Obama hits McCain's military credentials via Proxy

reply to post by SaviorComplex


I agree with BH on the statement that being a POW is not a leadership position.

And sadly I must agree with you, SC, that a large number of Americans will see it as such.

Sadly, this is one of those issues where many people's facility for critical thought turns right off.

McCain is seen as a hero and extra-qualified because he was captured and tortured. And any recognition that being captured and tortured does not in fact add to one's qualifications for president (nor does it diminish them) is immediately labeled as trying to minimize McCain's POW experience.

When in fact, nobody, nobody that I have seen has ever done anything of the kind. McCain's Vietnam service is universally applauded, and it is universally recognized that he spent several years in Hell.

But that experience, while it does provide a valuable point of view, does not make McCain uniquely qualified to be president, at the exclusion of anybody else.

And frankly, I would be more worried and sleep less soundly with McCain at the helm, because, while he may know first-hand what it's like, based on his recent record and statements I would be very concerned that he would tend to get involved in more misguided wars around the world, placing my loved ones in the military in more danger.

Sad that so little coherent thought is expended on something this important.

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
And frankly, I would be more worried and sleep less soundly with McCain at the helm, because, while he may know first-hand what it's like, based on his recent record and statements I would be very concerned that he would tend to get involved in more misguided wars around the world, placing my loved ones in the military in more danger.

Though I do not appreciate or agree with your condescending remarks towards the majority of American voters, I do respect your belief that his experience may be a hinderance rather than an attribute for McCain, and will not knock it.

What I do not agree with is the effort by Obama supporters to trivialize McCain's Vietnam experience as him "just being shot down."

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
But that experience, while it does provide a valuable point of view, does not make McCain uniquely qualified to be president, at the exclusion of anybody else.

As requested before what are Barack Obama's qualifications?

• Less than half of a full term in Senate, which if he wins, he will gladly abandon
  
• No Miltary Service
  
• A disdain for our flag and our pledge of allegiance
  
• Questionable citizenship status
  
• Numerous criminal, racist, and Anti-American associations
  
  So, again what are his qualifications?

There is no reason and little to be gained attacking his military record...

If you want to attack McCain on defense issues, the best tactic is simply to point out he has been a consistent and vocal supporter of the War in Iraq, which will go down as one of the greatest strategic errors in US history, and is as unpopular as Vietnam.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
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.

I think you're reading it wrong. (See the meaning of qualify below that I'm using.) No one is dismissing or trivializing John McCain's service to his country. He is KNOWN for it. He is honored and respected for it. It is a fantastic thing that he did.

But his experience as a POW, while courageous and honorable does not give him experience that he can use as the leader of this country.

To use an analogy, it's like saying that because I went to public school, I'm qualified to be a teacher. The truth is, that doesn't qualify me. There are qualifications a person has to meet to be a teacher and whether or not a person went to public school, they have to go to college and take teaching courses to become a teacher. Those are the qualifications.

There are qualifications that must be met to become the president and both Obama and McCain meet them.

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.

That doesn't mean it's true. I don't see it as a qualification. Neither does the Constitution. It could be called related experience. But it doesn't automatically qualify him.

I'm using the word "qualify" as
1: to be or become fit (as for an office) : meet the required standard

The required standard does NOT include military service. That's what we all are saying. But people get over-emotional when it comes to military service and POW status. People may think of being a POW as a qualification, but being a prisoner, being in solitary confinement, is NOTHING like being the President. It is not 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.

If that's their personal criteria, then they should vote for him. Because he has faced torture. If that's important to them, then Clark's opinion isn't going to matter.

The Obama campaign knows this, and that is why they are attempting to trivialize it as something that doesn't matter.

I thought you said we couldn't (yet) hold the Obama campaign responsible for this. Maybe someone else said that. But I don't know how you can know the Obama campaign's intention on this.

But I don't think this is the Obama campaign's issue to deal with any more than stuff about Obama is McCain's issue.

On a personal note, I absolutely don't want to lose your friendship. And if you would throw it away because of a difference of opinion, it would have eventually broken, because people disagree. I have friends on this board with whom I disagree STRONGLY politically. I just got an email from one this morning. Please reconsider.

Originally posted by LLoyd45
* Less than half of a full term in Senate, which if he wins, he will gladly abandon

Some folks may consider this an issue.

*No Miltary Service

Not relevant, not an issue. See GW Bush, Richard Cheney, etc.

