My God — What Possible Positions of Importance Might These Two Buffoons Have In A Clinton Admin?
[Posted By WLS]
Here’s what happens when perfectly respectable retired military men decide to get involved in partisan political campaigns where you have to be prepared to say anything even when its demonstrably asinine, thereby jettisoning all credibility they might have enjoyed by virtue of their military careers. From today’s Corner, courtesy of Byron York, comments by Gen. Wesley Clark and Adm. William Owens about how it is that John McCain is not as qualified to be Commander in Chief as Hillary Clinton is:
On a just-finished conference call in which retired military leaders endorsed Hillary Clinton to be commander in chief, retired General Wesley Clark said John McCain’s military experience is not the right kind of experience to command the nation’s armed forces:
In the national security business, the question is, do you have — when you have served in uniform, do you really have the relevant experience for making the decisions at the top that have to be made? Everybody admires John McCain’s service as a fighter pilot, his courage as a prisoner of war. There’s no issue there. He’s a great man and an honorable man. But having served as a fighter pilot — and I know my experience as a company commander in Vietnam — that doesn’t prepare you to be commander-in-chief in terms of dealing with the national strategic issues that are involved. It may give you a feeling for what the troops are going through in the process, but it doesn’t give you the experience first hand of the national strategic issues.
If you look at what Hillary Clinton has done during her time as the First Lady of the United States, her travel to 80 countries, her representing the U.S. abroad, plus her years in the Senate, I think SHE’S THE MOST EXPERIENCED AND CAPABLE PERSON IN THE RACE, not only for representing am abroad, but for dealing with the tough issues of national security.Speaking just after Clark, retired Admiral William Owens, former vice chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, said, “I would just say that I agree with Wes on that.”
Unbeliveable. This passes for logic on the Dim side: Hillary, by virtue of 8 years as first lady and 8 years in the Senate, with her 80 trips abroad, is more qualified to be Commander in Chief that McCain, who graduated from the Naval Academy, had a real military career, and has spent 24 years in the Senate, serving a significant period of time as Armed Services Committee Chairman.
Is it fools like these she’ll saddle us with if she pulls the election out of the fire?
If I’ve read the news correctly, Merril McPeak (former AF Chief of Staff) is backing Obama. Ask any retired AF person who was in at least through 1992 and you will see them literally shudder at the thought of McPeak coming back as the Sec AF.
Clark’s remarks don’t surprise me — he has been a Dem party loyalist and probably would love to get the SecDef position. Mullen is a puzzle — perhaps McCain offended him or denied him funding for a project in the past… anyone’s guess.
voiceofreason2 (10af7e) — 3/3/2008 @ 12:30 pmMaybe these generals are a little gun shy of fighter pilots after 8 yrs with ol GW. Maybe they want someone who is good at the REST of foreign policy but who will leave the planning and fighting of the wars to them??? Is there any reason to think that John McCain wouldn’t do that? Is he saying he’ll stick to the “Bush Doctrine” in foreign policy too?
EdWood (c2268a) — 3/3/2008 @ 12:32 pmIn re: Wes Clark’s spiel,
Holy shit, that’s stupid. I’m going to go bang my head against a wall to try to get the Stupid out, but I don’t think I’ll be able to.
Another cycle, another crop of crappy candidates. I’m pissed.
Leviticus (35fbde) — 3/3/2008 @ 12:36 pmDidn’t Wes once tell us he was qualified to be CinC?
Pablo (99243e) — 3/3/2008 @ 12:57 pmWhat. A. Tool.
Sorry, but I agree with Clark and Owens… sort of. McCain’s record in the Navy no more qualifies him to be President than being a department manager qualifies one to run Home Depot (by the way, neither did Kerry’s experience running a swift boat, nor Bush’s time in the TANG).
And while Clark and Owens are pushing it a bit, to the extent that Clinton paid attention while she was First Lady, ‘fly on the wall’ experience, while not as good as first hand experience, is valuable and better than the experience either McCain or Obama have by virtue of their being in the Senate.
