|
||
Clark Was Right on McCain, But Now We're Talking About the Wrong Issue
"Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president." Those are the words retired general Wesley Clark spoke about John McCain on CBS's Face the Nation that have caused an uproar in the latest instance of "gotcha" politics.
While I agree with Clark's premise, I wish the discussion was about McCain's alleged experience advantage over Barack Obama. The flap over Clark's statements could have provided a springboard for Obama to dispel some myths on this issue.
As for Clark's statement, which part of it is untrue? McCain's military service, his survival of his captivity, and his ability to bounce back from the horrors he faced to become a U.S. senator certainly inspires a lot of adjectives: brave, resilient, selfless, strong, principled, and patriotic, just to name a few. But go back and read Clark's statement. He simply said that McCain's fate in Vietnam was not a qualification to be president. Isn't that true? McCain's war experiences would not, in and of themselves, mean he is ready to practice law, do surgery, or even remove dangerous mold from a house. It's about skill sets, and the act of having your plane shot down is not relevant to the skills of being an executive.
If anyone had bothered to read the context of Clark's statement (I know, I know, I'm asking way too much now ...), prior to making the claim that rocked the punditry world (at least for a news cycle or two), the retired general said:
"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 the 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."
Quite clearly, Clark wasn't impugning McCain's patriotism or war record. Quite the contrary. Instead, Clark was simply making the factual point that McCain's lifetime of service, while commendable, did not involve the specific skills and experiences that are involved in holding the highest executive office in the country.
Obama's response was to immediately defend McCain's patriotism (as well as his own), implicitly rejecting Clark's statements (he never used his name). In doing so, Obama missed a real opportunity to comment on an issue that stands as one of his largest impediments to winning the White House in November: The perceived advantage in "experience" that McCain holds over Obama.
On nearly every issue in which voters have expressed interest (the economy, health care, the environment, etc.), polls seem to indicate that Americans trust Obama more than McCain. The one area in which McCain holds an advantage is on national security. There is a perception, one the mainstream media is responsible for reinforcing, that when it comes to security, McCain has extensive experience, while Obama is a novice.
I believe this premise is fatally flawed.
First, experience isn't a good thing if it's bad experience. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had oodles of experience in 2002, but that didn't stop them from making awful decisions and being wrong on virtually every prediction on what would happen in Iraq. If experience means four more years of Bush administration policy, I would say experience is vastly overrated.
Second, I believe there is a strong case to be made that Obama has a superior record on key national defense issues ("good" experience, you might say).
My argument is that, as Clark points out, the judgment of a chief executive is paramount, with a "buck stops here" nature to these decisions and a real need to make sound judgments in the face of difficult facts. And when you look at the single most important national security decision of the last decade, history has shown Obama's judgment to have been vastly superior to McCain's.
I am, of course, talking about Iraq.
On October 2, 2002, nine days before the U.S. senate voted on a resolution authorizing the president to use military action in Iraq, the nation was marching steadily forward toward a war. The mainstream media was doing nothing to challenge the administration's claims about Iraq, and the political climate was one of fear, where politicians perceived a real career risk in opposing the president (only 21 senators had the nerve to vote against the resolution). But on that date, Obama, then a state senator in Illinois, gave a speech against military intervention in Iraq.
The speech's theme and refrain was: "I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars." Obama said early in the address:
"What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne."
We may take this statement as a given now, but in 2002, it was not an accepted mainstream position.
Obama then went on to say:
"Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda."
Remember, this is 2002, and Obama's predictions came true, as if he had a crystal ball in front of him. That is the type of judgment Obama showed, at a time when expressing this opinion was not only challenging what was being reported by the mainstream media, but was also viewed by many politicians (including more than 20 Democrats in the U.S. senate) as being politically dangerous.
