McCain camp slams former general for downplaying military record
US News
Jun 30, 2008, 20:00 GMT
Other features coming soon.
Talkback
...neither does winning the DFC
...or five years as prisoner of war.
...or 20 some years in the United States Senate
...or the numerous pieces of legislation introduced
and, General...sir...
...or hanging around with the former weather underground
...or a Harvard degree
...or campaigning with the wife of a president who pardoned Puerto Rican terrorists
...and General...sir....neither does being relieved of command entitle you to be the arbitor of what does qualify to be a good President.
He made a very specific point in that McCain's military record, as fine as it is, does not demonstrate any 'staff' experience in the military. Clark's military record is far deeper. Since McCain is running based on his MILITARY positions rather than his CONGRESSIONAL record (also a fine record of service), people's turning McCain into another Eisenhower is unwarranted.
Obama has never presented himself as anything but what his own history reflects. Clark is actually my choice for Obama's VP, based on his experience, military qualifications and intellect (but no electoral votes). Bush has never questioned what his own Generals have to say, and before Petraeus, also a brilliant tactician, we paid a severe price for that incompetence, as the new 700 page Pentagon report reveals.
Clark's own resume DOES contain that kind of leadership:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark
Commands held:
Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe,
United States European Command,
United States Southern Command
Awards:
Defense Distinguished Service Medal (5)
Army Distinguished Service Medal (2)
Silver Star
Legion of Merit (4)
Bronze Star (2)
Purple Heart
French Ordre national du Mérite
German Merit Cross of the Federal Republic (Order of Merit)
======================
John McCain's service record:
Rank Captain
Battles/wars Vietnam
Awards Silver Star Medal,
Legion of Merit,
Distinguished Flying Cross,
Bronze Star Medal
Purple Heart Medal,
Meritorious Service Medal,
Air Medal,
Navy Commendation Medal,
Combat Action Ribbon,
Prisoner of War Medal,
(partial list)
has as much regard for the truth as does Bush. As for those medals, damned near everybody got them. They were handed out like candy. They have no meaning or significance. If you wiped your arse after crapping, you got a medal.
If he wants to enter the race, so be it. The fact is, McCain has never really trotted out his resume', the press even ignored it for a long time. In fact, he;s been chided for not doing so, to the satisfaction of certain republicans who would like him to do more.
General Clark is exactly what he appears to be, another political apparatachink, asking for the VP slot. Also, neither does being a lifetime military man qualify you to be President.
Go get a mandate general.
I knew a guy who got a purple heart for getting hit by an amry truck. That said, anyone who has ever landed successfully on a carrier has nothing to apologize about for his flying, let alone going into downtown Hanoi. They do not just hand out the DFC with a box of cracker jacks.
There isn't going to be any phony National Guard docs for Johnny, he's the real thing, no matter what Clark says, and Clark has one flaw that does not qualify him to be VP: He does not recognize that it is the role of the military to carry out the will of the civilian leadership, no matter how much he disagrees.
My Russian friends think Clarke is an ass. Few recall how in former Yugoslavia he ordered Brit commander to 'take' airfield that had already been occupied by Russkies under Clarke's nose. Clarke gave an irrational order and the Brit commander refused to obey.
Thank god.
In short, Clarke gets reassigned stateside with 'promotion.'
McCain has a noble back-story, but his resume is in Congress. In terms of accomplishments, what he has to run on is his Congressional record.
I don't buy the 'earmarks' statements, as Congresspeople seek funds for their districts all the time; and even horse-trade for votes. What's the difference between rebuilding infrastructure destroyed by storms and 'earmarks'?
McCain is essentially running on Bush's record on Iraq, and cannot detach himself from it. He has admitted that his own economic record is lacking. He seems to strike exactly one note - fear.
On the other hand, Obama represents 'change', and a distance from Bush's policies.
Check the 700 page Pentagon report reelating to Bush's policy failures, and poor judgment as to commanders.
McCain becomes an extension of that, inevitably. He has no course of action aside from a continuation of where we are. Since when is McCain a diplomat? He's known for a short fuse, which would make him John Bolton's successor, in terms of attitude.
The question now is what Bush will hand off to him, including potential actions against Iran, and the outcome of that. Also, oil prices, and the economy - those 'pocketbook' issues which people vote on.
In this election, the electorate is also sick and tired of the GOP'ers in Congress who constantly argue, and who've supported Bush's failed policies. With a 'true' majority in Congress for the Democrats, and a Democratic President, some of those early promises could actually be fulfilled.
..is not improvement.
