Obama Surrogate Wesley Clark Blasts McCain’s Military Service
Tags: Kooks.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
Liberals have become so desperate to attack John McCain that they’ll stoop to any low.. even attacking his military service.
Gen. Wesley Clark, acting as a surrogate for Barack Obama’s campaign, invoked John McCain’s military service against him in one of the more personal attacks on the Republican presidential nominee this election cycle.
Clark said that McCain lacked the executive experience necessary to be president, calling him “untested and untried” on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” And in saying so, he took a few swipes at McCain’s military service.
“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 — that wasn’t a wartime squadron,” Clark said.
“I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.”
Get that? According to Clark, John McCain’s military service, combined with his years in the Senate doesn’t qualify him to be commander-in-chief, but Barack Obama, who never served in the military, and has barely served in the Senate is somehow qualified? Give me a break.
UPDATE: Admiral Leighton “Snuffy” Smith, USN (Ret.) issued the following statement in response to Gen. Wesley Clark’s attack on John McCain’s military service:
“If Barack Obama wants to question John McCain’s service to his country, he should have the guts to do it himself and not hide behind his campaign surrogates. If he expects the American people to believe his pledges about a new kind of politics, Barack Obama has a responsibility to condemn these attacks.”
UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Change you can believe in – if you also believe in the Tooth Fairy. Absolutely disgusting – but just the precursor to the real nastiness which will start up in about a month. Obama and his Democrats can’t run on their Carteresque proposals (and has anyone really thought through a “windfall profits tax” on oil? Its not like oil companies have to sell their oil in the United States…they’ll just sell their oil where there ain’t windfall profits taxes…if Obama wins, get ready for gas rationing ala’ Jimmy Carter!) so they are forced to make John McCain so odious that the American people will feel justified in given the White House to the manifestly unqualified Barack Obama.
Matt Margolis is co-author (with Mark Noonan) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at The Buffalo Bean. Follow Matt on Twitter.
82 Responses to “Obama Surrogate Wesley Clark Blasts McCain’s Military Service”
Caucus of Corruption
Casper,
Does the phrase: “Reporting for Duty” ring a bell?
Four years ago that was touted by the Democrats as proof positive that he was ready to be the CIC.
What changed?
peace, neocon
FmrMarine,
So you don’t have an answer. Interesting.
neocon,
Four years ago military experience wasn’t considered important by the Republicans.
What changed?
neo
You have GOT to watch Ollie scorching wesley.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=N3gP-gfOxSw
Military experience has always been considered important. It was John Kerrys four months of service followed by his testimony to congress citing the bogus egregious actions (in the fashion of Genghis Khan) of his own colleagues that rankled many conservatives.
Interesting though how you answered my question with another question. Having trouble finding an answer?
peace, neocon
casp
>>Four years ago military experience wasn’t considered important by the Republicans.>>
Sure it was…THATS why we REelected…another FIGHTER PILOT!
“Interesting though how you answered my question with another question. Having trouble finding an answer?”
My original question was on post 45. You answered that with a question. No one has answered it yet. So once again:
So how did McCain’s military experiences prepare him to be president?
Casper,
That is such a ridiculous, juvenile, pedestrian question that I will forget you queried it. I expect that question to come from one of the pitchforkers, not someone like you who has yet to be fully indoctrinated.
Of course, maybe that transition has taken place.
But I will suggest that 23 years in the Senate sure beats 2, right?
peace, neocon
FmrMarine,
Thanks for the link….Ollie rocks!
Casper, welllll McCain understands loyalty, duty, honor, and service. More than most members of the Senate (with several major exceptions), he understands the cost of war. He’s been there. He understands how awful it can be.
Agreed?
McCain has first hand knowledge. Not only the stuff he picked up from a PBS documentary like Obama.
neocon,
I agree that McCain has more Senate experience and that is a plus for him.
“That is such a ridiculous, juvenile, pedestrian question that I will forget you queried it”
If it is such a ridiculous, juvenile, pedestrian question then I would expect that it would be easy to answer. Apparently not.
Lincoln had almost no military experience before being elected president and is considered as one of our greatest presidents. Grant was one our greatest generals and is considered one of our worst presidents, so I think it’s fair to ask how to ask how McCain’s military experiences prepare him to be president?
That said, as I’ve said before, I have a great deal of respect for McCain and I would not be unhappy if he wins. However, since so much has been brought up about Obama’s qualifications there is nothing wrong in looking at McCain’s qualifications and his military service is considered a big part of that.
Kahn,
Thank you for your answer. At least someone is willing to answer a simple question. However, that doesn’t mean he would be a good president.
Let’s see…..
To liberal Democrats:
in ‘92 election, military service did not matter liberal candidate did not have military experience.
in ‘96 the same.
in 2000, military service mattered liberal candidate had some (a reporter who served less than 9 months, left for divinity school and flunked out).
in 2004, military service mattered liberal candidate had some (a disgraced swiftboat commander who gave himself 2 of 3 purple hearts for a quick ride home, well you know the rest).
in 2008, we have come full circle. Liberal candidate has not military service and his liberal minions are now questioning one who did serve.
Liberals more of the same BS in a different package.
Danish Artist,
Amazing how the Republicans have gone just the opposite. I guess both sides are full of BS.
Casper,
I am amazed I have to answer the obvious. McCains military experienced has taught him loyalty, determination, to remain focused under pressure, and most importantly leadership.
The military prepares someone for just about anything.
Semper Fi
have a nice day
peace, neocon
Unfortunately Kerry used the military for his own personal 15 minutes of fame, shamelessly accusing his own of atrocities.
Nobody deserves a President like that.
peace, neocon
neocon,
There you go. It’s ok to question Kerry’s service but not McCains. How do you know that Kerry’s military experience didn’t teach him loyalty, determination, to remain focused under pressure, and most importantly leadership. How do you know that McCain’s did?
You and Kahn have a good argument and I would probably agree with you if you didn’t have to have it both ways.
I believe Kerry to be a self serving, superficial person. That’s all.
As far as the self serving part, I would include both McCain and Obama. It kind of goes with the territory.
Deleted – just about the dumbest statement I’ve ever read, and I’ve read comments at Daily Kos before.
I guess you’ve all heard of Hannibal, the Carthaginian military commander and tactician, and his elephants.
Did you also learn that his expedition into Italy led to the fall of his beloved Carthago?
Military tactician love his military endeavours, but Hannibal failed in the most important goal of his leadership: preserve the status of the Carthago Empire. It never recovered from his expeditions.
World history is littered with stories like his.
Casper, you asked why his service would be important. There are other reasons…
WVO, well war never solved anything I guess.
Except of course for slavery, Nazism, and fascism, oh and establishing the first democratically elected republic.
Seems we had to land in France and fight our way through your country a while back. Meanwhile, you were getting rid of all your Jews and packing them off to German ovens. You know, a military expedition by the Brits and Americans helped put an end to that.
Then just a scant dozen years ago with European love leading to the beginning of genocide in the Balkans, who threw the most weight into stopping it? You? The Germans? Portugal? Nope. I don’t think we need to be lectured on how its done by the dutch.
Casper, John Kerry wrote in his book that he remembered being sent into Cambodia by Nixon (except his boat never went to Cambodia nd he didn’t serve under Nixon). He met with the North Vietnamese in secret in Paris. He led an “anti-war” movement that actually made it harder to negotiate and get out.
He falsely accused his fellow soldiers and sailors and Marines of widespread atrocities. He threw his medals over a fence on Capital Hill in protest and bragged about it on the Dick Cavett Show (now of course he denies it).
There is evidence his wounds (at least two) were extremely minor. And he did in fact put himself in for medals.
There were only a few actual Swift Boat ads. The one about the purple hearts and Silver Star were the most controversial and are certainly arguable. But the ones about Kerry’s testimony before Congress and throwing medals over the fence and bragging about it are not. There is film of these actions.
Did he deserve his medals? Who knows? Maybe so. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and thanks for his service.
But that was not the ONLY Swift Boat ad:
1. Meeting with the enemy in Paris? (not actually in a Swift Boat ad)
2. Slandering American troops in public and under oath?
3. Lying about going to Cambodia under Nixon?
4. Throwing his medals over the fence and bragging about it?
These despicable acts are all documented and two of the three are on film. These enough are disqualifies for Kerry. on’t think even they mentioned the Paris trip.
The irony of it all is that McCain publicly deplored the Swift Boat ads back in 2004, saying they were reminiscent of the smear campaigns launched against him during his initial White House run in 2000.
“It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me,” said the Senator.
Not willing to let the irony go unnoticed, John Kerry lashed out at McCain, on Monday, for using the same smear merchant he once decried.
“Colonel Day’s comments today only further highlight the McCain campaign’s disregard for a new kind of politics,” said Kerry. “John McCain condemned these kinds of attacks in 2004 when he called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ‘dishonest and dishonorable.’ Senator McCain should condemn these remarks and cut ties with the Colonel and anyone else connected to SBVT. Day’s comments only serve to disparage all those who served on swift boats in Vietnam.”
HeyHey,
Was it a smear to point out John Kerry’s testimony?
Was it a smear to point out he threw his medals away and said so on TV, but had apparently bought new ones for his office?
Was it a smear to point out that he never went to Cambodia under Nixon as claimed and that he wasn’t even in the Navy when Nixon became president?
Were THOSE things smears?
If the Swiftboaters made a mistake, it was in opening their ad campaign with the most controversial arguments. The ones about Kerry putting himself in for medals and awards and the questioning of him deserving them. The men felt strongly that Kerry was in the wrong there. But frankly, I think they should have saved that argument for last after establishing their credibility. Or perhaps not used it at all. But for the record – they do believe those statements and there is evidence to back them up.
But the other stuff. The Paris meeting with the North Vietnamese (which they didn’t even include in the ads), the Capital Hill testimony and the discredited winter soldier smears (yes, they were smears because they we lies), the throwing the medals, bragging, then denying… ALL these things were 100% valid points to be discussed.
Kahn,
No, those are not smears. I wasn’t talking about Kerry. Kerry isn’t running last I checked.
McCain was referring to the smears being reminiscent of those made against him by GWB’s campaign in 2000.
You and McCain disagree strongly on this topic then. McCain says the SBVT are ‘dishonest and dishonorable’ but now he hires the guy to seek the truth, the same guy he called ‘dishonest and dishonorable’. Oh the hypocrisy!
Kahn
Yeah, like the time the Dutch were left standing in the cold when they tried to protect the people from Srebrenica.
Kahn, you truly know how to make allies, don’t you? Tell me, why should I continue to support my government in helping you out in Afghanistan? Why should I allow my government to aide and abet a country that does not honor the Geneva Conventions, tortures its enemies and bombs civilians?
You want to do it on your own? Be my guest.
[...] Obama Surrogate Wesley Clark Blasts McCain’s Military Service According to Clark, John McCain’s military service, combined with his years in the Senate doesn’t qualify him to be commander-in-chief… [...]
[...] at 09:44am Matt Margolis I’m sorry, but as Barack Obama has said before, words matter, and Wesley Clark’s despicable attack on John McCain’s service demonstrates the Obama campaigns desperation. Make no mistake about it, Clark was speaking as a [...]
[...] 1st, 2008 at 04:57pm Matt Margolis In response to the attacks on McCain’s military service, Obama said the following yesterday: “For those who have fought under the flag of this nation – [...]
Wesley Clark trips all over himself every time he says anything, and does nothing more than make his liberal cohorts look like the power lusting, lying, manipulative flip floppers that they are.
Last go around, Clark crowed endlessly about Kerry’s service, and how horrible it was that anyone would doubt Kerry’s integrity. He held Kerry up as a hero and ABSOLUTELY advertised his service as a reason why Kerry was fit to be commander in chief.
Now he flip flops right on his face – as he usually does.
Conservatives flip flop from time to time, but they don’t throw any vet under the bus unless that vet is out there denigrating our troops – like Kerry did.
They are two peas in a pod.
Clark is a disgrace to the uniform and it’s a tragedy our soldiers and vets had to listen to him denigrate their service in such a way.
Danny Vice
http://www.theweeklyvice.com