Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Slamfire on June 30, 2008, 12:14:15 AM
-
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/29/clark.mccain/index.html
This bothers me a great deal... Wesley Clark comes out and endorses Obama - and then has the gall to say McCain is "not qualified" to be Commander in Chief of the US armed forces.
McCain's Father, and Grand Father were both Admirals - and McCain graduated from the US Naval Academy and saw combat first hand. He came "from the brass" and "fought in the trenches" - I can't think of a more well rounded profile for a Commander in Chief.
How dare he go there ! Especially considering Obama has never even so much as joined the Cub Scouts !
What, pray tell, Mr Clark, has Obama done, to make you think he'd make a better Commander in Chief ?
-
Clark sure sounds awful from those quotes.
-
Pfffft who in their right mind would name a Son Wesley...
:P
-
Clark sounds a lot like a politician. Ya know... full of it.
-
In the interview, Clark said McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, was "untested and untried."
And Obama has lots of experience in both foreign diplomacy and combat? Clark's stock went way down, in my opinion... all Clark had to say was, "I agree with Obama's philosophy and views on what America should be." To make the above comment is pathetic...
It is really too bad we don't have a 3rd choice, both parties are pathetic as hell and they get worse everyday.
-
It is really too bad we don't have a 3rd choice, both parties are pathetic as hell and they get worse everyday.
Agreed.
-
It is really too bad we don't have a 3rd choice, both parties are pathetic as hell and they get worse everyday.
Ya, I'm willing to be that neither candidate repesents the majority of his respective party. It really is pathetic,
-
Ya, I'm willing to be that neither candidate repesents the majority of his respective party. It really is pathetic,
it's all turned into... American Idol. We've on the ledge of a great precipice, and we have two imbecilic talking heads up for the job of "who'll take the first step". :uhoh
-
Pfffft who in their right mind would name a Son Wesley...
:P
Excellent people.....
My middle name is Wesley......Jerk :p
:lol
-
The dust-up began with Clark's appearance Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation," where moderator Bob Schieffer asked him about his interview with the Huffington Post earlier this month.
In the interview, Clark said McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, was "untested and untried."
When Schieffer asked to explain the comment, Clark said he was referring to McCain's experience, or lack thereof, in setting national security policies and understanding the risk involved in such matters.
"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. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility," said Clark, a former NATO commander who campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004.
"He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not," Clark said.
Schieffer noted that Obama did not have any of those experiences, nor had he "ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down."
"Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," Clark said.
OK, what about this is untrue or insulting? Sounds to me like Clark made valid points (and I'm leaning towards voting McCain). If getting shot down is an important qualification, then why do you republicans drool all over Dubya? How long did Reagan spend in a POW camp?
You guys have drunk the Dubya Kool-Aid so long you can't be objective anymore. All you can do is point and spit.
-
I don't think this has one iota of having to do with Dubya at all, RPM. To compare and contrast the resume's of both McCain and Obama was Clark's initiative and he failed mightily at that. If McCain has only flown combat missions, graduated from Annapolis, had to have been in charge of men at some point in his military career and had to push the buttom to drop bombs from his Skyhawk, what has Obama done? The 2 aren't even close. And conservative kool-aid tastes just like liberal kool-aid. Remember that.
-
Diablo, what I'm saying is Clark made valid points. To jump out and call him a disgrace is ludicrus. McCain did honorable service above and beyond, but he never held combat command or made combat command decisions. That's what Clark was saying. That puts McCain and Obama on equal experience turf in this area.
To say that combat command experience is a major factor for a candidate, just look at the last election. Bush had zero combat experience but republicans didn't seem to think it mattered. Reagan never left Hollywood, yet is considered one of the greats by republican standards. They do not look at the facts, just the hate spin. That's the point I was making.
As I said, I'm leaning toward McCain at the moment. I need to see who he picks for a running mate before I commit.
-
I see your point. Mine is I don't think combat experience nor military experience is a prerequisite to the CINC job. But according to Clark it is. The things he said McCain hasn't done Obama has come nowhere close to doing. If anything McCain is closer to Clark's ideal candidate than Obama could ever dream of being.
As for me, well, it's another situation of "choosing the lesser of 2 weevils"...I mean evils for this election.
-
OK, what about this is untrue or insulting?
"He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall."
That line is completely untrue, or at least a gross mischaracterization. McCain HAS been there, no question about that, and as for ordering the bombs to fall... he was the guy in the cockpit, making the decision firsthand in the moment to push the "pickle" button. As an O-6 (O-4 at the time he was shot down) he surely has ordered someone else (wingman, squadron mates) to do it alongside him... but more importantly, he took accountability, led the way, and did it himself too.
I can't believe that a military man (let alone a general with a background in armor/infantry ops) would say that someone who has flown a fighter in combat "hasn't held executive responsibility." Executive = to be responsible for execution... and as a fighter pilot, McCain has just a bit of experience executing the objectives laid out by planning types. I'm curious what Clark thinks is "executive experience" if McCain allegedly doesn't have any from his time in the military.
-
Tarmac, could you please educate me on what outfit McCain was CO of?
I agree he has the experience of combat, but he did not hold a command other than being senior POW. Clark actually has more command experience than McCain and I'd listen to what he has to say. I'd actually prefer to see Clark as the nominee.
Slamfire is pulling quotes out of his 6 when he said "has the gall to say McCain is "not qualified" to be Commander in Chief of the US armed forces." Did you see that anywhere in the linked article? I sure did'nt. Squeakfire is making spin, that's all. Don't forget Dubya vs McCain in South Carolina. Now THAT was a disgrace.
-
I think you guys are falling for the typical "headlines" BS. Read it in the context that he said it and there is nothing wrong with what he said. He is entitled to his opinion, last time I checked.
The part where he said being shot down doesn't make him qualified was a reply to a direct question that was asked of him. I really wonder how many actually read the article before just jumping on the bandwagon. Besides that why should Obama have to say anything? Is Clark working on his campaign? If Oprah says something about McCain, does Obama have to denounce her? If Rush Limprod says something bad about Obama does McCain have to denounce him?
""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. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility," said Clark, a former NATO commander who campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004.
"He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not," Clark said.
Schieffer noted that Obama did not have any of those experiences, nor had he "ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down."
"Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," Clark said.
-
Wesley Clark is a great American, and a war hero. Here you go Crockett, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1UYquKlfT0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1UYquKlfT0) and last but not least http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html (http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html)
-
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/29/clark.mccain/index.html
This bothers me a great deal... Wesley Clark comes out and endorses Obama - and then has the gall to say McCain is "not qualified" to be Commander in Chief of the US armed forces.
McCain's Father, and Grand Father were both Admirals - and McCain graduated from the US Naval Academy and saw combat first hand. He came "from the brass" and "fought in the trenches" - I can't think of a more well rounded profile for a Commander in Chief.
How dare he go there ! Especially considering Obama has never even so much as joined the Cub Scouts !
What, pray tell, Mr Clark, has Obama done, to make you think he'd make a better Commander in Chief ?
cause he's gonna """"change"" things :huh :rofl
-
Tarmac, could you please educate me on what outfit McCain was CO of?
I agree he has the experience of combat, but he did not hold a command other than being senior POW. Clark actually has more command experience than McCain and I'd listen to what he has to say. I'd actually prefer to see Clark as the nominee.
Slamfire is pulling quotes out of his 6 when he said "has the gall to say McCain is "not qualified" to be Commander in Chief of the US armed forces." Did you see that anywhere in the linked article? I sure did'nt. Squeakfire is making spin, that's all. Don't forget Dubya vs McCain in South Carolina. Now THAT was a disgrace.
You lie: I never quoted anything from that article. I simply provided a link and gave MY opinion of what he said.
-
Doesn't really matter.....whoever gets the most money into his campaign coffers and gets the most support from the influential will win.
-
I've been on the pointy end of General Clark's past "executive decisions" and I can tell you from personal experience, he's a pedantic idiot. He was certainly Clinton's darling General during his tenure as SACEUR.
