- ‹ previous
- 2854 of 8834
- next ›
Hey, Wes Clark...
...let's think about your comments over the weekend, shall we?
"I don't think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president..."
"[McCain] 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."
This echoes a statement Clark made several weeks back: "The truth is that, in national security terms, [McCain is] largely untested and untried. He's never been responsible for policy formulation. He's never had leadership in crisis, or in anything larger than his own element on an aircraft carrier or [in managing] his own congressional staff."
Clark, when pressed on whether the candidate he supports, Barack Obama, is "tested" or "tried" on national security, says that it isn't relevant because Obama isn't basing his campaign on national security expertise the way McCain is. Here's video.
This is right out of the Karl Rove school of political strategy: attack your opponent's strengths. But Clark's actions create two serious problems for Obama.
First, while Wes Clark can make these attacks, Obama definitely can't. Clark served, commanded troops, and was injured in Vietnam. He spent over 30 years in the military. He successfully commanded NATO forces in the Kosovo War as the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, and received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest award the United States can bestow. So when Clark slams anybody on national security, he has the moral authority and professional standing to do so. But every time he takes advantage of that ability, he causes reporters to rush to the Obama campaign for response, which inevitably forces Obama or a spokesman to say something like, We honor John McCain's heroic service and would never try to denigrate it. The Obama campaign ends up doing its opponent's PR work.
The other problem is that it undercuts Obama's claims that he is going to lift up American politics. How many times have you heard Obama say that American people are tired of nasty, gutter politics that divide instead of unify? Clark's comments, while standard fare in a presidential campaign, are exactly that.
So here's what happens when Clark goes out and says these things about McCain: (1) the Obama campaign ends up on the defensive, praising John McCain, and (2) the McCain campaign focuses on what Clark said while ignoring the Obama campaign's response, and slams Obama for not living up to his own lofty standards. Oh, and (3) the media slams Clark for "swiftboating" McCain."
If you believe that all that penetrates to voters are Clark's original statements, then Clark's behavior is good for the Obama campaign. (That's not to say it was sanctioned by the campaign; Clark was a Clinton surrogate during the primaries and isn't part of the Obama team in any official capacity.) If you think the context and aftermath of the statements actually matter, Clark's contribution, on balance, has to be considered a negative one.
Update: The Obama campaign deals with Clark's latest statements, exactly as predicted:
Obama communications director Robert Gibbs, on whether the campaign is behind Gen. Clark's comments: "No, we're not. ... We certainly honor the sacrifice and the service and the heroism of John McCain. Those are the comments of Gen. Clark, not Barack Obama. ... They both love their countries, and anyone who questions otherwise doesn't make much sense."
Uhm, let's add some context:
CLARK: 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. 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 this publicly? He hasn't made those calls, Bob.
SCHIEFFER: Can I just interrupt you? I have to say, Barack Obama hasn't had any of these experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.
CLARK: I don't think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.
He was not lying about or disparaging McCain's military service, he was making the factual point that military service and executive experience aren't the same thing. He is correct, it was not an "attack," and there was nothing Rovian about it.
Uhm, let's add some context:
CLARK: 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. 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 this publicly? He hasn't made those calls, Bob.
SCHIEFFER: Can I just interrupt you? I have to say, Barack Obama hasn't had any of these experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.
CLARK: I don't think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.
He was not lying about or disparaging McCain's military service, he was making the factual point that military service and executive experience aren't the same thing. He is correct, it was not an "attack," and there was nothing Rovian about it.
Agreed, Jon, insofar as Obama is concerned. Clearly he can't take on McCain's military record and having to reply to the Clark statement is hurtful.
That said, Clark is right. Being a pilot doesn't qualify you for anything except to fly airplanes. Being shot down doesn't qualify you for anything. Being a prisoner of war doesn't qualify you for anything. And these are the things McCain's campaign is touting as his strengths.
I didn't see W. Clark's interview but I don't the quotes here are anything to get upset about. In fact, in a cool headed way, I'd agree with his statements. Getting shot down from a plane has nothing to do with being qualified for ANYTHING other having the luck to survive such a horrible affair. As far as understanding ones opponent and making sound judgements, well that's obvious. What seems to be at play here is whether or not these very 'patriotic' and militaristic deeds play into the way McCain would like to spin them as presidential qualifications.
