Getting shot down in an airplane is not a qualification to be president

[jsteele]

There. I said it.

I am sick and tired of the media's unrelentingly false portrayal of Wes Clark's remarks. He didn't say anything negative about McCain's military experience. To the contrary, he praised it. But, in response to Bob Schieffer's statement that Barack Obama had not ridden in a fighter plane and got shot down, Clark merely said that was not a necessary qualification. That was not a statement about McCain, it was about Obama! The media is completely in the bag for McCain over this and I think its ridiculous.

If Clark wanted to dishonor McCain's service, he could point out that McCain, as he says himself, agreed to give the Vietnamese military information within 4 days of being captured. Clark could have mentioned that McCain did over 20 propaganda interviews for the Vietnamese. Clark could have mentioned that, according to David Hackworth (the most decorated US Soldier in Vietnam), McCain didn't give up offers of early release out of altruism as it is now told, but because he was ordered to by higher ranking POWs. But, Clark didn't -- and wouldn't -- do any of that. He responded to a statement about Barack Obama.

McCain doesn't want any questioning of his military service. However, it is supposed to be the single most important factor in his qualifications to be president. Could any other candidate get away with making their primary qualification off limits to questioning? I don't think so.

[Anonymous]

I think Wesley Clark speaks the truth. Just because a candidate was a POW, shot down, a veteran, does not make him qualified to be President.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I think Wesley Clark speaks the truth. Just because a candidate was a POW, shot down, a veteran, does not make him qualified to be President.

To be clear, in my opinion, those things could speak to character. But in and of themselves, they aren't qualifications.

[Anonymous]

I think it's more that there seems to be a pattern of remarks that appear to be orchestrated, dating back to Jay Rockefeller's initial comments. It's obvious that the Obama campaign thinks this is a good line of attack. It is, however, rather akin to swift-boating, isn't it? In addition, General Clark has used a fairly scathing tone in some of his remarks, and I myself have the sense that Clark is auditioning for the vice presidential slot. (And he would be more palatable to me than Jim Webb for sure.) I agree, Jeff, that McCain's experiences are not in themselves qualifications. I do think they speak to his character under very adverse conditions, and I believe he has a better understanding of war than someone who has never experienced it. But I agree that they are not "qualifications" per se.

[Anonymous]

Just because he was shot down may not qualify him to be president aka commander and chief of the arm forces, but the fact that he did serve, something I would be everyone of the pp did not do, does qualify him in my book. Obama did not serve his country, he will not even wear the flag on his label. What the hell is wrong with you people!! I bet if your liberal wins and we get in a war on our land you will regret the day you voted for your choice. I hope you never find out! God Bless America, and for any one against it or any of our presidents, rep. or dem. get the hell out. We don't need you and you are dragging this great country down.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Just because he was shot down may not qualify him to be president aka commander and chief of the arm forces, but the fact that he did serve, something I would be everyone of the pp did not do, does qualify him in my book. Obama did not serve his country, he will not even wear the flag on his label. What the hell is wrong with you people!! I bet if your liberal wins and we get in a war on our land you will regret the day you voted for your choice. I hope you never find out! God Bless America, and for any one against it or any of our presidents, rep. or dem. get the hell out. We don't need you and you are dragging this great country down.

Not surprisingly, you are somewhat misinformed. Look closely at Obama's lapel:



We've already been attacked on our land, or have you forgotten 9/11 and the anthrax attacks? Both of those happened on your boy's watch and the guys who did it still haven't been caught. And, I'll say without hesitation that I am against our current president. In August 2001 he was given a report titled "Bin laden determined to attack inside the US" and all Bush did was clear some brush while on vacation. No one has done more harm to this country than the idiot in the Whitehouse. I'll take the liberal over that any day of the week, thank you.

[Anonymous]

Jeff, I hope you are correct, but I will stick with the military any day over the non serving liberals. Where the hell would you be with out them? Have you served? Whether they talked when captured or not, they served!! Commander and Chief of the Arm Forces. Would you serve to protect the freedom you have to write this board? Are you afraid to serve? Do you think we do not need a military? I think serving should be a requirement for the presidency.

[Anonymous]

Jeff: Do you have a dog? Whether I've been bitten or not, whether I've had to pay a fortune in veterinary bills or not, I've owned dogs! Are you afraid of dogs? Would you want your child to have a dog? I think having a dog should be a qualification to be President.

I also want a President who calls his wife a cunt in public. This is very important to me. I think it shows character. Have you called your wife a cunt? In public? (so that you can't even deny it when you're asked about it -- extra points for being SIOOOPID). Do you think you're wife is a cunt? Do you think Cindy McCain is a cunt? (Personally I think John McCain is a cunt).

I think calling your wife a cunt should be a qualification to be President!!!

