[ul][li]Not really. It’s part of being a Commissioned Officer.[/li][li]They manage Enlisted Members and also other Commissioned Officers as they’re assigned as Division Officers, Department Heads, etc.[/li][li]They devote quite a lot of time doing that kind of management. It’s not something you can just decide–especially while embarked–“Well, I’m just going to fly today; the division/department can go down the tubes for all I care.”[/li][*]There are limits to how much flying time per day the officer may do. No doubt, the knowledge that he has other duties is part of the reason for the limit.[/ul]
Right, but I just don’t think Obama should leave the “McCain=War Hero=Presidential Material” logic lying around. To make this election about issues he has to make the point that McCain’s resume is irrelevant to the job. Isn’t that what Clark is trying to say here?
Maybe I’m just an ignorant guy, but I happen to think that the strength of character that it would take to withstand years of torture as a POW under the most hellish conditions on earth would qualify a guy to be the leader of our country much more than a career pushing pencils.
I think that’s valid, however, that was several decades ago. Shouldn’t we be more concerned with recent displays of character?
I don’t get this. How, exactly, does military experience qualify one to lead a country?
Actually, no, Sam. As grateful as I am for your kind assistance, I can express my views pretty well, for the most part. Should I require your help, please be assured I will not hesitate to ask.
But to clear any lingering doubts: I think the McBomb campaign was ready, willing, and eager for any such suggestion, and may even have fired their ammo a bit prematurely. As noted above, they would be tickled half to death if Obama would be foolish enough to dis McCain’s partiotism, courage, etc. He didn’t and he won’t, since he does posses the good sense that God gave a goose.
Two bits says a radio talk tub o’ puke like Hugh Hewitt will start in on this, taking the cited article at bald-face value, “surrogate” and all. As for Clark, I hadn’t noticed any crippling reticence on his part to make his views known.
I’m not sure that being stubborn a long time ago is really a good recommendation for the presidency. We’ve got a stubborn guy, now.
You’re free to believe that.
But I believe that a person whose career has been spent building community and reaching compromise makes him more fit for political power than one whose big selling point is that he was able to stand upon his principles in the face of hardship.
They’re both types of leadership. McCain’s camp is trying to make this about “I resisted torture, therefore I am a war hero, therefore I have sufficient executive experience,” when really, what kind of executive experience does a political leader really need?
And snorting coke and smoking pot and who knows what else.
I’m also tired of this “don’t judge what he did in the past!” thing.
If we don’t care about your past, then let’s elect a 16-year-old.
Suddenly the Republican party thinks that snorting coke is important. Who knew?
Wes Clark is a self-aggrandizing egomaniac prick. I wouldn’t believe anything that guy says. He was a classmate of my Dad’s at West Point and he has never had anything nice to say about Clark, other than that he is overly ambitious and has a huge ego.
Furthermore, why is this even an issue? We’re talking about McCain, whom is a US Senator, yes? Tenured senator, even. His military record is admirable, but using the “well, he was only a fighter pilot so how does that qualify him to be President?” argument is nonsense. The answer is it doesn’t. But, having military experience is helpful for the CIC resume, as one would presume having been a POW and fought in an ugly war that McCain would understand the plight of the soldier and be less willing to send troops into harms way needlessly.
McCain’s experience as a Senator is far more valuable in terms of leadership than being a fighter pilot. Why even bring it up?
Where is McCain’s camp tooting his horn at being a POW? And doesn’t being a POW enlighten one as to the nature of war, and possibly render an unwillingness to engage in it needlessly?
The ground crew of the pilot’s airplane are his employees.
http://www.bartcopnation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=8&topic_id=522 It would be fair to use the Rove method. Calling McCain a traitor and a manchurian candidate. His surrogates were way over but they set guidelines we could use.This is no where near that level. But the Dems do typically play nicer.
Bill Clinton smoked pot and he got elected? What’s the point? People that change their lifestyles aren’t allowed to ever become President?
It’s not don’t judge,…It’s be realistic about how relevant it is. Your last sentance sure isn’t.
If we leave out everybody who may have experimented with drugs who will be left?
Or, Does experimenting with drugs years ago mean that person can’t be a great leader?
Have you been listening to him lately? You must be referring to some other former POW.
However, in the context of Clark’s comments, it would be nice to see a link to a specific declaration by McClain that his POW status has prepared him for the presidency.
People just like to continually move the goal post. Let’s fairly compare both men’s backgrounds, and not arbitrarily pick a convenient day/month/year beyond which, nothing matters.
I think it takes more than stubbornness to withstand torture. And we’re talking about serious torture here, for years, torture that left him physically crippled for the rest of his life. That’s not stubbornness, that’s courage, hope, and conviction. And anyway it’s easy for Bush to be stubborn when he’s sitting comfortably in the Oval Office with every amenity on the planet at his beck and call - it’s quite another to be stubborn when your life is literally on the line.