And in October 2002, what did McCain do? He voted for the war resolution. He supported the president for the early years of the war. Sure, he enjoys boasting about his support for the surge and claims that it is the right strategy, but that doesn't change the fact that when American lives were on the line in October 2002, McCain made the wrong call. And, in light of the recently released report by the U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO), indicating that the surge is not going as well as McCain and Bush would have you believe, and the recent congressional testimony by generals, press release by Republican Senator Richard Lugar and statements by former secretary of state Colin Powell on the dire state of the military because of the debacle in Iraq, McCain's current stance on the war should lead many Americans to conclude that his judgment was wrong when it counted most.
Or, to put it in more campaign-friendly, sound-bite ready terms: The Iraq war has turned out to be the one of the worst foreign policy decisions made by the United States in the last 100 years, and McCain supported it from the beginning (and continues to support it now). Meanwhile, Obama has shown good judgment by consistently opposing the war in Iraq, regardless of political pressures.
So I would argue that on national security, based on the actual decisions made by the candidates, Obama has shown better judgment as a leader, regardless of any perceived gap in experience. And that should have been the theme of Obama's response to the uproar over Clark's remarks.
It's time to put the myth to rest, once and for all, that McCain's military duty or senate service has provided him with some kind of necessity to be commander-in-chief that Obama lacks. And the key to making that distinction is pointing to what the two men did in 2002. At a key moment in our history, Obama got it right, and McCain got it wrong. We are paying a dear price for McCain's mistake now. We can't afford to give him four years to make things even worse.
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
Sorry , but Clark is absolutely right on, Mc same was not the best pilot (shot down) and that is not a quality I want in my pres.
Nirek, your post beautifully demonstrates the personal nature of Clark's attack.
Clack made a point of mentioning that McCain was shot down. He did it for political reasons, only.
You bought it.
And this is what Crack tried to do.
If this is not a personal dig " You got captured and I didn't I don't know what is.
Thats why I find it disgusting.
By the way, I am a registered Democrat but I am voting Green this cycle.
www.gp.org
Wrong. Wrong, Magister. Clark did NOT "made a point of mentioning that McCain was shot down."
In interviewing General Wesley Clark, Bob Schieffer of Face The Nation said that Barack Obama has never "ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down."
In response, General Clark said that riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down. . . doesn't actually qualify a person to be president.
And then the whole blathering class went crazy.
My question: How indeed DOES "riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down. . . actually qualify a person to be president?"
That's what the blathering class should be answering. And we who agree with General Clark shouldn't have to be defending his statement.
Has anyone thought that McCain's campaign came out the winner on this issue in which the truth is obvious? McCain's campaign may have reduced General Clark's effectiveness to Obama.
?????????????????????????
Right wing produced the disgusting Swift Boaters.
Clark attempted to initiate Swift Plane Riders?
Hopefully he will fail.
Eh... Swift Bombers? Swift Riders?
The whole area around mccains POW time is determined to be off limits by everyone out of respect? Why is it that mccain can talk about his service and play it up when he wants or needs something and yet if anyone even mentions the time it is an "atack" by that person even when obviously it is not? It has become some kind of game mccain plays to draw attention from the real issues and onto the Non issue himself. I wish there were another POW that would speak to that but I guess they would rather not draw attention to themselves as mccain does.
Perhaps McCain's national security credentials could be revealed in his military records?
Great blog. Wes Clark was merely making a statement of fact---not a criticism of John McCain. I have just about stopped listening to all of the punditry on MSM as they spin and twist and parse every word uttered and look for any irrelevant crap to pick through or "make-up." The American public is trying to elect a president. And in the process of doing it, there are a few "given" facts that it would be best to not even focus upon. First, McCain and Obama are BOTH patriotic, secondly, BOTH are qualified to be president. What the public is really interested in is who will serve our needs BEST. We want to know 1) who will help fix our ecomony, 2) who will end this war, 3) who will address our flawed health care system, and 4) who will tackle the environmental/energy concerns. And---we don't care what color the person is, what sex they are, how old they are, what they wear, what they eat, who they are married to, or any other nonsense the media seems to call important enough for three days worth of pontification so they can have well paid jobs while some poor barista at Starbucks and some line worker at Ford Motor co. is now wondering how they will put gas in their cars to search for the next job (that is likely now overseas somewhere). Thanks for putting this into perspective!