Also, Jeff: I think it's very important that our President have a raging, uncontrollable temper. Do you have a wild temper? Would you spend lots of your time making calls to other statesmen trying to get some secretary or some intern fired for something they said to you 20 years ago? Are you teaching your children that this is a good way to live??

Because I think holding petty grudges and acting on them in absurd ways should be a qualification to be President!

Obama has not served!!
I don't think Obama has ever called any woman a cunt!
I haven't seen any evidence that Obama holds petty grudges that he takes out on his (or other people's) secretaries.

No way am I voting for that guy. It's obvious that you just have a blind spot where he is concerned, Jeff. If that's you're real name . . .

[jsteele]

Um, I think you are confused about which one of us is Jeff.

[Anonymous]

We've already been attacked on our land, or have you forgotten 9/11 and the anthrax attacks? Both of those happened on your boy's watch and the guys who did it still haven't been caught. And, I'll say without hesitation that I am against our current president. In August 2001 he was given a report titled "Bin laden determined to attack inside the US" and all Bush did was clear some brush while on vacation. No one has done more harm to this country than the idiot in the Whitehouse. I'll take the liberal over that any day of the week, thank you.





Actually, one could argue that the Clinton administration could've done more to prevent the "attack on our land" . In addition, whose to say that there haven't been more plots in the making - 99% don't make it to the media for a number of security reasons.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Actually, one could argue that the Clinton administration could've done more to prevent the "attack on our land" . In addition, whose to say that there haven't been more plots in the making - 99% don't make it to the media for a number of security reasons.

One could argue that the moon is made of blue cheese. It doesn't make it so. In August 2001, Bush was provided a document titled, "Bin Laden determined to strike in US". In typical Bush style, he continued his vacation. The government just paid Steven Hatfill $5.8 million for wrongly implicating him in the anthrax attacks. The government has no clue who really orchestrated the attacks. These blunders can't be blamed on Clinton. You can choose to believe what you want about prevented attacks, but the Bush Administration has never failed to choose politics over security. If they had stopped something, it would be in the media.

[Anonymous]

well if you think the government is so clueless why don't you give up your cushy private sector job or what ever you do and put your action where you mouth is and do something rather than just criticize.

Is is appalling how quickly people have forgotten 9-11-the threat didn't start in Jan of 2001 but much earlier while Clinton and Albright were toasting dictators such as Kim Jong Il and worrying about how to hide infidelities.

I am no fan of Bush.

I would never vote for Obama.

Hillary was the best candidate.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
well if you think the government is so clueless why don't you give up your cushy private sector job or what ever you do and put your action where you mouth is and do something rather than just criticize.

Is is appalling how quickly people have forgotten 9-11-the threat didn't start in Jan of 2001 but much earlier while Clinton and Albright were toasting dictators such as Kim Jong Il and worrying about how to hide infidelities.

I am no fan of Bush.

I would never vote for Obama.

Hillary was the best candidate.

I assume that you are aware that Albright was a Hillary supporter who joined Clinton on the stage after the Iowa primary. How good of a candidate could Hillary have been if she surrounded herself with people you seem to think are such losers?

I am not sure why you think I should quit my job (which is not all that cushy), but the Bush Administration would have no interest in hiring me. I actually have significant expertise in a number of areas, so I don't fit the Bush mold which is more along the lines of hiring horse association executive Michael Brown to run FEMA.

Also, given the pride you have in your long memory, I'm surprised that you don't recall that Bin Laden got his start in the US funded program to support Islamic fundamentalists fighting in Afghanistan. That program was started by Reagan. Bin Laden turned anti-American during the first Bush administration and the first anti-American attack by al-Qaida was launched in those years.

Clinton certainly had his faults when it came to fighting al-Qaida -- frequently putting shows of force above effective action -- but by the end of his term the people he had hired were focused on the threat. The Bush Administration simply ignored them. A good example is Richard Clark.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, I hope you are correct, but I will stick with the military any day over the non serving liberals. Where the hell would you be with out them? Have you served? Whether they talked when captured or not, they served!! Commander and Chief of the Arm Forces. Would you serve to protect the freedom you have to write this board? Are you afraid to serve? Do you think we do not need a military? I think serving should be a requirement for the presidency.

I'm sorry but when exactly did Bush (or Cheney or most of the GOP leadership) serve in the military???

[Anonymous]

Attempting to steer back to the actual original topic of this thread...

OP said getting shot down and having been in the war was Mc Cain's "single most important factor in his qualifications to be president." Well, on top of those character-related experiences, McCain's been a member of the US Senate for over 2 decades. Obama's been a Senator for about 2 years, half of which he spent campaigning. So even if you set aside the military service, McCain certaintly is better "qualified" than Obama to be president. You may agree more w/ Obama's politics, but he's still by far the less experienced candidiate with slimmer qualifications for the job.