Wesley Clark feels the heat, but stands his ground

By most reasonable measures, retired Gen. Wesley Clark got a pretty raw deal yesterday. On Sunday’s “Face the Nation,” Clark questioned John McCain’s presidential qualifications, which was quickly turned into an “attack” on McCain’s military service.

Barack Obama’s campaign distanced himself from the comments, and all three network evening newscasts not only slammed Clark, but continued to misrepresent the four-star general’s remarks. There was some question as to whether Clark would find it necessary to apologize for an “attack” he never actually made.

Last night, we got our answer, when Clark issued a press statement that reiterated his undisputed argument.

“There are many important issues in this Presidential election, clearly one of the most important issues is national security and keeping the American people safe. In my opinion, protecting the American people is the most important duty of our next President. I have made comments in the past about John McCain’s service and I want to reiterate them in order be crystal clear. As I have said before I honor John McCain’s service as a prisoner of war and a Vietnam Veteran. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. I would never dishonor the service of someone who chose to wear the uniform for our nation.

“John McCain is running his campaign on his experience and how his experience would benefit him and our nation as President. That experience shows courage and commitment to our country – but it doesn’t include executive experience wrestling with national policy or go-to-war decisions. And in this area his judgment has been flawed – he not only supported going into a war we didn’t have to fight in Iraq, but has time and again undervalued other, non-military elements of national power that must be used effectively to protect America. But as an American and former military officer I will not back down if I believe someone doesn’t have sound judgment when it comes to our nation’s most critical issues.”

Good for him. In fact, Clark could have exited the stage for a while, waiting for the criticism to die down. Instead, to his credit, Clark did the opposite and did what soldiers do — he defended himself.

Here’s Clark on MSNBC, by way of Eric Kleefeld, standing his ground.

Nico reported on the appearance:

Clark stood by his comments late Monday night on MSNBC, apologizing only for detracting from the “bigger issues.”

“I honor John McCain’s character,” said Clark. “As I said in the show he’s been on of my heroes for a long time. He’s been over to my house. This is about the qualifications to be president. It is also about the nature of politics today that a comment can be taken out of context so much to create a hullabaloo.”

Clark stressed that when he initially suggested that McCain’s time in Vietnam did not — by itself — qualify him to be president, he was speaking as his own agent and not on behalf of Barack Obama’s campaign. In addition, he pointed some of the spotlight on the fact that one of McCain’s surrogates in batting back the criticism was Bud Day, a member of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth organization that McCain once criticized.

“I think language of this type and this part of the discussion shouldn’t be part of the campaign,” he said. “I reject the idea that you take something like this and Swift Boat it all out of proportion.”

Asked repeatedly by Abrams whether he was sorry for his statement, Clark did not offer an apology. He even playfully hinted that his remark couldn’t have been all-too-controversial as it was first stated by CBS Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer: “It was a great line,” he said, “I didn’t make it up. It was given to me by the interviewer.”

But Clark’s appearance was clearly an effort to clarify the message that his earlier remark sent. And in the process, he threw in some lines of support for his candidate of choice: Obama.

“I think anybody who serves in uniform who serves their country in wartime and has gone through the hardships like John McCain should be honored for their character and courage,” said Clark. “I think people look for character and courage in their pres, but I don’t think you’ have to have been at war to have shown character and courage. I think you can see that in other candidates. I think you can see that in Barack Obama’s life.”

I’m hard pressed to imagine how Clark could have handled this much better.

“I’m hard pressed to imagine how Clark could have handled this much better.”

i wholeheartedly agree. i admire his courage and candor greatly. we could use more men (and women) like him. talk about straight-talking!

  • If only all Democratic politicians were more like him this country would actually have a party in opposition of the Republicans.

  • Clark’s been a champ. Despite the distancing from the Obama campaign, I hope he’s still in contention for the VP spot.

  • I’m hard pressed to imagine how Clark could have handled this much better.