*A disdain for our flag and our pledge of allegiance

No evidence to support this; not an issue.

*Questionable citizenship status

Completely debunked, not an issue.

*Numerous criminal, racist, and Anti-American associations

Evidence?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But his experience as a POW, while courageous and honorable does not give him experience that he can use as the leader of this country.

He, more than Obama, is more aware of the consequences of ordering people into combat. How can that not make him a better choice for leading the military?

Originally posted by COOL HAND
He, more than Obama, is more aware of the consequences of ordering people into combat. How can that not make him a better choice for leading the military?

I don't agree. I think Obama is just as aware of the consequences. He hasn't directly experienced it but he is certainly aware of it. I think we all are.

And this thread is about CLARK'S statement about McCain. I, an Obama supporter, am not dissing McCain. I don't think Clark is either.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't agree. I think Obama is just as aware of the consequences. He hasn't directly experienced it but he is certainly aware of it. I think we all are.

I don't agree with you. Obama has shown little interest in getting to know about folks in the military and what they do.

And this thread is about CLARK'S statement about McCain. I, an Obama supporter, am not dissing McCain. I don't think Clark is either.

How can you not think that Clark is disrespecting McCain. What articles are you reading?

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.

In the interest of squashing disinformation wherever it appears (and this year it seems mostly directed at Obama), I should point out that this story has been quite thoroughly debunked. The Forrestal Fire was cause by a Zuni rocket that fired due to an electrical surge as an F-4 was switched to internal power.

McCain's A-4 was on the other side of the deck when the rocket went off, there is no physically possible way that a wet start on McCain's aircraft could have caused it. McCain was just an innocent victim of the fire, and was in fact very lucky to survive.

I certainly don't support his election campaign, but he should be criticized for what he has actually done, not for a bunk story.

[edit on 6/30/08 by xmotex]

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Though I do not appreciate or agree with your condescending remarks towards the majority of American voters

I call it as I see it. It aint always pretty, or PC, and I may be wrong. My statement was not meant to be condescending; it was based on observation and conversation, with Obama and McCain and 'Other' supporters. Many of them have said that McCain being a POW made him uniquely qualified to be president. When I ask "How, exactly?", there is usually a long silence.

, I do respect your belief that his experience may be a hinderance rather than an attribute for McCain, and will not knock it.

Please show me exactly where I said that. Exactly, please, as I do not recall saying that.

What I do not agree with is the effort by Obama supporters to trivialize McCain's Vietnam experience as him "just being shot down."

I have not seen any such effort, but I don't see everything that happens. If you are referring to Clark's statements, those are not, in my opinion, trying to trivialize anything. They are merely saying that being shot down does not make someone qualified to be president.

Edit to spell "Clark" correctly...

[edit on 30-6-2008 by Open_Minded Skeptic]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I think you're reading it wrong. (See the meaning of qualify below that I'm using.) No one is dismissing or trivializing John McCain's service to his country. He is KNOWN for it. He is honored and respected for it. It is a fantastic thing that he did.

By summing up his Viet Nam experience as just being shot down, General Clark did trivialize McCain's experience. And because of Clark's stature as a respected member of the Armed-Forces, it adds further weight to his words.

And while McCain may be known, respected, and honored for his service, it is possible to turn it around, weaken it, and trivialize it. If you don't think that's possible, recall 2004; before that, could anyone imagine a politician's military service being a liability?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That doesn't mean it's true. I don't see it as a qualification. Neither does the Constitution. It could be called related experience. But it doesn't automatically qualify him.

This may be semantics, but I believe what is in the Constitution are requirements, not qualifications. There is a difference. For instance, experience and training may make you qualified for a job requires you to have a Masters Degree, you will not get the job despite whatever qualifications you possess. Or to use an example from the world of politics, few people would disagree that Winston Churchill was beyond qualified to be a US President, but he did not met the Constitutional requirements.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
To use an analogy, it's like saying that because I went to public school, I'm qualified to be a teacher. The truth is, that doesn't qualify me. There are qualifications a person has to meet to be a teacher and whether or not a person went to public school, they have to go to college and take teaching courses to become a teacher. Those are the qualifications.