Re:'Bush has never questioned what his own Generals have to say, and before Petraeus, also a brilliant tactician, we paid a severe price for that incompetence, as the new 700 page Pentagon report reveals.'
Bush failed to question Sec. Def. Rumsfeld and ignored his generals. Let's keep the record straight. There were more than a few Generals on active duty and off active duty who warned EVERYONE about the probable aftermath of a war in Iraq. Several of those Generals spoke up knowing that their objections would end their careers. And, quite a few of them retired well before they needed to because of Donald Rumsfeld.
To his great credit, it was John McCain who backed General Petraeus the most, more than even George Bush did.
And, let's not forget what General Clark had to say about the troop surge in Iraq.
www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/wesley-clark-bushs-surge-wil l-backfire-431053.html
Snippet:'The truth is that, however brutal the fighting in Iraq for our troops, the underlying problems are political. Vicious ethnic cleansing is under way right under the noses of our troops, as various factions fight for power and survival. In this environment security is unlikely to come from smothering the struggle with a blanket of forces - it cannot be smothered easily, for additional US efforts can stir additional resistance - but rather from more effective action to resolve the struggle at the political level. And the real danger of the troop surge is that it undercuts the urgency for the political effort. A new US ambassador might help, but, more fundamentally, the US and its allies need to proceed from a different approach within the region. The neocons' vision has failed.'
NoharnessJun 30th, 2008 - 21:09:47
Re:'Bush has never questioned what his own Generals have to say, and before Petraeus, also a brilliant tactician, we paid a severe price for that incompetence, as the new 700 page Pentagon report reveals.'
Bush failed to question Sec. Def. Rumsfeld and ignored his generals. Let's keep the record straight. There were more than a few Generals on active duty and off active duty who warned EVERYONE about the probable aftermath of a war in Iraq. Several of those Generals spoke up knowing that their objections would end their careers. And, quite a few of them retired well before they needed to because of Donald Rumsfeld.
==============
Indeed, many well-informed people, in either the military or civilian side, had to lave - Shinseki was one example. Why did Powell leave? Bolton is one of the hoodlums here, along with Rumsfeld.
==============
And, let's not forget what General Clark had to say about the troop surge in Iraq.
www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/wesley-clark-bushs-surge-wil l-backfire-431053.html
Snippet:'The truth is that, however brutal the fighting in Iraq for our troops, the underlying problems are political. Vicious ethnic cleansing is under way right under the noses of our troops, as various factions fight for power and survival. In this environment security is unlikely to come from smothering the struggle with a blanket of forces - it cannot be smothered easily, for additional US efforts can stir additional resistance - but rather from more effective action to resolve the struggle at the political level. And the real danger of the troop surge is that it undercuts the urgency for the political effort. A new US ambassador might help, but, more fundamentally, the US and its allies need to proceed from a different approach within the region. The neocons' vision has failed.'
(Petraeus has said much the same - the problem is political, not military. Check the 700-page report from the Pentagon as to how many screwups there were, including Bremer and Franks)
..this must be some of that NEW campaigning Obama was talking about. Looks to me a lot like the OLD campaigning...
Some of the things that the Wikipedia reports on General Clark:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark
Snippet:'Clark received another call from General Shelton in July 1999 in which he was told that Secretary Cohen wanted Clark to leave his command in April 2000. Clark was surprised by this, as he saw SACEURs as being expected to serve at least 3 years and often asked to stay on for a 4th, while this date would give him less than 3 years of service at the post.[76] Clark was told that this was necessary because General Joseph Ralston was leaving his post as the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and would need another 4-star command within 60 days or he would be forced to retire. Ralston was not going to be appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff due to an extramarital affair in his past, and the SACEUR position was said to be the last potential post for him.[77] Clark said this explanation 'didn't wash' because he believed the legalities could have been sorted out to let him serve a full 3 years.[78] Clinton signed onto Ralston's reassignment, although David Halberstam wrote that both he and Madeleine Albright were angered at Clark's treatment. Clark spent the remainder of his time as SACEUR overseeing peacekeeper forces and, without a new command to take, was forced into retirement from the military on May 2, 2000.[79][80]
Rumors persisted that Clark was forced out due to his contentious relationship with some in Washington D.C.; however, he has dismissed them, calling it a 'routine personnel action,' and the Department of Defense said it was merely a 'general rotation of American senior ranks.'[81] However, a NATO ambassador told the International Herald Tribune that Clark's dismissal seemed to be a 'political thing from the United States.'[82] General Hugh Shelton would say of Clark during his 2004 campaign that 'the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote,'[83][84] though Shelton never elaborated further on what these issues were.[85]'
Put Clark and Obama together and what have you got?