As a Veteran I think that Clark is right to question McCain on this and other matters.
McCain and others act like questioning McCain's strength is off limits. That is ridiculous. He has to own up and answer these questions.
Does or does he not have the judgement to be President. Has he or has he not learned from past American mistakes in foreign policy.
I think that all these questions need to be raised and are fair game. To not address them is to buy into the Bush style politics that we can't raise up and question the patriotism of Republicans.
For an interesting and dead-on read, see
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-soltz/right-on-general-clark-do_b_1099...
As a Veteran I approve of this dialog and want McCain grilled on his military and national security judgement. I find it lacking.
According to other news reports, Clark also spoke these words about Mr. McCain:
"[McCain] hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall"
Perhaps, Mr. Clark, what Americans respect a bit more is someone who was under the bombs while more privileged "leaders" like yourself were ordering bombs to fall on others from a great distance.
Having been under bombs falling might be the type of reality check on war that Americans want in a President.
Your engagement in a vicious media-bombing of Mr. McCain seems to have great potential for "blowback" on your candidate and any misguided political aspirations you might be fantasizing about.
Guess you didn't learn much from listening to all those "diplomats".
Unbelievable.
As a retired military veteran, I think Mr. Clark is an idiot. Few veterans would ever question the service or patriotism of another veteran, but Wesley Clark is one of those types who still think you have to prove every degree of self-worth or manhood by how many stripes you earned. Few military veterans will ever meet the definitions of service and sacrifice that John McCain has, and for Wesley Clark to question that in the name of politics is just a shame. But he's only hurt is own standing in the eyes of many, many veterans. If someone wants to question service to the nation, there's quite a few other folks that bear close examination. Lets focus on the issues, shall we?
Bollocks. Being captured by enemy soldiers no more qualifies one to be a head of state as it qualifies them to manage an baseball team. It's about time someone had the guts to state such an obvious fact.
Are the Democrats using Swift Boat Veterans tactics like the Republicans did against Kerry? Sad.
How can anyone with a brain think there is "swiftboating" going on here? I challenge anyone to show me what Clark said that makes you think he was questioning McCain's service or patriotism.
What is more sad is that the 'swift boat' tactic actually works on the American people. Definitely more sad...
This is not mudslining. Clark is qualified to make the statement and the judgement. He is letting the American people know that just because some went to war does not mean he has faculties to deal with the responsibilites of war time policies and securities issues.
MC-CAIN'S LAST DATE WITH THE REAGAN REPUBLICAN PARTY
McCain's ideological support, like Bush's, comes from Podhoretz Neo-Cons and Leiberman Neo-Libs, not Reagan Conservatives nor Kennedy Liberals. These supporters have the same Neo-Marxist roots, which originated over 60 years ago, when millions of defeated Marxist immigrants from Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were admitted by America, as desperate persecuted refugees; after all of the European nations refused to take them.
By the McCarthy Era, many of these pathetic refugees had gotten good government jobs; and, by way of showing their deep gratitude to the American People, they systematically corrupted the government and endangered national security, by working as spies for Marxist Russia. The most notorious of these spies, the Rosenbergs, were executed for treason. This had the intended beneficial effect of stopping most of the dangerous spying; but it had the unintended consequence of causing these Marxist refugees to seek social and economic power by pretentiously assimilating into the Conservative Republican and Liberal Democrat parties; where they quickly mutated into the Neo-Conservatives and Neo-Liberals, with insidious ideological opposition to traditional Christian culture and Constitutional principles. The result of the subversive influence by these virulent Crypto-Neo-Marxists in the government, schools, news media and entertainment media was the increasingly intolerably cultural degeneration that has led up to the American Cultural War.
Podhoretz Neo-Con and Leiberman Neo-Lib ideologies notoriously promote contempt for patriotism, defensive war, historical facts, Christian culture, United States Constitution, United Nations, and Conservative Reagan Republicans and Liberal Kennedy Democrats.
With the failure of Marxist ideology, the Neo-Cons opposed the revolutionary spread of Marxism, and now strive to control the deployment of American military power for interventionist warfare everywhere in the World; but the Neo-Libs continued to support Marxism. To survive, these Neo-Marxist mutants, Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs, quite readily change from one form into the other, depending patriotic spirit of the times.
