I challenge anyone currently being critical of Wesley Clark to disprove his point on its face. I don’t want to hear anything about Clark’s own military record or Barack Obama’s lack of one.* I want you to list the specific executive qualities cultivated by twenty-three bombing missions and five years in a POW camp.
Yes, I’ll hold.
Zoom zap a do do walla do dop diddly do dum dum dum dap da dap da doom—
Hi, I was waiting to—yes, I’ll hold.
Do do do doop da da dap dop dop diddly do dapa dapa dapa dap zoom a zoom—
Hello? No, I don’t want to be transferred to—yes, I’ll hold.
Bam bam biddly bam dop dop bam oof oof zoom zoom boom a dam dam dam—
I don’t need to speak to your supervisor thank you very much. But I would like an answer. Because you know what I think? Your addiction to torture porn has become so all-consuming it now encompasses its opposite: reverse torture porn.
For almost six years, you’ve drifted off to sleep play-acting Jack Bauer. A dark foreigner planted a ticking bomb in a Major American City and only you can discover its location before millions die. You tumesce at first thought of the necessary force this mission requires. Which method will you use? You weigh the pros and cons of all the law allows, but the bomb is ticking, so you consider those it forbids. You delight in cataloging the sadistic acts the situation necessitates. Your decision made, you apply the screws, water, electricity, heat, cold, Manilow, &c. You save America. You are a hero. Men want to be you, women to be with you. You fall asleep.
But just as legal coercion lost its luster, so too have the techniques implemented outside the law. You can do no more harm to these imagined bodies without imagining yourself a murderer, so you shift from the torturer to the tortured. Where before the tortured man made war upon America, in John McCain, mind and body are broken in its service. Your heart swells with pride when you consider his sacrifice. Your beloved car battery acquires menace, as the means by which you once saved America nightly becomes the means by which they would have you betray it.
You are now addicted to reverse torture porn, and John McCain is your enabler. You are incapable of thinking about politics outside a primal scene of human suffering. You shape your policy in rooms whose walls perspire, on improvised furniture carelessly shat on a bloodstained concrete floor, and you ignore the damnable hypocrisy of it all.** Whatever McCain learned in a hole like this qualifies him to lead the free world. We teach terrorists something different.
What exactly? I don’t know. You don’t either. But it’s categorically different than what McCain learned, whatever that was; and whatever that was, it is now a quality desired in a President; and because whatever it is, Obama lacks it, McCain is the better candidate.
I think that about covers it.
*The comparison doesn’t work because, as Clark himself said: “Barack is not—he is not running on the fact that he has made these national security pronouncements. He’s running on his other strengths. He’s running on the strengths of character, on the strengths of his communication skills, on the strengths of his judgment—and those are qualities that we seek in our national leadership.”
**Overwritten, certainly, but considering I initially wrote “walls perspire fungal rot,” you should be thankful I somehow managed to rein myself in.
167 comments
July 1, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Dan Collins
I don’t think that anyone’s arguing that McCain’s having been shot down or tortured qualifies him for the presidency. Anyway, it would be absurd if they did. It’s a red herring, obviously.
What rankles (me, anyway) is that Clark goes on to stipulate that McCain lacks the sort of executive experience that would make a good candidate. And Barack? Puh-LEEEEEEEEZ!
July 1, 2008 at 6:51 pm
urbino
**Also a bit opening-monologue-of-Michael-Clayton-y.
Lots of interesting connections drawn in this post. Yes, to all of them.
July 1, 2008 at 6:54 pm
pushmedia1
Credibility with the troops? He’s been one of them, etc.
I know it worked for me in a different context. Our CEO was an engineer at the very beginning of his career and we technical folk would have jumped out of airplanes for him before lifting a finger for the pointed haired marketing VP. And it wasn’t just his title and rank.
July 1, 2008 at 6:55 pm
SEK
What rankles (me, anyway) is that Clark goes on to stipulate that McCain lacks the sort of executive experience that would make a good candidate. And Barack?
That’s a valid point — if you take away military service as a means of qualifying candidates, you’re left with something else. But that’s not what a lot of people are doing: they’re applauding military service-qua-military service in order to discount those something elses, whatever they are.
Also a bit opening-monologue-of-Michael-Clayton-y.
I haven’t even seen it! I’ve got the makings of an Academy Award-nominated screenwriter! Go me!
July 1, 2008 at 7:01 pm
urbino
I’ve got the makings of an Academy Award-nominated screenwriter!
Everyone says so. You didn’t know?
July 1, 2008 at 7:01 pm
RTO Trainer
My current post at Signaleer explains why what you are waiting for is a response to a strawman. You, SEK, could be forgiven for not knowing the ins and outs of Senator McCain’s Naval carreer. The General, however cannot.
July 1, 2008 at 7:07 pm
ari
RTO, could you explain, chapter and verse, what General Clark said that was wrong. I’m being totally serious; I’d really like you to help me out. Because it seems to me that Clark spoke very highly of Senator McCain’s service — describing him as a hero and an inspiration — but also suggested that McCain’s experiences in Vietnam don’t necessarily qualify him to be president. I’m not sure why this offends anyone.
July 1, 2008 at 7:16 pm
happyfeet
It’s inherently demeaning. For the media to be all taking Wesley Clark seriously on political issues to the denigration of John McCain’s experience would be like if McCain sent Howie Mandel to comment on Baracky’s sacred hopeyness. It just doesn’t make any sense on the face of it. Wesley Clark ‘s entire career is based on his stint as a CNN newsbabe. Positioning him as some sort of serious commenter is just ridiculous I think.
July 1, 2008 at 7:19 pm
ari
Wow, happyfeet, you might want to read a bit about General Clark’s service, particularly in combat in Vietnam, before saying unbelievably stupid things in public. Oh wait, you’re using a pseudonym that you stole from a singing and dancing penguin. Well, that explains that. Unless you are a penguin. In which case, how are you typing?
July 1, 2008 at 7:20 pm
happyfeet
newsbabe newsbabe newsbabe newsbabe
deal.
July 1, 2008 at 7:21 pm
ari
You’ve proven my point admirably. (Though not the part about the penguin, I guess.) Thanks.
July 1, 2008 at 7:22 pm
ari
And by the way, where did all the trolls come from? Does SEK have some sort of troll musk he exudes? Or a troll signal of some kind? Because this is just weird.
July 1, 2008 at 7:27 pm
happyfeet
No. SEK does not exude troll musk. You’re just used to his regular commenter people being all stilted and smart and all. Well not everybody’s like that. It’s a big Internet out there, mister.
July 1, 2008 at 7:32 pm
pushmedia1
“I want you to list the specific executive qualities”
*ahem*
credibility with the troops!
July 1, 2008 at 7:34 pm
SEK
It’s WordPress with its automatic pingbacks. I was trying to hide my scathing criticism here from all these knuckleheads (by trackbacking to Acephalous), but WordPress went and made them for me. (That said, happyfeet’s good people.)
You, SEK, could be forgiven for not knowing the ins and outs of Senator McCain’s Naval carreer.
Why (besides the obvious) do people assume I don’t know things. I know things! But I’m not sure what this means vis-a-vis the qualifications desired in a Commander in Chief.
Wesley Clark ’s entire career is based on his stint as a CNN newsbabe. Positioning him as some sort of serious commenter is just ridiculous I think.
happy, I’m not saying he’s a serious commenter — granted, I’d argue, based on his record, that he is — I’m asking people to judge his statement on its merit. They’re not doing that. I still haven’t seen anyone present the reasons what special dispensation his military service grants him. I’d like to, you know, because that’d be an argument, and I can argue with those.
July 1, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Greg Miller
Ari, you’ve blasphemed St. John–the most egregious offense in trolldom. They might be stupid (as present company indicates), but the antenna attached to that undersized brain housing are sent aquiver when the current object of manlove is attacked. Conservatives are funny that way.
