61 Comments

1. Jay:

You know something? This is just a peeing match between two old soldiers. Inter-service rivalries are big, and soldiers talk to each other in ways civilians often fail to grasp. I’ve posted this elsewhere and I will do so here because I think it is worth mulling over; the passage in question? Something from John Derbyshire, no Lefty, he:

“In cases like this, though, it’s worth remembering that military folks’ attitudes to other military folk always have a different tone and flavor from civilian-to-military attitudes. ‘Every man thinks meanly of himself for not having been a soldier,’ and that thought is a restraint on every civilian-military comment.

Eisenhower remarked that he was better able to handle the joint chiefs than a civilian would have been because, having been their peer, he was not intimidated by them. He knew they put their pants on one leg at a time, same as he did.

John McCain’s service to his country was exemplary. Whether it would or would not bring value-added to a McCain presidency is a fair topic for discussion; but military people are much more at ease with that discussion than civilians…Now, for most people, the military is off in a corner somewhere. There isn’t that old easy familiarity. That makes it easier to hold exaggerated attitudes, including excessive deference. Listening to the culture at large, I don’t think excessive deference is anything like as big a problem as ignorant mockery — e.g. the numbskull general in dozens of movies of the past 20 years. To the degree it inclines conservatives to overlook John McCain’s many, many shortcomings, though, it is something of a problem.”

Jul 2, 2008 - 8:39 am 2. Barry Dauphin:

Clark is simply reminding everyone why Bill Clinton dumped his sorry a## when he was commanding NATO. When Clark talks, all he does is demonstrate why he is not qualified to be president.

Jul 2, 2008 - 9:22 am 3. srlucado:

I never served in the military, but I have worked with several retired senior officers, including a couple of generals. Through them, I’ve met more than a few brigadier-, major-, and lieutenant-generals in the Air Force and Army. As a rule, they are intelligent, well-spoken, and polite (in other words, exactly the opposite of the stereotype of the MASH TV show).

That being said, some generals are known to be conniving political blockheads–Sergeant Bilko writ large–and it seems that Wes Clark is one of them.

I’m surprised that Clark didn’t blame the 1967 explosion and fire aboard the USS Forrestal on McCain–after all, it was his plane that was hit and caught fire. (Mark my words, though, sooner or later, someone will bring this up: “Was it negligence or incompetence that caused McCain to fail to prevent the accident?”)

Scott

Jul 2, 2008 - 9:35 am 4. Charlie (Colorado):

I just think McCain’s service records speaks a lot better of him than Clark’s record of having been effectively relieved of SHAPE command for cause.

Jul 2, 2008 - 9:49 am 5. Larry J:

“Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.”

Just goes to show that Clark is a pretty dim bulb. First of all, McCain wasn’t just “riding in a fighter plane”, he was flying a single-seat attack plane against heavily protected targets. That’s how he (and hundreds of others) was shot down.

McCain’s time as a POW doesn’t qualify him to be president any more than my uncle’s time as a POW in the Korean war makes him presidential material. What the experience does show is that McCain endured real hardships for years in service to his country.

One thing Clark did do is open up the topic of experience as it applies to presidential qualifications. Compare and contrast what McCain has done with Obama’s “experience”. Precisely what has Obama ever accomplished? Anyone? Anyone? McCain’s executive experience is limited to commanding a Navy squadron. Has Obama any executive experience at all (after all, he is wanting to become the next Chief Executive). Has he even so much as worked as an assistant manager of a fast food restaurant or any other private sector employment?

Jul 2, 2008 - 10:00 am 6. juvat:

As you rightly rip into wesley (yes I know about capitalizing first names, but that implies a respect I cannot conjure up), please don’t forget the other militarily incompetent in Obama’s cabal, merrill (sorry, it’s a habit). Those two boobs epitomize the careerist attitude that is destroying the military in general and the USAF specifically. Although I think Gen Mosely was right in many respects, I think Mr Gates was right in firing him and the Secretary. We need to get wesley and merrill’s clones out of the military before they do any further damage.

