PDA

View Full Version : Wesley Clark did nothing wrong.



Carol
06-30-2008, 10:36 PM
Oh, the irony........

link (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6433826)


mtnsnake (1000+ posts) Mon Jun-30-08 10:23 PM
Original message
Wesley Clark did nothing wrong. Once again the media fucked us over, we fell for it & succombed
I can't freaking believe how we still don't know how to play the game.

The only reason there is a firestorm over General Clark's benign comments is because the media made a mountain out of a molehill AGAIN by taking something completely out of context, and our people got scared and rolled over instead of sticking to our guns and staying on the offensive.

General Clark said nothing wrong. NOTHING. He was set up by a remark which that asshole, Bob Schieffer, made when he was referencing Barack Obama. Only problem is, the media is not telling everyone that Schieffer referenced Obama just before Clark made his remark in response to it. All anyone is hearing is Clark's answer, period.

Instead of our people getting on the air and backing up one of our best Democrats for doing nothing wrong, they question his judgment and abandon him, leaving him to the sharks all on his own. How pathetic is that.

The sad thing is that General Clark's judgment was dead-on accurate and there was nothing insulting with what he said if you listen to the conversation that led up to his remarks.

Just before Clark's remark, he and Schieffer were arguing whether McCain's war experiences were valid experience for being President. Then came Schieffer's remark about Obama....

Schieffer: "I'd have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down."

Clark: "Well I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be President. But Barack is not..he is not running on the fact that he has made these national security pronouncements. He's running on his other strengths. He's running on the strength of his character, he's running on the strength of his communication skills, on the strength of his judgment"...and so on.

In the context of the conversation between Schieffer and General Clark, General Clark has nothing to be ashamed of. The media is only playing that one sentence by Clark and not Schieffer's remarks leading up to it, nor what Clark said afterward. Despite what anyone from the Obama camp is saying about Clark's remarks, I just hope to hell that some of our other Democrats give some much deserved support to Wesley Clark tomorrow. This shit could have been nipped in the bud if only our people stood up to it right from the start.

General Clark was in the process of giving our campaign a gift with which to tear McCain apart, and all we did was waste that gift away.

Here is a link to the video if anyone wants to hear General Clark's remarks in the context of the situation:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=iXOE0oGRNXA Yep, he said nothing wrong or insulting...........but, if only our side had shut up we could have torn McCain apart based on what Clark said.

Just.....WOW

vetwife
06-30-2008, 10:46 PM
It's not a qualification. Clark is a 4 star general and was shot 4 times. He has a right to his
opinion. I know plenty of heroic veterans but they are not qualifed to be president.
They are qualified to fight and be warriors but getting captured in a combat zone does not qualify
one to run the highest office in the land. It's an opinon.

Carol
06-30-2008, 11:00 PM
Of course it's not a qualification, and yes it's an opinion.

The irony is that no one that I know of is stating that McCain is qualified based only on his service record.

Then the OP states in essence that Clark didn't say anything wrong......didn't use his (McCains) service recond to slam McCain....but if liberals had only shut up they could have used what Clark said to "tear McCain apart."

SaintLouieWoman
07-01-2008, 08:23 AM
Of course it's not a qualification, and yes it's an opinion.

The irony is that no one that I know of is stating that McCain is qualified based only on his service record.

Then the OP states in essence that Clark didn't say anything wrong......didn't use his (McCains) service recond to slam McCain....but if liberals had only shut up they could have used what Clark said to "tear McCain apart."

You're right. But what the libs don't understand is that by opening up this can of worms, it's going to point right back at Obama's "qualifications"---a junior senator who hasn't even gotten a second term yet with no military service. His only qualification is being an Acorn worker and a stint in the Illinois legislature. That is not the resume of someone serving as Commander in Chief.

Wesley Clark is someone else who has blind ambition. He was a Hillary supporter, then turned almost instantly to Obama. Some folks will do anything to be VP. He should be ashamed.

asdf2231
07-01-2008, 09:16 AM
You're right. But what the libs don't understand is that by opening up this can of worms, it's going to point right back at Obama's "qualifications"---a junior senator who hasn't even gotten a second term yet with no military service. His only qualification is being an Acorn worker and a stint in the Illinois legislature. That is not the resume of someone serving as Commander in Chief.

Wesley Clark is someone else who has blind ambition. He was a Hillary supporter, then turned almost instantly to Obama. Some folks will do anything to be VP. He should be ashamed.

Fat chance of that.