-
I've been on the pointy end of General Clark's past "executive decisions" and I can tell you from personal experience, he's a pedantic idiot. He was certainly Clinton's darling General during his tenure as SACEUR.
So in the end it's all dirty, politics as usual.
-
There aren't many qualifications to being president:
Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
Term limit amendment - US Constitution, Amendment XXII, Section 1 – ratified February 27, 1951
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
The only other is to win the electoral college vote.
-
If Wesley Clark was ever on the short list for Obama's VP selection this stupid comment will most likely exclude him from that list.
-
I forgot to add above that, yes, I called a former Rhodes Scholar a pedantic idiot. If anyone wants details, I'd be more than willing to discuss them over a beer, but they would take up pages of this forum to explain fully.
Suffice it to say that General Clark's military accumen leaves something to be desired. If anyone ever has a chance to watch the PBS Frontline documentary on the Kosovo Campaign, pay very close attention to General Charles Krulak's closing comments.
-
Clark is the military poodle on a leash held by Obama. If he barks, it is because his master commanded him to speak.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/29/clark.mccain/index.html
This bothers me a great deal... Wesley Clark comes out and endorses Obama - and then has the gall to say McCain is "not qualified" to be Commander in Chief of the US armed forces.
Care to point out where I'm the one telling lies? You are putting words in Clarks mouth he never said.
-
Care to point out where I'm the one telling lies? You are putting words in Clarks mouth he never said.
Again, you accused me of making up quotes - which is a lie - I provided a link to the article and gave MY opinion on what was said. I did not misquote Clark - in fact I did not even quote him. Again, you lie once more saying I am putting words in Clark's mouth - I have done no such thing...
You also attempted to derail the discussion by making it "personal" with me - going so far as to call me names (ie: "Squeekfire" - Ironic, considering I've been playing this game - and it's predecessors - for over 15 years now - don't assume that just because I change my handle every couple of years that I'm some wet behind the ears dweeb).
BTW - I'd be FINE with what Clark said if he applied it equally to both Candidates - instead, he focused solely on McCain and refused to "go there" when it came to Obama. In short, it was a political hackjob - a hypocritical cheap shot... a double standard.
-
clark became a dem tool about the time he started his talking head tour on CNN ...
-
And 4 years ago when people attacked Kerry it was justified because "Kerry's the one who's running on his war record".. We need to honor these guys for what they did and leave the rest of it alone. Don't get indignant over this one if you were happily drinking the Swift Boat kool-aide 4 years ago.
-
OK, what about this is untrue or insulting? Sounds to me like Clark made valid points (and I'm leaning towards voting McCain). If getting shot down is an important qualification, then why do you republicans drool all over Dubya? How long did Reagan spend in a POW camp?
You guys have drunk the Dubya Kool-Aid so long you can't be objective anymore. All you can do is point and spit.
Well, at least Dubya went up in the air. At least Reagan stormed Hollywood stages waving the flag.
What did Obama do? Besides recite verses in Indonesia until he was 18yo.
Then the guy establishes himself as a Politician in one of the countries sleaziest states. BUT I guess as the worlds first 1/2black, 1/2white, Hawaiian Indonesian to ever run for US President he's pretty historic. :lol
-
See Rules #4, #5
-
See Rules #4, #5
He implied it and you know it, we all know it. Interestingly enough, his same words could be applied to Obama,
-
Well, at least Dubya went up in the air. At least Reagan stormed Hollywood stages waving the flag.
So now, we hold the "Rear Echelon Mother boinker" (REMF) as more honorable than the combat vet...
If that's the case, then we deserve whatever we get for a president.
-
See Rules #4, #5
-
for those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country –- no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary. Let me also add that no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters of both sides. We must always profess our profound gratitude for the service of our men and women in uniform, period."
Obama today... very well said.
-
Obama spokesman Bill Burton: "As he's said many times before, Sen. Obama honors and respects Sen. McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by general Clark."
Looks like Obama is distancing himself from Clark's remarks. I guess that means Wesley said nothing out of line, right?
I mean that's the case all of his defenders here are making. Funny the candidate thought Wes was out of line though.
Except of course that Wes is Barack's war poodle, yapping on command.
-
Having his nose stuck up Clinton's butt didn't make Clark qualified to run either but it sure didn't stop him.
-
Tarmac, could you please educate me on what outfit McCain was CO of?
I agree he has the experience of combat, but he did not hold a command other than being senior POW. Clark actually has more command experience than McCain and I'd listen to what he has to say. I'd actually prefer to see Clark as the nominee.
My point was that executive experience does not require an official command, and that executive experience is not granted by having a title on a gold plaque on an office door.
I've known commanders whose executive experience couldn't get them out of a wet paper bag. There are plenty of commanders whose units run on the strength of their second in command or on the dedication of their underlings.
-
He answered a question asked him. The same absolutely could be said of Obama.
BTW, nobody here is fit to walk a step in Clark's shoes. Nobody, unless of course you have been valedictorian at West Point, 4 Star General and NATO commander. Then you can spray kool-aid. Otherwise you really should listen to what he has to say. Squeakfire has kool-aid all over him and that's my point.
If his Clark's quote isn't out of line, why is Obama distancing himself from it big time?
-
Well, at least Dubya went up in the air. At least Reagan stormed Hollywood stages waving the flag.
What did Obama do? Besides recite verses in Indonesia until he was 18yo.
Then the guy establishes himself as a Politician in one of the countries sleaziest states. BUT I guess as the worlds first 1/2black, 1/2white, Hawaiian Indonesian to ever run for US President he's pretty historic. :lol
I must have missed the part where a potential president was required to serve in or pretend to serve in the military..
-
He answered a question asked him. The same absolutely could be said of Obama.
BTW, nobody here is fit to walk a step in Clark's shoes. Nobody, unless of course you have been valedictorian at West Point, 4 Star General and NATO commander. Then you can spray kool-aid. Otherwise you really should listen to what he has to say. Squeakfire has kool-aid all over him and that's my point.
You forgot Rhode's scholar. I've served under him in a combat zone and was completely un-impressed by his decision making. Just because he's got a great pedigree doesn't make him a great military commander. One of my old CO's was on his staff in Europe, and he detested the guy--this was the opinion of a Vietnam (Combat) Vet Marine Colonel, after my experience as a participant in his catastrophic management of Kosovo, and fully confirmed what I observed on the working end of his decisions. He sure looks good on paper--the classic warrior-scholar. In reality, he's all pedigree and little else. I can explain how he cost the U.S. taxpayer in excess of $75 million unneccessarily, merely because of parochialism. It'd take a while, and is beyond the scope of this thread, but I can do it. While I'll grant that the policy under which he acted was completely screwed up, his operational decisions extended the length of time that it took for the Serbs to sign the MTA, and cost Kosovar Albanians their lives, both directly and indirectly. I can go on and on, but when you're staring down a FUBAR situation that could get you killed, and that he was ultimately responsible for, any trust in his pedigree is worthless. He was a political general that was assigned under the providence of Bill Clinton, not his tactical accumen. I loathe hearing him speak--I detest him that badly.
-
Looks like Obama is distancing himself from Clark's remarks. I guess that means Wesley said nothing out of line, right?
I mean that's the case all of his defenders here are making. Funny the candidate thought Wes was out of line though.
Except of course that Wes is Barack's war poodle, yapping on command.
Most likely it's to appease the premadonna's like we have here in the O Club. They whine about anything he does, so it's one of those damn if you do damn if you don't.. If he doesn't say anything, then the righties will whine and cry about it. If he does say something, then it's see we told yea so from the righties.
Funny how this kind of stuff only matters when it's a guy from the left, yet all the crap that spews of of morons mouths like Rush Limprod and some of the other koolaid drinking right wingers always gets ignored by the very people in here that are complaining about this.
-
BTW, nobody here is fit to walk a step in Clark's shoes. Nobody, unless of course you have been valedictorian at West Point, 4 Star General and NATO commander.
