Ready, aim, misfire

Ugly is part of campaign politics in this country and has been since it began. Recognizing it is part of the voting publics responsibility.

it's been noted that mccains injuries came from him ejecting from the plane and not harsh treatment.once the n vietnamese discovered who his father was they agreed to release him ,and then gave him special treatment.there were videos of his special treatment and are still being kept locked away in hanoi.this is why mcnutty doesn't like to talk about his experience then because it was a fraud.

What a bunch of Swift Boat Liars you are. Wesley Clark DID NOT "attack John McCain's war record". That you failed to mention Clark saying that he "honored his service" and was a "hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces", shows your real motivation of distracting voters with McManufactured hissy fits like this. John McSame has got nothing. Nothing but this. His military experience can't be talked about except by him and his surrogates. He touts it all the time including his latest TV ads. When Wesley Clark repeated the line Bob Schiefer gave him he told the truth that "riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is not a qualification to be President". It's not. John McSame has even said as much numerous times. Phony outrage by a bunch of phonies that have been conninig the country for too long. So what does the hypocrit McSame do? Trot out his divorce attorney Swift Boat Liar Bud Day and other ex-generals to really smear Wesly Clark's military service. A service that, unlike McSame's, DID include Executive experience at the highest levels. A service that ended the war crimes being committed in the Balkans. Where's your outrage?

Thank you charlie yonce and sjgraci for proving my first point.

Say good nite sigracie...nobody's buying it!

From the Columbia Journalism Review: [M]oderator Bob Schieffer interjected that "Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences, either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down", Clark responded: "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane & getting shot down is a qualification to be president." //The McCain camp, sensing an opportunity, complained that Clark had "attacked John McCain's military service record." Of course, Clark had done nothing of the kind. He had questioned the relevance of McCain's combat experience as a qualification to be president of the United States. This is a distinction that you'd expect any reasonably intelligent 9 year old to be able to grasp.// But many in the press have been unable to. ... Even if McCain weren't running on his military record, it's undoubtedly something that could convince many voters, rightly or wrongly, that he has the experience to be commander in chief. Why should it be out of bounds for Democrats to argue that McCain's particular military experience has done little to prepare him for the decisions he'll have to make as president?" RETIRED GENERAL WESLEY CLARK DID NOT ATTACK JOHN MCCAIN'S WAR RECORD!

After insane screaming for the past forty years over every implication, or implied implication, or imagined implication made against a "protected" individual or group, the far left now gets upset when General Clark gets called for using "heavy hints" in his commentary. It reminds me of a the famous Clinton machine attack line....."...I'd never call him a liar, be he acts just like one."

Here comes the dumb down crowd. Clark said it and now he has to take the heat. You know its bad when Cain comes to his defense. Proves the point. Looks like the Dims can't keep their mouth from overloading their you know what. Self destruction

To the public, who are in doubt of Clark's bold faced lies and smear campaign against McCain, who are trying to ascertain for yourselves if Clark is to be believed or if he is nothing more than a pitiable liar needs to pay attention to the old adage "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, smells like a duck it therefore must be a duck"..This person, Clark, didn't attack McCain's politics, which in any campaign is to be expected, he instead attacked another's man's bravery and his sense of duty to his fellow prisoners and well as his utmost loyalty to his country all the while supporting fully and advocating a 1st term Senator from Illinois with Muslim ties, a penchant for lying and demonizing of the white race...Clark is indeed a "duck"....

Robert you are right, when the cain's yonce's and siggracis, hit the keys and post a comment , best look at it with a "cocked" eye!

