Questioning the Unquestionable
Posted by Tony on 01 Jul 2008 at 07:01 am | Tagged as: Presidency
Oh Yeah, this one is right out of Karl Rove’s master playbook…don’t fool around, go for the jugular…Question the unquestionable…challenge that which everyone assumes true. Ultimately, attack your opponent on his strongest point. The only thing, this time it is the Democrats using Rove’s strategy. Sunday while appearing on “Face the Nation”, General Wes Clark launched an assault on the military record of Republican Presidential Candidate and Vietnam veteran John McCain (Can you believe it! His military record! That’s like saying Manny needs more batting practice). Clark referred to McCain as “untested and untried” (What!? The man was tortured for 6 years while a prisoner of war). The General went even further…”I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president” (Don’t say that to George Bush the First). Of course, all the conservative talk shows came running to McCain’s aid…and McCain also defended himself…”I think that that kind of thing is unnecessary…I am proud of my record of service, and I have plenty of friends and leaders who will attest to that” (He sounds like John Kerry in the 2004 race, doesn’t he?). Just the fact that McCain had to defend his military record is a victory for his opponents in itself. This tactic reeks of 2004’s Swift boat campaign…Karl Rove lives.
The attack is not on the military record of John McCain, but rather on the premise that that record qualifies him to be President of the United States.
Wes Clark is correct, other than maybe the understanding received as a POW may strenghten his opinion against using torture. But even in this regard, McCain seems to have been bent more by the right wing of the Republican party in order to court their votes this election.
Gimme a break. What JoeS said. He’s right. Please criticize Clark on what he said, not what you wish he said.
Here’s the crux of it - in context, that statement wasn’t even remotely controversial. Perhaps he shouldn’t have worded the last part of it the way he did, but the fact remains - it’s a legitimate question. Especially the way that McCain is running pretty much solely on his so-called experience.
Keep in mind, it’s McCain that keeps bringing it up. This is not a Swiftboat attack on WHETHER he served with honor. Clark was very clear on that. It was a question of whether or not McCain is any more qualified to be CiC than Obama, based on his service. McCain argues that’s the BIG reason why he’s more qualified.
To my mind, it might help to have been part of the military so you know what those guys go through and how the military works. However, he did not reach a rank sufficient to make him so qualified to be CiC that no other choice makes sense. (Not to mention the serious amount of other duties a President has besides CiC, or that civilian leadership of our military is a bedrock of our Constitution, or that McCain knows crap-all about the economy or, apparently, foreign policy, or spoke out/voted against GIVING OUR TROOPS MORE BENEFITS. Grrr.)
Why post McCain’s disingenuous response instead of the original quote so we can judge for ourselves? You’re usually better than that, Tony.
SCHIEFFER: Could I just interrupt you? I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of these experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.
CLARK: Well I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.
Had he worded it as such, there’d be no problem. But the words Clark used are what people take issue with. However you mean it, to call a prisoner of war untested is a slap in the face. At least Obama is intelligent and compassionate enough to disavow the comments, even if all of his supporters aren’t.
Everyone wants to spin this in terms of insult, and they are finding insult where none existed. That’s what is pissing me off.
From CJR:
This is only unthinkable if you really do believe that getting shot down does make him more qualified to be POTUS. Does anybody really take that position? If not then all this outrage is manufactured on the part of the offended.
It’s not an insult to call a prisoner of war untested and untried? It’s not an insult to downplay his military leadership because it didn’t come in war time?
Those aren’t my words or the media’s words, those are Wesley Clark’s words. Scheffer gave him a chance to backtrack, and he still didn’t.
No, getting shot down does not mean McCain is going to be a better President than Obama. It does make him a hero, and questioning whether he’s a better man and better leader because of it is downright foolish, whether the speaker is a retired general or a blog poster.
Maybe you could post the part where Clark called him untried.
Clark praised McCain as a hero, but said his military experience didn’t include the kind of command experience that directly relates to being president.
This is nothing like the attacks Republicans made on Kerry when they issued and wore Purple Heart bandages at the GOP National Convention.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/11/gen-clark-mccain-is-untes_n_106457.html
It’s funny to hear Obama and Clark supporters act as if this is a total fabrication. The words were said in an interview, repeated to him during the CBS spot, and he did nothing to correct the record. If Clark won’t back down from what he said, why are you all so eager to question the validity?
The “Republicans did worse to Kerry so Clark’s words aren’t that bad” excuse is a poor one. Wrong is wrong, no matter which party does it. In the end, it probably doesn’t make a difference in elections. Kerry lost in ‘04 for other reasons. All it does, however, is poison the discussion and take away from a sincere debate about what’s really important.
RiL, be reasonable, and think a minute. Clark was repeating the phrase the questioner used. In that context, it was a perfectly uncontroversial statement statement.
It’s not wrong, because the statement is NOT UNTRUE! It might be opinion (whether or not getting shot down is a qualification to be president) but it is NOT insulting and it is NOT a smear!
Trivia question…what other recent president was (in the exact words of Wes Clark)…”riding in a fighter plane and got shot down”?…There might be a bite of genius here.
You wouldn’t be referring to Father Bush41 would you? I’m hard pressed to award “genius” here but I do get what you are saying.
Right, Father and President George Bush 41, and he is a “one termer”…OK, genius? Sorry, I am easily impressed.
No, LiL, the questioner was repeating words Clark himself used in a print interview. And the insulting part is calling him “untested.”
The point in this case isn’t whether being a prisoner of war makes you more qualified to be president. It’s whether a candidate who wishes to be president can surround himself with intelligent and qualified enough people who won’t say stupid things to detract from his message. This flap is not doing Obama any favors, much as Reverend Wright’s big mouth didn’t help the cause.
Obama was right to address the issue and try to put it to bed. This election is his to lose, especially once people see him and McCain on the same stage at the same time and realize how old McCain really is. The only thing that can cost Obama the election is people believing his youth is actually inexperience, as evidenced by the fact he surrounds himself with people unqualified to counsel a President.
This isn’t about the word untested. It’s about McCain trying to make his military experience seem relevant to the job of Commander-In-Chief, when it isn’t.
It might be fun to list the counsellors McCain surrounds himself with. It’s kind of a who’s who of lobbyists and fundraisers for terrorists.
This one is one of my favorites:
One of John McCain’s biggest fundraisers “oversaw the payment of roughly $1.7 million to a Colombian paramilitary group that is today designated a terrorist organization by the United States.” HuffPost reports that Carl Lindner, the former CEO of Chiquita Brands, “paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (known by the Spanish acronym AUC),” which is described by George Washington University’s National Security Archive as an ‘illegal right-wing anti-guerrilla group tied to many of the country’s most notorious civilian massacres.’”
Maybe your favorite is this:
At least 24 McCain staffers or advisers were either registered to lobby Congress (as of year-end 2007) or were previously lobbyists….Former and current federally registered lobbyists include McCain’s campaign manager, deputy campaign manager, chief political adviser, senior policy adviser, more than half a dozen economic policy advisers, and numerous national and state co-chairmen.
If McCain is untested, after all his years in the Senate and in the military, then what is Obama?
And please don’t make us list the lobbyists and other hacks Obama surrounds himself with. We don’t want to slow the internet to a crawl.
Why is it so difficult for Obama supporters to simply admit Clark showed poor judgement in his choice of words and simply leave it at that? A mistake is a mistake, regardless of who makes it. Even Obama himself realized how much damage the Clark statements could make. That’s why he moves so quickly to negate the words.