July 1, 2008 at 7:35 pm
silbey
I don’t think that anyone’s arguing that McCain’s having been shot down or tortured qualifies him for the presidency. Anyway, it would be absurd if they did. It’s a red herring, obviously.
Uh, have you seen McCain’s commercials?
Wesley Clark ’s entire career
Wesley Clark managed the one American military victory in the last 15 years that remained, unequivocally, an American victory. That strikes me as a pretty reasonable career.
July 1, 2008 at 7:37 pm
SEK
credibility with the troops!
So are you saying the troops won’t follow their Commander in Chief if they don’t find him “credible”? Will they desert?
Also, how does this particular issue trump all others with regard to the ability of a President to, ahem, president?
July 1, 2008 at 7:38 pm
ari
To be clear, Greg, I wasn’t calling happyfeet stupid. I was saying that his comment was stupid. Or trollish. Or both. But any friend of SEK is a friend of mine. Even if he’s a penguin.
July 1, 2008 at 7:44 pm
ari
Okay this is awesome:
And also it’s not irrelevant that Wesley Clark is a big girl who just wanted to shake his Obama pom-poms and really hadn’t thought about this nonsense before it came babbling girlishly out of his mouth on the tv. — happyfeet at SEK’s place
Now I see why you keep the guy around, SEK.
July 1, 2008 at 7:48 pm
happyfeet
Thank you. Let’s be friends.
July 1, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Greg Miller
My apologies–especially to happyfeet.
As for credibility with the troops, perhaps one should refer to this before assuming credibility with the troops–the current generation, at least, seems quite willing to donate to Obama’s campaign. They will also have McSame’s opposition to the new GI Bill fresh in their minds.
July 1, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Walt
Wow. We have people talking up McCain’s famously not-particularly-distinguished military career (other than being a POW), _and_ someone calling Wesley Clark a CNN newsbabe. I haven’t been paying close attention, but is it election season again?
July 1, 2008 at 7:54 pm
RTO Trainer
SEK, Try this one.
http://proteinwisdom.com/pub/?p=1015
July 1, 2008 at 7:57 pm
pushmedia1
Well, credibility isn’t the end all and be all of leadership, but its something. And its something that doesn’t have anything to do with torture porn. Wasn’t that the challenge you presented, or did I misunderstand?
Anyway, with an incredible leader, troops (and other subordinates) may not desert but they’re more likely to shirk. If you don’t think the boss knows what he/she is talking about, you’re not going to be very motivated to do what he/she says.
July 1, 2008 at 7:57 pm
ari
BFFs 4ever, happyfeet.
July 1, 2008 at 7:58 pm
ari
Oddly, as a post I put up earlier today suggested, Lincoln and FDR were somehow able to overcome their lack of wartime service, pushmedia.
July 1, 2008 at 8:03 pm
happyfeet
Yay! Also though the whole for real point of Wesley’s clever gambit was to get people discussing this issue in a way not at all dissimilar to how Mr. SEK frames it in his post. My feeling is this is not a coincidence.
July 1, 2008 at 8:03 pm
matt w
I don’t think that anyone’s arguing that McCain’s having been shot down or tortured qualifies him for the presidency.
Clark’s comment was a direct response response to the following from 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.
If that wasn’t an argument that McCain’s being shot down qualifies him for the presidency, why was Schieffer bringing it up?
July 1, 2008 at 8:07 pm
pushmedia1
ari, I’m not shilling for McCain… I’m looking for someone new to be disappointed by.
I was simply responding to the challenge as presented. Flying 20-something bombing runs and being a POW makes McCain “one of the guys” and thus makes it easier, if marginally, to order “the guys” around.
July 1, 2008 at 8:07 pm
RTO Trainer
Not particularly distinguished?
He attained Flag rank.
Commanded the largest squadron in the US Navy, leadin it to its first Distinguised Unit Citation in 23 years.
Decorations include:
Silver Star
Legion of Merit w/V and Gold Star (that menas a second award–most people who get these at all only ever get one)
Distinguished Flying Cross
Bronze Star w/V and two Gold Stars
Purple Heart w/ Gold Star
Meritorious Service Medal
Air Medal w/ Bronze Star and Numeral 2
Navy Commendation Medal w/V and Gold Star
Combat Action Ribbon
And that doesn’t include any of the various unit awards or “you showed up” medals all of in service collect through a carreer.
A “not-particularly-distinguished” O-6? Wow.
Just for fun, you might consider reading up just on LT McCain’s actions on the USS Forrestal in July of 1967.
The come back and tell me about Senator Obama’s character and judgment.
July 1, 2008 at 8:08 pm
happyfeet
Oh. So Bob Schieffer gave Wesley his cue to launch his clever gambit. Have you ever talked with anybody on the way over to a lunch with clients about how you want the conversation to go? I sure have. Bob Schieffer is voting for which candidate do you think? I a lot wonder.
July 1, 2008 at 8:12 pm
ari
Okay, pushmedia, then we’re in the same boat. Also, before anything else gets said, let me note that I think McCain’s service was admirable and heroic. Still and all, soldiers look up to a commander in chief with excellent judgment. That was and is my point main. Lincoln and FDR had that kind of judgment, history suggests, though neither of them ever served in the armed forces.
And RTO, I can’t tell if you’re ignoring me or just aren’t able to explain what, exactly, was so offensive about Clark’s statements.
July 1, 2008 at 8:15 pm
ari
One more thing, pushmedia: although I think that McCain served admirably, heroically even, in Vietnam, I don’t think that his service qualifies him to be commander in chief — as I argued in a post earlier today. Which isn’t to say that I don’t follow your point. I just think that judgment, rather than a heroic war record, is a more useful way of deepening the loyalty of American troops. Which loyalty, it should be said, isn’t really in doubt. At least I hope not.
July 1, 2008 at 8:16 pm
RTO Trainer
“Clark’s comment was a direct response response to the following from 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.”
Nope. That comment from Schieffer comes after teh General’s characterizations.
July 1, 2008 at 8:17 pm
RTO Trainer
Ari, (if that’s who I’m responding to–the comment formatting is really odd) follow the link for my whole thought:
http://proteinwisdom.com/pub/?p=1015
July 1, 2008 at 8:19 pm
RTO Trainer
Lincoln was a Private in the milita during the Blackhawk War.
July 1, 2008 at 8:20 pm
pushmedia1
Did either Douglas or Hoover have military records?
July 1, 2008 at 8:20 pm
happyfeet
McCain’s global warming fetish doesn’t qualify him to be president of these united state thingers either, but you don’t see Wesley helpfully pointing that out. Sheesh.
July 1, 2008 at 8:22 pm
ari
Hoover did not. Who’s Douglas?
July 1, 2008 at 8:24 pm
ari
And RTO, are you really bringing Lincoln’s 90 (or so) days of service in a militia into this conversation? Puh-leeze.
July 1, 2008 at 8:26 pm
silbey
Yeah, dammit, he rose to command, he won three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star, and a Bronze Star, and…
Wait, that’s John Kerry. Sorry. I was confused there for a moment.
July 1, 2008 at 8:28 pm
urbino
Also: mine’s bigger than all o’ y’all’s.
July 1, 2008 at 8:32 pm
ari
Okay, RTO, I read your post. And I’m still not seeing the source of all the fuss. I’m not sure where how you’re sourcing your claim that McCain ordered bombs dropped. Beyond that, yes, it does seem that Clark undersold McCain’s command experience. That’s too bad. Really, I wish Clark hadn’t done that. And I’m grateful to you for correcting the record. But perhaps Clark said that because he was SACEUR. So, next to him, McCain really doesn’t have command experience.
Again, though, the real issue is that great warriors don’t necessarily make great presidents. The two skill sets are not the same. This was Clark’s point, I think.
July 1, 2008 at 8:32 pm
ari
Everyone knows that urbino. You don’t have to brag. It’s unseemly.
July 1, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Greg Miller
Okay, let’s talk about Sen. John McCain’s judgement.
