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.
And Clark has been a leader of even greater military organizations so his credibility is greater then McCains. I think I have it now. Clark has bigger ones then McCain so he rocks.
When Clark runs against McCain I'll keep that in mind, however he is irrelevant to this election.
Don't you get it? We have had lots of great presidents who did not have military command experience, because we have a civilian govt. No one needs the experience because we can buy that experience and put it in the cabinet.
But, if you are going to tell me that you are qualified to be a civilian president because of your military experience, then you better be able to show me where and when you used negotiation, decision making, administrative planning etc in that career. Show me how your military experience will give you the wisdom to look beyond the battle and to the peace.
Darn it, I can't give you any more rep either. . .
I worked 30 years for the Army, met all kinds of officers, of all services, and I saw a huge variety of humanity, from nut-job little hitlers to saints in uniform. The military is simply a "representative sample" of all that walks our streets. I saw the same variety in my civilian superiors, from neurotics to saints. The saints were mostly women, for some reason.
Neither Abe Lincoln nor FDR were in the military, but BOTH made superb leadership decisions in our nation's darkest hours. Then there is Harry S Truman, a Senator from KS who became VP in 1944 and was thrust into the Presidency when FDR died in office in early 1945. Truman went on to end WW-2 in smashing style and make many other major decisions that when taken as a whole gets him rated by historians as our 10th best President ever.
Military experience is nice to have, but by no means is it a requirement for office, nor does it assure, in ANY way, that a candidate deserves our vote. I understand and respect what John McCain did in uniform, but he has simply been just another also ran in the Senate, more mouth than substance. Then again, if you want another president like Bush, who looked Russia's newly emerging dictator (Putin) in the eye and pronounced him to be a great sort of leader, then waste your vote for JM. After all, Bushie hid out in the Guard during the war in Vietnam, I think actually wearing a uniform to drill on weekends counts as having a military background.
I've watched JM for years, he displays nothing but a drunken sailor sort of bravado. I guess he's seen "Top Gun" too many times.
When Clark runs against McCain I'll keep that in mind, however he is irrelevant to this election.
Duhhhhhhhhh? This thread is about him and his comments on McCain. So that makes him 100% relevant within the context of the thread since its about him! Now as I said if he is being trashed for trashing McCain qualifications for President based on military experience then................
Let me check the name of the thread again? Thus if what Clark says is irrelevant then ignore the thread for it is irrelevant.
Duhhhhhhhhh? This thread is about him and his comments on McCain. So that makes him 100% relevant within the context of the thread since its about him! Now as I said if he is being trashed for trashing McCain qualifications for President based on military experience then................
Let me check the name of the thread again? Thus if what Clark says is irrelevant then ignore the thread for it is irrelevant.
Comparing Clark to McCain is irrelevant. Clark isn't a candidate.
Clark (on Obama's behalf) said discount McCain's military experience.
Clark's credibility in being able to make and substantiate this statement can be called into question based upon his own background.
However, Obama has no leadership experience.
If you discount McCain's military experience Obama still has no leadership experience.
Actually, I don't have any problem understanding the issue. The problem is some of you being unwilling to accept that Obama has significantly less leadership experience than McCain.
If it isn't relevant to your evaluation of the candidates, that is certainly your prerogative. However, Clark's statements are irrelevant to this factual statement.
Imagine that. Another off topic post to divert from the intent and purpose of this thread. This thread is to discuss senator McCain's experience for the position he is running for, on the platform he has chosen. General Clark's statements are relevant if for no other reason than this is what this thread is about.
Senator McCain's supporters are having a notoriously difficult time answering the charges levied. One would think it would be a simple matter to roll out ton's of examples from years of legislative and leadership experience.
Comparing Clark to McCain is irrelevant. Clark isn't a candidate.
Clark (on Obama's behalf) said discount McCain's military experience.
Clark's credibility in being able to make and substantiate this statement can be called into question based upon his own background.
However, Obama has no leadership experience.
If you discount McCain's military experience Obama still has no leadership experience.
Not that difficult to understand.
Clark did not say to discount John McCain's military experience. When asked if Sen MCCain was a hero, he intimated that POW status does not automatically qualify one for President.
You think that Clark does this on his own. Obama threw Clark under the bus today, and now the Republicans have picked up on this pattern. So Obama has folks do the dirty work and then Obama pretends to be above the fray.
Obama looks like a typical politician to me, I don't see him as an agent of change.
Look who put the screws to the brave airman and the politicalization of the Tail Hook incident years ago? Who without military experience slandered these brave warriors?
Witch Hunt In The Navy (http://www.jameswebb.com/articles/nytimes/navywitchhunt.htm - broken link)
There is indeed a larger issue at work here, but it is not the one Mr. O'Keefe mentioned. Mr. O'Keefe, a budgeteer who has yet to sit for Senate confirmation of his post and who has never served in the military, decided after conferring with Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, who likewise has never served, that he has the moral authority to discredit the cultural ethos of the entire Navy based on the conduct of a group of drunken, aviators in a hotel suite.
Wow oh wow and Clark gets slammed for mere words and Cheyny gets heralded and becomes vice president for political expediency.
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.
