McCain Flips At Legit Question

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.

McCain's response?

"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

Comments

[lainey]

General Wesley Clark deserves our utmost respect. He is a hero. Anyone painting him to the contrary is out of line.

[krocklin]

Jon - You and Keith Olbermann are the only people in the media who have not sold out and don't mince your words. I particularly like your tv appearances when you debate other vets who support the war and try to smear you and other truth tellers.
You and Paul also are excellent. If only they would give you more airtime.
Rachel Maddow and Arriana Huffington also come to mind.
And Wesley Clark too. Of course he has an even more difficult job since he's such a highly visible target.
The voices of sanity are still too few I'm afraid.

[Chuckoff]

Obama has been deemed to lack the qualifications to be commander chief based upon a lack of military experience. Clark's comment was simple and direct, does being a prisoner of war, a war over 34 years old, give someone experience necessary to be the commander in chief, and if so, how?

Abe Lincoln had no, repeat no experience in the military. He, like Obama, was a lawyer and politician. Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America, was a West Point graduate, who prided himself on the military skills he gained in the Mexican-American War as a colonel of a volunteer regiment, and as U.S. Secretary of War under Franklin Pierce. Who won the war between the states? Abe Lincoln!

[hopefinder]

What is also interesting about Gen Clark's comments and the subsequent firestorm is that the McCain camp wants to go back to his service in Vietnam as an example of his character and courage. The issue they need to deal with and what the media needs to focus on is what happened upon his return to America. It is a known fact that McCain started running around on his wife Carol, then dumped her, probably because of her disfigurement. He started going with Cindy while still married to Carol; then dumped Carol and married Cindy. Is that character? If McCain and his cohorts are going all the way back to Vietnam to bring up his military service as an example of his character and courage, then everything after Vietnam is fair game to be looked into by the media. Come on media look into it. McCain does not have the character nor the temperament to be president.

[NateJ]

Abe Lincoln didn't win the war. Seriously, presidents don't win wars. They just start them.

[shadow322]

I kept an open mind on Sen. McCain when he received the Republican nomination. Taking my voting role seriously though, I can not vote for Republican candidates at this time. I consider myself a conservative. I have no idea what it is that they are selling but it is not conservatism - just a declaration of the word appears to satisfy this current group from the GOP (of which I supported for 14 years). Sen. McCain has a serious flaw in his character. His strategy seems to be throwing stones at the opposition every day while avoiding any real discussion involving the facts and issues that concern us. He is OK at repeating the sound bites his supporters provide to him but to discuss or go deeper into an issue!!!??? He is so far past his prime - and in his prime, he wasn't really that good anyway.

[pdsimdars]

You're the best, as usual. All it takes is a simple, non-hysterical statement of an issue to see the complete common sense and truth in it.

[jonathanu]

Having the Republican party recoil in horror, shock and outrage, all in unison, means that General Clark hit a nerve. I much prefer to have the Republicans defensive than the Democrats.

General Clark made a legitimate point, but let's pose the question a different way. Service in the military and the fact that John McCain made it through 5 years as a POW does demonstrate strength of character. But how does one learn the finer points of military strategy, or international relations while stuck in a cell for 5 years? Not taking that question head-on and responding to it, but rather being defensive, and having surrogates act outraged made McCain look like a wimp, (just as the outrage over the Swift boaters made John Kerry look like a wimp in the absence of a meaningful response from the candidate himself). But making McCain look like a wimp is a good thing, and it should happen more often.

Thank you Jon Soltz for stripping away the spin on the question of John McCain's qualifications, and keeping this discussion going. This is a discussion that American voters need to engage in.

[woodguru]

I want to see someone like Barbara Walters in sit down discussion asking McCain about the screaming tirade years on the hill and what was up with that. How about how he could leave a wife and the mother of his kids when she was crippled and disfigured from a horrible auto accident?

These are questions that can't be answered by attacks on Obama, they are about McCain.

[jsinclair]

Yes. But what bothered me most was this:

Every time ANYONE speaks about McCain's service, they preface it with "...brave hero...ser­ved his country...­." etc.

Every time people spoke about Clark, their remarks had NONE of that.

Why didn't Republicans ever preface their remarks about CLARK with the same, "We honor his 30 years of service and his heroism and bravery, BUT....." that Democrats ALWAYS say about McCain????

And Democrats were pathetic in their weak-kneed defense of Clark's freedom of speech (and valid points). I never heard any of them talk about "what this nation owes Wes Clark" or "If anyone has earned the right to raise these questions, its a man who has 30 years of military service and has reached the highest leadership level there is in the military."

Or something.

Instead. They let Clark be swiftboated (smeared) and discredited.

The weakness of Democrats continues to be appalling to me. Fight Back, dam**it!!!!