Jul 2, 2008 - 10:13 am 7. Lem:

I would recommend former general Clark to get reacquainted with the constitution of the US of America article II section 1.

There is nothing in there precluding John McCain from becoming president. John McCain’s qualifications are not for general Clark alone (to paraphrase Rumpole of the Bailey) but for the American people to decide.

Never, in the history of journalism and free press has someone spoken so often and said so little.

Jul 2, 2008 - 10:20 am 8. jblog:

Why, if I didn’t know better I’d swear the Obama campaign is using surrogates to do its negative campaigning and attack McCain on an issue it can’t directly go after him on.

If I didn’t know better.

Jul 2, 2008 - 10:36 am 9. shropshirelad:

Hi Roger,

An excellent piece, but one minor point of disagreement.

John McCain has a lot of admirable qualities that Wesley Clark in his creamiest, most heroic dream could not even hope to emulate. Still, I am not quite sure that Alec Guinness, from Bridge on the River Kwai, is exactly what we should be looking for in leader.

I mean, Sir Alec’s character, a brave man certainly, but Colonel Nicholson, wasn’t he–at least, in his determination to build the best possible British bridge he could for the Imperial Army of Japan–hadn’t he rather lost perspective on the War?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but by the end of the movie, hasn’t Colonel Nicholson gone just a wee bit–well–what would an Englishman of that era have said—hasn’t he gone a bit doolally?

Jul 2, 2008 - 10:43 am 10. fred lapides:

address the issue: All Webb and Clark have said is tyhat being a military guy does not mean you are best choice for presidency. Clark said, additionally, that McCain had no command experience. Now is that true or not? Command experience? military experience? Who was the best general this country ever had? Ulysses. Grant. and among the worst presidents? Ulysses. S.Grant.
I served a few stines in the armyh. Does that make me a potential president? I seriously doubt it.
In sum: stop carping about what Webb and Clark DID say and refer to what they have said. anything less is very dishonest.

Jul 2, 2008 - 11:13 am 11. Stephen:

Good post.
Better link. YouTube.

Jul 2, 2008 - 11:20 am 12. Craig A.Zimmerman:

McCain’s plane was not only involved in the Forrestal fire, a often shown film (used to teach shipboard firefighting classes) shows McCain pulling the canopy back and jumping into the fire on the flight deck before rolling out of the flames. That may not be as brave as attending Harvard Law, but it impressed me. Another non-entity who “rode” a jet was George W. Bush, who flew F-102s. Those planes were so easy to fly that they could glide halfway across the country without engine power. Also, the heavily computerized systems allowed the First Dope to sleep through the flight. Hail Wes Clark! A Copperhead for the 21st Century! Barack has his Vice Presidential Candidate!

Jul 2, 2008 - 11:20 am 13. Emerson:

As a side note: a few years ago I needed 4 sides of gum grafting, which I completed in 3 sessions. Even with injections and pills I’ve never experienced so much dismal and seemingly endless agony. I’ve said repeatedly since that if I was ever tortured for real I’d sing in a minute. For McCain to take the punishment he did for all those years makes him a Superman. Regardless of how Clark earned his medals he’s a hole compared to McCain’s mountain.

Jul 2, 2008 - 11:24 am 14. scaramouche:

Um, I wouldn’t push that Colonel Nicholson analogy too far if I were you. Yes, he was a brave, stiff upper lip sort, but he’s also the character who got so caught up in showing the Japanese prison camp commander that his chaps could build a ripping (topping?) bridge that he lost sight of the fact he was assisting the enemy.

The movie’s lesson (one that’s just as pertinent today): beware of short-sighted bridge-builders.

Jul 2, 2008 - 11:24 am 15. ts:

McCain may have been steadfast in captivity, but he’s a flip-flopper par excellence now.

Jul 2, 2008 - 11:25 am 16. BlogDog:

As a note on Sir Alec’s character in BOTRW: My high school English teacher was a British colonel and a survivor of the Kwai River bridges (as he pointed out – there were several). He explicitly said that if any officer had acted as that character did (and I quote from memory), “We would have killed him.”

