In a post this morning, I noted that Andrew Sullivan called General Wesley Clark’s recent attacks on John McCain “revolting” and “repulsive.” He wasn’t the only one to take on the favorite general of the Clintons.
In addition to Senator John Warner, former Secretary of the Navy, Admiral Leighton “Snuffy” Smith (USN Retired), Colonel Bud Day, USAF (Ret.), the most decorated American service member since General Douglas MacArthur, Rear Admiral Tom Lynch, USN (Ret.), numerous other retired officers and enlisted men have challenged the Obama supporter’s mean-spirited remarks.
Lynch summarized the remarks of his fellow officers when he said:
For anyone to challenge John McCain’s service to this country is an insult, particularly when it comes from the Obama campaign. John McCain’s life has been defined by putting his country before anything else. If Barack Obama is serious about his promises for a new kind of politics, he can start by denouncing these attacks that are unworthy of anyone who seeks to be the next Commander in Chief.
It’s not just retired military officials.
Blogger Ed Morrissey sees this attack as part of the Obama campaign’s strategy. Taking note of the charges Clark leveled against the presumptive GOP nominee, Morrissey writes:
Not only can every argument Clark made get applied more to Obama than to McCain, he has now made it clear that the Obama strategy is to demean and belittle McCain’s military service — and by extension, military service in general.
Via JammieWearingFool who, in the update which links Morrissey also links AJ Strata’s impassioned takedown of John Aravosis’s angry and hateful attacks on John McCain.
Unless Barack Obama publicly denounces General Clark for his broadside on the presumptive Republican nominee, he will be giving tacit approval to this latest smear campaign against his rival for the White House.
The more attacks I see from the left the more convinced I become that theirs is a party of hate. Remember those bumper stickers liberals sported in the 1990s, “Hate is Not a Family Value.” Maybe we conservatives should start sporting ones that say, “Hate is not an American Value.”
I think the term one blogger has used to describe what Aravosis and his cohorts are doing in attacking McCain: swiftblogging. I think I might start using that a little more often.
UPDATE: Obama disowns critique of McCain’s Military Record. Not clear whether Clark will continue to speak for the campaign.
Wesley Clark, super genius.
He’s going a great job of getting Republicans and others who really don’t like McCain all that much to get a chance to really embrace him over an experience for which Obama has no equal.
I’ll assume that Wes Clark will be relegated to one of those low level staff positions from which all the Obama gaffes seem to emanate.
Neo–I think you’re onto something. Maybe he’s doing this at the behest of the Clintons to sabotage Obama’s chances this year and strengthen Hillary for ’12. . . . . .
Sometimes, it seems nothing is beyond a Clinton loyalist.
UPDATE: Karl at Protein Wisdom agrees: “Or maybe it is the Was Clark I knew. He endorsed Hillary Clinton, so maybe this embarrassing performance was just a bit of sabotage to boost Clinton’s prospects for 2012.” (Via this via Instapundit.)
Some days I’m left just shaking my head in wonderment. Have these liberal Democrats no shame? Their stupidity is stunning. They want a retreat from Iraq, even now when we are securing the victory and millions of women and girls are so much better off. To partner that defeatist attitude with their real view of McCain’s military history is amazing yet enlightening.
Well, I’m glad you are now becoming convinced. I grew up on the left. Hate is a part of the left, as pivotal and integral a component of their internal mechanism as ballbearings are to a machine part. I was musing today that I cannot remember in my life, ever, once, a conservative leader the left didn’t villify and defame, just as I could not remember a single occasion, ever, once, when the left voluntarily engaged in good-faith debate over an important issue. They begin with hate, end with hate. The problem is simple: the left cannot accept that there are views other than theirs in this world. They suffer them because they must, knowing that they are but vulgar and temporary impositions on the holy order, to be eradicated when the true believers finally take their rightful places as rulers of society.
Oh, I hope you come up with something else. I’d hate to see conservatives start giving credence to the liberal lie that the Swift Boat Veterans did anything but tell the truth of their experience with John Kerry.
