Let Me Get This Straight ...
So there's a guy who's a West Point graduate, who went on to a distinguished career in the US Army, including service in Viet Nam, where he won the Silver Star for an engagement where, after he was shot four times by a Viet Cong with an AK-47, he led his troops in a counter-attack that defeated the enemy force.
He went on to rise to the rank of general, and, after Senate confirmation, took the post as head of the US European Command, making him Supreme Allied Commander Europe. He then led allied forces to victory in the Kosovo War.
And, when this guy, who seems like he might be in a position to know, happens to point out that, despite McCain's valiant service and POW experience, he hasn't actually got a lot of actual command or executive policy experience of the sort we might want in a president, it's somehow a vile slander, and an attack on McCain's patriotism, and must be renounced?
How's that work, exactly? I mean, what, exactly, did General Wesley Clark say that was, as Bob Dole claimed, "beyond comprehension" and "absurd"? McCain has been making a lot out of the implication that his wartime service gives him some important advantage in understanding national security issues. So, it seems that idea should be open to question. John McCain may think such questions are "unnecessary", but I don't.
McCain has accused Obama of having no national security experience. It seems like that means he thinks national security experience is an important qualification. So, why is it so unthinkable to examine what, exactly, McCain's national security qualifications are?
As General Clark says:
Update: From Media Matters, a forceful reminder that McCain's most powerful constituency is the media.
He went on to rise to the rank of general, and, after Senate confirmation, took the post as head of the US European Command, making him Supreme Allied Commander Europe. He then led allied forces to victory in the Kosovo War.
And, when this guy, who seems like he might be in a position to know, happens to point out that, despite McCain's valiant service and POW experience, he hasn't actually got a lot of actual command or executive policy experience of the sort we might want in a president, it's somehow a vile slander, and an attack on McCain's patriotism, and must be renounced?
How's that work, exactly? I mean, what, exactly, did General Wesley Clark say that was, as Bob Dole claimed, "beyond comprehension" and "absurd"? McCain has been making a lot out of the implication that his wartime service gives him some important advantage in understanding national security issues. So, it seems that idea should be open to question. John McCain may think such questions are "unnecessary", but I don't.
McCain has accused Obama of having no national security experience. It seems like that means he thinks national security experience is an important qualification. So, why is it so unthinkable to examine what, exactly, McCain's national security qualifications are?
As General Clark says:
There are many important issues in this Presidential election, clearly one of the most important issues is national security and keeping the American people safe. In my opinion, protecting the American people is the most important duty of our next President. I have made comments in the past about John McCain's service and I want to reiterate them in order be crystal clear. As I have said before I honor John McCain's service as a prisoner of war and a Vietnam Veteran. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. I would never dishonor the service of someone who chose to wear the uniform for our nation.P.S. Perhaps, when they are done on the fainting couch, those McCain allies who are so incensed by Clark's remarks, might explain how repeatedly getting countries and factions confused is a sign of excellent national security experience:
John McCain is running his campaign on his experience and how his experience would benefit him and our nation as President. That experience shows courage and commitment to our country - but it doesn't include executive experience wrestling with national policy or go-to-war decisions. And in this area his judgment has been flawed - he not only supported going into a war we didn't have to fight in Iraq, but has time and again undervalued other, non-military elements of national power that must be used effectively to protect America But as an American and former military officer I will not back down if I believe someone doesn't have sound judgment when it comes to our nation's most critical issues.
“We can’t right every wrong and achieve every laudable goal,” he said, using Dafur as an example of where many Americans want to act, but have yet to identify a reasonable course of action.P.P.S. When he does this, I can't help but think of Monty Python and the Holy Grail:
“How can we bring pressure on the government of Somalia?” he asked, which prompted Mark Salter to correct him,. “Sudan,” Salter said.
“Sudan,” McCain repeated. “There’s a realpolitik side of my view of the conduct of American foreign policy.”
Cleric: And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.
Brother Maynard: Amen.
All: Amen.
King Arthur: Right. One... two... five.
Galahad: Three, sir.
King Arthur: Three.
Update: From Media Matters, a forceful reminder that McCain's most powerful constituency is the media.
Summary: All three network evening newscasts misrepresented retired Gen. Wesley Clark's comments about Sen. John McCain on Face The Nation, with none noting that Clark praised McCain as a "hero" for his Vietnam war service. ABC's David Wright asserted that McCain's experience as a POW made Clark's comments "especially provocative." CBS' Dean Reynolds falsely suggested that Clark had questioned McCain's patriotism and had "critici[zed]" McCain's "service, including five years as a POW." And NBC's Brian Williams falsely suggested that Clark had impugned McCain's "war record."More.