Perhaps now that he’s deceased I can say that the gentleman to whom I refer is Col. Alan Ferguson Warren. A man who believed that “the English sentence is a noble thing.”

Jul 2, 2008 - 11:36 am 17. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Roger L. Simon, et al.
RE: General Clark

I knew Clark when he was the battalion commander for 1st of the 77th Armor. He was an overbearing megalomaniac with delusions of godhood, i.e., a ‘jerk’, then. Just the sort of general officer I’d expect to be promoted to full general during the Clinton administration.

Apparently his condition hasn’t improved with age.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Leopards. Spots. Well....you know....]

Jul 2, 2008 - 11:43 am 18. Larry:

So what does qualify one to be president? Bombing the Chinese embassy in Belgrade?

Jul 2, 2008 - 11:50 am 19. Glenn Beebe:

Mr Zimmermans comments on the F 102 Delta Dagger couldn’t be more wrong. The F102 had the worst safety record of all USAF jets. It was the first delta wing jet fighter and had the glide ration of a rock on power loss. They were also tricky to fly and the most difficult jet fighter to land . The high accident to flight ratio of this aircraft was due to its difficulty of landing.

Im no Bush fan but the man proved himself a superior pilot and was highly regarded by his peers

Jul 2, 2008 - 12:03 pm 20. Dean:

Every time Clark opens his mouth he makes a self-evident argument for his grinding stupidity. His is the worst kind: utterly misdirected intelligence. He manages to get almost everything wrong. No one said that McCain’s POW time qualifies him to be president. Duh Wes. McCain’s performance during those times though do provide a strong indication of his leadership abilities. Wes’s man Obama has nothing approaching the qualitative resume of McCain vis-a-vis leadership, toughness and loyalty. Having said all that, McCain is going to lose this election unless he ‘flip-flops’ on illegal immigration. That is the only thing that can get him elected. Well there is one other thing: If the MSM would do even a junior high level investigation of Obama’s former church of over 20 years and expose the theology that the Obama’s subscribed to for so long, then McCain will win. Otherwise forget it.

Jul 2, 2008 - 12:20 pm 21. MikeO:

I just heard General Wesley Clark talk about John Kennedy, and Clark said,

“Well, I don’t think riding in a little boat and getting sunk is a qualification to be president.”

Jul 2, 2008 - 12:28 pm 22. Wayne:

The irony here (if it may be called that) is that Clark followed his criticism of McCain with the observation that Obama is to be judged on “his character and judgement”. Character and judgement are exactly what McCain showed during his captivity, while Obama has shown his thorough lack of it through his associations with race-baiters, terrorists, and criminals.

Jul 2, 2008 - 12:49 pm 23. AlanC:

There are 4 things I look for in a candidate in no particular order:

1) Character – Can one stand up under pressure and follow through.
2) Experience – What have you done and how have you done it.
3) Policies – What do you want to do
4) Honesty – Say what you’ll do and do what you say (aka principles).

McCain gets an A for Character, a C for experience and Policies and Honesty (not much to go on there) as best I can tell. Note that Honesty doesn’t preclude compromise. We’re electing a President not a Dictator and he can’t just demand everything he wants. BUT, if compromise is in the cards lay it out.

Obama gets an F across the board. Character, at the rate he throws people under the bus? Experience, I’ve been trying to find out what he has ever accomplished to no avail. Policies, everyone I’ve heard of his have been kissing cousin to Marxism. (see raise taxes on the rich cause it’s fair even if it lowers revenue, can’t drive your SUV or keep your thermostat at 72, etc.) Honesty, we are talking about a Chicago machine pol. right?

Jul 2, 2008 - 12:51 pm 24. Amy:

I think the thing that annoyed me the most about Clark’s remarks was that they seemed dismissive about the rest of McCain’s service. He did other things in the Navy other than get shot down. As for executive experience, depends on your definition of executive. What really is Clark’s definition of executive? He seems to put a large emphasis on command in war. Perhaps McCain didn’t have that experience, but he did retire from the Navy at the rank of a captain. I dunno, that means something to me, it means to me that he has more in his military service than just being shot down and a POW.