Commanded the largest squadron in the US Navy, leadin it to its first Distinguised Unit Citation in 23 years.–while he was cheating on his first wife, badly injured in an automobile accident.
Opposed the creation of Martin Luther King Day.
Keating Five.
Iraq.
And I leave you with this quote, “some of our greatest presidents have not [had military experience]. … And all of them turned out to be fine commanders in chief.” from one John Sidney McCain, May 1, 2004.
July 1, 2008 at 8:35 pm
pushmedia1
Judgment is harder to observe than service. To the most loyal, the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania still isn’t seen to lack judgment.
And I don’t think morale and loyalty are the same thing.
July 1, 2008 at 8:38 pm
urbino
More seriously, as silbey’s point makes clear, and mooting pretty much this whole discussion, a military record matters to conservatives only when it’s a conservative’s military record. Kerry’s was, of course, a disqualification among conservatives, and Jimmy Carter’s didn’t win him any prizes, either. Reagan’s lack of a meaningful one didn’t hurt him, nor did Goldwater’s.
So we could shorten this whole, metastasizing conversation if RTO would just admit that when it comes right down to it, he doesn’t think McCain’s military record is all that important, either. He has the more conservative stance on the issues, and that’s why RTO doesn’t want to see him criticized — by Wes Clark or anybody else.
July 1, 2008 at 8:38 pm
ari
Right, morale and loyalty aren’t the same thing. Did I say they were? Morale, I’m guessing, probably goes way down when soldiers are asked to fight a war of choice without the best equipment and then are stop-lossed because of the vanity of a misguided Secretary of Defense. But hey, Senator McCain thinks this is a great war. He believes it should continue for another century. So I’m sure that he’ll be a hit with the boys in the field.
As for the “most loyal” you describe, I weep for them.
July 1, 2008 at 8:39 pm
ari
Sorry, my comment above is a response is to pushmedia.
July 1, 2008 at 8:39 pm
pushmedia1
“Douglas?” The dude that lost to Lincoln. The point is military service didn’t matter in the election of FDR or Lincoln because their opponents lacked a service record, too. The comparison is salient in this case.
But I guess you mentioned those two guys because they demonstrate presidents don’t need service records to be great military leaders. Got it.
July 1, 2008 at 8:41 pm
RTO Trainer
You didn’t read the text of the Navy Commendation Medal citation?
“In the face of heavy enemy fire, he led his section in the attack and placed his bombs directly on target, thereby inflicting major damage to his assigned area.”
If that was GEN Clark’s point he should say as much rather than waiting for others to put the words in his mouth. If he would, I’d have nothing to say as that point is indisputably and demonstrably true. IMO, GEN Clark would have been an excellent example of that, himself, had he not been weeded out by the process. Well, not nothing to say–he certainly said otherwise when supporting SEN Kerry for President and I’d probably pont that out.
As for Lincoln, the claim was that he never served. Some, even Little, is not the same as None.
For that matter, even FDR, had been exposed to the practices of the Naval service as Secretary of the Navy, prior to becoming President.
July 1, 2008 at 8:42 pm
ari
Yes, pushmedia, the question isn’t what gets a person elected, it’s what makes for a good president.
July 1, 2008 at 8:43 pm
RTO Trainer
I’ve been critical of SEN McCain, so that’d be false.
July 1, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Greg Miller
Judgment is harder to observe than service. To the most loyal, the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania still isn’t seen to lack judgment.
No, that would only include the most synchophantic–unless you think that the 70 percent who think Bush is doing a bad job (and therefore has bad judgement) disloyal.
July 1, 2008 at 8:45 pm
ari
RTO, he, meaning McCain, placed his bombs on target. Again, explain to me how Clark suggested otherwise. And given your expansive definition of service, perhaps my years in the Boy Scouts count? I mean, really, come on. Please don’t dumb down what it means to serve this country.
July 1, 2008 at 8:46 pm
urbino
For that matter, even FDR, had been exposed to the practices of the Naval service as Secretary of the Navy, prior to becoming President.
Hellz bellz, RTO. I’ve been “exposed to the practices of the Naval service.” If we’re going to water the meaning of “military service” down that far, most of the American population has performed military service.
July 1, 2008 at 8:46 pm
ari
Also, RTO, what about urbino’s point? Were you there, with guns blazing, when Senator Kerry’s war record got dragged through the mud?
July 1, 2008 at 8:47 pm
ari
Dude, I totally pwned you.
July 1, 2008 at 8:47 pm
ari
Sweet, sweet pwnage is mine.
July 1, 2008 at 8:48 pm
urbino
I see ari’s made me redundant.
July 1, 2008 at 8:48 pm
urbino
You even pwned me about pwning me.
July 1, 2008 at 8:49 pm
ari
Super-duper, double pwnage is all mine.
July 1, 2008 at 8:50 pm
ari
Do you think we can just talk about me pwning you for a few hundred more comments, and then the other issues in this thread will go away? Because that would be nice.
July 1, 2008 at 8:51 pm
RTO Trainer
So Militia equals Boy Scouts? Who’s being expansive? I thought I was just trying to be precise.
I mean I know the difference between the National Guard (in which I serve) and the Boy Scouts: The Scouts have adult leadership….
Clark said he never ordered bombs to fall. Now, IF, he means that in the CinC meaning–well, no one gets that chance without being CinC first, so that would be absurd, so he mus thave meant something more narrow. And as such he’d be clearly wrong.
July 1, 2008 at 8:52 pm
RTO Trainer
“Were you there, with guns blazing, when Senator Kerry’s war record got dragged through the mud?”
Kabul. You?
July 1, 2008 at 8:52 pm
pushmedia1
Ari, you’re doing a good job of conflating the issues.
You brought up loyalty when I was talking about morale: “…more useful way of deepening the loyalty of American troops.” Now you bring up the merits of the war. What the hell are we talking about?
The point of the thread, I thought, was to speculate on why McCain’s military service record might matter other than to assuage pornographic desire. Correct me if I’m wrong.
If, in fact, the point was to do some cheerleading than I’m down.
*rah, rah*
Otherwise, I think it would useful to ponder our opponent’s somewhat formidable strengths.
July 1, 2008 at 8:54 pm
urbino
BTW, RTO, if I were you, I’d be feeling a bit ganged up on right about now. My first comment to you was more shrill than polite, which I apologize for. As for the ganging up, we don’t get many conservatives through here, so when you showed up, everybody had points they wanted to make or questions they wanted to ask you.
I blame ari for the lack of conservatives here. A man with eric’s military bearing would obviously draw them like flies, if not for the Canadian with the left-wing glasses.
July 1, 2008 at 8:55 pm
ari
Okay, RTO, I get it. But like I said above, I’m not convinced. I see this whole idiotic “controversy” as a case where McCain partisans, and their patsies in the press, are turning nothing into something. Clark said that McCain’s experience in Vietnam doesn’t qualify him to be president. Clark also said that McCain’s experience in Vietnam was heroic and inspirational. Clark was right on both counts. In other words, while I’m willing to grant that Clark might have made a minor mistake or two on the facts, which is lamentable, the substance of what he said was absolutely accurate.
Beyond that, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
July 1, 2008 at 8:56 pm
RTO Trainer
while he was cheating on his first wife, badly injured in an automobile accident.
Opposed the creation of Martin Luther King Day.
Keating Five.
All of which would be excellent points had the General made them and were that the subject at hand.
Iraq. Not so much, but you and I aren’t going to agree on that.
July 1, 2008 at 9:00 pm
ari
Kabul. You?
Nice, RTO. Now you’re exempt from any serious inquiry. Seriously, don’t pull that crap here. You served this country. That’s admirable. And I thank you for your service. I really do. But if you want to have an argument about politics, then have the argument. Don’t hide behind your uniform.
our opponent’s somewhat formidable strengths
We’ll see, I guess.
