Does getting shot down and captured in Vietnam gives a person the necessary experiences or competencies for president, or should they be denied access to the presidency until they are given a very thorough psychological examination. What are the side effect on someone who has been subject to physical, psychological, and sexual torture during war time. I think that general Wesley Clark was correct in his assessment about John McCain's experience.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/...l?iref=24hours

The statements of Wesley Clare are not sad, but accurate on the money.

McCain has been through numerous psychological examinations through the Navy. Ignore it all you want.

__________________
.

"It is extremely difficult for our contemporaries to conceive of the conditions of free banking because they take government interference with banking for granted and as necessary"

-- Ludwig von Mises

I don't think McCain's vietnam experience reflects any real ability or inability to become the President, its something that happened a long time ago and can't be changed.

However, this is cheap shot by Wesley Clark (someone I actually thought was pretty knowledgeable and intelligent until I saw that discussion on TV) to reflect on McCain's inability to lead.

Honestly, why do these type of subjects get brought up so much more frequently for both candidates than the actual political issues?

__________________
Signature:

Before the primaries started, I used to argue that being a war hero, while deserving of great honor, has nothing to do with being a good president. I thought that such arguments were cheap and simple-minded. However, now that he is the nominee, and his opponent is Obama, there is far more that I am willing to let go. In my opinion, things that assist Obama in securing votes should be stopped in the most effective ways possible.

__________________
My enduring personal, original quote: Many mistake what should rightly be called "passivism" for pacifism. Pacifism and passivism are COMPLETELY different.
----------------------
Ronald Reagan was not the only one to suffer from Alzheimer's Disease. America did, too.

What is so unintelligent or bad that Clark said really?

Honestly, I think people took what Clark said and make it something more (for their own political reasons really).

"What is so unintelligent or bad that Clark said really?"

He claimed that being a war hero isn't a plus for a presidential nominee.

It is

All other things being equal, would you vote for the war hero or the guy who stayed home?

Well while I was watching (Before I walked away) Clark was basically talking about how McCain doesn't have the experience for president because when he was in the military he was only a low-level officer in Vietnam. He was basically saying that since McCain had no record of being in an executive position, he didn't have the "experience."

Now what he said wasn't "unintelligent" but it was obvious that what McCain went through wasn't a test of his ability to "make tough presidential decisions" but a horrible ordeal that dramatically changed his life.

Wether or not that qualifies him to be president is obvious... it doesn't. But questioning his sanity/experience base on that one incident alone and ignoring the last 25 years of being in Congress is a bit ridiculous.

Now if you don't agree with his decisions, that's perfectly legitimate... like me for instance, I don't support John McCain's decisions to go to war, I find him to be far too hawkish for my taste, basically a Neo-Teddy Roosevelt.

So questioning McCain's "executive" experience based solely on his ordeal in Vietnam seems a bit hypocritical when you don't take a fair look at Obama at the same time, who has even less experience in the Senate.

But then again, political races shouldn't be held on experience alone, but they should focus on the issues, and that's why I am not voting for McCain this coming november.

__________________
Signature:

Well in this instance, the war hero is John McCain. The guy who "stayed home" is Obama. I would vote for neither.

But being a war hero or not being a war hero doesn't sway me one bit in deciding on the next President of the US.

For me it really depends on the sort of war hero we're talking about.

If it's a general or other leader it provides a way for them to demonstrate their intelligence when it really counts and in a way that is much more clear than in politics (the economy isn't entirely due to govenors/presidents as some seem to think). It also means that they should have some competancy as commander-in-chief when it comes to approaching war. This is highly relevant as that's one of the main powers of the president.

If it's a real war hero, of the medal of honor/silver cross type, I think it can start to show a real love of country and willingness to operate beyond ones self interest. This is important in politics and most candidates would seem to be nearly bought and sold by their financial backers or loyal first and foremost to their special interests or voting blocs and America as a country second. And this also should provide some clue into the realities of war.

McCain seems to be about half of each of these. He eventually was a captain, and apparently did a notably good job at that. On the real war hero side he did seek a combat posting when I'm sure his dad could have kept him home Bush style. And he did hold out on giving in to a lot of the torture and a chance to get home early.

More non-topical, smear tactic garbage. Totally worthless thread.

Stick to the issues.

__________________