I don't think you are reading me right, and it's my fault for not being more clear. There is a difference between having qualifications and being qualified. To me, McCain's experience as a POW is a qualification (though qualification is not the right word, perhaps attribute would be better) to consider in his candidacy, but it is not the sole qualification or mean on that basis alone he is qualified.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
On a personal note, I absolutely don't want to lose your friendship. And if you would throw it away because of a difference of opinion, it would have eventually broken, because people disagree.

Oh, please don't take what I said as a kick-to-the-curb. It is a simple disagreement, nothing more. I meant it more in terms of "No hard feelings, but..." I apologize if you took it the wrong way.

[edit on 30-6-2008 by SaviorComplex]

This is Friday night smack down. Wesley questioned his command in a tit for tat after McCain said to the effect 'don't believe anything Obama says'.

Originally posted by COOL HAND
How can you not think that Clark is disrespecting McCain.

Because I don't see anything in Clark's statements that disses McCain or his service. Perhaps it would be better or more clear if you would show me Clark's quote(s) that disrespects McCain. I asked before which statement you (or others) were upset about, but didn't get an answer. Can you please quote from one of the articles the disrespectful statement(s)? I really would like to know.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
By summing up his Viet Nam experience as just being shot down, General Clark did trivialize McCain's experience.

He didn't say "JUST being shot down". He said a LOT. You should probably read his comments in a cnn story instead of the Politico. They're going to go for (and get) the drama.

And while McCain may be known, respected, and honored for his service, it is possible to turn it around, weaken it, and trivialize it. If you don't think that's possible, recall 2004; before that, could anyone imagine a politician's military service being a liability?

I think it's possible, I just don't think Clark is looking to "swiftboat" McCain. If he did, I would lose all respect for him.

This may be semantics...

I think there's a lot of that going on. OMS said it better as "uniquely qualified".

To me, McCain's experience as a POW is a qualification (though qualification is not the right word, perhaps attribute would be better) to consider in his candidacy, but it is not the sole qualification or mean on that basis alone he is qualified.

I hear you and agree.

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant
You mean, that people can take it upon themselves to make a political crusade against someone?

Some do. And they enjoy it (WITHOUT getting paid to do it!)

"I have to tell you Senator Obama: you’ve just become my hobby. You are a dangerous, illogical, inaccurate, and, I think soulless, pandering fool."

- Lou Dobbs 2008-05-27

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Because I don't see anything in Clark's statements that disses McCain or his service. Perhaps it would be better or more clear if you would show me Clark's quote(s) that disrespects McCain. I asked before which statement you (or others) were upset about, but didn't get an answer. Can you please quote from one of the articles the disrespectful statement(s)? I really would like to know.

You don't think that this statement is insulting?
“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. "

Or this:
"Clark said that McCain lacked the executive experience necessary to be president, calling him “untested and untried."

So McCain is now being attacked by Obama through his proxy - Wesley Clark. It is a clever ploy to use another former military member to attack McCain's military service, as in "Clark was a general so you have to believe him".

The truth is that Clark was, himself, one of the most controversial generals the U.S. has had since Patton. His career started brilliantly, but then he developed a liking of seeing himself on TV (Patton would likely have done the same if TV would have existed then). The Secretary of Defense once had to even tell Clark to "get your f----- face off TV". He was also the commander in charge when the Chinese embassy was bombed in Yugoslavia during the Clinton administration.

So bottom line, is Clark really qualified to comment on McCains service record, or is he just serving as another of Obama's legion of sycophants?

[edit on 6/30/2008 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
Some folks may consider this an issue.

It should be an issue for everyone, including his Illinois constituents. It show a lack of committment on his part, and an ambitious nature.

Not relevant, not an issue. See GW Bush, Richard Cheney, etc.

If you want to be Commander-in-Chief of all miltary forces, you should have at least one tour of duty under your belt for experience sake alone. It's easy to send other men to die, when you've never had to risk your own life based on someone else's decision.

No evidence to support this; not an issue.

Completely debunked, not an issue.

I've yet to see a certified copy of his Birth Certificate. Photoshop copies are not proof of anything other than he has something to hide..

Evidence?

Obama on Rezko deal: It was a mistake

Obama’s Real Bill Ayers Problem

Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

He didn't say "JUST being shot down". He said a LOT. You should probably read his comments in a cnn story instead of the Politico. They're going to go for (and get) the drama.

I know what he said. I was paraphrasing. I didn't mean it to be taken as a direct quote.




[edit on 30-6-2008 by SaviorComplex]