July 1, 2008 at 9:01 pm
RTO Trainer
If you’re apologizing becasue I’ve toughed it out and am still here, I’ll graciously accept.
If it’s because you just found out I’m a Veteran, you can stuff it. No special treatment for me.
No need to tell me which it is, only you know for sure.
Enjoying a good scrap is part of the job description, so no matter what your movies are, no appology is looked for or required.
Heck I may come back more often.
July 1, 2008 at 9:02 pm
pushmedia1
Greg, so even in an extreme case of bad judgment, 20% of folks will stay with you. I don’t think most people see McCain as having that extreme lack of judgment. My point is its much easier to point to one’s service record and gain credibility than it is to lose credibility by having bad judgment.
July 1, 2008 at 9:02 pm
ari
What the hell are we talking about?
I honestly have no idea. Probably nothing at all.
A man with eric’s military bearing
Are you describing Eric as…erect? Wait, don’t answer that.
July 1, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Greg Miller
Kabul. You?
So why aren’t you running for president?
The point is, McCain’s service makes him no more qualified for the presidency than mine does (six years Marine Corps Reserve–thankfully all served stateside)–as McCain himself has said (see my comments above).
I don’t mean to slight your service–I think Kabul was the proper place for US military personnel in 2004. Iraq was not–and is not.
July 1, 2008 at 9:03 pm
ari
Heck I may come back more often.
I hope you do. As urbino says, we don’t get many conservatives around here. Which is a shame. Please stop by whenever you have a chance.
July 1, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Greg Miller
Greg, so even in an extreme case of bad judgment, 20% of folks will stay with you. I don’t think most people see McCain as having that extreme lack of judgment.
Oh, I don’t know. A lot of people look at McSame, and see Bush–which is why he’s running behind in the polls, despite the bruising Democratic primary. So, I think that a great many people in this country see McCain having bad judgement.
July 1, 2008 at 9:10 pm
urbino
If you’re apologizing becasue I’ve toughed it out and am still here, I’ll graciously accept.
If it’s because you just found out I’m a Veteran, you can stuff it. No special treatment for me.
No need to tell me which it is, only you know for sure.
If you do come back, you’ll find I’m not inclined to shower people with praise for doing a job they wanted to do and are getting paid for.
I was apologizing neither because you’ve “toughed it out,” nor because you’re a vet. I was not apologizing for anything you are or are not. I was apologizing because I was rude.
July 1, 2008 at 9:12 pm
RTO Trainer
If GEN Clark had left it at “McCain’s experince in Vietnam doesnt’ qualify him to be President” I’d not have had a quibble. Instead he also blatantly threw out his Squadron Command with the “not a wartime unit” garbage. Sorry, but war expericne counts or it doesn’t and that’s clearly an attempt to have it both ways.
Which is what lead me to look farther into it. You say it’s a regretable slip on a fact or two and I say it’s a major discourtesy between two military professionals over something as base as politics.
And my dislike for GEN Clark goes back farther than his political aspirations, so I’ll cop to that too.
As for my answer to where I was, seriously I was at Camp Phoenix outside Kabul in ’03 and ’04. Was my answer snarky and brusque? Yep. Was the question it answered? Damn straight. It was an attempt to put me in my place (or that’s how I saw it if it wasn’t the intent), so I can’t credit being too suprised by it.
And if you think that should or could insulate me from a damn thing, that’s entirely on you and nothing to do with me.
July 1, 2008 at 9:17 pm
RTO Trainer
“I was apologizing because I was rude.”
I didn’t even consider that.
Okay. Cool.
Though I do wish I could tell who I was agreeing and disagreeing with.
Does this formatting look better in Firefox?
July 1, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Vance Maverick
RTO Trainer (9:12): you concede that Clark’s essential point is not objectionable. The further issues that bother you are not what have been exercising the media and the McCain camp.
By the way, this thread is awesome, and I think the fresh infusion of commenters has a lot to do with that.
July 1, 2008 at 9:18 pm
urbino
Does this formatting look better in Firefox?
Yes. It definitely does.
July 1, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Walt
RTO, did it bother you what they said about Kerry? Did it bother you when they wore those little purple heart band-aids to the Republican National Convention? I’m guessing… not.
July 1, 2008 at 9:27 pm
RTO Trainer
Wow. It really does. I can tell who said what and how many of you there actually are.
Vance, I can’t speak for the McCain camp and the media can blow my big toe. I have my objections. And I’m open to the idea that my biggest objection could be to the messenger in this case, though he’s made it awfully easy for me to complain about this message.
GEN Clark’s essential point is not objectionable, in my opinion. His delivery of it, however, is dismissive and disrespectful and requires an exceptionally narrow focus to remain unobjectionable, which also makes it almost certainly disingenuous or, at best, negligent.
July 1, 2008 at 9:29 pm
RTO Trainer
Walt, you guess…poorly.
I had my objections to SEN Kerry, but the details of his service were not among them.
And the band-aids were unbelievably tacky. Heck, I object to Johnson and Johnson marketing them int he first place completely absent the election issues.
July 1, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Vance Maverick
RTOT, I’m trying not to conclude that you’re a partisan here…but if what really bothers you about the purple-heart bandaids is the concept of bandaids, I’m not sure there’s an alternative.
July 1, 2008 at 9:36 pm
RTO Trainer
It’s the concept of selling a “purple heart” bandaid. Sorry but that’s a military decoration that’s supposed to bear some dignity to it. Making a bandaid of it doesn’t really say “respect” to me.
July 1, 2008 at 9:36 pm
ari
And if you think that should or could insulate me from a damn thing, that’s entirely on you and nothing to do with me.
The above is remarkably disingenuous. But again, I think we’re talking past each other at this point. Like I said, I’m glad that you dropped in and hope to see more of you one of these days.
July 1, 2008 at 9:40 pm
RTO Trainer
For what it’s worth, I am anti-partisan. That is I favor doing away with political parties as an unconstitutional burden on our society.
July 1, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Vance Maverick
The purple-heart bandaids weren’t marketed by Johnson and Johnson, as far as I can tell. What sources I can find point to one Morton Blackwell, a GOP convention delegate.
July 1, 2008 at 9:46 pm
RTO Trainer
Ah, well, I’ve seen the Johnson and Johnson “Bandaid” brand package that had them. I got a box for Christmas one year in fact. The traditional long bandages were all woodland camouflage and the small, usually round, ones, were “purple hearts.” Just assumed that’s where they came from.
July 1, 2008 at 9:50 pm
ari
RTO, if you’re still around, will you answer something for me? Above, you talk about “discourtesy between two military professionals.” But neither Clark nor McCain is a military professional now. They’re both politicians. And given that, why is it okay for McCain to use his service to advance his political career but not okay for Clark to suggest that doing so makes no sense?
July 1, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Vance Maverick
The provenance of the bandaids is a side issue. At least you’re grudgingly acknowledging that it was distasteful for the GOP delegates to mock Kerry’s service — just as you’ve grudgingly acknowledged that Clark’s widely repeated comment did not actually denigrate McCain’s service. Progress. Now, I second Ari’s question (9:50).
July 1, 2008 at 9:54 pm
RTO Trainer
Ari, I’ve answered that every way I know how. I’m sorry, but I’m just tapped out.
The best I can offer now is to say that I think you mischaracterize both SEN McCain’s actions and GEN Clark’s arguments.
July 1, 2008 at 9:55 pm
ari
Um, okay. Well, see you down the road, then. Take care.
July 1, 2008 at 9:58 pm
RTO Trainer
Hold on. If limited to “McCain’s Vietnam experience is not a qualification for the Presidency” then sure, that, in and of itself denigrates no one.
But GEN Clark did not stop with that and his expansions on it did denigrate McCain’s service. If that’s intended by you to be implicit in what you say, I’ll accept it.
July 1, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Walt
I’m glad to hear that, RTO. I found that display at the RNC genuinely offensive.
Your argument still reads like an election-year quibble to me. While you may not be a partisan, I’m still guessing that you’re voting for McCain.
