about serving in the military. Hey, George McGovern dropped bombs on people he couldn't see. Kennedy tried to torpedo Japanese sailors who he couldn't see. Carter was part of a navy that was willing to incinerate whole cities with a single missile. Clinton, however, gets a pass on these atrocities. And I suppose it is some comfort that Kerry could actually see the people he was trying to kill.

and Amen.

I found it amusing that in 2004 the left kicked Howard Dean to the curb and ran a supposed war hero on an anti-war platform (?), which was compounded when he jumped on the stage declaring he was reporting for duty.

Who wrote that script?

Well, duh. The left learned well from Karl Rove to attack someone's strength. What's good for the goose is good for the gander but you rightwingnuts cry like babies when it happens to you. Waaaa.......

Serving in the military is not automatically preparation for a job in the White House. McCain turned that statement from Wesley Clark into a slam on his service. To my way of thinking, it is a sign of just how dishonorable McCain has become. He would intentionally mislead us by turning Clark's statement into something it wasn't.

Ok; I see your point. Now let me play devils advocate. It could be proof that Obama is just another politician who will really "Change" nothing except the name on the door and who will do or say what it takes to discredit his opponent.

There is alway at least two ways of viewing a situation. is it right or wrong? Your way is just simply one way of looking at the situation.

Personally I think that Clark is using his former position as a General to make people believe he is justified to judge McCain. As a retired General he is just another highly paid retired civilian. As such, no more or less qualified to judge what another officer (not under his command) did or did not do and what relevance that experience has on the issue at hand. Additionally I believe that is another example of Obama's master illusionists abilities to distract us from the FACT THAT HE HAS NO MILITARY EXPERIENCE AND SOMEHOW MANAGED TO GET OUT OF THE DRAFT. I should think, that by now some reporter would have questioned that fact, I for one would like to know how he did it. I had a 1-H status = Only son exemption and still joined the Air Force as did my "only" son after me. To give Obama the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he had a good reason why; I just would like to hear it.

By the time Barack Obama was old enough to be drafted, there was no longer a draft.

But you shouldn't let little things like facts interfere with your objective viewpoint.

This was absolutely the strangest post you have ever put up....are you accusing Obama of evading a draft that ended in 1972?

I know....I was one of the last to be drafted and I am 55.

Nyecop:

Math: Obama is 46 years old; born in August 1961. This means that, when the draft ended in December 1972, he was 11 years old. So, if I had to speculate (and this is just speculation, of course), I'd say that he might not have been drafted because he was still in grade school. Just a guess.

Incidentally, during the years Obama would have been eligible for the Selective Services (the predecessor to the draft), 1979-1986, there were no major wars (Grenada and Beirut--both 1983--were the only minor invasions). Panama wasn't until 1989, and Desert Storm wasn't until 1991.

Being in grade school is no excuse when your country calls.......

I guess he could make a stink over the fact that Obama never enlisted, but then he'd have to face the 5 deferrments for Dick Cheney during VietNam.....and Dick's explanation that he "had other priorities".

funny how posts get a life of my own. My crack was about military service, that killing people at a distance somehow makes you less of a warrior, or that serving at all is ignoble.

I guess you could add in as disgraced Presidents, Truman (I think he was in artillery, WW1), Eisenhower (staff guy his whole career, directing other people to kill the other guy). Grant and most of the late 19th century Presidents get a pass, since the Civil War era killing was largely up close and personal. Ditto for Jackson, Washington, Lincoln (Indian Wars).

As far a Obama is concerned, not being a vet doesn't disqualify him. We are no longer drafting a large percentage of the male population and didn't even do that during the Viet Nam War. The year my number came up in the lottery I think they only got into the 90s (by birthdates so <100 out of 365). This trend of non veteran politicians will continue as the draftees of the 1950s and 1960s leave politics.

What does disqualify a politician from being Commander in Chief is a lack of respect for the military, and a lack of understanding of what our military does. How he responds to issues like this will tell us a great deal about these qualifications (or lack thereof).

An excellent post! You are all correct in that (a) Obama was not old enough for the draft. (b) Not being a Vet does not disqualify you to be POTUS.

I would like to know if he did register as required by law for with the Selective Service. Anyone have a qualified answer to that question?

I also am 55 years old and my birth date was #1 on the draft boards hit parade.

Thanks to you all for correcting my initial mistake about Obama not being drafted. Guess he interests me so little I did not pay enough attention to his age.

... funny how posts get a life of my own. My crack was about military service, that killing people at a distance somehow makes you less of a warrior, or that serving at all is ignoble.

It may be sad, but it's true. Among many, even in the military, killing from such a distance is considered less honorable. There are also psychological implications for those who feel guilty for the indiscriminate nature of bombing and not taking responsibility for the suffering below.

At one time submarines were considered a cowardly weapon because they were so sneaky. When the first nuclear weapons were used there was great angst over the mass killing with so little involvement by those doing the killing. Even Oppenheimer decried the building of thermonuclear weapons calling them city killers who only purpose was to kill as many from a distance as possible.

I don't think Gen. Clark said that Sen. McCain's killing from a distance made him less of a warrior. I understood him to say that dropping bombs from a plane in no way gave him qualifications to be president. I believe he would have said the same thing about someone with a rifle. The point is that military service only adds qualifications if a person is in command, where they had to organize and supervise people, budget, discipline, and set policy.

Gen. Clark said nothing derisive about Sen. McCain's service or his warrior-ship. He was speaking strictly about what makes one qualified to run a country.

So Clark was qualified to be President because of him military service (albeit at a much higher level than McCain) but McCain's years of service in the Senate (and Clark's lack of political experience) are non factors? That Senators don't evaluate budgets, look witness in the eye and decide their veracity, or manage their office or campaigns? That does not compute.

As far as high ranking generals are concerned, the verdict is mixed as to their competence as President. Grant gets an F, Eisenhower gets a B+ (from most historians). Many of the post civil war presidents were general officers, don't ask me which, weakest part of my knowledge of American history, but none were really army commanders. I don't think I'd throw "Old Hickory" into the Grant/Ike mould.

McCain said that it was time to cut Clark loose for his comments. McCain's people called Clarks words an attack.

In my view, McCain's own words show that he doesn't mind misleading us if it works for his benefit.

Clark, if you review his resume, had significant organizational skills, as well as personal knowledge of foreign policy and military affairs that McCain can only pretend to.

"Clark, if you review his resume, had significant organizational skills, as well as personal knowledge of foreign policy and military affairs that McCain can only pretend to."

You left out "and that Obama will never have."

You also failed to point out the fact that Obama does not know the meaning of the word "loyalty" and has demonstrated this by cutting ties with everyone and anyone he even "thinks" might hurt his campaign. Therefore it can be said that while McCain may mislead us for his benefit, Obama demonstrates his quickness to be disloyal for his benefit.

In the end what I have said all along: They are both just politicians with the only difference being their respective beliefs and political parties. I am not even sure if they believe the B.S. they are trying to sell us.