American Elephant has a good point. And the sooner that you can change the praseology, the sooner that you can undermine and undercut their use of swiftboating as some form of a rallying cry.
The coinage needs to have connotations of underhandness, deceit, and so forth. You need a term that can apply to the surrogate talk and, with the addition of “-blogging,” to the blogs.
Let’s see: I need to get going, but my initial thoughts were to work “low” or “under” in the coinage. I thought of “submarining,” but that would disparage a fine naval vessel. I then thought of “lowblowing,” but then I thought better of it.
For now, consider “lowbowling” or “gutterballing.” Either term could be defined as “a weak attempt to knock McCain down with the attempt far more often than not veering off lamely into the gutter.”
The nice thing about them is that they bring back to mind the wonderful image of Obama bowling an anemic 37 in Pennsylvania–I don’t care if it was only for seven frames.
Though they’d be a mouthful, the corresponding blogging terms would be “lowbowl-blogging” or “gutterball-blogging.”
Again, I like the idea of tying a humuliating event that is so closely tied to Obama and that many people still remember about him.
Anyone else?
OK. I don’t like Wesley Clark. I wouldn’t vote for Obama if he was the only name on the ballot for dogcatcher.
However, John McCain’s service in the military (which demands our respect and honor) doesn’t, all by itself, qualify him to be president.
His service speaks well of his character; I just can’t think of McCain as a slick liar (Slick Willie) or snake oil salesman (Obama). But I can think him wrong on some major issues.
Clark said “I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.” True enough (although his choice of words is poor – riding in a fighter plane??).
McCain has used his military record in his campaign (which is certainly legitimate) but that makes it “fodder” for his opponents. John Kerry (with a less remarkable record) found that out. The Dems simply lack the common sense (and decency) to just leave it alone. Bringing up McCain’s record to denigrate it simply confirms their awfulness and makes Obama appear even smaller.
But if military service, by itself, is a ticket to the presidency, then both Al Gore and John Kerry deserve to have been elected. They did put their boots on the ground in a combat zone. Come to think of it, so did Wesley Clark (who took some lead, I believe).
Obama/Clark = Good Cop/Bad Cop
#7 I don’t think anyone in the McCain camp has ever suggested that his military service alone qualifies him to be president or Commander in Chief. Democrats raised that straw-man so they could try to knock it down, and you apparently fell for it.
Didn’t Ashly Wilkes get a star for playing pocket pool during Rwanda? Isn’t he a prime example of the military playing fast and loose with medals and promotions these days? Used to be you got rewarded for doing something. Nowadays, you can make general just for showing up.
As I commented over on QandO:
But wait! There’s more now. Apparently McCain isn’t qualified due to missing out on the anti-war protests of the 60s & early 70s:
Wesley Clark makes my skin crawl. He is desperately seeking to be a rich somebody. His military life is behind him, but that is all he has to trade on, so he is now trying to be “everyman’s” go to military expert.
I am not a psychoanalyst, but I will play one on the web. Clark has an incredible resume. Valedictorian of his class at West Point, Rhodes scholar, a badly wounded Viet Nam soldier, and a rocket that rose through the ranks to become one of the Army’s 300 flag officers.
But when he got his first star, he also entered the arena of politics and promotion. What followed is murky. His relations with Clinton, Albright, Sec. of Def. Perry and Sec. of Def. Cohen and Gen. Hugh Shelton are the subject of great speculation.
He was retired/fired. He had his retirement salary and no housing, no staff, no driver, no command. His retirement pay is fine for middle class working stiffs, but it is not sufficient to keep him roaming the corridors of power and playing with the tall dogs.
His comments on McCain make perfect sense if you see them through his eyes. McCain fumbled his way through the academy, became a flyboy, got shot down, survived the torture, and so what? Even worse, in Clark’s view, McCain married a bunch of money and retired on it by becoming a Senator.
Clark really, really envies McCain’s prominence and financial security.
