This is Rich– Clark says McCain not well qualified
Jun 30th, 2008 by David Anderson
John McCain is only the best qualified individual to run for the Presidency in a generation. General Clark is backing someone who has hardly any track record at all. Out of all of the reasons to attack McCain, his record of public and military service is the most foolhardy. What was Clark thinking? If we apply the same standard that he raises, he should have been supporting Huckabee or Richardson and be sitting the election out. He can not seriously discount McCain’s relationship to leaders around the world, his command in the Navy because it wasn’t during wartime, and his wartime service because he got shot down. He can not claim that a man who ran a large Navy squadron doesn’t have enough executive experience, but claim a man who hadn’t even run a vending machine does.
I haven’t been too critical of Senator Obama’s lack of experience even though it makes me uneasy because I feel that a leader can hire good administrators and advisers, but good administrators and advisers aren’t hiring the leader. So I look for leadership qualities and vision, that has been the basis of my critique.
So excuse me if I go off on General Clark who demeaned the service of all of us who happened not to be a General. Senator McCain has been tested and tried like General Clark hasn’t been. General Clark ran a bombing campaign from a desk and almost got us into the soup with both the Chinese and the Russians. Senator McCain was tested almost to inhuman lengths and stayed faithful to this Land. With all due respect General Clark, I think John McCain’s strength of Character qualifies him.
With that settled, let’s get back to those stubborn things called issues.
David: I DO NOT respect General Wesley Clark’s service, and the reasons have been pretty clearly documented for his brazen conduct in Kosovo:
http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2008/06/wes-i-promise-i-wont-start-ww3-honest.html
Clark was never legitimately a general; he has always been a politician in uniform.
That having been said, as you can see in my post, I follow you the rest of the way.
I don’t know that I’d call Senator McCain “the best qualified individual to run for the Presidency in a generation.” In my estimation, the best qualified man to run in a generation would be the first President Bush, followed by Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico. But Senator McCain is so clearly far ahead of Senator Obama in experience and accomplishment that there is really no comparison.
The comparison comes out in Obama’s favor when we examine positions on the issues, in my view. Moreover, whereas experience is important, so is judgment. Finally, the point that Clark was trying to make, poorly worded, was that McCain’s military experiences in themselves do not necessarily qualify McCain for the Presidency. I agree with that.
On some important issues, McCain is carrying forward failed Bush policy, like the tax cuts favoring the wealthy. McCain also supports indefinite occupation of Iraq, a sovereign nation. Finally, McCain highlights short-term, gimmicky, faux solutions to our energy crisis.
In contrast, Obama wants tax cuts to favor the middle. He also favors reducing corporate taxes, then pressuring them to pass the savings on to consumers. On Iraq, he favors gradual withdrawal with guidance from the military commanders on the ground. His energy policy short term focuses on a stimulus tax policy aimed at the middle and the poor, combined with robust research investments on developing non-fossil fuel technologies, a longer range approach that all administrations since Jimmy Carter have neglected. On jobs, he wants to focus on infrastructure rebuilding, another area of neglect for decades. It takes plenty of guts in an election cycle to tell people in stress that we have to take long term steps now.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
That’s courage! That’s vision!!!
Focusing on the topic, here is what Wes Clark actually did say on CBS:
Here is the context and Schieffer’s question:
On CBS’s Face the Nation, General Clark said that he believed John McCain was “untried and untested.” Journalist Bob Schieffer asked him to explain what he meant. How could Clark make such a claim when “you’re talking about somebody who was a prisoner of war? He was a squadron commander of the largest squadron in the Navy. He’s been on the Senate Armed Services Committee for many years. How can you say that John McCain is un-untested and untried?” And here’s General Clark’s answer:
Here is Wesley Clark’s response:
” Because 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 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.”
Now what do your think?
Dave, how sad for you that you read the wingnut screed exclusively.
The fact that Clark said this true. The citation in the whacknut post you linked to cropped the exchange unfairly.
Context is everything, dears.
http://mediamatters.org/
edited out of the video the exchange Clark had with Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer just prior to that latter comment, which indicated that Clark was repeating Schieffer’s words. Indeed, Clark’s assertion — “I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president” — was in response to Schieffer’s statement that, unlike McCain, Obama has not “ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.”
From the June 29 edition of CBS’ Face the Nation; the portion of the interview CNN edited out is bolded:
CLARK: That large squadron in the Air — in the Navy that he commanded, it wasn’t a wartime squadron. He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn’t seen what it’s like when diplomats come in and say, “I don’t know whether we’re going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle it” –
SCHIEFFER: Well –
CLARK: — “publicly?” He hasn’t made those calls, Bob.
