Circular Logic Alert! Wes Clark's Critics Are Doing Exactly What He Did

You heard me right. McCain's full-throated chorus of defenders has boxed itself into a logical trap: If you buy the idea that Wes Clark's comment about John McCain was outrageous, then it's outrageous to criticize him!

Before I present my argument, a little context. First, we are not wasting our time by continuing to discuss Gen. Clark's simple and irrefutable assertion. The McCain campaign and the media will keep repeating the mantra that McCain is "extraordinarily qualified" on defense issues, despite his lack of executive experience and a series of errors in judgment. Anybody challenging that idea will face the same heat now being directed at Wes Clark.

If you've been in a sensory-deprivation experiment lately (in which case, lucky you!) here's the quick and dirty version: When confronted with Gen. Clark's assertion that McCain's heroism didn't necessarily qualify him for high command, an outraged Bob Schieffer's non sequitur response was that Barack Obama had never been shot down in an airplane. The General responded with the (seemingly irrefutable) statement that having been shot down in a plane does not constitute prima facie evidence of leadership skills. That's been blaring from television screens for 48 hours now -- albeit neatly excised from the question that stimulated it, which makes it look more like an ad hominem attack by some hopped-up partisan.

(Look on the bright side: That's left the networks with no airtime for any new Jeremiah Wright footage!)

The result was a tidal wave of faux outrage (or genuine -- which is worse?) like this, from Andrew Sullivan:

Wesley Clark is now and always has been a Clinton-type (note: talk about ad hominem!), but this is pretty revolting. This kind of personal attack was repulsive coming against Kerry from the far right. And it's repulsive the other way round. Both Kerry and McCain served their country honorably; and their records should be revered, period. You can make an argument against McCain's foreign policy experience and judgment on its merits. Do it and leave this crap out of it.

I would tend to agree, actually -- if it weren't for the fact that Sen. McCain and his supporters (especially in the media) are incessantly trumpeting his wartime experience as a qualification. Without it, he'd be just one more senator who made the wrong call on Iraq. Worse, actually -- he'd be one who gets confused about even the most elementary national defense facts.

Then there's the fact that the Swift Boat attacks on Kerry were outrageous because they were false, whereas Gen. Clark's statement is ... what's that other word? Oh, yeah. True. (Is anybody really arguing otherwise?)

Note that Gen. Clark's statement is not specific to John McCain or any other war hero. It says, plainly and simply, that wartime sacrifices like being shot down -- while they may be admirable and worthy of deep gratitude - do not by themselves prove that one has sound military judgment.

My biggest problem with Sullivan's statement is the word "revere." That's the perfect word to describe the media's treatment of McCain's military past. The dictionary definition of "revere" is "to regard with awe, deference, and devotion." Wes Clark's biggest sin, in their eyes, is that he's not supplicating himself before McCain's heroism. And why not? Maybe because Clark also served in Vietnam and showed extraordinary heroism himself, risking his life many times (and spending many long months immobilized from his injuries.)

But guess what? You didn't hear about his heroism -- or his sacrifice -- when Gen. Clark was running for president. Why not? Because he's consistent. He didn't think it qualified him to be president, any more than it qualifies John McCain. (He's also a little classier than some when it comes to that kind of self-promotion.) Clark honors McCain's sacrifice, and even called McCain one of his heroes on the Schieffer interview (we haven't heard much about that these last couple of days.) But he knows it takes a different set of skills to lead.

Now, back to that logic problem. The basis for the chain of outrage now binding Sen. Obama and the Democrats -- a bright shining chain, one with links named Schieffer and Sullivan -- is this argument: 1) John McCain is a war hero. 2) You can't question a war hero's judgment in military affairs. 3) You must therefore accept his wisdom in these matters. 4) You role is to revere him, demonstrate your devotion, and abstain from criticism.

But wait! Wes Clark is a war hero! He made his McCain comment while he was discussing military affairs! Your criticism of him means you don't accept his judgment in these matters! In other words, you're doing the same thing to Clark that Clark was doing to McCain. Your demonstrated lack of reverence for war hero Clark is a heresy that is equal to or greater than Clark's.

Q.E.D. -- and in your face, outrage contingent. And as for the Democrats, they should learn from Gen. Clark's directness ... and his unwillingness to back down. He has led by example yet again. He has refused to buckle, despite enormous pressure. And what do you call somebody like that?

Oh, yeah. A hero.

