Submitted by Jay (not verified) on Mon, 06/30/2008 - 14:06.
While Clark is an active member of the Democratic party I'd hardly call him a surrogate and definitely not an attack dog. He has a long record of standing up and speaking his mind on military matters and I don't see this as any different just because we are in the run up to the election. I also think it's ridiculous to say that "Generals should stay out of politics", if so, shouldn't this apply to all retired military officers including McCain? I agree that ACTIVE military members should not participate in the political process beyond voting since they are duty bound to report to the president whether they like him/her or not. However, Wesley Clark is retired and has as much right to participate as McCain has as an ex-military officer.
It's too bad if you don't like what he has to say but he has as much right to say it as anyone else and his professional experience adds more weight to his opinion in this case. His comments are far more honest and honorable then the swift boat veterans comments four years ago and I'll bet you had no complaints about them.
While Clark is stating the obvious that getting shot down and being a POW doesn't make you qualified to be president, I'd be inclined to go even further. I have serious doubts about McCain's mental fitness to be president after being a POW. How did his being tortured affected his mind? Did it break him and make him less decisive in pressure situations? Did it leave him angry and volatile making him more inclined to over-react in a military situation. I don't think anyone would argue that torture can change a person, the question is how has it changed him? Not knowing how it has changed him, I am very concerned with putting him in a position where he is the one person with his finger on the switch.
I have tremendous respect for John McCain, other POW's and veterans in general. In fact, I'd support McCain for any position except president. However, I'm far more comfortable giving someone with little or no military experience control over our WMD's because I'm confident he is of sound mind and will make decisions based on his life's experiences, all very similar to mine. With McCain, my fear would be that he too would make decisions based on his life's experiences and those experiences as a POW are understandably horrible. Many veterans came back missing an arm, a leg, their vision or their hearing and they all faced career limitations due to their obvious disabilities. Many POW's also suffered less obvious mental injuries and worked through those problems to have successful careers but I would not be comfortable making a POW president. This may not be a politically correct position to take but sometimes you have to face reality.
As a comparison, how comfortable would you be if one of the Guantanamo detainees was elected to lead Iraq? Wouldn't we be concerned that there experiences would color their judgements?
Clark as a surrogate?
While Clark is an active member of the Democratic party I'd hardly call him a surrogate and definitely not an attack dog. He has a long record of standing up and speaking his mind on military matters and I don't see this as any different just because we are in the run up to the election. I also think it's ridiculous to say that "Generals should stay out of politics", if so, shouldn't this apply to all retired military officers including McCain? I agree that ACTIVE military members should not participate in the political process beyond voting since they are duty bound to report to the president whether they like him/her or not. However, Wesley Clark is retired and has as much right to participate as McCain has as an ex-military officer.
It's too bad if you don't like what he has to say but he has as much right to say it as anyone else and his professional experience adds more weight to his opinion in this case. His comments are far more honest and honorable then the swift boat veterans comments four years ago and I'll bet you had no complaints about them.
While Clark is stating the obvious that getting shot down and being a POW doesn't make you qualified to be president, I'd be inclined to go even further. I have serious doubts about McCain's mental fitness to be president after being a POW. How did his being tortured affected his mind? Did it break him and make him less decisive in pressure situations? Did it leave him angry and volatile making him more inclined to over-react in a military situation. I don't think anyone would argue that torture can change a person, the question is how has it changed him? Not knowing how it has changed him, I am very concerned with putting him in a position where he is the one person with his finger on the switch.
I have tremendous respect for John McCain, other POW's and veterans in general. In fact, I'd support McCain for any position except president. However, I'm far more comfortable giving someone with little or no military experience control over our WMD's because I'm confident he is of sound mind and will make decisions based on his life's experiences, all very similar to mine. With McCain, my fear would be that he too would make decisions based on his life's experiences and those experiences as a POW are understandably horrible. Many veterans came back missing an arm, a leg, their vision or their hearing and they all faced career limitations due to their obvious disabilities. Many POW's also suffered less obvious mental injuries and worked through those problems to have successful careers but I would not be comfortable making a POW president. This may not be a politically correct position to take but sometimes you have to face reality.
As a comparison, how comfortable would you be if one of the Guantanamo detainees was elected to lead Iraq? Wouldn't we be concerned that there experiences would color their judgements?