Home > Election 2008 > Clark and McCain’s Military Record

Clark and McCain’s Military Record

July 1st, 2008

Some are already calling it “Swift-boating,” which is a ludicrous charge. Swiftboating specifically refers to the slimy smear tactics taken against John Kerry in 2004, and requires several components: (1) people who served in the military and claimed to have served with the candidate or have some special knowledge of the candidate (2) making claims about having witnessed or otherwise having direct knowledge of specific events, and (3) saying that the candidate wasn’t heroic, or going so far as to denigrate the candidate, claiming he was cowardly, a liar, or worse.

So what did Wes Clark say?

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?

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 publicly.’ He hasn’t made those calls, 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-

Clark: Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be President.

Schieffer: 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. 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.

YouTube of the interview here.

Sorry, but this doesn’t even come close to swiftboating. Clark made no claim that he had special personal knowledge of McCain, did not say that he had witnessed anything McCain had done, and did not make disparaging statements about McCain–quite the opposite, he lauded him as a hero. He simply made an objective observation that nothing McCain had done qualified him for an executive position, that his wartime actions, while heroic, don’t translate into any qualifications for presidential office. That’s not swiftboating, and any claim–even the suggestion–is in itself an unfair attack against Wes Clark. Not swiftboating against Clark, just an unfair and unjust accusation.

The McCain campaign, however, sees a great opportunity here: they can play the victim, claim they’ve been unjustly maligned, embarrass Obama, trash Clark, all the time while playing up the “War Hero” card. It’s a huge win-win for them.

The irony here is that Clark did not say one bad thing about McCain’s war record–this is so obviously not swiftboating that the media should be playing it as McCain’s campaign trying to make hay out of it (which they have no trouble saying about Obama’s campaign in such situations). But as far as I can see, the media is totally buying into McCain’s narrative.

Another observation: the GOP is extremely fickle about how wartime service plays into a campaign. On a variation of IOKIYAR, it can be said that their attitude is, “YAWHOIYAR”–“You’re a War Hero Only If You’re a Republican.” A reader at Talking Points Memo lays it out accurately:

Continues to boggle my mind what a difference 4 years can make to the conservatives.

1996: Bob Dole is a war hero! Clinton is a draft dodger! WORSHIP THE WAR HERO!

2000: Forget the war! Ignore the potential Vietnam-era AWOL-ness of our candidate, and his complete lack of foreign policy knowledge! He’s got integrity!

2004: So what your candidate actually fought and was injured in the same war during which our candidate was so very much NOT AWOL! We mock his service and question the legitimacy of his injuries! Have a purple band-aid to wear at our convention!

2008: Only a certified war hero can lead this country! WORSHIP THE WAR HERO!

Apparently, McCain’s war service is completely untouchable. When it comes to Democrats and war service, not only is the matter not untouchable, it apparently requires touching. Gore served in Vietnam? Yeah, but he was a photographer, so he must have used family connections (despite an utter lack of evidence) and besides, he was a coward and yadda yadda yadda!“ Bush, meanwhile, was actually lauded for his ”military“ service, defended for his flight-suit antics, and was considered entirely cleared of any AWOL or draft-dodging actions simply because of the Dan Rather story, as if that completely erased the massive piles of evidence unrelated to that story. And forget about the right’s treatment of Kerry–that’s where the whole swiftboating thing came from.

But even dare to suggest that a Republican who served in war should not be able to fully translate his service into presidential authority, and you’ve crossed a line. You don’t even have to say one bad word about his record–you can even call him a hero–but suggest that what he did during the war is not the stuff of great presidents? Heretic!

On a disappointing note: Andrew Sullivan sees Clark’s words as swiftboating. For shame, Andrew; I know you’re not exactly one of the most objective voices out there, but I had more faith in your reasoning skills than this. Maybe he was so busy blogging every five minutes that he didn’t listen carefully enough.

Update: Sullivan seems to be saying that the offense was not in the actual claim made by Clark–which he admits is ”technically true“–but rather the tone of the statement. He cites a reader who points to Clark’s statement: ”Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president,“ and says it is unacceptable even despite the fact that Clark was simply parroting Schieffer’s language. He further quotes another commenter who said that what Clark said was ”bad manners on Clark’s part, given the suffering McCain endured.“

I understand Sullivan’s reasoning here, but I simply can’t get behind it at all. Sullivan seems to have more of an issue with Schieffer than Clark, as it was Schieffer’s language that he claims set him off. Otherwise, Sullivan seems to be claiming that military service is completely off-limits here–which is a bogus claim to make, as McCain is mentioning his service and his years of torture all the time, as if they qualified him for the presidency. That alone makes an objective rebuttal fair game, unless you want to suggest that McCain can go around saying ”I was a hero! I was tortured for five years! That qualifies me for president!“ and Democrats aren’t allowed to touch it. Claiming that the wording they pointed out–even if the word’s were completely Clark’s–is denigrating to McCain is a highly subjective judgment, and goes way beyond the level of tempering wording than is reasonable.

I can only ascribe Sullivan’s reaction to his apparently congenital hatred and willingness to judge poorly anyone who was ever a Clinton supporter.

Categories: Election 2008 Tags: by
  1. nicolas2
    July 2nd, 2008 at 21:25 | #1

    Let me swiftboat a bit here….. : Clark always had a political agenda.

    So when he takes it, he deserves it.

Comments are closed.