Comments on: Get Smart http://communicationisinspiration.com/2008/07/01/get-smart/ Generation 2 Generation: Let's Talk Fri, 02 Jul 2010 19:09:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=Communication is Inspiration hourly 1 By: jack nadel http://communicationisinspiration.com/2008/07/01/get-smart/comment-page-1/#comment-1127 jack nadel Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:18:42 +0000 http://communicationisinspiration.com/2008/07/01/get-smart/#comment-1127 Curious George, Your criticism of General Wesley Clark's statement is a perfect example of obscuring the facts of the truth of his statement. I saw and heard the original comment on the Sunday talking heads and then the next day on Good Morning America. I was totally surprised by the insulted reaction by you and the way the stories are spun by the politicians and press. The only thing I heard the General say was that being a naval pilot and being in prison for 51/2 years did not give Senator McCain tremendous qualifications for being Commander in Chief. This has nothing to do with the debt that all Americans owe to Senator McCain for his heroic services to his country. Long before I heard General Clark make the statement, I was telling my friends in jest that with the publicity on Senator McCain, I should also be qualified to be Commander in Chief since I flew 27 combat missions over Japan in a B-29. I had the good fortune not to be shot down. This experience does not equip me to be an expert on tactical bombing. My job was to get the airplane to the target and dropping the bombs as ordered. I did not have a grasp of the big picture....we all did our job as did Senator McCain for whom I have the greatest admiration. Why do you obscure the facts by demeaning the character and/or the experience of Senator Obama and General Wesley Clark? Curious George,

Your criticism of General Wesley Clark's statement is a perfect example of obscuring the facts of the truth of his statement. I saw and heard the original comment on the Sunday talking heads and then the next day on Good Morning America. I was totally surprised by the insulted reaction by you and the way the stories are spun by the politicians and press.

The only thing I heard the General say was that being a naval pilot and being in prison for 51/2 years did not give Senator McCain tremendous qualifications for being Commander in Chief. This has nothing to do with the debt that all Americans owe to Senator McCain for his heroic services to his country.

Long before I heard General Clark make the statement, I was telling my friends in jest that with the publicity on Senator McCain, I should also be qualified to be Commander in Chief since I flew 27 combat missions over Japan in a B-29. I had the good fortune not to be shot down. This experience does not equip me to be an expert on tactical bombing. My job was to get the airplane to the target and dropping the bombs as ordered.
I did not have a grasp of the big picture….we all did our job as did Senator McCain for whom I have the greatest admiration.

Why do you obscure the facts by demeaning the character and/or the experience of Senator Obama and General Wesley Clark?

]]> By: Curious George http://communicationisinspiration.com/2008/07/01/get-smart/comment-page-1/#comment-1124 Curious George Wed, 02 Jul 2008 20:07:28 +0000 http://communicationisinspiration.com/2008/07/01/get-smart/#comment-1124 On what basis is General Clark a heroic and admirable man if John McCain isn't? Clark says that McCain was just a guy who "rode in planes and got captured." But Clark is just an incompetent general who was fired by President Clinton. Why do you lend him credibility? Furthermore, just four years ago, Clark said quite adamantly that John Kerry was eminently qualified to be president on the precise grounds that he now dismisses in McCain, i.e., that Kerry was a "decorated war hero" (despite Kerry's obviously having had a far less impressive military career than McCain, and then coming home and trashing our veterans as genocidal maniacs on the level of Ghengis Khan). What is really going on is that Obama's surrogates are trying to undermine McCain's real achievements in order to obscure the fact that Obama has none. After all, we are about to elect a man president whose only life achievement is having been a professional community agitiator and writing a mediocre book about his personal psychodrama. On what basis is General Clark a heroic and admirable man if John McCain isn't? Clark says that McCain was just a guy who "rode in planes and got captured." But Clark is just an incompetent general who was fired by President Clinton. Why do you lend him credibility?

Furthermore, just four years ago, Clark said quite adamantly that John Kerry was eminently qualified to be president on the precise grounds that he now dismisses in McCain, i.e., that Kerry was a "decorated war hero" (despite Kerry's obviously having had a far less impressive military career than McCain, and then coming home and trashing our veterans as genocidal maniacs on the level of Ghengis Khan).

What is really going on is that Obama's surrogates are trying to undermine McCain's real achievements in order to obscure the fact that Obama has none. After all, we are about to elect a man president whose only life achievement is having been a professional community agitiator and writing a mediocre book about his personal psychodrama.

]]>