Defending Wes Clark
The controversy over my colleague General Wesley Clark's comments on John McCain have generated a lot of media comment, much of it negative. I have known General Clark for many years: we served in the same Army and for the same country. He's a patriot. So to suppose that somehow Wesley Clark would denigrate John McCain's service to his country, while praising his bravery during the time that Senator McCain spent in an enemy prison, is absolutely ludicrous. So let's check the facts.
On CBS's Face the Nation, General Clark said that he believed John McCain was "untried and untested." Journalist Bob Schieffer asked him to explain what he meant. How could Clark make such a claim when "you're talking about somebody who was a prisoner of war? He was a squadron commander of the largest squadron in the Navy. He's been on the Senate Armed Services Committee for many years. How can you say that John McCain is un-untested and untried?" And here's General Clark's answer:
Because in the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk. 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 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.
As a retired military officer and a soldier who served his country for over thirty years, I can tell you that there's nothing in what Wes Clark said with which I disagree. He has not only stated the facts, he knows something about them. John McCain was a prisoner of war, an officer who served as a squadron commander, and has been and is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. John McCain can put his service to country up against anyone's. But General Clark has served also -- and with great courage: he was wounded four times in Vietnam -- and like John McCain, he has met and seen the enemy.
Is what Wesley Clark said true? Let's check some other facts: John McCain made claims about progress in security by walking through the streets of Baghdad. But as I recall, he was protected by at least a platoon of American soldiers and helicopters lying overhead. In matters of national security, as General Clark pointed out, "it's a matter of understanding risk," and it's "gauging your opponents;" and it's also a "matter of being held accountable."
So I too honor John McCain. And, like General Clark, I acknowledge his sacrifice for his country. But being a prisoner of the Vietnamese and serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee does not automatically qualify one for the position of Commander-in-Chief -- understanding risks, gauging your opponents and being held accountable does. We must end this glib obeisance to sacrifice and ask deeper questions: is a man who sings "bomb, bomb, bomb ... bomb, bomb Iran" a man who understands risks? Is a man who says that we must keep our troops in Iraq until we achieve an ill-defined "victory" really know how to gauge America's opponents. If we want to hold people accountable, then let's stand behind my friend Wes Clark -- and hold John McCain accountable for what he's said.
Oh, and one more thing: today President Bush signed the GI Bill -- which Senator Barack Obama has unstintingly supported. The bill will spend $63 billion over ten years for increased college aid for military service members and veterans who served after September 11, 2001. Good judgment?
John McCain opposed it.
Lt. General Robert G. Gard Jr. (USA, Ret.) is the steering committee chairman of Vets for Obama. Visit their official site or join them on Facebook.
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
Mr. McCain using his war record as proof of his qualifications for the presidency is akin to losing a major account to a competitor then applying for the CEO's position. Mr. McCain, the objective to the war was to capture or cause damage to the North Vietnamese not the other way around. The only thing McCain's capture and loss of an expensive piece of equipment brings to mind is the twits that used to fly with the guard channel turned down because it never applied to them. As a veteran of multiple tours of combat in Vietnam that included a thousand hours of combat missions, I am in complete agreement with General Clark. I do not question McCain's service to his country, I just grade it at an D-, similar to his standing in his class. The man is not worthy of the office.
Wesley Clark's argument that John McCain isn't qualified to be Commander-In-Chief (C-I-C) just because he hasn't yet held executive office or yet ordered the bombs to fall and so forth is ridiculous. So what? Does that mean that John McCain can't turn out to be the best C-I-C we've ever had if he gets elected? Perhaps Gen. Clark can explain why he previously deigned Hillary R. Clinton, or currently deigns Barack H. Obama qualified to be C-I-C, because I'd like to understand his reasoning.
Wesley Clark's argument that John McCain isn't qualified to be Commander-In-Chief (C-I-C) just because he hasn't yet held executive office or yet ordered the bombs to fall and so forth is ridiculous.
----------
Your characterization of what Clark said is ridiculous. Clark did NOT say that he wasn't qualified; he said he was untested. Big difference. Sure, you could fairly say the same thing about Obama. But Obama is at least smart enough to know that he's not going to get a real picture of what's going on in Iraq by going where the military let him go and seeing what they want him to see like McCain. Obama also does a much better job of keeping his cool than McCain, which is a good quality for an office that has control over nuclear weapons.
Actually you have the statements completely reversed. Schieffer said that Barack Obama hadn't flown a fighter jet and been shot down. It was Schieffer who was pushing the idea that lacking this experience was something McCain had shown as a qualification for office.
Was General Clark to agree that flying a fighter jet is a qualification? Huh? Clark had already afforded McCain with high marks for courage and duty to country. Although the media won't play that part of interview, it happened. Clark questioned his judgement and claim to executive experience.
