Obama hits McCain's military credentials via Proxy

Originally posted by evanmontegarde

Being a Chicago community organizer for years (passing up triple digit law firm jobs in the process), serving in the Illinois Senate, then of course being a US Senator for 2 years.

You're referring to his networking activities in the black community on the south side of Chicago I assume? That was just Obama laying the ground work for his eventual bid at a seat in the US Senate. I hardly consider that philanthropy even in the broadest sense of the word.

Funny that you're attacking a man (Reverend Wright) as "anti-American" when he served six years in the military himself.

I'm not criticizing the Reverend for his military service, just his racist, anti-american comments like we live in AmeriKKKa, and his "damning" of our country. These are hardly the words of a man who believes in racial unity or patriotism to his country.

One can still be patriotic and love their country, without supporting it's government's heinous actions.




[edit on 6/30/08 by LLoyd45]

reply to post by Hal9000


I agree, I also believe that it was probably a case of Clark freelancing a bit and making an over-the-top attack on McCain. If memory serves, Clark made a bad habit of things like this back in his own '04 campaign.

I doubt it was sanctioned by Obama and I don't immediately hold it against him, either. I do think that Obama needs to publicly distance himself it, however. The longer he remains silent, the more it appears he agrees with Clark's statements.

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Why doesn't Obama have the guts to make these kinds of accusations himself? Why does he have to get one of his paid hacks to take the flak?

Paid hack? Wesley Clark was the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe in the late '90s. He's no "paid hack". He definitely knows of what he speaks.

Secondly, I heard him say this a while ago. In fact, when he was still supporting Hillary:

In a March conference call with reporters while he was still backing Hillary Rodham Clinton, Clark said: "Everybody admires John McCain's service as a fighter pilot, his courage as a prisoner of war. There's no issue there. He's a great man and an honorable man. But having served as a fighter pilot — and I know my experience as a company commander in Vietnam — that doesn't prepare you to be commander in chief in terms of dealing with the national strategic issues that are involved. It may give you a feeling for what the troops are going through in the process, but it doesn't give you the experience first hand of the national strategic issues."

Source

I guess Hillary paid him to say it then...

Third, it's true. John McCain's service, while brave and appreciated, does not automatically qualify him to be CinC. His service didn't include executive responsibilities.

And finally, this is an important election. BOTH candidates are being hit hard. Sometimes by the other candidate, sometimes by the campaigns, sometimes by supporters and sometimes by some money going under the table. That's politics.

I'm fairly sure Obama is aware of Clark's thoughts. He did say it in March after all. Just as John McCain is aware that people are saying that Barack Obama, born in Africa, is a possibly gay Muslim racist who refuses to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and McCain doesn't say a thing about it. It's not the job of the candidate to comment on all the stuff that's being thrown about. At least what Clark is saying about McCain comes from someone who is qualified to give his opinion on the subject. And if Obama did comment on it, I'm quite sure he'd agree with it.

You know, after all the crap that's been leveled at Obama (much of it, I suspect, fed by the Republican machine and Rove), I gotta say, "quit crying". You see all the "Obama defense" and "Obama attack" threads here? This election isn't just about Obama. Eventually John McCain is going to get dirty.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
He knows first hand the horrors that await our soldiers captured by the enemy.

No argument! But that doesn't give him experience in commanding or leading anyone. That's what Clark is saying. My brother knows about the horrors, too, but that doesn't mean he'd make a good president.

[edit on 30-6-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by vor78
I do think that Obama needs to publicly distance himself it, however. The longer he remains silent, the more it appears he agrees with Clark's statements.

Why should he distance himself? What "attacks" exactly were said? From the original post Source

Clark said that McCain lacked the executive experience necessary to be president, calling him “untested and untried”
...
these experiences in no way qualify McCain to be president in his view:
...
But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn't a wartime squadron,” Clark said.
...
“I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.”

Now, what specifically (which of his statements) is everyone so upset about? Why wouldn't Obama agree with what Clark said?


[edit on 30-6-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Paid hack? Wesley Clark was the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe in the late '90s. He's no "paid hack". He definitely knows of what he speaks.

He is an advisor to Obama, doesn't that scream paid hack to anyone else?

BTW, Clark is also the one who almost got us into a shooting war with the Russians in Kosovo. He lost all credibilty with me after that one.

Secondly, I heard him say this a while ago. In fact, when he was still supporting Hillary:
But having served as a fighter pilot — and I know my experience as a company commander in Vietnam — that doesn't prepare you to be commander in chief in terms of dealing with the national strategic issues that are involved. It may give you a feeling for what the troops are going through in the process, but it doesn't give you the experience first hand of the national strategic issues."

Spoken like someone who has no idea what he is talking about. I wager that Naval Aviators have a better handle on national strategic issues than people give them credit for.

If service in the military does not qualify someone to be the commander in chief of the military, than what does. Look what happens to the military anytime we have elected someone who did not serve.

