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

[justobserve]

"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."
I agree with Clark. He told the truth but as usual, an answer was twisted out of context.

[SouthpawSass]

I was home yesterday and kept MSNBC on most of the day. I was amazed, and so disappointed in their blatant misrepresentation of the General's comments. To make matters worse, they didn't just cover the story once or twice, but literally every 30 minutes or so.

I was curious about General Clark after the hype and began to read up on him. I have been so impressed by his accomplishments and service to this country. I hope he doesn't ever back down from the truth.

Thank you, General Gard, for your article and your service. I only wish more military men and women would come out in defense of General Clark.

[Angelus2007]

I agree that being a POW or in the military in general doesn't make you qualified to be president. I do have a problem with someone actually saying it. It doesn't help Obama for Clark and other supporters to say this. When it even appears that you question the military service of someone who sacrificed, it doesn't help Obama. It is one thing to talk about Bush and his service. Whether you support McCain for president or not, he was in the military, he did fight, and he was a POW and tourtured for 5 years. While that doesn't make him qualified to be president, it only hurts Obama for people to detract from that. Many people here are progressive, and agree with Clark and this it was great that he said it. But progressives and democrats won't win the election for Obama alone, if you want to attract those in the middle, and some republicans who are tired of Bush, you need to atleast show McCain respect. Insulting his service, or even the appearance of insulting it even if you aren't, is not a smart move.

[Rothgar]

Thank you General!!!
I recall from MY time as an Officer Candidate that the highest rank in the Military is Civilian.
I wonder how many Generals it'll take to penetrate the McCain spin machine?
I wish at least one Admiral would step forth and point out that commanding a training squadron would not normally qualify a man for Flag Rank. As I recall from my midshipman classes on Military careers and protocols a Flag bound COMMAND officer would have had at least one AT-SEA COMMAND by the time they reached Captain if the were slated for a Flag Rank. John McCain held NO at sea command billets during his career!

[laocoon]

The general rule is Republicans are free to talk almost anyway they want but democrats have to be very careful or the media will pillory them for it.

[Spinsterina]

Thank you for the sage advice. Imagine the amount of careless truth-telling that would be going on willy-nilly on all the talk shows if politicians didn't understand your point about the dangers of even APPEARING insulting. We must always believe that our words will be misconstrued and therefor say little of consequence, Good Lord willing. (See Bull Durham for pointers on how to talk to the press.)

[NYDoc]

This fear of speaking one's mind is how democrats lose elections when they have the majority opinion on the issues. We should not be afraid of saying the McCain has demonstrated terrible judgment on the Iraq war -- from saying it would end quickly to saying it was all going well in the first few years to that ridiculous walk through the market to voting for torture. Military service has the potential to teach one when war is appropriate and strategically wise (as noted in the post) and evidently McCain did NOT learn that lesson. It also has the potential to teach prisoners about torture, evidently the lesson was not learned there, either.

[smartserve]

I agree with this comment and was waiting for someone to raise this issue and challenge the media for treating all things McCain as off limits. We shouldn't question his sacrifice, courage and service but we can question how this prepares to you handle leading a country. McCain should be willing to show how the experience led to judgement to lead as the POTUS.
The echo chamber media missed the greater point and Wes Clark is right. Fighter pilot and POW experience doesn't automatically qualify you, it shows something of your character, and it is McCain's job to explain how it relates to the job he wants. The outrage is unnecessary. They think they can claim that being a community organizer is not relevant but being a fighter pilot and POW is. Obama has been making his case. John?
The media never challenges McCain and always give him a pass based on the "fact" that the "American people know McCain through his long record". The media does the same dissservice to American's by not informing, justas they did with the Iraq war. How about just reporting the facts, and stop filtering the news for us?
Angelus2007 is right. With this being the predominant attitude in the media and populace Obama won't win this one. We need him to win the war, the batlles are good, but the war is most important. BO success depends on knowing which battles to fight ,and he seems to recognize that this isn't one.

[veracity]

__"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.­"__

Thanks for that, General Gard. What is quite amazing is that this criticism of General Clark is coming from Republican­s.... who approved or tolerated the "Swift Boat Liars Against Kerry" intentionally distorting Senator Kerry's Vietnam war record!
(The Swift Boat Vets Against Kerry all implied that they served _with_ Kerry in combat in Vietnam... while they were all either in Vietnam at a later date, or 'in-country' at the same time, but in an entirely different region.)