Do I think military service is a prerequisite to being a president? No. Nor being a POW. However, it is something I take into consideration when making a decision about who I vote for, among many other things.

Jul 2, 2008 - 12:55 pm 25. ricpic:

Obama’s supporters have a big problem with McCain’s qualifications given that their boy is a high school valedictorian.

Jul 2, 2008 - 1:01 pm 26. Earl:

The Obama campaign must be losing their minds. I understand the rather obvious and juvenile appeal of trying to shoot holes (so to speak) in one of the main resume points that the McCain campaign will obviously try to utilize to their advantage. But doing this in such a clumsy way only highlights for all to see the total lack of any qualifications of their candidate!!! And don’t tell me Clark is a free agent on this. This was orchestrated and was poorly planned and executed even worse. The last thing Obama wants is to appear to be disrespectful of McCain’s war record particularly given his suspect patriotism, his long-time association with the likes of America-hating pastors and terrorist friends. Amazing! And no wonder the race is tightening, keep this up and McCain will win by 5 million votes.

Jul 2, 2008 - 1:03 pm 27. Larry J:

Craig A.Zimmerman:

McCain’s plane was not only involved in the Forrestal fire, a often shown film (used to teach shipboard firefighting classes) shows McCain pulling the canopy back and jumping into the fire on the flight deck before rolling out of the flames. That may not be as brave as attending Harvard Law, but it impressed me. Another non-entity who “rode” a jet was George W. Bush, who flew F-102s. Those planes were so easy to fly that they could glide halfway across the country without engine power. Also, the heavily computerized systems allowed the First Dope to sleep through the flight. Hail Wes Clark! A Copperhead for the 21st Century! Barack has his Vice Presidential Candidate!

Glenn Beebe:

Mr Zimmermans comments on the F 102 Delta Dagger couldn’t be more wrong. The F102 had the worst safety record of all USAF jets. It was the first delta wing jet fighter and had the glide ration of a rock on power loss. They were also tricky to fly and the most difficult jet fighter to land . The high accident to flight ratio of this aircraft was due to its difficulty of landing.

I think Mr. Zimmerman was being sarcastic. The F-102 was a difficult and dangerous plane to fly with the glide ratio of a crowbar. I’m pretty sure he knows it.

Clark said, additionally, that McCain had no command experience. Now is that true or not? Command experience?

McCain commanded a Navy squadron but it was after the war. He was tied up during the war and unavailable for command duty.

Jul 2, 2008 - 1:48 pm 28. Wellspring:

Clark is very clearly acting as a proxy for Obama here.

McCain’s great strength is his war record. (In addition to his heroism as a POW, incidentally, let’s not forget his executive experience running his fighter squadron — far more people doing far more complex work than any organization Obama’s ever commanded.)

Obama needs to eliminate that strength. The way to do that is through a three pronged attack. On one hand, he needs to get it out there now, half a year before the election, so that it becomes old news by the time the election rolls around. Second, he needs to frame the issue. McCain’s best shot at introducing his record to a public that largely hasn’t heard of it is through a biographical film at the convention in August. Framing the issue as “McCain’s controversial war record” is much to Obama’s advantage when the alternative is “McCain’s status as a genuine American hero”. Finally, time that McCain spends talking about vietnam is time he won’t spend talking about oil, the war, the economy, etc. Ideally (again from Obama’s point of view), McCain spends the campaign talking about stuff he did in the 60’s while Obama talks about stuff he will be doing in 2009. Which is more relevant to voters?

So having surrogates attack McCain over the war is a good move. Obama’s campaign might take some heat from it, but over time, the outrage will simply die down, even as the attacks themselves continue steadily. For that matter, Obama might not take any heat at all; the media is glad to portray independent GOP extremists as “with ties to the McCain campaign” while saying Obama’s campaign officials are totally unaffiliated with Obama himself.

Anyway, the strategy is distasteful but rational for Obama’s campaign. Instead of trying to respond to their substance (which is ever-shifting and not based in fact anyway), our focus has to be to tie these people back to Obama.

