On Jun 30, 3:17*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jun 30, 12:48*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Jenn said:
This is exactly what is wrong about our political climate. *Clark didn't
day anything that needed an apology. *Clark should stand by it because
he's right, and Obamba's camp shouldn't reject Clark's comments.
Why do say he's right? I thought McCain is offering his experience in the
Senate as his primary qualification. Did I miss something?
Clark was right. *He didn't show disrespect toward McCain's military
experience. *He simply said that being a fighter pilot and being shot
down isn't a qualification for the Presidency. *He's right.
Well, unless McCain claimed getting shot down *is* a qualification, Clark
made a gratuitous snot-attack. You're against those, right? Suppose Hannity
or some other talking head said being half-black isn't a qualification to
be President. Wouldn't that be gratuitous snot? When you use the phrase
"not a qualification" in the proximity of a candidate's name, the
implication is clear. If Clark thinks McCain isn't qualified, he should say
why he believes that instead of making snide comments like a third-rate
political operative.
*Well said. It's very clear why Obama rapidly distanced himself from
those remarks. * I am surprised Jenn doesn't see the obvious
nature of Clarks remarks.
The "obvious" nature of them is as an answer to things like this:
"Portraying Obama as weak and highlighting his inexperience in foreign
and defense matters is central to McCain's strategy. Polls show that
McCain's military background and years of dealing with security issues
in Washington give him a clear edge when voters rate the candidates as
a future commander-in-chief."
Flying a jet and getting shot down does not prepare one for being
CinC. Clark is exactly right. It's good to bring these things up so
they can be examined by the voters.In fact, fighter pilots (and I've
known a few) tend to be egomaniacal and selfish. They typically have
no command or leadership experience at all.
Otherwise, if these things are not examined, we have imbeciles who
make assumptions or perpetuate myth and rumor (see below).
Of course Clark can always claim his own background as
prematurely retired Nato commander is not a qualification
for vice president.
Not true. Overseeing all the moving parts of an organization as large
as NATO Europe is experience in managing and leading. Flying planes is
not.
*That too would be right.
Wrongo, 2pid. BTW, Clark was not "forced" to retire, nor did he retire
"prematurely", 2pid. After you hit four stars, you're on your way out.
There's nowhere else to go. We have not promoted anyone to five stars
since WWII.
I held three commands in my career. Two-to-three years is a standard
command tour. Clark commanded NATO Europe for three years.
"At times, he had a difficult relationship with Secretary of Defense
William Cohen and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Hugh
Shelton, which led to rumors Clark was forced into retirement, though
both he and the Department of Defense said his retirement was merely
standard personnel movement."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark
Why do you insist on perpetuating baseless rumors, 2pid?