July 1, 2008 at 10:15 pm
RTO Trainer
You, of course, can’t judge for certain, but I’ll tell you that I’d respond the same way even if there were not an election involved.
Grudgingly will I vote for McCain. I find SEN Obama to be an empty suit and fear that faced with a genuine crisis he would fail to act in a timely fashion, if at all. He cannot point to a single life experience that would indicate otherwise, or if he can, has thus far failed to do so. (Or I’ve missed it.)
To my thinking this is the single meaningful measure of who I would vote for for President. I am thoroughly dismayed that only Senators, the least qualified batch (in my opinion) of all elected officials for the Presidency are on the slate.
July 1, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Vance Maverick
RTOT, you might look into Rep. Bob Barr.
Your remarks help clarify for me that I think timely action in a crisis, while of course important, is less so than policy direction. In other words, I’m a wonk. Big surprise.
July 1, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Walt
RTO, you must vote for Obama, despite your worries. We are already in a crisis, one that McCain has shown no interest in. The US has been the most successful country in the world for most of the last century. If you want that to continue, your only option is to vote for Obama. The source of America’s might, including its military might, is economic. On our current course, that economic supremacy is imperiled. The US’s engagement in Iraq is unsustainable; the government’s finances are beginning to spiral out of control. The economy is reeling under the shock of 100 dollars a barrel oil; the nation’s banks are in danger of going under. McCain shows no interest in any of this, except Iraq, and his policy of open-ended involvement is exactly the wrong one. We are on the same road as ancien regime France and Weimar Germany; this election is our last chance to get off.
In some ways, I find McCain an admirable figure. I voted for him in the 2000 primaries over Bush. But he is the wrong man for the time.
July 1, 2008 at 10:41 pm
RTO Trainer
I’m a wonk too, where it matters, like in the Congress. 90% of Presidential campaigns is about stuff they can barely influence let alone accomplish.
Bob Barr is a non-starter for me–Dad was an ATF agent so that’s not gonna happen.
Walt, I can’t even find a good place to start describing how much I disagree. Just…no.
July 1, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Vance Maverick
After the campaign, most of what a President actually does is policy, not crisis-response. Brief executive brushes with fate (Cuban missiles, etc.) are pretty rare — even our favorite war examples, the Lincolns and Roosevelts, are remembered and judged for how they prosecuted the war over periods of years, in open political engagement with the legislative branch. (Our current administration is no counterexample.)
July 2, 2008 at 2:21 am
andrew
The point is military service didn’t matter in the election of FDR or Lincoln because their opponents lacked a service record, too
McClellan may not have been a good general, but this attack is over the line.
(Also, wikipedia tells me that Landon and Willkie served in World War I.)
July 2, 2008 at 4:04 am
matt w
That comment from Schieffer comes after teh General’s characterizations.
This is both irrelevant to my point, which is that Schieffer is claiming that being shot down is a qualification for the Presidency, and false. If you read the transcript, Schieffer is first to bring up McCain’s being a prisoner of war (he does it before Clark mentions McCain) and first to bring up McCain’s being shot down.
July 2, 2008 at 4:49 am
Ben Alpers
To get back to SEK’s original post….
I think his reflections on torture are clever, but wrong. I, too, am sickened by our current, bipartisan acceptance, and in some cases celebration, of torture.
But as this thread suggests, what is driving the controversy over Clark’s comments are larger ideas about military service not ideas about torture. And as the very carefully couched discussion in this thread suggests, the “left” today has a very difficult time constructing a coherent critique of the military and of militarism in general.
Just to put my cards on the table here:
I believe that a military is a necessity. In that sense I am not a pacifist. However, our military is far too large and is often used in ways to which I am deeply opposed.
People in the military deserve our respect like others who are willing to risk their lives to serve their community (e.g. firefighters). But, as was noted in a different thread, courage in one arena does not necessarily translate into courage in another. And effective leadership in one sphere is not necessarily the same thing as effective leadership in another. Just as being a firefighter does not necessarily make one especially well-prepared to be president of the United States, being a member of the armed forces does not necessarily make one especially well-prepared for that position.
Since the military is under civilian control, they are not, in their capacity as members of the armed forces, responsible for where they are. It think it’s irrational to feel better about RTO T’s service because he was in Afghanistan not Iraq. He didn’t choose where he would be sent. On the other hand, members of the military and veterans are also citizens and, like all citizens, they share responsibility for policies that they back with their voices and their votes.
I think we as a nation throw too much money at the military, expect our military to be the answer to far too many of the world’s (and our country’s) problems, and in general trust and celebrate the military far too much, especially relative to other institutions. This is what I mean by “militarism.” And I think it is militarism, not a particular addiction to torture porn, that forms the foundation of the controversy that this thread centers on. To a great extent the “left” (heavy quotation marks there) has at least tactically bought into this militarism, which unnecessarily complicates their position in this discussion by ceding far too much ground from the outset.
July 2, 2008 at 6:23 am
Rich Puchalsky
Here’s a critique of the U.S. military: it’s the armed wing of the G.O.P. It’s a useless and harmful institution — no one is going to invade the U.S. — whose only purpose is to extend American empire and train people in habits of authoritarian thought that will make them obedient little soldiers, willing to kill and torture on command.
SEK likes these threads for some unknown reason. But come on, no wingnut is going to admit that military service doesn’t prepare you for political leadership.
July 2, 2008 at 7:35 am
Walt
RTO: Wait… what? You don’t agree that there’s a banking crisis? That gas is 4 dollars a gallon?
July 2, 2008 at 7:50 am
RTO Trainer
At risk of self-identifying as a “wingnut”:
“But come on, no wingnut is going to admit that military service doesn’t prepare you for political leadership.”
Inherently? No. And that’d be a silly claim to make.
I’ve served with a LOT of people who would make crummy politicians and others who are much better as parts of a team than trying to lead one.
But, there is plenty in military service that is absolutely analogous, simply smaller scale, experience. And it’s be silly to claim otherwise.
Rich, you have nearly cartoon view of the military. Obedience is a military virtue, but so is initiative. There are no mind numbed robots in the services because there’s no value in that. The ideal Private is the kid who is capable of telling when it’s time to shut up and do as ordered and when to take a different tack or even outright question the orders given.
The cannon-fodder military that you imagine can’t do that.
July 2, 2008 at 7:54 am
RTO Trainer
I don’t agree that there is a banking crisis. Now that in particular may come down to a difference in understanding between you and I as to what actually constitutes a “crisis.”
Gas hasn’t quite made it to $4/gal yet here in N. Dallas. But that’s a hair split.
What you said above that I agree with, without reservation:
The US has been the most successful country in the world for most of the last century.
The source of America’s might, including its military might, is economic.
And that’s it.
July 2, 2008 at 8:14 am
Walt
How can you disagree that there’s a banking crisis? The Fed has taken unprecedented steps to flood the banking system with liquidity. They’ve invented new loan facilities on the fly. They’ve started taking lower-quality debt as collateral. They’ve started lending to non-banking financial institutions. They basically underwrote JP Morgan’s takeover of Bear Stearns. The Fed certainly thinks there’s a banking crisis.
July 2, 2008 at 8:37 am
ak
“Douglas?” The dude that lost to Lincoln. The point is military service didn’t matter in the election of FDR or Lincoln because their opponents lacked a service record, too.
Do you mean that if Douglas had been a veteran, we should have elected him?
Douglas was only one of four candidates in 1860, and he came in fourth. The second place finisher, John Breckenridge, was a veteran. (A major of volunteers in the Mexican war.) Would he have been a better choice?
Instead of Douglas, we might compare Lincoln to Jefferson Davis, a West Point graduate with a distinguished service record. Which one do you think did a better job of running his country?
July 2, 2008 at 9:01 am
silbey
But, there is plenty in military service that is absolutely analogous, simply smaller scale, experience. And it’s be silly to claim otherwise.