Jul 2, 2008 - 2:12 pm 29. Richard Nieporent:

Earl, beat me to the punch. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see what Obama, through his lackey Clark, is trying to do. This is just a preemptive strike on the part of Obama to try and negate the major advantage that McCain has over Obama with his military experience. Obama just finished carrying out another preemptive strike when he insinuated that anyone who questioned his experience is a racist. I guess, given his own lack of experience and accomplishments, this is the only way that Obama can hope to counter McCain’s vastly greater leadership and experience. If we take an honest look at Obama we will that there is nothing there. More to the point, besides his education, everything we know about Obama, from his crooked and revolutionary friends to the anti-White, anti-Semitic and anti-American church he attended, is negative.

Jul 2, 2008 - 2:19 pm 30. The Frito Pundito:

Did you even SEE the film? I know that’s asking a bit much, so let me tell you: the Alec Guiness character is an obssessed, tunnel-visioned meglomaniac who insists on aiding the enemy in order to show his worth as a leader and the British character, damn the consequences. At the end of the movies he finally realizes this and says “My God, what have I done??” Do we really want McCain, four years into a disastrous Presidency, looking up and saying the same thing?

Jul 2, 2008 - 5:13 pm 31. jt007:

Of course military service doesn’t, by itself, qualify anyone to be president. However, unlike John Kerrey, McCain isn’t predicating his candidacy on his military service. These people are idiots for bringing this obvious strength of McCain’s to the forefront. Obama’s self-serving pandering and complete lack of achievement don’t compare well to McCain’s endurance of torture in the service of our country.

Kerrey’s four month stint of submitting himself for medals and purple hearts doesn’t come close to what McCain accomplished. I really hope that Obama continues to refuse to apologize for Clark’s offensive behavior.

Also, for what it is worth, Jon Henke has shown that people like Jim Webb thought military experience was crucially important to political leadership (http://thenextright.com/jon-henke/jim-webb-wes-clark-and-john-mccains-military-service).

Jul 2, 2008 - 5:19 pm 32. Poole:

To me, a defining characteristic for anyone running for the presidency is what have been their great tragedies in life and how they weathered those difficult times.

For John McCain, it was the hardships of growing up in the military, losing a grandfather the day after returning from WWII, the fire on the Forrestal and the loss of life among the air wing and the crew, his time as a prisoner, and the breakup of his marriage.

For Barack Obama, it was his father abandoning him and his mother, his mother’s death, and …?

One lives a heroic life (even if he will never admit it) while the other has written books about his life.

One served with people who wanted to preserve, protect and defend this country, the other became good friends with people who condemned and attacked this country.

In a crisis while in office, one would persevere and act while the other would seek a consensus at the United Nations before committing to forming a study group to determine the criteria and agenda of the group that would be tasked with forming the committee that would study the problem – in depth.

Jul 2, 2008 - 9:02 pm 33. Terrye:

Clark is envious, he is also silly. McCain earned that reputation the hard way. I doubt very much that Clark would want to run for president bad enough to do 5 years in a Vietnamese POW camp for the privilege.

Jul 3, 2008 - 4:09 am 34. twodox:

So, you’re saying that John McCain collaborated with the enemy and help them achieve one of their primary objectives in the area? That’s what Col. Nicholson did. He only repented at the last moment, and managed to undo his evil work with his death.

Some endorsement!!

Jul 3, 2008 - 4:35 am 35. DR:

Doesn’t anybody realize that Clark’s comment “Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.” was in reference to Obama, not McCain.

Specifically, this was in reply to Shieffer who said “I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean -”

Clark wasn’t even talking about McCain.

Jul 3, 2008 - 5:37 am 36. Gus:

Seriously, have you seen Bridge on the River Kwai? No one in his right mind would vote for Col. Nicholson.

Jul 3, 2008 - 9:43 am 37. bargal20:

Well, it looks like Roger Simon not only can’t write movies; he can’t understand them either.

Next he’ll be comparing McCain favorably to another Pierre Boulle creation, Mi Zaius.

Jul 4, 2008 - 12:26 am 38. Chuck Pelto:

TO: bargal20
RE: Oh?

“Well, it looks like Roger Simon not only can’t write movies; he can’t understand them either.” — bargal20

How so?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Nothing like a drive-by from a bar-fly.]

P.S. How much have you had to drink, girl?

Jul 4, 2008 - 9:24 am 39. Mike:

I gather Simon isn’t a veteran and doesn’t know any veterans.

1. It’s not particularly surprising when a member of one service disrespects a member of another, particularly when someone whose service was earthbound disrespects flyboys.

2. Ask any combat pilot (Navy or Air Force) a question starting with “Didn’t you think it was heroic how, after he was shot down…” Nine times out of ten he’ll interrupt you, saying “First of all, he shouldn’t have been shot down.”

But here in Republican Talking Points Land, anyone who doesn’t fall down in worship of every blessed one of Our Troops is an Islamofascist.

Jul 4, 2008 - 3:56 pm 40. bargal20:

Chuck,

If I really need to explain to you how Alex Guinness’s character in Bridge over the River Kwai is not the sort of man any sane person would want as president, then you probably do want a lying, castrating, fundamentalist, talking orangutan in a senior cabinet position.

Jul 4, 2008 - 6:15 pm 41. seriouslypolitics » Blog Archive » What Have I Done?:

[...] Robert Farley and Tbogg, it seems Roger Simon didn’t really understand The Bridge on the River Kwai. Either that or Simon really is dissing John McCain’s military [...]

Jul 5, 2008 - 8:56 am 42. McGufff:

It sure seems like there are an awful lot of thin-skinned folks on this list.

But that’s typical of the US military, which wants to use high tech weaponry to shoot up unarmed people who can’t shoot back.

Sure, John McCain’s record and character can be examined. So stop whining and get used to it.

Jul 5, 2008 - 9:41 am 43. Righteous Bubba:

ricpic:
Obama’s supporters have a big problem with McCain’s qualifications given that their boy is a high school valedictorian.

As usual I assume it’s completely unfair to characterize someone using “boy” as racist so I’ll assume you’re just an oaf.

Jul 5, 2008 - 9:47 am 44. Nix:

‘Hanoi Hilton’ jailer says he’d vote for McCain

John McCain has an unusual endorsement — from the Vietnamese jailer who says he held him captive for about five years as a POW and now considers him a friend.

“If I were an American voter, I would vote for Mr. John McCain,” Tran Trong Duyet said Friday, sitting in his living room in the northern city of Haiphong, surrounded by black-and-white photos of a much younger version of himself and former Vietnam War prisoners. [...]

Duyet said one of the reasons he likes McCain for president is the candidate’s willingness to forgive and look to the future. [...]

Duyet, 75, grew testy during the interview when repeatedly questioned about torture and why so many other former POWs say they too were mistreated. He preferred to talk about McCain as an old buddy.

His photo collection doesn’t include one of him with POW McCain, and he said they have not met on any of McCain’s postwar visits to Vietnam. But Duyet said he often met the young Navy pilot when off duty, that McCain would correct his English, and that he had a great sense of humor. And although they never saw eye-to-eye on the war that killed some 58,000 Americans and up to 3 million Vietnamese, he said they listened to each others’ views.

Jul 5, 2008 - 10:00 am 45. aleks:

Eh. The interviewer asked Wes Clark how Obama could possibly run against a guy who’d flown a fighter plane and been shot down. Clark said that flying and being shot down weren’t experiences relevant to the presidency.

Jul 5, 2008 - 10:21 am 46. tom.a:

Wow, there are almost too many mistakes in this tripe to go over, but here are a few:

The erratic former general

Erratic? How and when, please support your claims.

not backing down from his comments about McCain’s five years in the Hanoi Hilton not qualifying the Senator for the presidency.

Clark never made that claim, his claim was being shot down doesn’t by itself qualify McCain for the Presidency.

But what is arguably a serious qualification for president is McCain’s behavior, his steadfastness, for five years in a North Vietnamese prison camp.