Obama / Clark '08 -- still the best ticket

[booker52]

The media and I am now speaking of MSNBC act like McCain and his military service should be untouchable, I say BS. I say McCain isn't a saint, nor should everytime they speak of him should they start of with the word HERO!!!!! If that were the case, them every man and woman that fought in the Viet Nam war should be given that same respect in my book!!!!!

[jfriday829]

I second that.

[Mock38]

Many Dems are wimps.

Clark has a brilliant military career including top NATO commander.

He was a grunt officer in 'Nam...and fought the Viet Cong and led his troops in battle after being seriously wounded. He was awarded the Silver star.

The Dems have not used guys like Clark effectively. They just do not understand his dedication and deep respect for the military.

Clark does not make a good pol, but he is a most decent and honorable man.

[krocklin]

The Democrats have GOT to eliminate this "advantage" supposedly held by McCain: "experience, military background, 26 years in Washington".
These are all detriments - not qualifications - and the Democrats need to hammer away that Rumsfeld and Cheney had plenty of experience and guided the country into the mess it is in.
I can barely believe all these polls that show that McCain is "stronger on terrorism" - after Bush, whose policies he supports????.
The Republicans are actually having success with the absurd notion that Democrats brought about 9/11 and are responsible for the high price of oil. Absurdities and big lies are effective unless forcefully confronted.
Obama is too timid to state the obvious and what Americans already believe. They dont need convincing of the obvious at this stage, but they do need the lies exposed at every opportunity lest they will tend to believe them.
Instead all Obama is doing is seemingly agreeeing with or tolerating rightwing policies.
Ron Paul is the ONLY politician who persistently adopts the correct moral tone on the Iraq War - he never fails to make his point: we have destroyed that country while wasting our resources for no constructive purpose.
There could be no more disastrous policy but the Republicans are now painting it as some kind of great success - and very successfully.
So lets not mince words. Reagan seldom did in advocating his extreme wrong headed ideas, so why not when you are right and McCain is wrong forcefully confront

[ecsiwingo]

So let me get this straight, if MaCain changes his mind it is flip floping and if Oboma changes his mind he is moving to the center. Oboma has said from the beginning that he would pull out of Iraq as soon as he was in office. Now Oboma is saying he would be willing to move his time table. Oboma is the sameold sameold...­..The real difference is that he is somewhere between a socialist and a communist

On Iraq ......If some thug was kicking our butts and raping our women and somebody came and got us out of it would we complain about it. If sombody was kicking your butt all up and down the street would you want somebody to help you before you got killed.

[jsinclair]

If GWB has proven anything, its that stubborn adherence to a position, regardless of changing information, is nothing to brag about.

The whole idea of criticizing someone for simply changing a plan or idea--regardless of the MERITS of the new plan or idea--is one of the STUPIDEST Republican ideas that I've ever seen the sheep-like public--and media--accept.

Absolutely. Ridiculous.

[dagnew]

Right on!

[barackobama4prez]

Double Talk Express: http://www.bi30.org/wordpress/flipflopper.htm

[Cilantro33309]

MourningDude, you actually posted this comment:

Obama was uninformed about Iraq. He simply did not have access to the relevant information necessary to use "good judgment". That's not his fault, but to point to that as proof of "good judgment" is borderline insanity as far as I'm concerned.

Ok, now, the guys who had all the "access to the relevant information:" then lied about it and attacked a sovereign nation without UN backing, without an exit strategy, without overwhelming force, but somehow "relevant information" is something that might be important to the GOP in the future...j­ust not in relation to either of the 2 wars we were lied into. Do I have that right? And so now let's surround our next president with largely the same GOP "advisers" and see how it turns out. Is that the plan?

That's why I'm voting Obama '08. We can't afford more GOP "good judgement" from their "relevant information".

[normathumb]

And this is to say nothing about how McCain has shown, over and over again, that he doesn't know who is fighting whom in Iraq. Talk about uninformed, he has to have somebody next to him whispering corrections in his ear.

[Berettasskeeter]

Odd! You folks continually state that we must listen to what Obama means instead of what he says. But, you want us to listen only to what McCain says, and not what he means. Why is that?
Semper fi

[MourningDude]

Making the best decision on incomplete information will not always yield the best results.

Based on the information available to him Bush, decided war was necessary. So did John Edwards, Dianne Feinstein, Carl Levin, Jay Rockefeller, and many others who had the best available information.

In hindsight looking back from 2008, they made a bad decision. But that doesn't mean they exhibited bad judgment, especially when you consider what they had available to them at the time.

US intelligence, British intelligence, and Russian intelligence all agreed that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons. That was not even up for debate at the time because the international consensus was so strong. So when they all turn out to be wrong, it seems extremely arrogant and egotistical for someone here on HuffPo to say "I knew better all along!"