All of this contempt is transparently motivated by a dogmatic belief in gaining an advantage by insubordination to the practices of national religious and governmental traditions, which grant the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These Crypto-Neo-Marxists, like their failed Marxists predecessors, imagine that they can somehow create their own new superior civilization, if they first destroy the traditional allegiance to the nuclear family, Christianity, nationalism, and the Constitution.
Israel, which these Marxists refugees have had all to themselves for 60 years, to do their utopian social engineering, in their own artificially created state, is notoriously poorly governed and heavily subsidized by the Diaspora; and the People of Israel, once the most widely pitied in the World, have come to justly earn the distinction of now being the most universally despised, condemned, and threatened with annihilation.
In this crucial 2008 presidential battle of the American Cultural War shall the Reagan Conservatives and the Kennedy Liberals finally combine forces against these desperately united Podhoretz Neo-Cons and Leiberman Neo-Libs supporting Insane McCain; or shall they continue to suffer ideological corruption of their Republican and Democrat parties, subversion of their traditional Christian culture and Constitutional Law, pernicious governmental strife, and the illegal and un-patriotic sacrifice of the wealth and blood of the American People to sole benefit of Israel?
With Leiberman Neo-Lib Princess Hillary burnt at stake by the Kennedy Liberal Democratic Party, shall Podhoretz Neo-Con McCain have his final date for the presidency, or for the Reagan Conservative Republican firing squad?
Google: "Mearsheimer Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy"; "Evans Blacklisted by History: Untold Story of Joe McCarthy"; "Wall Street Journal McCain-Feingold"; Stricherz Why the Democrats are Blue; "Human Events Ron Paul Interview"; McClelland "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception"; McCain Keating Five; Abramoff Israel McCain.
Clark simply told the truth. Where is the debate? The media is constantly stirring things up.
The truth will come out about McSlime. He is not a war hero the way the Neocons portray him. He was caught and his actually combat hours were 20 at about 20,000 to 30,000 feet bombing the hell out of innocent civilians as well as Viet Cong, hardly the criteria to qualify for Hero status.
I heard the interview and I read the article/comments. It seems to me Clark may have been able to make his point better, but there was nothing like a Karl Rove - swift boat attack. He is simply saying being a war hero has no relation to the skills it takes to be a good president.
A few years ago, Ross Perot picked a VP to run with him that had an exemplary military career with duty in decision making positions. However, when he showed up for the VP debates, it was obvious he had "lost a step" and was not really capable of handling the position.
...bombing the hell out of innocent civilians as well as Viet Cong...
While McCain is a bought & paid-for corporate tool just like all the candidates the major parties have run in the last 50+ years.., I think people other than John McCain have to wear that saddle, like two or three US presidents who inserted Americans into a foreign civil war and then ramped it up to the point of carpet bombing with B-52s.
what the hell did you say about the swiftboaters? genereal clark has every right to get after mccain. he is to damn old anyway to be president and he cannot remember who american is fighting.........seems to me the news people are giving obama hell and letting mccain get by with everything. i hope the democrats win by 30 points and straighten up ameica once again. bush has almost ruined the place i love called america...............he needs impeached along with cheney and all he rest of his administration for sure.
Clark is right. If military service and command experience is what qualifies someone for the presidency then McCain supporters should have rushed to support Clark when he sought the Democratic nomination
Whoever started this swiftboating troll shouldn't have. Clark is right. Sacrifice and patriotism aren't the issue.
Barack Obama does't have to apologize nor clarify gen. Clark's statements since Clark is not a part of his campaign staff but a private citizen,who has the right to say as he wishes.
To Mike (not Mike S)"If someone wants to question service to the nation, there's quite a few other folks that bear close examination. Lets focus on the issues, shall we?"
OK, let's focus on the issues. GENERAL Clark did not question anyone's service. He simply asked the question, "How does his experiences as a Navy Pilot qualify him to be President?" Since Senator McCain is using that logic in his speaches and TV Ads, Ithink it's a fair question.
El Gato -- Did you feel the same way when the Republicans did the REAL "Swiftboating" to John Kerry, who actually served in Viet Nam and was decorated for his service, unlike his opponent? That was truly sad, especially the fact that a large percentage of Americans apparently believed those lies.
