Gen. Clark and That POW Thing McCain Hates Talking About

Arendt wrote:

John McCain's sacrifices in the Vietnam war, in and of themselves, make him an unassailable authority on foreign policy, and political matters in general.

Wes Clark's sacrifices in the Vietnam war, in and of themselves, make him an unassailable authority on foreign policy, and political matters in general.

I expect the universe to implode any second...

Welcome to A2K. You are allowed to be here, even if you don't suffer from hyper-partisanism.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
No, I think he was pretty right on. McCain being shot down doesn't qualify him for ****.

Cycloptichorn

McCain never said it did.

It is Obama and his surrogates that are raising the issue. McCain feels his 30 years of public service, 20 on the Armed Services Committee and his military service are all part of what makes him a viable candidate.

McCain uses his time in captivity as a shield. He carefully positions it between himself and any questions pertaining to his ability to run the armed forces of this country; to question one is to question the other, in the eyes of his campaign, and depending on what ya say, you can attack the questioner either way.

Obama's 'surrogates' didn't raise the issue; someone else did, and Clarke responded to what they said with a very accurate answer. Please READ THE ARTICLE before saying stuff like this.

Cycloptichorn

The article was written by some scribe who discusses the conversation Clark had on face the Nation.

Clark is a Obama supporter. therefore, he is a Obama surrogate.

McCain NEVER EVER suggested his captivity was anything other than what it was, a bad experience.

I hope you Obamacrats keep bringing the issue up. It makes you look more foolish.

McCain may not have - but the questioner, Bob Schieffer, very much did so:

Quote:

SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences, either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean --
CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.

You act as if Clark somehow decided he was going to attack McCain's service. He did nothing of the sort. This whole thing is nothing more then a bunch of manufactured outrage by the right wing, who KNOWS that they are on track to lose big time this Fall, and are flailing about like a drowning person in leg irons, grasping anything that might help them, even a little. But it's not gonna.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

What an utterly pointless thread. The author made one valid point:

Quote:
McCain has every right to talk about Vietnam all he wants -- it's his story, and no serious person has ever disputed the details.

The rest was either common sense or dribble. How do you stay awake reading so much of this crap?

It's readily apparent that you have a great deal of trouble with common sense, OB. Perhaps that's what causes your blindness.

No serious person has ever disputed the details. Really?

Quote:

By Col. David Hackworth

John McCain is being hailed by the press as a "genuine war hero." But is he a war hero in the conventional sense like Audie Murphy and John Glenn?

Or is his "war hero" status the creation of a very slick publicity campaign that plays on flag, duty, honor and country?

For sure, McCain has the fruit-salad -- a Silver Star, a Legion of Merit for Valor, a Distinguished Flying Cross, three Bronze Stars , two Commendation medals plus two Purple Hearts and a dozen service gongs.

On a purely medal count basis, he out-weighs Murphy and Glenn, who both for years repeatedly performed extraordinary deeds on the ground or in the air against an armed enemy.

McCain's valor awards are based on what happened in 1967, when during his 23d mission over Vietnam, he was shot down, seriously injured, captured and then spent 5 1/2 brutal years as a POW.

In an attempt to find out exactly what the man did to earn these many hero awards, I asked his Senate office three times to provide copies of the narratives for each medal. I'm still waiting.

I next went to the Pentagon. Within a week, I received a recap of his medals and many of the narratives that give the details of what he did.

None of the awards, less the DFC, were for heroism over the battlefield -- where he spent no more than 20 hours. Two Naval officers described the awards as "boilerplate" and "part of an SOP medal package given to repatriated (Vietnam-era) POWs."[/u]

...

The rest of his valor awards -- issued automatically every year while he was a POW -- read much like the Silver Star. More boilerplate often repeating the exact same words. An example: "By his heroic endeavors, exceptional skill, and devotion to duty, he reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the Naval Service and the United States Armed Forces."

http://www.the-peoples-forum.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=1960

Serious people, and that you're not, Bill, have to wonder how this guy, and there are a lot of POWs, got to be Audie Murphy and others, much braver and more deserving than him, are homeless in the streets.