(Cenk Uygur and I discussed Wes Clark's comments on The Young Turks)

Follow RJ Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow

Comments

[OnceProudAmerican]

If McCain is so proud of being a POW so be it . But don't cry and moan when someone calls your hand on it!
If Gen Clark is guilty of anything it's telling the truth. Is'nt it funny how the Republicans want to cry foul when faced with the TRUTH! I've always told my kids to alwaystell the truth, that way they have nothing to be ashamed of.
I take my hat off to you Gen Clark, you are a true AMERICAN!

[SBlackmun]

RJ, you don't need all those italics. You rhetoric is fine on its own. S.

[XploreR]

Good article with valid points. One can only hope someone near Obama has the foresight to show it to him or at least summarize the main point(s); especially paragraphs 9 and 10, or from 9 to the end. Obama succumbed to the circle of confusion being purpetrated by the McCain campaign over this issue. It was disappointing as an enthusiastic supporter, to see him counter Clark when the General was so obviously correct. I still see Wesley Clark as Obama's best choice for VP, as well as the only spokesman to date to discern the total disconnect between McCain's military service and the level of strategic wisdom desparately needed as Commander-In-Chief.

[krocklin]

Not only was Clark a war hero himself, risking his life and barely living after attempting to rescue fellow soldiers in Vietnam, he was the Nato leader in the Bosnia campaign, which unlike the Iraq debacle was managed wisely, multi-laterally and quickly and eficiently brought peace and stability to the region.
And yet he never used his superior military record for political purposes in his political campaign, nor in his continuing political persona.
He never mentioned it and never brings it up - unlike McCain, whose brings it up at every opportunity.

[jamesmk]

To those who think General Clark somehow was 'out of order', could one of you please tell me, without referring to 'implications' or 'messages' or any other conveniently nebulous objections EXACTLY what it was that General Clark said that 'slammed' or 'insulted' or 'attacked' McCain?

Unless you are asserting that getting shot down somehow makes you a better, wiser or more intelligent person I fail to see any personal attack or disparagement. If you ARE asserting that getting shot down makes you a better person, then you need to explain to me EXACTLY (again, no nebulous terms) how that supposedly works

I believe that this is an important question to ask those making the assertion, because I believe it IS bull, and it's much easier to make ridiculous claims if you never have to truly defend your claims, and are allowed to use fuzzy statements like 'implications' that allow everyone to impose their own meaning. This is because stupid things sound MUCH more stupid when spoken out loud.

If no one CAN tell me EXACTLY what the insult was I'm going to have to assume that this is just another case of the Republican outrage machine targeting those that disagree with with empty sound and fury, hoping no-one notices it's devoid of logic.

[jamesmk]

I wish someone could tell me, without 'implications', without putting words in his mouth, without 'sending messages', exactly what it was that General Clark said that was an insult of or attack on McCain? Maybe I'm stupid, It happens sometimes, but being totally honest, I can't see it.

I believe that this is an important question, because it's easier to make outrageous claims if you don't have to defend them.

If it can't be explained to me, I'm going to have to assume that that this is just another tactic, and not a real issue.

Please, don't tell me that it's the Republican outrage machine, I know that. Please don't tell me that they only attack those who disagree with them, I know that too. Just explain how getting shot down qualifies you for anything other than commiserating with someone else who got shot down.

[yhgtup]

Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain.com have refuted McCain's "recollection" of events in Nam. MSM wouldn't dare talk about that! I agree with Gen Clark 100%.

[MPeter]

Thanks Mr. Eskow. Thank you for filtering through the garbage and the noise generated by MSM to boost McCSame. In fact, this man lacks proper judgment to run this country. His mind is clouded and ability to bring about change questionable.

[Adamwestiii]

I believe Gen Clark's statement are completely true. He's not slamming McCain but telling exactly what is out there. There is a gentleman by the name of Miller, a former LTC who was also a prisoner when John McCain was at the same compound, and his story was aired on the radio at numerous times. His story was even more compelling than what McCain spewed. I'm sorry that McCain was captured along with the other 600 POWs. The torture in NVN was much powerful during the early days of the war, but toned down quite a bit even before McCain was captured.

McCain's surrogates are the one who keep spewing that he would be a great President as he was a POW, and commanded some unit. Though McCain suffered injuries he finally ended up not only as a retired Navy Captain but also received 100% disability pay.

I could never vote for McCain because he would be a third termer for our current leader.

[mheister]

If getting shot earns you the bona fides to be commander-in-chief, than 50Cent for Prez!

[yhgtup]

Here! Here!!

[buggedabouttheus]

Good for Gen. Clark. It points out how biased and driven the MSM is in its quest for a McCain Presidency. Surely you would think that they would be off in a corner somewhere in contrition for foisting off the current President on us. Shame on MSM

[AntonGrambihler]

Maybe John McCain can explain why he crashed an Airplane into Power Lines. Was he trying to fly under them in violation of rules?