See Mitchell Bard's Profile
I liked your list, 2cntswrth. That is what Americans care about. Unfortunately, as you say, the mainstream media couldn't care less about those issues, unless they can attach a "gotcha" element to them.
"First, McCain and Obama are BOTH patriotic, secondly, BOTH are qualified to be president."
I agree.
I also think there will be very little difference between international politics between these two Senators. The strategic goals of U.S. to maintain its hegemony will be served ewaully well by both, with some cosmetic differences, of course.
Those who get inspired by the pie-in-the sky promises by simply don't understand the difference between campaigning and governing.
In American political tradition campaign promises usually treated like yesterday's paper: to be swept under the carpet and conveniently forgotten.
All presidential candidates must have ridden in a jet fighter and been shot down.
How else can we guarantee a qualified candidate pool?
Mr. Bard. Pay attention. here's another poster buying the "riding in a airplane" pitch. "Riding"
'Nough said.
See Mitchell Bard's Profile
Man, MagisterLudi. You are obsessed with this. Really, check out the bigger picture. Read the part of the quote that lauds McCain's service. You can microanalyze any quote into meaninglessness.
Are you offended by the Swift-boaters working on McCain's staff? They have done things WAY worse than anything Clark said.
McCains s service is certainly a factor in determining many qualities for a President. It was certainly used by Kerry and during Webb's political runs. You determine experience, character, and integrity from many aspects of a candidates life, both in and outside politics. No one area should be the "end all" in evaluating a person's qualifications.
Speaking of character and integrity, check out the reasons for Clark's getting canned in Europe. Quite a self-promoter since he got the "political bug".
See Mitchell Bard's Profile
Thanks for your comment, ramper, but you are making a different point. If you want to consider McCain's overall record in judging his character, fine, go ahead. Personally, I think "character," in the way Republicans like to use the term, is overrated. Everyone said Larry Craig, David Vitter and Eliot Spitzer had character before their falls from grace.
My article was about competence, not character. Specifically, the idea (I think it's a myth) that somehow McCain has more relevant experience to be the president relating to national security issues. My point is that judgment is the key in this arena (the central point Clark was making), and Obama showed far superior judgment to McCain in the run-up to the Iraq war. Or, put another way, what good did all of McCain's experience do if he got it wrong and continues to get it wrong?
Presidency is a political office.
By definition, a person with more varied and longer political experiences... has more political experience.
It's not that difficult to understand.
www.gp.org
WE can and MUST critically analyze the qualifications needed to be POTUS??
Do you recall that General Clark has his own very distinguished career?? He thoughtfully, respectfully and very articulately answered the questions posed by the FTN moderator. Way to go General Clark!
This MSM game is so obvious, frustrating, but obvious......... The more they defend McCain's political game playing, the weaker and more pathetic he appears. McCain's response to this whole matter proves that HE isn't in the driver's seat, he may not even be in the car anymore. Does it seem like McCain is in complete control of his campaign???
McCain seems unable to address issues placed before him in a meaningful way. He is a politician(in the worst way) who looks to his handlers to tell him which way the wind blows. His campaign is flailing. He sounds like a millionaire frat boy who forgot to crack open the book before finals and tries to charm his way through the test. Tho I wouldn't call him charming, creepy, would be my word pick, but he IS an expert at distracting people's attention away from the topic, often with a condescending joke.
We already have that President.
I'm grateful General Clark stopped the train for a moment, I only wish other people would join him.
See Mitchell Bard's Profile
Thanks for your comment, jollyelle. This line of yours made me smile: "He sounds like a millionaire frat boy who forgot to crack open the book before finals and tries to charm his way through the test. " Good one. Reminded me of the great line about W, that he was born on third base but acted like he hit a triple.
