Mc Cain poll

[HMAS]

Poll Question is
Do you agree with Gen. Wesley Clark's contention that Sen. John McCain's military experience, including his time as a POW, doesn't qualify him to be commander-in-chief?

Any comments on the person could go to Werners thread "Captain John McCain's official USN jacket (PDF File)"
Basically the poll is to see if this group compares to another site, where there is a poll that is the same.
AS that group is US citizens only, I have asked for US input only, sorry.

[Werner]

I think serving in combat is a transformative experience. Leadership under combat similarly so. It doesn't take months or years to have the moment of clarity and truth about life and duty. One can then spend the rest of his life examining the metaphysical implications.

[Tracy White]

Do you agree with Gen. Wesley Clark's contention that Sen. John McCain's military experience, including his time as a POW, doesn't qualify him to be commander-in-chief?

Getting shot down doesn't qualify one, but Clark's quip is just that... it ignores other issues, such as his general service as well as his demonstration of character while in captivity.

[Lesforan]

Clark's statement says much more about himself than it does about McCain.

[MartinJQuinn]

Clark's statement says much more about himself than it does about McCain.

Well said, Les.

[chuck]

So one only need to attribute an unworthy motive to the speaker to avoid addressing the inconvenient possibility of the statement being true.

What motives one subjectively attribute to Clark is a trivial thing next to whether his statements are objectively true. The truth value of no part of statement falls below the level of being extremely defensible in any disinterested analysis, and most parts are unimpeachably true.

[chuck]

Do you agree with Gen. Wesley Clark's contention that Sen. John McCain's military experience, including his time as a POW, doesn't qualify him to be commander-in-chief?

Getting shot down doesn't qualify one, but Clark's quip is just that... it ignores other issues, such as his general service as well as his demonstration of character while in captivity.

Are the elements of character demonstrated in captivity those that are of the greatest importance to the American presidency? Has America fallen so low that our president must operate out of a hostile prisoner of war camp? Or are we so desperate that leading a fighter squadron has become the most important skillset for a commander-in-chief?

[Lesforan]

Chuck,

I think it is fair to compare McCain's experience to Obama's. McCain had an opportunity to be released from his prison because of his family connections. He refused. I think that says a great deal about McCain.

What comparable deed has Obama done?

[RNfanDan]

.

What motives one subjectively attribute to Clark is a trivial thing next to whether his statements are objectively true. The truth value of no part of statement falls below the level of being extremely defensible in any disinterested analysis, and most parts are unimpeachably true.

Your logic parallels that of those defending Charles Manson. All of these facts are objectively true: * He was NOT at the scene of the Polanski Estate murders. * He did NOT shoot or stab any victims there. * He was nowhere near the scene of the crime during its commission. All statements are extremely defensible, and all are unimpeachably true.

So, by extension, should anyone performing a "disinterested analysis" of Manson's conviction conclude he is wrongfully imprisoned?

Wesley Clark's motives lie far deeper than his statement, and he should-- like Manson-- be held accountable by intent and motive, despite the factual truth of his utterance.

[chuck]

.

What motives one subjectively attribute to Clark is a trivial thing next to whether his statements are objectively true. The truth value of no part of statement falls below the level of being extremely defensible in any disinterested analysis, and most parts are unimpeachably true.

Your logic parallels that of those defending Charles Manson. All of these facts are objectively true: * He was NOT at the scene of the Polanski Estate murders. * He did NOT shoot or stab any victims there. * He was nowhere near the scene of the crime during its commission. All statements are extremely defensible, and all are unimpeachably true.

So, by extension, should anyone performing a "disinterested analysis" of Manson's conviction conclude he is wrongfully imprisoned?

If you can not see the flaw in your "parallel" all by yourself, then it would be quite beyond anyone's power to enlighten you.

[Werner]

Everyone seems to be comparing Clark to McCain. Clark is not the candidate.

Do you know how much "senior qualitative leadership experience" Obama has by Clark's own measure? None, unless throwing old black ladies out of their slum apartments for Tony Rezko counts....

Do you know how much Senate experience Obama had when he declared for office? 143 days. McCain had about 25 years in Congress at that same moment, on top of his 26 years or so in the Navy.

One final thing. If Clark thinks commanding a carrier bomber squadron does not offer the required seasoning and training experience, he has not met enough Naval pilots and aviators.

[Lesforan]

Werner,

Be that as it may, Clark would still be a more experienced candidate than Obama. Maybe he is hoping for a VP slot.

[Werner]

Werner,

Be that as it may, Clark would still be a more experienced candidate than Obama. Maybe he is hoping for a VP slot.

Charlie Brown is a more experienced candidate than Obama. He is also not under a cloud of suspicion for his role as a close friend, underling and facilitator of the dealings of a man recently found guilty of multiple felonies.

As far as Clark, I think the written and spoken opinion of the then serving Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense that Clark was unfit for his role in NATO as a result of "integrity and character issues" would be sufficient to keep him from the campaign trail. To believe that would not be thrown in his face any time he ran for public office is fantasy. He cannot order the release of his official jacket without revealing what General Shelton meant by that as well. So, his political career, except as a bomb-tosser, is over.

