McCain Acts Like A Child After Clark Praises His Military Service

There has been an ongoing tussle over the last few days over some comments that Gen. Wesley Clark made about John McCain. The "controversy" was so ridiculous that I think it warranted much mention, but McCain keeps on pushing it, and the media of course likes nothing more than to not focus on the issues, so it is time to bring it up.

First, Gen. Clark had made comments previously that McCain is "untested and untried" in matters of national security. On Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer questioned Gen. Clark's comments, after gushing about McCain's military service (which isn't all that great when you look at it, but we'll get to that later). This was the response:

Clark: Because in the matters of national security policy making it's a matter of understanding risk, it's a matter of gaging 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 a 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. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded, it wasn't a war time squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall, he hasn't seen what it is 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 publicly?', he hasn't made those calls.

Here I want to stop for a second and point out that Gen. Clark has done all of those things, he has had this executive level experience and responsibility. Here is a short bio on Clark:

Gen. Wesley Kanne Clark is a retired General of the United States Army. Clark was valedictorian of his class at West Point, was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship to the University of Oxford where he obtained a degree in PPE (Philosophy, Politics & Economics), served in Vietnam, and later graduated from the Command and General Staff College with a master's degree in military science. He spent 34 years in the Army and the Department of Defense, receiving many military decorations, several honorary knighthoods, and a Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Among his many assignments around the world, Clark commanded Operation Allied Force in the Kosovo War during his term as the Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO.

In short, Clark knows what he is talking about, and he is more than qualified to make these statements about what military service does and does not mean. Anyway, continuing:

Schieffer: Well general, maybe, could I just interrupt you, I have to say Barack Obama hasn't 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...

Schieffer: (Responding with surprise) Really??

Clark: ...But Barack is not, he is not running on the fact that he has made these national security pronouncements, he's running on his other strengths, hes running on the strengths of character, on the strengths of his communication skills, on the strengths of his judgment, and those are qualities that we seek in our national leadership.

This is the most ridiculous part, when Clark said that riding in a fighter plane and being shot down isn't a qualification to be president, Schieffer responded with shock, "Really??", as if it was so obvious that being shot down IS a qualification to be president. Excuse me? How, exactly, does getting shot down make you ANY more qualified to be president? For that matter, how, exactly, does getting tortured make you ANY more qualified to be president?? I'd like Schieffer to explain the logic behind that assertion, because if that is all it takes, there are hundreds of GREAT presidential candidates just sitting around in cages at Guantanamo Bay just waiting to take the oath of office. "Really??" Give me a goddamn break, YES you idiot, really.

But let's stop for a second, did Gen. Clark in any way demean McCain's military service? N, of course not. He clearly stated that he honored his service and even thought it was heroic: "I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war, he was a hero to me and a hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces as a prisoner of war." He just stated, matter-of-factly, that while McCain served bravely, that doesn't automatically mean he had any experience with executive responsibility and other presidential qualifications. Is that a smear? I don't see how. Saying that being shot down doesn't qualify you to be president, was that a smear? No, that is common sense, period. Only an idiot (Schieffer and others) would respond with shock that being shot down doesn't magically give you super presidential abilities. Clark, just like Obama, has repeatedly acknowledged McCain's military service and called him a hero. They have only contended that his military service isn't a magic wand that should give him a free pass to the White House, because he could have flown a billion hours, but that doesn't mean he necessarily has the judgment it takes to be president (see my previous blog post, McCain Would Repeat The War All Over Again, if you need any convincing).

So, predictably, McCain starts whining and accusing Clark of disparaging his military service by having the audacity to point out the obvious truth that nothing in McCain's military service qualifies him to be president, while still praising his military service and calling him a hero. Clark was being more than gracious with that praise (more on that later), yet McCain jumped on Clark, and Obama, for the comments. First came this:

If Barack Obama wants to question John McCain's service to his country, he should have the guts to do it himself and not hide behind his campaign surrogates.

Of course neither Clark nor Obama were questioning McCain's military service, and in fact both have praised McCain's service. But it is nice to see McCain's campaign acting like children taunting their opponents with falsehoods. At this point McCain called on Obama to reject the comments, and Obama's campaign made a statement saying:

As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by General Clark.

