Who are we kidding here?
Former General Wesley Clark was a Rhodes Scholar, valedictorian at
Put bluntly,
And so is John McCain.
Specific details of McCain's record is still sort of hazy because so much of
his record remains sealed, but from what we do know, the man suffered and
sacrificed 5 and a half years for his country. As a POW, McCain probably
endured what would have left a lesser man broken and / or dead. But McCain persevered
and went on to serve his country honorably in either the House or Senate since
1986.
Granted,
I do take issue with how the conversation that forced
Here's the questionable portion of the Face the Nation interview with Bob
Schieffer wherein
BOB
SCHIEFFER: Well you, you went so far as to say that you
thought John McCain was, quote, and these are your words,
"untested and untried," And I must say I, I had to read that
twice,
because 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 lo these many years. How can
you say that John McCain is un- untested and untried?
General?
GENERAL
WESLEY CLARK: 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. That large squadron
in 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-'
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well-
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: ' -it publicly.' He hasn't made those calls, Bob.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, well, General, maybe-
GENERAL
WESLEY CLARK: So-
BOB SCHIEFFER: Could I just interrupt you. If-
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Sure.
BOB 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-
GENERAL
WESLEY CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter
plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be President.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Really?!
GENERAL
WESLEY 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. He's 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.
First, why did Schieffer cite McCain's service as a fighter pilot and then his aircraft getting shot down as if it's a qualification to be president? Why didn't Schieffer cite any of McCain's policy accomplishments from during his Senate and House years? Wouldn't those achievements in a government service capacity matter more to the position of President in this country? Does Schieffer think that somehow McCain being a fighter pilot and getting shot down is more noteworthy when it comes to credentials that would make McCain a perfect fit for the Oval Office?
Second, when did it become Schieffer's duty to defend John McCain? It would
have been nice if Schieffer could have summoned up some of that indignation and
passion in a defense of Obama during the Jeremiah Wright controversy. Or during
those times when Obama was rumored to be a Muslim. Or when Michelle Obama was
being accused of being unpatriotic. Or during the times that Barack Obama was
being accused of being unpatriotic, for that matter.
There is something awfully weird going on when while two people are discussing
what makes a person qualified to be president, the person who is supposed to be
the impartial journalist cites that a candidate was a fighter pilot who was
shot down-- instead of citing that same candidate's record and/ or position on, say, healthcare, or trade, or supreme court judges, or abortion, or tax breaks for
the rich.
Those are the issues relevant to the presidency. Policy proposals, positions
and records are extremely pertinent. Or at least I would think so-- and I would
venture that most Americans think so, too.
However, what I won't venture to say is who is right between the two alpha dogs
Clark and McCain. I will assert, though, that there are definitely puzzling
questions brought up by the debate they're having now that have to be answered
before November.
