|
 |
||
|
Latest Stories
Recent blog posts
|
July 2, 2008 - 6:54am.
General Wesley "Flap-jaw" Clark recently said of John McCain that "riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down" is no qualification to be president, and the immediate accusation was that he was guilty of "swiftboating." Two disgraceful things are going on here, starting with Clark's mouth. It frequently goes awry. Some think untoward utterances, along with flabbergasting decisions, got him pushed from his job as NATO commander, and who can forget how confused he became when he ran for president in 2003 and was asked if he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing war in Iraq? First he said he would have, then he said he would not have, then he said he did not know, then -- famously -- he shouted, "Mary, help," calling an aide who cleared up the matter for the press, even as the general began sinking in public estimation. Now we have this doozy about McCain, whose heroism as a tortured prisoner of war in Vietnam included his refusal to accept release unless his fellow POWs were also let go. His actions testify to his character, hardly unimportant in someone who wants to be president, if in and of itself not reason enough to vote for him. But there's more, of course -- all his years in the Senate and a long list of bills he was instrumental in getting passed. Of course, on the other hand, we have Barack Obama, who may not have accomplished nearly as much in his short political life, but sure speaks well. Disgrace Number Two is the use of the word "swiftboating" to describe mendacious slurs on a political candidate. As a recent New York Times story put it, "swift boat" has "become a synonym for the nastiest of campaign smears . . . " But the real smear is against the honorable Vietnam veterans of swift boat service who raised serious, responsible allegations against Democratic nominee John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election. Kerry brought it on himself. As a young man, he came back to the United States after a four-month combat stint, got involved with a bunch of radicals and -- already politically ambitious -- testified before Congress that the Americans who fought in Vietnam were all war criminals on the order of the barbarians fighting under Genghis Khan. Then, at his nominating convention, he put on a show about what a fantastic patriot he was, the obvious intent being to stymie criticism for his earlier activities. It was provocative, instead. He should simply have apologized. The left was outraged by the accusations against Kerry, maintaining that everything the vets said was a lie, but as a matter of non-ideological, nonpartisan truth, the vets did catch Kerry in whoppers -- his repeated assertions of fighting in Cambodia, his denial that he attended a radicals' meeting where there was a defeated and Kerry-opposed vote on murdering U.S. senators, and his assertion during the campaign that all his military records were available online. They weren't. After the campaign, additional records were released to three news organizations that did not themselves make them publicly available; to this day, we still have no way independent of those press reports to test the truth of some of the charges against Kerry. In columns and news stories, an acquaintance of mine, Thomas Lipscomb, has done the best reporting to be found on this subject, far better than the half-baked stuff we've had even from some of our most prestigious publications even as so many commentators casually malign the swift-boat veterans who criticized Kerry. Maybe someday, these commentators could visit with one of my closest friends and see the hurt as he discusses how he came back from Vietnam proud of having done his duty and astonished to find himself treated like a pariah. Kerry and his buddies had something to do with that, and the veterans who took him to task were far more justified than General Clark in a comment that is not major, major, just dumb, dumb.
(Jay Ambrose, formerly Washington director of editorial policy for Scripps Howard newspapers and the editor of dailies in El Paso, Texas, and Denver, is a columnist living in Colorado. He can be reached at SpeaktoJay(at)aol.com.)
Capitol Hill Blue's columnists, blogs and reader comments Capitol Hill Blue is an independent, non-partisan news site that belongs to no political party and subscribes to no political or philosophical point-of-view. Our columnists are welcome to their opinions but readers should understand that their views do not necessarily reflect the editorial policies of this web site. We also welcome comments to selected opinion columns and in our popular ReaderRant discussion forum. Please remember, however, that we believe in civility on this web site and comments may be reviewed, moderated or removed if we feel they contain obscenities, racism, bigotry, anti-Semitic remarks or attack other posters. Our goal is reasoned discussion on issues facing this nation and we do not feel that goal is served by personal attacks and by seeing how many cute adjectives you can attach to an elected official or politician's name. Copyright © 2008 Capitol Hill Blue
|
User login
 |
Technorati Tags: 
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Correct Context Gen. Clark
Submitted by karen on July 2, 2008 - 8:53am.Correct Context
Gen. Clark did not malign Sen. McCain's war record. In fact, Gen. Clark stated as how he was impressed with McCain's service in Vietnam. He was responding to a question from the host when he said the getting shot down does not qualify him to be preident. Further, there is some discrepancy with the story regarding McCain's refusal to be released early from the Hanoi Hilton. In a story in the NY Times this past January, it stated North Vietnam offered McCain's early release to Henry Kissinger which Kissinger refused. When McCain and Kissinger met when McCain returned, he thanked Mr. Kissinger for "saving his honor."
