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.

Comments

[Insideout143]

In my view military experience has nothing to do with whether someone qualifies to be president, regardless of their level achieved. It has to do with the kind of decision-making they have shown, and judgment. Those who've been in the military, and have ordered the bombs to be dropped, may not be any more qualified than the soldiers who never go up in rank, because they may not have the judgment that results in the best case scenario.

I hate war, just as McCain constantly touts. However, I don't think he has near enough intelligence or ability to exercise good judgment when it comes to war or foreign policy in general.

[ramb37]

General Mark Clark of Obama's campaign recently made the following statement regarding John McCain's military service: "But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in Air -- in the Navy that he commanded, it wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, 'I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle it publicly?"

Clark has set a standard for Presidential candidates which his own candidate, Obama, cannot meet. Give me a break!

[TellitLikeItIs]

Who is Mark Clark?

[ebanks84]

Good question!

[uhappytoo]

Mark Clark was an American general in Italy and elsewhere during WW-II.

[HerbTee]

Famed 4-star General Mark Clark of WWII and Korean War service:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_W._Clark

[Yaa]

General Clark is setting a standard which neither Senator McCain nor Senator Obama can meet; therefore, the playing field is even.
Senator McCain cannot claim superiority in executive experience for he does not have it!

[LinusBern]

It is remarkable to watch the village wise men all act in unison to misinterpret and distort Clark's comment. It was almost choreographed, it happened so quickly.

[ebanks84]

Quite easy when you're following a pre-planned playbook. They all sound like a bunch of clones if you ask me.

[eden4barack08]

Hell, after 8 years of practice, what do you expect?

[FredrickBernanke]

There's a certain Myth that has attached to John McCain regarding his expertise in National Security matters.

Its foundation rests on two blocks of concrete:

1. His father retired from the US Navy as a four star Admiral; his grandfather also retired from the US Navy with that rank. Those are facts, and make for a fine family history;
2. John McCain was held by the Viets as a POW for something like 5 years, underwent serious physical and mental abuse. He suffered those abuses in the service of his country.


He has stressed his military service during his political career. The guy's no wimp.

But now he is being called upon to transcend physical bravery and demonstrate that he has the intellectual skills required on a president.

McCain is not doing a very persuasive job of demonstrating the deep thinking required of a president. The campaign is exposing his confusion and superficial understanding of the politico-military issues facing the United States in Iraq and elsewhere. No one can argue that McCain has thus-far displayed the intellect, the nuanced thought, required of a president.

His Democrat opponent merely has to stand aside and let McCain speak. McCain's status as a national security authority diminish, word-by-si­mplistic-i­naccurate-­word.

Clark's misguided, miswroded attack was superfluous.

But McCain is killing himself softly, with his own words.

[CEPHALUS]

Hey ! you never stated that he failed to live up to those that were before him.
LIKE THOSE WHOM INFLUENCE GET HIM IN A AIRPLANE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

[Beachrunner]

I love how these high-ranking men find their voices . . . . after they retire.

Guess how much a three-star gets every month in your tax dollars? About $7,000. I think that's on the low side.

[billw8017]

I think that's on the high side, about triple. You must be thinking of the Blackwater irregulars.

[Xanderthal]

And your point is?

Do not high level executives, the best of the best, merit a reasonable retirement?

Do you have any idea what it takes to become a general officer? Do you have a clue how hard repeated deployments abroad are on people's families? Do you have even the smallest inkling of how much more money they could have made, and how much easier lives they would have had if they had not chosen to serve their country?
They hold their tongues while serving because Article 2 of the United States Constitution requires the military to be subservient to the elected civilian government and some people have enough backbone to actually honor their oath to preserve and protect the Constitution.

And you begrudge them a pension after a lifetime of service.
I suppose you consider yourself a patriot.