I may not have supported Clinton but there is no doubt that she understands the workings of the executive branch. And while you may disagree with Clark, he voiced approval of Obama's judgement. Hey, I think a 100 years in Iraq is a bad idea.
To djkrlsn--
If your Republican friends are so smart, what happened in this country over the last 7 years? I am the military spouse of a retired soldier who served in Vietnam. When we heard Bob Schieffer's apparent shock-filled response to General Clark, we were shocked at Schieffer. From day one, my husband has emphasized that being shot down while doing your job is not something to enhance your resume. McCain's tenacity while a POW says something about hs strength over thirty years ago. No soldier is the same after any combat experience. General Clark recognized McCain's heroism. But, that does not require us to over look or accept any accolade that he places on himself.
What I have a problem with is General Clark claiming that John Kerry's 3 years in the Navy (and time in Vietnam being less than 2 months) qualified him for being Commander in Chief and John McCain's 20 some yearss in service do not. And for those that are in the Bush (or other Republican)--GWB has an MBA and Gore failed out of 2 master's degree program and got better grades than did either Gore or Kerry.
How did Gore become the topic of this diary?
Apparently, Gen. Clark, as he made clear in the interview, bases his assessment of the necessary qualifities to be president on more than military experience. Note: Clark didn't run on his military experience. He ran on leadership with his standard speech focusing on family values. Most people who supported him for president didn't realize that Clark left Vietnam on a stretcher. He was once asked why he didn't stress this combat experience. His answer (to paraphrase) was that war is terrible and should not be used for personal gain.
Suddenly, Republicans want us to believe that John McCain's POW days means he should be President just because he was a POW in Vietnam.
However ... and with a FLIP/FLOP ...
Republicans didn't feel that way in 2000 - When Republicans were telling voters that McCain was a "traitor and mentally unstable from his North Vietnam POW days" And airing ads saying Cindy McCain was a drug addict.
General Clark is a brilliant and honorable man. I did not share his taste in presidential candidates, but I have never lost respect for him. He will probably not be a Veep candidate. He is way too outspoken for the ever-cautious Obama.
John McCain is trading on his history like any politician. So we should examine it, the way we would for any politician. How does torture prepare you for the presidency? It's an interesting question. Apparently experiencing torture does not make you completely opposed to it. Why is that?
McCain's foreign policy is incoherent and largely reversed from what he said he supported in the past. I take from his utterances now that getting elected is all. Good luck with that.
I am tired of hearing how McCain’s experience as a POW somehow qualifies him to be president. There were thousands of POW’s during the war that doesn’t mean the can lead the country. Let’s look at McCain’s accomplishments; he went to the Naval Academy and graduated in the bottom 1% of his class, (he most likely got in because of papa and grandpa being admirals). The Naval Academy, while being a good college, is not exactly MIT or Stanford. He then got a commission and became a fighter pilot and squadron commander (something rarely given to someone who’s was mediocre at the Academy, again papa and grandpa). He crashed a couple of planes got himself shot down and became a POW. After being released he returned to the Navy and soon realized he was not going anywhere and retired from the Navy and went into politics. Some how this does qualify as presidential material. His wordview is typical of one brought up in a meterial household. Do will really need another Bush?.
Thank you.
I am glad to see retired Generals like Clark and Gard speaking out about McCain and taking it head-on. If we listen to the Repug inflated details and McCain hero spin, one would think McCain nearly won the Vietnam War all by himself from his POW cell. The Repugs are spinning McCain in a way that one must be a war hero and a flag waving patriot in order to qualify being CIC. But in reality, McCain was a Navy jet jockey who had the misfortune of being shot down in a war zone and taken as a POW for over 5 years. That is all! Being a military pilot and a POW alone doesn't make one better qualified to do a specific job. These are the things the Generals are addressing and not backing down on. As a military retiree, I understand where the generals are coming from and I am not the only one.
Having survived as a POW says a lot about McCain's personal mettle, his resolve and his perseverance to survive, But how does that alone make him more qualified to be President? He's been a Senator for decades but what has he done internationally as a Senator concerning foreign policy? Where are all those McCain foreign policy credentials the Repugs keep trying to push on us? What outstanding qualifications did he learn while flying his A-4 Skyhawk or from his POW cell that makes him much better suited to be CIC than BO?
Thank you, Lt. Gard! I've been feeling like I'm in bizarro world here the last couple of days watching the MSM take Clark to task over something that is true. Here's hoping that your kind words to General Clark encourages him to STAND BY HIS WORDS! Because he is RIGHT.
Keep fighting the good fight!
Excellent article. Thank you for speaking up, and thank you for putting service to your country above service to a political party.
General, here is a new twist on your qualifications issue. As you well know, there are 3 levels of classification clearances. Confidential, secret and top secret. Beyond that General, there is need to know with compartmen
Now dear General, you know that Mr. Obama's past use of hard drugs while in college would disqualifiy him from obtaining the highest level of clearance. But as a president, he will have access to all of that information.