The man can make completely contradictory statements in the course of two breaths and you think that what he says should just be taken at face value.

Gullible little Bill just doesn't want his childish fantasies destroyed.

0 Replies

"McCain may not have - but the questioner, Bob Schieffer, very much did so:"

So????? Are you now going to suggest the Host of Face the Nation is a McCain backer??? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

"McCain may not have - but the questioner, Bob Schieffer, very much did so:"

So????? Are you now going to suggest the Host of Face the Nation is a McCain backer???

Jeez, you're being dense today.

No. Clark was responding to an assertion made by the host, who is not a McCain backer. He wasn't attacking or demeaning McCain's service at all. Please remember that it wasn't Obama's camp who brought this whole mess up, but McCain's - who keeps pushing it day after day.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

woiyo wrote:
"McCain may not have - but the questioner, Bob Schieffer, very much did so:"

So????? Are you now going to suggest the Host of Face the Nation is a McCain backer???

Jeez, you're being dense today.

No. Clark was responding to an assertion made by the host, who is not a McCain backer. He wasn't attacking or demeaning McCain's service at all. Please remember that it wasn't Obama's camp who brought this whole mess up, but McCain's - who keeps pushing it day after day.

Cycloptichorn

Well maybe you are stuck on stupid today.

Here is the transcript from face the Nation and the Host is referencing something Clark originally brought up.

General WESLEY CLARK (Retired; Obama Supporter): Well, I think--I think Joe has it exactly
backwards here. I think being president is about having good judgment, it's about the ability to
communicate. As one of the great presidential historians, Richard Neustadt, said, `The greatest
power of the presidency is the power to persuade.' And what Barack Obama brings is incredible
communication skills, proven judgment. You look at his meteoric rise in politics and you see a guy
who deals with people well, who understands issues, who brings people together and who has good
judgment in moving forward. And I think what we need to do, Bob, is we need to stop talking about
the old politics of left and right and we need to pull together and move the country forward. And I
think that's what Barack Obama will do for America.
SCHIEFFER: Well, you went so far as to say that you thought John McCain was, quote, and these
are your words, "untested and untried." And I must say, I had to read that twice, because you're
talking about somebody who was a prisoner of war, he was a squadron commander of the largest
squadron in the Navy, he's been on the Senate Armed Services Committee for lo these many years.
How can you say that John McCain is untested and untried, General?
Gen. CLARK: Because in the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of
understanding risk, it's a matter of gauging your opponents and it's a matter of being held
accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his
service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands of millions of others
in the armed forces as a prisoner of war. 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 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 it publicly?'

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/FTN_062908.pdf

0 Replies

Yes, and there's nothing wrong with what he said at all. And it has nothing to do with the attacks which are being made on him by some very desperate McCain surrogates.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yes, and there's nothing wrong with what he said at all. And it has nothing to do with the attacks which are being made on him by some very desperate McCain surrogates.

Cycloptichorn

Apparently, you have enjoyed the Kool-Aid. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

I think this is more about the traditional dislike between the ground troops and the flyers. I had a buddy who was a nuc officer on a carrier. He said the aviators would routinely treat everyone else poorly and acted like they owned the place. Clark was commanding ground troops in Vietnam while McCain was flying overhead dropping bombs. I can see why Clark would be of the opinion that McCain didn't make tough calls as part of his military service.

That said, I'm not sure who the audience is for this particular line of attack. Those on the left and the anti-war crowd might use this for ammo, but there are not really any viral lefty sites to push this to a wider audience. Those on the right will use it to paint Obama as unpatriotic, but probably won't push it on their viral sites since there is some truth to the charge. Maybe this is targetted to those in the middle who generally lean Dem this cycle but also like McCain.

