Clark: McCain A Hero, But Lacks Command Experience

WASHINGTON — Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, a former Democratic presidential candidate now supporting Barack Obama, said Sunday John McCain's military service does not automatically qualify him to be commander in chief.

Underscoring during a national television appearance a position he has been expressing for several weeks, Clark said performing heroic military service is not a substitute for gaining command experience.

"In the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "It's a matter of gauging your opponents and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war.

"He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world, but he hasn't held executive responsibility," Clark said. "That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded _ that wasn't a wartime squadron."

Moderator Bob Schieffer, who raised the issue by citing similar remarks Clark has made previously, noted that Obama hadn't had those experiences nor had he ridden in a fighter plane and been shot down. "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," Clark replied.

In a March conference call with reporters while he was still backing Hillary Rodham Clinton, Clark said: "Everybody admires John McCain's service as a fighter pilot, his courage as a prisoner of war. There's no issue there. He's a great man and an honorable man. But having served as a fighter pilot _ and I know my experience as a company commander in Vietnam _ that doesn't prepare you to be commander in chief in terms of dealing with the national strategic issues that are involved. It may give you a feeling for what the troops are going through in the process, but it doesn't give you the experience first hand of the national strategic issues."

He reiterated that position last week in an article on The Huffington Post Web site.

"If Barack Obama's campaign wants to question John McCain's military service, that's their right," McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said after Clark's appearance Sunday. "But let's please drop the pretense that Barack Obama stands for a new type of politics. The reality is he's proving to be a typical politician who is willing to say anything to get elected, including allowing his campaign surrogates to demean and attack John McCain's military service record."

Comments

[HatingTheGame]

But landing on an aircraft carrier with a borrowed flight suit, and a s*it eating smirk on the face, and declaring Mission Accomplished should be qualifications for being a hero and a president.

Oh wait, we've had one of those already, and he's dragged this country down a stinking s*it hole.

Sorry, my bad.

[Cynth]

LOL!

[OverIt]

It is important to note that the designated media sound bite from yesterday’s Face the Nation was in direct response to a question posed to Gen. Clark by Bob Schieffer. The part that many are bristling about --- the specific reference to riding in a fighter plane and being shot down --- those were the EXACT words Schieffer used in his question to Gen. Clark. Perhaps unwisely but I believe without malice, Clark echoed the exact words posed to him in framing his response.

On a substantive level, I personally don’t see any inconsistency in praising and honoring McCain’s service in the military and considering him --- in Sen. Obama’s words --- “a genuine American hero” and also believing that this service does not in and of itself establish his national security credentials. I personally find it disingenuous for McCain to launch a new campaign message that specifically relies on making the connection between his service and national security expertise while simultaneously crying foul when someone like Gen. Clark with obvious expertise in the area addresses substantively whether the connection is warranted.

With his new ads about his POW days and his military service, McCain “opened the door” on the subject. As such, it is fair to consider the complete narrative of that service and whether that adds up to command experience or national security expertise.

[OverIt]

Moreover, as an honored combat veteran himself who is fairly recently retired from service, Gen. Clark is in a unique position to substantively analyze the validity of McCain’s explicit claim to command expertise and to his direct involvement in national security matters in the past two decades.

In my opinion, McCain and the GOP peanut gallery doth protest too much.

And forgive me if I am not buying their outrage and high moral ground on the concept of military service as sacrosanct in light of McCain’s new “Truth Squad” featuring Colonel Bud Day, a longtime McCain ally who was a leading member of the so-called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who smeared John Kerry’s heroic service in Vietnam.

Whereas McCain rightfully called the Swiftboating “dishonest and dishonorable” back in 2004, his newly minted surrogate Day defended their smears as “simply revelation of the truth.” Yet another example of John McCain losing his moral bearings! And in the meantime, Charlie Black, Phil Gramm, Karl Rove and the rest of their squad of dishonor are still on the payroll.

[Glowcy]

the public is not supposed to notice that the emperor-wannabe is wearing no clothes

[gladys46]

The clothes his Mrs wears may or may not be paid for!!

[SwingVoter]

Again, did Clark lie? McCain has crashed 5 planes; 4 non-combat and 1 combat related.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-klein/mccains-secret-questionab_b_107409.html

[04trojan]

Give me a break - of course, Clark is devaluing McCain's service, THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF WHY HE IS SAYING IT! Why else would he say it?

McCain being shot down and a prisoner of war IS a qualification - he served in a time of war (in an actual combat zone) which is something that is tremendously UNDERVALUED in our politicians today. Being a POW gives him more understanding of our troops then any other politician out there.

Does that mean he SHOULD be president? Of course not.

Do I like to ask and answer my own questions? I think that is evident.

McCain's service does not make him a better candidate for president than Obama unless you base your decision on that alone. It is just another factor to differentiate the candidates and it is a big difference since the experiences of each are so clear and objective (one served, the other hasn't). But I just think a lot of people are making it seem like McCain's service is worthless and not a factor in this election, which is wrong. Now let the harping begin.....