So, because Clark has military experience he can make the judgement call on who is qualified or not qualified to be the President and we shouldn't question his motives?
So by that comparison, are you telling me FDR should of never been President? FDR was never in the military and only held civilian based jobs in relation to the Navy. That means Landon should of won in 1936 and Willkie in 1940 (and there are countless successful presidents who had no military training). Clark should of kept his mouth shut, I would be just as disappointed with his comments if they were made towards Obama and I'm sure they will continue by the Right Wing nuts.
Clark is just another politician now, I respect his sacrifice for this country but that does not give him a 'free-pass' to smear anyone less battle hardened than himself.
He answered a question asked him. The same absolutely could be said of Obama.
It has been... many of the Right Wing nuts have taken Obama's stance on Iraq (whether you agree with it or not) and have assumed he is incompetent. The difference between the Clark and these Right Wing nuts is just motivation and ideology, not the tools.
-
Did Clark ever fire a bullet in anger? Was he ever shot at while commanding troops in the field? let alone hit by SAM's and tortured the good old fashioned way for five years in a facility where dozens of top notch American servicemen were killed by means of torture? I agree, Clark's service to the country was second to none, and a man of his caliber is clearly cut from damned good material, but his assessment of McCain's "lack" of qualifications to lead a nation based on genuine personal sacrifice when compared to Obama's abundant qualifications by mere "good character and ideas" seems way out of whack to me.
In any event I have no other real choice than to vote for the wisdom and experience that McCain so clearly has over Obama's lack of same. Obama is a good guy, it is obvious to me, but he doesn't hold a candle to McCain, or Clark. Kerry? Don't even try it.
-
Did Clark ever fire a bullet in anger? Was he ever shot at while commanding troops in the field? let alone hit by SAM's and tortured the good old fashioned way for five years in a facility where dozens of top notch American servicemen were killed by means of torture? I agree, Clark's service to the country was second to none, and a man of his caliber is clearly cut from damned good material, but his assessment of McCain's "lack" of qualifications to lead a nation based on genuine personal sacrifice when compared to Obama's abundant qualifications by mere "good character and ideas" seems way out of whack to me.
According to Wikipedia, Clark commanded an infantry company in Vietnam, where he received a Silver Star for his leadership in a battle in which he was shot 4 times.
-
Clark's politics is whacked.
ROX
-
Being a Jr officer in the navy(or any other service) does not qualify you for commander in chief. Neither does being a congressman. The comments by General Clark are being taken out of context. The fact is that there is no prep for being commander of chief.
Look at the last 10 years;
Bush 15 months of service; National guard. Flight training paid for by taxpayers. (OCS/flight training is nearly 15 months) Got excused (during wartime) to work on fathers campaign. Normal obligation for flight training? 6 years?
Clinton; Rhodes scholar. never served. (wartime)
Kerry; Served during wartime: was decorated. lost presidential race. His military service was used against him.
The point is that much is made of military service or lack of it during the campaign but doesn't seem to matter on election day unless you can turn it into a liability.
-
I must have missed the part where a potential president was required to serve in or pretend to serve in the military..
My class lost a classmate and a class instructor in a T-38 simulated single engine heavyweight approach/landing. They died. Burned to death in the airplane at the end of the runway.
Were they "pretending to serve" since they were only in Air Training Command? After all neither were war fighters; one was a student that hadn't won his wings. Pretenders?
Have you done any study on the the fatality rate in the F-102? Do you have any idea of the fatality rate in Bush's F-102 unit?
Do you have any idea at all why Tom Wolfe wrote this:
Being a fighter pilot -- for that matter, simply taking off in a single-engine jet fighter of the Century series, such as an F-102, or any of the military's other marvelous bricks with fins on them -- presented a man, on a perfectly sunny day, with more ways to get himself killed than his wife and children could imagine in their wildest fears.
-- Tom Wolfe, The Right Stuff.
Have you served at all? Or are you just the typical cheap shot sniper?
-
You forgot Rhode's scholar. I've served under him in a combat zone and was completely un-impressed by his decision making. Just because he's got a great pedigree doesn't make him a great military commander. One of my old CO's was on his staff in Europe, and he detested the guy--this was the opinion of a Vietnam (Combat) Vet Marine Colonel, after my experience as a participant in his catastrophic management of Kosovo, and fully confirmed what I observed on the working end of his decisions. He sure looks good on paper--the classic warrior-scholar. In reality, he's all pedigree and little else. I can explain how he cost the U.S. taxpayer in excess of $75 million unneccessarily, merely because of parochialism. It'd take a while, and is beyond the scope of this thread, but I can do it. While I'll grant that the policy under which he acted was completely screwed up, his operational decisions extended the length of time that it took for the Serbs to sign the MTA, and cost Kosovar Albanians their lives, both directly and indirectly. I can go on and on, but when you're staring down a FUBAR situation that could get you killed, and that he was ultimately responsible for, any trust in his pedigree is worthless. He was a political general that was assigned under the providence of Bill Clinton, not his tactical accumen. I loathe hearing him speak--I detest him that badly.
Hackworth considered him to be the consummate "perfume prince" -- basically a careerist ticket puncher. As for his judgement about making bombs fall:
One of Clark's most argued decisions during his SACEUR command was his attempted operation at Priština International Airport immediately after the end of the Kosovo War. Russian forces had arrived in Kosovo and were heading for the airport on June 12, 1999, two days after the bombing campaign ended, expecting to help police that section of Kosovo. Clark, on the other hand, had planned for the Kosovo Force to police the area. Clark called then-Secretary General of NATO Javier Solana, and was told "of course you have to get to the airport" and "you have transfer of authority" in the area. The British commander of the Kosovo Force, General Mike Jackson, however refused to block the Russians through military action saying "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you." Jackson has said he refused to take action because he did not believe it was worth the risk of a military confrontation with the Russians. American General Hugh Shelton called Jackson's refusal "troubling," and hearings in the United States Senate suggested it may amount to insubordination, with Senator John Warner suggesting holding hearings regarding whether the refusal was legal and potentially changing those rules if it was.[72] British Chief of the Defence Staff Charles Guthrie, however, agreed with Jackson and told Clark this on the day Jackson refused the order.[73] Russian eventually withdrew its aid, as some nations, including Bulgaria and Romania (both of which sought eventual NATO membership), disallowed Russian aircraft to fly over their territory, halting their ability to bring in forces.
Charon
-
Wesley Clark is the 'George B. McClellan' of our time..
-
in which he was shot 4 times.
By whom?
Point made, I will trust your visit to the wik. So, It is fair to say that being shot four times does not qualify a guy to be President, although it doesnt hurt (no pun intended) ;)
-
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/29/clark.mccain/index.html
This bothers me a great deal... Wesley Clark comes out and endorses Obama - and then has the gall to say McCain is "not qualified" to be Commander in Chief of the US armed forces.
McCain's Father, and Grand Father were both Admirals - and McCain graduated from the US Naval Academy and saw combat first hand. He came "from the brass" and "fought in the trenches" - I can't think of a more well rounded profile for a Commander in Chief.
How dare he go there ! Especially considering Obama has never even so much as joined the Cub Scouts !
What, pray tell, Mr Clark, has Obama done, to make you think he'd make a better Commander in Chief ?
I thought Clark was right on the money.
-
How come whenever a Vet comes out of the closet and announces he supports Obama the Republicans immediately try to attack his service record? It doesn't seem to matter how high of a rank the guy achieved, how many medals he won, anything-oftimes by people who never served themselves.
-
How come whenever a Vet comes out of the closet and announces he supports Obama the Republicans immediately try to attack his service record? It doesn't seem to matter how high of a rank the guy achieved, how many medals he won, anything-oftimes by people who never served themselves.
I served, and I'm not a Republican fanboi. See my comments posted above. I feel the same way about Jim Webb as I do John McCain--regardless of their politics, we're a better country having guys like them in office. I disagree with Jim Webb on a lot of things politically, but had I been a voter in Virginia, I would have voted for him merely on the strength of his character. I would not give General Clark the same consideration.