[Kirby]

I hope that $7,000., U. S. , is on the low side because, having proudly served in the U. S. Army as a volunteer (RA) Enlisted Man, and obtaining the rank of Sergeant before my discharge in three years of service, I saw, first-hand, great examples of leadership, personal courage, devotion and allegiance to our country, as exemplified by most of the Officer Corps I had the great pleasure of working around. I know of only one Major General (Gallagher) who was a personal disaster for the army in using enlisted men for making improvements to his house in France; he was sacked after congresional investigation. While stationed at Fort HolabIrd, Maryland, I had to remove dog manure from the basement of his house. I worked around many generals in my three years of service.Th­ey deserve every penny paid them as career miliitary men; in my book, it takes a true gentleman to be an effective leader in addition to having qualities of accountability, integrity, and responsibility, as pillars for effective decision making. Why begrudge them an honorable retirement system for their service. It's small potatoes, in the long run, for all of what most of them have had to experience in their careers of service to the Republic.

[truthynesslover]

Read Gen. Sanches new book it may open your eyes to the dereliction of duty many of our generals showed under this president!Mamy of these generals hold on ,not standing up for the troops they comand because after retirement they can look forward to BIG jobs with the military industrial complex and as so called experts on cable news shows!

[uhappytoo]

They have to retire first because politics in the active military are not permitted.

But you are right if you suggest that they could have more moral fiber and retire early if they find it so intolerable.

[ProudNeoCon]

I do not like Wes Clark. I think he is an attack dog for democrats who uses his military service as a cover. That said I do not think he has said anything in that interview which would justify the storm it caused. Being a POW and a war hero does not make anyone a good President. It shows that person's character and his priorities in life, but it shows nothing about how good he will be in White House. the only person who came out looking bad out of this incident is Obama who had thrown Wes under the bus faster than you could switch a channel...

[BlackWidowPilot]

As a self admitted neocon, you have no room to comment as a partisan of a thoroughly discredited and morally bankrupt political movement that has done nothing for our country these past seven and a half years from Hell except launch and sustain Cheney's PNAC war for oil and empire with over 900+ *documented* lies about WMDs and debunked claims of connections between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, nearly bankrupted the government of We The People to satisfy the PNAC agenda of "starve the beast," cronyism and incompetence run riot including but not limited to FEMA's "Heckuvajob" Brownie, and hypocrisy shamelessly asserted as a virtue rather than the lowest of vice on a daily basis.

As for character what sort of character sticks his hand out ever so willingly to the likes of Charles Keating and the K Street crowd, can't tell a Sunni from a Shiite despite repeated promptings, and earns a D-minus from veterans groups yet insists that he and he alone is the special friend of America's veterans?

Then again, what sort of character is reflected by a political party that still touts itself as "the party of Christian family values" with a track record like this:

http://www.armchairsubversive.org

Hypocrisy, thy name be GOP and "Hundred Years War" McCain.

Character indeed. Character worthy of Boss Tweed or Caligula, but that's about it as far as this independent voter is concerned.

Leland R. Erickson

Citizen

[AcitizenNJ]

i applaud the input Leland, you can respect a CITIZEN as yourself that's willing to call a spade a spade and as far as a thoroughly discredited and morally bankrupt political movement, they walk both sides of the isle. like i sad earlier they have killed or paid off all of the gatekeepers that safe guard our citizens

[ProudNeoCon]

And who are you to try to shut me up. I have as much right to speak my mind as the next person. How come all open-minded liberals are open only to ideas they like...

[zeth]

Thank you Gen. Gard for putting in more eloquent words what Gen. Clark said. Gen. Clark in no way attacked McCain military record, and as much as the spin masters wanna put it ,just does not hold. What is sad is the MSM twisting the Generals comment,and see few key and influential people back the General. And thank you also Gen. Gard for telling it to us as as adults.

[Totto]

Why did Clark (Clinton loyalist) find that a criticism of McCain's service was necessary? McCain could be criticisized for not supporting the GI bill, not paying the real estate taxes for four years on a property he and his wife own in San Diego, and a hundred flip-flops. Didn't Hillary say that only she and McCain had the experience and Sen. Obama had a speech? Interesting. Hillary and Bill in four years?

