Ralphie Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 "(Gen. Wesley) CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."For those of you who do not share the dubious "privilege" of consuming American news media, that was Clark commenting on John McCain's credentials to be President.All politicking aside (I'm a Ron Paul revolutionary and have no dog in this current presidential hunt), am I out in left field to think that Clark made all of us Army guys look like a bunch of douche bags when he sh*t mouthed an old Navy aviator on national TV?Jesus, guys, it's one team, one fight. Shouldn't we leave the inter-service pettiness in the PX and the at the bar?Just my $00.02 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarball Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 (edited) I agree that Clarke's comments are in poor taste, but from what I've gathered, inter-service fueds are alive and well and continue to be very intense (esp. at the pentagon). Also, consider the source(s) of this news and look at what was actually said by Clarke. We are going to be given every opportunity to mis-read off-hand comments and fall into media-induced hype and frenzy between now and November. It seemed that, during the interview in question, Clarke qualified his comments. It is still in poor taste and we should just let it be that McCain has aptly and amply served his country as both an officer and aviator in the USN and as a US Congressman (House and Senate) for many years.Both candidates strike me as good men who can speak for themselves; we don't need "pundits" from either political persuation to cloud the waters (although that is exactly what will happen). Oh well, politics as usual... (incidentally, political discussions are frowned upon in this forum).P.S. McCain's A-4E Skyhawk was a ground-attack/bomber aircraft... fighter pilots might take umbrage at designating an attack aircraft as a fighter. (Again, the inter-service rivalry stuff also manifests itself as intra-service rivalry as well). Of cousre, I realize that the flub is Clarke's and not yours. Apparently, Clarke managed to commit more than one flub with his commentary. Edited July 1, 2008 by tarball 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted July 1, 2008 Members Share Posted July 1, 2008 Maybe Clark has ambitions and hopes to get nominated (SecDef, running mate, ...?) by Obama? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralphie Posted July 1, 2008 Author Share Posted July 1, 2008 "Oh well, politics as usual... (incidentally, political discussions are frowned upon in this forum)." Yeah, roger that--hence my ducking the political bullet (I thought) by very explicitly NOT agitating for one candidate or another I thought the gem of wisdom in my thread was the whole interservice rivalry thing--but upon reviewing the rest of Clark's comments, it turns out Bob Schieffer had him in a box and it looks like he just shot back before he thought about the consequences. So I guess this turns into a "Big media getting it wrong" thread... As to Ssnake's theory, I wonder what kind of SecDef Clark would make? Again, all politicking aside, I'm not too worried about who's elected prez--I'm curious as to who will be SecDef, secretary of state, etc...They'll all have some interesting Gordian knots to untangle. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabot_Up Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Is this sort of inter-service thing only prevalent in the US or does it happen elsewhere? It's such a complete waste. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TankHunter Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 He might be looking for some sort of spot in a possible future Obama administration as what Nils said. He backed Hillary before Obama won, and soon after that he backed Obama. So he is positioning himself. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogueSnake79 Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Maybe Clark has ambitions and hopes to get nominated (SecDef, running mate, ...?) by Obama?Bingo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogwa Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 This would be the same Gen Clark who: wanted to get into a fight with the Russians over the Pristina Airport ? Was (initially) not invited to the summit commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the NATO alliance even though he was the NATO CDR ? Was removed from his post as SACEUR almost a year early and forced to retire ? HMMM... Although it is a more partisan political environment in the United States the when Sen McCain served, I don't recall any calls from Congressmen for Sen McCains dismissal. While he had many successful postings in his career, Gen Clark also had some whoppers of some not so great moments. I don't have anything against the guy, but in my opinion, if he was trying to use his military career as a platform from which he could assail Sen McCains military career and any qualifications either may claim from it, then I think Gen Clark ends up shooting blanks. I don't think using a military career as qualification to lead the nation is very wise in any case. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarball Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Is this sort of inter-service thing only prevalent in the US or does it happen elsewhere? It's such a complete waste.There's BIIIIIIGGGGG money on the table, considering that the size of the U.S. defense budget dwarfs the entire GDP of many other nations. Furthermore, there are LUCRATIVE civvie/contractor jobs waiting for many from Colonel on up (perhaps even at lower ranks). I think the Clarke bit is political posturing and, personally, I grow tired of elections getting caught up in a man's military service record. These things get dragged sooo far through the mud that it is hard to decipher the truth (assuming that it is even decipherable).Clark likes to mug it up for the camera and certainly fancies public office, so regardless of intent or setup, his words stem from designs towards that end. In any case, while I don't think the controversy in question is an inter-service rivarly thing, the topic of said rivalries is very interesting... it's all about grabbing all you can, in the end. Each branch seems to have their own philosophy and creed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryOwen Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Clark's crowning achievement was his providing cover for Madeline Albright to declare victory in Slick Willie's Wag-the-Dog adventure in Kosovo. Clark was canned without pomp, circumstance, or explanation, shortly thereafter. He has since been beholden to HRH HRC. I might be a bit paranoid, but I discard out of hand anything uttered by Clark. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieB Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Is this sort of inter-service thing only prevalent in the US or does it happen elsewhere? It's such a complete waste.Alive and very well in the British Army, RAF and Royal Navy!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralphie Posted July 3, 2008 Author Share Posted July 3, 2008 Well, now, we could have a meaningful discussion if all of Wes Clark's defenders and fans wouldn't all speak out at once! About the interservice rivaly thing: am I the only one who thinks that each branch having its own special cammies is silly? One team, one fight, one uniform--heresy or common sense? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibbs Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 heresy or common sense?It depends on who ya ask, Tex. Each branch's history and lineage go into the different uniforms, and although they have changed over the years, they are designed to make a Soldier distinguishable from a Sailor.There are also different demands placed on the uniforms. Army and Marine uniforms have to stand up to mud, blood, shrapnel, etc., while an Airforce uniform must withstand repeated starch and ironing.(sorry, I couldn't resist):biggrin:I'd also be willing to bet that each branch is allocated a budget for uniform design and the associated R&D. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabot_Up Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 I like the way Canada does it, where all the services are unified. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarball Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Well, now, we could have a meaningful discussion if all of Wes Clark's defenders and fans wouldn't all speak out at once! I'm neutral towards the man - I don't know enough about him to speak in either direction. Most military guys seem to not like him too much... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tacbat Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 I like the way Canada does it, where all the services are unified.We still have good natured jabs between the services. We all have a part to play, although IMHO the army has the toughest job. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.