A Soldier's Perspective

Clark Vs. McCain

Former General Wesley Clark (I just threw up in my mouth again) has the gall to attack Senator McCain's military service. So, I'm going to compare this man who obviously thinks he is God's gift to the kind of military service supposedly IS good enough for the Oval Office.

This from a man who "earned" a Bronze star from his work as a staff officer. He was awarded a Silver Star for getting shot and "directing his men on a counter-assault." Note: Clark did NOT get a Silver Star for picking up his weapon and killing the enemy; he got his Silver Star for telling OTHER Soldiers to kill the enemy. Oh, and he remained with his unit until help arrived. Good for him for not running away after being shot four times. He was only in Vietnam for seven months before being evacuated and never returning.

Senator John McCain was awarded the Silver Star for being brutally tortured and held as a POW for five and a half years. He didn't order troops to be POWs, he was one himself. He was crippled from serious injuries as a result of his torture, yet he declined offers to leave the camp early in favor of having more junior Soldiers and those that had been there long leave instead. That is bravery and honor!!

"He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall," Clark told CBS television. Really? Which is easier to do? Ordering "bombs to fall" or being the guy that has to drop them? Sounds like in the "hero" category, Clark sort of falls short.

He earned his Bronze Star the day before he was shot down, for participating in a mission over an airfield in Phuc Yen, 11 miles north of Hanoi. The citations refer to his "accurate ordnance delivery" and his "aggressive and skillful airmanship."

Clark also said, "“I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be President.” So what kind of President would Clark make? We may have found out in 2004, but thankfully, we didn't. For one thing, the Posse Comitatus Act would be out the window. After all, Clark was heavily involved in the illegal Waco siege that killed numerous innocent religious fanatics while he was commander of the 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood. Again, sending in OTHER people to kill instead of doing so himself.

Then, Clark says that McCain isn't fit to be President because he "hasn't held executive responsibility." Well, pardon him, Mr. Clark, for being unable to excel beyond a Navy Captain (O-6) due to his captivity for over five years. I think his ability to handle the most stressful of situations more than justifies his desire to lead this country.

There's another interesting note about this whole thing. I've mentioned the supposedly bipartisan group VoteVets.org many times here. Once again they prove that they are a Democratic hack group bend on trashing Republicans and promoting a Democratic agenda. In a recent email sent to members, VoteVets encourages its members to "get General Clark's back." For what? Baseless accusations against an American war hero?

Yesterday, on Face the Nation, General Wesley Clark spoke honestly and bluntly about what it takes to be Commander in Chief. In doing so, while he said Senator John McCain’s service made him a hero to millions, including Clark himself, that experience does not trump the poor judgment that Senator McCain has shown on some of the most important issues in recent years.

What General Clark said was right, but the right-wing has been in an uproar. And even CNN accused Clark of "swift-boating" McCain. We need to fight back.

We all honor Senator McCain's service, as General Clark said. But that does not mean that on matters of security, the military, and veterans issues that Senator McCain is beyond reproach.

So, does Obama have better credentials to lead in this arena? If we're talking about security, the military, and veterans issues, who is more positioned to handle them: a veteran or an elitist with no military experience? Jon Soltz (VoteVets Chairman) is an idiot! You know what the difference between Obama and Clark is? At least Obama has the decency to distance himself from such slanderous words.

In its direct response to General Clark's comments, Vets For Freedom took a much different – and more appropriate – stance by speaking about facts and reality and not political rhetoric:

Dear General Clark,

Yesterday you appeared on CBS “Face the Nation” and made strong statements regarding Senator John McCain and his military service. Amongst other things, you claimed Sen. McCain “hasn’t held executive responsibility” and you criticized him because he didn’t command a “wartime [Navy] Squadron.”

You then claimed, in reference to war, that Sen. McCain “hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall” and concluded your political hatchet job with “I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be President.” Even the show’s host, Bob Schieffer, let out a puzzled “really?” at the conclusion of your assertions.

Frankly General, you should know better. As a previous Commander of U.S. troops in harm’s way, you should take serious pause in disparaging the service record of a fellow decorated veteran. Even worse, your arrogant and careless words undercut the credibility of all those who served and continue to serve, in wartime and peacetime.

First of all, Sen. McCain’s service record is clear. After volunteering for a combat assignment in Vietnam, Sen. McCain was shot down during his twenty-third bombing mission over North Vietnam and spent 5 ½ years as a Prisoner of War, enduring physical torture and repeatedly turning down preferential treatment and early release. For his service, he received seventeen decorations, including the Silver Star and Legion of Merit.

Most Americans would have ended their military career there, but Sen. McCain continued his service and eventually become the commanding officer of the largest squadron in the U.S. Navy. He turned an undisciplined and untrained squadron into one of the Navy’s best, earning the unit a Meritorious Unit Commendation.

Since this is about who is the greater military man, let's compare chest candy. First, we have General Wesley Clark:

Now, let's look at John McCain:

Okay, now that Clark knows what it feels like to be attacked for his service, let me clear the air a little and some REAL perspective in here. Clark was dead wrong. DEAD wrong. You see, Clark's service – though I mocked it here – was pretty admirable (baring the Waco debacle). He was an esteemed General and accomplished a lot as an officer and a Soldier. His awards are impressive and deserve recognition and respect. Clark is a veteran entitled to the respect and honor given to all veterans, especially our Vietnam Veterans. I've never been a big fan of Clark, but only because of his political views. I cringed when I had to stand next to him at the release party for the "This Is Our War" book party in which some of my war photos were featured. But, as a Soldier I admire all that he's accomplished.

He should do the same for McCain and attack him on his positions, not his MUCH MORE HONORABLE and ADMIRABLE military service!!

Senator McCain “hasn’t held executive responsibility.”
FACT: McCain commanded, and revitalized, the largest squadron in the U.S. Navy.

Senator McCain’s military leadership doesn’t count, because it wasn’t a “wartime Squadron.”
FACT: McCain volunteered to serve in Vietnam and upon his return, endured months of physical rehabilitation in order to continue his military career and command a squadron.

Senator McCain “hasn’t been there [war] and ordered the bombs to fall”
FACT: McCain flew twenty-three combat missions in Vietnam in order to drop bombs on the enemy. He was also “there” for 5 ½ years as a Prisoner of War.

“I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be President.”
FACT: If serving your country, volunteering for combat, resisting the enemy, and receiving seventeen decorations for service doesn't count for anything, then why are you on television, speaking as an “expert” on national security matters? Your personal attacks came not from a General with respect for the uniform, but from a political operative dispatched to attack the military background of a political adversary.