0 Replies

Clark and Vietnam II

By Col. David Hackworth
© 1999 WorldNetDaily.com

NATO's Wesley Clark is not the Iron Duke, nor is he Stormin' Norman. Unlike Wellington and Schwarzkopf, Clark's not a muddy boots soldier. He's a military politician, without the right stuff to produce victory over Serbia.

Known by those who've served with him as the "Ultimate Perfumed Prince," he's far more comfortable in a drawing room discussing political theories than hunkering down in the trenches where bullets fly and soldiers die. An intellectual in warrior's gear.

A saying attributed to General George Patton was that it took 10 years with troops alone before an officer knew how to empty a bucket of spit. As a serving soldier with 33 years of active duty under his pistol belt, Clark's commanded combat units -- rifle platoon to tank division -- for only seven years. The rest of his career's been spent as an aide, an executive, a student and teacher and a staff weenie.

Very much like generals Maxwell Taylor and William Westmoreland, the architect and carpenter of the Vietnam disaster, Clark was earmarked and then groomed early in his career for big things. At West Point he graduated No. 1 in his class, and even though the Vietnam War was raging and chewing up lieutenants faster than a machine gun can spit death, he was seconded to Oxford for two years of contemplating instead of to the trenches to lead a platoon.

A year after graduating Oxford, he was sent to Vietnam, where, as a combat leader for several months, he was bloodied and muddied. Unlike most of his classmates, who did multiple combat tours in the killing fields of Southeast Asia, he spent the rest of the war sheltered in the ivy towers of West Point or learning power games first hand as a White House fellow.

The war with Serbia has been going full tilt for almost a month and Clark's NATO is like a giant standing on a concrete pad wielding a sledgehammer crushing Serbian ants. Yet, with all its awesome might, NATO hasn't won a round. Instead, Milosevic is still calling all the shots from his Belgrade bunker, and all that's left for Clark is to react.

Milosevic plays the fiddle, and Clark dances the jig. Stormin' Norman or any good infantry sergeant major would have told Clark that conventional air power alone could never win a war -- it must be accompanied by boots on the ground.

German air power didn't beat Britain. Allied air power didn't beat Germany. More air power than was used against the Japanese and Germans combined didn't win in Vietnam. Forty-three days of pummeling in the open desert where there was no place to hide didn't KO Saddam. That fight ended only when Schwarzkopf unleashed the steel ground fist he'd carefully positioned before the first bomb fell.

Doing military things exactly backwards, the scholar general is now, according to a high ranking Pentagon source, in "total panic mode" as he tries to mass the air and ground forces he finally figured out he needs to win the initiative. Mass is a principle of war. Clark has violated this rule along with the other eight vital principles. Any mud soldier will tell you if you don't follow the principles of war you lose.

One of the salient reasons Wellington whipped Napoleon in 1815 at Waterloo is that the Corsican piecemealed his forces. Clark's done the same thing with his air power. He started with leisurely pinpricks and now is attempting to increase the pain against an opponent with an almost unlimited threshold. Similar gradualism was one of the reasons for defeat in Vietnam.

Another mistake Clark's made is not knowing his enemy. Taylor and Westmoreland made this same error in Vietnam. Like the Vietnamese, the Serbs are fanatic warriors who know better than to fight conventionally in open formations. They'll use the rugged terrain and bomber bad weather to conduct the guerrilla operations they've been preparing for over 50 years. And they're damn good at partisan warfare. Just ask any German 70 years or older if a fight in Serbia will be another Desert Storm.

It's the smart general who knows when to retreat. If Clark lets pride stand in the way of military judgment, expect a long and bloody war.

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/984468/posts

0 Replies

I've got news for ya... even Patton was a college graduate.

0 Replies

engineer wrote:

I think this is more about the traditional dislike between the ground troops and the flyers. I had a buddy who was a nuc officer on a carrier. He said the aviators would routinely treat everyone else poorly and acted like they owned the place. Clark was commanding ground troops in Vietnam while McCain was flying overhead dropping bombs. I can see why Clark would be of the opinion that McCain didn't make tough calls as part of his military service.

