Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have never thought that military service in itself qualifies a person to be President. I thought the same thing when Kerry said he was "reporting for duty."
In McCain's case, his military record is strong as is his experience in the Senate. If Clark thinks he's not qualified based on his record, then he must think Obama isn't qualified to be an elementary school principal.
Since the comments were made regarding the domain of foreign policy, I would say that McCain showed himself to be pretty astute and calm under pressure when he refused release as a POW to avoid being used as a pawn for propaganda.
Obama is behind this attacks because he knows has has nothing
in the way of McCain's record.
There is a thing called "respect" and Obama knows nothing of that.
He is into smears, the more I see him, the more I detest him,
he on the other hand rears his back when anyone comes at him, he yells race the minute any time he is questioned. That is his mantra and I am sick of it, sick of him and sick of most of his supporters.
He has back tracked, flip/floped and outright lied so many times
and folks keep defending him, give me a break.
He is like a cheap novel, easy to read because you know what will happen.
Prove Obama is behind the charges levied by General Clark. So far you have presented nothing that disproves General Clark's statement. What relevant experience and leadership ability has Senator McCain exhibited in the area of foreign policy? Why should we regard him as an expert on military and foreign policy?
What does this have to do with Senator Obama? General Clark made the statement.
Clark said of McCain while speaking from his office in Little Rock, Arkansas. "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."
Does Senator McCain have foreign policy experience that nullifies General Clark's claim?
Thanks to sanrene this has been made even easier for you. Simply click the link and point us to the legislation you feel qualifies and nullifies the Generals claim. You may wish to skip 2007 and 2008 for obvious reasons.
What is interesting to me is that I am sure he did this to suck up and make himself more attractive for a place in the administration should Obama win.
Can you imagine the reaction from the brass and troops if he were to be appointed Secretary of Defense?
Why should we try to imagine the reaction? The military isn't a Democracy. What I could not imagine is Senator McCain's supporters being blindsided regarding his accomplishments and not able to provide proof of leadership and expertise in the realm of foreign policy that would allay General Clark's claim. His supporters appear to have no idea what he's accomplished in 35 years of honorable Senate service and leadership.
What does this have to do with Senator Obama? General Clark made the statement.
Clark is an advisor and surrogate of Obama's. Of course he approved what clark said, privately. In public, of course, he rejects the comments.
Most polls show that the electorate trusts McCain more on foreign policy/terrorism - the Obama campaign realizes this and somehow must put doubt into the electorate. I'm sure this won't be the only attack.
Clark is an advisor and surrogate of Obama's. Of course he approved what clark said, privately. In public, of course, he rejects the comments.
Most polls show that the electorate trusts McCain more on foreign policy/terrorism - the Obama campaign realizes this and somehow must put doubt into the electorate. I'm sure this won't be the only attack.
Politics as usual.
While you may point out "this is politics as usual", it appears the same claim may be made that this is "spin as usual".
Clark said of McCain while speaking from his office in Little Rock, Arkansas. "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."
Does Senator McCain have foreign policy experience or crisis leadership that nullifies General Clark's claim? How does it make your case stronger to say neither does the other guy? It doesn't - we aren't discussing the other guy. We are looking to establish a direct counter to the assertion made through proof verified by example.
Thanks to you this should be easy. Simply point us to the legislation you feel qualifies and nullifies the Generals claim. You may wish to skip 2007 and 2008 for obvious reasons.
H.R. number? S. number?
By you own volition the assertions are unfounded so it would appear a simple act of providing us with the legislative or leadership instances which nullify the claim would be beneficial to quelling the rising sentiment.
So you would have us look to the Democrats to establish Senator McCain's credibility on foreign policy? Ok. What has he done to lead the Democrats on foreign policy matters? Where did he step out and take the lead, pushing legislature to shape foreign policy on matters of National Security?
This should be easy - you've often said he's a maverick.
In the end Clarkk is pretty much being ignored by how first McCain and now how Obama has handled this issue. Both are just basically saying it is a non-issue for them. In the end Clark is the loser.
Stupid remarks from a person who doesn't have a place in politics and I doubt he ever was a good general.
This remark and the one from today will hurt Obama more than it will hurt McCain. What about Obama's experience....134 business days as a Senator...non in the army...so his remarks made us all realize how much worse Obama is as we even were thinking.
Funny!!! So we know at the same time that this former general shouldn't be in politics since he has no experience and ordering bombs and disagreeing with the order is even worse, he would have been a man if he had left...what a bunch of loser generals have served the president.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