SCHIEFFER: Well — well, General, maybe he –
CLARK: So –
SCHIEFFER: Could I just interrupt you? If –
CLARK: Sure.
SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean –
CLARK: Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.
Shortly before that exchange, Clark had said of McCain: “I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands of 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.”
“The comparison comes out in Obama’s favor when we examine positions on the issues, in my view. Moreover, whereas experience is important, so is judgment.”
Obama happily sat in a racist church for 20 years, so he doesn’t cut it in the “judgment” category, either.
What is a racist church, anonymous?
Do you go to a racist church?
Why don’t you use your name on your posts? Weak!!!
Politico is not a right wing publication. I do not watch CBS’ Sunday show. I only saw clips, but they reflect the transcript you posted and the politico article. It seemed outrageous to me when I saw it.
I don’t see the difference. I just liked Common Sense Dana’s commentary in addition to the letter because He said some things I felt but would rather not say. This episode really did sort of irrate me. I also thought The Nation article he quoted was priceless. Also not a right wing publication.
Ok, I will go with the Elder Bush than McCain. I could not disagree more with General Clark. You can’t say a command is meaningless unless you are dropping bombs. It is about the skills you learn. You can’t say being in war doesn’t give you a unique perspective when you are a wartime President. General Clark spent all of a month in a war zone. Though he did serve honorablely and was injured.
I as I alluded, I think Senator Obama is capable of leading this nation. I think experience is important but leadership is more important. I happen to think McCain combinds the two and is a better choice. That is a personal calculus we make. We fight it out on the issues.
My problem is that Clark was not fighting on those grounds. I will add that on Monday, Senator Obama disowned those remarks to his credit.
Obama on Rev. Wright: “Well, I may not know him as well as I thought either.”
Obama on Tony Rezko: “This isn’t the Tony Rezko I knew.”
Judgment is Obama’s weakest attribute.
Nothing in either of those “contextual” posts vindicates Clark. He is a caricature of his former self — which wasn’t all that much in the first place. It says a lot that Bill Clinton had to axe him from command.
Judgment, Perry? As anonymous said, 20 yrs. in the church of a certified nutjob? Having a fundraiser with an unrepentant domestic terrorist? Is that “judgment,” Perry?
Talk about WEAK.
CLARK: Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.
Some “honoring” a fellow military man. And McCain wasn’t “riding” in the plane — he friggin’ piloted it. And the “getting shot down” remark speaks for itself.
If I were McCain, I’d remark “Well, back in 2004 maybe someone should’ve commented that almost starting WW III isn’t a qualification to be president either.”
What most of you ignore is the context of Clark’s remarks. You also twist their meanings.
McCain and his supporters, on a daily basis, cite his military experiences as qualifying him to be President. Clark, while recognizing McCain’s bravery and service to the country, is challenging that assumption, which is reasonable to do. Clark’s problem is that he threw in a couple of other off the wall comments, like the accountability statement, that in effect negate his main point.
Clark’s loose tongue has ruined his political career; that does not mean that he is automatically wrong in anything he says.
Look at McCain with his persistent confusion over Sunnis and Shia. Do we then disregard all his statements? Come on!
And then I ask again: What is a racist church?
It is understandable to me how a race which has been put upon for 400 years, and still is to some extent, should tend to huddle together in a defensive posture. If this is racism, I find it more forgivable than to the other kind that discriminates and segregates merely on the basis of one’s skin color!
And yes, Hube, that you and anonymous would hide your identities, unwilling to sign your name to your views, that is weak and cowardly. Could it be that you feel the threat of discrimination in your job? You then have a taste of what African-Americans have had to live with for 400 years, to the shame of us all I might add!
And yes, Hube, that you and anonymous would hide your identities, unwilling to sign your name to your views, that is weak and cowardly.
Only a total cretin would say I am “hiding” my ID. That just shows how ridiculously STUPID you are. Take a Geritol — it might help.
BTW, I never said “racist church.” I said Obama’s pastor is a certified nutjob. So, what this does is, again, prove your memory/mind is going.
Reread post #7, Hube — I was addressing “anonymous”, not you. Now whose memory to we demean. Silliness, for sure!
And right, “Hube” is your name? Not enough, Hube; so yes, you can continue to hide behind your moniker, as is your wish, and play your ad hominem games besides. If it is job security you are worried about, I can understand that. Then just admit it like a mature adult!
Now back on topic. It should be obvious to any observer that the McCain campaign has mischaracterized Clark’s statement, and they continue to do so. How ridiculous! Makes them look silly, or desperate, or both!