You guys know that future President Lyndon Johnson received a Silver Star from General McArthur during WWII for being in a bomber that got attacked by Japanese fighters? Second, a Silver Star was a boiler plate award for Company Commanders in Vietnam--serve a tour, get the medal, regardless of actions. Similarly, the Bronze Star was given to Platoon Commanders as a boiler plate award. You find Clark's Silver Star citation and find out if it was for a single combat action or a tour award. If it was for a single action, I'll retract this particular comment.
Regardless, I feel like my criticisms are valid, because I was there, I've seen the guy operate, and wasn't impressed in the least.
-
It is really too bad we don't have a 3rd choice, both parties are pathetic as hell and they get worse everyday.
So true......
-
My class lost a classmate and a class instructor in a T-38 simulated single engine heavyweight approach/landing. They died. Burned to death in the airplane at the end of the runway.
Were they "pretending to serve" since they were only in Air Training Command? After all neither were war fighters; one was a student that hadn't won his wings. Pretenders?
Have you done any study on the the fatality rate in the F-102? Do you have any idea of the fatality rate in Bush's F-102 unit?
Do you have any idea at all why Tom Wolfe wrote this:
Have you served at all? Or are you just the typical cheap shot sniper?
Pleeze! Bush's F-102 unit? He barely got there before he got his father to use his influence to get him a early release. If your in flight training then you know that the military requires obligated service for flight training. And that includes the National Guard! And since your too young to remember let me remind you; During VietNam it was very difficult if not impossible to get into the National Guard unless your father was a CEO or a member of Congress.
And if your in flight training you know that OCS, flight training and the other schools that a new officer goes through takes nearly 15 months. How long did Jr. serve? 15 months.
-
So true......
Yup if only we had a 3rd choice. Once again we will have to choose the lesser of two evils.
-
I thought Clark was right on the money.
I wouldn't put a single cent into that pony.
-
How come whenever a Vet comes out of the closet and announces he supports Obama the Republicans immediately try to attack his service record? It doesn't seem to matter how high of a rank the guy achieved, how many medals he won, anything-oftimes by people who never served themselves.
Yeah, I served too in my own limited way, and I never voted for "W" and don't particularly like McCain.
My opinion of VP / Pres wanna be Clark is based on it's on its own merits, as is my opinion of home town boy Obama. Silver lining, an Obama presidency means I get a new Senator!
The late David Hackworth didn't much like Clark either, nor did he care much for Ollie North at the other end of the spectrum. Perfumed princes. He beleived in warriors and honor and duty and resigned from the Army rather than play the political game when it got in the way of the first three.
Charon
-
So, if according to Gen Clark, flying a plane and getting shot down does not qualify one to be president (and i agree with him), then neither does leading a squad and getting shot. Military service does not qualify one to be POTUS but it doesn't hurt either.
Obama's voting record, personal associations, and stupid public remarks do disqualify him though imo.
-
The late David Hackworth didn't much like Clark either, nor did he care much for Ollie North at the other end of the spectrum.
Charon
Well, Ollie is a more complicated...His entanglements once working on the NSC staff are certainly questionable. I know his god-son, and he has some context on that. What I will say is that General Charles Krulak is quote in "The Nightingale's Song" as saying that Ollie was regarded as one of the best Marine Platoon and Company commanders in Vietnam at the time. What happened later is certainly up for discussion, as mentioned in the same book.
I'd highly recommend it for its look at John McCain as well.
-
Shame on the media for dragging this soundbyte through the mud. If you read the transcript it is obvious Clark is not questioning McCain's service to country.
-
Shame on the media for dragging this soundbyte through the mud. If you read the transcript it is obvious Clark is not questioning McCain's service to country.
And yet Obama felt the need to denounce his comments.
-
Shame on the media for dragging this soundbyte through the mud. If you read the transcript it is obvious Clark is not questioning McCain's service to country.
Clark said McCains military service did not qualify him to be a President and that Obamas character and ideas did. Its a personal opinion but one that has a poor formula for success in a public debate. McCain has a character and ideas too. Clark would have been better off to say he preferred Obamas character and ideas since McCain has Obama completely trumped in the personal sacrifice column, and Obama knows it very well...thats why Obama had his attack dog go bite McCain so that he could later reject it making himself look all the better for it.
McCain is the better man.
-
And yet Obama felt the need to denounce his comments.
....because most of America simply carps up the soundbytes provided by the media and believes anything spoon fed to them.
FROM THE TRANSCRIPT:
BOB SCHIEFFER: How can you say that John McCain is untested and untried, General?
CLARK: Because in the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk. 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. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded -- that wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle this publicly? He hasn't made that calls, Bob.
SCHIEFFER: Well, General, maybe -- could I just interrupt you?
CLARK: Sure.
SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences, either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean...
CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.
-
because most of America simply carps up the soundbytes provided by the media and believes anything spoon fed to them.
====
Sounding kinda bitter here. Im guessing most of us on this board who found Clarks comments insulting to McCain have seen the entire interview and read the entire transcript, not the sculpted segment you chose to spoon feed and carp us up with.
:eek:
-
Both of these guys are from one of the worst performing Congresses in history. Neither one of these guys will make any ground shaking changes in your life.
Immigration; both liberal, both will do nothing.
Iraq; McCain will try to continue Bush's policy's. Will be tough with a Democratic Congress. (Rep predicted to lose more seats) Even without a Democratic Congress McCain will have trouble in Iraq. Military needs a break.
Obama; will pull out of Iraq. But not completely. A military presence will be there for foreseeable future. We need oil. Iraq has high grade oil.
Economy; Toss up. Neither one will do much. Oil/Iraq will have more influence on economy.
Social Security; Congress likes the slush fund we call Social Security and they won't make large changes to it.
Global Warming; Do nothing Congress will hamper or lessen any major changes.
-
Neither one of these guys will make any ground shaking changes in your life.
a government at odds with itself is the best kind of governemnt...the bastards cant change anything and screw it up worse than it already is. Fact is if Obama gets the nod he will have a democratic congress to cooperate with and screw everything the hell up.
Then, in two years the republicans get both houses.
Problem is what happens in those first two years.
-
a government at odds with itself is the best kind of government...the bastards cant change anything and screw it up worse than it already is. Fact is if Obama gets the nod he will have a democratic congress to cooperate with and screw everything the hell up.
Then, in two years the republicans get both houses.
Problem is what happens in those first two years.
can you say 1992 without the percolating dot com bubble?
can you say Economic Depression????
-
I believe our government works best when we have one party in the White House and the other in the Congress. The chances of McCain winning is astronomical. Fact is that the Republicans had total control for 6 years and did nothing. Now the populace is tired and ready for a major change. But while the Democrats will win a few more seats, they probably won't get to that magic 60 votes(in Senate). So a majority Democratic Congress with Obama is probably wishful thinking for some.
On McCain/Clark; Both are hero's. Both served in war. Both decorated. Its sad that in the political climate we are in that we can't leave it like that. Too much is being made of these comments. Nothing in a junior officers training(McCain was a junior officer) qualifies him for commander in chief. But serving 15 months in a National Guard unit does? And most of that in training? And Kerry, a decorated veteran, is less a commander in chief prospect? I didn't like Kerry but Bush's war record?
-
Fact is that the Republicans had total control for 6 years and did nothing.
Amen, brotha. For this reason, I feel the Bush Presidency is a huge disappointment.
-
can you say 1992 without the percolating dot com bubble?
can you say Economic Depression????
We're going into that now, Eagler. As a matter of fact, This is looking uglier than '92 could have ever hoped to be.
Whichever one is elected, is going to have a lot of work to do on the economic end. Iraq seems to have faded as an issue in most voters' minds, because of this. It might be a help to the republicans.
-
Little note here while we are talking about Congressional seats and such: did you know that Larry Craig (R)(correct name?) the Congressman from Idaho(?) that was convicted of soliciting in a Minnesota restroom will probably retain his seat? Yeppers! Almosts a certainty!