And I'm still waiting for anyone to explain why Obama's gut feelings (their definition of "good judgment", apparently) should take precedence over facts and top secret intelligence should he take office.

[renoir]

Hans Blix and his UN inspectors said ALL ALONG that there were no weapons of mass destruction.

I live in a tiny town in rural northern Arizona and I knew that we were going to war for trumped-up reasons. Anyone who was listening to anyone besides the mouthpieces for this administration did. You can bank on the fact that all of the above mentioned Dems who went along with this war did so not because they actually believed a damn thing the Bush administration said, but because the Republican smear machine was so strong and the drums for war so loud, that they went along with the majority of uninformed manipulated American public... for political expediency and because they had a complete lack of moral courage. Bush and his minions WANTED THIS WAR. How can you not get that? They wanted it and they made it happen, and the crushed any dissenter that was in their way. Richard Clarke. Joseph Wilson. Hans Blix.

[bgregs]

To claim that Edwards, Feinstein, Levin, Rockefeller, and others had the best available information is a lie!!! bush lied to EVERYONE!!! Luckily, some of us, like Obama, and myself, were able to make an informed decision on the OTHER information that DIDN'T go through bush!!!

[Cilantro33309]

Here are 10 Awesomely good reasons why not to vote for McCain....

http://www.alternet.org/election08/89686/

He will only continue that hell. He may not have a choice, after all. He will be surrounded by the GOP.

[DrFitz]

This is when you REALLY miss Tim Russert. He's the only one I can think of who would ask, expect a real answer, and dig in until he got one.

[carlgt1]

I really doubt Tim Russert would have touched this question with a 10-foot pole as he would be terrified of being labelled "unpatriotic" for daring to question Emperor McBush's new invisible camouflage clothes...

[RussT]

Obama for FISA and re-thinking his timetable of troop withdrawal on Iraq.

Who was duped? Moveon.org must be feeling a major burn right about now.

The war on Terror will be won! No matter who is President! We played you libs like no tomorrow!

[moreupnorth]

Who was duped? Unfortunately the American people, People like yourself.

[bgregs]

War on terror? Won? Please explain what you mean, since there is no way to "win" a "war" against a terrorist group using traditional military means!

[standard]

MourningDude, here's your apparent logic: "If I say Obama acts without good judgment, and without facts, that's unassailable--if I define 'facts' to mean only official intelligence reports to which Obama lacked access (and if no one challenges that definition) and 'without good judgment' to mean relying on anything but 'facts' (as I've defined them)."

However, facts (as conventionally defined) also include the facts generally known which, combined with an appreciation of the context, can get you pretty far. John F. Kennedy famously said that 90% of what showed up in the classified reports he received as President was already published in the public press (I think he specified Time magazine). Obama reasoned to a pretty good conclusion based on the facts at hand, if not facts received exclusively from any one source.

Also, HAVING access to official intelligence reports confers good judgment on no one--and having access to Bush Administration intelligence reports has often conveyed facts (as conventionally defined) to no one.

Let's take a chance on the judgment and administrative skills of the nice Columbia/Harvard Law honors graduate who just ran about the best primary campaign in history, opposes preemptive war and wants to restore habeas corpus--rather than the chap who was graduated from the Naval Academy, low in his class, and whose core beliefs include yelling a lot, more war, unlimited offshore drilling and tax breaks for the rich.

And "borderline insanity"? Isn't that the Bush/McCain policy on immigration?

[Cilantro33309]

Very well said, standard. And of course let us not forget that a McCain presidency, regardless whether he is or is not bush himself, will be surrounded by much of the bush people and therefore will take us in much the same direction.

Pile on the possibility that all 4 of the left-leaning Supreme Court Justices could possibly be leaving within the next 4 to 6 years and you have a McCain presidency that could change our country in ways none of us wants.

Then consider the Justice Department and what the gop has done to that...do you want McCain to continue that slide into a lawless, puppet-like DOJ? Obama would not allow that to continue.

There's too much to lose here. I don't care if you don't like the DNC for what they did to Hillary or simply don't want to vote for a black man. In the end, McCain will continue down this destructive path for our country and we literally can't afford it.

Obama '08. THINK. He is the only answer.

[phal4875]

You expressed the position very well. We have a choice between an obviously intelligent and reasonable man and another person who is either intellectually limited or intellectually lazy. We have already had seven years of another person with very limited curiosity. McCain is angry and appears to be barely holding onto his temper with distressing frequency.

[Berettasskeeter]

Yeah. Let's give the Socialist/Marxist a chance to ruin the American economy; gut a strong, capable military; eliminate or demonize freedom of expression and association. That's what we want now, after so many years of growth, prosperity, and expansion.
Semper fi

[somekid1234]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/