A Military Leader: McCain Would "Pose Unacceptable Risk to National Security"

Check out this critique of John McCain from Lt. Col. Robert G. Gard:

The fields of foreign and national security policy, however, are John McCain's disqualifying weaknesses, in my view. McCain has demonstrated clearly that he is a dedicated ideologue when it comes to foreign policy, unwilling to consider opinions or even credible evidence contrary to his preconceived notions.

Most of our disasters are from ideology blinding leaders from truth.

His temperament, marked not only by impatience but also by rude and sometimes hostile behavior, would discourage advisors from bringing to his attention views that might not be consistent with his preconceptions. A President with this combination of significant shortcomings would be a dangerous commander-in-chief, posing an unacceptable risk to the security of the nation.

OK, Security First, Country First folks - then you need Barack Obama.

No President can be conversant with all the problems and issues he or she will face. More important than a specific set of experiences are high intelligence, good judgment, a steady and even temperament, and a willingness to consider options presented by advisors who have been selected for their expertise.

A few months ago, I met in a small group with Senator Obama in his office to discuss a contentious security issue. People with different, even opposite, views had been invited to attend. Obama listened carefully and asked penetrating questions, confirming my observations concerning his intelligence and temperament.

I believe that Barack Obama possesses the requisite qualifications to serve far more effectively as President of the United States and commander-in-chief of the U.S. military than his opponent, John McCain.

So much for the smear campaign waged by the McCain campaign.

Hail to the Chief

And while you're at it, folks, it wouldn't hurt to try a little prostration...

Hey,I just signed my first Royal Decree on May 9th, and nobody even gave a hoot. Well, we have to start out real democratic-like, using all the right words, like "Constitutional", "democratic" and "separation of powers." Who would think "proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers" means what I say it means: Congress and the Courts stay out of it! If there's an emergency, somebody's got to be in charge! And that somebody's got to be The Executive... yours truly.

And now we're doing something about it! Right here in writing, the President's National Security and Homeland Security Decree that I signed...

"The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, sir."

Right, thank you. As I said, this would finally, at last, give the people what they want in a time of national crisis, in say a terrorist attack like 9-11 - Remember 9-11 - yep, and remember how we all pulled together for America. For patriotism. For the flag. For what it all stands for. For the President. And I stood tall. And I stood for what we needed. We needed strength. At the top. We needed The Executive. And that would be ... yours truly...

So you'll be glad to know it reads here in black-n-white: "The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government." That's of course in case of an emergency.

"Mr. President, does that mean we would have martial law and you would have dictatorial powers?"

(Aside) Who's this guy? Get him the @#&#$#!&(%$ out of here!

(To the young questioner) Sorry- could hardly hear ya. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Look, it says right here: we'd have a "cooperative effort" with the legislative and the judicial. Says here, this effort would be, and I quote: "coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers." That means respect and that means democracy.

"But Mr. President, do you know what 'comity' means?"

Of course, I know what it means, but that's not the point. The point is that someone's in charge in time of crisis, so we don't have any more fiascos, if you know what I mean...

(Aside) What's "comity"? (Aide answers softly) "Courtesy."

And just to let you know, "comity" means that thing we need more of in government, "courtesy."

"So you're saying the involvement of the legislative and judicial branches in government at that point would be just a matter of courtesy? That means, no checks. And without checks, no balances."

Sorry, you're wrong. Already said we'd have "proper respect for the Constitutional balance of power." That means checks and balances. Nananana - na - na...

"And who determines how 'respect' is to be shown?"

The buck stops here, young man.

"You?"

Yours truly.

"The Commander-in-Chief?"

Affirmative.

"We're supposed to completely trust you to make all the decisions in a time of crisis, and no one can oppose you unless you happen to respect them. As the Commander-in-Chief, that makes you Military Dictator. So our security in a crisis - like we never had crises before 9-11 - is supposed to be enhanced by giving the President the powers of Military Dictator. Is that right?"

I like to think of it as "King". And I already decreed it. So as a loyal subject, all you have to do is ... obey it.

And while you're at it, it wouldn't hurt to try a little prostration...