1,369 lightbulbs

Let me say right off the bat: this is not "swiftboating".

Here's what Gen. Wesley Clark (Ret.), the former supreme commander of NATO (and a guy who took four bullets in Vietnam himself), said yesterday on "Face the Nation":

"Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."

It may have been brusque, or even somewhat beside the point. But this statement is 100% correct.

Look, when the McCain campaign puts his prisoner-of-war footage in his advertisements, presumably to both garner sympathy and to bolster his foreign policy bonafides, it's fair game. It's a kind of non-sequitur for McCain, really - while his military record is worthy of respect, it's also inviting voters to inspect something that has a lot less to do with how he would perform in the job than McCain would have us believe. (Especially since he echoes the doctrine of a President and V.P. and promises to maintain the status quo - even if it goes against what he suffered through.)

And though I disagree with Clark's dismissive tone - it could've been phrased better, shall we say - I agree with the sentiment.

And why isn't it the same kind of treatment Kerry received in '04? Here's why: the pond scum that made themselves famous in the "Swift Boat" ads were making stuff up about Kerry's record that wasn't true. They were rumormongers, and they didn't seem to care that the vast majority of the 250 or so of them hadn't even served with Kerry in Vietnam. The ads were proven to be so blatantly false that even John McCain came out to defend Kerry against the attacks. (The White House didn't, of course.)

In Clark's case, he's not questioning the veracity of McCain's experiences in Vietnam, either as a pilot or as a P.O.W. In fact, he prefaced his remarks with effusive praise of McCain's service and sacrifice. What he is doing is simply making it clear that that incident does not qualify John McCain, in and of itself, for the Presidency. I really don't see how that is controversial - but in an America in which service to the military is (rightly) unimpeachable evidence of heroism, folks can get carried away and think that just because a man fought a war 40 years ago as a soldier, that means he's qualified to handle the military challenges of today. Folks need to re-examine that line of thinking.

Now, I don't care about McCain's standing in his Navy graduating class, and I certainly don't fault McCain for participating in any propaganda films while in captivity. The very same left-wing bloggers who are making these sorts of criticism would be wetting themselves if they even dreamt of enduring the hell McCain did for even one of the thousands of days he spent in that P.O.W. camp. Those folks really need to have a Coke and a smile.

However, Clark can't be lumped in with that group based upon what he said yesterday. I think that if a man with the record of military leadership, sacrifice and judgment that Clark makes this statement, it should be taken in its proper context and how it was very obviously meant. He simply said that McCain should not be hired for the most important job (arguably) in the world because he was shot down in wartime.

Sullivan thinks Clark was out of line:

This kind of personal attack was repulsive coming against Kerry from the far right. And it's repulsive the other way round. Both Kerry and McCain served their country honorably; and their records should be revered, period. You can make an argument against McCain's foreign policy experience and judgment on its merits. Do it and leave this crap out of it.

Clark did revere McCain's record. But when McCain puts the issue on the table as a means of proving his worthiness for the Presidency, Clark is well within his rights to question the wisdom of that strategy. That's all he was doing, and those in such a rush to be outraged need to slow down, and think about what was said. Give Clark that honor - I'm quite sure he's earned it.

And considering that McCain's histrionic response to this is to hire one of the former Swift Boat vets - yes, one of the guys he condemned in 2004 - to form a "truth squad" to guard against attacks on his own military, he's hardly one to talk. I guess swiftboating's OK only as long as you do it.

SIGH.

The Obama camp later kowtowed to McCain and repudiated the Clark statement. Honestly, this is really discouraging. Greg Sargent at TPM makes a great point: by rejecting the perfectly sensible Clark statement, the Obama folks encourage McCain to use his service as a qualification for the job. Americans need to be trusted to be smarter than this, and they need someone to challenge them to see through MSM storylines and talking points. Wake up, folks.

For an example of the MSM's pre-determination of how America should take Clark's comments, listen to Robin Quivers, er, Mika Brzezinski's tone and line of questioning in this segment: