Comments on: Following Clark Comments, McCain Camp Launches "Truth Squad"

[Len_RI]

Bud Day was a founder of the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth smear campaign. All of their assertions were proven to be lies by people who were with Kerry in Viet Nam.

Kerry''s military service honors were unquestioned for over 30 years including during his runs for senate! Then he runs for president so Bud Day and his Bush-loving friends make up lies to try to smear him.

Now McCain names him to a "truth" squad? The only truth here is that Bud Day has proven he will say anything including lies to get his friends elected.

[caliengineer]

The name ''Wesley Clark'', formerly respected as a general officer, is now merely the name of a servile tool in my book. Traitor.
McCain, on the other hand, was loyal to the Code of Conduct in his imprisonment.

[midloman2]

Wes Clark did not question John McCains''s military service, nor did he question his honor, patriotism, bravery, dedication, nor even his ability to lead the country. His comments relate only to McCain''s qualifications in Foreign policy based specifically and solely on that military experience. Would I be qualified to be the CEO of GM because I once survived a car crash? I might well be qualified, but that wouldn''t be the reason.

[toldyouso12]

This makes no sense. There is no need for a "truth squad" McCain seems to be shadowing and copying Obama from message to response teams.

The truth is, no soldier is automatically qualified to be CIC. There is nothing in the military enlisted or CO that would ensure that they could see, understand, strategize or negotiate the bigger picture of either our military or domestic issues.

Americans need to move beyond the supposition that being in something means a person is an expert at implementing something. That is like thinking because an actor is IN a movie--they can also direct and produce it. Some can, others cannot. Most cannot.

McCain was a CO that was also a prisoner of war--his war experience therefore prepares him for understanding some elements of war and how to take charge of a unit and how to survive captivity--nothing more--nothing less. He no doubt learned more about the military in Congress from a overall planning standpoint than he did as a soldier. Or at least he learned about their budgets--but that is a long way from being in charge of our country.

[ralph489]

I am extremely upset by the credence given to the McCain campaign''s argument that General Clark''s remarks amounted to an attack. This claim is clearly ridiculous. John McCain has injected his service as a rationale for his qualification for Presidency. Even if the Obama campaign was coordinating a response of this type, it is not a coordinated attack, but a rather reasonable discussion of what exactly being a prisoner of war has to do with holding the highest executive office in the country. No matter how admirable, standing up to the kind of conditions that John McCain did is not executive, or even foreign policy or defense experience. If McCain wants to complain about this, that is fine. But the McCain campaign is trying to make a perfectly logical and reasonable question (that being: "Does John McCain''s POW experience have anything to do with experience in complicated foreign policy and defense issues?") off limits for this election. Bob Schieffer seemed perfectly willing to support that rationale in his responses to Gen. Clark on Sunday. I hope that the media will begin to look at these remarks in a detached, rational light, and neutralize their own reactions. The umbrage of Mr. Schieffer was unfounded, and hopefully the storied network of CBS will show a little more neutrality in covering McCain''s campaign.