End of story, right? McCain had no standing to complain in the first place, and certainly that should clear it up. But wait, McCain is falling further and further behind in the polls, he only has a single digit lead in his home state, needless to say he is running scared, he can't even beat Obama on foreign policy or national security, and Wes Clark hit his Achilles heel by exposing the idiocy of the conventional wisdom that says McCain is some kind of expert on national security just because he was in the military, so McCain has to manufacture a distraction "issue" to keep the focus off his embrace of Bush's failed policies, so he continues, even after Obama rejected any attacks on McCain's military service, which never actually happened:

Of course Barack Obama has called many times for a new kind of politics, but his campaign just hasn't lived up to it. We've learned we need to wait and see what Senator Obama actually does, rather than take him at his word.

Of course this wasn't Obama speaking, it was Wes Clark, and of course Clark said nothing at all offensive or uncalled for, he simply praised McCain's service but pointed out that it didn't equal a presidential qualification. There is nothing wrong with that, and that doesn't at all conflict with Obama's message of a new politics.

Then McCain's campaign created a new "truth squad" website to "defend" McCain from "attacks" on his "military record". Former Vietnam vet and McCain supporter Bud Day had this to say:

John was slandered and reviled in the 2000 campaign in a way that denigrated his service enormously...it was absolutely important to face this issue right off the bat.

Please note, it was Bush who trashed McCain with nasty tactics in 2000, and the very people who ran that campaign against him and now working for McCain, running the same sort of campaign against Obama. Oh, and that isn't all, turns out the head of McCain's "anti-swiftboating truth squad" was featured in the Swift Boat Vets ads against John Kerry in 2004, spreading all kinds of actual lies and actual attacks on his military service. It is quite great that when someone praises his military record, but simply points out that he lacked executive responsibility, they are attacking his service to this country, but when the Swift Boat Vets directly attacked Kerry's patriotism and service with distortions and complete lies, that is apparently OK. Interesting how that works huh? (Does the media point out this huge contradiction? Not a chance.)

At this point all the media fuss over this (the media hates focusing on issues that actually matter to Americans) forced Clark to come out and repeat what he had already said, because people didn't seem to understand it the first time around:

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.

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.

Then the McCain campaign responds with even more childishness, sounding even more like a bunch of angsty teenagers, and it just gets ridiculous:

Yesterday, Barack Obama's campaign said he rejected Gen. Clark's attack on John McCain's military service. But last night, Gen. Clark admitted to speaking with the Obama campaign, and then went out and repeated his attacks. It's clear that the Obama campaign isn't telling Wes Clark to apologize, and are either encouraging or tolerating his attacks on John McCain's military service.

The Obama campaign even said they were 'glad' that Gen. Clark 'clarified' a comment they supposedly repudiated. If this kind of wink-and-nod game is how Barack Obama wants to run his campaign, then fine. But spare us the empty talk of 'new politics' and raising the dialogue in this country. We just wonder: Will Barack Obama's actions ever match his words?

Then, one of McCain's POW surrogates trashes Clark's military service:

General Clark probably wouldn't get that much praise from this group [McCain's military supporters]. I can't speak for them, but we all know that General Clark, as high-ranking as he is, his record in his last command [Supreme Allied Commander of NATO] I think was somewhat less than stellar.

Now THAT is a personal attack on another person's military service. Clark never said anything negative about how McCain served, or the quality of his service (even though there is plenty there to criticize, more later), yet these same people who are attacking Clark for his so-called "attacks" are ACTUALLY attacking Clark's much more impressive military career. Hypocrisy much? (Does the media pick up on this? Of course not)

And of course there are many veterans who completely agree with Gen. Clark's comments.

Oh yeah, did I mention that in 2003 McCain answered "absolutely not" when asked whether "military service inherently makes someone better equipped to be commander-in-chief", which is essentially what Clark was saying? Yet Clark had to defend himself to the media, again, this time on Good Morning America:

Well, Robin, I want to say first that Senator Obama had nothing to do with this. These are comments that I was asked about several months ago in terms of me as a retired military officer assessing John McCain's qualifications. And so I was on the Sunday interview show, the interviewer brought them up. He actually asked me the question. He's the one who stated it, climbed into an airplane and got shot down. All I did was directly respond to the question. So I'm very sorry that this is distracted from the message of patriotism that Senator Obama wants to put out. But I want to make very clear that as a Democrat and as a former Army officer, I fully respect Senator McCain and all others who have served and especially now on this Fourth of July. I think our country has achieved its independence because men and women were willing to sacrifice for it and I honor every one of our veterans and those in service today.

[...]

I think it depends on how you use that experience and what your judgment is. And so what I've seen is that -- and I'm supporting Barack Obama, as I've said, because I think he's shown superior judgment. And I don't want to get into a critique here on John McCain's judgment, but what I do want to say is I think it's a matter of judgment. If you've learned from the experience and your judgment is proved out, then that's well and good. But if you've had the experience and your judgment still doesn't give you the best decisions for national security, and so my point is, I hope the American people will discriminate between someone's early experiences and the kind of judgment they've taken away from those experiences.

Around this time Senator Jim Webb, also a Vietnam veteran, was on MSNBC to talk about his new GI Bill that just passed, even tough Bush and McCain opposed giving the troops more benefits (yet later hypocritically took credit for the bill they opposed, the media didn't call them on that hypocrisy either, no surprise that), and he weighed in on the "controversy", telling McCain to "calm down" on politicizing the military:

I think what we really need to work on over the next four, five months, and it goes back to the speech that Sen. Obama gave [Monday] and this little fight that I've been watching and that is, we need to make sure that we take politics out of service," Webb said. "People don't serve their country for political issues.

And John McCain's my long-time friend, if that is one area that I would ask him to calm down on, it`s that, don't be standing up and uttering your political views and implying that all the people in the military support them because they don't, any more than when the Democrats have political issues during the Vietnam War. Let's get the politics out of the military, take care of our military people, or have our political arguments in other areas.

[Note: For some background, Webb used to be a Republican, and still blames the Democratic Party and liberals for "losing" the Vietnam War by protesting and opposing it, even though it was a horribly immoral war, and resulted in many more American deaths than Iraq. For this reason alone (though, there are many others), I can't feel good about the idea of Webb as Obama's VP.]

Anyway, McCain's campaign, ever vigilant in finding a new excuse to act like paranoid children, jumped on this, and pointed to a vast conspiracy to "attack" McCain's military service:

If you didn't think this was a coordinated attack on John McCain's credentials before, it's clear now that it is. Barack Obama's surrogates are telling the McCain campaign to "calm down" about attacks on his military record? Seriously? Now somehow Wes Clark's attacks are John McCain's fault? It's absurd. If Barack Obama can't control his own surrogate operation, how can he be trusted to run the country?

Urg. What can you say to that kind of nonsense. John McCain can't control himself, let alone surrogates, do we really want to go there? Webb's office responds, pointing out that Webb in no way attacked McCain:

I can tell you that Senator Webb has never spoken with Senator Obama about this issue nor has he spoken to Wesley Clark. Senator Webb's comments were not targeted at McCain's military service. He has consistently called for politicians not to insert politics into military service. This is the exact same argument that he used against Lindsay Graham last year in their Meet the Press interview regarding objections to giving troops adequate dwell time at home.

Senator Webb has never, and would never, demean the service of anyone who has stepped forward to serve our country. To the contrary, he was calling on those on all sides of the debate to refrain from implying that their political views are representative of the military writ large.

Obama, when asked about all of this, let loose an absolute shocker: maybe Americans want to focus on real issues!!:

I guess my question is why, given all the vast numbers of things that we've got to work on, that that would be a top priority of mine? I think that, you know, right now we're here to talk about how we can make sure that kids in Zanesville and across Ohio get the kind of support that they need and communities that are impoverished can start to rebuild. I'm happy to have all sorts of conversations about how we deal with Iraq and what happens with Iran, but the fact that somebody on a cable show or on a news show like Gen. Clark said something that was inartful about Sen. McCain I don’t think is probably the thing that is keeping Ohioans up at night.

Obama notably didn't apologize for Clark's comments, or "cut him loose", as McCain's campaign wanted, and he suggested that Clark does not owe McCain any apology, because there is obviously nothing to apologize for. McCain's campaign responds in its characteristic catty manner:

Apparently Barack Obama now thinks that smear attacks on John McCain’s military service are fair game.

Once again, there was no smear, and no attack on McCain's military service.

I came across an excellent diary on Daily Kos entitled "Why is McCain a Delicate Flower Who Needs Constant Asskissing?", which I think nails the mood of the last couple days on its head. Here is an excerpt, but I encourage you to read the whole thing:

I'll be blunt, here.

Just how much ass-kissing does John McCain think he is owed?

Barack Obama has constantly, consistently and repeatedly said he honors John McCain's military service, and what he endured as a prisoner of war.