"In doing so, Obama missed a real opportunity to comment on an issue that stands as one of his largest impediments to winning the White House in November: The perceived advantage in "experience" that McCain holds over Obama."
How Obama could have done that? Why did he turn lemonaid into lemons?
See Mitchell Bard's Profile
Thanks for your comment, joanndarc. I think he took the fearful, defensive position of jumping up and down and saying "McCain is a patriot, and so am I!" It legitimizes the unfair attacks on Clark's statement (he clearly was not saying anything about McCain's character), which helps McCain and hurts Obama. What he should have done is said that Clark wasn't impugning McCain, he was talking about competence and experience, and here is why they think he has a better record on national security ...
Way too often, Democratic candidates act out of fear of being painted as too soft/liberal/weak/insert other bogus Republican insult here. And that's what Obama did here. I think when Democrats do stand up to the attacks, the voters respect them for it.
".. go back and read Clark's statement. He simply said that McCain's fate in Vietnam was not a qualification to be president. "
OK here are direct quotes.
Clark said: “Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.”
Riding in plane?! What kind of pathetic insult is this?! A combat pilot with 22 sorties is not "riding"... This is not a fu@#ing taxi.
“I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.”
The emphasis on insult of "getting shot down."
OK, I understand an bench warmer bureacrat Clark is envious of a REAL combat veteran McCain. This is obvious.
But with his insults Clark overplayed his hand and was thrown under the bus by Obama.
It's about time that people ( both form the right AND the left) are prevented from this disgusting practice of maligning each others war records. The right did it with Kerry and now Clark tried it with McCain.
LIVE GREEN VOTE GREEN
www.gp.org
If you actually read the direct quote, you also know that Clark was merely repeating the words used by Bob Schiefer in his question. They were not words chosen by Clark. And you might be surprised to learn that pilots sometimes refer to themselves as jet jockies. "Riding" is not a pejorative. Then you quote the statement again, but misquote it.
As to being a bench warmer and not a REAL combat veteran, you evidently are unaware that Clark received the silver star for combat action in Viet Nam. Despite having been shot four times, Clark continued directing his company and successfully fending off a VC attack. He required several months hospitalization to recuperate from his wounds. He also wears the Combat Infantry Badge which you only receive for being in battle on the ground which he clearly was.
So when are you going to stop the disgusting practice of maligning war records? You should be ashamed based on your own criteria.
What insults?
Because he speaks like infantry instead of like pilots and airborne? Soldiers have different parlance depending on their service and positions. And speaking of maligning: Clark earned many metals and has served and LED on the front lines and from the rear in battle on many occasions...something McCain has yet to do.
Clark PRAISED McCain's service and sacrifice; and McCain was shot down and a P.O.W., which logically is NOT sufficient qualification for presidency. How is it "maligning" to claim that being in a plane (ignoring your false claim of insult contained in standard soldier non-flier terminology) that is shot down, and then being held captive, doesn't qualify a person to run the nation?
If you would read the ENTIRE statements and not presume offense where there is none--and perhaps compare McCain's with Clark's considerably more extensive and POTUS-relevant military leadership and combat experience that Clark still deems not sufficient for presidency based on such experience alone--then perhaps you would comprehend that there was no insult being made.
Or you could just call a medals-earning HERO a bench-warmer and attack HIM for supposedly maligning another hero even though Clark preceded his assessment by lauding McCain's service to his nation and honoring his status as a P.O.W., while YOU can't even be bothered to read the context, let alone research the person you insult.
See Mitchell Bard's Profile
I appreciate you commenting, MagisterLudi. But I think you're playing the same game of gotcha the GOP and the media played. Read Clark's whole quote. You are parsing a small part of it ("riding") as a way of distracting the bigger point Clark was trying to make. And, in the same statement, Clark praised McCain. The bigger point Clark made is dead-on.