Just for the record, Senator Kerry opened himself to those attacks by making the 2004 Dem. convention salute his Vietnam record - a horrible squandering of the opportunity to list the follies of President Bush's first term.

In even more general terms, this made the election of 2004 _about John Kerry_ - instead of about the dismal 'leadership' (blatantly gross dereliction of duty and incompetence, actually) of George W. Bush's first term of office.

[BBackSoon]

I can’t believe this comment is so far down the list. We need to keep posting this point. The swiftboating of Kerry was A-OK with the Repugs, I seem to remember how they said he cheated and stole his commendations that he earned in battle.

Lets say it again. Being shot down and held as a POW is not part of the requirements to be President.

[FirstShirt]

"Being shot down and held as a POW is not part of the requirements to be President.­"

And said, again. Having NO experience is even less a testimonial to being Commander in Chief.

[LCRover001]

Strange how the right could swiftboat Kerry with lies about his Military record and attack Max Cleland because he lost both legs and an arm during service as week and unable to defend the country from terrorist, but when some one brings up that being shot down and held prisoner aren’t qualifications to be president they call foul.

Typical bully mentality. They can dish it out but can’t take it.

The right can say and do as they please but as soon as someone turns the tables on them it is wrong?

What is worse is what Clark said wasn't even close to being the venomous attack everyone is making it out to be and no where even close to the disgusting statements the right has made about political opponents when it comes to their military service.

McCain has made his service record part of his so called qualifications, why is it wrong to question if those qualifications are actually qualifications to be president.

Being shot down and held prisoner for 5 years are not qualifications to be president. It is horrible that McCain had to endure that but they still aren’t qualifications to be CiC.

Have the American people become so sheepish they can no longer stand straight talk or is this just more of the MSM pandering to the right? How the right can still claim there is a liberal media is beyond me. Maybe Fox News could bring Bigfoot on and explain that myth to me.

[pcplz]

I totally agree, but that's all they got. Other than the fact that he was a POW....the­y got nothing!!!

Can't go on his voting record.
Can't go on his staying to his word.
Can't go on his school record.
etc etc and soooo on.

[FirstShirt]

"Have the American people become so sheepish they can no longer stand straight talk or is this just more of the MSM pandering to the right? "

Maybe they just see swift boating for what it is. And, Wesley Clark for what he is: a surrogate for Obama and a sacrificial lamb.

[Chris]

MY only issue with General Clark is his hypocrisy. The candidate he supports. The candidate he is all but begging to be the VP for does not meet the qualifications he belives are needed to be POTUS. SO why exactly does the General support Obama?

Could it be party over all else? Or that he thinks he will be VP so he is willing to support soemone he admits is not qualified to be POTUS

[Kremfresch]

He never said that the candidate NEEDS that experience, he was simply calling out McCain for claiming he HAS that experience WHEN HE DOESN'T, and pointing out that the experience that McCain dopes have does not make him ANY MORE qualified than anyone else.

[FirstShirt]

McCain only has to prove he is more qualified to be Commander in Chief than Obama. That's all. And, that's easy.

[elderly]

How is it that Obama is not qualified? Does the fact that he was right about the invasion in Iraq and its consequences 5 years ago indicate he is unqualified? Does the fact that he alerted the world to what Mugabe was up to more than a year ago indicate that he is unqualified?

What makes one qualified? Does falling asleep at congressional meetings make you qualified? Does addressing an empty senate chamber to put your words into the congressional record make you qualified? Does being wrong on every important issue make you qualified?

Qualification is not measured in years it is measured in judgment and the courage to do what is right. Lincoln knew that and it is about time we learned that lesson.

[SouthpawSass]

You have no idea what you're talking about... Obama isn't running on a military record, but on having good judgement when it counts.

As a matter of fact, were it not for the fact that he was a POW, McCain would have nothing else to run on. Sorry, but his accomplishments are slim.

[Rothgar]

The General's point was that it is demonstrated judgement that is key to being President. Sen. Obama has demonstrated his judgment by his oppostion to the attack on Iraq.
General Clark's underlying point appears to be that a claim by John McCain that he has the necessary judgement based on his NAVY service is not supported by his service record. To claim he was relied upon by the Navy for the executive decisions needed from a Commander, much the less President, is not supported by his Navy career.
Although his POW time appears laudable, his service record does not include any experience that counteracts the demonstrated good judgment of Senator Obama.
No hypocrisy here!!