A Viet Nam Era Veteran
I don't think that Clark's telling the truth is Rovian. I've been waiting for this issue to be raised and can't imagine anyone better qualified to raise it. McCain has been getting a pass from the corporate press for far too long. Clark was not dishonoring McCain's service. What he did was to raise the question of exactly how his service and being a POW qualifies him for the presidency. That's what McCain seems to be running on.
This is hardly a case of "swiftboating". In 2004 Kerry was accused of faking wounds, talking about bogus missions, etc. - outright lies. Did Clark make any lies about McCain's service? NO. Clark simply pointed out that being a pilot that bombed North Vietnam and getting shot down and incarcerated for 5+ years is not a serious qualification for the presidency. This fact was misunderstood by the right-wing flunkies in the MSM and totally bollixed by some pundits. Unfortunately, Clark did not make this point clear enough so that it could not me spun by people with comprehension difficulties [maybe an impossible task].
This has nothing to do with Rovian machinations. All you need to do is set the wayback machine to 2000 to compare Clark's statements with the Rovian memes that the years in captivity had made McCain unhinged and therefore unfit for office. And he even might be a Manchurian candidate. And a black baby.
The difference is obvious.
I think Clark was 100% correct when he said that McBush's war service (including being shot down, captured, and tortured) does not qualify him to be president. I don't even respect the guy for what he did. He could have refused to serve in what we now know was an unjust war. He could have resisted -- even died -- rather than give the Vietcong a statement saying America was an imperialist nation illegally violating the sovereignty of another country. He might, by some, be seen as qualified to call himself a patriot. But that is not the same thing as saying his service qualifies him to be president. Presidents have to know which wars to fight and which ones not to. Vietnam should not have been fought. Our troops died in vain. Iraq should not have been fought, and McBush voted to fight it.
John McCain began his campaign saying that he would not be running on his military record. 'Flip-Flop'
Now he drags it up as an answer to every single thing he gets asked. He used a remark about is POW years to 'answer' a question about health care for crying out loud.
Of course, then he has all his shills in the MSM to do this for him as well, including such asinine statements as "well, you can't question his credibility on (fill in the blank) because of his war hero/POW status.
What?
I question his credibility every time he opens his mouth. McCain has flipped and flopped on every issue in this election so many times it is beginning to get difficult to figure out just which side of an issue he's on this hour (some of the flip-flops have come within hours of previous statemens).
Clark's question was not 'swift-boating'. He was stating a fact in answer to a particular question asked by Bob Schieffer.
Swift-boating is lies, innuendo and more lies passed off as if they were the truth. This was nothing of the kind.
McCain claims to be a war hero on the basis of his POW experience. But he has consistently voted AGAINST issues like the new GI Bill and a whole collection of other items considered supportive of our current batch of troops in harms way. So, war hero, why aren't YOU supporting our troops?
As a USAF veteran & subsistence-level retired septuagenarian, I feel Wes Clark was too kind in his comments about OLD 'puffy cheeks'; and the Obama camp should not have rebuked his mild truisms. McCain is no 'war hero' and should have been prosecuted for collaboration with the enemy to ease his captivity conditions. Anyone seriously considering voting for this near-senile old geezer is obviously out of touch with reality and willing to bring further shame upon the late, great United States of America!
Thanks to the five MSM controlling corporations and our skewed electoral process, I (once again) do not have a truly progressive/liberal candidate [Kucinich] to vote for in Nov. but Obama at least offers some 'hope' of righting the American "ship of state"!
Wes Clark's statement was valid and to the point: McCain's military experience does not automatically qualify him for the presidency.
A previous comment spoke of McCain's presence on the ground in Vietnam; that never happened. As a Navy pilot, McCain returned to his carrier after his missions, where he was given the usual cushy officer-grade, better-than-enlisted personnel treatment. Not close to what grunts went through. And as another poster noted, McCain spent his combat moments in a relatively comfortable aircraft cockpit up until the point he was brought down by a SAM missile.
Someone mentioned the POW officer Perot has as his VP candidate: that was James Stockdale, the senior officer in the Hanoi Hilton, under whom McCain served during his imprisonment. James Stockdale was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his service, but his campaign for VP was a political disaster. Very few would point to him as a poster child for military bravery and conduct preparing someone for political office. Another top-notch Vietnam flier was Randall "Duke" Cunningham, and we all know how that turned out! BTW, Cunningham was a fighter pilot, flying the F4 Phantom. McCain was a bomber pilot, flying the A4 SkyHawk attack plane, a precursor of the A10 Warthog currently in use. That's not to say McCain wasn't a perfectly adequate pilot, but when he stands by while someone refers to him as a fighter pilot, he's basking in other pilots' glory.
