Yes We Can Talk About McCain's Service

Wes Clark stood by his criticism of John McCain in a television interview last night, stressing that while he would "never, never dis someone's service," it is legitimate to discuss what types of military experience are relevant to being commander in chief. Republicans have been twisting Clark's mundane observation that McCain's experience "getting shot down" in a fighter plane is not a "qualification to be president." Clark made the point in response to a question from CBS' Bob Schieffer on Sunday, while noting that he "honor[ed]" McCain's service and considered him a "hero."

Of course, the Republican "outrage" to Clark is both hypocritical, as The Nation's Ari Berman noted, and illogical, since McCain's war experience is laudatory but different than running the country. Professor Sandy Levinson explains:

One might say... that John McCain displayed literally incredible valor in responding to many years of torture in Vietnam; I would also add my admiration for McCain's refusing to bear grudges against those who had been anti-War during the 1960s. But why would any person believe that "getting shot down" (which is precisely what happened to McCain) and then being tortured has anything to do with qualifying one to be President of the United States as against, say, receiving an award for displaying incredible grace under maximum pressure?... Isn't it worth thinking about the fact that the three senators who in fact saw ground combat in Vietnam -- James Webb, Chuck Hagel, and John Kerry -- are all dedicated opponents of the Iraq War?

Webb has even made this exact observation regarding McCain -- comparing facts about their service experience, not ranking their valor:

John McCain was a prisoner of war; I respect what he had to go through... He did not see the ground environment, how difficult things really are on the ground. He did not really see how bad this country was torn apart by the war, for the unfortunate reason that he was in prison. ...Chuck Hagel and I both intrinsically understand how difficult it is in an infantry environment to carry out some of these goals and we both experienced what it was like to come back to a pretty hostile peer group.

Webb did not draw any Republican "outrage" for that analysis, offered last February, because there was no presidential campaign at the time. This would all seem unremarkable, if the mainstream and self-declared "objective" political press could see through the charade and report the facts. But today's Times opens an article about "patriotism and service" by falsely alleging that Clark "diminished Senator John McCain's service as a naval aviator in Vietnam." There's just no way to read Clark's logical observation, offered with "honor" for McCain as a "hero," as diminishing the service. Or as the Columbia Journalism Review's Campaign Desk explained yesterday:

Arguing that a person's record of military service is not a qualification for the presidency does not constitute "attacking" their military credentials; nor can it be described as invoking their military service against them, or as denying their record of war heroism. [Handling this basic idea] is not a very high bar for sophistication. But right now it's one the press isn't capable of clearing.

Ari Melber is the Net movement correspondent for The Nation, where this first appeared.

Continue the discussion at the Net Movement Politics Facebook Group.

Comments

[XME]

This whole thing is completely ridiculous. Clark never said anything negative about McCain's service...only that the service doesn't equal qualified to run the country. That's as true as Obama being a man doesn't mean he's qualified to run the country. McCain is always playing the "wounded" card...wounded by what everyone says that he doesn't like. Just because he doesn't like it doesn't make it wrong or inappropriate.

[LWkcma]

The press doesn't understand anything. They weren't doing their job during the march to war and they aren;t doing it now. The majority of the press are lazy and create news rather than research issues and ask probing questions. They are supposed to help us filter the wheat from the chaff, instead they shovel mountains of fertilizer. We dropped our subscription to our newspaper because they were more concerned with style than substance. The press seems to want to make a race out of this presidential campaign by creating a tempest in a teapot. It's almost ironic [more like moronic] that the press acts outraged that McCain is getting swift boated when they participated in swift boating Kerry. Instead of reporting the news they are too busy creating it.

[westseattle]

Isn't it funny that in '04 it was all about Kerry's service not qualifying him and the media loved it. Now when the Republican argument is turned back on them, it's an outrage the media can't stop talking about. Thanks to the consolidation of the media into corporate conglomerates this is what we're left with while our troops continue to play referee in a civil war with no media coverage. I can't remember the last time I saw recent footage of Iraq in the media but every media outlet is looping Gen Clark's comments trying to twist them into a "terrible attack" on Senator McCain. How about asking about the ethical rebuke he earned in congress for the Savings and Loan scam. Where exactly was McCain during the Iran Contra plan? Haven't heard any questions like those asked yet.

[Moka11]

Wesley Clark has opened a "can of worms" that has sparked faux outrage. He needs to stop now. We all need to stop defending something that is only getting worse. We know what Clark was saying.
We get it.
Wesley Clark is making it worse because he's fighting with the MSM now and Repubs are loving it.

[brighterside]

Why are the republicans loving it? The more the truth comes out to the public the better Americans are informed.

Let Clark fight the MSM. Who cares. Let him defend himself. He can handle it. You can't suppress the truth. Its his message he wants to get across. America is in a dire straits and if we move away from the truth which Clark's speaks of, its only more validation that the republicans has won.

[NABNYC]

McCain flew planes in the Vietnam war and presumably dropped bombs or napalm. Why this continued national denial over what really happened when the U.S. invaded that country and slaughtered 2 million of their citizens? We would rather not think about that. Which is exactly why our leaders are able to manipulate the public into supporting another war of aggression against another country that had not attacked nor threatened to attack, and had no apparent intent or ability to attack the U.S.

Being in war is part of the cult of male which says that men are superior beings; men are strong and should use their physical strength to hit, punch, kick, slap others, the "enemy," or those who disobey; men should kill other humans, and be willing to do so, be enthusiastic about doing so, and only the men who proudly kill other humans are worthy to be our leaders. Fairly primitive outlook, and it's no wonder that we keep electing ignorant brutal war-like men who piss away our resources and bloody our names committing atrocities in other countries.

How about if this time we try to elect someone who is good at getting things done; not a killer, but a worker; not a punch-and-kick guy, but a talk, negotiate, and cooperate guy. Just a thought.

[UncommonSenz]

If you want to see Obama elected president, then Clark's comments did not help.

It doesn't matter what you think about the media, how you parse his words, the merit of the comments, or how "valid" it is to talk about McCain's service. His comments were easily displayed (rightly or wrongly) as "hey, all he did was get shot down", which most people are going to interpret as a slight on the service of a man who spent 5 years in a POW camp. That makes it, emphatically, a loser of an argument for Obama.

Even if I agree with completely with what Clark actually said, crying about the media coverage will not overlook the fact that, if he wanted to help Obama, HE SHOULD NOT HAVE SAID IT. He made it way too easy for the repubs to get exactly the type of coverage they wanted- and loads of it.

I am not attacking the ideas that the media mangled this (as usual), and that legitimate debate should include all sides of the candidates. But the REALITY is that dust ups like this generate sympathy for McCain, put Obama on the defensive, feed a narrative the repubs are concocting that "Obama will do anything to win" and generally hurt him moving forward.

Argue merits all you like, but the net result is damage to Obama.

[Michale32086]

Well said...

And dead on ballz accurate...

Michale.....

[copesthetics]

jeff zeleny is a quack

[RI]

I agree with this post that this is really a story about the main stream media. This is yet another sad example of how they misrepresent a logical statement and make a controversy out of it. It"s a disgrace!

[Indoboy7]

General Clark's statement could not be more clear in its simplicity.Yet, the simple-minded media czars have jumped on it like hyena's jumping at red meat.......Bottom line motivation for the media?..It sells newspapers, gets high TV ratings for emptyheaded talking heads such as CCN, FOX et al...... American voters need to re-think the power ful fundtion of "group-think" in all this.....Bush & Cheney and their gang have said it before: If you don't think like us, you are-agin" us, and a traitor..Wake up America, think for yourselves.........Stop allowing these KArl Rovian tactics to push us -once again- into the dead alley of fear, bias and bigotry.....NOT THIS TIME....

[demfriend]

Clark made the point that being shot down doesn't make McCain qualified to be president and that is true so why is it so many are twisting the comment to serve themselves? It doesn't take many brain cells to know what Clark said wasn't what everyone who has distanced themselves from him and his remarks has decided they meant. That is what I fail to understand is why the people who should first listen to the remarks before they distain/don't agree with, the remarks? The Obama camp has done this a couple of times instead of saying the comments were taken out of context or wre inaccurate.

[Gogetter]

This, unfortunately, is the pathetic way politics is played. The MSM, instead of reporting facts, goes overboard to create a false perception that stirs up controversy. Every MSM outlet edited out Schieffer's part in the exchange with Clark on face the nation, intentionally making Clark's statement seem petty and insulting. Both political camps know that Clark was taken out of context. They also know that once the false perception takes hold, they have to or get to pretend that the false perception is true. Once side, in this case the McCain camp, gets to be all insulted, pretending that they really thought Clark was trying to diminish McCain. The other side, Obama, has to denounce what the media made it seem like clark said. The media even goes so far as to expect an apology from Clark. It would be great of the Obama camp felt they could stand flat foooted and say that Clark said nothing insulting or diminishing about McCain. People are free to debate whether or not his statements are true. But to condemn him for "dishonoring" mccain is out of line.

[freshnotbitter]

The problem with Wesley Clark's comment is that is was 100% correct.

When Wesley Clark sticks to his guns and urges people to look at McCain's record in Congress as the best criteria in evaluating his fitness for office, then people will understand what Wesley Clark meant.

[Tubby]

Oh c'mon! Even Obama found Clark's criticism scurrilous!

[Michale32086]

I think Obama might be in hyper-sensitive mode.. General Clark's comments were not derogatory of John McCain's service at all.. At least, in my not so humble opinion....

Michale.....

[truthynesslover]

Obama cuts off any controvercy before it starts.Remember samatha power??

[westseattle]

No, he just had to say that because he knows you Repubelicans are going to vote for him.

[Michale32086]

I agree that the Media has made too much of General Clark's statement and did not accurately portray it.

Having said that, it is perfectly OK to discuss John McCain's military service..

And, since John Kerry was the subject of so many attacks on his military service, I guess it's only fair that McCain can be attack on his..

However, the Left needs to be cognizant of the fact that military Service to the Right is MUCH MORE important than the Left. For the Left to call into question McCain's military service would be like the Right calling into question Obama's compassion...

There are somethings that are the hallmarks of the political parties.

Compassion is the hallmark of the Democrats.

Military service is the hallmark of the Republicans.

The Left treads there at their own peril..

Michale.....

[jhamm1]

They didn't call into question McCain's military service so much as point out the readily apparent fact that even a distinguished military career does not a good president make. And furthermore, Obama should learn to guard against "looking a gift horse in the mouth", as his recent affinity for dissing a powerful ally on account of the right's propensity for interpreting the General's remarks completely out of context is nothing short of reprehensible.

[Michale32086]

I agree with regards to General Clark's..

But many others on the Left AND the Hysterical Left HAVE called into question McCain's service.

As I said, it's probably fair game, considering John Kerry..

I am just saying that the Left does so at their own peril..

Michale....

[anon004]

"Military service is the hallmark of the Republicans"

I guess I don't know what you mean by "hallmark" when I see the Party's towocurrent standardbearers are Dick "Other Priorites" Cheney and George "AWOL From the National Guard" Bush.

[Michale32086]

Since you can't get beyond already refuted accusations, any further discussions appear moot..

Regardless of your personal hatred of the current president, the simple fact is, it's generally accepted by the voting public that military service is the hallmark of the GOP..

Michale.....