[uhappytoo]

Because he was asked about it in a direct question? Do you read before engaging lips?

[JayHorus]

I can't reading comprehension isn't taught in your schools where you live? Do me a favor and *point* out where Gen. Clark criticized McCain's military service. Don't worry...I'­ll Wait

[JayHorus]

I guess grammar wasn't part of my school teachings either...d­amn. I meant "I guess" not "I can't"

[patianneb]

Clark is right and I am disappointed that Obama allowed the comments taken out of context to stand as the comments Clark made.
I'm an Obama supporter, but he needs to pay attention to the details and get it RIGHT.

[ChapStick80]

Clark answered a question and had full knowledge to what he was saying. I too am very
disappointed that Obama mis-understood the context of the comments and responded too
quickly. If anything, Obama could admit his mis-understanding even now and apologize.

Clark is man enough to stand by his comments and will not back down. Shows real leadership.

[DrRJP]

Obama has had zero military training, zero service in the military, zero work on any national security issues, and has no clue when it comes to fighting wars and making military decisions.

Gen. Cluck's statement implies thjat Obama can make better military desicions than McCain.

This is an example of Obama's "military leadership:"

"Well, whatever I decide to do militarily, I would ask for the opinions of the Joint Chiefs, and if they had very strong opinions about it, then I would take those into considerat­ion."

Basically, what Obama is actually saying is "Hey. I don't know jack about military decisions, so I'm going to let the generals decide and then pass their decisions off as my own."

Gen. Cluck says, "It's a matter of understanding risk. It's a matter of gauging your opponents, and it's a matter of being held accountabl­e."

What sort of "risk" is there in voting "present 130 times in the legislature?

What has he "gauged" about Islamofascists, when he can only make empty boasts about Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, while ignoring 95% of the Islamic threat to the US?

What "accountability" is there in going from, "I never heard any of Rev. Wrights sermons," to "I wasn't in church when he made them, " to "I was in church, but I never listened to them," to "Yes, I heard them but I do not agree with him," to denouncing him and leaving his church of 20 years?

[Totto]

"Islamofas­cists"... sounds like you belong over at Lucianne.com, where the "elite meet"

[pacats]

McCain has said "bomb,bomb, bomb, Iran". There is no comparison to the level of danger associated with McCains idea of change for America. As the discussion of sound judgement, and rational thought and advanced skill level becomes the primary focus from the military guys, lets see which group presents a logical discussion of the issues and facts. By the way, McCain graduated 5th from the bottom in his class. He is never the brightest person in the room.

[Xanderthal]

Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt had zero service in the military. They seemed to do okay.

[lylevern]

It seems that the idea of the military being under non-military leadership keep us from being a military dictartorship. We have plenty of those around the world already. Saying this, implies that military decisions come under the umbrella of larger international and dipomatic concerns.

AT the same time, the Commander in Chief, (with military experience, he was a piolot) with or without military experience needs to listen to the Chief of Staffs etc. Which our present Command in Chief, and his Sec of Defense (with no military experiece) refused to do.

It seems to be that Obama's experience in finding and qualifying for the scholarships for his own education, the trenches of community organization, some of the hard knocks of "pulling himself up by his own boot straps" just might give him the kind of insight needed for the job.

[BlackWidowPilot]

Alexander the Great was commanding his father's cavalry in battle at age 16. By age 33 he had carved out an empire still unmatched in scope.

Experience and age do not automatically equate to competency or content of character.

"Islamofascists?" Doctor of *what* the question is begged...

Leland R. Erickson

Citizen

[HBeachbum]

Apparently Gen. Clark's future boss doesn't agree with him.

[ChapStick80]

Based upon what we have had for the past 8 years, sounds like they would make a GREAT
TEAM......­Just tell me the truth and it just might prevent us from remaining in this mess
we have on our hands. Stand fast General Clark.