This kind of behaivior is what gets people REWARDED by liberals and dems.

asdf2231
07-01-2008, 09:20 AM
It's not a qualification. Clark is a 4 star general and was shot 4 times. He has a right to his
opinion. I know plenty of heroic veterans but they are not qualifed to be president.
They are qualified to fight and be warriors but getting captured in a combat zone does not qualify
one to run the highest office in the land. It's an opinon.

Okay.

I have asked this of Obama supporters here and elsewhere.

WHAT makes Mr. Wet Behind His Enormous Ears in ANY way qualified to be President?

It sure as heck is not his minimal and pandering experience as a state senator in Illinois or his minimal and remarkably unimpressive record in the U.S. Senate.

lacarnut
07-01-2008, 09:45 AM
It's not a qualification. Clark is a 4 star general and was shot 4 times. He has a right to his
opinion. I know plenty of heroic veterans but they are not qualifed to be president.
They are qualified to fight and be warriors but getting captured in a combat zone does not qualify
one to run the highest office in the land. It's an opinon.

So why did Andrea Mitchell state that Clark's remarks were a "gaff", and why did Obama distance himself from those remarks? Sound like they thought they were OFENSIVE?

Clark has a right to his opinion and I have a right to mine; many voters think his remarks were despicable. This is a political campaign. He has inserted himself in it just like Obama's anti-American wife. If they do not like to be criticized they need to STFU.

Like I said before, Obama brings up the race issue much more than McCain bring up his military record. If you think that Obama will be more sympathetic to Veterans needs than McCain, you are a fool. That is my opinion.

vetwife
07-01-2008, 10:45 AM
Mccain did not get behind the GI bill. At all. What part of foolish is that?

LogansPapa
07-01-2008, 10:52 AM
It's strange that Clark's opinion is worth something, yet Murtha's isn't. Odd that.

asdf2231
07-01-2008, 11:20 AM
It's strange that Clark's opinion is worth something, yet Murtha's isn't. Odd that.

What portion of the dialog any here here gave you the impression Clark's opinion was worth anything?

And what fountain of stupidity birthed the notion that Murtha's opinion SHOULD be worth anything?

Elspeth
07-01-2008, 11:30 AM
Of course it's not a qualification, and yes it's an opinion.

The irony is that no one that I know of is stating that McCain is qualified based only on his service record.

Then the OP states in essence that Clark didn't say anything wrong......didn't use his (McCains) service recond to slam McCain....but if liberals had only shut up they could have used what Clark said to "tear McCain apart."

Actually this whole thing is a red herring. The real elephant in the living room is Obama's complete lack of ANY qualifications to be running for President. Two years in the Senate, and, before that, part-time member of the Illinois legislature? And lots of "present" votes?

Even if you take out McCain's military service and POW experience, he STILL is far more qualified than the empty suit chosen by Howie Dean and Donna (gag) Brazille.

asdf2231
07-01-2008, 11:50 AM
Actually this whole thing is a red herring. The real elephant in the living room is Obama's complete lack of ANY qualifications to be running for President. Two years in the Senate, and, before that, part-time member of the Illinois legislature? And lots of "present" votes?

Even if you take out McCain's military service and POW experience, he STILL is far more qualified than the empty suit chosen by Howie Dean and Donna (gag) Brazille.

Bless ya Kiddo, you nailed it! :)

BEG
07-01-2008, 12:12 PM
Mccain did not get behind the GI bill. At all. What part of foolish is that?

McCain Responds to Obama on Veterans Bill


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/mccain_responds_to_obama_on_ve.html



"It is typical, but no less offensive that Senator Obama uses the Senate floor to take cheap shots at an opponent and easy advantage of an issue he has less than zero understanding of. Let me say first in response to Senator Obama, running for President is different than serving as President. The office comes with responsibilities so serious that the occupant can't always take the politically easy route without hurting the country he is sworn to defend. Unlike Senator Obama, my admiration, respect and deep gratitude for America's veterans is something more than a convenient campaign pledge. I think I have earned the right to make that claim."

snip


"But I am running for the office of Commander-in-Chief. That is the highest privilege in this country, and it imposes the greatest responsibilities. It would be easier politically for me to have joined Senator Webb in offering his legislation. More importantly, I feel just as he does, that we owe veterans the respect and generosity of a great nation because no matter how generously we show our gratitude it will never compensate them fully for all the sacrifices they have borne on our behalf.

