The dust-up began with Clark's appearance Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation," where moderator Bob Schieffer asked him about his interview with the Huffington Post earlier this month.
In the interview, Clark said McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, was "untested and untried."
When Schieffer asked to explain the comment, Clark said he was referring to McCain's experience, or lack thereof, in setting national security policies and understanding the risk involved in such matters.
"I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility," said Clark, a former NATO commander who campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004.
"He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not," Clark said.
Schieffer noted that Obama did not have any of those experiences, nor had he "ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down."
"Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," Clark said.
While strongly worded, there are many calling this an "attack" and calling on Sen. Obama to denounce it. It's not an attack.
Let me repeat...it's not an attack.
Getting shot down in a fighter and being held prisoner of war is not a requisite qualification for President. It's not even a selling point. Many soldiers and sailors, Marines and airmen, were taken prisoner in the course of the wars our nation has fought, and that does not make any of them more qualified than anyone else to be President.
Military service is often used as a selling point for the Presidency and other high offices, but frankly it's not the selling point it's made out to be. Look at some of our past wartime Presidents.
Woodrow Wilson led the United States in WWI. Never served in the military.
Franklin D. Roosevelt led the United States in WWII, and also never served.
Abraham Lincoln only served briefly in a state militia before leading the United States in the Civil War.
Ronald Reagan served in WWII...in the Army's film division (he could not serve overseas due to medical concerns).
Now there are those who say that military service should be a requirement for the Presidency, that it somehow makes one a better President. I would point to some historically poorly perceived Presidents who did serve.
Jimmy Carter...Richard Nixon...James Buchanan...Ulysses S. Grant. Ranked historically as some of the worst Presidents (in both liberal and conservative estimation), all served in the military (Grant was a general).
George W. Bush, who is viewed as a failure even by some of his own party, served (in a "champagne unit") in the National Guard.
There are many qualities I'd look for in a Presidential candidate, and while military service might be a positive, it's not an absolute...nor does it even show any real experience in the level of foreign policy that a President will have to deal with. McCain was a Navy Captain, not even of flag rank...in fact, most Presidents who did serve were junior officers, with a few exceptions (Grant, Eisenhower), and generally speaking officers below flag rank don't really have a lot of policy experience. It's not their job.
I don't question McCain's military service with regard to what he went through...he is truly an American hero, and his conduct as a POW sets the standard. But Clark is right, it's not a qualification to be President per se. His service and character of service are a good indicator of his character in general, but a Navy Captain isn't necessarily an expert or even highly trained in foreign policy to the level that would be expected of a President.
Now it could be said that Sen. Obama has no more (arguably less) experience in this regard than McCain. Very true...very true indeed. I'd argue that neither candidate is a "heavy" with regard to foreign policy, and if you were to rate them McCain would come out slightly ahead due to his seniority in the Senate and committee experience. But to say that based solely on military experience as a Navy pilot he is somehow stronger in foreign policy would be akin to saying the same about ANYONE who has military experience, and it's simply not true.
Technorati Tags: Politics, McCain, Clark, Military, Foreign Policy
0 comments:
Post a Comment