[Fremon]

I think we should understand that the post of President is unique in that there is no real experience that qualifies one to that office. We should consider that in the recent past the two presidential candidates most qualified, by reason of their positions, were Richard Nixon and GHW Bush. We can see that neither of these two were spectacular in that position to say the least. Re Iraq 1, Margaret Thatcher had to put backbone in GHW by saying "don't go wobbly on me George". Enough about experience. Bush 2 was a two term Gov in a weak Governatorial State. We can see how that is turning out. Waiting for a trifecta with Jeb? I go for intelligence, judgement, character, and competence. That should be enough. Obama has it over McCain. However, we may get some of the first three given the intelligence of the American voter/racism/and wedge issues. "What's the matter with Kansas" should apply to the whole country.

[anelder]

Here, here. Would love to see your words emblazoned in the sky. Add to that voter apathy and decision by sound bite, and not the least never ever checking those sound bites out.

[esky]

Clark is right, but Obama will toss him off the bus because there is no position he won't disgard for the presidency. Some of us have know this all along. But the Obamazombies will hear none of it. They don't hear or listen. They just adore.

[LinusBern]

I've never met these Obamazombies you are talking about but they sound terrible.

[UpstateNY]

Good for you General Clark and General Gard. Senator McCain service to this country and his behavior in captivity may tell us something courageous about his character but it does not, in itself, make him ready to be C-in-C.

It’s well-known that Senator McCain gets angry - I saw an instance of this when he got really, really angry when asked something about getting out of Iraq. He snapped something about NEVER allowing the US to admit defeat (my caps).

It sounded to me like a reaction to his service in Vietnam. It was a nasty war, with many missteps and a ignominious end. Not a proud chapter in US history – but I don’t want to fight Vietnam again. Iraq is not Vietnam and staying there forever in order to win something no one - not even John McCain - can quantify as a victory - is madness.

Sadam is gone; there is a Iraqi government in place – I think Barack’s plan to start a phased withdrawal over 16 months is a rational approach. It gives the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people time to get their own act together and gives us a honorable way out of a mess.

[BobJacobson]

I note a disconcerting habit on O's part to distance himself from anyone who speaks an inconvenient -- i.e., not corporate media-approved -- truth. First it was Rev. Wright, then the Muslim women wearing head scarves, and now Gen. Wesley Clark (who saved the West's ass in Bosnia-Her­zegovina). Each has something sincere and to an objective observer, honest about prevailing conditions. In each case, O or his handlers either manipulated the situation to avoid controversy, or dodged controversy -- but also the truth -- by criticizing or not supporting the "offender.­" How sad is that. This flexible ambiguity extends to issues, too, like the FISA (telephone eavesdropping law) and the highly controversial decisions of the Supreme Court. Who would O appoint to the Supreme Court? It's difficult to tell from his positions on gun control, faith-based initiatives supported by government, international trade, and other hot-button topics.

To be sure, O is a world ahead of his opponent, John McCain, in general orientation and commitment to progress. So he says. I want to believe him but fear that one day, in a typical moment of overcautiousness, he will distance himself from everything he said before -- even his own visions.

[UpstateNY]

I agree - Barack will be a much better President than McCain and I will vote for him. BUT I would also like to see some more backbone. Obama has to stand for something and be brave about it. You can't please 'all the people all the time' and you shouldn't try to.

Many of us fell in love with Barack because he was different, he stood tall and calmly looked us all in the eyes and told us things had to change. Well, one of the changes we want is strength and determination. We don't want the old politics. I know he has to be elected and he ran such a smart primary, I am loathe to give any advice - but I am getting worried that we have a Bill Clinton here. Candidate Bill Clinton raised my hopes as well and then President Clinton dashed them.

[Totto]

If he (Obama) is not the answer to all our Progressive hopes and dreams, we'll all just hold our breaths and not vote. Right?

[Anthrofreak]

Americans don't vote on real issues and truth. They vote on emotional and ideological ideals. Americans can't handle the truth.