Wes Clark sez...

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by pettyfog, Jun 29, 2008.

  1. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    .. McCain is untested, untried.

    As opposed to Obama, who... errr...uh..... helped manage a community action agency.

    And didnt Wes Clark run for President, himself? Of course HE DID manage a military unit in war footing.

    Clark's notable achievement being to order his adjutant to attack a Russian unit which was flexing its muscles.

    Oh, well.... it's the nuance, ya know! But I'd say Clark was tried, tested and flunked.
     
    #1
  2. HatterDon

    HatterDon Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Location:
    Peoples Republic of South Texas
    I don't see anything Clark was quoted as saying that fits the description "took a few swipes at McCain's military service" or was "one of the more personal attacks" of the campaign.

    Not only is there no fire, there's no smoke.

    Move along.

    Oh, and if you REALLY want to compare military decision-making, try going AWOL from your reserve unit during wartime. Neither McCain NOR Clark did that.
     
    #2
  3. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Uh... Don...
    Title of thread: Wes Clark sez

    Point discussed: McCain Untested {in exec positions}

    Snark made: About Clark, with question on how that makes Obama better.

    Let's note the remark Don refers to was made by whoever wrote the article.

    And Dubya aint running. But, while we're on the subject.. how come Kerry's DD-214 was bogus?

    And the POINT IS.. that's why Governors usually get elected over Senators all else equal. And why we dont really have a lot to choose from this round.
     
    #3
  4. FFC24

    FFC24 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    Why is the right going crazy over this? I see no reason why being tortured for 5 years qualifies him to be president. Clark is right and if anybody should know, I guess it would be him.
     
    #4
  5. HatterDon

    HatterDon Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Location:
    Peoples Republic of South Texas
    and neither is Jimmy Carter. How about making the month of July "no Jimmy Carter linkage month?"
     
    #5
  6. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    No.. you voted for him, I didnt. I still hoped for the best. We got crap... and a preview of Obama.

    The right is going crazy over this because Clark is Obama's idiot sockpuppet. Of course when people started realizing how ridiculous the statements were...

    Thoop, thoop, thoop! Another one under the bus.. Thoop thoop thoop..

    the point is, kiddie.... I am by no means certain that McCain is going to win. And I certainly dont believe McCain is all that qualified. Thing is, Obama is LESS so. And Clark isnt qualified either.
     
    #6
  7. HatterDon

    HatterDon Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Location:
    Peoples Republic of South Texas
    and yet ... all THREE of them were 10 times more qualified than GWB in 2000 and Clark and McCain were 20 times more qualified than GWB in 2004. Didn't stop you from voting for Tha Dub, though, right?
     
    #7
  8. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005

    TEN Times more qualified?!!!! Based on what? 20 times more based on what? Based on Bush Derangement Syndrome.. that's what.

    Core issue here is sore lack of credentials, whoever you are talking about. Which brings us to staff and existing views held by staff, mitigated by the judgement of the executive selecting that staff.
    Given Clark's temperament and previously displayed lack of judgement, combined with his apparent insider role with Obama, I find that a little worrying.

    Where would he serve? I'm thinking SecDef. You think Rummy was hard headed!
     
    #8
  9. FulhamAg

    FulhamAg New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Location:
    San Antonio, Texas
    You're reaching. How was Clark 20 x's more qualified than a sitting Governor? I have no problem saying Bush hasn't been a good President, but Clark is a joke and looks more incompetent everytime I see him on tv. His performance on MSNBC last night should end his 15 minutes as he was exposed (on an Obama-friendly network, no less) for the liability that he is.
     
    #9
  10. FFCinPCB

    FFCinPCB New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Location:
    Santa Rosa Beach, FL
    But, if we want to get back to what he actually said, well, he had a point.
     
    #10
  11. FulhamAg

    FulhamAg New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Location:
    San Antonio, Texas
    What was the point? To state the obvious? Or was it to be a partisan hack and stir the pot and once again, take the focus off of issues?

    In his interview last night, he pretty much said it was the latter.
     
