Columbia Journalism Review gets the point, and tells the story like it is: the Main$tream Media manufactured the flap about General Wes Clark’s remark regarding John McCain. Time we all start asking one question: “Is riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down a qualification to be President?”
Riding in a fighter plane and getting grounded for incompetence, as we have all spent the last seven years learning the hard way, sure as hell is not.
This is the exchange that started the flap:
When moderator Bob Schieffer interjected that “Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences, either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down”, Clark responded: “Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.”
What did Wes Clark say that wasn’t true?
More to the point, who decided what Wes Clark said was a hit on McCain?
McCain’s own political aides, that’s who. And the “famously free press” that Somerby, Lambert and Atrios all shake their foot * at daily piled on.
Here’s what matters: General Wesley Clark (Ret.) — unlike John McCain and way the hell as far from like George W. Bush as it’s humanly possible to be on the scales of military experience and general competence, is right. He’s being crucified for it.
“Democratic presumptive candidate” Senator Barack Hussein Obama (predictably IMHO) is doing the politician thing, the careerist thing, the thing you just don’t fucking do to your people out on the sharp end of the stick: he’s stabbing Clark in the back in speeches and comments, rather than standing up to the hooraw.
You want me to vote for Obama? Prove to me Obama will be any kind of change whatsoever from W. I don’t see it. I don’t hear it. I don’t smell it. (Smells like Teen Spirit? Gag.) And the proof that he won’t stand up for the people who stand up for him isn’t just my radical PUMA racist imagination. It’s in Obama’s own speech.
The presumptive Democratic nominee said he believes patriotism involves the willingness to sacrifice, and he touted the military service of his GOP rival, Sen. John McCain of Arizona.
“For those who have fought under the flag of this nation — for the young veterans I meet when I visit Walter Reed; for those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country — no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary,” he said, “And let me also add that no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides.”
Yeah, that’s a change, all right. Obama swiftboats Clark.
* a feline gesture of disdain
Front page
JFK??????????
Did y’all forget about JFK and his “Profiles in Courage”??? What executive experience did JFK have to become the president that inspired Clinton and Obama to this office? Commanding a PT boat well enough to be cut in half by a Japanese destroyer and manage to save most of his crew?
Maybe this is the proof Obama isn’t the guy he says he is… Obama’s Katrina
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articl…
And Obama’s Browne…
“Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to Obama’s presidential campaign and a member of his finance committee. Jarrett is the chief executive of Habitat Co., which managed Grove Parc Plaza from 2001 until this winter and co-managed an even larger subsidized complex in Chicago that was seized by the federal government in 2006, after city inspectors found widespread problems.”
Please read the whole article…its something else…this man’s much worse than W.
Inartful
Obama’s spokesman, Burton, really, really annoyed me with his “rejects Gen. Clark’s statements” comment from yesterday. Furious, to be more exact.
However, this video of Obama in the following MyDD post, I think, hits a pretty good tone for the situation. http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/7/1/23343…
For those without the patience to sit through it, a reporter asks Obama why doesn’t he apologize or some bullshit for Gen. Clark’s statement. Obama says that there are more important things to worry about than an “inartful” statement made on a TV show.
Moreover, today Obama said that his speech was written two months ago and was not referring to Clark in any way. Perhaps his current claim is a lie. I don’t know. But regardless, he was making it clear that his speech should not be taken as a repudiation of Clark’s comments.
actually, Sarah...
apparently, Obama didn’t *quite* swiftboat Clark.
at least, he claims that his comments yesterday were not aimed at Clark:
” I noticed that, I think, in at least one publication it was reported that my comments yesterday about Senator McCain were in a response to General Clark. I think my staff will confirm that was in a draft of that speech that I had written two months ago.
http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?dia…
Clark most certainly did get swifboated by the MCM though, here’s more info from Media Matters:
http://mediamatters.org/items/2008063000…
Peter, that article on “Obama’s Katrina” is pretty shocking, thanks for the link. (“much worse than W” though?? ;-)
McCain, The Man
Did McCain ever claim that being a POW was a qualification to be president? I doubt it. What McCain uses it to do is establish his “character.” Obama tried to do the same by obsessively hyping his “community organizer” days and even used it to bludgeon his Democratic opponents, named Edwards and Clinton, as favoring their greed over public service.
All Obama really has to work with is “judgment” and his has been rather fucked up over the past 20 years. Rezko alone proves that and destroys his “community organizer” halo.
