I've been running VoteVets.org for a couple of years now. In 2006 and in 2008, we've endorsed a number of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans for Congress. It's still a story that the press is largely interested in, and when they call me to talk about it, I always -- always -- get the same first question:
What is it about their honorable service in Iraq and/or Afghanistan that qualifies them to go to Congress?
It's a legit question, and neither I, nor any of the candidates, take any umbrage at it. As veterans of the current conflicts, they have a unique perspective on the wars that should be part of the debate on the floor of Congress, and a vote that helps shapes our security policy.
Yesterday, John McCain was asked basically the same question by a brave reporter at ABC News. The reporter, not falling for the hysterics and mock-outrage of the McCain camp over General Wesley Clark's comments simply asked what John McCain's experiences in Vietnam did to prepare him to lead the largest military on the face of the earth.
"Please," he said, recoiling back in his seat in distaste at the very question.
Uh uh. That's not good enough. You would assume that given all the whining over General Clark's legitimate point, that John McCain had some obvious answer to the question. Instead, he refused to answer the question, and let Joe Lieberman and Lindsay Graham come to his defense, babbling to the reporter about character, but not a word about qualifications.
The fact of the matter is that General Clark was absolutely right. McCain's service, while heroic and honorable, is not very relevant when it comes to preparing him to be the military's ultimate commander. His experience didn't involve executive decision making in the military, or global strategy. Very few candidates for the presidency have had the experience in life that prepares them for that role. In fact, McCain said it himself in 2003, that some of our best Commanders in Chief had no military experience at all.
That's why the McCain campaign went into all-out outrage mode over General Clark's comments. It wasn't about being offended. It wasn't even about General Clark. It was about lashing out so strongly that the media would cower in fear, and not even think about putting a question like this to McCain -- a question to which he has no answer, and is afraid of being exposed on that point. And, for most of the week, that strategy was successful, as the press wimped out, and repeated the McCain talking points.
The reporter from ABC News didn't fall for it, and did his job. But he didn't get an answer. Maybe now, reporters will stuff their guts back in their bodies and keep asking McCain this legit question -- a question I get a version of all the time from the same reporters.
It's a legit question, and it's a question for which the American people deserve an answer.
Follow Jon Soltz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jonsoltz
The entire Republican presidential campaign is about John McCain (or Mike Huckabee) being the Party Stooge and the scapegoat. There are only a handful of politicians that actually believe this is a legitimate candidate or they wouldn't be so desperate in everything they say or do. Have you listened to Lyndsay Graham lately. Chances are this will be his last term in the Senate so he's going for broke. Same with Lieberman.
John McCain - possibly the most deluded human on the planet. The accidental hero. Sorry, I respect his service and the ordeal he went through. He was tortured. That is no excuse for unleashing his disconnected - disjointed, hardly resolvable circular logic on the American public. Shame on AZ for electing this fraud in the first place.
Wait until the military procurement, real estate and other banking regulatory shady deals get really examined. McCain is AZ's version of Sen. Ted Stevens.
Binx101
The Almost Daily Binx
http://binx101.wordpress.com
Not only because he was not prepared but in addition he very well knows that there is no such thing as automatic qualification - same as automatic delegates. All made up!
He knows it, we know it, but obviously most of the Media doesn't call his bluff yet. While i think that Military service can, but must not necessarily, contribute to ones ability to lead the country and the Military it can not be the sole qualification - furthermore i believe that at some point it is better to have someone from "the outside" than from within to bring in new ideas and approaches to problems. McCain noted that as well in 2003 as you rightfully mentioned.
Wesley Clark was right. Unfortunately, by the time he completed his statement, no one was listening - they were all in shock over what they thought they heard first; namely that "McCain's heroism didn't qualify him to be President."
Which is not what Gen. Clark said nor meant.
Instead of structuring his comment like a CEO (i.e. making his point first and then explaining it with details later) he should have structured his comments like a politician (i.e. laying out context first and then making his point at the end).
That point being: "An ever more complex world will require a leader with a far more varied skill-set than just heroism; however noble that might be."
It might be fitting to make the following closing note - The freeing of the hostages in Columbia without a shot being fired reminds us that sometimes it's better to "fight smart" than to "fight hard and stupid."
The fact remains that he lacks character, is ill tempered, and is not fit to be President. When he doesn't know the difference between Iraq and Iran, or Shiia and Sunni, one must question his graps of the issues. When he denies statements he ahss made three days earlier (on numourous occasions), one must question whether he is just a liar, or is that out of touch with his mental acuity. That he now denies he ever said he was not an expert on the economy demoonstrates the latter - he just doen't eat his wheaties anymore.
And the only reason the press doesn't cut lose on his gaffs is because 1) he is on the committee that oversees the FCC, 2) has demonstrated in the past he will use that position to influence decisions, and 3) is ill temptered enough to take retribution.
There are numerous accounts of McCain using his power to influence the outcome of defense contracts, land buys and investigations. However the more damaging of all might be found in the Abramoff investigation led by McCain while on the Indian Affairs Committee .
After collecting over 750,000 pages of documents he released less than 7,000. McCain promised to follow the money, but shut down the investigation instead. Had he not it would have doomed Bush's re-election bid.
Abramhoff's job was moving large sums of money off the books that could be used late in an election cycle to flood the zone and win for the GOP.
The lobbying system Abramoff worked in was designed by Charlie Black, McCain's senior campaign advisor.
Apparently McCain's indignation stems from a sense of "entitlement" considering he is backed by a lot of power: the media, the entire Bush administration and Charlie Black.
This guy talks about it at each chance as if he is clinging to it and with each opening he rolls it out like a trump card.
From this stance on the war and his views on supporting military vets, it doesn't sound like his experiences taught him anything at all.
And your response begs the question: "Did you get the point in this article?" I don't think so. You've missed the point entirely.
I don't believe he felt he was qualified to be President.
obama '08 & 2012
Our real hope is a far better informed public. A show such as 60 minutes covering the real behind the scenes issues behind the price of gas would have the same uninformed people advocating drilling pissed off for being played for the chumps they are.
And any question becomes an ATTACK.