we need a president with some Mangerines, or Pouch Potato's
Printable View
we need a president with some Mangerines, or Pouch Potato's
Boy, this is going to be a long election if this is the type of non important stuff they're grabbing at. :beatdeadhorse:
Scotty... beam me up! :abduct:
Separately, in a statement, Obama spokesman Bill Burton said, "As he's said many times before, Sen. Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by Gen. Clark."Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
Obama rejects Clark comments on McCain and questions about anyone's patriotism - International Herald Tribune
LMAO!! I guess the Obama camp feels a bit differently about the comment than his backers.
Have a good one!:s4:
Looks like Obama is being more polite and defferential than he needs to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
I still see nothing wrong with Clark saying McCain's extraordinary war record does not necessarily qualify him to be president. Maybe Clark would have run into less "Jeopardy" if he had phrased it in the form of a question: "Everyone admires McCain's war record, but what is it in McCain's war record that qualifies him to be president?"
So what is it?
LOL...what a guy huh? Straight talker and doesn't waiver from what could be an unpopular opinion. The sign of a true leader.Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
My father had an old saying he liked to use about some people at his old place of employment; if this guy were to shit in the middle of the floor the foreman would look down and say what nice roses that will make. I guess that Clark is a hell of a gardner.
'THE GUY WHO ALMOST STARTED WORLD WAR III'
In Waging Modern War, General Clark wrote about his fury upon learning that Russian peacekeepers had entered the airport at Pristina, Kosovo, before British or American forces. In the article "The guy who almost started World War III," (Aug. 3, 1999), The Guardian (U.K.) wrote, "No sooner are we told by Britain's top generals that the Russians played a crucial role in ending the West's war against Yugoslavia than we learn that if NATO's supreme commander, the American General Wesley Clark, had had his way, British paratroopers would have stormed Pristina airport, threatening to unleash the most frightening crisis with Moscow since the end of the Cold War."
"I'm not going to start the third world war for you," General Sir Mike Jackson, commander of the international KFOR peacekeeping force, is reported to have told Gen. Clark when he refused to accept an order to send assault troops to prevent Russian troops from taking over the airfield of Kosovo's provincial capital. The Times of London reported on 23 May 2001 in an article titled, "Kosovo clash of allied generals," that "General Sir Michael Jackson [was] told that he would have to resign if he refused to obey an order by the American commander of Nato's forces during the Kosovo war to stop the Russians from seizing control of Pristina airport in June 1999."
If General Clark had had his way, we might have gone to war with Russia, or at least resurrected vestiges of the Cold War and we certainly would have had hundreds if not thousands of casualties in an ill-conceived ground war
Wesley Clark: The Guy Who Almost Started World War III, by Stella Jatras
That Gen. Clark....he's like the crazy ol' uncle that we all have.:D
Have a good one!:s4:
Ha ha! Now McCain has formed a "Truth Squad" to fight back against these so-called "attacks" on his record, and one of the guys in the Truth Squad is Bud Day, from the Swift Boat smear against Kerry! Way to stick by those principles, McCain!
Didn't McCain DENOUNCE that sleazy Swift Boat smear when it happened? Now he is complaining about someone criticising his own war record, as though HE is a victim of a Swift Baot slam, when that's not even what is going on, and then he HIRES that slimey dirtball that was involved in the opriginal Kerry Swift Boat smear. What a hypocrite!
Why does he think hiring one of these Swift Boat assclowns is going to help him take the high road?
And still a legitimate question: What is it in McCain's war record that qualifies him to be president?
Well lets see:Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
-Unlike Obama he actually served and did that beyond the point of what most could handle. When offered to leave a POW camp he refused due to principle. Shows love of country instead of sitting in a church service learning about the U.S. of KKK A.
-He's been on the Senate Armed Services Committee for years and unlike Obama who chairs a foreign relations subcommittee covering European matters, he has actually had meetings.
Have a good one!:s4:
Quote:
That Gen. Clark....he's like the crazy ol' uncle that we all have.
Clark knew who he was dealing with....:smokin:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
The point of the thread was that somehow Clark was wrong for questioning why McCain's war record qualified him to be the president. So I want to look at this answer from that point of view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
So he "actually served and did that beyond the point of what most could handle" --- that does not necessarily qualify him to be president. There are millions of people who served and many who served far above and beyond what is to be expected of anyone, but it does not necessarily qualify them to be president. Their achievments are admirable but it does not necessarily qualify them.
"When offered to leave a POW camp he refused due to principle" --- that does not necessarily qualify him to be president. In some ways it seems admirable, but in other ways it seems foolhardy. I don't even know what military policy is on this --- does anyone else? If you are in a POW camp, and offered a chance to leave, are you supposed to stay? The president is going to make decisions for all of us, and we have to think about how we want those descisions to be made. Purely on principle? Or other considerations too? If we were all in the POW camp together, would we want McCain to decide that we all were going to stay based on principle? Or would we rather leave and come back fighting? No one can question his bravery or dedication, but I think you could argue the judgement question either way. This particular anecdote is often promoted as showing what kind of man McCain is, but it could really go either way if you think about it.
"Shows love of country" --- that does not necessarily qualify him to be president. Having a love of your country is definitely a REQUIREMENT for being the president, but it is not a QUALIFICATION. Millions of people love this country, and they are not all qualified to be president.
Being on the Senate Armed Services committee is not part of McCain's war record. It may serve as one of McCain many legitimate qualifications to be president, but the point of the thread was that Clark was wrong for questioning why McCain's war record qualified him to be the president. And I don't think this has anything to do with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
If this is how McCain's war record qualifies him to be president, then I think it was legitimate of Clark to question how important it is. McCain is admirable and brave, and he loves his country as shown by his war record, but those good qualities are not necessarily enough. And I personally think there are legitimate questions about judgement in the POW story --- it shows an adherence to principle above all else, but maybe a flawed judgement. Of course, the Obama campaign would be insane to question it, given how rabid people can get around these issues, but I'm not part of the campaign, so I can question it.
I recall when I did outside sales for a Fluid Power distributor our CEO brought in a "partner" to help out with the company. This man had no knowledge of the industry, components we sold, etc... Well things went to hell in a hurry.
We are currently in a state of war and I think that his war record does have alot to consider with this election. He's been there, done that and knows what the troops need in many aspects. A VERY good point would be Obama's plan on leaving a skeleton force behind to protect 100,000 civilian workers, diplomats, Iraqi's that were loyal to us, and our embassy. McCain knows full well how this would develope due to his time in service, training, etc...
"but the point of the thread was that Clark was wrong for questioning why McCain's war record qualified him to be the president."
It was wrong. This is just a part of the presidential puzzle.
What have you done?
Who are your associates?
Do you practice what you preach? I.E. earmarks is a good example
Where has your voting stance been while in office?
The President is the official head of the U.S. military. All the dems know that this issue is BIG considering that we are at war and to belittle his past isn't going to fly well with the voters. I judge this issue as McCain 1....Obama 0. For ANYONE from the DNC to challenge this is a losing proposition.
Have a good one!:s4: