Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Rock on, General

Clark's NOT backing down on his completely accurate, innocuous and totally defensible statement. Doesn't this guy know how to be a Democrat?
There are many important issues in this Presidential election, clearly one of the most important issues is national security and keeping the American people safe. In my opinion, protecting the American people is the most important duty of our next President. I have made comments in the past about John McCain's service and I want to reiterate them in order be crystal clear. As I have said before I honor John McCain's service as a prisoner of war and a Vietnam Veteran. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. I would never dishonor the service of someone who chose to wear the uniform for our nation.

John McCain is running his campaign on his experience and how his experience would benefit him and our nation as President. That experience shows courage and commitment to our country - but it doesn't include executive experience wrestling with national policy or go-to-war decisions. And in this area his judgment has been flawed - he not only supported going into a war we didn't have to fight in Iraq, but has time and again undervalued other, non-military elements of national power that must be used effectively to protect America But as an American and former military officer I will not back down if I believe someone doesn't have sound judgment when it comes to our nation's most critical issues.

Fucking-A right, General. You're too good for the Democrats at this moment. Hold on. Hopefully the rest of the party—starting with Obama—will grow a pair and join you.

7 comments:

Toast said...

Word.

steves said...

On the point of prior military service being a prerequisite for the presidency, he is absolutely correct. OTOH, he touted Kerry's military service when he backed him in '04. McCain's ideas are unsound, no matter what level of experience he has had. Bush had experience and that didn't mean he made good decisions.

I will not back down if I believe someone doesn't have sound judgment when it comes to our nation's most critical issues.

Mei either. Clark's moronic decision in 1999 as Supreme Allied Commander Europe (NATO) to use military force to block the Russians from the runway at Pristina Airport could potentially have started WW III. Thankfully, his deputy, General Sir Mike Jackson, refused that order and the situation was resvolved without a fight.

Of course this doesn't mean his comments aren't right, I am just questioning his leadership. Personally, I would have a hard time supporting him.

Smitty said...

OTOH, he touted Kerry's military service when he backed him in '04.

Sure, because the other party continually blasts the Dems on military and national security. So finally the Dems find a candidate who served, and you bet they got all excited about it. That doesn't show lack of judgment. It showed that he wants to debunk the only_republicans-can-do-the-military myth.

Mr Furious said...

The question of service was at least a bit more relevant regarding each candidate running at the time as well. If you recall, Bush was busy running around as a self-styled George Fucking Washington—half-President, half-CiC/General. Though when it was his turn to serve he was actually a draft-dodging, AWOL coward. Kerry, like Gore before him volunteered to serve in Viet Nam.

There is no use in comparing these two candidates based on military service since Obama was six years old when McCain was a POW.

Obama is not running as a former military hero—McCain IS. It is fair for Clark, or anyone else, to fairly note that doesn't automatically vault McCain into the Oval Office.

And especially when dealing with somebody who was acting the way Schieffer was.

Mr Furious said...

Smitty's also right on the Dems v GOP military angle.

2004 was a time when it was important to break through the bullshit about the Republicans being the only qualified party for national security.

steves said...

2004 was a time when it was important to break through the bullshit about the Republicans being the only qualified party for national security.

One of the many mythologies that exist is politics. As for war records, Clinton bailed and didn't serve and I don't think that had any bearing on his leadership abilities. Bush I had an excellent military record, as did Carter, though I wouldn't say either were terribly good leaders.

Rickey Henderson said...

Good to see Clark not backing down. But by the same token, can we judge a presidential candidate who shirks away from military duty? Just a thought...