Clark is tight with Bill Clinton and he must know that the price of that relationship requires him to be a useful idiot. I do not think that Clark’s jabs at McCain were planned; I think that they came from his soul. He is desperate to become one of the high paid authorities who pontificate on small matters.
If you parse what Clark said McCain is lacking, you can pretty well see that Clark is thinking of himself. Clark ordered bombers to attack. Clark put his decisions on the line against political winds.
So, will this whole thing have an effect? Obama did one of his tepid disavowals by failing to call Clark by name. McCain has heard all of this before and he is not likely to try to prove his record. The MSM is sucking wind in hopes that they don’t have to act like grown-ups.
I suspect that this is a short, summer thunderstorm and will soon pass over. But, I will be interested in watching Wesley Clark’s march into oblivion. If Obama is elected, perhaps he will make him Ambassador to Sweden where he can try to influence Norway on the Nobel Awards.
During the primaries and over McCain’s long career, those of us who objected to McCain from the Right were often unwilling bedfellows of the fringe types who cobbled together ANY anti-McC rumor and trumpeted same to any willing audience. I never thought such things were accurate (the first consideration), relevant or rational. Blood runs high on immigration and other issues McCain is on the wrong side of, but the provenance of this bilge is now being used to claim that these witless attacks are bipartisan, and therefor regrettable but not that important. Equivalance between some obscure, even anonymous blogger and an avowed surrogate for Obama is an easy sell to the MSMers. It writes itself, actually. We should all ALWAYS stick to accuracy as much as possible. The Swifties really led the way there. Facts, as a pretty okay guy once said, are stubborn things. Let’s stick to facts as much as possible. If we are so right and the Lefties so wrong, the facts will out. We may take a couple stiff knocks in the head but the facts will out. Bush thinks this is his ace in the whole. History backs him up.
Personally, I think both the snObama camp and their willing accomplices in the MSM are trying to goad McCain into a temper tantrum, same as what he did with Michael Reagan and then-NBC reporterette Maria Shriver in 2000. That way, they can have footage showing that McCain is not “emotionally ready” to become president.
Just my opinion, girls.
Regards,
Peter H.
When former Ohio Congressman John Kasick, subbing for Bill O’Reilly on Fox News Monday, opened the show with the promo that he’d be talking about General Clark “smearing” Senator McCain and “distorting” his military record I finally decided I must have watched a different CBS Face the Nation interview with Wesley Clark than the one that has all of you up in arms.
Just as McCain’s key advisor Charlie Black was a total fool to discuss a terrorist attack in terms of how much it would help McCain’s campaign, Clark was a total fool to discuss McCain’s military service.
But Charlie Black did speak the truth. As much as none of us wants a terrorist attack on the United States, if it were to happen before the election it would certainly improve the chances for McCain’s election since the public perception is that he is more qualified to deal with national security. And Wesley Clark spoke the truth when he said that being shot down and held as a POW (in itsself) does not qualify McCain to be commander-in-chief. I inserted the “in itself” because in the context of the complete statement it was clear Clark was saying that.
I don’t think Clark “smeared” McCain or “distorted” his military record. And I don’t think Clark displayed any disrespect for McCain’s military service record.
There are so many really important issues at stake in this election and I think the Left was foolish to get so worked up over Charlie Black making a fool of himself and I think the Right is just as foolish to get so worked up over Wesley Clark making a fool of himself. Both extremes ought to focus their energies and passions on the important issues in an election that will likely set the course for America for much of the 21st Centory.
Love the blog, but you’re way off base on this one, and I have to suspect that you did not actually watch the interview before posting. The phrase that has everyone so exercised (“being in a plane and being shot down”) was something Bob Schieffer said, and which Clark repeated. The Columbia Journalism Review gets it right:
“When moderator Bob Schieffer interjected that ‘Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences, either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down’, Clark responded: ‘Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.'”