I wish Obama would quit apologizing and just pay attention to the business at hand. 'Patriotism' is one more buzzword - it means nothing. Or maybe I just feel that way because I lost every bit of it I had when George W. Bush declared an illegal war and destroyed this country along with Iraq. Patriotic? Who cares!
Posted by: Mike on 06/30/08 at 10:10 AM: "As a retired military veteran, I think Mr. Clark is an idiot. Few veterans would ever question the service or patriotism of another veteran, but Wesley Clark is one of those types who still think you have to prove every degree of self-worth or manhood by how many stripes you earned."
You've misread the article. Wes Clark did NOT question the service or patriotism of John McCain, nor did he require proof of McCain's manhood. You are way off the beam on this one.
"Few military veterans will ever meet the definitions of service and sacrifice that John McCain has, and for Wesley Clark to question that in the name of politics is just a shame."
Again, wrong. McCain's service and sacrifice was not questioned by Clark. Plain and simple, as it was written in the article, Clark's position is that John McCain's military service hasn't qualified him to be president. Agreed: Obama has no military service. For this reason, he doesn't use military experience as a qualification for the presidency. Wes Clark merely points out that McCain shouldn't use it, either.
"Lets focus on the issues, shall we?"
Fantastic! In doing so, we can leave John McCain's military history out of the mix. As far as issues are concerned, it lacks relevance.
I saw the interview, I believe that Gen. Clark may make the short list as VP for Obama. I also saw the preceding interview with Se. Lieberman, and I must say that I was disapointed with Bob Scheaffer for throwing softball questions at him. Like, "What do you think Iraq would look like in three years after Pres. Obama has pulled troops out? I think He should have asked Lieberman about what the entire Middle East would look like if Isreal were to attack Iran, and were would the price of a barrel of oil be once Iran closed off the Straits od Hormoz?
Clark is right!
McCain spent his boyhood in exclusive boarding schools where staffers were paid to put up with his tirades. We all did some immature things before we matured. But with McCain, the tirades continue today.
Had he not been the son and grandson of admirals, there is scant chance he would have been admitted to the U.S. Naval Academy. Given his behavior patterns and academics, had he not been the son and grandson of admirals, there is little doubt he would have been thrown out. Instead, in 1958 he managed to graduate 894 out of 899. Had he not been the son and grandson of admirals, he is no chance he would have been accepted into the prestigious naval flight training program over far better qualified officers. On his way to becoming a North Vietnamese ace, the aviator lost 3 expensive aircraft on routine, non-combat flights. Little was made of all that, because he was, you know, the son and grandson of admirals.
McCain's most HORRENDOUS loss occurred in 1967 on the USS Forrestal. Well, not horrendous for him. The starter motor switch on the A4E Skyhawk allowed fuel to pool in the engine. When the aircraft was "wet-started," an impressive flame would shoot from the tail. It was one of the ways young hot-shots got their jollies. Investigators and survivors took the position that McCain deliberately wet-started to harass the F4 pilot directly behind him. The cook off launched an M34 Zuni rocket that tore through the Skyhawk's fuel tank, released a thousand pound bomb, and ignited a fire that killed the pilot plus 167 men. Before the tally of dead and dying was complete, the son and grandson of admirals had been transferred to the USS Oriskany.
Just like the Shrubs AWOL adventures, we will never hear about McInsane's true "HERO" nature and Obama and/or the Democraps will never have the rocks to bring it up. Can you only imagine if the reverse were true?
Hence Obama is only pissing in the wind while dreaming of the presidicy.
Uhm, let's add some context:
CLARK: 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. 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 this publicly? He hasn't made those calls, Bob.
SCHIEFFER: Can I just interrupt you? I have to say, Barack Obama hasn't had any of these experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.
CLARK: I don't think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.
He was not lying about or disparaging McCain's military service, he was making the factual point that military service and executive experience aren't the same thing. He is correct, it was not an "attack," and there was nothing Rovian about it.
Screwed up my html, sorry. You get the point.