Third, it's true. John McCain's service, while brave and appreciated, does not automatically qualify him to be CinC. His service didn't include executive responsibilities.

Again, this just shows how little Clark knows. McCain had command of an entire squadron, which is full of executive responsibilities. But, don't let that stop you from supporting someone with no executive responsibility experience.

Originally posted by COOL HAND
If service in the military does not qualify someone to be the commander in chief of the military, than what does.

Being 35 years old and a natural-born citizen. Military service does not automatically qualify someone to be CinC.

Again, this just shows how little Clark knows. McCain had command of an entire squadron, which is full of executive responsibilities.

It wasn't a wartime squadron. That's what Clark says. He KNOWS what he's talking about.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Being 35 years old and a natural-born citizen. Military service does not automatically qualify someone to be CinC.

No, but it definately makes them a better one.

It wasn't a wartime squadron. That's what Clark says. He KNOWS what he's talking about.

Then maybe you can go into the differences between a wartime and peacetime Naval Aviation squadron?

It doesn't matter if it was a wartime squadron or not, the responsibilities were the same.

Gen Clark has no idea what he is talking about when it comes to McCain's career.

No argument! But that doesn't give him experience in commanding or leading anyone. That's what Clark is saying. My brother knows about the horrors, too, but that doesn't mean he'd make a good president.

If that doesn't give McCain experience in commanding or leading anyone, where does that exactly leave Barack Obama?

• No Military Service
  
• Has served less than half a term in the US Senate
  
• Questionable documentation of his Citizenship
  
• Does not like the American flag or saying the pledge of allegiance (unless he's caught on film not doing so)
  

So, where exactly does Obama's leadership experience come from again?

Originally posted by LLoyd45

• No Military Service
  
• Has served less than half a term in the US Senate
  
• Questionable documentation of his Citizenship
  
• Does not like the American flag or saying the pledge of allegiance (unless he's caught on film not doing so)
  

So, where exactly does Obama's leadership experience come from again?

Hope. Change. And a better America.

[edit on 30-6-2008 by Johnmike]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Paid hack? Wesley Clark was the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe in the late '90s. He's no "paid hack". He definitely knows of what he speaks.

And according to the memoirs of General Mike Johnson, Clark almost started WWIII over the Pristina International Airport.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Just as John McCain is aware that people are saying that Barack Obama, born in Africa, is a possibly gay Muslim racist who refuses to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and McCain doesn't say a thing about it.

There is quite a difference here. No one in McCain's campaign is saying those things about Obama. But General Clark is a policy-advisor to the Obama campaign.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
This election isn't just about Obama. Eventually John McCain is going to get dirty.

Of course he is. Everyone seems shocked, upset, and outraged when a campaign goes dirty. But every campaign goes dirty, because dirty works.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
No argument! But that doesn't give him experience in commanding or leading anyone. That's what Clark is saying. My brother knows about the horrors, too, but that doesn't mean he'd make a good president.

On the contrary, I feel that experience would help to make a good President. With McCain or people like your brother as Commander-in-Chief, knowing what our soldiers may face firsthand, they would more carefully weigh the options before sending them into harm's way.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic




The entire line of attack is basically just mud-slinging, IMO. He gives no indication that McCain did anything except perform the duties required of him while in the Navy.

I think his argument that McCain's peacetime service as a squadron commander somehow doesn't count is particularly offensive. He may not have given the order to drop any bombs while in that capacity, but he likely did everything else required of the job. Such attacks diminish the service of all peacetime military members, IMO.

I know you're an Obama die-hard, but understand: I don't blame Obama for this. I do, however, think it would be a smart move politically for him to disavow those comments. Unless he's presenting evidence of wrongdoing by McCain during his naval service, Clark is just hurting his candidate, I think. Attempting to diminish the impact of McCain's very honorable service record is a political loser, IMO.

[edit on 30-6-2008 by vor78]

Originally posted by LLoyd45
If that doesn't give McCain experience in commanding or leading anyone, where does that exactly leave Barack Obama?

I'm not saying military service disqualifies McCain. Or that he's LESS qualified than Obama. It just doesn't necessarily make him better qualified. He and Obama are BOTH qualified in that they are over 35 and are naturally-born citizens. Having military experience doesn't really matter. There's nothing WRONG with it, but it doesn't make one person more qualified than another.

Being a POW is NOT a leadership position.

I've been doing some more research into this entire issue.

The most important fact here is that in no way was Wesley Clark attacking McCain's service record. He unequivocally did not state that McCain was not qualified to be President, or that his military service made him unqualified.

What he said was a reinforcement of Article II, Section I of the US Constitution. Let me quote that for those who may not be familiar with it:

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.

Now, here is the exact quote of Welsey Clark:

CLARK: 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 those calls, Bob.

SCHIEFFER: Can I just interrupt you? I have to say, Barack Obama hasn't had any of these experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.

CLARK: I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.