But, no matter how much experience one has, it doesn’t matter is you’re going to do stupid things as President… which definitely applies to Clinton and Obama…. and probably McCain as well.
steve sturm (40e5a6) — 3/3/2008 @ 1:06 pmYeah. We should listen to Clark, the real-life Gen. Jack D. Ripper, who almost single-handedly started a war against the Russians.
L.N. Smithee (d1de1b) — 3/3/2008 @ 1:23 pmGen Clark has been held in universal disdain by every military officer I’m aware of who worked with him in any capacity. ADM Owens makes the only exception I’m aware of. In a building full of big egos (the five-sided one next to the Potomac), he was known to have the largest. Then there’s the outright violation of SEC rules during his brief stint in the private capital industry that got him fired.
the Bruce (045589) — 3/3/2008 @ 1:24 pmClark is infamous for his opportunistic posturings – I don’t know about the others. It may have somehow conveniently evaded Clark’s attention or recollection that McCain was ever Armed Services Committee Chairman, or even that he is a US Senator at all, let alone has been one for over two decades.
I don’t want HRC to be the next US President but, if she becomes such, I hope her hubby is the one that answers that call. If she does answer it, I wonder how many of those who vote for her hope she hands him the phone?
jim2 (a9ab88) — 3/3/2008 @ 1:26 pmWesley Clark will at least have the respect and admiration of the Bosnian Serb War Criminal and Queer Theatre demographics.
Better than Chimpy McBushitler, you redstate boobs.
furious (56af6d) — 3/3/2008 @ 1:37 pmSorry, “Live Preview” is my friend, or would be…
Wesley Clark will at least have the respect and admiration of the Bosnian Serb War Criminal and Queer Theatre demographics.
Better than Chimpy McBushitler, you redstate boobs.
furious (56af6d) — 3/3/2008 @ 1:39 pm“to the extent that Clinton paid attention while she was First Lady, ‘fly on the wall’ experience, while not as good as first hand experience, is valuable and better than the experience either McCain or Obama have by virtue of their being in the Senate.”
This is unbelievable. McCain spends 24 years on the Armed Services Committee and that is trumped by a First Lady who “paid attention.” Should we then nominate Laura Bush for Supreme Court ? What an idiotic suggestion. Obama has been in the Senate for 2 years and has no record of anything.
I’m not saying I am a big fan of Senators for President. Maybe that’s why we haven’t had one elected since 1960. Unfortunately, that’s what we have to choose from. Anybody who suggests First lady as a qualification for President has serious problems and banging one’s head against the wall for an hour might help.
Here, could I give you a hand ?
Mike K (f89cb3) — 3/3/2008 @ 1:42 pmSteveS…what swill…
Who ANYWHERE has said ANYTHING about HRC having ANY “fly on the wall experience”? In fact, she held NO security clearance AT ALL and could not have been involved in ANY aspect of ANY significant national security issue AT ALL!
So your argument is that 8 years of pillow-talk and 8 years in the Senate somehow trumps, three-times as much Senate experience AND the Chairmanship of a Senate Committee that deals with national security issues on a virtually daily basis to include all of those briefings that HRC NEVER could have attended?
Yeah…sure…that’ll work…
Put the tinfoil cap back on…shiny-side in to keep the voices inside so we can’t hear them.
Mike1957 (d1de05) — 3/3/2008 @ 1:45 pmLooks like another “Mary, Help!” situation for Clark.
gabriel (6d7447) — 3/3/2008 @ 1:57 pmSteve, I’ll try to say what Mike said in a calmer way:
What is absurd about Clark’s statement is not so much the “McCain was a fighter pilot and that’s not really much preparation for CIC” part. But by that standard, few presidents in history have been “qualified” upon taking office, including many who performed brilliantly as CIC.
Rather, what’s absurd is Clark’s comparison of Hillary’s experience to McCain’s. By any reasonable measure, the McCain CIC “resume” is stronger than Hillary’s — some military service, 20+ years in the Senate, vs. 0 military service and 7 years in the Senate … plus 8 as First Lady — hence WSJ’s appropriate tone of ridicule.
Mitch (890cbf) — 3/3/2008 @ 2:00 pmEdit to my last line: WLS, not WSJ. (Was just reading a certain newspaper with those initials.)