A quick Google search confirms that Obama has stated just that on numerous occasions. Very unequivocally.

And now that the Republicans are in their phoney pearl-clutching gear again, lying about what General Wesley Clark said and Obama's part it in (none), we once again see John McCain and his surrogates whining about how John McCain has been disrespected.

God in heaven, is there any man in America who has been given MORE respect and deference for his military service than John McCain?

Why is McCain such a delicate flower that any time he's in an election, he starts whining about being disrespected? Is he not capable of having an honest, vigorous policy debate without going into full martyr gear and accusing everyone of being mean to him?

Seriously John, grow the hell up, quit acting like a child, quit accusing everyone of savaging your military service anytime they so much as question the logic behind giving you a free pass on everything just because you were a POW, which you repeat at every available opportunity, even while you say you don't like to make a big deal out of it. Shameless. But like I said before, this is a direct result of McCain getting his ass kicked by Obama in the polls and on the issues, and he reacts with ire when someone points out that the king (or prince) has no clothes.

A revealing moment during his recent trip to Colombia shows how touchy (afraid) McCain is when it comes to people actually taking a closer look (or saying anything that might prompt the media to take a closer look) at his military service:

McCain became visibly angry when I asked him to explain how his Vietnam experience prepared him for the Presidency.

"Please," he said, recoiling back in his seat in distaste at the very question.

When asked a perfectly legitimate question about how his military service exceptionally qualified him for the White House, he got angry and refused to answer, completely dismissing the question as crazy. How exactly is this a crazy question? How is it off the table to ask McCain to explain the logical process that makes him getting shot down into a presidential qualifier? He reacted in the way he did because his military service isn't his strength, it is his weakness, and any critical eye is a threat to the veneer of heroism and exceptional experience that the media presents to the voters on behalf of McCain.

So what about McCain's military service is so off-limits? Why is he so incredibly defensive of people even looking at his service? Why can't we talk about it, in any way whatsoever, even though he is constantly using it as a crutch on the campaign trail? Clark didn't say anything about his record. Neither did Obama. But hell, I'll bite, since McCain brought it up.

First, that plane that was shot down, magically giving McCain supreme Commander-in-Chief abilities, was McCain's fourth plane crash, out of five total. It was the only time McCain crashed a plane due to enemy fire, the other four times were all McCain:

John Sidney McCain III is known among many of his Vietnam flight buddies as "Ace" McCain. This title has not been bestowed upon McCain because he destroyed five enemy aircraft. On the contrary: It was five on our side -- in fact, five of his own. Since throwing his hat into the presidential ring, the fact that McCain was graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy nearly at the bottom of his class has been publicized. His star-crossed flying, on the other hand, remains unknown to most.

It wasn't long after arriving in Pensacola that McCain racked up the first of his five crashes, beginning in 1958, on his way to becoming a "reverse ace." As told by Timberg, "McCain was practicing landings; his engine quit and he plunged into Corpus Christi Bay. Knocked unconscious by the impact, he came to as the plane settled to the bottom."

There was, however, no engine failure with the aircraft. According to one of McCain's former flight instructors, "The engine was removed from the aircraft that afternoon, mounted on a test stand and a new propeller installed. [It] was flushed with fresh water and started. It ran just fine. So the theory of engine failure was proven false."

The instructor added that McCain was "positively one of the weakest students to pass our way, and received consistently poor marks and a number of Dangerous Down grades assigned by more than one instructor. He had no real ability and was clearly out of his element in an airplane, and way over his head even as a junior naval officer."

The second of McCain's crashes occurred while he was deployed in the Mediterranean. "Flying too low over the Iberian Peninsula," reports Timberg, "he took out some power lines [reminiscent of the 1998 incident in which a Marine Corps jet sliced through the cables of a gondola at an Italian ski resort, killing 20] which led to a spate of newspaper stories in which he was predictably identified as the son of an admiral."

Crash three occurred when McCain was returning from flying a trainer solo to Philadelphia for an Army-Navy football game. According to Timberg, McCain radioed, "I've got a flameout." He went through the standard relight procedures three times. At one thousand feet, he ejected, landing on the deserted beach moments before the plane slammed into a clump of trees."