    He could have asked, “How do you think McCain’s Vietnam experience made him a better leader?” By the way I also don’t mind that Obama rejected his comments. Contrary to what others think this is not a cult campaign. It is a campaign of ideas, and people can disagree on the substance and the style. In this case I think it was the style Obama didn’t want to endorse.

  • Obama could take a lesson from Clark’s response–rapid, straightforward, civil, and unemotional.

  • Wesley Clark is right. John McCain’s endurance as a prisoner of war does not a president make. John McCain endures direction form the right wing to continue the IRAQ War for oil for 100 years. John McCain endures the death and dis -memberment of the military without appropriate after care. John McCain endures refusing education for the military who have fought so hard for the oil profits of the greedy. and powerful.
    The media is wrong to back a hollow horse of John McCain. John McCain expresss very little substance. His policy is determined by which way the camera points.
    The media is a failure to the American people.

  • here’s hoping Obama takes the bait & issues a “ooooh, THAT’S what Clark meant, of course that’s right” statement.

  • The right has demonstrated repeatedly that they are filled with fear and want everyone else to be the same. It follows that someone who doesn’t show the same fears must be quelled. Wesley is prepared for their unreasonable attacks. They have picked the wrong horse to ride. This man is just that a man not some sniveling coward .

  • Obama did good to distance himself from the media-created controversy – Obama has a political plan to win – by hitting McCain on his 25 weaknesses, not on his one strength.

    In a McCain vs Clark matchup, Clark has a good argument – but that argument fails in a McCain v Obama matchup.

    So I strongly disagree with those who say Obama threw Clark under the bus – I think it’s the other way around – once Obama emerged the winner in the primary, they should have coordinated better.

  • Undoubtedly, the press is McCain’s base. Apparently, they’ve been playing the Wesley Clark quote without playing Bob Schieffer’s question in which Schieffer implies that flying in Vietnam and getting shot down does qualify McCain to be president.

    McCain wants to stay in Iraq and establish permanent military bases there. McCain supports Cheney’s efforts to get Bush to attack Iran before leaving office. McCain is against using military force to kill high-value targets in Pakistan.

    In short, McCain is not qualified to be our president.

  • Now we know why he was made a 4 star general. He is intelligent, lucid in response and stubborn to a fault. Abrams couldn’t shake him even coming at him from two or three angles. Clark would not allow him to “change the subject”. He gave McAce his due at what he did but refused to back down from the premise that McAce’s past qualifies him to be a better Commander in Chief or that he’d be better at running a country because he was shot down in Viet Nam. It was a thing of beauty. More surrogates need to pin these lemmings down. The 3 pundits that followed Clark went on agreeing that the argument’s nuance was too much for those “low information voters” to discern. I love that phrase: “Low Information Voter” I get this image of a Cro-Magnon man staring blankly at Fox News with a bit of dribble leaking from the corner of his mouth. That there is even a category for this type of voter is a scary concept but one that brings delight to the neocons.

  • #8 – ml johnston: “John McCain’s endurance as a prisoner of war does not a president make. John McCain endures direction form the right wing to continue the IRAQ War for oil for 100 years.”

    And therein lies the problem – Clark is making only the first part of your argument – Obama wants only to make the the second.

    If Clark want to augment Obama, he should have made the second as well, in every opportunity he had. Instead he’s going off on his own message, one that Obama could not politically make, regardless of whether the point itself is true or not..

  • Obama was smart to distance himself from Clark. The fact that Clark is 100% right doesn’t matter much once the cable news “faux-outrage” machine has been fired up. Obama knows he can crush McCain on policy issues, so there’s not much point attacking him on character issues. Frustrating as it is, he has to just let it go. As yesterday’s coverage will attest, the media has McCain’s back.

  • I think it’s a decent way of playing it. Obama could have been less emphatic in “distancing himself” from Clark’s comments, but he still remains above the fray on this one while Wes Clark continues to hammer McCain — which is more or less how it should go.

  • “Low Information Voters.” That would be their viewers and readers, wouldn’t it?