Clark insulted McCain's service
sorry, but Clark insulted and belittled McCain’s service and sacrifice with that remark.
What did Wes Clark say that wasn’t true?
More to the point, who decided what Wes Clark said was a hit on McCain?
don’t be naive, Sarah. who ELSE could Clark have been talking about — and it was definitely a hit.
What Clark said that ’wasn’t true’ was the implication that all McCain did was get himself shot down — but his military career (and time as a POW) encompassed a great deal more than that.
Paul
Apropos of the PUMA thread, may I ask whom, if anyone, you expect you’re most likely to support in November?
Clark's comments were entirely reasonable.
He embedded the so-called “controversial” statement within a lot of language about his appreciation of McCain’s courage and sacrifice, and that’s clear to anyone who’s seen a clip of the show or read the transcript. He never said that all McCain did was get shot down, and never denigrated his service. He merely made the uncontroversial point that having been a POW is not adequate preparation for becoming the President. (Being Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO, on the other hand? Now that’s a resume-builder!)
I ordinarily agree with Paul in everything, but here he’s off-base. Why can’t we make rational distinctions between kinds of military service? I don’t get it. (Expanded comments on this at historiann.com.)
The part quoted here
Was entirely reasonable. The part I found slightly objectionable was when he stated that McCain’s squadron wasn’t a wartime squadron. Since his squadron saw combat, it was, in actuality a wartime squadron, even if it wasn’t one officially.
Of course, nothing Clark said is deservant of this kabuki dance, and the fact that Obama played into it demonstrates once more why he shouldn’t be the nominee.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
Clark was responding to a specific objection by Schieffer
to Clark’s view that that McCain’s military experience, although wholly laudable, doesn’t qualify him to be president, based on that one particular aspect of his military career. Clark didn’t equate McCain’s being shot down to his military career as a whole, even by implication.
Moreover, he had already expressed admiration for McCain’s heroism in that regard, so he wasn’t “insulting and belittling” being shot down, either. What Clark was belittling was the absurd notion that being shot down was somehow a qualification for being president.
FWIW and a bit OT, I’ve seen Schieffer criticized for even asking the question, the assumption being that he stupidly thought being shot down was a qualification for the presidency.
This kind of assumption is one of my pet peeves. Interviewers’ questions don’t necessarily reflect their own perspectives. A good interviewer will ask questions that s/he knows other people are asking in order to give the guest a chance to respond to them. Sometimes the interviewer will even ask a question s/he knows is really dumb to elicit the response, “Well, that’s a really dumb question, and here’s why…”
I suspect that’s what Schieffer was doing here. And his “Really?” follow-up didn’t mean he was surprised at Clark’s response; it was intended to draw Clark out. Schieffer’s not stupid. He was asking a question that some people wanted and needed to hear a good response to. He knew what the response would be, but it’s not his job to provide that response, only to elicit it.
at this point....
all I know is that I’m not supporting Obama.
I many vote for McCain if it looks like PA will be crucial, because an Obama win would lead to loss of Congress by 2012, and a GOP president in 2012 as well.
Just kind of following this along, Paul
and not really wanting to have an argument, but sometimes I get confused on the logic.
Correct me here if I’m off, but are you saying that the best way to prevent having a GOP president in 2012 is to elect one in 2008?
If that is your claim, how does that work out exactly? Seems backwards to me.
About McCain's squadron
When he was shot down, he was just a pilot; he wasn’t in charge.
After he was released and rehabed, his father the admiral pulled strings to put him in charge of a training squadron. McCain was such a lousy pilot they didn’t want him back up in the air, and he wasn’t really needed at his new desk. Those squadrons are functionally operated by the noncoms; the brass rotate through and are there primarily for window dressing on parade. The squadron McCain commanded was not a combat squadron, nor were we in fact at war during the time he was in command.
What McCain did during that period was fly around the country whoring and drinking, then fell in love with Cindy’s money and divorced his devoted first wife who had waited faithfully for his homecoming. Sterling character or not, he doesn’t have any executive administrative experience.
Premises
Well, this is all premised on the assumption that McCain is so evil that it justifies a vote for Obama.
If we assume that McCain will be as bad as all of the “three minute haters” of the progressive blogosphere insist he will be — that he will be “McSame”, the nation will reject him and elected a dem in 2012.