Yet the part of McCain’s service that is held up for public view and esteem is NOT his command experience. It’s his heroism as a POW.
July 2, 2008 at 9:25 am
Rich Puchalsky
“But, there is plenty in military service that is absolutely analogous, simply smaller scale, experience. And it’s be silly to claim otherwise.”
I claim otherwise. Military leadership suits you for authoritarian politics, not for leadership in a democratic country. Military leaders who went on to become successful politicians, like Eisenhower, mostly had top-level military jobs that were essentially political.
And the sense in which you call on initiative as a military value doesn’t affect my criticism at all. Initiative in what? — killing and torturing. It’s the essence of authoritarian thought to not merely turn people into robots, but to make the goals to which they turn even their initiative essentially unquestioned and destructive.
July 2, 2008 at 9:31 am
Charlieford
Once again, and not for the last time:
“To a foreigner almost all the Americans’ domestic quarrels seem at the first glance either incomprehensible or puerile, and one does not know whether to pity a people that takes such wretched trifles seriously or to envy the luck enabling them to do so.”
Alexis de Tocqueville
July 2, 2008 at 9:45 am
SEK
But, there is plenty in military service that is absolutely analogous, simply smaller scale, experience. And it’s be silly to claim otherwise.
RTO, experience in what? Management? Marshaling of resources? In that case, Gordon Ramsay would make an excellent President, as would most successful kitchen managers. (This even covers pushmedia’s first comment, inasmuch as people respect head chefs who started on the line more than those with CIA training.)
Military leaders who went on to become successful politicians, like Eisenhower, mostly had top-level military jobs that were essentially political.
I’ll buy the analogy:
Eisenhower : Patton :: President : Congress
But as this thread suggests, what is driving the controversy over Clark’s comments are larger ideas about military service not ideas about torture. And as the very carefully couched discussion in this thread suggests, the “left” today has a very difficult time constructing a coherent critique of the military and of militarism in general.
But as silbey notes, it’s not the military that’s at issue here — it’s the heroism of McCain the POW, the fortitude required to withstand years of torture. I’ll grant him that — more, even — but it isn’t a quality I require in a President. As Vance noted, 99 percent of the job is policy, making heroism a largely symbolic quality. And it’s not like actual heroism is required: as Reagan proved, having played a hero is sufficient proof that’d you be one if the need ever arose.
July 2, 2008 at 10:01 am
eric
I’ll buy the analogy:
Eisenhower : Patton :: President : Congress
Whaaaat?
July 2, 2008 at 10:06 am
Vance Maverick
Charlieford, it’s also a grand old tradition for Americans to put one another down by assuming vicariously a European perspective. What particular puerility and/or incomprehensibility are you thinking of? The fetish of military valor? (Not exactly exclusive to America.)
July 2, 2008 at 10:14 am
Charlieford
“What particular puerility and/or incomprehensibility are you thinking of?” Nice try.
July 2, 2008 at 10:18 am
RTO Trainer
“Yet the part of McCain’s service that is held up for public view and esteem is NOT his command experience. It’s his heroism as a POW.”
No. The part that GEN Clark wants to focus on is NOT his command experience but his heroism as a POW. And therin lies the offense; offering short shrift to what is pertinent.
July 2, 2008 at 10:20 am
RTO Trainer
“Initiative in what? — killing and torturing.”
As I said, your view of us is a cartoon. I cannot change that.
July 2, 2008 at 10:37 am
SEK
Whaaaat?
If learning how to wrangle Patton isn’t a crash course in politics, I don’t know what is. (I was just stepping away from the “command experience” angle and toward a “dealing with strong-willed unruly people” one.)
No. The part that GEN Clark wants to focus on is NOT his command experience but his heroism as a POW. And therin lies the offense; offering short shrift to what is pertinent.
RTO, that’s just factually wrong. To quote from a source you trust:
Clark is focusing on his command experience until Schieffer interrupts him. I’ve heard tell of a wink wink relation between interviewer and interviewee, but remember, Schieffer’s one of the few people Dick Cheney allows himself to be interviewed by, so I’m not buying the invidious liberal media argument.
July 2, 2008 at 10:39 am
Rich Puchalsky
No doubt I missed the complex reality in which the U.S. military also has the primary goals of painting schools and petting fluffy bunnies.
Look, these threads really aren’t productive. Abu Ghraib happened; it’s known. The people who want to preserve the myth of the U.S. military being an honorable institution will of course try to preserve that myth, but the terrorists that they’ve created worldwide know better, and those are the people who we really are going to have to deal with. Let the people who still want to believe that they somehow did good with their lives believe whatever they have to, and get on with dealing with reality.
July 2, 2008 at 11:06 am
drip
SEK’s challenge remains open. We’ve seen a few supporters mention McCain’s other naval responsibilities, a few people criticize Obama, some contend that Clark has no right to judge, and finally, there is a contingent that says no one says that a plane crash and POW time are qualifications for president. But no one in this long string of comments has demonstrated why Clark’s conclusion is incorrect. It looks like crashing a plane and being a POW is not a material qulification to be president. So, like Arthur Jaffe’s millenium challenge, the prize will remain uncollected.
July 2, 2008 at 11:11 am
Vance Maverick
Nice try.
Your point escapes me, Charlieford. Perhaps that’s your point. If so, fair enough.
July 2, 2008 at 11:16 am
Walt
You come to the Internet for productive threads?
July 2, 2008 at 11:29 am
RTO Trainer
SEK: GEN Clark mentions the command experience because Schieffer had already brought it up at the top of the interview (before the portion quoted). And Clark is dismissive of it: That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn’t a wartime squadron. He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall.”
Not a wartime squadron–big deal. And that kind of dismissal is demeaning. And as I point out in my own article, LCDR McCain certainly did, literally, order bombs to fall and was decorated for doing it well. But the General elides (demeans) that hoping his audience doesn’t know better (thereby demeaning his audience as well, I might add).
No way to know in retrospect but even the command experience might have been avoided by the General as a topic altogether had it not been for Schieffer.
July 2, 2008 at 11:55 am
Silbey
RTO: I will repeat my earlier point. McCain has been holding up his POW experience predominantly, not his command experience. Just watch the commercials.
July 2, 2008 at 11:56 am
Sir Charles
Ari,
I don’t know if you saw my post on this very point:
http://www.cogitamusblog.com/2008/06/wesley-clark-sp.html
Being a fighter pilot just doesn’t strike me as a significant foreign policy credential — this is not to disparage his service, his bravery, his suffering or any of those other things — it is just not objectively a particular plus in that spehere.
Eisenhower, in particular, but other general officers as well, function in a political/military realm that is of a completely different order — not that it necessarily makes them flawless in this respect either.
Finally, and it gets tiresome to always have to raise this, physical courage, unfortunately, is not the exclusive preserve of the virtuous.
July 2, 2008 at 11:57 am
Sir Charles
That would be sphere — Jesus I hate that.
July 2, 2008 at 11:59 am
drip
Sir Charles: is this where I lobby for Ted Williams for President next?
July 2, 2008 at 12:00 pm
ari
Yes, I saw it, Charles. I even linked to it, by way of a mea culpa for having posted without first reading my favorite sites, in my last post here, didn’t I?
July 2, 2008 at 12:01 pm
RTO Trainer
“McCain has been holding up his POW experience predominantly, not his command experience.”
Okay? That alters the demeaning and dismissive way GEN Clark handled the subject?
July 2, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Walt
RTO, if it was any time other than election time, I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t say something like this: “Not a wartime squadron–big deal.”
July 2, 2008 at 12:02 pm
ari
physical courage, unfortunately, is not the exclusive preserve of the virtuous
But, but…what about everything I learned in Rocky (I-III, beyond that I stopped paying attention)?
July 2, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Sir Charles
Ari,
You’re right — Christ I’m getting senile. sorry.