    #11
  12. ChicagoTom

    ChicagoTom Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago
    I have never understood the idea of how military service translates into a good President or is a required requisite to become a President. I think what Wesley Clark said was spot on. We respect and appreciate the time and service John McCain gave our country, but being a POW and serving is not something that is required or makes anyone more qualified to become the President.

    I was saying this about Kerry in 2004 as well. I can't stand when people say, so and so served in the military and he would be a good President because of it. That is not right.
     
    #12
  13. HatterDon

    HatterDon Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Location:
    Peoples Republic of South Texas
    I don't disagree, Tom. What I DO believe, however, is that someone who has been in the military and especially someone who has witnessed the reality of war is going to be a bit less excited about the prospect of war than those who sat it out on college deferments [or AWOL in Alabama].

    I believe that the fact that pretty much the whole NeoCon brain-trust [if that phrase isn't too oxymoronic] took a pass on Vietnam made it easier for them to champion elective war. While I don't believe that McCain's military service -- and especially his time in a POW camp -- would have made him a better president from 2001-2009 than the current incumbant, I DO believe that we wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq on the flimsy pretense that was used, and I also believe that a McCain White House would have finished the job on Bin-Laden [who the NeoCons say is irrelevant]and Al Qaeda after Tora Bora, rather than have shifted everyone's focus on Baghdad.

    Can't prove it, of course, but that's the basis of MY feeling better about McCain's service time.
     
    #13
  14. HatterDon

    HatterDon Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Location:
    Peoples Republic of South Texas
    Yeah; I know. I was trying to put the wind up Pettyfog. In reality I only think McCain was 10 times and then 20 times more qualified than Bush. Clark's best position is advisor, and I think that Obama was still in middle school in 2000.

    I also believe that the Clark-bashing is just another in a series of attacks by the NeoCons on ANYBODY who actually went to Vietnam. It started [and continues] with McCain, went on to Max Cleland and John Kerry, and now it's shifting to Clark.
     
    #14
  15. FFCinPCB

    FFCinPCB New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Location:
    Santa Rosa Beach, FL
    Welcome to US Presidential Election time!!

    Hope I am not stating the obvious when I say,..."duuuuuh!"
     
    #15
  16. FFC24

    FFC24 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    I'm getting a little tired of this "it's true, but you really shouldn't say that" shit. The point was that everybody is making a huge deal about McCain being tortured for 5 years and Clark was trying to state that that doesn't qualify him for president. Believe it or not, many people think it IS a qualification. Clark was right and the right-wing blew this shit way out of proportion.
     
    #16
  17. FFCinPCB

    FFCinPCB New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Location:
    Santa Rosa Beach, FL
    I'll see your "how insulting, apologize!", and raise you a "how dare you!"
     
    #17
  18. FulhamAg

    FulhamAg New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Location:
    San Antonio, Texas
    No, not at all. You're proven correct more each year with the quality of candidates we get. What's sadder than the fact that it's become the norm, is the fact that this horseshit works.
     
    #18
  19. FFCinPCB

    FFCinPCB New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Location:
    Santa Rosa Beach, FL
    We fall for the banana in the tail pipe every time. So predictable.
     
    #19
  20. HatterDon

    HatterDon Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Location:
    Peoples Republic of South Texas
    Christian, it's a good thing I've seen Beverly Hills Cop 37 times or I'd really be worried about you after that last response! :roll: :banana:

    In actuality, though. This year is the one rare year where at least ONE of the candidates is someone who was written off early. Like Carter in '76 [who was going to wilt against Kennedy] and Clinton in '92 [who only got the nod because every other Democrat thought GHWB was unbeatable], McCain was a no-hoper when the primary season started.

    Having pointed that out, we still pay too much attention to who the press says is "a serious candidate" or someone "who won't last the fight." How Barack Obama was considered a serious candidate while Joe Biden or Bill Richardson weren't is as strange as how Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson were considered legitimate front-runners while McCain and Huckabee were pretty much treated like a fringe candidate.
     
    #20
Similar Threads: Clark
Forum Title Date
Miscellaneous Arthur C Clarke Mar 18, 2008
Miscellaneous The da Vinci/Verne/Heinlein/Clarke paradigm Oct 5, 2006

Share This Page