    It isn’t like the ‘news’ media do any actual digging for the truth or report honest analyses of the facts they uncover. You know–real journalism. The ‘news’ media have been carrying McClone’s water–and bringing him doughnuts (with sprinkles!)–for so long that they think anyone who raises a legitimate question about how his war experience makes him uniquely qualified for the Presidency is attacking him. Kudos to the General for making the point and then standing by what he said! The ‘news’ media could learn a lot about straight talking from Clark.

    But they won’t.

  • I love that phrase: “Low Information Voter” I get this image of a Cro-Magnon man staring blankly at Fox News with a bit of dribble leaking from the corner of his mouth. That there is even a category for this type of voter is a scary concept but one that brings delight to the neocons.

    More importantly, the TV executives like them, because LIVs are the ones you can sell a lot of useless garbage to, simply by advertising it. LIVs are the folks who enjoy the retarded fare on TV, and the networks would be screwed if the LIVs ever got a collective clue.

  • Bob Schieffer really sucked in that interview. He sounded like he was going to have a heart attack because someone questioned McCain’s credentials to be president. He acted as if McCain was already up on Mt Rushmore.

    Tool.

  • Where’s all the jilted lovers this morning? What happened to those who were so outraged at Obama for somehow failing to do exactly what everybody wanted that they were suddenly threatening to vote elsewhere? Perhaps the hysteria is over and someone could please tell Keith Olbermann before he completely morphs into the Obama campaign’s Rush Limbaugh.

    And if the network anchors are so outraged, why don’t they invite Bud Day on to debate Wes Clark? Bud could even bring a gang of liars pushing their walkers in a threatening manner toward Gen. Clark. It could be as entertaining as studio wrestling.

  • And I’ll stand my ground. Clark, shut up.

    You were never for Obama in the first place, so why should he defend you stupidity.

    Want to make this an election on military service, then maybe you should have run, You didn’t, so please go away.

  • Ohioan @ 12:

    Obama has a political plan to win – by hitting McCain on his 25 weaknesses, not on his one strength.

    Ah, yes, the strategy that brought us a Democratic White House in 2000 and 2004. Perhaps the clearest lesson of the last decade is that this doesn’t work. Only political jujitsu works — turning your opponent’s perceived strength into a weakness. Democrats tried to “change the subject” in 2002 and 2004 and got stomped. In 2006 they ran directly on national security and won big. Why is it proving impossible for them to absorb that lesson?!?

    Simon @ 16:

    Obama knows he can crush McCain on policy issues, so there’s not much point attacking him on character issues.

    Being right on policy issues has not been sufficient to win elections. See, again, 2000, 2002, 2004. Like it or not, voters base their decisions largely on intangible personality qualities like character. “Distancing” doesn’t work. Meeting accusations head-on works — especially when you have actual videotaped facts on your side!

    There are two ways to lose to Republicans. One is to ignore their attacks. (See “Kerry, John”.) Even worse is to buy into their meme. Let your opponent define the debate and you lose, every time.

    This is another blown call by Obama. He should have backed Clark to the hilt.

  • Where’s all the jilted lovers this morning? What happened to those who were so outraged at Obama for somehow failing to do exactly what everybody wanted that they were suddenly threatening to vote elsewhere? -Capt Kirk

    Strawman. None of the upset regulars threatened to vote for McCain. I’m tired of being told I can’t be upset, even furious with a political candidate without it coming down to the argument that I don’t have any other option so I should just shut up.

    I’m furious with Obama over his espoused support of the FISA monstrosity. I’m upset with him for throwing Clark under a bus. That doesn’t mean I’ve lost my ever loving mind and am voting for McCain.

    It means I write letters expressing my discontent and withhold donations. I’m exercising my rights as a citizen, and I’m tired of being called a ‘jilted lover,’ or ‘reformed cultist,’ or ‘purist,’ just because I’m critical of a politician doing the wrong thing.

  • Damned liberal media bias. They had a good story going and had to ruin it by giving Clark a chance to tell the truth. What’s this country coming too? (More beer and BBQ!)