That said, I'm not sure who the audience is for this particular line of attack. Those on the left and the anti-war crowd might use this for ammo, but there are not really any viral lefty sites to push this to a wider audience. Those on the right will use it to paint Obama as unpatriotic, but probably won't push it on their viral sites since there is some truth to the charge. Maybe this is targetted to those in the middle who generally lean Dem this cycle but also like McCain.

Anecdotally, I can tell you this middle couldn't care less about this kind of nonsense. Both Clark and McCain have distinguished service records and became well worthy of their fellow citizens respect the day they signed up to defend the country.

0 Replies

I'm not sure the history of Clark's service you posted makes McCain look better even though it was intended to disparage Clark.

Clark graduated one is his class and was selected for a plum post-grad position (likely) based on merit. He did graduate number one which when I was in meant you got your pick of assignment.

McCain graduated near the bottom of his class and was selected for a plum naval-aviator position (likely) based on family connections. I didn't go the academy, but my understanding in ROTC was that if you weren't in the top portion of your class, you could count on manning the engine room in a frigate. The aviator slots were highly competitive.

From your article, Clark commanded front line troops for seven years including combat in Vietnam.

McCain inspired a group of POW's after being shot down in Vietnam. He has squadron command experience, but didn't have to directly command the grunts who make things work. That's a lot harder than managing pilots.

Clark made flag rank (very challenging). McCain was basically told he would not make flag rank despite his family's outstanding Navy history. This is not a slap to McCain. I've known many fine officers to retire at captain when their careers reached an asymptote. Even getting captain is hard. I know good, dedicated officers who retired at commander.

My point is that Clark went further, handled more responsibility, has more and better military experience than McCain (and just about everyone else) and should certainly be considered qualified to discuss if McCain's military experience shows he is "tested". I think you could make a counter argument based on McCain's other experience, but the ad-hominem attack on Clark doesn't do that.

0 Replies

engineer wrote:

My point is that Clark went further, handled more responsibility, has more and better military experience than McCain (and just about everyone else) and should certainly be considered qualified to discuss if McCain's military experience shows he is "tested". I think you could make a counter argument based on McCain's other experience, but the ad-hominem attack on Clark doesn't do that.

I agree with your quote above but the discussion was on McCain's and Obama's qualifications for President...not Clark's qualifications.

Seems to me that Clark was speaking for himself and arrogantly (and frankly stupidly) implying that he is better suited for president than McCain. Of course that also makes him a better candidate than Obama as well. He's a legend in his own mind...

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Anecdotally, I can tell you this middle couldn't care less about this kind of nonsense. Both Clark and McCain have distinguished service records and became well worthy of their fellow citizens respect the day they signed up to defend the country.

Such specious reasoning, Bill. With this convoluted, extremely partisan logic, all the soldiers who took part in the My Lai massacre "became well worthy of their fellow citizens respect the day they signed up to defend the country".

Bill, the good little American. Don't question anything, just salute and shut up.

Why do you suppose it is that McCain fell all over himself to normalize relations with Vietnam, a communist country, and yet he doesn't feel that way towards Cuba?

0 Replies

slkshock7 wrote:

engineer wrote:
My point is that Clark went further, handled more responsibility, has more and better military experience than McCain (and just about everyone else) and should certainly be considered qualified to discuss if McCain's military experience shows he is "tested". I think you could make a counter argument based on McCain's other experience, but the ad-hominem attack on Clark doesn't do that.

I agree with your quote above but the discussion was on McCain's and Obama's qualifications for President...not Clark's qualifications.

Seems to me that Clark was speaking for himself and arrogantly (and frankly stupidly) implying that he is better suited for president than McCain. Of course that also makes him a better candidate than Obama as well. He's a legend in his own mind...

Sure he is speaking for himself. No doubt about it. The question to me is "is he qualified to speak on the issue?" I think his background makes him qualified. There are others who are qualified who McCain will trot out as well. I'm not qualified. Neither are any of the talk-show hosts of any persuasion who will comment on this episode.

