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.
"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
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
There can only possibly be two reasons why McCain "does not like to talk about" his record:
1) It causes him great pain to relive those horrid years in captivity and has not properly dealt with the memories. This is a very tragic an understandable reason, in fact it is treated as PTSD, many veterans suffer from it, let alone a POW.
2) The whole truth and nothing but the truth about his entire record, has not have been disclosed.
If #1 is the reason, then, we have to worry for McCain's health, untreated PTSD is too dangerous and he certainly cannot be handed a country to run. Had he dealt properly,thru therapy, with the pain he suffered as POW, he should by now, 30+years later, be able to deal with the memories and proudly recount his heroic efforts. The fact that he avoids talking about it would worry any 1st year psychology major. It's a ticking bomb.
Assuming instead that McCain is all healthy and has no issues, that leaves #2 as being the reason to avoid open discussion of this matter. Why the secrecy? What's there to hide from a heroic past?
Bottom line is, either way, there are problems with McCain as POTUS that the MSM chooses to ignore. WHY?
i agree...TR
obama '08 & 2012
Without any hyperbole or exageration John McCain's Navy Service Record shows three things.
First, John McCain is a very, very stubborn person. It is this stubbornness that got him shot down over North Vietnam (after having been hit he continued on the mission). It is this same stubbornness that can be credited with his survival in Hanoi (to stubborn to break).
Second, linked to this stubborn streak is courage. Giving him full credit he (not saying he was too stupid to reconsider his situation) he exhibited courage in the face of danger. These are creditable attributes for the warrior at the front but are not the judgement and good sense that are needed from the Commander in Chief whether it be of a Ship, Task Force, Fleet, or all the USA. We are after all deciding on who will be that Chief.
Third, when they assessed him on his personal merits, the NAVY flat did not want him in a position that required superior judgment (see the Pearl Harbor Reports) the key attribute for being a NAVY Flag Officer. He never got the kind of commands that would have made him eligible for a Flag Rank (Admiral).
I'd say the Navy showed good judgement.
And can people please stop calling the President the Commander-in-Chief? He is the C-I-F of the armed forces, not the country -- and not of me.
Just like the roaches they are- Put them under the the spotlight and they start running for cover.
That's right. McCain will run for cover rather than answer a question because
McCain is a REPUBLICAN PUPPET who must be programmed by
handlers like Karl Rove.
It's too old, too much and we are TOO FED UP!
I think we need to stay on McBush's ass about his so called military experience. Bottom 1% of his class at Annapolis, 5 air related crashes...
Given his extremely poor academic performance (where have we seen that before?), there is little doubt that his family connections (His daddy was an admiral) were instrumental in his congressional appointment to Annapolis. Its a little like Harvard or Yale, where you have to be extremely intelligent or have the right connections.
Mouner Dude, you can call it whatever you'd like ....lucky bounce, beginners bounce, dumb luck, brain fart, call whatever, he made the stand unlike others in the so call loop, so what does that say about others in the loop who voted for the war based on lies, plus there is no doubt BHO give it careful thought ...but he made it and it was the right call...All you are doing right now is hating..Be
When Obama was asked directly in 2002 if he would have voted for the war in Iraq, he didn't say he would stand on principle and vote no. He said he would follow the lead of the senior senator from his state, Dick Durbin, and vote no.
So there's a lot of spin and half-truths going on in the whole debate. What many Obamabots claim was a strong principled stand against Iraq was actually more of a political calculation, based on the fact that Durbin's decision was very popular with Democrats in Illinois at the time, and that Obama was planning on running for the other Senate seat in 2004.
If Obama had been a state Senator in another part of the country, who knows what his response may have been?
It appears that McCain has anger management issues. Certainly he is not to be trusted. And especially not as president.
I respect mccain war service to his country. If he's going to run on that service in this election-than he must be pre pared to answer these questions! Mr. Mccain agrees he fooled around and didn't do well in military school We'll I'll say he didn't. He was 6th from the bottom of over one thousand in his class! I would say he wasn't much on studying military stradegy, or planing on the ground if he was that bad of a military student. Why than did he even ger into a cock pit? I understand he crashed up 3 planes? Now that doesn't sound like some one they'd put in a cock pit! So there must have been pull of his daddy. I simply don't see where any of this gives him an advantage to be president? Know think about this! Obama graduated law school at the top of his class! So he knows the law and the constitution very well! He used that education and intelligence to study Iraq and knew it was the wrong war to go to! He worked in the roughest, poorest nighborhood in chicago to help the poor, and to generate employment. He's all domination and understand what all colored people have suffered. He comes from poor folks, and knows what will help them. so even though he doesn't have military, He's still more educated , intelligent, intergedic than john mccain is.