Columbia also has a link to a video of the interview, which you should watch. http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/attacking_mccains_military_rec.php
There is simply no way to watch this interview and come away with the impression that Clark made any “broadside attack” on McCain’s military service. He simply said that his service alone does not qualify him to be President, which is pretty hard to disagree with. Suggesting that John Kerry got his purple hearts for self-inflicted wounds, on the other hand . . .
#16 – Jim, good point, but doesn’t it also point out Bob Schieffer’s own bias when he is goading Clark to admit this point?
We all know that Schieffer is from the Cronkite/Rather school of journalistic thought, in which it is OK to be “fake but accurate.”
Regards,
Peter H.
#15
Did he happen to mention what qualifies Barack Hussein Carter II, other than he’s black?
Funny, isn’t it?
When Clinton ran, military service (or lack thereof) didn’t matter.
When Kerry ran, it mattered again. In fact, that was the only thing he had to run on.
Now that Pussama’s running, it doesn’t matter again.
I don’t suppose asking for some consistency would be too much to ask?
Since that interview Weasley Clark has tried to ‘clarify’ his comments. He should have apologized and then shut up. Because he’s digging his hole all the deeper.
Jim, you are 100% correct! Being shot down means you are a lousy pilot. Gosh, how many people flew missions without being shot down? Heck, how many people went to Vietnam and stayed in the safe zone (Gore) or got out ASAP (Kerry) or “gamed” the National Guard (Bush) or flat out dodged service (Clinton)?
Now we have young Obama who completely escaped the draft and who determined to fight the war of “neighborhood activism” and ancient John McCain who got shot out of the air by barefoot peasants and tossed in the clink for a few years where nobody ever shot at him again. Isn’t that a great trade for a bit of solitary and a few broken bones?
But in the final analysis, isn’t a slick social worker ten times smarter than a playboy bad pilot? Really! Obama is unsullied. He cleverly aligned with the right posse to give him street cred in the hood. He flew under the radar and he never got shot down.
There is ancient McCain, all riddled with skin cancer and crippled up and full of “responsibility” bromides running against the BLACK Obama who is all “hope” and “change” and charges of racism.
We live in the age or “unknown” is exciting. Vote Obama! (Unless something with more glitter and less grounding flutters by and distracts us.)
Hey everyone. I think that the real point is that Sen. Messiah Barack has no record other than being a left-wing “community organizer”. He has no idea the Islamofacsist threat. And if he did, he and his minions do not really care. All that gets in the way of socializing the United States. That is the goal. The reason that Sen. Messiah Barack won the Democrat race is because he was anti-Iraq from the begining. Sen. Clinton could not explain away her vote to authorize the use of force to remove Saddam Hussien. Thus, now that he is the candidate, he has to have people that think that they know the Islamofacsist threat. Whinny Wesley Clark, a failed general that led an air war against Serbia, and Sen. James Webb, a know-it all about much of nothing are not the kind of people the potential president should be surrounding himself with. But, when he was busy agitating low-income people to continue their grievences, he had no time to worry about the rest of the world. The real world.
#12, Agreed.
#16, point taken, but if what you say is accurate, then the MSM sparked the controversy by lobbing the statement into news clips, e.g., “Clark Blasts McCain’s Military Service” (which has since been “revised” as “Clark Hits McCain’s Military Credentials“).
I think I figured out exactly what Weasely Clark’s (and Jim Webb’s) seemingly ilconceived attack was about.
McCain is beating Obama by 20 points when voters are asked who they trust to defend the country more.
McCain is running ads about his military service that very effectively strengthen the public’s perception is this regard.
Now I dont know if any of you listen to talk radio, but i noticed on several shows today callers who were “retired military” who said, in essence, exactly what Weasely said, and Robert echoed above, that “McCains service is very honorable and it makes them so mad that anyone would denigrate it, BUUUUUUT when you get right dow to it, it is true that his service doesnt qualify him to be president”
I realize now they were Democrat seminar callers.
Weasely and Webbs comments were designed to do one thing and one thing only: sabotage the effectiveness of McCains ads and get them off the air.