Boy ya'll kill me.

owensjef2, you wrote boy

The problem with these arguments is that by the same standard Obama has no qualifications either and he is the same and not change. Watch as all the old hats surround him just like GW. Obama has never served in the military, served less time in political life, blah, blah, blah. I can't defend either of them. Questioning military service is fine but then you have to question just about any service as a qualification-like he's a lawyer should disqualify you immediately hee,hee,hee. Personality and looks (shallow but so it is) often sets a candidate apart. Look at Dennis Kucinich he would never get elected because he looks like a munchkin as well as anyone with a notable handicap wouldn't likely get elected. Obama is young has the "look" and he is black-the only thing better is if he were a she. McCain has too much baggage and too many question his loyalties, and he looks ancient. Having been captured and tortured by Vietnamese also makes you wonder about his sanity and any mental health issues. I think Obama will be our next President. I just wish we didn't have a Dem controlled Congress because I think we will have 8 more years of the same-just the antithesis with the Dems. The public seems to have ADD in remembering how incompetent and corrupt the Dems are just as the Rep. I like the idea of a balance of power-like have the Presidential loser be VicePrez, not allow both executive and a majority of Congress share political affiliation. Of course you can argue that this will just lead to dead lock, but dang having them run rampant like the last 8.

It was okay for candidate George W. Bush and his henchman Karl Rove to attack John McCain in the South Carolina Republican primary in 1980. Where was The Chronicle then? Bush & Rove suggested that McCain had a black love child. They also questioned McCain's sanity after 5 and a half years of captivity in North Vietnam. John McCain's anger is legendary. So is his need for revenge. Just ask the Arizona GOP. The fact is that 5 and a half years in a North Vietnam prison made John McCain a war hero. It also may have made him crazy. Being a war hero does not qualify him to be President of United States. Bush & Rove played those cards in 1980s. All is fair in love, war, and politics. (Retired) Gen. Wesley Clark isn't backing down from his comments although Barack Obama has distanced himself from them. I would conclude that Wes Clark is now unlikely to be Barack Obama's running mate. That's too bad.

The only real experience for being president would have to come from being in office. So I would think that having been a senator or congressman would have at least given some incite as to the responsibilites of being president that this is about the only experience that could count. Business experience may be good for financial decision making but it appears the governmetn doesn't seem to run much like a business unless you count mismanaged failing businesses. At least being in the military teaches discipline and having been a prisoner of war shows the ability to deal with real life changing problems and recover. Many people might have came home and never made anything of themselves after that experience, many people give up after a lot less and let Uncle Sam support them from then on.

Cain is correct it is an election year and any candidate yelling foul is just disingenuous. It will get worse. Vote Bizarro 08' Strange is Change. Cain I'm expecting your write in vote, and I'm saving you a spot on my cabinet. Many may disagree but I think it would be great to have you on board. I like a diverse crowd.

I said it yesterday, i'll say it again- politics can be ugly- if you don't want your past brought up- you better not run for office. I understood it to be ( I may be wrong w/so many conflicting stories) that MCain was captured with his crew, and when his captors found out who he was they offered to let him go. He said no- he wasn't goning to leave his men. IF that is true- my respect for him and that decision, goes way beyond party lines. Anyone who would forego his own freedom for the sake of others (like most our soldiers are doing right now) is a good man, maybe not Presidential material, but a good man never the less.

Wesley Clark is a f'n disgrace. You guys better be glad Hugh Shelton pulled his *** out of Kosovo before he started WWIII. It was not fun. He was an imbecilic and incompetent General officer.

I heard a wonderful distillation on the radio this a.m. : "Hope" is not a course of action. If one candidate's "qualifications" are: fighter pilot, former POW, 20+ years in the Senate with chairmanships and minority leader positions on key committees, and the other candidate's qualifications are: community organizer, 2 years in the Senate, understanding of economic reality that leads him to say that he would support raising the cap gains rate EVEN IF he were shown that doing so would BOTH decrease the revenue from that tax, and dampen economic growth, then I would have to go with the first guy. Too bad he's such an arrogant, self-involved twit that he's also responsible for McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy. Sure wish we had a Republican to vote for, this year...