A really nifty bomb.
Great fun here ,the republican dirty trick department is now trying to slander Wesley Clarke ;just sompare the military records of McCain and Welsey Clarke,see who has most experience in the army and then come back to debate .Do you guys not care shaming yourselves with this sort of comments?apparently not .To the readers ,take good notice how your top brass is treated by the republicans once they speak out .Suddenly they are but burocrats or traitors .
... This is one guy expressing an opinion, on his own. The fact that the 'guy' was a general with multiple commands gives it weight.
Insofar as 'remarks' - some of the stuff coming from preachers that McCain had to disown is far more damaging, and he took too long to do it; just as Obama was far too forgiving about his own pastor.
'Change' means doing the opposite of Bush, and according to all polls, that's what the American voter is looking for. The economy is probably a bigger problem now in the minds of the voters, as well as gas prices.
One useful debate would be energy policy, as well as global warming - and let both sides bring Powerpoints. Let's get political debate into the 21st Century.
Right now the oil deals in Iraq make this entire war look like it was about oil, while Afghanistan becomes a greater problem by the day.
www.washtimes.com/weblogs/potus-notes/2008/Jun/30/bush-diplomacy-middle -east-complete-failure-says-p/
Pakistani ambassador: U.S. diplomacy a 'complete failure'
Q: We talk a lot in the U.S. about getting Osama bin Laden. It's important to the Bush administration; it's important to a lot of people, apparently, in the U.S. public. Is it important to the Pakistani people?
A: It is important to the Pakistani government that anyone who is a symbol of global terrorism should not be allowed to operate from any part of Pakistan or any of its neighboring countries. The Pakistani people have a different view. There is a complete failure of U.S. public diplomacy in the Muslim world, of persuading people of the U.S. case, which to me is a very good case. But somehow there has been a weakness in communicating to the Muslim people that Osama bin Laden is an enemy of Islam, and Muslims, as much as he is an enemy of the United States, or terrorism is an enemy of Islam and Muslims as much as terrorism threatens the United States. . . .
Right after 9/11, the U.S. made an effort. I don’t know how many of you remember Dennis Ross going and speaking in Arabic on al Jazeera, making the case. But who’s is making the case now? U.S. officials are not always available to people for briefings. It’s more important to them to talk to the American media than it is to talk to the Arab media or the Persian-language media or the Urdu-language media. And so, supporters of bin Laden in the meantime are very active. So basically in psychological warfare, bin Laden has made more gains than he should have been allowed to make. And that is the reason why there is confusion.
RE:'(Petraeus has said much the same - the problem is political, not military. Check the 700-page report from the Pentagon as to how many screwups there were, including Bremer and Franks)'
I never had any illusions about the neocon's vision. The solution goes below politics. The 'solution' is cultural, if there is a solution. The Iraqis, if they ever do establish a government that responds to votes and not bullets, will end up forming a government with many similarities to the government of Iran.
Let's face it. The guiding light of Iraqi culture is the laws laid down by Mohammed in the Koran, not the tenets of the Scottish Enlightenment. It will take a long time to make a single nation out of Iraq. It will not be a nation that works the way ours does. It may have some superficial similarities, but similarities are all they will ever be.
RE: Let's face it. The guiding light of Iraqi culture is the laws laid down by Mohammed in the Koran, not the tenets of the Scottish Enlightenment. It will take a long time to make a single nation out of Iraq. It will not be a nation that works the way ours does. It may have some superficial similarities, but similarities are all they will ever be.
=================
After Bush Sr. asked the Shia in the east to rise up and overthrow Saddam, the U.S. troops from the Gulf War pulled out - and Saddam then lashed out at the Shia, draining their water supply, and otherwise punishing them. Since the Shia are the majority, Saddam had a lot to lose.
We backed Saddam since the Iran-Iraq war, which was a very bloody affair; and accounts for why Iran persists in its negative viewpoint of the U.S. position.
The Iraqi nation we see today was pasted together politically from diverse groups over the years, and there's nothing to sustain its integrity. The Catholic population in Iraq (est. 1 million) has been literally destroyed, but under Saddam they were free to hold services.
The increased oil revenues just give them more to fight over. The discussion of revenue splits should have been held years ago, when there was less to fight over.
RE:' We backed Saddam since the Iran-Iraq war, which was a very bloody affair; and accounts for why Iran persists in its negative viewpoint of the U.S. position.'
The source of the mistrust between the US and Iran predates the Iran-Iraq war by several decades, going all the way back to 1953 and Operation Ajax.