  • #24 – Bernard HP Gilroy.

    No, no, no – McCain IS weak on National Security and Obama SHOULD go after those weaknesses, unlike Kerry who only talked about jobs lost.

    You are mixing up going after the value of McCain’s experience in war, and going after McCain’s plans to send your kids to a 100 year war. Obama plans to focus on the second part, thus STILL undercutting the Republicans perceived strength.

    How we nail McCain on National Security matters. Going after McCain’s personal courage several years ago is NOT the way. Going after his lack of courage TODAY is indeed the way.

  • I find myself wondering what Obama promised Clark in return for taking this hit. Clark is now officially Obama’s Ferraro.

  • Excellent.

    It’s about time a leading Democrat stood his ground in this manner. Let’s have it out once and for all and not back down.

    His comments were completely fair and should be totally acceptable remarks in our society. Anyone who thinks elsewise has convinced themselves that they want to live in an Orwellian world where the appropriate authorities arbitrarily announce what is patriotic to protect their own.

  • Obama was also wise to announce he will expand faith based initiatives.

    You mean telegraphing his swerve to the middle? Worked well for Gore, Kerry and Hillary!

    I saw this coming a mile away and that was why I supported Edwards over Obama. Obama was my second to the last choice because he appears to be very conservative. I would like a liberal with a backbone, please. Obama is turning out not to be one nor have the other.

  • Dan Abrams read Clark the statement that seemed to be what sparked the controversy. It was to the effect that crashing a plane and becoming a POW doesn’t qualify one for the presidency. If you kind of take the statement out of context, it’s one of those “Duh” things. Of course it doesn’t qualify one. But put McCain’s name next to it, and somehow it becomes heresy.

    I was blown away by Abrams’ stubborn insistence that Clark apologize. Abrams seemed incredulous, as if of course that qualifes McCain, and how could anyone in his right mind not realize this?

    This whole episode is stunning. It leaves one reeling, wondering what hope there can be for a nation full of hypnotized zombies.

  • “I’m furious with Obama over his espoused support of the FISA monstrosity. I’m upset with him for throwing Clark under a bus. That doesn’t mean I’ve lost my ever loving mind and am voting for McCain.” -doubtful

    If this is your position, I agree 100%. Who ever said you couldn’t be upset? I’m upset myself about the FISA immunity, also about this Faith Based malarkey. But this strange “jilted lover” syndrome has pervaded this blog since Hillary dropped out. It’s the mentality that “if God can’t be a woman, I just wanna go to hell!” that I’m talking about.

    So relieved that you haven’t lost your ever loving mind, hope that’s true of some others.

    And: “I find myself wondering what Obama promised Clark in return for taking this hit. Clark is now officially Obama’s Ferraro.” -Mary

    Mary, this morning you seem to have had a revelation about how politics work, but you say this as if it’s something that is somehow terrible. Then again, the comparison to Ferraro is lost on me. Wasn’t she done in by her husband’s business dealings?

  • ohioan @ 27… did you watch clark’s interview? he NEVER went after mccain’s courage. he just made the point that mccain (bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb iran) has not displayed the skills of communication and judgement that obama has.

    doubtful @ 25… AMEN!!!

  • I’m hard pressed to imagine how Clark could have handled this much better.

    Unlike our candidate, Micheal Dukakis, er, Al Gore, er, John Kerry, er, oh yeah, Barack Obummah.

    It is not the job of Democrats to bend over and spread for the Republicans every time their lies and baloney are made public and they suffer a bullshit attack.

    Thank you, General Clark, for reminding us of this simple fact.

  • Going after McCain’s personal courage several years ago is NOT the way.

    I agree, Ohioan, but the problem with your argument is that Clark never went after McCain’s personal courage of years ago. Your predicate requires buying the Republican/MSM lie, which is always a bad predicate.