That brings us to magical number four, which landed him in a POW camp. I'm assuming he was actually shot down, but if he had just crashed the plane in enemy territory it would have been completely in keeping with his M.O. And yes, he did graduate in the bottom of his class from Annapolis, the bottom 1% in fact. Needless to say, McCain's military record was a running joke, not a heroic tale:

"John McCain," says another Navy pilot and acquaintance of that era, "was the kind of guy you wanted to room with -- not fly with. He was reckless, and that's critical when you start thinking about who's going to be the president," The old pilot laughs, and then continues: "But the Navy accident rate was cut in half the day John McCain was shot down."

"Thank God not all pilots are like McCain," jokes another pilot, "or the government would be buying a hell of a lot more planes."

Yet despite his crashes and horrible grades, Johnny landed the most sought-after Navy assignment: aircraft carrier pilot. Why? Oh, because daddy McCain was an admiral, and so John McCain Jr. got a free ride despite having a record that would have cost any non-heir his wings long before. Oh, the perks didn't stop there though, because McCain got a hell of a lot of medals for his less-than-stellar military career:

"McCain had roughly 20 hours in combat," explains Bill Bell, a veteran of Vietnam and chief of the U.S. Office for POW/MIA Affairs -- the first official U.S. representative in Vietnam since the 1973 fall of Saigon. "Since McCain got 28 medals," Bell continues, "that equals out to about a medal-and-a-half for each hour he spent in combat. There were infantry guys -- grunts on the ground -- who had more than 7,000 hours in combat and I can tell you that there were times and situations where I'm sure a prison cell would have looked pretty good to them by comparison. The question really is how many guys got that number of medals for not being shot down."

Hell, even McCain admitted that his Vietnamese captors treated him better because he was the son of an admiral:

Other guys had it a lot worse. I think they took it easier on me because of who my dad was...when they tied me in ropes, they'd roll my sleeve up to give it a little padding between the rope and my bicep, you know, little things I noticed.

Are we starting to get a picture of why McCain doesn't want people to even mention his military career unless they are worshiping it? Do we now have an idea of why the Navy hasn't released around 600 pages of McCain's service records? Maybe because this is what we would find out about our "war hero":

In his memoir, everything becomes a kind of game of adolescent brinksmanship, how much can one press the limits of the acceptable and elude the powers that be....The [fighter jocks'] ethos of exaggerated, almost aggressive sociability becomes an end in itself and an excuse for license. There is a tendency for people, not simply to believe their own mythology but, indeed, to exaggerate it.... Fighter jocks, like politicians around their campaign contributions, often press the limits of the acceptable. It is a type of mild corruption that takes place in a highly privileged atmosphere, where restraints are loosened and excuses made....McCain gives some hint in his memoirs about where he stood in the hierarchy among carrier flyers. Instead of the sleek and newer Phantoms and Crusaders, McCain flew the dependable Douglas A-4 Skyhawk in an attack, not a fighter squadron. He was thus on the lower end of the flying totem pole.

Oh, and crash #5 for McCain? That one showed he didn't know his limits:

Is McCain now getting away with more by hiding his official history and by having his national security adviser inflate McCain's resume with a bogus promotion to admiral humbly declined? If so, McCain may be attempting to hide why the Navy was in fact slow to promote him upwards despite his suffering as a POW and his distinguished naval heritage.

One possible reason: After McCain had returned from Vietnam as a war hero and was physically rehabilitated, he was urged by his medical caretakers and military colleagues never to fly again. But McCain insisted on going up. As Carl Bernstein reported in Vanity Fair, he piloted an ultra-light, single propeller plane -- and crashed another time. His fifth loss of a plane has vanished from public records, but should be a subject of discussion in his Navy file. It wouldn't be surprising if his naval superiors worried that McCain was just too defiant, too reckless and too crash prone.

Regardless, McCain owes it to the country to release his complete naval records so that American voters can see his documented history and make an informed decision.

Of course if he has such a wonderful and heroic military record, there should be no reason to not release the remaining 600-some pages of his military record to the public. And if his record is something to be proud of, something that boosts his qualifications for being president, why should he be so afraid of anyone actually looking at, or even mentioning, his military service? Why does he lash out at everyone who threatens to disturb the mythology that is his military record? Clark didn't question McCain's military record and neither did Obama or Webb, but maybe someone should, if for no other reason than to give him a reason to whine as much as he has been.

Sorry that was so long, perhaps now you can see why I was hesitant to write about this earlier, and because it was so ridiculous to begin with, and because every day it just got more and more ridiculous, but hopefully now it is over, and hopefully now we can focus on the issues instead of this nonsense that McCain keeps trying to distract Americans with.