McCain's campaign attacks Gen. Clark's military record

Wasn't his last command where he won the Bosnia mess without losing a single American life?

 

Seems that McCain and Clark have something personal against each other -- I was really surprised with the general's 'shot down' comment. I'm also surprised that the McCain camp is even responding to it - maybe they just want to keep it in the news.

 

I've seen both Huffington Post & National Review posting way out there comments painting way too broad a picture about what Clark said.

Think of it this way. Imagine McCain wanted to be a doctor. If he wanted to be a doctor, and claimed that his war record made him qualified to be a doctor without having to go to medical school or pass the boards, what would you think? If I said his military record doesn't confer any special experience with medicine, I think most of us would agree with that. And saying that wouldn't be questioning his character or devaluing his service to America.

The experience of being a fighter pilot in charge of a squadron, and the experience of being locked up in a crappy POW jail are not experiences which make you proven as a potential Commander-in-Chief. Nor do they make you proven as an MD. They are different experiences. That is all.

If McCain chose to go to med school, perhaps he could make a great doctor. If he becomes Commander-in-Chief, maybe he becomes the greatest Commander-in-Chief of all time. But the fact that he was a war vet and POW doesn't automatically make him either of these things.

That isn't disrespecting McCain. He is still a great American, who made great sacrifices for his country. This isn't 'Swift Boating'. But his military service isn't a magic amulet on par with 'staying in a Holiday Inn last night' that automatically makes him an experienced C-in-C or an experienced MD.

The media echo chamber and the politicos who grow like fungus in it's dark corners, seriously need to get a grip.

 

Wes Clark made the opposite statement regarding Kerry in 2004, he has no cred.

 

It certainly doesn't hurt.

 

That's fine. I don't see where Clark said it did. I think that was Bush in 2004 in South Carolina where they said being a POW made him unstable.

 

Not true. I read the 2004 speech you are referencing. He said that his war experience demonstrated personality qualities that would make him a good president. Nothing about his war experience being a relevant training experience to do the job of president.

Simply put, you are wrong. No cred.

 

I was disappointed by General Clark going after McCain like that. I'm also surprised to see McCain coming right back at him instead of taking the high road.

 

Maybe McCain foolishly took Clark's bait. IMO, the more McCain's military service is hashed and bashed publicly right now, the less it will serve him in November because people will get tired of hearing about it. I think Clark was out of line, but his premise that being a prisoner of war doesn't prepare one to be president is the truth.

This is one undecided voter who doesn't give a flip about McCain's military record when it comes to choosing between the two. I'm already sick of it and only care about McCain's agenda for the country. Talk to me about the economy, taxes, Afghanistan & Iraq, healthcare, energy independence, pharmaceutical prices, repairing our global relationships & immigration.

I'm so fed up with the ticky-tack back-and-forth "gotcha" nonsense from both sides that I'm ready to scream!

 

I think Clark's gone after him because McCain is a bit of a one trick pony. He's always pushing his military service as evidence that he's qualified to be Commander In Chief. The fact is though, as Clark is rightly pointing out, that being a Captain in the military and a POW neither gives you the experience nor qualifies you to be Commander In Chief as McCain attemps to portray.

 

Republicans are misrepresenting what Clark said. Clark agrees that Mccain is a stud.

However being a prisoner in Vietnam 40 years ago does NOT prepare you to be a national security expert in the 21st century. AND on the #1 natl security issue of the past 6 years. IRAQ. Mccain was completely and totally wrong and Obama was right.

Mccain needs to stop running as the National Security Candidate

 

That's a very interesting take and I haven't heard anyone else mention that. This could be a great Machiavellian tactic to attack McCain at one his strengths. Have a surrogate make a comment that seems to diminish McCain's war record then toss the surrogate under the bus by claiming you are above that sort of thing but meanwhile the issue gets hashed out in media and blogosphere and McCain has to spend time addressing what was taken for granted.

 

Being a prisoner of war may not qualify you to comment on international relations, but giving an order to attack the Russians in Kosovo certainly disqualifies you.

Yeah, I know. General Clark had a great record up to that point. Just like Burnside before Fredricksburg.

 

Wow, so 2004, kerry's combat experience was a plus for him, now 2008 its no longer a plus for McCain?

 

Abraham Lincoln never served in the military. He became a great commander in chief.

At least McCain has a record to talk about. And wasn't his rank a colonel? That's pretty high.

Anyways, I think attacking a person on his military service is low. Especially if the person you're supporting has no service to talk about.

 

I thought Obama was a new type of politician. That's a pretty slimy tactic his campaign is using.

 

Worse than Bush/Cheney/Rove/Republican campaign tactics?

And how can it be slimy if he's just telling the truth.

 

I know it is really difficult when you are in political mode to actually think critically. Take a deep breath. Step back. Go to your happy place.

He said two completely different things. In 2004 he was about personality traits. In 2008 he was talking about experience. These are completely unrelated comments. If McCain wants to talk about how his experience has demonstrated he has the personality traits to be a good C-in-C then Clark will demure.

I appreciate that in the political echo machine it is difficult to step outside the linear-Manichaean world view of absolute good or absolute evil. But the world exists in shades and hues, not absolutes. What he is talking about is a candidate. Not a bunch of check boxes where you select something as a 'plus' or a 'minus' in relation to a person, tally the total up, and decide whether someone is Superman or Satan.

The point of this whole exercise is that John McCain is overselling the value of his service in making him an 'experienced leader'. When John McCain starts using a service as a tool of his campaign, at that point doesn't it reasonably becomes fair game to discuss?

Or should his service be a shield, which enables him to make up all kinds of crap without fear of reprisal? "I was a POW, so I can sex my wife better than Obama. I was a POW, so I can solve world hunger and end conflict in the Middle East, and you can't contradict me. Nanny nanny, bpbthhhh!"

If Clark were running for President, then that would be fair game to discuss, right? But somehow you are violating the sacrosanct hallowed halls of all that is holy when you discuss anything about McCain's service in response to his own claims?

 

Nothing but re-election really makes you qualified to be President of the US; all new candidates have to aspire to it and we, as voters, have to extend our faith in their abilities.