-
I am not now, nor have I ever been.......tEh gHey :rolleyes:
-
Pleeze! Bush's F-102 unit? He barely got there before he got his father to use his influence to get him a early release.
You are wrong, sir. I have posted on this before; if you will take the time to visit this old thread and read it, I think it will clear up many of your misconceptions.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,108641.msg1124661.html#msg1124661
If your in flight training then you know that the military requires obligated service for flight training.
Class 75-04, Willie.
And that includes the National Guard! And since your too young to remember let me remind you;
I am not too young to remember. I flew reconnaissance missions off the coast of VietNam shortly after the war ended. Only one of my classmates set foot in VietNam; he was a C-130 pilot that arrived at his unit during the Saigon evac. They didn't have time to qualify him in country so he was used to shoot flares out the back door on approach to spoof manpads.
During VietNam it was very difficult if not impossible to get into the National Guard unless your father was a CEO or a member of Congress.
Really? The year I went to UPT there were ~ 330 ANG UPT slots. That year 4 of them were filled. There was one ANG student in my class. The simple fact is that not many people knew about the ANG UPT program at that time. Had I known, I most definitely would have gone ANG because that way you KNEW what airplane you would be flying. A very good friend of mine got an F-4 that way. In my entire class of 55, there were only 4 F-4 assignments.
And if your in flight training you know that OCS, flight training and the other schools that a new officer goes through takes nearly 15 months. How long did Jr. serve? 15 months.
Once again, you need to do your homework.
Bush’s National Guard Timeline
Major dates during Gov. George W. Bush’s service in the Texas National Guard, according to official records from the National Guard Bureau:
Jan. 19, 1968: Bush completes Air Force officer qualifications test in New Haven, Conn., while attending Yale University.
May 27, 1968: Walter B. Staudt, commander of the Texas National Guard, interviews Bush and recommends he be accepted for pilot training. Bush’s application for enlistment in the Guard is approved.
June 1968: Bush receives bachelor of arts degree from Yale.
July 12, 1968: A three-member Federal Recognition Examining Board reports Bush is qualified for promotion to 2nd Lieutenant in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron.
July 14, 1968: Bush attends basic military training in San Antonio.
Aug. 25, 1968: Completes basic military training.
Nov. 26, 1968 — Dec. 2, 1969: Attends undergraduate pilot training with the 3559th Student Squadron, Moody Air Force Base, Ga. He is trained to fly standard Air Force aircraft, including the T-31, T-37, and T-39. <I bet they meant to say " T-41, T-37 and T-38".>
Dec. 29, 1969 — Jan. 20, 1970: Trainee, 111th Squadron, Ellington Air Force Base, near Houston.
Jan. 11, 1970: Assigned flying duty as a pilot of F-102 fighter interceptors, 111th Squadron at Ellington.
Aug. 24, 1970: Three-member board recommends 2nd Lt. Bush for promotion to first lieutenant. Bush later receives the promotion.
Sept. 6, 1972: Bush’s request for a three-month transfer to 187th TAC Recon Group, Montgomery, Ala., is approved so he can work as political director for a Senate campaign.
Sept. 18, 1973: Bush receives permission to transfer to reserve status to attend Harvard Business School.
Oct. 1, 1973: Receives honorable discharge. "
-
Yup if only we had a 3rd choice. Once again we will have to choose the lesser of two evils.
If you mean what you say, Barr/Libertarian, Baldwin/Constitutional and Paul/Write-in choices are available.
ANY of those would make a better President than Obama or McCain.
So when will you vote your conscience instead of for the lesser of two weasels?
-
Neither one of these guys will make any ground shaking changes in your life.
IMO you are quite wrong here as well.
Obama will likely replace at least two SC justices. Odds are they will be two of the most liberal justices on the court. With McCain there would a chance to get a less liberal and less activist/constitutionally inventive judge than the one being with replaced. With Obama the odds heavily favor replacement with a judge MORE liberal and more activist/constitutionally inventive than the one being replace.
If you don't think that Obama's choices will not cause ground shaking change at some point, I strongly disagree.
-
So when will you vote your conscience instead of for the lesser of two weasels?
when the country is on better footing and I could stand and the country can afford to have the greater of two weasels, obama, to win.
I do not think this election is the time to throw away my vote
-
Fascinating.
Isn't the implication here about the role of 'Commander and Chief', not president? I see two roles because of my own association with the Military.
As a veteran, the son of a combat veteran, an employee of a company that serves the military community and as an American that is concerned about the ever-increasing role of the US Military as the world's police force, I am very interested in how either man will act as the boss of the most powerful military force the earth has ever seen.
Most of the people I grew up with and served with have a vested interest in our most-senior leader being a natural and skillful diplomat, a gentleman, and one who places the highest value on the lives of those entrusted to him. When our military members and those of our allies are sent to harm's way it must only be because diplomacy has failed. First. These are not toy soldiers. They are men and women with families and most are reservists with the same pursuits as the rest of us.
That's what I will watch for in the upcoming debates and the platforms of the two men in question. I will say that I am pleased that the General officer in question showed his political spots and that Obama put out the stiff arm. And that is the nicest thing I've ever said about the good Senator.
Raider
-
From Wik; At the height of the Vietnam War, Bush was accepted into the Texas Air National Guard in May 1968, despite scoring the lowest acceptable passing grade on the pilot's written aptitude test.[22][23][24] This was at a time when more than ten thousand Air National Guard personnel, many fighter pilots, were called to active duty to serve in Vietnam.[25] After training, he was assigned to duty in Houston, flying Convair F-102s out of Ellington Air Force Base.[26] Critics allege Bush was favorably treated because of his father's political standing, citing his lack of combat service and his irregular attendance.[27] The United States Department of Defense released all the records of Bush's Texas Air National Guard service, which remain in its official archives.[23] Though not accepted to the University of Texas School of Law in 1970,[28] he accepted a transfer to the Alabama Air National Guard in 1972 to work on a Republican senate campaign, and in October 1973 he was discharged from the Texas Air National Guard, almost eight months early without being called to active duty to serve in Vietnam, to attend Harvard Business School.[29] While at Harvard, Bush completed his six-year service obligation in the inactive reserve.[30]
During this time Bush had multiple accounts of substance abuse.[31] In one instance, Bush was arrested near his family's summer home in Kennebunkport, Maine for driving under the influence of alcohol at the age of thirty on September 4, 1976. He pled guilty, was fined US$150, and had his Maine driver's license suspended until 1978.[32] Bush then attended Harvard University, where he earned his MBA,[33] and entered the oil industry in Texas not long afterward. end;
Mr. Bush spent much of his service in college, not actually serving. Also the Texas Air National guard was known as a haven for the children of CEO's, Congressmen etc. Now as someone who was around during that time do you really think that you could have gotten into the National Guard? Avoided Viet Nam? Could you could have gotten the favorable treatment G.W. Bush did? Now answer honestly! What I would like to know is how many flight hours did he get while in the Texas Guard. Probably not much. His DD214 (or the officer equivalent) That I would like to see. What was his retention code? Did they fix that too? As far as his drug bust. He was lucky that the policy wasn't updated until 1979.
OK now lets say for arguments sake that Lt. Bush's service was all good. How does that compare (which was the original point) with either McCain, Clark or Kerry? Does military service really mean a better Commander in Chief? Mmm Carter comes to mind. Flowed with every cause that came along. Wouldn't have wanted to follow him into combat. He lacked leadership. Which is my problem with President Bush. Not a leader, never was.
The National Guard is an honorable force and to have it used as a dumping ground for some elitist frat boy is a disgrace.
-
IMO you are quite wrong here as well.
Obama will likely replace at least two SC justices. Odds are they will be two of the most liberal justices on the court. With McCain there would a chance to get a less liberal and less activist/constitutionally inventive judge than the one being with replaced. With Obama the odds heavily favor replacement with a judge MORE liberal and more activist/constitutionally inventive than the one being replace.
If you don't think that Obama's choices will not cause ground shaking change at some point, I strongly disagree.