I think it was five planes.
The first thing I was doing months ago was looking into different aspects of the candidates. There are news articles and credible sources for much of the information being spouted about both Obama and McCain, what is missing with Obama's sillier allegations is credible proof. On almost everything surrounding McCain there is either credible proof or his record would clear or actually go the other way and prove worse than what is being said.
McCain was notorious for huge ranting tirades that cowed his peers on the hill into refusing to deal with "the madman" he has since gone through some anger management. It is no secret that he cheated on a crippled and disfigured wife before he left her. I don't see any denials about his being at the bottom of the list of 800 in his class at the naval academy. Why doesn't he get asked directly if he thinks low academic scores like that make for a president, or does he think that a cheater who leaves a crippled wife gives the right picture of the president of the united states. This is turning into a cosmic joke folks that there is such a huge number of idiots that this doesn't mean anything to.
I read McCain's book. His history in Viet Nam is complicated. I understand why he is loath to talk about it. He rained bombs on innocents and has never to this day looked back. He has never considered it important whether he was involved in an illegal and unjust war. He was tortured and he spilled his guts. He used to be against torture... probably for this very reason. Why does he want to be president exactly anyway? I don't get it. I sincerely do not see what he might see in himself that makes him think he is the man for this day.
In 2000, when he ran for President, he allowed both himself and his family to get trashed by the Bush Patrol.In 2008,when he emerged as the "last Pub Standing", what were supposed to be his supporters shruigged. They didn't even want him ; they likely wanted Romney or Guiliani.
I'd like to ask McCain why he runs representing the party that keeps kicking him in the nuts.
This may be a better question: why did McCain, just today, hire the same campaign manager that Bush used to bury him in 2000? This is the same scum that Swift-boated McCain into losing to Bush in the primary. I can already smell the "Swift-Boating" of Obama. It smells like BS.
You didn't read his book, or if you did, you didn't understand it.
The book was sickening. Are you sick?
Not to really push the envelope, but do you believe that J. McCain actually wrote a book? I find that much too difficult to believe.
McCain is Bush --- minus the honesty.
Th-th-th-th That's all Folks!
Excellent post. I can't see where McCain is an expert on warfare. Wesley Clark would be one.
I thought Wesley Clark had a very good response to a really lame question. I have always wondered why the Republicans seem to think McCAIN is such an expert on war or defense? I am going to give this one opinion on why I think McCAIN HAD an edge on Obama. With McCain actually been a P.O.W. my thoughts were he would use going to war as a last, last, last, resort. I also thought being a P.O.W. McCain would be the last person on earth to approve of the U.S. of using torture. I was wrong on both counts. What's going on in the guy's head? OK. Here is my fake pro war fake pro McCain site.
I hope you enjoy it.
www.votefo
Obama should be 100% positive about backing what Clark said, let it be beat up in the press, the only ones who got offended by it are the idiots anyway. What he said was 100% valid.
I can't believe the vacuum going on in the heads of those who say "McCain was a war hero, he deserves our trust"
don't get me started, LOL
Right on
I think you expect too much from the media. That one reporter had the fortitude to ask the question is a pleasent surprise, to expect the multitude of the media to exhibit that level of intestinal fortitude is almost a pipe dream. It's just too easy to spew out the talking points and not have to think or work.
Any question is legit whether he wants to answer or not.
Bingo!
Bingo.
Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful article. My husband was USArmy for 20 years and I always appreicate the view of the military. Would like for you to post about the "lack of troops" available for Afghanistan and how you think things will develop from here. Most people don't really appreciate how difficult it really is for our troops and also for their families. Thank you.
This is the best comment on the mock imbroglio I've seen, and I'm heading over to VoteVets.o
There is a reason why the founders insisted in a civilian head of the military. Pakistan and any number of banana republics will suggest that reason. (Hey, wait, the courts in cahoots with the dictator steal the election, and the resulting program includes jail without cause or remedy and spying on its citizens and eternal wars of imperialism? Yes, but, we got no bananas!) We also remember General MacArthur wandering of the reservation as commander in Korea into statecraft is why Truman canned him.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