[heavyrunner]

Having been tortured and kept in a dark cellar for five and one half years disqualifies a person for the finger on the nuclear button, in my opinion. Being tortured for a long time would have to create a great deal of repressed anger. McCain shows that with his short fuse - "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a little trollop, you cunt.."

He would be a dangerous person to have in the Oval Office and he should not be considered seriously for the position.

The debate now should be between Nader and Obama. Which one's ideas will best solve our country's many serious problems? We already know that McCain hardly has ideas, and the ones he has have already been proven failures by George W. Bush.

[Brooklynegg]

There is no debate between Nader and Obama. Your other comments are severely diminished by any suggestion that Ralph is, or ever has been, a viable candidate for President.

[claudiam]

I am disappointed in Andrew Sullivan. I thought he was a thinker. Thank you for the 'disssent' article. I am also surprised at Scheiffer. McCain suffered and spent time in the military but it does not automatically give him the judgment/experience to be our president. Why does the media have to sensationalize?

[FOXYLADY]

GENERAL WES CLARK FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!! COME ON FOLKS, LETS ALL "WRITE HIM IN" AND GET SOMEONE WITH EXPERIENCE, HONESTY AND INTELLIGENCE SITTING IN THE OVAL OFFICE.

[rationalthought1]

Wes Clark needs to stop taking advice from James Carville. DON'T keep coming back with reprisals. Sure what you said was technically accurate but it allows the McCain campaign to keep the topic on an area he's comfortable with - military service (which Obama doesn't have). The question is do you really want to get Obama elected or are you just into doing your own thing that gets the attention off of what Obama is trying to focus on to win. Sure you are close to the CLintons and they and they're supporters probably get their feathers ruffled to see one of their own get dissed. I understand your frustration but Obama knows what the hell he's doing - please don't get in the way.

[Brooklynegg]

As in many relationships, this one between the media and Clark, sometimes it doesn't help at all to argue your side. RationalThought1 is correct. Find another way to "help."

[ARBOC2]

If Obama "knows what the hell he is doing" it is indeed frightening to find him willingly joining in with those who are spinning the truth of Clark's statement about McCain's presidential qualifications which resulted from being shot down and imprisoned. Clark, in effect, defended Obama's candidacy from the McCain atacks on his lack of military experience and then found Obama joining in with those who have dishonestly attacked Clark for statements he never made. This, of course, clearly makes Obama even less than just another pandering politician. It also makes Bob Schiefer, who more than helped create the false impression of what Clark had to say as just another pathetic media corporate kiss ass.

Is there anyone left in the media with the protected right and ability to tell the truth and react factually to what happens right in front of us, let alone behind closed doors? Schieffers distorted reaction to Clark's clear and honest comments are beyond belief in terms of relevancy to what Clark had to say. Schieffer has shown himself to be a fearful lackey of the worst sort. Obama has shown me that this may be the year I don't bother to vote. He could have just kept his mouth shut rather than attack a genuine American hero, who was defending him from an unjust attack. Jesus!,where will it all end?

[4johnny]

Seriously... I can't believe ANYBODY chose Kerry over Clark last time around. Are you kidding me? (Un)fortunately, I am Canadian and cannot vote to fix your country, and by extension, the rest of the world.

I wanted Ron Paul this time around, but Obama was running a hot second. Go Obama! Don't stop until this Victorian, Feudal system is rendered asunder!

[Christy1947]

Both sides are walking a fine line here.
The Republicans believe that only a Republican can be a war hero and that no Democrat ever can. They go after Clark and Webb but deny parallel treatment to their own. And that war hero status is sacrosanct once conferred by them. The last thing they want is to have anyone examine the whole McCain experience. They need it as an accepted meme which no one will question. So they cannot allow Clark's sidestep to work, and him to question whether the halo equals CIC qualification better than any other .
The Democrats don't want to distract from what they are trying to do with another round of Swiftboating, somebody picking apart that POW experience, because it will distract from what they are trying to do. There are those in the blogosphere who would only love to be this year's Swiftboaters . Hence the Dem's not questioning his war hero status, and then scuttling away to something relevant.
But. . Wes Clark is right. As a former NATO commander, and a wounded Nam vet, he has seen both sides and knows what being a fighter in Nam did not teach him, and what is really required to be a commander. Been there, done that.
This is what the howling is about. Avoiding the discussion which would take McCain out of the anointed saint part of the territory and into the real man who had real behavior which can be discussed area.