There is nothing wrong with what General Clark said (updated)

I cannot believe that the media and the Obama campaign are buying into the bullshit line that Gen. Wes Clark said anything wrong yesterday.

"In the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "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 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, but he hasn't held executive responsibility," Clark said. "That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded _ that wasn't a wartime squadron."

The McCain campaign, the media and now the Obama campaign are comparing this to the attacks against Senator Kerry in 2004. Now termed swiftboating thanks to the name of the 527 Group that paid for and ran the ads.

Swiftboating implies that lies were told and that the honor of someone's service has been called into question which was done to Senator Kerry. No one has lied about Senator McCain's service or suggested that his time in uniform wasn't honorable.

Can someone please tell me how being a POW qualifies you to be president?

Do I respect his service? Do I wish he hadn't be captured and tortured? Of course. Does it mean that he knows horrors that few, if any of us will ever have to experience? Unforetunatly for him, yes.

Does it mean that he has leadership qualities? Does it mean that he has good judgement? Does it mean that he knows anything about foreign policy or strategy? NO.

If I had a car accident does that mean that I am qualified to run a pit crew at Indianapolis? Should I be head of the Department of Transportation? Of course not.

Are you belittling my pain, trauma or capabilities as a driver by saying so? Of course not.

How is what General Clark said any different?

General Clark and many of us simply want to have someone explain how his experience has prepared him to lead the country. A very fair question and one that Senator Obama and this campaign should continue to ask.

If Senator Obama doesn't feel comfortable asking that since he hasn't worn the uniform then Gen. Clark and many other veterans can and should keep asking the question on the campaign's behalf.

Side Note --I know that this will tick a lot of people off, but in my book being a POW doesn't qualify you as a hero. We are way too quick to label someone a hero. Going through a trying experience or an ordeal that you had no choice about does not make you a hero. Surviving something isn't heroic. If that was the case then the men at Gitmo are heroes. I am certainly not making that argument, but if you apply the same logic then they are too. They just happen to be our prisoners instead of the Viet Cong's. They got captured by the enemy, put in prison and are being subjected to harsh treatment and interrogations.

All wars and all sides have POWs. They are all unlucky SOBs, not heroes.

There are prisoners who have acted heroically. Risking your life to help other prisoners escape or blinking messages in Morse code is heroic (but still not a qualification to lead the country though).

Getting captured, following the Code of Conduct and enduring makes you a good soldier doing your job. Doing your job is not heroic, it is expected. As Chris Rock quipped you don't get special credit for doing what you are supposed to do (talking about fathers, not POWs).

UPDATE (7/3/2004) -- After 4 days of distortion on this story with McCain surrogates and media personalities defending the senator over attacks that weren't ever voiced by Gen. Clark it makes sense to quote Mr. McCain himself on the subject of military service and its connection to being prepare to be president. When asked if "military service inherently makes somebody better equipped to be commander-in-chief." McCain said,

"Absolutely not. History shows that some of our greatest leaders have had little or no military experience- Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delanor Roosevelt. Harry Truman was in the artillery in World War I, which was magnificent. Ronald Reagan did most of his active duty in the studio lots in California. It might be a nice thing, but I absolutely don't believe that it's necessary. [National Journal, 2/15/03]

Source

TPM posted this video which is a nice montage showing what was actually said and how distorted the media and McCain campaign's response to it was



The poor guy who the Fox host (that word doesn't seem appropriate to how she treats a guest, but the other words that I would use to describe her just aren't polite) keeps interupting is Jon Soltz. He is the head of VoteVets.org and if he had been allowed to talk perhaps some of his interesting points might have made it onto the air. He did write a rather interesting piece this week that you can read here.

I've been running VoteVets.org for a couple of years now. In 2006 and in2008, we've endorsed a number of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans for Congress. It's still a story that the press is largely interested in, and when they call me to talk about it, I always -- always -- get the same first question: What is it about their honorable service in Iraq and/or Afghanistan that qualifies them to go to Congress? It's a legit question, and neither I, nor any of the candidates, take any umbrage at it.

So why won't John McCain answer the question?