Why McCain's war record matters

By Libby

I agree with Cernig that McCain's war record shouldn't be an issue in this election. Unfortunately, McCain himself has made it one by running as a "war hero" and that refrain has been echoed endlessly in the media narrative. His time in Vietnam is being touted as a credential, an example of his experience, a test he successfully passed that in some way is supposed to better qualify him to lead us in "a time of war." 

Just look at the tag line that his campaign is promoting these days. I've seen this one everywhere. "John McCain is proud of his record of always putting the country first — from his time in the Navy, in Vietnam and through to today." Talk about empty words. What does that even mean?

Today the talking heads on the teevee are in a dither over Gen. Wesley Clark's remark that riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is not a qualification to be president. It's being painted as a 'swift boat' attack but in essence it's a simple statement of fact, not an attack on the quality of his service. Surviving five years in a cage in the jungles of Vietnam, is just not the same as making command decisions on how to prosecute a military conflict yet this is the experience McCain waves around on the campaign trail daily and uses to deflect any criticism of his current stance on military policy.

McCain in having adopted the war hero persona is the one making his military service an issue and I don't really see how we can avoid addressing it. As I said in my Detroit News post this morning, if we're to judge McCain's fitness for office by his military service, then shouldn't it be material that he graduated from the military academy at almost the very bottom of his class and he left the service and went into politics instead, when it became clear that he would never be promoted to admiral because his superiors judged he just didn't have what it takes to be a leader? And if he wasn't fit for a high ranking military command, why on earth should "his record" be used as a credential to prove his fitness for the highest office in our nation? If anything, it proves the opposite.

That's not attacking the quality of his service to our country, as the GOP swiftboaters did to Kerry. It's assessing the value of the credential McCain is using to proclaim his superior life experience, which in fact, in terms of the presidency, is effectively worthless.

Comments

[Dan]

Let's see - a dilettante gets a legacy admission to a prestigious college. He's an indifferent student and basically gets social promotion through graduation. Goes into the family profession and eventually realizes he'll never live up to his forebears' standards, drops out and goes in to politics. Where have I heard that before?

[Hart Williams]

If you're going to hold yourself up as a war hero, then your war record is a legitimate issue. But for years now, McCain's questionable military service record has been held as a sacred cow.

And, of course, those screaming loudest that McCain is being "Swiftboated" were personally responsible for the verb entering the popular lexicon in the first place.

After all this time, only talking heads and the psychotic don't seem to see through the continual lies of the GOP machine.

(Sadly, ONLY the psychotics are institutionalized for their own good and the good of society.)

McCain wants a "civil" campaign because his record prior to entering politics is possibly one of the most reprehensible ever seen in a major party candidate: thuggery, incompetence, serial infidelity, drunken disorderliness (which is excused by his "hero" status), cronyism, association with criminals, out-of-control anger issues, etc.

That last HAS to be made an issue. Former Sen. Bob Smith of NH is saying that McCain's temper is so out of control that he could get us into an international incident or war with one of his petulant temper tantrums. That trumps any "military" record.

No: if he's such a "hero" then he can face the music. If not, WHY not?

[Libby]

Exactly guys. It's a fake meme and I think it makes Obama weak to cave into it.

[Kilo]

"That's not attacking the quality of his service to our country, as the GOP swiftboaters did to Kerry."

Well it certainly is the exact same justification for doing so. Your first paragraph is practically verbatim.

But what is "riding in a plane and getting shot down" a reference if not the quality of his service ?

"And if he wasn't fit for a high ranking military command, why on earth should "his record" be used as a credential to prove his fitness for the highest office in our nation? If anything, it proves the opposite."

Again, John Kerry wasn't running on his hunting record. Odd to see that validated in retrospect for something so unnecessary and ironic.
I just checked wikipedia for SBVFT. You'll never guess who they cite as coming out first and strongest with condemnation of those adverts.

ps. You should totally question who he dropped his bombs on now. Civilians no doubt. After all, he brought it up.

[zenpundit]

"Surviving five years in a cage in the jungles of Vietnam, is just not the same as making command decisions on how to prosecute a military conflict"

How many military campaigns has Senator Obama commanded?

McCain is a combat veteran - last I checked pilots make combat decisions a a split-second rate - and a POW who was held under conditions that, to say the least, were not even close to the standards of treatment at Guantanamo, that this site frequently and vociferously condemns.

At the very least, we can say that John McCain knows what it is like to stand up to serious pressure, rather than the relatively mild rhetorical criticism that most politicians find unbearable and crack under.

[Libby]

Here to collect McCain points Kilo? I'm wondering what you get for those. A T-shirt? Or maybe a golf bag?