Look, I get it. You are very converstant in the Fox News talking points on how to put down Clark, as if killing the messenger kills the message. But the issue is not about Clark. It's about the idea actively pushed by the McCain campaign that he is somehow experienced and ready because he served in the military and sat in the Senate for more than 20 years. And my argument is that that "experience" didn't help when it was time to exercise judgment in key situations.
Stunningly amazing whitwash
job by the blogger.
Now for reality.
Sen. Russ Feingold"s measure ordering Bush to withdraw most U.S. troops by July 1, 2007, Obama voted "NO."
In July of 2004, Barack Obama told Boston Globe that the United States had an "absolute obligation" to remain in Iraq long enough to make it a success. The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster," It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who have already died. . . . It would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective."
In November of 2005, Obama argued in a speech before the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations that the US military should scale down its presence, but that US troops were "still part of the solution" in Iraq.
See Mitchell Bard's Profile
Again, MagisterLudi, two different issues.
BEFORE the war, Obama got it right, McCain got it wrong.
After the war began, everything gets stickier. Bush, his cronies, and his enablers (of which McCain was one) made a mess. A huge mess. Cleaning it up is way more complicated than the simple "we shouldn't do this stupid thing" before the war. No major presidential candidate supported recklessly leaving Iraq. We have to get out in a responsible way that protects the troops and civilians currently there.
I don't understand why conservatives immediately attack the messenger. You don't like what I wrote, so you call it a "whitewash." And yet, my basic premise (Obama opposed the war in October 2002, McCain supported) is a fact.
So you don't thinking that "riding in an airplane" is an insult to a veteran combat pilot?!
Nice.
I am not a conservative. I always vote Democrat in U.S.and Socialist in Europe.
This the VERY first time I am not going to be voting for Democrats, ever, on any level, local, state or national. I going green.
And yes, I am disgusted with personal attacks which are perpetrated in order to destroy someone's character. Both by the right and the left. YOu seem not to agree. Fine.
Point: It Clark ( after switching to the winning side) tried to curry favor with current front runner, Obama.
Point:He hot-dogged it and It misfired.
Point: Obama pulled the plug on him.
Point: Clark is not going to be a Vice-President nominee.
This is the reality of politics and there's no need to white wash it.
BY the way, Mr. Bard. Before I forget.
I want to thank you for engaging the posters on this thread.
Other bloggers can learn from your dedication to supporting your views.
I have been a diehard Obama supporter, but I have to say, not backing up Gen. Clark, when the General did nothing but state the facts, is really disappointing. Obama is so eager to appear above the smear campaign he has gone completely over to being almost a door mat to McCain. McCain is out there calling him this and calling him that; yet when someone on the left says anything about
McCain he blames Obama and demand corrective action. Whine, whine, whine. If this is McCain's personality, it doesn't seem to have the fiber, backbone, truthfulness, and trust needed to be a (good and decent) President. And Senator Obama, loyalty to the people on your side shows character also.
(3) Clark reduced all of this to "getting shot down and captured." If you don't believe that is insulting, then why didn't Clark refer to a more relevant act of McCain's service? Because "refusing to accept early release from a POW camp before his comrades" does actually sound like a good qualification for a president.
What a load of bullsh*t.
Does refusing to accept a golden parachute $$$$$$$$$$$$ "qualify" one to be
a top-gun CEO after also crashing some of the company?
That's "heroic"?
That's A HEMORRHOID .
McCain --at the bottom 1% of his Annapolis Academy class --shouldn't have been flying a multi-million bucks plane paid for by US Taxpayer Dollars.
Latrine duty is more like it. Now THAT does actually sound like a good qualification for a president.
Exectly!
See Mitchell Bard's Profile
GLab, thanks for posting. I agree with the commenters who disagreed with your point. I would like to add that the key is that everyone is focusing on a tiny part of a larger statement.