As for who backed Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, here is what the Wikipedia reports:
'Although Saddam Hussein's forces made several early advances, by 1982, Iranian forces managed to push the Iraqi army back into Iraq. Khomeini sought to export his Islamic revolution westward into Iraq, especially on the majority Shi'a Arabs living in the country. The war then continued for six more years until 1988, when Khomeini, in his words, 'drank the cup of poison' and accepted a truce mediated by the United Nations. There were more than 100,000 Iranian victims[66] of Iraq's chemical weapons during the eight-year war. The total Iranian casualties of the war were estimated to be anywhere between 500,000 and 1,000,000. Almost all relevant international agencies have confirmed that Saddam engaged in chemical warfare to blunt Iranian human wave attacks; these agencies unanimously confirmed that Iran never used chemical weapons during the war.[67][68][69] Iraq was financially backed mainly by the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact states, France and the People's Republic of China (which also sold weapons to Iran).'
=====================
While it is true that we did nothing to end this war, we did not start it and we provided little to nothing in the way of aid. No one anywhere outside of the Middle East favored the sort of fanaticism that inspired 'human wave' attacks. We had been obliged to deal with those during the Korean War.
'They do not just hand out the DFC with a box of cracker jacks.'
What does DFC stand for, Distinguished F*ckup Cross? After all, that screwup McCain bailed out of five aircraft. Does that make him an Ace, too? Or just an ace-hole.
You need to go back to our shooting down of the Iranian airliner, and the hostage crisis. We chose sides, and supported Saddam in his 8-year war:
www.juancole.com/2006/12/for-whom-bell-tolls-top-ten-ways-us.html
When Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980, he again caught the notice of US officials. The US was engaged in an attempt to contain Khomeinism and the new Islamic Republic. Especially after the US faced attacks from radicalized Shiites in Lebanon linked to Iran, and from the Iraqi Da`wa Party, which engaged in terrorism against the US and French embassies in Kuwait, the Reagan administration determined to deal with Saddam from late 1983, giving him important diplomatic encouragement. Historians are deeply indebted to Joyce Battle's Briefing Book at the National Security Archives, GWU, which presents key documents she sprung through FOIA requests, and which she analyzed for the first time.
www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Initially, Iraq advanced far into Iranian territory, but was driven back within months. By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive against Iranian human-wave attacks. The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. (It had been included several years earlier because of ties with several Palestinian nationalist groups, not Islamicists sharing the worldview of al-Qaeda. Activism by Iraq's main Shiite Islamicist opposition group, al-Dawa, was a major factor precipitating the war -- stirred by Iran's Islamic revolution, its endeavors included the attempted assassination of Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz.)
Prolonging the war was phenomenally expensive. Iraq received massive external financial support from the Gulf states, and assistance through loan programs from the U.S. The White House and State Department pressured the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing, to enhance its credit standing and enable it to obtain loans from other international financial institutions. The U.S. Agriculture Department provided taxpayer-guaranteed loans for purchases of American commodities, to the satisfaction of U.S. grain exporters.
The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East.
Following in the footsteps of his father and grandfather, McCain entered the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis. There, he was a friend and leader for many of his classmates,[10] and sometimes stood up for people who were being bullied.[5] He also became a lightweight boxer.[5][11] McCain had conflicts with higher-ups, and he was disinclined to obey every rule, which contributed to a low class rank (894/899) that he did not aim to improve.[10][12][13][14] McCain did well in academic subjects that interested him, such as literature and history, but studied only enough to pass subjects he disliked, such as math.[5] McCain graduated in 1958.[10]
Military service and marriages
John McCain's pre-combat duty began when he was commissioned an ensign, and started two and a half years of training as a naval aviator at Pensacola.[15] There he also earned a reputation as a party man.[6] Graduating from flight school in 1960,[16] he became a naval pilot of ground-attack aircraft. McCain was then stationed in A-1 Skyraider squadrons,[17] on the aircraft carriers USS Intrepid and USS Enterprise,[18] in the Caribbean Sea and Mediterranean Sea.
McCain requested a combat assignment,[23] and in December 1966 was assigned to the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal flying A-4 Skyhawks.[24][25] McCain's combat duty began when he was 30 years old. In summer 1967, Forrestal was assigned to a bombing campaign during the Vietnam War.[12][26] McCain and his fellow pilots were frustrated by micromanagement from Washington,[27] and he would later write that 'In all candor, we thought our civilian commanders were complete idiots who didn’t have the least notion of what it took to win the war.'[26]
By then a lieutenant commander, McCain was almost killed on July 29, 1967 when he was at the epicenter of the Forrestal fire. He escaped from his burning jet and was trying to help another pilot escape when a bomb exploded;[28] McCain was struck in the legs and chest by fragments.[29] The ensuing fire killed 134 sailors and took 24 hours to control.[30][31] With the Forrestal out of commission, McCain volunteered for assignment with the USS Oriskany.[32]
John McCain's capture and imprisonment began on October 26, 1967. He was flying his twenty-third bombing mission over North Vietnam, when his A-4E Skyhawk was shot down by a missile over Hanoi.[33][34] McCain fractured both arms and a leg, and then nearly drowned, when he parachuted into Trúc Bạch Lake in Hanoi.[33] After he regained consciousness, a crowd attacked him, crushed his shoulder with a rifle butt, and bayoneted him;[33] he was then transported to Hanoi's main Hoa Lo Prison, nicknamed the 'Hanoi Hilton'.[34]
Although McCain was badly wounded, his captors refused to treat his injuries, instead beating and interrogating him to get information.[36] Only when the North Vietnamese discovered that his father was a top admiral did they give him medical care[36] and announce his capture. His status as a prisoner of war (POW) made the front pages of The New York Times[37] and The Washington Post.[38]
McCain spent six weeks in the hospital while receiving marginal care.[33] Now having lost 50 pounds (23 kg), in a chest cast, and with his hair turned white,[33] McCain was sent to a different camp on the outskirts of Hanoi[39] in December 1967, into a cell with two other Americans who did not expect him to live a week.[40] In March 1968, McCain was put into solitary confinement, where he would remain for two years.[41]
In mid-1968, McCain's father was named commander of all U.S. forces in the Vietnam theater, and McCain was offered early release.[42] The North Vietnamese wanted to appear merciful for propaganda purposes,[43] and also wanted to show other POWs that elites like McCain were willing to be treated preferentially.[42] McCain turned down the offer of repatriation; he would only accept the offer if every man taken in before him was released as well.[33]
In August of 1968, a program of severe torture began on McCain.[44] McCain was subjected to repeated beatings and rope bindings, at the same time as he was suffering from dysentery.[44] After four days, McCain made an anti-American propaganda 'confession'.[33] He has always felt that his statement was dishonorable,[45] but as he would later write, 'I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine.'[46] His injuries left him permanently incapable of raising his arms above his head.[47] He subsequently received two to three beatings per week because of his continued refusal to sign additional statements.[48] Other American POWs were similarly tortured and maltreated in order to extract 'confessions' and propaganda statements.[49]
McCain refused to meet with various anti-war groups seeking peace in Hanoi, wanting to give neither them nor the North Vietnamese a propaganda victory.[50] From late 1969 on, treatment of McCain and many of the other POWs became more tolerable,[51] while McCain continued to be an active resister against the camp authorities.[52] McCain and other prisoners cheered the B-52-led U.S. 'Christmas Bombing' campaign of December 1972 as a forceful measure to push North Vietnam to terms.[46][53]
Altogether, McCain was held as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam for five and a half years. He was finally released from captivity on March 14, 1973.[54]
McCain underwent treatment for his injuries, including months of grueling physical therapy,[56] and attended the National War College in Fort McNair in Washington, D.C. during 1973–1974.[16][55] Having been rehabilitated, by late 1974, McCain had his flight status reinstated,[55] and in 1976 he became commanding officer of a training squadron stationed in Florida.[55][57] He turned around an undistinguished unit and won the squadron its first Meritorious Unit Commendation.[56] During this period in Florida, McCain had extramarital affairs, the McCains' marriage began to falter, and he would later accept blame.[58][59]
McCain served as the Navy's liaison to the U.S. Senate, beginning in 1977.[60] He would later say it represented '[my] real entry into the world of politics and the beginning of my second career as a public servant'.[55] McCain played a key behind-the-scenes role in gaining congressional financing for a new supercarrier against the wishes of the Carter administration.[56][61]
McCain retired from the Navy on April 1, 1981[67] as a captain.[68] He was designated as disabled and awarded a disability pension.[69] Upon leaving the military, he moved to Arizona. His seventeen military awards and decorations include the Silver Star, Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross, Bronze Star and Navy Commendation Medal, and are for actions before, during, and after his time as a POW.
Similar articles
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. Fort Hood gunman conscious; Obama to attend service
- 2. PREVIEW: Sniper who terrorized US capital faces execution
- 3. Fort Hood focusing on healing after shootings
- 4. Fort Hood shooting investigation turns to possible terrorism ties
- 5. Fort Hood gunman conscious (Extra)
USA
Your Talkback on this Story