Drip,
The best part of that post is that it evolved into a completely irrelevant baseball conversation. And I guess by virtue of his two wartime stints as a pilot (and not getting shot down — I kid, I kid) that Ted Williams was even more qualified than McCain to run American foreign policy. Plus the fucker not only hit .406, he hit .388 when he was 40 something.
July 2, 2008 at 12:20 pm
drip
Wait, you’ve forgotten the two most important qualifications: 1) he’s been on ice for 4 years and 2) he managed all those senators.
Ari- Sir C. is so old, he saw Frank Howard hit a home run, so take it easy on him.
July 2, 2008 at 12:21 pm
silbey
Okay? That alters the demeaning and dismissive way GEN Clark handled the subject?
Watch out, everyone. There are goal posts moving around all over the place. Those things are heavy.
July 2, 2008 at 12:35 pm
ari
Wait, Charles is old? That means he should be president, doesn’t it? Yes, I’ll be here all week. And beyond that, even.
July 2, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Rich Puchalsky
“You come to the Internet for productive threads?”
Productive of interesting thought, occasionally.
July 2, 2008 at 12:43 pm
ari
I’ve asked this question before, so forgive me for repeating myself: When was the last time anyone here had a serious political argument, with someone who genuinely espoused views radically different from you own, that was productive (use Rich’s definition, for lack of something more precise)? Which is to say, I’m not using the high bar: an argument in which one side or the other convinced their opponent to abandon a dearly held point of view.
I guess my point is this: arguing politics can be really fun. And it’s a great way to blow off steam. But productive it usually isn’t.
July 2, 2008 at 12:48 pm
RTO Trainer
Back to SEKs original pont and challenge:
Executive Qualities displayed by LCRD McCain during bombing missions and as a POW:
Loyalty–Refused parole unless all those who were captured before him were also released.
Duty–After the Forrestal fire, LT McCain observed that having seen what their bombs did close up, maybe he wasn’t so thrilled by the idea of dropping them anymore–but he continued in his duty anyway. It was a scant three months between being injured in that fire and being decorated for performance over North Vietnam.
Respect–Each day, LCDR McCain would recite in his mind the names and statuses of all the other prisoners in Hoa Loa that he had learned of, so that in the even of his repatriation he could pass that information on.
Selfless-Service–Refusing parole, not informing the North Vietnamese of his family connection.
Honor–After the Forrestal fire, LT McCain told a reporter, “We’re preofessional military men and I suppose it’s our war, and yet here were enlsited men who earn $150 a month and work 18 to 20 hours a day–and I mean manual labor–and certaily would have survived had they not stayed to help the pilots fight the fire…. I’ve never seen such acts of heroism.”
Integrity–While a prisoner of the North Vietnamese and subjected to torture and privation, he succumbed to pressure to write out and sign a “confession.” Ever since he has never tried to justify or minimize that it was wrong and that is was a personal failure on his part.
Courage–The citation given for the day that he was shot down states that despite the plane being damaged beyond recovery, LCRD McCain still completed his mission delivering his bombs on target.
July 2, 2008 at 12:48 pm
SEK
drip,
I didn’t think anyone would, but RTOT’s come closest. To wit: Clark misrepresented McCain’s command experience, which, when we consider in its totality, is a quality we look for in a President.
This, at least, makes the stakes clear, in that the next question is “Do we want the country run like the military?” Or, to point more starkly: “Do we think the grunts should elect their superior officer?” The answer, clearly, is “No, with thunder.” But now we’re at least arguing about something, as opposed to casting aspersions about an undefined nothing, i.e. the whatever it is McCain possesses but Obama doesn’t.
Put another way: now we can talk about McCain’s military record without people shouting us down as unpatriotic or anti-military, because we’ve identified, clearly, that the question isn’t about his command experience per se, but it’s relevance to arguments about who would make the better President.
July 2, 2008 at 12:50 pm
RTO Trainer
“RTO, if it was any time other than election time, I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t say something like this: ‘Not a wartime squadron–big deal.'”
I think you presume a far deeper knowledge of my character than is warranted by our acquaintance. And I’m not pleased at all to be considered quite so shallow.
July 2, 2008 at 12:51 pm
RTO Trainer
“Watch out, everyone. There are goal posts moving around all over the place. Those things are heavy.”
Yes. It’d be great to pin you all down on something.
July 2, 2008 at 12:53 pm
SEK
When was the last time anyone here had a serious political argument, with someone who genuinely espoused views radically different from you own, that was productive (use Rich’s definition, for lack of something more precise)?
It may because I’m dense, but I find these discussions hugely clarifying — I mean, I know my ducks, but very rarely have them in a row. Now I have orderly ducks. Schnell, mein ducklings!
July 2, 2008 at 12:55 pm
RTO Trainer
“Clark misrepresented McCain’s command experience, which, when we consider in its totality, is a quality we look for in a President.”
Yes, which is also me attacking the premise of the challenge as offered, although I have made a new effort to meet it on the stated grounds.
July 2, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Rich Puchalsky
“When was the last time anyone here had a serious political argument, with someone who genuinely espoused views radically different from you own, that was productive (use Rich’s definition, for lack of something more precise)?”
I’ve had arguments with anarchists that were productive in that sense. (I’m a left-liberal.) Further back, there were some Burkean conservatives who occasionally had some good points.
But let’s face reality here. Current movement conservatism doesn’t have anything to do with ideas. Right-wingers are merely evil and / or stupid. There are going to be Bush dead-enders going on in comment threads from now till they die off, and there’s nothing to be gained by having them rehearse their mumbling, morally bankrupt self-justifications for the bad things they’ve done and would still like to do.
And really, anyone can see that McCain is a coward. It’s implicit in all of his political acts.
July 2, 2008 at 1:11 pm
drip
Yeah, SEK ,this site and a couple of others do help me reorganize my thoughts. I do change what’s left of my mind from these conversations.
And it only took 140 some comments to get to his best shot. R-TOT’s list of attributes of McCain do not in any way dispute Clark’s statement that being a prisoner or being shot down are not qualifications for the president. Close, but no prize R-TOT. Prize is still up for grabs.
I love this site and I am too unschooled to participate in a substantive way in most discussions, but I do love to play, so forgive me for this: Please refer to Teddy Ballgame’s potential nomination. He was a pilot in 2 wars, completed all his missions (including last one by returning keys to the Marine Corps) and has spent the last 4 years in a box with no food. I say he has what it takes to be president. Do you dare to disagree?
July 2, 2008 at 1:27 pm
RTO Trainer
“Current movement conservatism doesn’t have anything to do with ideas. Right-wingers are merely evil and / or stupid.”
Perhaps this perception is the root cause of why your conversations aren’t productive?
July 2, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Sir Charles
drip,
By old, I mean I am two years older than Obama, but I always feel like that makes me 132 in internet years.
I think Teddy Ballgame’s manner vis a vis the press would have been a deeply amusing asset in the presidency.
Last shot at this — the qualities that McCain exhibited as a pilot may well be to his credit in terms of leadership, tenacity, self-scarifice, etc. — what we have argued and I believe Clark posited is that these are not qualities that necessarily speak to an aptitude for foreign policy. I would argue that dropping bombs on people as a solution to foreign policy problems and to be predisposed to do so — to think it is riotous to sing “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” — suggests that it may well not be a plus in this arena.
July 2, 2008 at 1:39 pm
RTO Trainer
Not my fault drip, the premise and challenge is wobbly.
“I challenge anyone currently being critical of Wesley Clark to disprove his point on its face. I don’t want to hear anything about Clark’s own military record or Barack Obama’s lack of one.* I want you to list the specific executive qualities cultivated by twenty-three bombing missions and five years in a POW camp.”
So I’m asked to disprove a statement, that as stated and removed form the larger conversation it came from is true; riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is not a qualification to be president. But then I’m asked for a list of qualities, cultivated by not only captivity but also by participating in military missions, that ARE qualifications for President.