There's a big difference between judging the quality of the service and judging the quality, or really the relvancy of the experience that came out of the performance of that service. It's not an attack on what he suffered through to point out that spending five years in prison doesn't qualify as the kind of executive experience one might get as say, being in command of a combat unit and fighting on the ground for five years. If anything it's the opposite. In prison, you don't get to make any decisions for yourself.

And noting that his peers didn't think he had the leadership ability to rise to high command does not suggest that what service he did render was less than honorable. It's just another one of those troublesome facts, unlike the vicious lies that were spread about Kerry shooting himself, just for instance.

[Libby]

Zen, no one is trying to diminish McCain's service and he may correctly be called a combat veteran but he didn't see much actual combat having spent five years in the POW camp while the rest of the troops were on the ground engaged in -- you know -- fighting.

And I remind you that Clark's quote was in fact an answer to a question and was in effect a media manufactured gotcha moment. The talking heads all conveniently failed to mention Clark's earlier comment praising McCain's service.

At the very least, we can say that John McCain knows what it is like to stand up to serious pressure, rather than the relatively mild rhetorical criticism that most politicians find unbearable and crack under.

If that's true, why is McCain clutching his pearls as Digby is fond of saying, and demanding this mild rhetoric be denounced and refusing to accept Obama's walkback on it? And I just can't forget that when he returned home from having survived this serious pressure, his first move was to dump his badly injured wife, who stood by him through his imprisonment, and skirt chase after a woman almost young enough to be his daughter. Whom he proposed to before he bothered to tell his wife that he wanted out. What does that say about his character to you?

[zenpundit]

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/122673.html

Libby - if the GOP were doing this to Senator Obama we would be hearing much here on this site about "smear machines", "Republican lies" etc. etc.

Why accept what was not meant with any sincerity?These are orchestrated Obama campaign talking points from Axelrod used by Obama proxies that will continue until someone gets carried away and says something that causes a media uproar. When it loses traction or backfires it will be dropped.

Ah, the divorce meme. Another David Axelrod standby that was used against two of Obama's senatorial opponents Blair Hull and Jack Ryan where information from sealed records information was leaked to the Chicago Tribune. Unfortunately for Senator Obama this time around, the former Mrs. McCain remained on good terms with her ex-husband which sort of takes the moral wind out of your analysis.

What's up next ? Whispers about McCain's children?

[Libby]

Zen, with due respect, and I do hold your opinions in high esteem, the first Mrs McCain is still being supported by McCain and she obviously has more class than he does, by not dragging her personal disappointments into the public arena. Some of that I suspect has to do with the classic abused wife syndrome, on which I can speak with some authority, where one makes excuses for the ex's bad behavior. One wonders if he would cut off her funds if she spoke out.

The fact remains that he dropped that bombshell on her out of the clear blue sky and it came as a shock to everyone who was close to the family, so clearly he was hiding his philandering. Again, it's a character issue and one I'm particularly sensitive to, having also undergone a similar scenario with my second husband. Believe me when I tell you it hurt her more than she has let on.

As for this 'smear', to couch the legitimate question as to whether McCain's experience qualifies as executive level leadership as an attack is false, especially since it was proferred in response to the contention by the McCain camp that his POW experience somehow prepares him for the presidency. As opposed to the McCain surrogate who came out today and suggested that Clark's last command was "less than stellar." That would be his command of NATO. That certainly qualifies as a smear. Clark at no time suggested that McC's service was anything but honorable. So I'd be curious as to your response to Mr. Swindle's remark.

[zenpundit]

Fair enough. Here's my take:

IMHO Clark's handling of the Kosovo War was a job well done given the numerous restrictions (political, bureaucratic & transnational) he was forced to labor under. Commanding a NATO operation is not like commanding CENTCOM or MNF Iraq as each NATO ally fights under different rules, circumstances and with particular strengths. Nor did Clark have President Clinton's unstinting backing which would have given him more authority and saved him numerous headaches.

That said, Clark gets criticized for his performance from an "inside baseball" perspective by his peers and military experts because the actual effectiveness of his relatively risk-averse airpower has been hotly debated, as wass his leadership style. Some of this criticism is legitimate and has zero to do with politics except of the interservices/pentagon kind and it's why Clark's military career did not go to the next level after Kosovo. Swindle's comment was politically motivated but it also reflects the view of a number of senior and retired general officers, some of whom Swindle would cite by name if pressed.

However, whatever ideal strategy Clark might have better chosen is irrelevant as he was not free to do so as NATO governments were not going to sign off on a massive ground invasion of Serbia. A win is a win in my book.

[Libby]

Fair assessment of Clark's tenure Zen, but the question I had on my mind was whether or not you would consider that an attack on Clark's record.