[FirstShirt]

Hypocrisy is right. He is a brilliant man who has lost his bid for the presidency but now is needing his full measure of attention. Unfortunately for him he is now damaged goods and the candidate has tossed him under the bus. Too bad. Just fade away, Wesley.

[fred123]

On a strictly factual basis, what Gen Clark says is true - of course from this prospective, the same point applies togetting your PT boat run over by a enemy destroyer (Kennedy), or getting your bomber shot down over the South Pacific (G.H.W. Bush). These are good biographical stories, but they do not, by themselves "qualify" you for the presidency. So what? All these guys (McCain included) had responsibility for relatively small units/squadrons/air crews during combat, which does count for something, but it is not the same as running a large organization. Nor is being a Senator an "executive" position. Maybe I'm missing something, but I haven't heard McCain's campaign touting his military record as evidence of great executive skill and experience. And, of course its equally true that Sen Obama has not had the "executive" experience, nor has he even had the command of small groups in combat, so drawing attention to the "executive experience" angle really doesn't do either candidate much good. So amidst all the flash and fire regarding Gen Clarks comments, I don't see them as a smear, but I do see them as essentially meaningless.

[thesimulacra]

"but I haven't heard McCain's campaign touting his military record as evidence of great executive skill and experience"

Just go look at what Joe Lieberman's been saying for the last month as McCain's surrogate attack dog. McCain doesn't say it outright because he'll look like a braggart. So he just lets his cronies do it for him, just like every other politician. I mean I'll be honest, this is the same reason why Obama's camp (or more likely, the Dem. leadership independent of Obama) has Gen. Clark making this point about McCain instead of Obama directly saying it, but mostly that's because he's actually a General and he would be the best source for analysis such as this.

[sueno]

Thank You, Sir!
Thank you!

[JohnIII]

I really don't have an issue with what Wesley said. He's earned his stripes.
But if you follow it to it's logical conclusion, Obama is also "untried and untested".
More so than McCain.

[pcplz]

Not at all....it just means, don't vote for him on his military record alone. Thas all.

Judge both men together..­.....then vote YOUR conscience.

[Chris]

Actually no The General wants you to vote for Barack because he is a Democrat. No other reason than that. IF the General was so sure of Barack why did he support HRC in the primary?

[buggedabouttheus]

I think that that is Gen. Clark's point we need to use other criteria to judge who would be a better commander-in-chief. Frankly, I prefer to judge on which man would be a better steward over our natural resources, educational system, and the retention of our rights under the Constitution.

[Hughsie]

You miss the point. McCain is basing his entire campaign on his military experiences of 40 years ago. Obama is sooo much more qualified on ALL the other issues! Especially IRAQ!!!

[JohnIII]

No he is not. He is basing it on an overall service to his country.
From the military into the senate.

[martinspringfield]

That was exactly the point Gen. Clark was addressing when this issue first came up on MSNBC. Clark was pointing out a bobblehead logical fallacy and the bobbleheads went wobbly and exploded. They had to get him back on to make this into an issue they could flog him with.

He's standing firm. Good. Someone needs to show Democrats how not to be craven capitulators.

[AnnCromwell]

Right on sir!

All - go back and read Jeffrey Klein's post "McCain's Secret, Questionnable Record" 6/16.
Those in the media fabricating the ridiculous response to Gen Clark's matter of fact statement have obviously never done so.

[theone718]

HOW DARE the media distort Clark's words to make it seem like he was attacking McCains military record when he was ACTUALLY making a FACTUAL point. I stand by Clark as well and I turly, in my heart, hope he is still chosen to be VP

[laocoon]

Havent you sen this before the right makes up statements it can more easily attack. with media complicity the made up statement is heard over and over and becomes the real statement and all stories are framed to assume it is the real statement. Gore's "I authored the legislation enabling the internet " becomes "I invented the internet" Kerry's joke which was clearly about Bush become a denigration of the troops. On and on and on. The media is one giant echo chamber for the right.

[TellitLikeItIs]

lacoon: Right on, again!!

