McCain Has Military Experience to Question, Obama Does Not
Jun 29, 2008 Political
Retired General Wesley Clark, a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party and in particular Barack Obama, has questioned John McCain’s military credentials. Clark stated that McCain has not held a position with executive responsibility and stated that John McCain never led troops into combat. John McCain has stated that he led the largest fighter squadron in the US Navy but Clark asserts that is not enough to serve as Commander in Chief. Clark stated that McCain never ordered the bombs to drop and that flying in a fighter jet and getting shot down does not qualify him to be president.
Fair enough, but then the question would have to go to what qualifications Barack Obama has to lead the country as the President. Clark answered that Obama had been a community organizer in Chicago (and all those communities are boarded up) and that he also served eight years in the Ilinois Legislature and that Barry was running on strength and character.
Notice nowhere in there did Clark state that Obama had any military service. If Clark wants to discuss the quality of military service and whether or not it qualifies one to lead the country then certainly he needs to look at a person who has NO military experience and acknowledge that since Obama never served he is even less qualified than than McCain to serve as Commander in Chief. The quality of McCain’s service is being assailed by Clark but McCain has the military service and has forgotten more about the military than Obama will ever know. I really don’t think this is a battle that Clark and the Obama campaign wants to pick since McCain has more military knowledge in his little finger than Obama has in his entire body. If they want to contrast qualities to serve as Commander in Chief then I think Obama is going to lose. Perhaps John McCain never led troops is some fashion that satisfies Clark but Obama never led troops period.
As for the idea that serving as a community organizer somehow qualifies as executive experience, Clark needs to take a drug test because only a drug addled brain could make such a claim. It is absolutely outrageous that Wesley Clark could dismiss John McCain’s military service and all his years of public service as insufficient experience to run this country but in the same breath claim that serving as a community organizer and spending eight years in a state legislature qualifies Obama. What is even more amazing is that Clark said that Obama is running on his strength of character and his good judgment.
Well hell, I feel a lot better now. Obama is running on strength of character and good judgment. Whew, for a minute I was worried he might not have actual experience that would qualify him to lead the country.
I guess this good judgment is all relative. I mean, was it good judgment for Obama to attend a church that espoused hatred for America and blamed white people for all the ills of society and to stay there for twenty years? Was it good judgment for Obama to work a shady deal with Tony Rezko (which Obama admitted was bad judgment), and to keep company with a known domestic terrorist? Obama has said “[fill in name] is not the person I knew so many times it is a soundbite by itself. If good judgment is the standard by which we establish executive experience then it seems as if Barry Obama fails miserably.
Obama has some very shady associations and some of the tactics he has used to gain political office (at all levels) are suspect and they leave one to question this strength of character Clark claims qualifies him to be president.
Wesley Clark served honorably in Vietnam and was wounded in the line of duty. I would never disparage his service to this country because I have more tact and honor than he does (though I have questioned some of the things he has done while in the service and on the campaign trail). His service gives him great insight but he is not qualified to judge the quality and character of John McCain’s service. It is tactless and dishonorable to do so. I would venture to say that McCain’s time in a POW camp allowed him to demonstrate more character and sound judgment than Obama ever has.
General Clark, you certainly have a right to bring up McCain’s military service and to claim it does not pass your muster as qualification to serve as Commander in Chief but when you are doing that please keep in mind that Obama has NO military experience and that fact, by default, makes him less qualified than McCain to serve as Commander in Chief.
The empty suit has surrogates using an empty resume to show experience. Well, at least he still has good judgment and strength of character….Not.
Source:
Herald Tribune
Tags: clark, McCain, military experience, Obama
Democrats Cannot Embrace Victory
Nov 25, 2007 Military, Political
The problem with the Democrats, besides their weakness on national security, is that they want to win so badly they will say of do anything to get elected. This includes slandering our troops and changing their points of view in order to refocus the attention of the electorate. For the longest time the Democrats claimed that George Bush was not listening to his commanders on the ground (though commanders say he was) but when commanders asked for more troops and Bush listened (the surge) the Democrats criticized the President for actually listening to his commanders. They said the surge would not work and that we are in the middle of a civil war.
The surge is giving us great results so the Democrats have to change tactics. The first one was to slander an American hero named General Petraeus. MoveOn.org and other leftist groups like Code Pinko slandered the man and his message because his assessment did not say what they wanted, as if they understand the military or its tactics. This did not pan out well so they changed gears and started telling everyone that these indications of success were not really success because there are still Americans dying. Now that the success of the surge is undeniable the Democrats have taken a new course and that is to say that the military has made progress on the ground but the Iraqis have not done anything to sure up their political situation so the effort is really a failure. Hillary Clinton, who opposed the surge, is saying that since there are still troops dying and since the Iraqis have not done what they need to then we need to leave because we are being a referee in a civil war.
It is important to note that Hillary has no military experience and her only contact with military subjects is when she defended her husband for dodging the draft and sitting on the Senate Armed Services Committee, a post she asked for to give the impression she cares for the military. We veterans know she does not support the troops and that she will get very little of the military vote. She is the one who basically called General Petraeus a liar. We are expected to believe that Hillary, who sits on her ample derrière in DC knows more than the guy leading troops in Iraq. The guy getting shot at is the liar while the question planting, flip-flopping, triangulating, poll watcher is telling us the truth. Right… Likewise, Obama and Edwards have no military experience.
It is obvious that the Democrats cannot embrace victory and they take every chance to slander our troops. Jack Murtha convicted a bunch of Marines before they were ever charged and thus applied undue influence on the case. Harry Reid has stated that we have lost the war, Clinton, Obama and Edwards all have differing plans that involve pulling our troops out of Iraq, and the other members of the Democratic Party keep telling us how either we are losing or the surge is not working. When even the New York Times (the mouthpiece for the left in America) reports that our troops are doing well then something must be going on.
These Democrats, especially the ones running for president, want to lead this country and want to be the leader of our military. How can they possibly lead the military when they do not support the military. They continually fail to provide money for the troops and they insist on pulling our troops out in defeat and disgrace. They cannot grasp the idea of victory and they do not understand the consequences of their actions. They change the rules, or move the goal posts back, in order to keep pressure on their plan for defeat. They cannot allow us to win and they cannot allow our troops to be successful or it will be bad for their ambitions.
We need a president who will lead us to victory and we need a majority in Congress who defines success as winning more than just the next election (say no to incumbents).
Source:
New York Times
Others with similar items:
Perri Nelson’s Website, Is It Just Me?, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Faultline USA, 123beta, Stix Blog, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, Stuck On Stupid, The Pink Flamingo, Phastidio.net, Chuck Adkins, CORSARI D’ITALIA, Conservative Cat, Stageleft, Right Voices, and Adeline and Hazel, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: american hero, civil war, Democrats, dodging the draft, general petraeus, george bush, Hillary Clinton, leftist groups, military experience, military subjects, moveon org, pinko, senate armed services committee, support the troops