Prior to 2000 election liberals made nearly same predictions about G. Bush. Still waiting.
-
If you mean what you say, Barr/Libertarian, Baldwin/Constitutional and Paul/Write-in choices are available.
ANY of those would make a better President than Obama or McCain.
So when will you vote your conscience instead of for the lesser of two weasels?
Definitely not a third party. Voting for a third party candidate may make you feel good but fact is a 3rd party White House would be very ineffective. My thought; Give us two good candidates that will at least try to fix things and not feed us the same divisive party BS.
-
Seems to me U.S. Grant was one of the greatest generals ever.
As a president he was one of the worst ever.
Go figure.
-
Don't make a big deal about Bush being recommended by a 3 member board for Lt. Promotion at junior officer level is almost automatic. Most marginal JO's get recommended. Now if he had made O5 or above that might be a selling point.
-
Don't make a big deal about Bush being recommended by a 3 member board for Lt. Promotion at junior officer level is almost automatic. Most marginal JO's get recommended. Now if he had made O5 or above that might be a selling point.
Pretty sure Commander in Chief ranks up there at the top somewhere. You sold yet?
-
Seems to me U.S. Grant was one of the greatest generals ever.
As a president he was one of the worst ever.
Go figure.
Ah yes often called Useless Grant. His generalship was often questioned during the war. Seems he got whupped a few times. But he was tenacious. Forgot about him.
-
Patton got questioned, too. Beat up a couple of times as well. There is no achievement without risk, no success without failure.
-
Pretty sure Commander in Chief ranks up there at the top somewhere. You sold yet?
And your equating an election (to president) to a military achievement?
(O5 level advancement is much more scrutinised than O3 level. Someone actually looks at the officer record, its not a automatic approval)
-
Patton got questioned, too. Beat up a couple of times as well. There is no achievement without risk, no success without failure.
Ya these two were similar in some ways. Put Patton in 1862 he could have been another Grant. IMO better.
-
Ahh, but Patton WAS there in 1862...he was there!
-
Ahh, but Patton WAS there in 1862...he was there!
so true...
Patton's family was from the south, so I don't think he'd appreciate being compared to Grant..
:D
-
From Wik; At the height of the Vietnam War, Bush was accepted into the Texas Air National Guard in May 1968, despite scoring the lowest acceptable passing grade on the pilot's written aptitude test.[22][23][24] This was at a time when more than ten thousand Air National Guard personnel, many fighter pilots, were called to active duty to serve in Vietnam.[25] After training, he was assigned to duty in Houston, flying Convair F-102s out of Ellington Air Force Base.[26] Critics allege Bush was favorably treated because of his father's political standing, citing his lack of combat service and his irregular attendance.[27] The United States Department of Defense released all the records of Bush's Texas Air National Guard service, which remain in its official archives.[23] Though not accepted to the University of Texas School of Law in 1970,[28] he accepted a transfer to the Alabama Air National Guard in 1972 to work on a Republican senate campaign, and in October 1973 he was discharged from the Texas Air National Guard, almost eight months early without being called to active duty to serve in Vietnam, to attend Harvard Business School.[29] While at Harvard, Bush completed his six-year service obligation in the inactive reserve.[30]
During this time Bush had multiple accounts of substance abuse.[31] In one instance, Bush was arrested near his family's summer home in Kennebunkport, Maine for driving under the influence of alcohol at the age of thirty on September 4, 1976. He pled guilty, was fined US$150, and had his Maine driver's license suspended until 1978.[32] Bush then attended Harvard University, where he earned his MBA,[33] and entered the oil industry in Texas not long afterward. end;
Mr. Bush spent much of his service in college, not actually serving. Also the Texas Air National guard was known as a haven for the children of CEO's, Congressmen etc. Now as someone who was around during that time do you really think that you could have gotten into the National Guard? Avoided Viet Nam? Could you could have gotten the favorable treatment G.W. Bush did? Now answer honestly! What I would like to know is how many flight hours did he get while in the Texas Guard. Probably not much. His DD214 (or the officer equivalent) That I would like to see. What was his retention code? Did they fix that too? As far as his drug bust. He was lucky that the policy wasn't updated until 1979.
OK now lets say for arguments sake that Lt. Bush's service was all good. How does that compare (which was the original point) with either McCain, Clark or Kerry? Does military service really mean a better Commander in Chief? Mmm Carter comes to mind. Flowed with every cause that came along. Wouldn't have wanted to follow him into combat. He lacked leadership. Which is my problem with President Bush. Not a leader, never was.
The National Guard is an honorable force and to have it used as a dumping ground for some elitist frat boy is a disgrace.
See, the problem here is Toad is quoting from the military records released when Bush signed the proper forms (the ones John Kerry to this day refuses to sign), where as you are quoting from "wikipedia". His source very easily trumps yours, as the military writes their own records, but ANYONE can edit "wikipedia".
-
See, the problem here is Toad is quoting from the military records released when Bush signed the proper forms (the ones John Kerry to this day refuses to sign), where as you are quoting from "wikipedia". His source very easily trumps yours, as the military writes their own records, but ANYONE can edit "wikipedia".
I guess you don't understand how to read footnotes.
-
paraphrasing from Killian memos(Bush's CO)
Feb 72; Bush having trouble landing F-102. Bush bumped back to T-33 trainers. Then bumped back to T-33 co-pilot position. Then begins logging additional simulator time.
May 72: 1stLt Bush ordered to have physical by May 72. Fails to do so. (curious note here; Col Killian approves a transfer request)
July 72: Air force officially rejects Lt Bush's application for reassignment (to Alabama NG)
(Note; If a aircrew member is not flight ready they usually cannot be transferred to another flight billet)
1Aug 72; Lt Bush officially suspended from flight status for failure to physical. Col Killian calls for flight review board; (note; This is standard procedure. IMO It is probable that May-Aug was a grace time to try to get Bush physical) Col. Killian ends memo with; suggested that we fill this critical billet with a more seasoned pilot from the list of qualified Vietnam pilots that have rotated.”
It goes on and on. Mostly requests for, Officer efficiency training report of Lt Bush. Basically they can't because he wasn't there. And hadn't been there for over a year. He returned late May 73. (2may 73 rating report; curious. Maybe some CYA)
2May73; Here's an oddity(IMO) Rating an officer not in command; The rating says simply “Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit for the period of report. . . .
“He cleared this base on 15 May 1972 and has been performing equivalent duty with the 187 Tac Recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama.”
29June 73: Official document 'Demanding ratings be entered on Lt Bush'. (As Lt Bush returned to unit in May time frame doesn't match requested data. note from source.) (IMO; Officers must have been struggling with this one. Falsifying a document is a very bad idea)
There are many more memo's these are just a few highlights.
Ya Wik; is not perfect; And yes Bush's "involvement" with the military was more than 15 months. But really? In a time of war? Hardly a top performer.
Sorry I've been involved with the military too long to lump him in with Clark, Kerry(who I don't like), McCain or anyone else who honorably served.
-
(the ones John Kerry to this day refuses to sign),
If you're refering to form 180, he signed that in '05 releasing his full military records including his medical records.
Or was that just stinky bait?
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/06/07/kerry_allows_navy_release_of_military_medical_records/
-
speaking of qualifications for commander-in-chief--so to say. eisenhower was the last general elected to the presidency i can think of--Personnelly-Macarther would have been great and Patton on the right side. jfk was a ptboat commander or capt and was elected pres.>> had the only pt boat cut in half by enmey cruiser-or canoe??. Gen. wesley--is a puppet of the DNP. wouldnt trust him on a bet. yep--you are rite--looks like camolot has resurfaced. happy voting>>>.
-
From Wik;
I'm sorry; if you want to seriously discuss this you need to use a reputable source. As was pointed out, ANYONE can edit Wiki and the Bushophobics have had a field day with that load of road apples.
Oh, one other little thing..... you didn't answer if YOU had ever served the United States in its military. If you did, what did you accomplish that is on a par with winning wings? What job did you have that would compare to flying the F-102?