"Senators Graham, Burr and I have offered legislation that would provide veterans with a substantial increase in educational benefits. The bill we have sponsored would increase monthly education benefits to $1500; eliminate the $1200 enrollment fee; and offer a $1000 annually for books and supplies. Importantly, we would allow veterans to transfer those benefits to their spouses or dependent children or use a part of them to pay down existing student loans. We also increase benefits to the Guard and Reserve, and even more generously to those who serve in the Selected Reserve.

snip


"The most important difference between our two approaches is that Senator Webb offers veterans who served one enlistment the same benefits as those offered veterans who have re-enlisted several times. Our bill has a sliding scale that offers generous benefits to all veterans, but increases those benefits according to the veteran's length of service. I think it is important to do that because, otherwise, we will encourage more people to leave the military after they have completed one enlistment. At a time when the United States military is fighting in two wars, and as we finally are beginning the long overdue and very urgent necessity of increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps, one study estimates that Senator Webb's bill will reduce retention rates by 16%.

"Most worrying to me, is that by hurting retention we will reduce the numbers of men and women who we train to become the backbone of all the services, the noncommissioned officer. In my life, I have learned more from noncommissioned officers I have known and served with than anyone else outside my family. And in combat, no one is more important to their soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen, and to the officers who command them, than the sergeant and petty officer. They are very hard to replace. Encouraging people not to choose to become noncommissioned officers would hurt the military and our country very badly. As I said, the office of President, which I am seeking, is a great honor, indeed, but it imposes serious responsibilities. How faithfully the President discharges those responsibilities will determine whether he or she deserves the honor. I can only tell you I intend to deserve the honor if I am fo rtunate to receive it, even if it means I must take politically unpopular positions at times and disagree with people for whom I have the highest respect and affection.

Jack57Wms
07-01-2008, 12:37 PM
It's strange that Clark's opinion is worth something, yet Murtha's isn't. Odd that.

Murtha's "opinion" wasn't merely opinion, it was outright slander and false accusation. THAT in itself makes it worth nothing. And, as said above, Clark's opinion is worth nothing in this instance. He has a right to an opinion, but for others to validate it is not required.

Odd that you're brining up Murtha. Very telling on your part.

lacarnut
07-01-2008, 01:06 PM
Murtha's "opinion" wasn't merely opinion, it was outright slander and false accusation. THAT in itself makes it worth nothing. And, as said above, Clark's opinion is worth nothing in this instance. He has a right to an opinion, but for others to validate it is not required.

Odd that you're brining up Murtha. Very telling on your part.

Anyone that turns on a good friend is a louse in my opinion. Clark dumps Hillary to go over to the other side. He is hoping for VP or cabinet post. Heaven help us if Obama is elected and makes this turkey Sect. of Defense.

Obama's dirty trick of sending Clark to do a hit piece on McCain may backfire.

Jack57Wms
07-01-2008, 01:19 PM
McCain Responds to Obama on Veterans Bill


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/mccain_responds_to_obama_on_ve.html




snip



snip

Wow, VetsWife, that kind of debunks your contention that Sen. McCain wouldn't support our vets with educational benefits. By the way, I'm a disabled vet who got an Engineering degree using the old GI Bill (before I'm accused of not knowing anything about the military or the woes of a veteran). I've always been treated with respect and care when utilizing my veteran's benefits. Yes, I had to wait in line at times. Yes, sometimes the treatments weren't the best or the most appropriate. However, that is no different than what I've seen in the civilian health care system.

Jack57Wms
07-01-2008, 01:20 PM
Anyone that turns on a good friend is a louse in my opinion. Clark dumps Hillary to go over to the other side. He is hoping for VP or cabinet post. Heaven help us if Obama is elected and makes this turkey Sect. of Defense.

Obama's dirty trick of sending Clark to do a hit piece on McCain may backfire.


Very soon Obama will release a statement to the press saying, "This is not the Wesley Clark I knew and believed in ... "

I'm thinking all chances of Clark getting either the VP nomination or a cabinet appointment have been severely restricted.

bluemeenie
07-01-2008, 02:14 PM
Actually this whole thing is a red herring. The real elephant in the living room is Obama's complete lack of ANY qualifications to be running for President. Two years in the Senate, and, before that, part-time member of the Illinois legislature? And lots of "present" votes?

Even if you take out McCain's military service and POW experience, he STILL is far more qualified than the empty suit chosen by Howie Dean and Donna (gag) Brazille.





What was JFK's experience before he was elected? (1 term i think as Sen..)

What was Reagens? (screen actors guild...then gov'r)



I'm no Obama supporter...but I think we walk a fine line when using the "lack of exp." arguement in these discussions...

TBH I would rather have someone with no exp but great Ideals, and foresight...then a carreer politician with tons of "experience"...