I seem to recall in the last election that there were these “Swiftboat” Veterans that impugned the war record of a Veteran who ran for president in the last campaign. Surely, these skull skulduggery tactics do come back to bite one in the ass. Of course, when you get down to it, being a POW doesn’t really qualify anyone for being President. While it was unfortunate, it is true. A real qualification for President of the United States would be someone who could rise above pettiness and really think about what would be good for the country in the long run, not just political expediency. I look at the left and the right these days and see very little difference, except for a bunch of rich guys who play politics as a charade in power. After all, the very rich can and do what they want, no one cares about the poor and the middle class gets lip service and made to feel as if someone cares about them, which they don’t. After all, the rich wont pay for the deficit and the poor can’t. Do who does that leave in the middle?
The whole Swift Boating thing is a distraction to mask the fact that McSame has little to offer but a strong rhetoric and soundbites that signify nothing. Republicans have had their chance now and screwed things up. Admit that.
You are nearly right. As a life long Republican, I admit that, Pinky Bear.
Our Members of Congress were pigs at the earmark trough, which the Democrats continue to refuse to shut down. So, we hung them out to dry and Democrat pigs at the trough took their place. I admit it.
Our President reached across the aisle and created a federal school program, a federal prescription program, a campaign funding mess, a semi-amnesty for illegal aliens and lost his veto pen. He allowed government spending to soar like the Democrats were in charge. I admit it.
Then, we let the MSM and the New Hampshire wide open, no holds barred primary make John McCain our candidate. I admit it.
And the Democrats have unleashed Obama the messiah on the nation.
Obama is all smoke and no cigar. Admit that, Pinky Bear.
Obama is going to do the impossible: He is going to make me vote for McCain. Admit that, Pinky Bear.
Obama has begun Olympic level backpedalling on the war on terror, on government funding of faith based initiatives, on having face to face chats with the dictators, on energy policy, on cutting gas prices, and on and on. Admit that, Pinky Bear.
Obama has only the color of his skin going for him. Admit that, Pinky Bear.
You would vote for Obama because he is black. Admit that, Pinky Bear.
You know, if you were “Albino Bear” I could understand how you would see Obama through your rose colored lens. But you are Pinky Bear, so I guess you just see Obama as a pinko socialist. And you are right. Admit that, Pinky Bear.
Funny the honorable swiftboat vets actually served with “I served in Vietnam” John Kerry. They actually knew him. They were horrified that he might be elected Commander and Chief. There is still a one million dollar reward for anyone who can disprove the swifties alligations against Mr Kerry. No takers. The MSM just plays it as a he said they said saga. The truth is the swifties had nothing to gain, Mr Kerry had everything to gain by lying about his service. Do they Kerry defenders know that one of his Purple Hearts was awarded for rice wounds incurred when Kerry threw a granade into a rice bin? Case closed.
#21 Can someone finally tell me what the hell a “community organizer” is? I’m serious. I have been a member of the Chamber, the Elks, and helped clean out a stream of debis a couple times. Does that qualify?
Really Heliotrope, Pinko? How far back in time did you have to go for that one?
There is no war on terror. There is the War on the Poor and there is a War On The Constitution to bring it down. There has been no attempt to bring Osama bin Laden back to justice. We took out Saddam Hussein, who if you will remember, Regan sent Rumsfeld to bring arms to. America set Hussein up in power to chase out the Islamic Militants in the early 1970’s.
Do you see a real difference between the Dems and Reps? They are all millionaires and have no one but the Corporate Interests at heart.
The only thing I will admit is that you are deluded.
So, Pinky Bear, you won’t take your own test. Color me “surprised”!
As to being a “pinko”….I was reluctant to call you a full fledged Chavez/Castro communist. But if that is your preferred choice, maybe you should change your moniker to Red Che Bear and cut the cutsie-pie image of a cuddly toy with full body diaper rash.
Now thats gotta be the biggest case of projection I’ve seen in a while.