[DavieB36]

McCain understands POWs not troops. He served 20 hours in combat at best.

[Grunty1]

His stances on Gitmo say that he doesn't even understand POWs very well.

[04trojan]

Well then, I guess he shouldn't even be in the Senate either. 20 hours in combat, I mean, doesnt EVERYONE have that? LOL, Obama has like 10x that right?

[qdog112]

"Give me a break - of course, Clark is devaluing McCain's service, THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF WHY HE IS SAYING IT! Why else would he say it?"

Because it is TRUE. Devaluation is a red herring - Nobody questions McCain's service - just how that service prepared him for POTUS.

Clark has served in a leadership role which required policy developmental skills.

Is it too hard see how one can praise McCain's service and yet question if that service made him ready?

[04trojan]

I love this, nobody questions his service? Because it sure seems like it.

Basically, it sounds like a lot of people are saying "McCain isn't prepared to be President because he was a POW." Well, of course, that is a straw man argument. If someone believed that, then ANY POW could be President.

BUT McCain is better suited to understand the military and war. That is a fact, serving in the armed forces during a war makes your infinitely more qualified to understand those issues than someone who didn't. You cannot fake or learn that type of experience.

And this whole arguement seems to hurt Obama the most because it just showcases how he has ZERO experience in this area. NONE. I'd rather have McCain and his experiences than Obama and his....non­e. At least McCain has SOME wartime/military experience. I think its funny how Obama supporters can attack someone like McCain on this issue, when Obama is woefully short in this area.

The part that is best is that Obama can keep saying he is all about new politics, "above the fray", while those supporting him attack the other guy (of course it is Clark, a former military commander turned politico that does the attacking, who else would be better?)

[NotMcCain]

He's NOT devaluing it. He's (I believe) irritated by McCain implying repeatedly that being a POW in any way gives him the skillset and military expertise of someone who's actually commanded troops, planned strategy, been held accountable for the outcome, and made decisions that affected the life and possible death of others in their command.

McCain EXPLOITS his POW status over and over and has turned it into an image of foreign and military expertise that in no way is justified.

Clark is trying to point this out.

I'd like to hear some Republicans talk about how much they respect General CLARK'S 30 years of heroic service to his country. Funny, how Republicans seem under no such constraints or expectations to honor people's military service, isn't it?

[04trojan]

I disagree about your first couple paragraphs for reasons mentioned here above and below. I just don't think Clark is there on his own behalf. I understand the premise, McCain isn't a war/national security expert because of his POW-time. Fine, BUT that experience is worthwhile in military affairs that come before the President and it gives him a unique point of view as a President.

I agree on the last thing - I actually like Clark a lot even though he switched to the "other" party. I hoped he would be a "Blue Dog Democrat" but he eventually waffled over to the far left. That is what I had a problem with. I commend his service and thought it was a great qualifier for him to be president. His other problems, like no domestic affairs/economic experience, were his biggest fault.

[meanguy]

and, mr clark, watching your own presidential aspirations sputter to a standstill hardly qualifies you as a political expert-no matter what howard scream says

[gladys46]

Didn't hear that while West stomped on behalf of Hillary!!

[cyndeewi]

Clark is right. You can get angry with him if you want but McCain has not more experience then Obama. Just because someone has a miltary record does not make them presidential.

[DavieB36]

Clark worked in the Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE) program during his Rhodes Scholarship, completing his degree at Magdalen College at the University of Oxford

[thewolf1]

This whole business regarding military service and the role of the "commander in chief" has become enormously exaggerated. The president is not a general, nor is he expected to become one. He is expected to represent all the people, and to mobilize the executive branch to serve the public, at home as well as overseas. For goodness sake, Dwight Eisenhower had mitiary advisors!

[grf67]

GEN Clark is correct and I am disappointed that Sen Obama caved to the rigthwing. The criticism came from a bunch that did not the courage to serve in the active military. Sen McCain's reported couage in captivity does not offset his legacy of poor decisions in the Senate. Sen McCains's 23 years in the military do not qualify him for the Office of the President anymore than my 25 years in the military would qualify me.

[qdog112]

"GEN Clark is correct and I am disappointed that Sen Obama caved to the rigthwing"

I don't think Barack caved. He gave a very nuanced response regarding devaluation, but I did not hear him say Clark was wrong. I think he agrees with Clark, but the MSM is so protective that they never address the issue of how McCain's service prepares him - only that someone had the audacity to pose the question.

It's time for McCain to tell us about that "untouchable skill set."

[NotMcCain]

"Nuanced response" = "caved in".

He should have said General Clark, of all people, has the right to his opinion on this. And, further, that being a POW might be a character issue, but has nothing to do with military or foreign policy expertise.

He could have been supportive without undermining McCain. I admit it. I'm disappionted.

[JavaCityGal]

Exactly what is wrong with what Clark said? Being shot down and even being a POW -- doesn't automically make one qualified to be President. That's not questioning McSame's military's record, it's questioning his capacity to be President -- so what's the problem?

