No, I want you to stop. There's a huge difference between debating an issue, and slandering someone without substantiation. It really gets obnoxious when you then suggest what they should have done when you have no experience in that area.
I realize that, which is why I'm telling you, from personal experience, that everyone reacts differently in that situation, and there's no predicting what that reaction will be.
Combat isn't some damned John Wayne movie Lib, and not everyone COULD, or WOULD have done what Clark did. You're also getting caught up in the BS. Just because Clark is being an a$$hole doesn't mean that you have to be one too. If I were having this discussion with Clark himself, I'd be telling him the same them; STFU and quit being an a$$hole.
There's nothing "sketchy" about his Silver Star citation, and it clearly enumerates the reasons for it. The Silver Star is awarded for Gallantry, not "bravery", and if his Commanding Officer, based on interviews with the members of Clark's Platoon (a REQUIREMENT for any such award) believed that he was due the award, the he DESERVED IT. Now, the fact is simple, YOU are the one making the accusation that Clark does not deserve his Silver Star, the burden of proof is on YOU, and lacking that proof, you're engaging in slander, PERIOD.
It's not "the skimpiest" of evidence, for a Silver Star to be awarded, his Commander was compelled, by regulations, to conduct an investigation, and interview any and all available surviving members of the action for their testimony to Clark's actions. By questioning his Silver Star, you're calling not only his former CO a liar, you're also calling every man in his Platoon a liar. Now, LET IT GO.
Why, you wouldn't believe me. You'd just say that it was "skimpy" evidence, and try to brush it under the rug, just like you're trying to do with the honor of Clark's CO and the men in his Platoon.
Look, I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I don't like Clark, never have and never will, I think his politics suck, and the fact that he would even make a statement bringing up McCains service and trying to equate it to qualifications for POTUS to be, as PFOS put it, "gutter politics" (which is indicitive of what I expect from a Chairborne Ranger), BUT that does NOT give me carte` blanche to engage in the same type of rhetoric, because if anything, Clark just called his own qualifications for higher office into question. If McCains service is no reason for him to be considered for POTUS, then neither is Clark's. IOW, he just shot himself in the foot, in front of the whole world. Simply said, if Clark is ever considered for public office again (VPOTUS under Obama perhaps?), and he tries to tout his military record as a qualification, he's just provided the ammunition to blow him completely out of the water.