Johnsmith you are back. I've missed your incite. You can write in Bizarro-Bone 08'. Strange is Change. And I'm saving a cabinet appointment for you my friend. I am trying for a diverse crowd. My only criteria is be able to argue the merits of your opinion (ya got that down) with conviction, offer solutions to problems, and be willing to compromise when appropriate. I personally will shoot anyone who is not honest, lacks integrity, or disrepects counter views. You don't have to like counter views just no ad hominems. Let your logical posits stand in opposition. You are perfect for the job. I'm asking Cain too, but I will probably have to shoot him-hee,hee,hee-just kiddin Cain. The power of our arguments should guide us to logical solutions or a compromise when no easy solution is in sight. Dang wouldn't that be strange-Strange is Change. hee,hee,hee. Well I'm more qualified than Pat Paulsen and almost as funny.

Biz, your cabinet should insist on meeting in the airport. That would prevent you from shooting them.

LOL, Dang!!! Those pesky Bill of Rights get in the way don't they. Hey we will convene over at Guantanamo Bay where the high court isn't supposed to have any jurisdiction being it is foreign soil. Heck with a gun-maybe a MOAB would do the job better-no evidence will be left behind.hee,hee,hee.

General Wesley Clark's comments were the best thing that happened to John McCain's candidacy in weeks. It highlights the differences between the two like nothing else can and plays to one of McCain's few strengths. Bless you, Wesley!

On October 2, 2002, nine days before the U.S. senate voted on a resolution authorizing the president to use military action in Iraq, the nation was marching steadily forward toward a war. The mainstream media was doing nothing to challenge the administration's claims about Iraq, and the political climate was one of fear, where politicians perceived a real career risk in opposing the president (only 21 senators had the nerve to vote against the resolution). But on that date, Obama, then a state senator in Illinois, gave a speech against military intervention in Iraq.
The speech's theme and refrain was: "I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars." Obama said early in the address: "What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne."
We may take this statement as a given now, but in 2002, it was not an accepted mainstream position.
Obama then went on to say: "Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda."
Remember, this is 2002, and Obama's predictions came true, as if he had a crystal ball in front of him. That is the type of judgment Obama showed, at a time when expressing this opinion was not only challenging what was being reported by the mainstream media, but was also viewed by many politicians (including more than 20 Democrats in the U.S. senate) as being politically dangerous.
And in October 2002, what did McCain do? He voted for the war resolution. He supported the president for the early years of the war. Sure, he enjoys boasting about his support for the surge and claims that it is the right strategy, but that doesn't change the fact that when American lives were on the line in October 2002, McCain made the wrong call. And, in light of the recently released report by the U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO), indicating that the surge is not going as well as McCain and Bush would have you believe, and the recent congressional testimony by generals, press release by Republican Senator Richard Lugar and statements by former secretary of state Colin Powell on the dire state of the military because of the debacle in Iraq, McCain's current stance on the war should lead many Americans to conclude that his judgment was wrong when it counted most.
Yahoo news - Mitchell Bard Tue Jul 1, 7:05 PM ET

Charley Yonce must have a direct line to Mars, from where he gets his all his facts. And owensjef should know better than use the word boy, just look at what Imus has been through. And sickgraci, you have learned well from Fast Eddie Obama,Slick Willy, and Hillbilly that what you say is not really what you said.

yeah cain, just like running on his race makes ob a good choice.....gimme a break.....

charlyyonce...i dare you to provide one single piece of evidence mc cain rec'd special treatment in nam.the words pow and special treatment do not go together . you are both a fool and a liar.

btw cain...i'll send mc cain's website a sampling of your foaming at the mouth diatribe's, maybe he'll look you up on his pull thru georgia and discuss "crazy' with you...if he can pull you out from under your rock.

I agree with much of your comments Ruffinus. However, Clinton by executive order signed H.R. 4655 into law on October 31, 1998. and then Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act latter making regime change Amerian policy. So Obama was arguing against the law of the land: "to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq." Now his adversaries will ask will he always stand in opposition to the law of the land. A non sequitur to be sure, but you just watch. So yeah it was politically dangerous-almost treasonous is an argument that could be made. Not that I'm making it.

I wish we weren't lead, along with the gov't, to believe this war was "necessary".