I disagree that McCain's military experience is irrelevant to his qualification to be president. Wes Clark is right that getting shot down doesn't qualify as executive experience, but it ought to inform his decisionmaking about going to war or continuing to wage war. Unfortunately, McCain doesn't seem to be showing the sensitivity to the cost of war, especially the human cost, that one would expect from a former prisoner of war. A numbskull like Bush thinks of war as if it were a video game. McCain should be going in a different direction. I never saw Colin Powell smile during the Gulf War, and I doubt that he had his heart in supporting the invasion of Iraq. I assume he had learned something from his military experience that convinced him that war was a last resort. I would expect McCain to feel that way too, but he keeps pandering to those who still think invading Iraq was a good idea. And calling Wes Clark's comments "swiftboating" is pure ignorance. The Swiftboat Veterans for Truth put together a distorted pack of lies, half-truths and BS for the express purpose of attacking John Kerry's war record. Wes Clark merely commented on McCain's qualifications to be president. There was no lying, no distortion of facts, no BS. There was no attack on his character or patriotism. It was all about what his experience would add to his qualification to be the commander in chief. Citizens should be entitled to give their political opinions, even if they are characterized by the media as surrogates. The only thing Rovian about such statements is when they are orchestrated to repeat ad nauseam the approved message of the candidate. Wesley Clark's remarks were anything but a scripted, preapproved campaign pitch. So Democrats don't have the discipline that Republicans do to make everyone march in lock-step and chant the party mantra. I'd rather have freedom of thought and freedom of speech, even if it makes us vulnerable to the terrorists, who are just waiting for a Democrat to occupy the White House so they can resume their activities.
Vietnam Veterans against McCain say that he made 32 anti-American propaganda films for them in exchange for medical treatment and priviledges. There is also evidence to suggest that he was entirely responsible for the USS Forrestal incident in 1967. He's not bright, has a reputation for blowing his cool...just the guy we need in the White House!
Sorry, I meant to say that McCain made 32 films for the North Vietnamese.
would anyone like to have changed places with jm..he was doing his duty for our country, why wasnt his experience in the senate discussed...non issue,strange...im sure obama and his military record and his sacrafice are a better example.....baaaah...follow the sheep
Also as a vet I must comment that McCain is not qualified for any office. Although there are questions of his ability because of his age, the biggest problem is what he did to assist the North Vietnamese during his stay as POW. Although he may not be as dangerous and ignorant as GW Bush, he isn't many points above. Anyone with any patriotism whatsoever should realise how dangerous the Republican Party has become. Their only interests are promoting and supporting Multi-national corporations in which they are vested, at ANY cost to not only the American public but the whole global community. HELP US SAVE THIS COUNTRY AND VOTE OBAMA. At this time, and with only options of two candidates, he is the only chance for the change we desperately need.
I would think ALL patriotic citizens would be sick of the puppet government that currently exists.
McCain admits that three to four days after he was captured, he promised the Vietnamese, "I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital."
McCain admits that the Vietnamese rushed him to a hospital...
Less than two weeks after McCain was taken to a hospital, Hanoi's press began quoting him giving specific military information, including the name of the aircraft carrier on which he was based, numbers of U.S. pilots that had been lost, the number of aircraft in his flight, information about location of rescue ships and the order of which his attack was supposed to take place.
There is also evidence that McCain received "special" medical treatment from a Soviet physician.
After he was out of the hospital, McCain continued cooperating with the North Vietnamese for a period of THREE YEARS! He made radio broadcasts for the communists and met with foreign delegations, including the Cubans. He was interviewed by at least two North Vietnamese generals one of whom was Vietnam's national hero, General Vo Nguyen Giap.
McCain admits he violated the military Code of Conduct.
Hanoi aired a broadcast in which the pilot son of the United States commander in the Pacific, Adm. JOHN McCAIN, admits to having bombed civilian targets in North Vietnam and praises medical treatment he has received since being taken prisoner.
As recently as 1993, Senator JOHN McCAIN shook hands and accepted a warm welcome from Vietnam's prime minister VO VAN KLET. Klet was a ranking member of the Viet Cong National Liberation Front Central Committee during the Vietnam War, and was one of the Cong leaders responsible for ordering executions of American POW's. Vo Van Klet was also know as "Sau Dan".
For sure, McCain has more military experience than Obama, but do we really want such a TRAITOR in the White House again?