    Indeed, I find it odd that you seem so anti-Clark on this one when in fact Clark did exactly what you prescribe. And in addition to what you prescribe, Clark did one more very important thing. As long as the MSM and low-info voters have this teflon shield around McCain because he was a “war hero POW,” no legitimate attack will stick, even on wholly different subjects. Flip-flop on immigration? “It may seem dishonest, but people know he’s a war hero.” So it makes perfect sense – and may ultimately be mission critical – to put some sort of hole in that shield. Which means you have to go after it directly and show why it doesn’t matter today, it doesn’t matter to the Presidency.

    And that is exactly what Clark did, all the while heaping high praise on that service itself, saying Clark himself had looked up to McCain, and calling McCain a hero. How this is an attack, much less and unfair one, much much less one that progressives should comdemn is way beyond me.

  • What are Bush’s qualifications to be the POTUS? As far as I know, he was never shot down or held POW. Did I miss something in his TANG service? Perhaps he was “pulled over for DWI” and held overnight until Poppy and Babs could bail him out.

    Next?

    I am committed to Oneness through Justice and Transformation

    peace,
    st john

  • st john, you have forgotten that Dubya was anointed by Republican Jesus at some church near Dallas. Then he was schooled in the ways of world domination by the likes of Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz in a crash history course on the ranch in Crawford.

    How could anyone question these qualifications after the proven track record of the last eight years? And certainly whomever was the one in charge of vetting and suggesting Cheney as VP must be in line for the next Presidential Freedom Medal.

  • Breaking John McCain comes to Wes Clark’s defense.

    John McCain was asked if “military service inherently makes somebody better equipped to be commander-in-chief.” McCain said, “Absolutely not…I absolutely don’t believe that it’s necessary.”

    I believe that military service is the most honorable endeavor an American may undertake. But I’ve never believed that lack of military service disqualifies one from occupying positions of political leadership or as Commander and Chief. In America, the people are sovereign, and they decide who is and is not qualified to lead us

    Well, okay…. Those quotes were from a few years ago.

  • What do you mean by “Obama’s campaign distanced himself [sic!] from Clark?” Obama must have O.K.’d the distancing, hence the correct statement is “Obama distanced himself from Clark.” Clark is one of the better known supporters of Obama. Why did Obama let his surrogates do the distancing in this case? Is he a coward hiding behind the apron-strings of his surrogates?

  • 28. On July 1st, 2008 at 10:32 am, Mary said:
    I find myself wondering what Obama promised Clark in return for taking this hit. Clark is now officially Obama’s Ferraro.

    ______________

    And you are now officially thecarpetbaggerreport.com’s Frank Burns.

  • Clark made the point that ‘being a pilot and getting shot down” doesn’t qualify McCain to be president. If McCain and his sycophantic groupies want to argue the point, then I suppose that we should be willing to believe that pilots of the Imperial Japanese Navy who got shot down while bombing the living f*** out of Pearl Harbor, or Wake Island, or the Philippines are equally qualified. Or that pilots of the Third Reich who were shot down while firebombing London are equally qualified. Or that Iraqi pilots who were shot down while gassing Kurds are equally qualified.

    Will the McCain camp next try to distinguish between themselves and Obama by arguing the presidential qualifications of ten angry men who flew planes into WTC #1 and #2—or the five who flew into the Pentagon—or the four who flew into a Pennsylvania meadow?

    Given the known circumstances behind McCain’s being shot down—that he returned over his target, tauntingly, via a “low-n-slow” maneuver that violates every aspect of air-v-ground combat from the days of World War One to the present moment of aerial combat procedure—I can say that John McCain only lost an airplane and a few years of freedom the first go-around. Can we really afford to let him have a second try at it—but with the whole entirety of the Republic as a surrogate for his plane, and the lives of Americans substituting for his freedom?

    I should think not….

  • I knew there were reasons I liked General Clark.