The "serious, responsible" questions raised about Sen. Kerry's war record were anything but. How the men who lied about John Kerry and his war service can sleep at night is beyond my understanding. Instead of a veteran who served honorably when called by his country, the United States of America has for leaders a man who used his family's influence to get into the Texas National Guard to avoid service in Vietnam and his running mate who had five deferrments and "other things to do" instead of serving his country.
The MSM has been intimidated by the Neocons and is now frightened to ask insightful questions. Reporters have neglected their responsibility to dig for the truth and ask the questions which would lead to a greater understanding by the voting public of the issues and where the candidates stand on those issues.
Lexie Homewood A quick scan
Submitted by lexiedogmom on July 2, 2008 - 9:58am.Lexie Homewood
A quick scan of Mr. Ambrose's columns shows an utter inability to take an unbiased look at political events. Crying the blues about how the Swiftboaters are unfairly maligned beats all. McCain's war record was not in the least disrespected. I'm no huge fan of Wesley Clark, but he merely said that being tortured in a POW camp did not enhance McCain's foreign policy credentials, and that getting shot down was not a qualification to be President. Neither of these statements can be construed as a "smear".
The REAL disgrace in this
Submitted by Mark Yungbluth on July 2, 2008 - 10:31am.The REAL disgrace in this article is that in contemporary America, a person is not allowed to speak the truth without someone calling it a "smear". Clark did not smear McCain - only the spinners call it that. A truth that may give one pause to think - a truth without rancor or innuendo is not a smear, regardless of who or how many don't want face that truth. In this case, the truth that being a tortured war veteran does not necessarily qualify one to be president seems evident, and at the same time should not discourage a McCain supporter from supporting him for other legitimate reasons. Using the logic of Spin (as if spin required logic), one should not be as eager to support him if he WASN'T shot down or tortured - an EQUALLY untenable position.
Winston Churchill said that
Submitted by Flapsaddle on July 2, 2008 - 11:41am.Winston Churchill said that in wartime the truth was such a precious thing that it must always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.
In a political campaign, the truth is so dangerous that it must immediately be set upon by the bodyguard of the liars.
Most sincerely,
T. J. Flapsaddle
I have always wondered why
Submitted by pollchecker on July 2, 2008 - 12:26pm.I have always wondered why being a POW qualified someone to be POTUS. Is it just sympathy because he survived or something?
If Kerry's service in Vietnam did not qualify him to be a BETTER COMMANDER IN CHIEF THAN THE COWARDLY GW, then how the hell does McCain's service qualify him to be better than Obama?
The part that is SO DAMN DUPLICITOUS AND INFURIATING is that none of this stuff MATTERED before. It certainly did not matter in the 2000 election. It certainly did not matter in the 2004 election.
I mean come on people, if military service and/or political experience was REALLY IMPORTANT then we would not have had 8 years of some yellow bellied chicken S**t a-hole LIKE GW occupying the WH and screwing over our country.
Jeesh.....give me a break.........PLEASE!
Why is military service of
Submitted by Flapsaddle on July 2, 2008 - 1:21pm.Why is military service of any kind necessarily a positive test for the leadership characteristics of a political figure?
Lincoln served in the Black Hawk War (1837) as the elected company commander of an Illinois militia unit; he was very inept at the day-to-day mechanics of running a unit.
Grant was a superb strategist with a sure knowledge ofwhat it took to win. He lost more Americans in two days at Shiloh (1862) than GWB has in five years in Iraq, and more in the Wilderness campaign (1864) than we lost in Korea and Vietnam combined. While personally honest, his administration was one of the most corrupt in our
history.
Theodore Roosevelt was the last American president to have actually led troops in combat. His administration tended to be activist in terms of public protection and not particularly meddlesome in foreign policy.
Corporal Adolf Hitler was twice decorated with the Iron Cross, second class - normally reserved for officers - for courage under fire.
Neither Woodrow Wilson nor Franklin Roosevelt ever wore a uniform. Truman served as a battery commander in World War I. Eisenhower led the largest military coalition in history, but had never seen a single hour of combat.
