforcements could arrive, so, as I said, until evidence to the contrary is presented, as far as I'm concerned, he EARNED IT, the hard way.

You think he earned it without sufficient evidence - seems like you've found a new religion. The salient facts: he got shot and told his troops to shoot back. What else would anyone do? What else could they do except surrender? The enemy appears, you tell your troops to shoot at them - heroic? Nope. Unless further eye-witness info adds additional convincing facts, it appears on the face of it that he got an undeserved medal.

 

[Federal Farmer]

That's correct.

Good enough, then understand that this is a point of Honor for me, as I will explain further down.

Completely irrelevent. Are you a farmer? No? Then you can't comment on price supports.

Grew up farming and raising cattle, so I suppose I can comment intelligently on price supports.

Are you a petroleum engineer? No? Can't comment on the price of gas. Surrrrrre.

Nope, Civil, and the price of gasoline has nothing whatsoever to do with Petroleum Engineering (I took a couple of courses just to round out my class load), it has to do with global supply and demand.

No. Have you ever ridden an italian bicycle?

Actually YES, and in Italy too! Tuscany is especially nice in the early fall, I strongly suggest it if you ever get the chance.

You're crapola is the old, totally IRRELEVANT "were you there argument" - come up with something better, a LOT better, or YOU STFU.

OK, let's try it this way then. I HAVE been in combat, I HAVE seen what happens when men get shot, and the fact that he was able to maintain his situational awareness and direct his men to counter-attack the assault after taking 4 rounds of 7.62X39, especially where he did, is something that is RARE, and worthy of recognition.

The point blew past you like an M-16 bullet.

Had that happen a couple of times too, not fun.

The issue wasn't whether he was doing what he was supposed to (does THAT deserve a medal???) or whether "Mike Teams" rescued people (who had screwed up), the issue is whether he deserved a silver star. The official citation is very sketchy and raises legitimate questions about whether the award was justified.

As I said, all we have is the Citation, prepared by his Commanding Officer, so until you can present PROOF to support your allegations, they amount to slander, and I strongly object. You have no PROOF that he "screwed up", and the fact that he had backup when they were hit was ROUTINE (seems that the Army learned something about that after the Little Big Horn).

Do you think EVERY medal ever awarded was justified??

Nope, I already said that his 2 Bronze Stars were totally bogus. There's nothing "heroic" (a requirement for the Medal) about fighting a screaming horde of paper cuts and a really nasty typewriter ribbon while sitting behind a desk.

You think he earned it without sufficient evidence - seems like you've found a new religion. The salient facts: he got shot and told his troops to shoot back. What else would anyone do? What else could they do except surrender? The enemy appears, you tell your troops to shoot at them - heroic? Nope. Unless further eye-witness info adds additional convincing facts, it appears on the face of it that he got an undeserved medal.

It's obvious that you haven't been in combat, so let me fill you in. I've seen men who were barely grazed fall on the ground and scream as if they had been gut-shot. I've seen men with very minor wounds completely fall apart, curl up in a ball and start crying. I've seen men with wounds very similar to those that Clark received simply pass out on the spot. Hell, I've seen men who never even got touched fold up like a cheap suit and try to run away!

The fact that after being shot 4 times, he kept his head, and was able to continue to direct his men is testimony to his training, his will power, and his intestinal fortitude, all admirable attributes for any Commanding Officer in a combat situation, and for his actions, on that day, he deserves, and has my respect, until such time as someone can present first person, eye witness testimony that he did screw up, or in some other way recklessly endanger the lives of his men.

Look, I don't care for the man personally, I can't stand his politics, but I will NOT resort to slandering a fellow Soldier, especially when there's so much else that I can honestly rag on his sorry a$$ for, and I will take issue with anyone who does so, especially if they've never even worn the uniform, unless they have PROOF that the Medals and Citations in question are bogus.

EDIT:
One other thing I need to be clear about here. Since 9-11, I've seen and heard a lot of "conservatives" giving a ration of $hit to returning Veterans because they've come out against the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and frankly it turns my stomach. If anyone has any reason at all to be against war, it's Veterans, and as far as I'm concerned they've EARNED the Right to speak out against it. I may not agree with them, but I will NOT dispariage their service, in whatever capacity, because I disagree with them politically.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Good enough, then understand that this is a point of Honor for me, as I will explain further down.



Grew up farming and raising cattle, so I suppose I can comment intelligently on price supports.



Nope, Civil, and the price of gasoline has nothing whatsoever to do with Petroleum Engineering (I took a couple of courses just to round out my class load), it has to do with global supply and demand.



Actually YES, and in Italy too! Tuscany is especially nice in the early fall, I strongly suggest it if you ever get the chance.



OK, let's try it this way then. I HAVE been in combat, I HAVE seen what happens when men get shot, and the fact that he was able to maintain his situational awareness and direct his men to counter-attack the assault after taking 4 rounds of 7.62X39, especially where he did, is something that is RARE, and worthy of recognition.



Had that happen a couple of times too, not fun.



As I said, all we have is the Citation, prepared by his Commanding Officer, so until you can present PROOF to support your allegations, they amount to slander, and I strongly object. You have no PROOF that he "screwed up", and the fact that he had backup when they were hit was ROUTINE (seems that the Army learned something about that after the Little Big Horn).



Nope, I already said that his 2 Bronze Stars were totally bogus. There's nothing "heroic" (a requirement for the Medal) about fighting a screaming horde of paper cuts and a really nasty typewriter ribbon while sitting behind a desk.



It's obvious that you haven't been in combat, so let me fill you in. I've seen men who were barely grazed fall on the ground and scream as if they had been gut-shot. I've seen men with very minor wounds completely fall apart, curl up in a ball and start crying. I've seen men with wounds very similar to those that Clark received simply pass out on the spot. Hell, I've seen men who never even got touched fold up like a cheap suit and try to run away!

The fact that after being shot 4 times, he kept his head, and was able to continue to direct his men is testimony to his training, his will power, and his intestinal fortitude, all admirable attributes for any Commanding Officer in a combat situation, and for his actions, on that day, he deserves, and has my respect, until such time as someone can present first person, eye witness testimony that he did screw up, or in some other way recklessly endanger the lives of his men.

Look, I don't care for the man personally, I can't stand his politics, but I will NOT resort to slandering a fellow Soldier, especially when there's so much else that I can honestly rag on his sorry a$$ for, and I will take issue with anyone who does so, especially if they've never even worn the uniform, unless they have PROOF that the Medals and Citations in question are bogus.

EDIT:
One other thing I need to be clear about here. Since 9-11, I've seen and heard a lot of "conservatives" giving a ration of $hit to returning Veterans because they've come out against the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and frankly it turns my stomach. If anyone has any reason at all to be against war, it's Veterans, and as far as I'm concerned they've EARNED the Right to speak out against it. I may not agree with them, but I will NOT dispariage their service, in whatever capacity, because I disagree with them politically.

Lib does not care about facts or any of that, he would rather just attack anyone who is even remotely liberal. After all my posts here I still have to point out to him over and over that I am not supporting Obama...I maybe, but I am open to McCain as well and will see how there plans hold up closer to Election time as its dumb to think anyone can make a plan for when they are in office, based on what is going on in Iraq now. 4 months from now, Al Qaeda could hit a Shia Mosque with a high death toll, and it could spin out of control again and be far far worse...or Sader could lay down arms and join the government and things could get a lot better. If it was today, then yes I say start a slow move out, but I also supported the surge , in for what Militarily was possible for the US it did all it could, it was only the the political level it failed.

I personally find the attacks on peoples medals, from any idea nothing but the worst of gutter politics. Even if one did serve, and ever served with them, Its not up to there personal views to decide who gets a medal, and the Military has made there judgment and awarded it to them. As soon as we question one, why not 2, 3 , 4...lets just start going after anyone who served and attack there medals....its not a road I care for, no matter who takes it. I hated Bush in 2000 when Rove was using his people to spread rumers that McCain was Crazy from being a POW and not Stable ( about the same time they said he had Illegit black babies )

That said I think what Clark said was a fair point, and that Nothing he did in Nam, makes him qualified for President....I would say his work in the Senate does however. And I don't think that Not serving makes you less able to serve, as its been some time since we had a president who served, let alone in Combat.

 

[Libsmasher]

First off, let me thank you for your service to our country. I owe a debt to all veterans, except those who dishonor themselves by ridiculing veterans like Senator McCain, who have sacrificed immensely for their country.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
Completely irrelevent. Are you a farmer? No? Then you can't comment on price supports.

Grew up farming and raising cattle, so I suppose I can comment intelligently on price supports.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
Are you a petroleum engineer? No? Can't comment on the price of gas. Surrrrrre.

Nope, Civil, and the price of gasoline has nothing whatsoever to do with Petroleum Engineering (I took a couple of courses just to round out my class load), it has to do with global supply and demand.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
No. Have you ever ridden an italian bicycle?

Actually YES, and in Italy too! Tuscany is especially nice in the early fall, I strongly suggest it if you ever get the chance.

Want me to keep on? What do you know about aerospace? About elementary particle physics? So should you vote on such issues? Should your congressman? Obviously, the point is that to claim people are incompetent to debate an issue because they've not done it is invalid. And note that I repeatedly underlined the need for info from an eyewitness account.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
You're crapola is the old, totally IRRELEVANT "were you there argument" - come up with something better, a LOT better, or YOU STFU.

OK, let's try it this way then. I HAVE been in combat, I HAVE seen what happens when men get shot, and the fact that he was able to maintain his situational awareness and direct his men to counter-attack the assault after taking 4 rounds of 7.62X39, especially where he did, is something that is RARE, and worthy of recognition.

I read somewhere that he got hit in the right shoulder, right hand, right hip and right leg. Is that like being shot in the guts? In the head? I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. I can't imagine doing anything in that situation other than ordering my men to shoot back. EVERYONE would have done it. Does EVERYONE deserve a silver star? Clark asks if McCain should get a medal for "being shot down". (A distortion.) Does Clark deserve a medal just for getting shot up - other than a purple heart?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
The point blew past you like an M-16 bullet.

Had that happen a couple of times too, not fun.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
The issue wasn't whether he was doing what he was supposed to (does THAT deserve a medal???) or whether "Mike Teams" rescued people (who had screwed up), the issue is whether he deserved a silver star. The official citation is very sketchy and raises legitimate questions about whether the award was justified.

As I said, all we have is the Citation, prepared by his Commanding Officer, so until you can present PROOF to support your allegations, they amount to slander, and I strongly object. You have no PROOF that he "screwed up", and the fact that he had backup when they were hit was ROUTINE (seems that the Army learned something about that after the Little Big Horn).

I said the citation is TOO SKETCHY ON THE FACTS, and the facts it DOES CITE are insufficient to justify an award for bravery. Therefore, if the citation is your only evidence, YOU HAVE NO PROOF that he deserved the medal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
Do you think EVERY medal ever awarded was justified??

Nope, I already said that his 2 Bronze Stars were totally bogus. There's nothing "heroic" (a requirement for the Medal) about fighting a screaming horde of paper cuts and a really nasty typewriter ribbon while sitting behind a desk.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
You think he earned it without sufficient evidence - seems like you've found a new religion. The salient facts: he got shot and told his troops to shoot back. What else would anyone do? What else could they do except surrender? The enemy appears, you tell your troops to shoot at them - heroic? Nope. Unless further eye-witness info adds additional convincing facts, it appears on the face of it that he got an undeserved medal.

It's obvious that you haven't been in combat, so let me fill you in. I've seen men who were barely grazed fall on the ground and scream as if they had been gut-shot. I've seen men with very minor wounds completely fall apart, curl up in a ball and start crying. I've seen men with wounds very similar to those that Clark received simply pass out on the spot. Hell, I've seen men who never even got touched fold up like a cheap suit and try to run away!

The fact that after being shot 4 times, he kept his head, and was able to continue to direct his men is testimony to his training, his will power, and his intestinal fortitude, all admirable attributes for any Commanding Officer in a combat situation, and for his actions, on that day, he deserves, and has my respect, until such time as someone can present first person, eye witness testimony that he did screw up, or in some other way recklessly endanger the lives of his men.

In other words, you believe something on the skimpiest of evidence. I need something more substantial. I've heard of guys getting wounded and didn't even know it - eg - here's a guy in iraq who was shot in both legs (probably as in Clark's case with an AK-47) and didn't know it:

McPheron talked candidly of the moment he was wounded on June 24, when a sniper's round went through his right arm, and through both legs. McPheron, a basic 0311 infantryman, trained in using a variety of field weapons and combat tactics, recalled that he was searching a truck when "I heard a 'thunk' and looked around, then my hand went limp."
By the time a corpsman had arrived to help him, McPheron said he was already tying a tourniquet onto his arm because of arterial bleeding. He said he didn't realize until well afterward that the bullet had passed through both legs as well.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18637289&BRD=1142&PAG=461&dept_id=567520&rfi=6

One other thing I need to be clear about here. Since 9-11, I've seen and heard a lot of "conservatives" giving a ration of $hit to returning Veterans because they've come out against the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and frankly it turns my stomach. If anyone has any reason at all to be against war, it's Veterans, and as far as I'm concerned they've EARNED the Right to speak out against it. I may not agree with them, but I will NOT dispariage their service, in whatever capacity, because I disagree with them politically.

You heard of conservatives who said they don't have a right to their opinion? I've never seen any such thing, and would appreciate a citation.

 

[Libsmasher]

I personally find the attacks on peoples medals, from any idea nothing but the worst of gutter politics.

Oh yeah - we've all watched you jump to the defense of McCain when the resident defamers said all he did was get shot down and be a prisoner of war.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Want me to keep on? What do you know about aerospace? About elementary particle physics? So should you vote on such issues? Should your congressman? Obviously, the point is that to claim people are incompetent to debate an issue because they've not done it is invalid. And note that I repeatedly underlined the need for info from an eyewitness account.

No, I want you to stop. There's a huge difference between debating an issue, and slandering someone without substantiation. It really gets obnoxious when you then suggest what they should have done when you have no experience in that area.

I read somewhere that he got hit in the right shoulder, right hand, right hip and right leg. Is that like being shot in the guts? In the head? I'm sorry, but I just don't get it.

I realize that, which is why I'm telling you, from personal experience, that everyone reacts differently in that situation, and there's no predicting what that reaction will be.

I can't imagine doing anything in that situation other than ordering my men to shoot back. EVERYONE would have done it. Does EVERYONE deserve a silver star? Clark asks if McCain should get a medal for "being shot down". (A distortion.) Does Clark deserve a medal just for getting shot up - other than a purple heart?

Combat isn't some damned John Wayne movie Lib, and not everyone COULD, or WOULD have done what Clark did. You're also getting caught up in the BS. Just because Clark is being an a$$hole doesn't mean that you have to be one too. If I were having this discussion with Clark himself, I'd be telling him the same them; STFU and quit being an a$$hole.

I said the citation is TOO SKETCHY ON THE FACTS, and the facts it DOES CITE are insufficient to justify an award for bravery. Therefore, if the citation is your only evidence, YOU HAVE NO PROOF that he deserved the medal.

There's nothing "sketchy" about his Silver Star citation, and it clearly enumerates the reasons for it. The Silver Star is awarded for Gallantry, not "bravery", and if his Commanding Officer, based on interviews with the members of Clark's Platoon (a REQUIREMENT for any such award) believed that he was due the award, the he DESERVED IT. Now, the fact is simple, YOU are the one making the accusation that Clark does not deserve his Silver Star, the burden of proof is on YOU, and lacking that proof, you're engaging in slander, PERIOD.

In other words, you believe something on the skimpiest of evidence. I need something more substantial. I've heard of guys getting wounded and didn't even know it - eg - here's a guy in iraq who was shot in both legs (probably as in Clark's case with an AK-47) and didn't know it:.

It's not "the skimpiest" of evidence, for a Silver Star to be awarded, his Commander was compelled, by regulations, to conduct an investigation, and interview any and all available surviving members of the action for their testimony to Clark's actions. By questioning his Silver Star, you're calling not only his former CO a liar, you're also calling every man in his Platoon a liar. Now, LET IT GO.

You heard of conservatives who said they don't have a right to their opinion? I've never seen any such thing, and would appreciate a citation.

Why, you wouldn't believe me. You'd just say that it was "skimpy" evidence, and try to brush it under the rug, just like you're trying to do with the honor of Clark's CO and the men in his Platoon.

Look, I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I don't like Clark, never have and never will, I think his politics suck, and the fact that he would even make a statement bringing up McCains service and trying to equate it to qualifications for POTUS to be, as PFOS put it, "gutter politics" (which is indicitive of what I expect from a Chairborne Ranger), BUT that does NOT give me carte` blanche to engage in the same type of rhetoric, because if anything, Clark just called his own qualifications for higher office into question. If McCains service is no reason for him to be considered for POTUS, then neither is Clark's. IOW, he just shot himself in the foot, in front of the whole world. Simply said, if Clark is ever considered for public office again (VPOTUS under Obama perhaps?), and he tries to tout his military record as a qualification, he's just provided the ammunition to blow him completely out of the water.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Oh yeah - we've all watched you jump to the defense of McCain when the resident defamers said all he did was get shot down and be a prisoner of war.

Your the tard who even attacked me for attacking McCain over his skin cancer, when I was the First person to attack the post. You just cant read. I have said I don't his POW Status makes him qualified...his Time in the US Senate Does. I have defended McCain more then I have seen you on here it seems. SO show me the thread ....

The main reason I am thinking about voting for McCain is becuse I think he is a good man, who did alot for this nation, and pust it First, not the party like Bush Co. I dont agree with a large amount of his views.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Federal Farmer, I don't think Clark was trying to question McCain's Service, but rather showing that what he did as a Pilot, and POW has very little to do with the kills needed to run the Nation or make the right Decisions for it. And while you may say McCain has never said that, Many of his supporters have will attacking Obama for not Serving as if it was a Requirement. Like I have said I don't think serving , or not serving makes someone qualified over the other. One could serve and be a complete idiot when it comes to politics and the issues. One could not serve , but have a very good grasp on Security issues still as well. Personally I like to know they have served, but I also know that the skill to fly a plane helps very little in the White House. Even time high up in the Military does not help much on the Political field, as Clark himself showed with a very poor run for office last time.


And also , welcome to trying to talk to Lib.. Currently he is telling me that I am a Obamabot even though I have defend both , and have stated 100 times I am not sure who I am voting for yet. But Evidence be Damned....even if means attacking a guys star, with Zero Evidence at all.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Federal Farmer, I don't think Clark was trying to question McCain's Service, but rather showing that what he did as a Pilot, and POW has very little to do with the kills needed to run the Nation or make the right Decisions for it. And while you may say McCain has never said that, Many of his supporters have will attacking Obama for not Serving as if it was a Requirement. Like I have said I don't think serving , or not serving makes someone qualified over the other. One could serve and be a complete idiot when it comes to politics and the issues. One could not serve , but have a very good grasp on Security issues still as well. Personally I like to know they have served, but I also know that the skill to fly a plane helps very little in the White House. Even time high up in the Military does not help much on the Political field, as Clark himself showed with a very poor run for office last time.


And also , welcome to trying to talk to Lib.. Currently he is telling me that I am a Obamabot even though I have defend both , and have stated 100 times I am not sure who I am voting for yet. But Evidence be Damned....even if means attacking a guys star, with Zero Evidence at all.

Very good points PFOS. While it may be true that some of McCains supporters are questioning Obama's competence to be POTUS on a number of issues, including his lack of military service, McCain himself has not made his service an issue, and Clark was ill advised to mention it.

Both men had long and distinguished careers in the service of our country, and I'm grateful to them for that, but if Clark learned anything in his one month stint as a Plt. Cdr., it should have been to never, ever, question the service of another serviceman, especially one with a hell of a lot more combat time than you have. That simply isn't kosher, and in my day, if you did it, you were subject to getting a size 12 boot rammed right up your size 1 rectum so far that you'd be tasting Kiwi boot polish for a month.

EDIT: BTW, I like Lib, he's an OK guy, and so are you. We've all had our share of disagreements, but I don't take it too seriously.

 

[top gun]

It kills me how people will try to spin this like General Clark brought up the subject.

Should he just have lied when asked and said John McCain's fifth worse showing at the Naval Academy shows great intellect and job handling skills?

McCain graduated from the Naval Academy in June 1958; he was fifth from the bottom in class rank, 894th out of 899.

Or said... He probably learned a lot about being a Chief Executive as a POW in the Hanoi Hilton. COME ON SERIOUSLY!!!

General Clark was asked the question about McCain being shot down and the interviewer was himself trying to link that to "experience". General Clark one of this countries former HIGHEST RANKING UNITED STATES OFFICERS merely stated the OBVIOUS!

He didn't make John McCain a bad student. He didn't make him a POW. And he certainly wasn't disrespecting his service to our country.

The Radical Right really wants everyone to have to say... WHAT!!! Doctor how darn you say John McCain wouldn't be an exceptional brain surgeon! We'll have you know he's a war veteran!

Just Frickin' ridiculous...

 

[Federal Farmer]

It kills me how people will try to spin this like General Clark brought up the subject.

<snip irrelevent BS>

He SHOULD have said that it was IRRELEVENT.

Just Frickin' ridiculous...[/COLOR]

Yup, you sure are.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Very good points PFOS. While it may be true that some of McCains supporters are questioning Obama's competence to be POTUS on a number of issues, including his lack of military service, McCain himself has not made his service an issue, and Clark was ill advised to mention it.

Both men had long and distinguished careers in the service of our country, and I'm grateful to them for that, but if Clark learned anything in his one month stint as a Plt. Cdr., it should have been to never, ever, question the service of another serviceman, especially one with a hell of a lot more combat time than you have. That simply isn't kosher, and in my day, if you did it, you were subject to getting a size 12 boot rammed right up your size 1 rectum so far that you'd be tasting Kiwi boot polish for a month.

EDIT: BTW, I like Lib, he's an OK guy, and so are you. We've all had our share of disagreements, but I don't take it too seriously.

Where did Clark Question McCain's Service anyway? he questioned how it related to the job he wants , but not her service overall. Had he attacked his Service overall, like LIb did Clark, I would be all over Clark attacking him

And Politically is was a dumb move, something that shows how Military Experience does not always equal good at politics....but also it was still all true.

And I have no Issue with you at all, but Lib on the other hand...