He may be hoping for a Vice Presidential slot, but that is only because he has deep psychological issues of narcissism.

[chuck]

No one in whom narcissism is under some degree of control would ever seek elected national office.

But Clark, however astute he is in enumerating the necessary characteristics of a commander in chief, is himself a loose canon who in the past had shown serious symptoms of mission obsession at the expense of the broader picture. As NATO commander during the Balkan operations he had issued some operational orders with diplomatic implications that hugely exceeded his authority, was very likely against the broader objectives of the American administration, and led to essentially a mutiny from his British deputy with the words "I am not going to start WWIII today for your sake, sir". This episode is believed to have led to his dismissal. I don't think he can be trusted with acting prudently, thoughtfully, and within his duly granted authority as commander in chief or secretary of defense. He had shown signs of inclination to take enormous, spur of the moment risks for relative small gains.

[Charlestonguy]

Werner,

Be that as it may, Clark would still be a more experienced candidate than Obama. Maybe he is hoping for a VP slot.

11 Presidents did not have any military service, 27 served in war, 3 served but no war experience.
Can anyone name the three that served without going to war?

[Werner]

Werner,

Be that as it may, Clark would still be a more experienced candidate than Obama. Maybe he is hoping for a VP slot.

11 Presidents did not have any military service, 27 served in war, 3 served but no war experience.
Can anyone name the three that served without going to war?

Carter was one.

Obama said the other day he would order the Joint Chiefs of Staff to end the Iraq War, ignorant of the fact that the JCS is an advisory body with no command authority. What a knock.

[Lesforan]

He also thinks there are 59 states in this country.

[Charlestonguy]

11 Presidents did not have any military service, 27 served in war, 3 served but no war experience.
Can anyone name the three that served without going to war?

Carter was one.

Obama said the other day he would order the Joint Chiefs of Staff to end the Iraq War, ignorant of the fact that the JCS is an advisory body with no command authority. What a knock.

"BAGHDAD - Iraq will not accept any security agreement with the United States unless it includes dates for the withdrawal of foreign forces, the government's national security adviser said on Tuesday."


Now what will McFlipper do with this one?
Yes Carter was one now what about the other two?

[Werner]

"BAGHDAD - Iraq will not accept any security agreement with the United States unless it includes dates for the withdrawal of foreign forces, the government's national security adviser said on Tuesday."


Now what will McFlipper do with this one?
Yes Carter was one now what about the other two?

I have gone as far back as Taft but I can think of only one who served but did not go into combat.
Truman was an artillery officer in WW.I.
Ike, Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force.
Kennedy, PT boats.
Johnson, one mission in a B-26 in the Pacific, for which he received the Silver Star.
Nixon did air tasking for the Navy on Bougainville, within yards of the Japanese lines.
Ford was aboard a CVL, 1944-5.
Carter served in nuclear submarines
Bush I flew Avenger torpedo bombers.
Bush II flew F-102s for the ANG. The F-102 was technically a bomber interceptor for the cold war, so it is fair to say he served in a combat environment, but saw no combat. The F-102, like it's contemporary USAF supersonic fighters was a deathtrap. That's why USAF pilots loved the USN F-4 Phantom so much they demanded it for the USAF.

So, I'll give you Bush II by default.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind my colleagues on this board that I said the date was approaching when Prime Minister Maliki would say "Thanks for the help, now go home. Good-bye". The only uncertainty at the time is whether this would come in October or before.

We have accomplished our mission.

McCain can say he was right all along and the surge - which he supported months before the President or anyone else - worked and we won the war.

GOT THAT? WE WON THE WAR!

Someone needs to tell Harry "This war is lost" Reid and the rest of the Democrats who required "a willing suspension of belief" to listen to General David Petraeus. They ought to be ashamed of themselves and retire to a quiet place to raise cabbages and turnips.

[Charlestonguy]

"BAGHDAD - Iraq will not accept any security agreement with the United States unless it includes dates for the withdrawal of foreign forces, the government's national security adviser said on Tuesday."


Now what will McFlipper do with this one?
Yes Carter was one now what about the other two?

I have gone as far back as Taft but I cannot think of another who served but did not go into combat.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind my colleagues on this board that I said the date was approaching when Prime Minister Maliki would say "Thanks for the help, now go home. Good-bye". The only uncertainty at the time is whether this would come in October or before.

We have accomplished our mission.

McCain can say he was right all along and the surge - which he supported months before the President or anyone else - worked and we won the war.

GOT THAT? WE WON THE WAR!

Someone needs to tell Harry "This war is lost" Reid and the rest of the Democrats who required "a willing suspension of belief" to listen to General David Petraeus. They ought to be ashamed of themselves and retire to a quiet place to raise cabbages and turnips.

Chill Werner you�re going to blow a fuse.
Maliki knows full well the end must come or he will not retain control.

"Rubaie said Iraq was waiting "impatiently for the day when the last foreign soldier leaves Iraq."

"We can't have a memorandum of understanding with foreign forces unless it has dates and clear horizons determining the departure of foreign forces. We're unambiguously talking about their departure," Rubaie said in the holy Shiite city of Najaf."

Five years and counting of Mission Accomplished.