Of course, if it turns out that Kool Aid 2.0 is as nasty as Kool Aid 1.0, and McCain isn’t as bas as “everyone” says, then we won’t need a Democratic president in 2012 (plus, we’ll probably be able to maintain control of congress).
Its win-win for the country… and if Obama is elected, its lose-lose-lose for the country. He’s incompetent, unprincipled, and completely unprepared for the presidency, and will screw things up worse than they are now —- and we will wind up with a GOP president who will be far worse than McCain in 2012, and probably lose control of Congress to the GOP as well.
that was made in the context...
that McCain’s military experience AS A WHOLE was irrelevant to his qualifications for commander in chief. Clark was denigrating McCain’s service (while claiming to honor it) in order to make it appear that McCain was no more qualified to be CinC than Obama is.
That’s complete bullshit, IMHO. And left blogistan is completely ignoring what Clark was doing (trashing the RELEVANCE of McCain’s entire military career) while focussing on the ’truth’ of the fact that getting shot down doesn’t qualify you for being CinC.
Clark should be ashamed of himself — the simple fact is that if he wants to make the idiotic argument that Obama is qualified to be CinC, he should do so WITHOUT suggesting that McCain’s military career is irrelevant.
thank you for denigrating the service and sacrifice....
of a war hero.
seriously, is it even possible for any of you to take a step back from your three minute hate-fests, and take an objective look at what you are doing — of how ugly and disgusting the left-wing echo chamber has become?
I don’t expect it from the Obots, of course, but those of us who watched what happened to Hillary should at least recognize that the EXACT same thing is going on with McCain right now — and that maybe progressives should stop with the fucking groupthink for a few minutes, and try and figure out what the fuck is going on here….
I'm not thrilled
with the “lousy” piloting and “whoring and drinking” descriptors either. Character IS important, but I don’t think these fairly weigh in. Treatment of his first wife, I think, is fair game, however.
I’d sure hate to see us come anywhere close to this:
http://www.correntewire.com/so_they_wont…
Yeah, that's my operating premise; Republican = Very Very Bad
but I’ve thought very little of John McCain for a long time, and less each day I consider him. I’m a Yellow Dog Democrat in this race, and that feeling wouldn’t be much ameliorated if Hillary were the nominee.
Any Republican will be an unmitigated disaster for America, and the world. Obama will be problematic, but no worse than that and certainly not anywhere near so bad as any Republican - IMHO.
Just cannot get my head around the idea that the best way to put a stop to Republican criminal hegemony is to put another Republican in the White House. For me, does not compute.
About that ugly and disgusting Left-wing echo chamber
Glass houses, Paul.
Perhaps I’m under a false assumption; happens when you get old. Thought everyone on the Left knows about John McCain and his military service but apparently not. I feel a post building within me, a need to shed some light into the dark corners.
What happened with Clark, why he spoke as he did, is the result of a long-simmering resentment going back to Vietnam days and just after. Clark, and a lot of senior service people, have no love for John McCain. He used his father’s influence, or accepted it, or was driven to obey it, whatever, to leapfrog over others more qualified and more senior. Nothing much pisses off a career military officer more than that. Worse, though, is that McCain both failed to turn his unearned advancements to any good purpose and instead abused in many ways his standing.
Not many senior officers have any respect for McCain or for the Bush/Cheney policies he says he will continue. We’ve seen one top brass after another speak out against the Bush military adventurism, and he keeps firing them and replacing them with new brass; isn’t long before the new ones are saying the same thing, that he’s an idiot and a fool, and he has to replace them again. They want done with Bush, and they don’t want a President McCain either, because they are sick of the death and pain and blood and sacrifice for nothing but more money for the Plutocrats.
Wes Clark is speaking the truth; damn if I’ll accept that the truth has to be suppressed because of a pile of myths and false representations.
"Obama Might ‘Refine’ Iraq Timeline"-- NYT today-
speaking of war, of course — http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/…
(SS is next)
He stands for nothing. Not one “word that matters” is believable either past or present.
Back to the point I was trying to make. It's past time
We all start asking one question: “Is riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down a qualification to be President?”
Riding in a fighter plane and getting grounded for incompetence, as we have all spent the last seven years learning the hard way, sure as hell is not.
Having served in the peacetime military, I can say one more thing toward this and then I’ll shut up. Squadron COs come in two flavors — the guys who get the job done, and the guys who look good, get the promotions, use the job as a stepping stone.
Color me a fan of the first kind, please.
We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0