The F-102's accident rate was more than three times that of a modern F-16: 13.69 per 100,000 hours. 875 F-102A interceptors were built; 259 or almost 30% - were lost to accidents or enemy action while serving in Vietnam. A total of 15 F-102 fighters were lost in Vietnam. 10 of those were due to accidents, so you can see the accident rate was pretty high. The F-102 claimed the lives of many pilots, including a number stationed at Ellington during Bush's tenure. Of the 875 F-102A production models that entered service, 259 were lost in accidents that killed 70 Air Force and ANG pilots. The early Century series were no picnic to fly; ergonomical cockpits hadn't been invented yet. That's just one of the reasons for Tom Wolfe's statement, it had other inherent design flaws as well.
All that said, Bush has been a poor President and even that's being kind. The only bright spot in his legacy is the appointment of two strict constructionist Supreme Court judges. Other than that he totally squandered a six year conservative hold on the Presidency and the Congress.
But for you to disrespect and make light of his service shows a basic lack of knowledge on your part. IMO.
-
Wesley Clark is the Democrat's token military :)
I wouldn't get upset - no one pays attention to him.
-
All that said, Bush has been a poor President and even that's being kind.
But for you to disrespect and make light of his service shows a basic lack of knowledge on your part. IMO.
Bush has been a total disappointment but Bush isn't the only one to blame. the Leaders of the conservative party in congress have been ultra melonters as well. Thats a
big part of why we have Pelosi and Reid running around making fools of of us all.
-
If his Clark's quote isn't out of line, why is Obama distancing himself from it big time?
Because it's all part of his master plan - his M.O.
- Plan a dirty hatchet job
- select a 3rd party hatchet man to carry it out
- Anticipate the public reaction
- Plan out an official "I disavow this attack" response statement
THEN - and only then, execute the attack.
That way, his more avid/radical supporters see the attack for what it is... and nudge-nudge, wink-wink each
other. The more moderate supporters breathe a sigh of relief because of his disavowal statement.
All the bases are covered - everyone is happy. It's his way of getting dirty without getting dirty. The hatchet job was done, and he can wash his hands.
He's an absolute master manipulator.
Don't get me wrong - I'm no Dubya fan - he came out of the gates strong right after 9/11, but then got led around by other people... then floundered completely. I'm also not a McCain fan... but I do think McCain is presently the only sane option on the table now.
We're in a sad state.
-
Clark is entitled to his opinion. He's entitled to give it in order to make Obama look good. He's even entitled to give it at Obama's behest. As such, we're all entitled to give our opinion on his opinion. That's what happens when you use your position or your celebrity status as a soap box. I think he's full of crap, and his opinion is a joke. I also think he did it at Obama's behest. My prediction is that we will continue to see this sort of behavior and these tactics from the Obama camp. I further predict that the campaign that will use race the most is Obama's. They will play the race card at every opportunity, just as often as they will use surrogate mouthpieces to attack McCain and then deny any connection.
-
I further predict that the campaign that will use race the most is Obama's. They will play the race card at every opportunity, just as often as they will use surrogate mouthpieces to attack McCain and then deny any connection.
(http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee246/fpjames/race-1.jpg?t=1214977748)
-
Clark is entitled to his opinion. He's entitled to give it in order to make Obama look good. He's even entitled to give it at Obama's behest. As such, we're all entitled to give our opinion on his opinion. That's what happens when you use your position or your celebrity status as a soap box. I think he's full of crap, and his opinion is a joke. I also think he did it at Obama's behest. My prediction is that we will continue to see this sort of behavior and these tactics from the Obama camp. I further predict that the campaign that will use race the most is Obama's. They will play the race card at every opportunity, just as often as they will use surrogate mouthpieces to attack McCain and then deny any connection.
If Obama's camp chooses to play the race card it will backfire in their faces. Those cards may play out in cities but in the vast rolling plains of the American rural landscape it will backfire horribly. I think that Obama is smarter than that but, being a politician, you never know.
-
If you're refering to form 180, he signed that in '05 releasing his full military records including his medical records.
Or was that just stinky bait?
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/06/07/kerry_allows_navy_release_of_military_medical_records/
There was TONS of news about him SIGNING it, but little afterwards:
Kerry signed a Form 180 restricting the release of his military records to the Associated Press, the Boston Globe, and the Los Angeles Times on the condition that the three news organizations would be allowed to extract them for their readers, but must not publish more than a certain amount of them. When I approached these organizations asking to see the records, they refused me access -- just as they have refused anyone else.
Kerry had picked three news organizations that were among those that had done the poorest job pursuing any investigative reporting that might have seen through his charades. They were now the arbiters of whatever they thought was important enough for the unwashed public to read. And it was very little indeed.
very long article link (http://www.urlfan.com/local/thomas_lipscomb_why_running_on_the_record_is_harder_than_you_think/88723542.html)
-
Pfffft who in their right mind would name a Son Wesley...
Mr. and Mrs. Hardin...John Wesley Hardin ;)
Dobe
:P
-
Good article here: "Surrogate Silliness"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/01/AR2008070102480.html
Both sides have attack poodles yapping at their master's behest.
Should we really allow the mass media to focus on this tripe?
Or should we be pushing hard to find out what the candidates plan to do about America's energy problem?
E-mail your favorite news source and tell them to forget the attack poodles and get us some information on how the candidates will solve the energy problem and stuff that really matters.
-
Here's an interesting bit on Clark...
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_2003_Oct_27/ai_109128671/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1
Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark wants to be president and, given that he is a man who has worn many hats during his controversial rise through the ranks, many believe this qualifies him for the top political job. Clark has worn the hat of first-in-his-class graduate of West Point, Rhodes scholar, decorated Vietnam combat veteran, White House fellow, four-star general and even Supreme Commander of NATO a post from which he was relieved. There is one hat, though, that despite lingering suspicions and accusations Clark neither has confirmed nor denied wearing a hat that many Americans might find very disturbing for a military man seeking the top civilian post in the U.S. government without first registering with either political party or being so much as elected dog catcher.
In his recently published book Winning Modern Wars, Clark proclaims that the "American way was not to rely on coercion and hard pressure but on persuasion and shared vision," which has been taken by Democratic Party doves to explain why the retired general has been an outspoken critic of President George W. Bush's handling of the war in Iraq. But while Clark may prefer a "kinder, gentler" persuasion in dealing with U.S. enemies abroad, critics are saying his actions at home should be reviewed before deciding whether he is qualified to be trusted with America's civil liberties.
For example, there is the 1993 siege of David Koresh's Mount Carmel commune in Waco, Texas, where four law-enforcement officers were killed and nearly 90 civilians men, women and children massacred by being shot and/or burned alive. Those seeking an investigation of his part in the Waco outrage say that Clark not only played a hidden role in the military-style assault on the Branch Davidians, but easily could have refused to participate in what was a clear violation of the Posse Comitatus Act that bars use of the U.S. military for civilian law-enforcement activities.
Although Clark never publicly has discussed his role in the attack on the Branch Davidians and did not respond to Insight's requests for an interview to discuss his role at Waco, there are indisputable facts that confirm he had knowledge of the grim plans to bring the standoff to an end. Between August 1992 and April 1994, Clark was commander of the 1st Cavalry Division of the Army's III Corps at Fort Hood, Texas. According to a report by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the list of military personnel and equipment used at Waco included: 15 active-duty military personnel, 13 Texas National Guard personnel, nine Bradley fighting vehicles, five combat-engineer vehicles, one tank-retrieval vehicle and two M1A1 Abrams tanks. Additionally, Fort Hood reportedly was used for much of the training for the bloody attack on the Davidians and their children.
Based on the fact that military equipment from Fort Hood was used in the siege and that training was provided there, say critics, it is clear the commanding officer of the 1st Cavalry had direct knowledge of the attack and, more likely than not, was involved in the tactical planning.