ConJinx
07-01-2008, 02:35 PM
lets face facts. both candidates rep and dem, suck. We the people know it. I will probably vote McCain because he is the lesser of 2 weasels. McCain is a hero, no doubt, but his political history is scary. Barry the KING(hussein) Obama has the "hope and change" ideals which are as empty as bowl of air. So what do we do? hack and slash politics, let the blood flow, be it through surrogates or 527's. Let's see someone snap, play the McCain's BOMB IRAN song.

ReaganForRus
07-01-2008, 03:19 PM
What was JFK's experience before he was elected? (1 term i think as Sen..)

What was Reagens? (screen actors guild...then gov'r)



I'm no Obama supporter...but I think we walk a fine line when using the "lack of exp." arguement in these discussions...

TBH I would rather have someone with no exp but great Ideals, and foresight...then a carreer politician with tons of "experience"...

Ronald Reagan had a ton of experience, President of SAG, two term governor (eight years)of the the largest state in the Union. Couple that with a job as GE spokesman for the better part of the 1950's, and Reagan actually knew the American people a lot better than most politicians. He visited factories and civic clubs , he had long discourses with American workers in small groups on virtually every topic imaginable. He was probably the best trained candidate for the US presidency since Lincoln.

vetwife
07-01-2008, 04:59 PM
Clark did not dump Hillary..When she conceded he supported the nominee.

Bush nor McCain got behind the new GI Bill. He even spoke of why he didn't. Bush did lie when he
signed it though and gave McCain credit for it.
It doesn't debunk anything.

Spin is spin.

The new bill was introduced into congress by bipartisian legislators.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=4652517&page=1
Truth is right above at the link.

LogansPapa
07-01-2008, 05:19 PM
Big Bird wouldn’t hump Hillary.






Oh wait - you said dump. My Bad.

Constitutionally Speaking
07-01-2008, 07:05 PM
What was JFK's experience before he was elected? (1 term i think as Sen..)

What was Reagens? (screen actors guild...then gov'r)



I'm no Obama supporter...but I think we walk a fine line when using the "lack of exp." arguement in these discussions...

TBH I would rather have someone with no exp but great Ideals, and foresight...then a carreer politician with tons of "experience"...


The Governorship of California is perhaps the closest thing you can get to being President of the U.S.

And JFK nearly got us into a nuclear war BECAUSE of his inexperience. JFK is only a "hero" because he got shot. The truth of the matter is that he went to Dallas that fateful day because the American people were figuring out how bad he was and he needed to increase his standing.

BEG
07-01-2008, 07:56 PM
Clark did not dump Hillary..When she conceded he supported the nominee.

Bush nor McCain got behind the new GI Bill. He even spoke of why he didn't. Bush did lie when he
signed it though and gave McCain credit for it.
It doesn't debunk anything.

Spin is spin.

The new bill was introduced into congress by bipartisian legislators.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=4652517&page=1
Truth is right above at the link.

Because I'm not sure how much of what I posted you actually read I'm posting some of it again.


"It would be easier politically for me to have joined Senator Webb in offering his legislation. More importantly, I feel just as he does, that we owe veterans the respect and generosity of a great nation because no matter how generously we show our gratitude it will never compensate them fully for all the sacrifices they have borne on our behalf.

"Senators Graham, Burr and I have offered legislation that would provide veterans with a substantial increase in educational benefits. The bill we have sponsored would increase monthly education benefits to $1500; eliminate the $1200 enrollment fee; and offer a $1000 annually for books and supplies. Importantly, we would allow veterans to transfer those benefits to their spouses or dependent children or use a part of them to pay down existing student loans. We also increase benefits to the Guard and Reserve, and even more generously to those who serve in the Selected Reserve."

"The most important difference between our two approaches is that Senator Webb offers veterans who served one enlistment the same benefits as those offered veterans who have re-enlisted several times. Our bill has a sliding scale that offers generous benefits to all veterans, but increases those benefits according to the veteran's length of service. I think it is important to do that because, otherwise, we will encourage more people to leave the military after they have completed one enlistment. At a time when the United States military is fighting in two wars, and as we finally are beginning the long overdue and very urgent necessity of increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps, one study estimates that Senator Webb's bill will reduce retention rates by 16%.

What are your feelings on the view that McCain doesn't feel that veterans who serve one enlistment should receive the same benefits as veterans who re-enlist? I'm sure some take his sliding scale as a bribe to keep people in the military but frankly he is being realistic.

It pisses me off when democrats try to act like McCain of all people does not care about veterans. Obama is an ass.