All Clark was doing is defending the Constitution - That the any qualifications required to be President are 35 years of age, natural born citizenship, and fourteen years a resident.

And for those attacking Wesley Clark personally, do you even know who he is?

He was first in his graduating class at West Point. He served in Vietnam and received numerous medals. And, most importantly, he led the US military campaign in Kosovo in 1996 - A campaign that had zero US combat deaths.

He's more "qualified" by your definitions to be Commander in Chief than McCain or Obama is, frankly.

Originally posted by Johnmike
Hope. Change. And a better America.

[edit on 30-6-2008 by Johnmike]

That's a mantra designed to brainwash the ignorant and mindless segments of the population, not experience.

Obama's entire campaign seems riddled with such psychological skullduggery..



[edit on 6/30/08 by LLoyd45]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Being a POW is NOT a leadership position.

Benevolent, I consider you a friend, but I have to tell you: this is disgusting. There is an effort to dismiss and trivialize McCain's experience as a POW, an experience which can only help him in his role as Commander-in-Chief. While it may not be a leadership position, it is safe to assume that the majority of Americans, be they left or right, do see it as a qualification. They would sleep a bit more sound at night knowing the lives and safety of our soldiers rest in the hands of a man who has experienced among the worst horrors they can face. The Obama campaign knows this, and that is why they are attempting to trivialize it as something that doesn't matter.

[edit on 30-6-2008 by SaviorComplex]

Originally posted by kosmicjack

And last but certainly not least...I'm sick of the Monday through Friday, nine to five anti-Obama threads. It smacks of agenda. A professionally paid one.

Did you post "nine to five" on anti-bush threads over the last nine years? Did it bother you at all that so many others here did? If your answers are "yes" and "no" respectiviely, then to avoid a hypocrisy label I would suggest you:

a) stop complaining

and

b) get over it as it (unfortunately) seem to be what U.S. politics has degenerated into.

Amazing the people here that moan about all the attacks on Obama, while engaging in the same sort of thing (this thread) against McCain.

Deny Hypocrisy!

[edit on 6/30/2008 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Having military experience doesn't really matter. There's nothing WRONG with it, but it doesn't make one person more qualified than another.

How does it not make you better qualified for the position of Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces?

SC brings up a good point, being a former member of the military would be an asset. You at least understand what it is like to be deployed into harms way away from your families.

I have to question Shicains ability to think coherently. There is a written story that Shicain wet started his A-4E on the forrestal causing the pilot of the F-4 Phantom parked behind him to drop a missile which ruptured a fuel tank after it ignited and fired off.

Than a few months later, Shicain gets shot down, bails out, fractures a few arms and a leg and does time at Hanoi Hilton where he claims to be tortured but other sources say he was not tortured and one of his capturers, who lives in the states. said he and Shicain would spend hours talking and Shicain taught english to his capturer.

Than there is the part where his family tree was researched and it appears Shicain was born into a rather odd family with no clear history. And the birth place has been noted that Shicain was not born a citizen since the hospital was not yet built in 1936. JS McCain III was born on August 29, 1936, at the Coco Solo Naval Hospital, Colon, Panama Canal Zone. Coco Solo Hospital was constructed in the Summer of 1941.

Is Shicain who he says he is?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
He and Obama are BOTH qualified in that they are over 35 and are naturally-born citizens. Having military experience doesn't really matter. There's nothing WRONG with it, but it doesn't make one person more qualified than another.

We know McCain meets all the criteria, but I think the jury is still out on Barack Obama regarding his citizenship. When he agrees to full-disclosure of the documents in question, then you may make that claim.

Being a POW is NOT a leadership position.

No, it isn't a leadership position, but it does make him a loyal patriot to his country. He has commanded men before, and was a leader of sorts during his internment as a POW. You really should read a few of the links posted.

Originally posted by Peepers
I have to question Shicains ability to think coherently. There is a written story that Shicain wet started his A-4E on the forrestal causing the pilot of the F-4 Phantom parked behind him to drop a missile which ruptured a fuel tank after it ignited and fired off.

There is absolutely, positively, not a single shred of evidence for this. It is just a story. The website with this story has nothing to support it save for a link to a story about a fire on another aircraft carrier. The same website with this story is a racist, anti-semetic site with other stories attacking McCain for supporting a "Jewish mafia" and for adopting a non-white child.

Originally posted by Peepers
And the birth place has been noted that Shicain was not born a citizen since the hospital was not yet built in 1936. JS McCain III was born on August 29, 1936, at the Coco Solo Naval Hospital, Colon, Panama Canal Zone. Coco Solo Hospital was constructed in the Summer of 1941.

The hospital where McCain was born at Coco Solo Naval Air Station is not the same as the Coco Solo Hospital you reference.

And despite your ignorant claim, McCain was a citizen when he was born. It does not matter that he was born in the Canal Zone, or if he was born in Antarctica, he is a US citizen by the fact he was born to US citizens.

[edit on 30-6-2008 by SaviorComplex]