Mitch (890cbf) — 3/3/2008 @ 2:02 pmTo whom it may concern:
As for Weasly Clark saying Mrs.Clinton has
more experience – OF COURSE SHE HAS…
1- When she went to the Great Wall in China
she told the plumber/contractors exactly
what kind of $38,000 toilet she wanted
to take on the trip with her…..
2- She supervised the entire Clinton
Whitehouse on a trip to Africa….
3- She took care of her little daughter,
21 year old Chelsea when they visited
some other strange country…..
4- She knew to kiss Shua Arrafat when they
met in the Middle East……
These are only a few of the many feats performed
by Mrs. Hillary while she was doing duty in the
Whitehouse. Everyone is just jealous because
she admitted that her COOKIE RECIPIE was not her
own, she said she got it from an employee..
Well, you know, you can’t do everything….
(big saracasm)
GOD BLESS OUR GREAT PRESIDENT BUSH!
tess (c117a9) — 3/3/2008 @ 2:05 pmMike and Mike: just to clarify, I didn’t say she HAD such experience, just that to the extent she did, that would be valuable insight into the decision making process of the President, and compared that somewhat favorably to a (any) Senator, who is never in the room (or sharing pillow talk) with the people making the decisions during a crisis. On a scale, former Presidents understands best what goes on in such times, followed by those in the room with the President (SecDef, SecState, JCS and so on), followed in turn by those who are privy of what goes on in the room, and followed by those who are outside the room trying to guess at what is happening.
And not to denigrate (cough, cough) anyone’s Senate experience, but what exactly do they do that should inspire us to think they’re prepared / qualified to be President? They authorize expenditures (often for things the military doesn’t want or need), they’re mushrooms when it comes to getting fed information by the Administration, and they’re ‘consulted’ only for the purpose of soliciting their support for whatever it is that the Administration has come up with.
And in your rush to criticize, don’t overlook my last paragraph. I’d rather have someone with no experience but whose head is on straight and will hire an experienced and competent staff to help execute the strategy than the most experienced Senator/General/First Lady who’s going to use that experience in an utterly stupid way… such as McCain using his experience in Vietnam to condemn to death those Americans whose lives could be saved by virtue of attacks prevented through information gained from coercive interrogation of terrorists.
steve sturm (40e5a6) — 3/3/2008 @ 2:25 pmAs he was fired from his job as NATO Commander for “matters of character and integrity,” Wes Clark is a perfect candidate to speak in support of any Democratic candidate.
tmac (f985e6) — 3/3/2008 @ 2:38 pmHas Wesley Clark even registered as a Democrat yet?
The man is a walking, talking target-rich environment, all by himself.
furious (56af6d) — 3/3/2008 @ 2:45 pmI have occasion now and again to speak to a Retired Four Star Admiral of impeccable credentials and reputation. Normally very professional stuff, but I’m going to ask him about Clark next time I see him. I’ll report back.
WLS (68fd1f) — 3/3/2008 @ 3:04 pmDon’t forget that McCain graduated from the National War College
According to Lieutenant General Leonard T. Gerow, President of the Board which recommended its formation, “The College is concerned with grand strategy and the utilization of the national resources necessary to implement that strategy… Its graduates will exercise a great influence on the formulation of national and foreign policy in both peace and war….”
Mid-level and senior military officers who are likely to be promoted to the most senior ranks are selected to study at the War College in preparation for higher staff and command positions. One of the more notable graduates of the National War College was former U.S. Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell.
He was also the Naval Liason to congress so I would say that his background has adequately prepared him to consider national strategy as CinC
chad (719bfa) — 3/3/2008 @ 3:39 pm(typo: you misspelled Owens’ name near the top of the post)
Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c) — 3/3/2008 @ 3:43 pm(slowly sticking neck out…) I’ll go this far to agree with Clark. Flying a fighter jet, leading a small squad of fighing men, or being a prisoner have no direct bearing on being President of the United States. At least, I would expect that a President McCain would very seldom have occasion to say, “Why, this is just like the time I was being strung up by my toes in the Hanoi Hilton!” (Or… on second thought…)
However, the greater significance of all these non-presidential experiences is that they are hurdles – sifting experiences – that shape the kinds of people who come through them.