West Point graduate Joseph Mehrten Jr. tells Insight that, "Clark had to have knowledge about the plan because there is no way anyone could have gotten combat vehicles off that base without his okay. The M1A1 Abrams armor is classified 'Secret,' and maybe even 'Top Secret,' and if it was deployed as muscle for something like Waco there would have been National Firearms Act weapons issues. Each of these M1A1 Abrams vehicles is armed with a 125-millimeter cannon, a 50-caliber machine gun and two 30-caliber machine guns, which are all very heavily controlled items, requiring controls much like a chain of legal custody. It is of critical importance that such vehicles could not have been moved for use at Waco without Clark's knowledge."
Mehrten continues, "This is something that the general staff would know in the daily situation report or manning reports. Clark would have known and, given his obsession for micromanagement, there is probably someone who can place him on the scene. He wouldn't have been able to resist going in. At the very least there is no way he didn't have knowledge."
So what if the general was aware that his military equipment was being used against American civilians, and so what if he even participated in the planning? Wasn't he just following orders from above? "To follow that order," explains Mehrten, "is to follow a blatantly illegal order of a kind every West Point officer knows is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. Clark's obligation was to say, 'No, I'm not going to do it.' Look, Clark went to the same institution I did and at West Point we had extensive instruction in military ethics and issues concerning how one avoids obeying an illegal military order. It is drilled into our heads from the earliest days as cadets that the 'I-was-just-following-orders' defense isn't necessarily a good one."
-
I'm sorry; if you want to seriously discuss this you need to use a reputable source. As was pointed out, ANYONE can edit Wiki and the Bushophobics have had a field day with that load of road apples.
Oh, one other little thing..... you didn't answer if YOU had ever served the United States in its military. If you did, what did you accomplish that is on a par with winning wings? What job did you have that would compare to flying the F-102?
The F-102's accident rate was more than three times that of a modern F-16: 13.69 per 100,000 hours. 875 F-102A interceptors were built; 259 or almost 30% - were lost to accidents or enemy action while serving in Vietnam. A total of 15 F-102 fighters were lost in Vietnam. 10 of those were due to accidents, so you can see the accident rate was pretty high. The F-102 claimed the lives of many pilots, including a number stationed at Ellington during Bush's tenure. Of the 875 F-102A production models that entered service, 259 were lost in accidents that killed 70 Air Force and ANG pilots. The early Century series were no picnic to fly; ergonomical cockpits hadn't been invented yet. That's just one of the reasons for Tom Wolfe's statement, it had other inherent design flaws as well.
All that said, Bush has been a poor President and even that's being kind. The only bright spot in his legacy is the appointment of two strict constructionist Supreme Court judges. Other than that he totally squandered a six year conservative hold on the Presidency and the Congress.
But for you to disrespect and make light of his service shows a basic lack of knowledge on your part. IMO.
The National Guard is an honorable force and to have it used as a dumping ground for some elitist frat boy is a disgrace.
2nd generation retired military. F-102 accident rate? Comparing the F-102 to the Tomcat? Of course being a aviation expert you know that the accident rates got better in the seventies. Better aircraft, better training, emphasis on safety procedures all improved the accident rate. But you know that don't you?
And the T-33 was that a hard plane to fly? If your a pilot and I think you are, remember back to the early days in your flying career. You didn't avoid flight time, you went for every hour you could get. Junior pilots share one trait, they love flying. They don't miss their physicals and get grounded.
Take President Bush's name of these reports and look at them. Do you see a love of flying? Or a disgruntled officer? How would you approach this if you were his superior? Suppose you reviewed this record for promotion or retention? Would you really say this guy is fighter pilot material? During a war? Would you say this guy has the traits of a fighter pilot, eager, aggressive, motivated? Take off your republican badge and look at this record for what it is.
Don't lump this guy in with Clark, McCain, Kerry, Gore, or anyone who went to Vietnam. Move him closer to Clinton.
-
The National Guard is an honorable force and to have it used as a dumping ground for some elitist frat boy is a disgrace.
That last part is just Bushophobic blather. He was certainly not the only elitist frat boy in the Guard, he wasn't the first or the last. He was one of many. There's nothing special about him getting into the Guard; it happened routinely back then. Hell, if I had known there were ~300 unfilled Guard UPT slots in 1973, I'd have tried for one in a fighter outfit and almost certainly got it. Guard had a lot of bennies; one of my classmates graduated from a UPT Guard slot, flew Guard for less than a year and got a job with a major airline at a very young age.
2nd generation retired military.
What was your MOS?
What was it you did that makes you feel so smug in dissing the winning of wings and qualifying in the F-102? Ever been out over the Gulf of Mexico at night in a single engine jet at 35K dodging major thunderstorms? Thought not.
F-102 accident rate? Comparing the F-102 to the Tomcat? Of course being a aviation expert you know that the accident rates got better in the seventies. Better aircraft, better training, emphasis on safety procedures all improved the accident rate. But you know that don't you?
Yes, I do. The point, of course, is that flying the F-102 WAS a dangerous job relative to other fighters in use at the time. ~14 per 100k is an abysmal accident rate. I'm sure some was pilot error. OTOH, I KNOW there were inherent design problems with the 102 that made it anything but a cakewalk. It takes some huevos to strap on any of the Century series and go for a ride, particularly in bad weather. Houston has plenty of that, too.
So yeah, it ticks me off you make light of his accomplishments in that regard. Because you are one of those guys talking from the safety of his armchair that apparently hasn't won his OWN wings.
And the T-33 was that a hard plane to fly? If your a pilot and I think you are, remember back to the early days in your flying career. You didn't avoid flight time, you went for every hour you could get. Junior pilots share one trait, they love flying. They don't miss their physicals and get grounded.
The T-33 was the lead-in to the 102. He qualified in the 102 and flew it. ALL 102 jocks got T-33 time. He flew his required time.
Take off your republican badge and look at this record for what it is.
I'll deal with this first. I voted for Bush over Gore, a no-brainer in my opinion. I did not vote for Bush or Kerry the 2nd time, I voted Libertarian. I will vote either Libertarian, Constitutional or perhaps write in Ron Paul this time.
So your attempt to compartmentalize me into something you can easily dismiss has no basis.
The point here is that Bush did serve, did win his wings, did fly a difficult/dangerous airplane and did get an honorable discharge. The Bushophobics are barking up the wrong tree attacking him on this issue; it just makes them look stupid. He did less than many, for sure... but he did SIGNIFICANTLY MORE than an even greater number of people that didn't serve at all or ran to Canada.
The intelligent thing for any Bushophobic is to attack him on his record which is essentially abyssmal with the exception of appointing Roberts and Alito. However, the Bushophobics would rather impugn his military service.
Take President Bush's name of these reports and look at them. Do you see a love of flying? Or a disgruntled officer?
I see a pretty typical, young, junior officer Guard guy of the time. Which just happens to be pretty close to my time... see, I'm not too young to remember VietNam. BTW, are YOU old enough to remember those times?
How would you approach this if you were his superior? Suppose you reviewed this record for promotion or retention?
I haven't read all of his OER's. I've read some that said he was a good pilot. I've seen the stuff like missing his physical. Hell, only the totally brain dead don't make 1LT and Captain is almost as easy. I'd would guess he got pretty normal OER/promotion treatment for the time he was in.
Would you really say this guy is fighter pilot material? During a war? Would you say this guy has the traits of a fighter pilot, eager, aggressive, motivated?
Well, let's look at the obvious. He qualified in a difficult fighter and there is an OER floating around that said he was good in it. So yeah, he is obviously fighter pilot material. How would he do in combat? Who knows; generally you don't know how anyone will react in the shirt until you see them react in the shirt.
Don't lump this guy in with Clark, McCain, Kerry, Gore, or anyone who went to Vietnam.
Never said I did. I certainly don't put him anywhere near a draft dodger like Bill Clinton though.
Bush volunteered, won his wings, flew a difficult airplane apparently pretty well, got favorable treatement and got an honorable discharge. That's the end of it for me. Not distinguished to be sure, but not at all deserving of the scorn you heap on what he did.
Now go after his actual record as President and I'd likely agree with most of what you post.
[/quote]