    I just wish Obama hadn’t been so quick to distance himself from the earlier remarks – they’re true, they’re valid, and despite the MSM’s willful miscontruing, they aren’t meant to diminish McCain’s service or his sacrifice. I would have thought it was all choreographed, but Obama could have played “good cop” without having to fully deny what Clark is saying (e.g. his comments within the patriotism speech, without separately repudiating Clark)

    Plus, if we were to follow the logic that being a POW makes you more especially qualified to be president, wouldn’t *dying* in a war be an even more compelling qualification?

  • Thanks, Steve. I was still hoping that Clark had a chance at the VP slot, but always knew that was slim. I wish Obama had supported him, but I’m glad that he’s getting some attention and a chance to talk about how McCain’s military experience doesn’t make him better qualified in national security.

  • I wish that Clark had brought up McCain’s “Bomb bomb Iran” Beach Boys riff as an example of his lack of qualifications and lack of Commander in Chief gravitas.

  • I think that Jimmy Carter has proved beyond all shawdow of a doubt that military experience does not equal good judgement in foreign policy.

    That being said, BHO will take us back to the good ole days of the late 70’s. Four more years of Jimmy! The liberals f’ it up so bad then it took 2 generations to forget the great tax and spend socialism debacle.

    Bring it on. Let’s hunker down and take another mini depression under BHO to show what liberalism brings to the overall good of the common man. Then, we can bury it for another 2 generations.

  • Comment #24 absolutely correct. Comment #27…”…How we nail McCain on National Security matters. Going after McCain’s personal courage several years ago is NOT the way. Going after his lack of courage TODAY is indeed the way.”

    Clark did not go after McCain’s personal courage and this is what republican controlled media wants us to believe so why are YOU saying it? Clark mentioned McCain’s service was not a qualification for president and did not make him more qualified to be president simply because he wore a uniform. I would love to hear Obama say which comment he rejects. Does he agree that military service makes McCain more qualified to be president or that being shot down in a plane does or what?

    Obama needs to start standing up for those supporters who are willing to speak the truth. He intervened in a primary to support a Bush enabling Blue Dog dem in Georgia over a progressive aligned with Obama challenger…Why? Why did he not support Clark by saying Clark in no way was being disrespectful of McCain’s military service…in fact he praised his service. Clark was merely clarifying what McCain himself said several years ago , that military service does not better qualify one to be president.

    Without even thinking about it he jumped on to the sound byte express and “we reject Clark’s comments” was the pathetic result. Obama talks a good line about standing up for our rights and the truth. but like Kos says, I wanna’ see him do it not just talk about it. He’s either getting poor beltway advice focused on electoral votes or making terrible decisions that go against what he campaigned as. The repubs will make a big deal out of his changing his stand even if he agrees with them. Has he stopped listening to his supporters or what? Standing for what is right will ultimately prove to be what is politically correct as well. When will dems pay attention to why they got elected in ’06?
    Stand up for something.

  • Wesley Clark was Clinton’s pointman on the illegal bombing in Bosnia. He was later slammed by General Shelton over “integrity and character” issues. (in addition to getting passed over in the corporation)

    Be careful who you praise.

  • Let’s get the story straight:

    For all those who think Gen. Wesley Clark was demeaning McCain by stating that McCain was only “riding” in a fighter plane, notice how Bob Schieffer of Face the Nation used the word “ridden” before Clark’s direct response.

    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.

    Clark may have mistaken by using the same verb Schieffer did in responding to Schieffer’s assertment about Obama’s lack of military service. Yet, if we are going to argue over semantics here, let’s put the blame over the choice of verb with Schieffer for using it first.

    Clark was directly responding by using the same word Schieffer did.

    Let’s not exaggerate Clark’s statements- after all, Clark has been a champion of veterans’ benefits and supported the recently signed G.I. Bill from the beginning…….

    Haven’t you checked whether McCain supported or signed the G.I. Bill?

  • Charlotte @ 46
    Excluding Clark as VP is the reason for Obama “distancing” himself. He can claim Clakr is “controversial”.

    As for who else is qualified?
    Richardson and Napolitano come to mind.
    There are dozens of others, the one he picks will probably come as a surprise.

  • Comments are closed.