Oh come on! Clark didn’t belittle McCain’s military service. He called him a hero! He simply pointed out what should be obvious: displaying courage as a POW is admirable, but not the same thing as making executive decisions. There are lots of brave veterans out there. Are they all qualified to be president based on their military service?

Gee, seems to me that when we said the same thing in 04, all the left did was accuse us of “swiftboating” Kerry. Seems the shoe is on the other foot as usual, and when it is they suddenly seem to find it in their hearts to change their positions. Hypocrisy at it’s finest.

Since Nobama has no military chops, those ain’t important. When they thought they had a “war hero” in John “Can I have a bandaid” Kerry, suddenly it was how Bush was a cowardly reservist and how dare you say anything bad about Kerry, he’s a decorated hero! Now when you have a true decorated hero, suddenly it’s fine to denigrate his service and sacrifice.

Riiight, it’s all so perfectly clear isn’t it?

Just keep poundin’ on that bongo and ululating any and all lefty anti-America everything but, whatever you do accomplish nothing, nor even try. For the trolls and other fools that actually believe they ARE doing something – hint – Anarchy is not an accomplishment.

a former Obama adviser and top Democratic voice on foreign policy argued Monday that the former POW’s isolation during the Vietnam War has hobbled the Arizona senator’s capacity as a war-time leader.

“Sadly, Sen. McCain was not available during those times, and I say that with all due respect to him,” said Rand Beers. “I think that the notion that the members of the Senate who were in the ground forces or who were ashore in Vietnam have a very different view of Vietnam and the cost that you described than John McCain does because he was in isolation essentially for many of those years and did not experience the turmoil here or the challenges that were involved for those of us who served in Vietnam during the Vietnam war.”

“So I think,” he continued, “to some extent his national security experience in that regard is sadly limited and I think it is reflected in some of the ways that he thinks about how U.S. forces might be committed to conflicts around the world.”

Beyond belief. Describing years of imprisonment and torture on North Vietnam with the antiseptic word “isolation” is creative, to say the least. Making such imprisonment and torture an automatic disqualification for the Presidency is certainly new. I suppose Jews who survived the concentration camps in World War II would be similarly dismissed by Mr. Beers if these Jews reached conclusions that he found “limited”.\

displaying courage as a POW is admirable, but not the same thing as making executive decisions.

However, it goes directly to character.

John McCain served his country honorably and spent 7 years in a POW camp. Although being tortured, he declined to be released and instead let another POW that had been in the camp longer than him take his place.

CHARACTER.

Obama spent almost all of his years with domestic terrorists and America haters.

To say that either is not relevant to them being president is incredibly naive.

Who/When/Where said anything about ALL are qualified based on their military service? You took quite a leap with that question Lacey.

Lacey points out clearly why Obama might have an issue with some voters by saying, “He simply pointed out what should be obvious: displaying courage as a POW is admirable, but not the same thing as making executive decisions.”

But not the same thing as making executive decisions…. you wrote it Lacey!! So what executive office did Obama hold? none.

He’s going a great job of getting Republicans and others who really don’t like McCain all that much to get a chance to really embrace him over an experience for which Obama has no equal.

I’ll assume that Wes Clark will be relegated to one of those low level staff positions from which all the Obama gaffes seem to emanate.

I recall that Clark thought driving a boat up and down a river for four months was eminent qualification for commander in chief. It’s a pity that he didn’t take the time to explain how Obama’s experience qualifies.

POWs know better. We see through all the lies and smears.

Whose lies? Obama’s lies? Well I’m glad to see that you can see through them. Sometimes it’s tough, because there are so many!

That’s because there were enough of us there in that prison hearing ‘Canary’ McCain give up the goods, before even being tortured.

Had no idea. This is the first that I have ever heard of McCain singing like a “canary”. Perhaps you could tell us all what he “sang” about specifically. I’m sure you have documented sources that can confirm this, right? Of course you do!

If John had kept his arms tucked in when he ejected, he wouldn’t have broken them.

Right. He didn’t keep his arms tucked in, so he’s not fit to be president……good point.

And if McCain wasn’t such a SOB, he would have voted for veteran’s benefits

ME if you really are a military man, then you know exactly why McCain voted against those benefits. If you worked for an employer for 3-4 years and got the same benefits as you did if you stayed 20 years, what would happen? Our military would have been scrambling to keep people in and our active forces would have suffered. But then again, that’s probably exactly what the dems wanted when they came up with this. Apparently you can’t see through their lies.

of course, then those POWs would have been around to tell the truth, and McLiar couldn’t have that.

Actually there are several of McCain’s fellow POW’s around, who come to his defense when his service is questioned by people like Clark. Not sure where you’re getting your information. Click off the Daily Kos every now and then and you actually might get some facts.

I mean, since John has brought up his military service as an issue, we veterans get to attack him on it, right? That’s why we were justified in going after John Kerry, after all.

Truth be told, not by you of course, the Bush campaign never once questioned Kerry’s service record. Nor did anyone on his staff. Big difference. As previously pointed out, McCain denounced the Swift Boat groups attacks on Kerry. Clark works directly for Obama. It will be interesting to see how Obama handles this.
I kid, of course.

As far as Leslie’s comment. I believe she was pointing out how Clark has no room to talk about anybody else’s commitment or qualification to be president when you’ve committed blunders like he has.

Let’s not forget his photo op with Slobadan Milosevic who was later convicted of war crimes for his role in the “ethnic cleansing”.

Yeah, that’s a pile of judgment right there.

That’s because there were enough of us there in that prison hearing ‘Canary’ McCain give up the goods, before even being tortured.

If John had kept his arms tucked in when he ejected, he wouldn’t have broken them. If his father hadn’t been an admiral, maybe he would’ve actually been tortured. And if McCain wasn’t such a SOB, he would have voted for veteran’s benefits and to help find lost POWs… of course, then those POWs would have been around to tell the truth, and McLiar couldn’t have that.

I mean, since John has brought up his military service as an issue, we veterans get to attack him on it, right? That’s why we were justified in going after John Kerry, after all.

Barr in ‘08!

And Leslie, when you say:

“Can somebody explain to me why anyone would want to hear what Bomber Clark, who once zapped the Chinese Embassy in Serbia by mistake, and who managed to bomb bridges over the Danube while civilians were on them in cars, busses, and trains has to say?”

You sound like the typical whimpy liberal who cares about collateral damage. Let’s not even pretend that such things matter next to displaying the military supremecy of god’s greatest country. Next thing we’re going to hear is that Iraqi casualties matter. Silly….