If McCain is going to put his military service in play as a qualification for being president, then he has to accept that people are going to take the opposite position, that his service does not automatically make him qualified.
This manufactured controversy over three words in a much larger statement (and with pieces of the statement directly praising McCain's service) is laughable.
""If McCain is going to put his military service in play as a qualification for being president, then he has to accept that people are going to take the opposite position, that his service does not automatically make him qualified.""
Right, and McCain will certainly challenge those people you mentioned who take the opposite position, like Clark. That's horse racing.
Obama has put his money on McCain in this race.
Since we liberals are supposed to be the smart ones, I can only ascribe the dancing around on this issue such as this article as willful dissembling. You surely know why Clark's statements (plural - notice the "s") were insulting. It is obvious that Senator Obama did - and it's obvious that he recognized that ordinary Americans who do not dwell on liberal blogs would immediately hear the insults. But on the off-chance you're actually sincerely ignorant, let me spell it out.
(1) McCain spent over 20 years in the military. He spent several years in command of a Naval Air training squadron, in which role his service was exemplary. This WAS an executive position which required executive skills and leadership, no matter how Wes Clark spins it. In Clark's statement that this experience was meaningless - you know, the statement you deliberately left out of your article - he demeaned not only McCain all other non-flag officers and NCOs who bust their butts running small units.
(2) In combat, McCain flew over 20 combat missions in the face of enemy fire, suffered several wounds and was captured by the enemy. He then spent years in a POW camp where his service was heroic. His actions as POW are certainly relevant to his run for the presidency as they reveal much about his courage, self-sacrifice, judgement, and character. Another one of Clark's statements suggests that McCain's character hasn't been tested - this is pure rubbish.
See Mitchell Bard's Profile
GLab, I reject your accusation that I deliberately left anything Clark said out of the article because I thought it did not support my point.
I linked to an article that contained the whole Clark statement. Why would I do that if I was trying to get away with something? You just can't put an entire statement into a blog post.
You should be careful before making accusations like that, especially when they are baseless.
Again, I don't think that Clark's statements, as a whole, are insulting in the way that you think they are. More importantly, none of your complaints go against my basic premise, which is that if McCain has all this valuable experience that Obama doesn't, why did McCain get things so tragically wrong on Iraq?
"GLab, I reject your accusation that I deliberately left anything Clark said out of the article because I thought it did not support my point."
And yet, you didn't ... and still haven't... addressed it. Does McCain have executive experience?
You asked, "AS FOR CLARK'S STATEMENT, WHICH PARI OF IT IS UNTRUE?"
This part right here: "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." (emphasis added). - Gen. Clark
and here: "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" - Gen. Clark
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the main point that Experience does not equal Judgement, that is an entirely different argument and the one that should have been stuck to in the first place. This point can be made WITHOUT claiming the other guy has no experience.
I have worked as a manager in a large corporation for years. Does this qualify me to be the CEO? If you follow McCain's logic, it does.
Right On, General Clark. There should be no apologies for the truth. I am a little tired of commending McCain for his service every two seconds. "We applaud his service forever and forever". Enough. I also applaud Kerry, Max Clelland, and all the other military service members since the 1700s. It's over Teflon John. Let's talk solutions for the problems that your new friends have made.
See Mitchell Bard's Profile
Excellent point, Msohio. And for all the McCain supporters out there who are so insulted, how many of you were this angry when Kerry got Swift-boated? And how many of you are outraged that Swift-boaters are working for McCain now?
I am angry. The Swift-boaters have rendered a terrible disservice to our election process by deliberately misrepresenting Senator Kerry in the last election. But as usual, if Republicans do it, it seems to be correct behavior in their view. It's dirty gutter politics no matter who does it. But this time---THIS TIME --we aren't going to be swift-boated. So McCain can cozy up to them all he wants. People are much smarter because we know which party put us all in the helluva mess we are in right now.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
