General Clark’s Short Memory
|
|
My, how four years can slip by and change one’s perspective on the world and the needed qualifications to be Commander-in-Chief. General Wesley Clark (pictured here with another well-known war hero), every leftist’s favorite military figure, is either a willing dupe of the Obama campaign or he is willfully forgetful of his own grandiose pronouncements. To hear him tell it, the very reasons that John Kerry was qualified to be president are the very same reasons that John McCain is not.
Following his failed bid for the Democrat nomination in 2004, Gen. Clark spoke at his party’s convention. In his speech, which was largely filled (rightly so, I would say) with patriotic sentiments and praise for military service and veterans, he lauded John Kerry for his service in Vietnam, and concluded that the experiences gained in the war made Kerry particularly qualified to lead the country.
“John Kerry has heard the thump of enemy mortars. He’s seen the flash of the tracers. He’s lived the values of service and sacrifice. In the Navy, as a prosecutor, as a senator, he proved his physical courage under fire. And he’s proved his moral courage too.
“John Kerry fought a war, and I respect him for that. And he came home to fight a peace. And I respect him for that, too. John Kerry’s combination of physical courage and moral values is my definition of what we need as Americans in our commander in chief.”
(Read the entire text of Clark’s speech here.)
But now, a scant four years later, John McCain’s experiences in Vietnam (which, even the most biased observer must conclude eclipse Senator Kerry’s), not only do not qualify him for the presidency … indeed, they may preclude him from even being considered.
Yesterday on Face the Nation, Gen. Clark told an almost incedulous Bob Schieffer that McCain’s Vietnam experience was pretty much barely admirable.
Clark: “But [McCain] hasn’t held executive responsibility. That large squadron 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 this publicly?’ He hasn’t made those points, Bob.”
Schieffer: “Well, General, could I just interrupt you. 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.”
Gen. Clark: “Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be President.”
So let’s recap.
John Kerry “heard the thump” of mortars, and that made him qualified to be Commander-in-Chief. John McCain was simply “riding” in a fighter plane — not piloting, mind you, according to Clark, merely “riding” — and that doesn’t count.
Whereas Kerry’s military service was key to being president in Wes Clark’s world, McCain’s own experiences are to be completely disregarded. Oh, and also, at the same time he is saying that McCain doesn’t have the requisite military command experience, he conveniently sidesteps the question about the Dali Bama’s complete and total lack of the same.
Geez. Only Democrats can get away with this sort of verbal gymnastics.
No wonder Obama has to make a speech today proclaiming that he is patriotic, to undo the damage Clark inflicted yesterday (talk about friendly fire). I can’t wait to see the pictures. What are the betting odds on whether or not Obama wore a flag lapel pin?
Besides all that, do you think Obama’s camp really wants this election to focus on the military and the candidates’ relative credentials? In that respect, it seems Clark is the wrong surrogate. If he was auditioning for VP, he flunked.
UPDATE: The left has already realized that Clark’s appearance was a disaster. See here.
Perhaps Wesley Clark’s viewpoint of McCain expsoses why we never considered him worthy himself?
See, what really impressed Clark was Hillary battling those Bosnian snipers.
Hey Brian, at least here we can broadly agree.
weird, huh?
Yup, you can’t get much weirder. Gasp.
Lemme get this straight. Y’all think that getting shot down and ending up as a POW are perfectly A-OK credentials for being President of the United States?
The fact is, McCain has been mentally ill since he was taken captive and tortured by the North Vietnamese.
I don’t know how you could possibly trust someone who didn’t have the courage to kill himself instead of being taken alive. On the other hand, I suppose none of you would have the courage of your convictions either. All you sissies buy all kinds of things from the Red Chinese, your sworn enemies.
Mars -
Um, no. Simply being shot down in combat does not qualify anyone to be President of the United States.
I believe, and perhaps I was not clear enough (or perhaps certain readers are a little too obtuse), that the point of the post was to illuminate General Clark’s inconsistency (dare I say hypocrisy?).
On one hand, General Clark once believed that John Kerry’s service in Vietnam was vital to his qualifications for the highest office in the land.
On the other, General Clark believes that John McCain’s service is at best irrelevant, or at worst disqualifying because he didn’t have the sufficient level of command on the Clark Scale.
Never mind his complete inability to answer the question as to why Obama’s total lack of military experience is relevant to his questioning of McCain’s service.
(Funny how Democrats rate military service as relevant in a direct proportion to the military experience of their own candidate: 1992 and 1996, military experience not important. 2004, very important. 2008 not important again. Yet they trot out Gen. Clark for some reason. Go figure.)
As far as your argument that a man possessed of more bravery than McCain would have killed himself … I have no answer to that sort of idiocy.
I would also like to examine your obviously detailed analysis that leads you to conclude that John McCain has been mentally ill since 1973 — or perhaps five years earlier upon his capture. That’s a new one on me. Perhaps you have an M.D. that I don’t know about (Moonbat Doctorate).
Then you move on to the complete non sequitur of the purchase of goods manufactured in China.
Well, I suppose it’s true that I do purchase and use goods made in China. I bet you do, too.
I don’t recall any discussion here about how the Chinese are our “sworn enemies,” as you say. Yes, it’s true, I detest their form of government (as I hope you would, too).
However, every president since the emergence of China as a financial and military power has recognized that there must be something of a pragmatic approach to them, given their economic clout, their markets, their imports and their sheer size. As we learned from the death of the Soviet Union, the more you introduce capitalism to communist regimes, the weaker the communist regimes become. While the end has not come, the Red Chinese government cannot stand forever, particularly given the penetration of the Internet into their citizens’ daily lives (such as they are allowed to access).
I would also point out that if certain labor unions in this country had not made production more expensive than it has to be, then there would not be such the temptation to look to China for cheaper goods.
Finally, I think it’s rich that you would label people who buy items from China as “sissies,” while you would consider suicide a form of bravery.
Bizarre.