John Kerry has lived the values of service and sacrifice. In the Navy, as a prosecutor, as a senator. He proved his physical courage under fire. He's proved his moral courage, too. John Kerry fought a war and came home to fight for peace - his combination of physical courage and moral values is my definition of what we need in a Commander-in-Chief.
With only four months of service in Vietnam, John Kerry was deemed to be qualified for the highest office in the land. And yet, five years of captivity after being shot down, doesn't qualify John McCain?
“That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn’t a wartime squadron.”
Moderator Bob Schieffer, who raised the issue by citing similar remarks Clark has made previously, noted that Obama hadn’t had those experiences nor had he ridden in a fighter plane and been shot down. “Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president,” Clark replied.
1. McCain was in command of the other POWS, being the highest ranking prisoner in that prison, certainly more challenging than Kerry commanding a small boat for four months.
2. JFK's boat was sunk and everyone believed him to be a war hero when he was elected. Brave and courageous, he certainly was. How is this different from McCain?
But Clark's inability to put cogent thoughts together in a sentence isn't what really bothers me. I have come to expect that of him. What really disturbs me is the fact that the left calls him a war criminal. I have very little respect for a soldier that puts politics above truth and dignity. I have absolutely none for those that twist meanings of a war criminal to suit their radical agenda. None.
5 comments:
So, the left is going to "swift boat" McCain?
The right to speak our minds, to express opinions, is one of our most treasured liberties. I no more condemn Michael Gaddy for expressing his point of view than I do the “Swift Boat” veterans from expressing theirs. Freedom of expression of is a guarantee of all speech, particularly when it involves an opinion with which we do not happen to agree. I am not surprised to find that there are former servicemen who disagree with McCain’s policies, or even that there were those with whom he served that do not like McCain personally. I can tell you that I would never win a popularity contest, either. When in uniform, I never thought that popularity was my first or most solemn duty. That said, I can only conclude that the remarks of Mr. Gaddy on 14 March 2008 are motivated by politics, and wonder if there is no level too low for some people to stoop.
I agree with your remarks with regard to Clarke. From a man who worked under General Clark for four years, we learn: “ … he was arrogant, condescending, often ignorant despite tremendous innate intelligence, devoid of leadership, lacking in people skills (certainly down), self centered and with huge personal ambition. He lacked the ability to pick-up on the real currents and displayed an odd blindness that those with a good nose would pick up on. He had a level of paranoia that didn't allow him to build a team. Most of all I found him to be disloyal up and down the chain. Now he is dismissive of McCain's service and ability.... That is exactly how he treated all mere mortals who were not of his caliber and, rest assured, he saw no one as even half of his equal. I was always amazed that the American Military could breed a man that was so convinced of his superiority over others and so anointed that he considered himself more like European Royalty. There have been English and French Kings, Russian Czars, Sultans, Chinese Emperors and other rulers with greater humility, more willing to take advice from immediate subordinates, and more concerned about their men.”
In my own view, a quality leader – a warrior – has little time for ticket punching, schmoozing with ranking politicians, and self-aggrandizements. Clarke’s problem is that he had to make a decision early on in his career whether to be a warrior, or a political but high-ranking officer. He made a poor choice, even if he is drawing the retainer pay of a four-star general, because he has forfeited his credibility, and his dignity. I find no sympathy for a man like Clarke – it was his decision, after all. Now, he is just another one of thousands of odious politicians, just one small piss-ant in the nest of like-minded idiots pursuing power and affluence – no matter what it takes to achieve it.
“ … he was arrogant, condescending, often ignorant despite tremendous innate intelligence, devoid of leadership, lacking in people skills (certainly down), self centered and with huge personal ambition...."
They were describing Clark, not BHO, right? I was a little confused. ;)
BTW, if you guys haven't read McCain's first-hand account of his time in captivity (written when I was 2.5 months old!), you definitely should.
http://tinyurl.com/ysw3nk
Clark said today that it was the post-war moral courage that took Kerry over McCain in his book.
IOW, throwing someone's medals over a fence, testifying in Congress to equate the troops with Barbarian hordes, meeting with the NV in Paris while still in the Navy, and being the member of an anti-war group that once contemplated killing a Congressman (although Kerry demurred) were those magical key ingredients, not just the combat experience.
Wow. I still think he's trying to goad McCain into showing some of that famous temper.
//I no more condemn Michael Gaddy for expressing his point of view than I do the “Swift Boat” veterans from expressing theirs.//
He has the right to say what he wants. I would never condemn him for that. We that disagree with him have the right to point out where we think he's wrong. And I have the right to not respect someone who uses this method to demonize someone who, in my view, doesn't deserve it.
Post a Comment