[mmgpsych]

All this hubbub can be ended with a single example: Just because a man is a great baseball player, even a team captain, does not automatically mean he'll make a good coach. Most don't. The same is true for basketball where some of the best coaches were never players at all.

[laocoon]

I think a lot of people here voted for a B movie actor because they thought what he did in the movies was real. We elected a John Wayne stand in in 1980 and we continue to act as if we were living in a B western.

[mamak]

Thank you General Gard!

Gen Clark has our support...­....he only spoke the truth and the media put a huge spin on it........
shame on these media pundits...­.

Obama'08

[jsvg00]

During my service I was with the teams, and I lead my men into countless incursions into enemy territory. Despite being massively outnumbered and out-gunned for the majority of missions, I always completed the objective and I always made sure I brought my men home alive. I am sorry to say, despite the grit, determination, intelligence, patriotism and my sense of duty - I due not qualify to run this country. I don't think I am qualified to make decisions regarding foreign policy or national security. I am for a lack of a better term, a warrior. A leader of warriors also applies. My experience qualifies me to run a war or win a battle. Nothing more. The same goes for Wesley Clark. If I want to know how to survive in a POW camp, I'll call John McCain.

(BTW, I have a good post Iraq invasion-leadership turmoil story if any wants to hear it.)

[cindyw]

It sounds like a cliche these days, but thank you for your service. I can't tell from your comments whether your service was in Iraq or Vietnam. Like many others, I lost someone dear to me in Vietnam. I'm glad you made it home safely, hopefully with no lasting ill effects. And I'd like to hear your post Iraq story.

[jsvg00]

Thank you very much for your thank you. I joined the military under Bush the 1st and went through Iraq War Part 1 without firing a shot. I joined the Delta teams soon after. My first taste of real battle wasn't until Mogadishu 93. After that I was moved from one hot-spot to the next (classified) up until I retired soon after Bush the 2nd took power. And yes, the proposition of serving under that idiot was a factor. I joined a private defense contractor (not Blackwater) and later joined a firm which provides security and consulting for people working in dangerous parts of the world. Anyways on to Iraq War part 2.

Its rather long, and since huffpo has a word limit I posted it at the address below.

http://www.geocities.com/jsvg00/classic_tan.html

I hope you find it illuminating.

[OperationChaos]

Anyone remember the Kosovo War where Wes Clark commanded Operation Allied Force in that war during his term as the Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO? For his part, the Kosovo War was an air campaign only, no immediate use of ground troops in order to keep the appearance of a "Clean War" because we had a president (Clinton) who after dodging call to arms when it was his time, Lord knows, certainly could not withstand a conflict that sustained many American casualties leaving blood on Clinton's hands for a war of little consequence to the United States National Security. After all, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia are all "tiny countries" according to Obama with small defense budgets can't do us harm. So Wes Clark bombed the hell out of that place, kind of like what John McCain did. However, according to Wes Clark, "I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war," Clark said of McCain on Sunday. "But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded -- that wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall." But Obama has and thus he IS qualified??? Ha! No Wes, McCain was the type of guy that did the same work in Vietnam, as you had military airmen of your command do, and that is, the dirty work in the war you commanded by dropping bombs! So what does that say of your executive responsibility or as a general?

[pcplz]

Look a little deeper into McCain's personal past.

[bphoon]

As a retired Army pilot, I'd say it speaks well of him. He asked for--and was denied by the Pentagon--ground forces for Kosovo because classic military theory holds that you don't win wars unless you can take and occupy ground; air power alone doesn't occupy ground. However, once denied, despite his best efforts at getting ground forces approved, he adjusted his strategy and tactics to accomplish his mission with the resources at hand. He made very effective use of the air power he had to drive Serb forces from Kosovo, then inserted the ground forces he was then authorized to stabilize the situation. So, working together, Clark and the National Command Authority were able to achieve the overall war aim: to stop the ethnic cleansing and drive Serb forces from Kosovo and to stabilize the political situation so Kosovar refugees could return home. In so doing, they were able to save quite a few American lives since they kept our ground forces out of direct contact with Serb forces and may well have avoided a wider conflict in the process. There's nothing wrong at all with being able to achieve a war aim like that without so much blood on your hands...

BTW, we still have forces on the ground in Kosovo keeping the situation stable which allowed Kosovo to recently declare independence. Not too bad, in my book...