Who fact-checks these stories? McCain's Navy experience was not only his 5 years as a POW; it was also as a pilot before and after and as a commander of the largest group of planes the Navy flies - out of Pensacola. He was in the Navy for 20+ years and appears to have been in line to reach at least a one-star admiralship.

Clark lasted about a month as a company commander before being ambushed and shot; his next Vietnam era "command" was for diabled vets at an army hospital. He, of course, went on to other things, but he was no DDE as supreme allied commander. He did very well in Army bureaucracy; McCain serves well as a leader because he doesn't do so well with bureacracy.

Interesting, you defend attacks on a military person by attacking another military person.

You should read or watch the full interview. Clark acknowledges that McCain lead a squadron, but pointed out that it wasn't a wartime squadron.

Say what you will about Clark, you can't say that McCain has more military experience than Clark, but that's not the issue.

I certainly wouldn't make that argument, because it's silly. I'm amazed, floored in fact, by the service of both of these men. The question is, does McCain's particular military service translate into executive, decision making experience?

Clark was trying to make a point about executive level experience. Romney made the exact same argument in one of the debates.

It's certainly a debatable issue. It's hardly anything to get upset about.

HarryFenton:

Who fact-checks these stories? McCain's Navy experience was not only his 5 years as a POW; it was also as a pilot before and after and as a commander of the largest group of planes the Navy flies - out of Pensacola. He was in the Navy for 20+ years and appears to have been in line to reach at least a one-star admiralship. Clark lasted about a month as a company commander before being ambushed and shot; his next Vietnam era "command" was for diabled vets at an army hospital. He, of course, went on to other things, but he was no DDE as supreme allied commander. He did very well in Army bureaucracy; McCain serves well as a leader because he doesn't do so well with bureacracy.

What relevance does Clark's Vietnam experience have to his true statement about McCain's experience as a pilot and a POW not being executive experience? Did you get this info from Bud Day by the way? You know the Swift Boater who really did attack John Kerry's military experience? in 2004 McCain railed against Day's group the swift boat veteran's for "truth" and their attacks on Kerry's record and rightly so but now? Day is now part of McCain's team.

Wes Clark was shot four times in Vietnam and was sent home with his injuries. Again this is not relevant (since McCain is running for president now and Clark isn't) but Clark's experience in the military bureaucacy is much more like the job of president then McCain's military experience.

Why is it that McCain got so angry and called Clark's statement an attack on his military record (it wasn't) but then feels it's perfectly fine to truly attack the record of a fellow Vitenam vet and hire the man who attacked the record of another fellow vet 4 years ago?

1. I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe that McCain got "angry" I think he is pretty used to Obama's dirty attacks on him.

2. While being in the military does not automatically qualify anybody to be president, that, along with other experieences, make one MORE qualified than somebody with NO experience.

3. Clark even bringing it up just highlights Obama's lack of ANY military experience or knowledge. It just makes Obama look lame.

Lulubelle22 wrote the following post at 07/02/2008 12:32 PM:

1. I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe that McCain got "angry" I think he is pretty used to Obama's dirty attacks on him.

Yes, McCain would never stoop to calling Obama the candidate of Hamas or anything like that would he? Oh wait, he did.

2. While being in the military does not automatically qualify anybody to be president, that, along with other experieences, make one MORE qualified than somebody with NO experience.

Wrong again. McCain does have a much longer record in the Senate then Obama does so it would be true to say McCain has more Senatorial experience but it would be wrong to say that Obama has no experience. Obama also served in the Illinois legislature as well as in the Senate.

Niether candidate, however, has any executive experience. Sorry to burst your bubble.

3. Clark even bringing it up just highlights Obama's lack of ANY military experience or knowledge. It just makes Obama look lame.

Irrelevant. This a civilian job.

"

3. Clark even bringing it up just highlights Obama's lack of ANY military experience or knowledge. It just makes Obama look lame.

Irrelevant. This a civilian job."

Yeah, but since when has relevance played a majority role in a political campaign? Unfortunately, if you can talk about it, it's relevant.

On another note, what surprises me is that no one is even mentioning Clark's rather poor conduct of the Bosnian campaign, which saw him pushing for direct attacks on Russian troops, nearly starting WWIII. I refuse to listen to that man's pronouncements on executive decision making or leadership.

Irrelevant. This a civilian job."

Yeah, but since when has relevance played a majority role in a political campaign? Unfortunately, if you can talk about it, it's relevant.

Relevant to who? We should be looking at qulifications and stands on the issues. McCain has basically stated that he cannot be questioned on his support for the troops because he is himself a veteran. I'm sorry but voting records do matter and McCain has consistently voted against veteran's beneifts over the last few years. That's relevant.

On another note, what surprises me is that no one is even mentioning Clark's rather poor conduct of the Bosnian campaign, which saw him pushing for direct attacks on Russian troops, nearly starting WWIII. I refuse to listen to that man's pronouncements on executive decision making or leadership.

Again this is irrelevant to the conversation at hand. Does military experience mean that you would be a good president? Yes or no? Someone can be a military leader and a good president but being in the military does not automatically make you a good president.

Finally Wes Clark is not running for President so his leadership abilities are not at issue.

ah! Very gratifying to see Progressive Bulldog using his generally well-supported logic with bold print accent against someone other than myself.

Clark's secondary point--after back-patting a fellow patriot, to question how this experience qualifies one for president of the U.S. is of course right on. It's an entirely fair question to ask, and does not in any way belittle the service of McCain.

BUT, since McCain and the media seem to be trying to spin it that way, I have two analogies, each accenting why McCain's war-time experience--and particularly what he did not learn from that experience, make him in fact ill-suited for the job: (1) Isn't a man who argues the opposite of Clark's point--that 'I am qualified to be president BECAUSE I was a POW in Nam'--like saying 'I am qualified to be an automobile safety expert because of my terrible motor vehicle accident? and my favorite (2) the fact that what life lessons McCain got out of his POW/Nam experience appears to be 'we just should have bombed more and stayed longer' EXACTLY like the old distinction between ignorance and stupidity? Not only is McCain willing to touch a hot stove, but it's like he was shoved into a hot oven and held captive, then released, and yet STILL wants to touch that damn hot stove.

"Relevant to who (sic)?"

to whom. (Jesus.)

Quick story a prof. of mine liked to tell:

"So, I went to go vote, because the only way to subvert the judicial system is to get on juries, and I get down there, pick up a ballot, and start punching it randomly outside the booth [not having the guide to tell which holes meant what], and the woman at the table starts and says "Sir, what are you doing?"

And I said, "Madam, do you honestly think that fellow in the booth is putting any more thought into his ballot than I am?""

Too many people base their decision on irrelevant things ("with which candidate would you like to have a beer?"), and damage control over anything that the chattering class can use has become part of the game; note I said "unfortunately."

"I'm sorry but voting records do matter and McCain has consistently voted against veteran's beneifts over the last few years."

Yes, voting records do matter. However I don't believe in giving vets a blank check to the country. I'm not the first, I don't think, to disbelieve in the effectiveness or desirability of mercenaries, and at some point the zeros on the check we're sending should stop. Beyond that, one of the criticisms of the latest Vets' benefits bill was that it encourages people in the army to get out sooner than extant law.

"Again this is irrelevant to the conversation at hand."

See "on another note"

"Does military experience mean that you would be a good president? Yes or no? Someone can be a military leader and a good president but being in the military does not automatically make you a good president."

I agree. My point on Clark was that his judgment of military leadership is suspect, given his record.

"Finally Wes Clark is not running for President so his leadership abilities are not at issue."

No, but his ability to judge properly is at issue.