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Anecdotally, I can tell you this middle couldn't care less about this kind of nonsense. Both Clark and McCain have distinguished service records and became well worthy of their fellow citizens respect the day they signed up to defend the country.

Such specious reasoning, Bill. With this convoluted, extremely partisan logic, all the soldiers who took part in the My Lai massacre "became well worthy of their fellow citizens respect the day they signed up to defend the country".

I suggest you look up the words convoluted, partisan, specious and logic before using them again. My Lai was a tragedy of epic proportion, that neither John McCain nor Wes Clark participated in. The soldiers who did participate in the massacre obviously would not be described as having distinguished service records. Only an idiot would fail to make this distinction. (Why do I bother responding to such idiocy?) Those soldiers who signed up were worthy of respect until they proved otherwise. Neither John McCain nor Wes Clark should be tainted by your demented reasoning (or more accurately; the obvious lack thereof).

JTT wrote:

Bill, the good little American. Don't question anything, just salute and shut up.

JTT, proves once again that he wouldn't recognize a coherent argument if it jumped up and bit him.

JTT wrote:

Why do you suppose it is that McCain fell all over himself to normalize relations with Vietnam, a communist country, and yet he doesn't feel that way towards Cuba?

Why don't you ask John McCain.

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

Bill, the good little American. Don't question anything, just salute and shut up.

Quote:

JTT, proves once again that he wouldn't recognize a coherent argument if it jumped up and bit him.

JTT wrote:

Why do you suppose it is that McCain fell all over himself to normalize relations with Vietnam, a communist country, and yet he doesn't feel that way towards Cuba?

Why don't you ask John McCain.[/quote]

Quote:

McCain: I Never Said That I Don't Know Much About Economics»

This week, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is traveling through Colombia, making a push for a free-trade agreement. In an interview with ABC this morning from Cartagena, McCain was asked about his now infamous statement that he doesn't understand economics well. McCain quickly interrupted the interviewer, denying he ever said this:

Q: You have admitted that you're not exactly an expert when it comes to the economy and many have said -

McCAIN: I have not. I have not. Actually, I have not. I said that I am stronger on national security issues because of all the time I spent in the military. I'm very strong on the economy. I understand it. I have a lot more experience than my opponent.

In fact, McCain and his advisers have repeatedly admitted that he is weak on economic issues:

- "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should," McCain said. "I've got Greenspan's book." [December 2007]

- Seeking to explain his shift on economic issues, McCain claimed: "I didn't pay nearly the attention to those issues in the past. I was probably a 'supply-sider' based on the fact that I really didn't jump into the issue." [January 2000]

- Carly Fiorina, a top McCain adviser, acknowledged that McCain has said he knows little about the economy, noting that "he did say it one time, no question, maybe twice." [6/10/08]

The McCain campaign has conjured up a variety of dodges on the topic. Last January, when Tim Russert asked him about his "I still need to be educated" claim, McCain said, "I don't know where you got that quote." Adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin said McCain's admitted lack of economics knowledge was an example of his "wonderful self-deprecating sense of humor." Last month, McCain said the media took the comments "out of context."

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/02/mccain-dodge-economics/

It really makes a thinking person wonder just how many lies there might be in his story of his Vietnam experience. A thinking person, I said, Bill, not a partisan hack.

Do you feel those fires creeping up around your soul?

0 Replies

What I feel creeping around me is a moronic, hyper-partisan antagonist. Time to stop feeding the troll.

0 Replies

JTT wrote...

Quote:

Why do you suppose it is that McCain fell all over himself to normalize relations with Vietnam, a communist country, and yet he doesn't feel that way towards Cuba?

How many Americans are missing in Cuba?
What better way to find out where those Americans are then to normalize relationa and start having tourists all over the country?

0 Replies

Gen. Clark and That POW Thing McCain Hates Talking About

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know