[daninma]

HuffPost's Pick

HOW is it possible to find ANYTHING controversial in Clark's remarks? EXPLAIN IT TO ME PLEASE!!! He heaped praise on Mccain and said he was a hero, but that heroism, while it may make him personally brave, says nothing about his ability to develop policy or give orders. NO ONE has explained how there is ANYTHING wrong with that, and yet somehow a controversy has come up. How is it possible to take a statement that is mostly complimentary and absolutely, 100% undeniably factual, and call it some kind of unfair attack? You can only make that claim if you are lying or so shockingly hypersensitive that you should not be allowed to play with others because you lack the spine to function in society. This is the dumbest cpontroversy so far, can anyone name one that made less sense than this? Everyone promoting this story should be held up for ridicule. That may seem cruel and I apologize if anyone gets their feelings hurt, but in an election this important I think we need to make sure that no one is bullied into pretending the truth isn't the truth, which is exactly what Obama just alllowed Mccain to do to him. Obama discredited a remark from an ally that it should not have been possible for him to denounce. It's the equivalent of forcing him to apologize for 2+2=4. This is madness.

[AmHope]

Exactly.

[Rjmartinelli]

You know, you beat me to this comment. I have no clue either how this is demeaning at all. He praised Sen McCain for his service but pointed out that the Senator has not held an executive command position in which he had to command during wartime.

It's not that such a command is a requirement, but when such efforts are being made to boast John McCain's military record as an example of how he is better suited for National Security than Senator Obama, the entire argument becomes absurd.

[cyndeewi]

How the heck could Obama apologize for what is the truth. I am finished with Obama. The man is a wimp.

[Rjmartinelli]

He didn't apologize. He's sticking to his promise to run a clean campaign.

If he joins in the attack he surrenders that as well as hands the GOP another avenue to attack him with ("Obama never served, what does he know").

He's playing it smart.

[JustDealWithIt]

"Beyond a loyalty to America's ideals, beyond a willingness to dissent on behalf of those ideals, I also believe that patriotism must, if it is to mean anything, involve the willingness to sacrifice - to give up something we value on behalf of a larger cause. For those who have fought under the flag of this nation - for the young veterans I meet when I visit Walter Reed; for those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country - no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary. And let me also add that no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides."

He also said in a separate statement that he "rejected Clark's comments."

Obama can't come out hard on this issue- he can't battle McCain in the area of military experience or he'll be slammed on that front too. Obama's remaining consistent with his message that he would not attack any candidate, least of all McCain, on their military service or patriotism. To my knowledge he hasn't asked and won't ask Clarke to apologize. McCain's camp turned this into an Obama attack on McCain, his military service, and his patriotism rather than keep it between himself and Clark- probably because Obama is the easier target here; there's no way McCain could compare his record to Clark's and come out on top.

[daninma]

". Obama's remaining consistent with his message that he would not attack any candidate, least of all McCain, on their military service or patriotism­."

But where was the attack? I saw NO attack on service or patriotism. Clark applauded McCain's service AND patriotism, he just pointed out the fact that this is not the sort of command experience McCain and his supporters pretend it is. Obama doesn't have that experience either, but he is basing his campaign more on his judgement and ability to inspire. McCain's campaign is more about his experience, and that experience advantage he keeps touting is not what most people think. There is absolutley nothing here.

[ssb752]

"allowing his campaign surrogates to demean and attack John McCain's military service record."
It isn't the Record that's being "attacked," it is the person. Big difference. Great spin though.

[meanguy]

oh, sure, ad hominem attacks are a step UP for the obamanites

[helonias]

But isn't true that the Navy thought that JM didn't have thee experience to become an admiral.

Even though daddy and grand daddy were.

[StillAmused]

Still waiting for someone -- anyone -- to dispute Clark's observation ON THE FACTS.

... unless you believe that dropping 500-pounders on people you can't see from 10,000 feet constitutes "command experience" and foreign policy credentials.

While bin Laden was eloping from Tora Bora, McSurge was championing Junior's disastrous and immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq... which had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

[chronic]

O.K., where did Wes Clark lie or attack?


Oh, and he better not apologize!!!

[Shaddup]

Let's see, an ex-admiral wannabe who wrecked three jets and would have been taken off the list if dad hadn't been an admiral. A guy who graduated fifth from last out of a school of almost 900 grads. Can't keep an opinion straight on the war, torture, campaign funding. Treats women badly. Is against the GI bill but then tries to take credit for it. Forgets to pay taxes for four years at a time on one of his seven houses. And flies around in his wife's jet while calling the other candidate an "elitist." Oh, and has no foreign policy experience other than going shopping with a flak jacket on and getting overcharged by the locals who later laugh about it behind his back.

Where was Clark wrong?

[NoFactsJustTruth]

For Mc-same-ol­'same-ol', the TRUTH has to hurt.