General, if you and your buddy Wes want to keep playing this game with McCain as a naval aviator and POW, go ahead. But I suggest you quit while you are ahead. It plays well with the left and Huff-o-matics but Joe 6 pack is not going to buy it.
Semper Fi General.
Wow spoken like a true rightwing neocon nutjob. They would lie to their teeth to make up the b*ll sh!t that you graciously stated. But its expected from you lowlifes.
Mc Cain is hiding something. That is why his mad. His military record is not above reproach and needs to be brought openly to the public. If he can't, he will even be more scrutinized by higher ranked officers than him during this election. Count on it troll.
Now go away.
Brightersi
What could he be hiding? I no more believe he is a 'Manchurian Candidate', brainwashed by the North Vietnamese, than I believe that Obama is a 'Manchurian Candidate' who will all have us praying to Mecca in 4 years.
Can't anyone just be themselves anymore? I think it was awesome when Obama said that he took drugs when he was younger. ABOUT TIME!! AND he would have admitted to inhaling! McCaine was a POW for years, and endured more pain than you or I could imagine. Let it go... If he has some anger..wel
Don't go and make me call you a pantywaste, OK?
Bush used cocaine - so your point is??????
Bush was an alcoholic and a coke user!!Good point ,brainiac!!
You're wrong UltraClass
You wrote:
"Now dear General, you know that Mr. Obama's past use of hard drugs while in college would disqualifiy him from obtaining the highest level of clearance. But as a president, he will have access to all of that informatio
Now, if you had done a little research at the DOD or DSS websites you might have discovered the following:
"Defense Authorization Act amended Chapter 49 of Title 10, United States Code, and precluded the initial granting or renewal of a security clearance by (DoD) under the following four specific circumstances:
(1) An individual has been convicted in any court of the U.S. of a crime and sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
(2) An individual is (currently) an unlawful user of, or is addicted to, a controlled substance (as defined in section 102 or the Controlled Substances Act (21U.S.C. 802))
(3) An individual is mentally incompetent, as determined by a mental health professional approved by the DoD
(4) An individual has been discharged or dismissed from the armed forces under dishonorable conditions.
The statute also provides that the Secretary of Defense and the secretary of the military department concerned may authorize an exception to the provisions concerning convictions, dismissals and discharges from the armed force in meritorious cases."
Actually Sen. Obama's admission that he had used drugs, in an investigation for a TOP SECRET clearance would not disqualify him, but an untrue denial or cover up of drug use would have .
The Bush Admin showed us in 2004 that military experience does not qualify a person for President. Look at the way they beat up Kerry on being in the military.
McCain spent most of his service time crashing airplanes and being in lock-down. This is hardly a training ground in foreign policy.
They only beat up Kerry because he lied alot about his war record. Remember the guy that fell off the stern when Kerry hit the accelerator, after hearing gunshots? Hero? No.
Military service has ZERO bearing on wether a person is qualified to be POTUS. Just look at W and Clinton.
Most would agree that just being a fighter pilot, being shot down and held a POW does not qualify a person to be CIC. In John McCain's case, when you look at how he was shot down, it questions his qualifications to be CIC. It was his bad judgment that got him shot down. In his own words, when he heard the signal that a SAM had locked on to him, he "out of stubbordness or a mad kind of bravery continued my run" and was hit by the missle. Also in his own words, "I should have jinked" (taken evasive action-not too difficult to do). He admitted to signing a confession as a war criminal, a violation of the UCMJ. Others who were also treated very harshly, did not. He claims to have refused early release. Since when does a prisoner have any say about being freed. Had they wanted to, they could have just put him on a commercial flight, sent him out of the country and proceeded with their propoganda. Overall, he had a mediocre Navy career. I wouldn't have wanted him under my command and certainly not as my CIC. Bill Luce, WWII and Vietnam veteran.
You make a good point. Unless the target he was going after was of overwhelming importance, he should have terminated his bombing run, and saved his plane and himself.
McCain, while a decent person, does seem to have an unreasonable stubborn streak, one that as C-in-C could get a whole lot of people needlessly killed. It is unfortuneate that he does not, himself, recognise his own limitations. It is embarrassing to have to say to a fellow veteran that he is not qualified for the type of command that being C-in-C demands.
Clark did what so many of us wanted to be done for a very long time.... He put out questions about McCain's claims on foreign policy qualifications. He planted the seed, so now it is being discussed. A typical GOP tactic, used by a democrat. It worked quite nicely, as now look what we're all talking about. It kinda puts a big dent in McCain's continued efforts to tout his credibility based on his POW or military experience. It means nothing with regard to the presidency
I believe Obama has tremendous judgment ability.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