Even were the bald assertion–riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is not a qualification to be president–blatantly false on it’s face, the former list cannot ever constitute disproof, or proof for that matter, of the latter assertion’s veracity.
A complaint went out that I had not offered the list and I’ve conceded on the assertion offering my particular complaints regarding where the offense actually lies.
July 2, 2008 at 2:01 pm
drip
Sorry R-TOT, no dice. Some of what you listed were qualities you attribute to McCain which you contend were evidenced during his last bombing run and subsequent captivity, but these were not executive qualities cultivated by twenty-three bombing missions and five years in a POW camp . As to your conclusions, his poor performance at the Naval Academy, his disloyalty to his wives, his behavior in the S&L matter and his continued reliance on lobbyists, argue against the characteristics you infer from his behavior during captivity, so I’m not even sure that his public record supports the characterization you offer.
As to McCain’s wish to bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran, well, I don’t want to change the debate, but it strikes me as a bad idea and a bad joke, but perhaps I should forgive him the bad joke, having compared him unfavorably to a frozen baseball player.
July 2, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Sir Charles
And that’s why you will never be president. Sorry drip, but that’s just the way it is. An overly active sense of humor is absolutely disqualifying.
July 2, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Jason B
“Current movement conservatism doesn’t have anything to do with ideas. Right-wingers are merely evil and / or stupid.”
Perhaps this perception is the root cause of why your conversations aren’t productive?
I’ll submit the possibility that it’s not the perception that renders the conversations unproductive, but the reality. If all those arguing for a position are either evil or stupid, it would be hard to make headway with them.
Not that I’m claiming that as true–just clearing up the semantics.
July 2, 2008 at 2:08 pm
RTO Trainer
What’s with the “R-TOT” formulation?
You don’t wish to change the debate? Why stop now?
McCain’s private life was not at issue in the conversation, and yes that would make this harder. But no one has accused GEN Clark of slandering, or attempting to slander, SEN McCain on such grounds.
As to the distinction you draw between “las bombing run and subsequent captivity” and “twenty-three bombing missions and five years in a POW camp,” I’m at a loss to comprehend it.
July 2, 2008 at 2:10 pm
RTO Trainer
Jason, I self-identify as a conservative and I deny being evil or stupid, so that’s the position I’m coming from there.
July 2, 2008 at 2:25 pm
drip
R-TOT is a friendly, familiar handle, R-TOT, like T-Mac, A-Rod and P-Diddy. I’ll stop, if its upsetting. As for my poor typing and attempts to restate question to keep myself alert, forgive me.
BTW, the debate hasn’t changed. Please to provide answer to challenge restated below for your convenience:
I challenge anyone currently being critical of Wesley Clark to disprove his point on its face. I don’t want to hear anything about Clark’s own military record or Barack Obama’s lack of one.* I want you to list the specific executive qualities cultivated by twenty-three bombing missions and five years in a POW camp.
Open book, take all the time you need. Since you’re trying, and turned your paper in early, I would note that you have yet to show how the twenty-three missions and subsequent captivity *cultivated* executive qualities, but you seem a nice lad, if a little sensitive, so I’ll give you an A for effort, but you still have to answer the question.
July 2, 2008 at 2:28 pm
ari
Just to clarify: I wasn’t saying that political conversations aren’t worthwhile, just that they’re not usually productive — based on the definition used above. But I do enjoy them, as I noted, and I do think they’re a great way to put words to pixels. I just haven’t had, for some time, the experience that SEK or drip describe.
Well, maybe that’s not true. The W years have pushed me much further to the left, and I’ve found myself nodding my head when in arguments with people who I used to consider quite radical. A long time ago — if anyone cared, I’d find a link — I noted on this blog that one of the things that most annoys me about President Bush is the fact that I now share opinions with conspiracy theorists.
July 2, 2008 at 2:34 pm
RTO Trainer
Cultivated, if meant literally in the sen of nurtured and or caused to grow, I don’t know that that can be demonstrably shown, certainly not within the confines of a blog comments page.
So you’ve only given me one more complaint with the nature of the challenge itself.
I therefore formally ask SEK to reformulate it.
July 2, 2008 at 2:36 pm
urbino
When was the last time anyone here had a serious political argument, with someone who genuinely espoused views radically different from you own, that was productive (use Rich’s definition, for lack of something more precise)?
It’s been a while, but it used to happen over at the hippos with reasonable regularity. It was hard, slow, trying work for all involved, though.
July 2, 2008 at 2:36 pm
RTO Trainer
ari, I know what you mean. I find myself dangerously close sometimes to positions I once argued against with neo-milita members during the 90’s.
July 2, 2008 at 2:43 pm
drip
Actually ari, I have some pretty intense conspiracy theories rattling around in my skull. Right now though, I’m concentrating my efforts on nominating a cryovaked (sp?) half-mexican for president. No one on this site takes me seriously and its this sort of idiocy that allows me to learn stuff; that and an open mind.
July 2, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Rich Puchalsky
RTO Trainer, of course you don’t think that you’re evil or stupid. But, of course, you could be wrong. The fact that you say that you’re dangerously close to holding positions characteristic of neo-militia members during the 90’s is good evidence that you’re wrong.
So the next question is, why? Denial, probably. Anyone who could look at the Bush years and then vote for McCain is probably caught in something like the following: a) there are certain things I’ve believed in and acted on all my life, b) I’ve seen them lead to great evil, c) if I acknowledge that, I’d have to change how I behave, or at least take a hit in my self-image. Maybe not boast about how I served in Kabul, for instance, not after I acknowledged what a piss-poor job the U.S. Army has done there. Maybe not have a screen name that ties your identity to a promoter of evil.
But to break with one’s past self in that way takes courage. And if there’s one thing the right doesn’t have, it’s courage. First they wanted everyone to hide under their beds after 9/11. Then they insisted that we had to torture people because otherwise we’d be at greater risk. Islamofascism, Mexican hordes, gay people, it’s just one fear after another.
July 2, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Jason B
I’ve never been fond of essentialist arguments, so the idea that someone is evil and/or stupid seems a bit pointless to me. But If I were to grant the possibility that people could necessarily be either evil or stupid, I’d have to imagine that those who are evil wouldn’t percieve themselves as evil. Same with the stupid. In fact, the stupid would have a doubly-difficult time percieving themselves as stupid, because stupid is their default position plus stupid people have trouble processing reality.
Now I’m confused. I think I’m stupid.
July 2, 2008 at 3:26 pm
urbino
I’d just like to associate myself with Ben Alpers’ comment.
I disagree, however, in that I think he and SEK are identifying problems that run in parallel; it’s not either/or, it’s both/and. Militarism and a fondness for torture porn.
I also have to say I agree completely with Rich on this:
And if there’s one thing the right doesn’t have, it’s courage.
Contemporary American conservatism is, at its core, a fear-driven ideology.
This is why Obama’s recent tack has so disappointed me. He’s buying into and thereby promoting the right’s fear, rather than offering the strong, courageous ideas liberalism offers. Some of these, as I’ve stated them elsewhere, are: that we don’t sell out America’s core principles just because some nuts blew up a couple of buildings; that we’re much too big and much too strong for that; that we will continue to be America, and such nuts just flat aren’t big enough or strong enough to make us stop.
That’s the response of a strong country to events like 9/11. What we’ve gotten instead from the Bush administration, the right, many on the supposed left, and to an increasing extent from Obama, is the response of a weak country, terrified of getting its nose bloodied.
July 2, 2008 at 3:46 pm
silbey
empty suit
I realize this is a long ago remark, but the idea of criticizing Obama as an empty suit after voting for George W. Bush twice is cognitive dissonance of the most impressive kind.
July 3, 2008 at 2:05 pm
I read conservative blogs so you don’t have to « The Edge of the American West
[…] 3, 2008 in Obama, history and current events by SEK I write a post about reverse torture porn and not a day later we learn Christopher Hitchens waterboarded himself. Coincidence? Of course it […]