Kennedy's service, with the exception of getting his PT boat run over in the middle of the Pacific, was unremarkable. Both Nixon and Johnson, naval officers, served without particular distinction. Reagan was essentially a REMF who made propaganda films. GHWB was the last American president to have actually seen combat, a Navy pilot shot down in 1944.
Bill Clinton dodged service. GWB dodged combat service even though he wore a uniform.
Really, in the long run is military service and its attendant consequences necessarily a hallmark of future performance?
Most sincerely,
T. J. Flapsaddle
Far more damning to McCain
Submitted by woody188 on July 2, 2008 - 1:27pm.Far more damning to McCain was claiming Iraq safe while he had 100+ soldiers and 2 helicopters keeping watch over him as he shopped in the bazaar. How much did that unnecessary photo-op cost taxpayers? Talk about using soldiers for political gain!
Someone that wants to be Commander in Chief shouldn't be out gallivanting in Iraq for photo propaganda. Aren't we supposedly at war? Wouldn't that be a misappropriation of troops?
Just some things to think about next time he claims to support the troops.
I heard Gen. Clark's
Submitted by KayT on July 2, 2008 - 1:51pm.I heard Gen. Clark's comments and in no way did he denigrate McCain's service or sacrifice.
However, there is one area of McCain's story that has never made any sense to me. And since it is repeated in this article, I think that I need to point it out. Supposedly, the Viet Cong were going to release McCain and he refused to go unless the rest of the POWs were released, also. Think about this. What choice did a POW have concerning whatever the Viet Cong wanted to do with him? Does anyone seriously believe that they took the wishes of a prisoner into account when making a decision? It defies logic
Bob Schieffer got testy with
Submitted by ralphcat on July 2, 2008 - 2:05pm.Bob Schieffer got testy with General Clark for saying that John McCain had not commanded a squadron in wartime and lacked executive leadership experience. Bob Schieffer said words to the effect: "Oh yeah! Well, Barack Obama has never ridden in a fighter plane and been shot down." And Wesley Clark responded, truthfully, "Riding in a figher plane and being shot down" is not a qualification to be president of the United States.
So, what's with all the uproar? Seems like manufactured umbrage to me. Clark did not in any way, shape or form attack, demean or question McCain's military service. McCain and his "surrogates" in the media are milking this for much, much more than it's worth. I'm just wondering how much longer they will be sucking at that particular teat.
NY native Shame, shame for
Submitted by Alexandria Lupu on July 2, 2008 - 3:07pm.NY native
Shame, shame for maligning a fine person like Clark. He was only responding to a question. But woe to the person who speaks the truth. Remember the story about the emperor's clothes?
D-TOx... General Clark came
Submitted by D-TOx... on July 3, 2008 - 3:22am.D-TOx... General Clark came damn close to starting WW3 with the Russian's by denial of acess of Russian ground troops to Pristina Airport during POTUS Clinton's war against Serbian civilians. What did we get from our Balkan excursion? Al-Qaeda in southern Europe , thanks to our good buddies , the KLA radical Albanian hyper Salafi Balkan muslims! There are still a large contingent of US & Nato forces hunkered down there as well. Generals are by nature a political sort of military administrators. Gen. Clark is just shilling for a post as Secretary of State in Senator Obama's new cabinet.
Personally, I agree with
Submitted by old_curmudgeon on July 3, 2008 - 7:05am.Personally, I agree with Gen. Clark. I'd also like to hear directly from McCain why he refuses to allow the Vietnamese to release the records from the period when he was held in Hanoi. His previous nebulous answer was disingenuous, to say the least.
***********************************
But, that's just this old curmudgeon's opinion...
“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain
Gen.Clark did not say
Submitted by Belle on July 4, 2008 - 2:08am.Gen.Clark did not say anything dishonest or untrue about Mcbush. The media is having a heyday because they can't find anything the people care about to fill their news hours with. Please take the time to go into the REAL McBushs life and see if this kind of a person is one you want for POTUS...He is about as qualified as the jerk we now have..how he treated his first wife ( shades of Bill Clinton ) how many planes he crashed...too many things to list here..go and read it all NOT from HIS campaign people but from people who are after the truth and let it fly where ever it lands. This old man is a sham.. talk about an empty suit!!!!! Every time he talks I think I have just come across a funeral and he is eulagizing a dead body. No life, spirit or energy in that talking head at all. How did we EVER wind up with the likes of him running for ANY office? Cannot wait to see him and Obama side by side in a debate...if Mcbush remembers to show up.............