A woman who successfully completes 8 years of world travel and social-sucking-up, has proven that she has the inner strength to keep smiling even when Kim Jong Il uses the wrong fork. She is likely to be a champion suck-up. And her hair will never be out of place.
A man who has successfully endured (and led and inspired other men during) 5+ years in a brutal prison camp without betraying his country, his fellow prisoners, or himself, has passed a test. He has proven that he can stick to the principles he has (principles determined separately) under incredible pressure.
Neither experience gives much guidance for choosing a strategy to get a budget bill through congress.
Don (dedc03) — 3/3/2008 @ 3:54 pmSteveS…you are still spreading swill, guy…
I’d never be one to suggest that Senate experience is a qualifier for President, in fact I believe that it probably isn’t a very good qualifier to be re-elected to the Senate!
BUT…if that is what two choices have in common, the general rule of thumb…and the common sense rationale…is that the person with MORE of the shared experience is the better qualified person…no?
As to other “qualifiers” of HRC, lets run a short list of her “Presidential” experience…
Health Care Task Force: Failure (unless you consider a spectacular crash-n-burn “Victory”)
Co-Presidential Domestic Experience: Failure (unless you consider enacting your political opponent’s entire domestic agenda while foregoing your own as “Victory”)
Co-Presidential Foreign-Relations Experience: Failure (unless you consider militarily empowering China, nation-building in the Balkins, and inaction on genocide as “Victory”)
Co-Presidential Political Succession: Failure (unless you consider handing over Congress AND the Presidency to the opposing party on a silver platter “Victory”)
Co-Presidential National Security Experience: Failure (unless you consider an attack developed, planned, financed, and trained-for in your own country and on your watch…a war in the Balkins without even a try at UN approval, and the disaster that was Jamie Gorelic, as “Victory”)
Co-Presidential Human Rights Experience: Just this…Rwanda.
Co-Presidential “Most Honest Administration in History” Experience: Uh, huh…how many convictions were there again?
Co-Presidential Respect for Civil Rights: How many FBI files did they obtain illegally again?
Co-Presidential “Close Friends and Associates Who Could Rat Us Out Body Count”: Methinks they have a winner here!!!
Come-on guy…the mindgames that you have to play on YOURSELF to even allow a thought that Clinton is somehow “qualified” to be President is incomprehensible.
The entire Clinton enterprise is a prime example of the theory that second-class leaders surround themselves with third-class people…and there is no reason to rationally believe that Clinton 2.0 will be any better, and plenty of reasons to know it will be much worse.
Mike1957 (d1de05) — 3/3/2008 @ 4:13 pmMike1957 – You were being generous w/ the “8 years of pillow talk” comment. I’m betting they didnt share the same room for even 4 years of bubba’s presidency much less the same bed.
chas (fb7ad4) — 3/3/2008 @ 4:43 pmIf indeed pillow talk with the actual President is qualifying as CinC, then why haven’t any of JFK’s hookers run for President?
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/3/2008 @ 6:26 pmHeh. But imagine how exciting that convention would be.
DRJ (d8934e) — 3/3/2008 @ 6:33 pmIf we get a brokered Dem convention, Dana White and Joe Rogan should broadcast live on PPV from the floor. Also, I think that a trio of Patterico, Iowahawk, and Goldstein should find a way to get a press pass and blog the Dem convention.
JD (626b4c) — 3/3/2008 @ 6:36 pmWhy was Wesley so silent when the Democrats nominated John “bugged-out-after-sixteen-weeks-of-boating” Kerry in 2004?
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 3/3/2008 @ 6:45 pmChad, #21…
Another Drew (8018ee) — 3/3/2008 @ 7:14 pmAs you posted “…Mid-level and senior military officers who are likely to be promoted to the most senior ranks…”
Virtually all officers above the rank of Major/Lt. Commander (even more important at the Lt. Col/Commander rank) will attend this course of study, for the reasons cited.
Completion of the course does not guarantee that the officer can get his head out of his ass – witness Wesley Clark.
Just to explain further to Wesley. McCain was an attack pilot; not a fighter pilot. He flew A4s and A7. Neither are fighters.
chuck bagley (acde95) — 3/4/2008 @ 2:59 pm