What does that have to do with Clark? Again, Clark was not referring to McCain’s time spent as a POW.

McCain showed character traits under extreme pressure … that demonstrate superior leadership capability.

No, they demonstrate courage, not leadership. I’ll give you that leadership ability requires courage, but having courage does not mean you automatically have leadership ability.

Clark skipped over this obvious part.

No he didn’t because he wasn’t talking about McCain’s time spent as a POW. He was answering a question from an journalist specifically about being shot down.

Not the most stable personality in the public arena

Again, please support your claim.

Clark’s own run at the presidency in ‘04 imploded in a matter of days

Months in fact.

the former general may not harbor the most generous feelings toward McCain, who has parlayed his military career into a lengthy sojourn in the Senate

First, Clark was a general, McCain wasn’t. Second, Clark was the Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO. I don’t recall him runnning for Senate. If you’re going to make a comparison compare their military achievements.

Really, if you’re going to make an argument over Clark’s comments, actually argue the comment, not something entirely different that Clark never said.

Jul 5, 2008 - 11:25 am 47. Roger L Simon:

Thanks for sharing, Tom A. Meanwhile read this: At first, Clark moved aggressively to defend his remarks, scheduling additional press appearances and even updating his Facebook status to “Wes Clark knows that John McCain is largely untested and untried when it comes to matters of national security.”

Oh, really? Compared to whom? Barack Obama?

There’s plenty more at the link. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11529.html

Jul 5, 2008 - 11:29 am 48. Larry J:

Ask any combat pilot (Navy or Air Force) a question starting with “Didn’t you think it was heroic how, after he was shot down…” Nine times out of ten he’ll interrupt you, saying “First of all, he shouldn’t have been shot down.”

That’s complete and utter bullshit. I spent 13 years in the military (Army and Air Force) and have yet to meet a single pilot who said what you claim. Given the intensity of the air defenses and the sheer number of planes that were shot down during that war, your claim is as full of it as you are.

Jul 5, 2008 - 12:14 pm 49. tomkow:

I don’t care about the politics but how could you not have understood Bridge on the River Kwai? The Alex Guiness character is *not* heroic. He ends up helping the Japanese war effort.

He is a tragic montebank who, after resisting torture, sucumbs to vanity and forgets his duty to his county in his pursuit of self-esteem.

Oh wait… maybe that *does* sound like McCain.

Jul 5, 2008 - 1:47 pm 50. The Other Steve:

By comparing McCain to Colonel Nicholson in Bridge on the River Kwai, you’ve just insulted McCain’s military service far worse than any Democrat has.

Jul 5, 2008 - 2:21 pm 51. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Roger L. Simon
RE: tom.a

It’s fairly obvious, to most readers, that tom.a is projecting about ignorance here.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Jul 6, 2008 - 9:31 am 52. Chuck Pelto:

TO: bargal20
RE: Colonel Nicholson

“If I really need to explain to you how Alex Guinness’s character in Bridge over the River Kwai is not the sort of man any sane person would want as president, then you probably do want a lying, castrating, fundamentalist, talking orangutan in a senior cabinet position.” — bargal20

I don’t see where Simon is saying ‘Nicholson for President’.

But I am seeing a lot of people making that faulty leap in logic. Such as you and The Other Steve. And it is disingenuous of you both.

Hope that helps….but I have my doubts.

By the way, what is your political affiliation, as recorded with your County Clerk/Recorder?

RE: Back ON-TOPIC

I’m no fan of McCain, either. But having known General Clark, as he was a battalion commander in 2d Brigade 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized) while I was assigned to the same, I know for a fact that Clark is a gold-plated idiot. And therefore, Clark has no place gainsaying McCain on ‘leadership’.

Hope that helps….but I have serious doubts it will with you and Stevo.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S.

Jul 6, 2008 - 9:38 am 53. Steve Smith:

How long ago did you see Bridge? The Alec Guiness character can most kindly be described as pathetic, not heroic.

Jul 6, 2008 - 11:02 am 54. bargal20:

Chuck,

Who the f**k are you to demand details of my political affiliations or lack therof, you obnoxious twit? Are you the official gatekeeper or something?

Unlike you, Roger Simon doesn’t even have the chutzpah to defend his obviously stupid interpretation of Bridge. You’ll notice he’s commented in this thread, but never on the ridicule we’re rightly laying at his clown shoes.

Jul 7, 2008 - 8:43 pm 55. KeithNolan:

To Larry J, this is a minor sidenote, but if you read OVER THE BEACH by Zalin Grant (a classic account of the U.S. Navy carrier war against North Vietnam), you’ll find that, yes, many pilots were contemptuous of their buddies who got shot down…. and, further, that they were angry that former POWs got the choice assignments, etc., after returning home in 1973.

I don’t agree with such views, but there certainly were aviators who thought those shot down had an easier war (most weren’t tortured by the communists, just bored out of their minds) than those who remained unscathed to fly mission after mission after mission over North Vietnam.

Again, go read OVER THE BEACH.

Jul 8, 2008 - 1:20 am 56. Chuck Pelto:

TO: bargal20
RE: Ooooohhhh…..

“Who the f**k are you….you obnoxious twit…” — bargal20

Three thinks here.

One, your charming language goes well with your choice of nom des blogs.

Two, you answered your own question.

Three, go back to your favorite bar, gal. You’re better off there than here.

RE: I Demand?

“…you to demand details of my political affiliations or lack therof…” — bargal20

I didn’t demand. I simple asked. You got a problem with that? Or do you have a SERIOUS problem with the use of the English language? Or perhaps your a teensy bit over-sensitive about something; going ballistic over a simple questions.

Personally? I suspect all three of you.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[You know you're getting close to the 'target' because they start throwing more flak at you. -- US Air Force axiom]

Jul 8, 2008 - 8:08 am 57. Chuck Pelto:

P.S. Based on your obnoxious reply to my simple question, the indications are you are a Clark Democrat.

P.P.S. Your voting affiliation/or non-affiliation, is a matter of the public record, dearie. That is, unless you’re unregistered and just like trolling these political discussions because you have nothing better to do than throw an occasional grenade into them for ’s—s and grins’, as we would say in the Army.

Jul 8, 2008 - 8:10 am 58. bargal20:

Chuck,
Should all commenters note their affiliations in their comments, or does this stipulation only apply to those who note the stupidity of a film reference in a Roger Simon post?

When a political blogger favorably compares his preferred presidential candidate (a former POW) to a fictional character who is a POW, insane and a collaborator with the enemy, isn’t it worthy of ridicule? I mean, Simon’s reference to Bridge was sort of highlighted by him via the title of the post. You’d think he’d have, like, watched the film.

Roger Simon’s work in the film industry obviously didn’t equip him with skills suited to interpreting films. One might say his Hollywood experiences haven’t left him particularly qualified for the position.

Too bad Simon has now retracted a subsequent post, in which he hilariously offered an unfavorable comparison of Senator Chris Dodd to the titular character in Upton Sinclair’s Dodsworth That bit of idiocy showed Simon’s novel-writing experiences have also given him no qualifications to make literary references.

Now, do you need to know if I ever voted for Chris Dodd?

Jul 8, 2008 - 3:02 pm 59. Chuck Pelto:

TO: bargal20
RE: Still Hung Up?

“Should all commenters note their affiliations in their comments, or does this stipulation only apply to those who note the stupidity of a film reference in a Roger Simon post?” — bargal20

What’s the matter, dearie? Can’t share? Sounds like a personal problem.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Jul 8, 2008 - 7:54 pm 60. Chuck Pelto:

P.S. I’m co-chair of my precinct for my county’s Republican Party, ya gutless wonder ya…..the distaff is the other co-chair….

Jul 8, 2008 - 7:55 pm 61. TBogg » Got bored. Walked out. How did it end?:

[...] Simon compares POW John McCain to Col. Nicholson in Bridge On The River Kwai: But what is arguably a serious qualification for president is [...]

Oct 11, 2009 - 2:35 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: