Former Kansas Sen. Bob Dole said that retired Gen. Wesley Clark should have "stayed in bed" Sunday instead of telling a talk show that Sen. John McCain didn't have the experience to be president.
Clark, a former NATO commander, is a Barack Obama supporter. He said on CBS's Face the Nation that former Naval pilot McCain's nearly six years as a POW in North Vietnam after being shot down in 1967 was not "a qualification to become president."
Even Obama has disavowed the comment.
Dole, the 1996 Republican presidential nominee, said that Clark's statement was "beyond comprehension" and his "absurd remarks signal further erosion in our nation’s political discourse. He should have stayed in bed Sunday morning.
"It’s unfortunate that a former general who ran for the presidency on his own war record thinks it appropriate to attack a distinguished veteran and former prisoner-of-war in this way. Sen. McCain’s entire life has been devoted to public service. His achievement and experience constitute unparalleled qualification for America’s highest office."
First off, I support our troops utterly, even when I don't always support our upper leadership. But I find it fascinating the way folks read innuendo into everything, whether it exists or not. Clark's saying that McCain's being shot down and imprisoned does not qualify him in and of itself to be President is nothing short of true. McCain gave his service to our country for which we are grateful and proud. But so have the many men and women who have been put through adversity in fighting for our country. And we are proud of them. But that service, per se, does not make them suited to be President. The point to me is that trading on a heroic war effort as proof of presidential skill is pretty limited. I am not saying McCain is doing this himself, but if not, folks sure do it for him. He would be electable through his capabilities that demonstrate actual presidential qualifications. Certainly the persistence, grit and ethics of his experience are pertinent. But alone, these are not enough in any man or woman seeking the highest office in our country, brave though they are and utterly dear to us.
So why not take the remark for what it's worth - not a denigration of McCain's service, but simply an honest statement of fact: that there has to be yet more a person offers in order to lead this country. And that military service is not an absolute requirement for that office has been proven in the past. Heroism is laudable, but it is but one quality, and alone, it does not automatically guarantee presidential skill and capability. The outrage towards Clark is an over-reaction and a misunderstanding. I know enough of Clark to know that he will not have been in any way disparaging the heroism McCain displayed. Clark is an outfront, literal, plain-spoken man (and thus refreshing in the political world). He doesn't deserve the denigration, including knee jerk reactions or even deliberate "misunderstanding" for speaking his mind and stating something patently true. McCain must run on his entire life experience and character, not one set of events. Letting people exercise the freedom of speech without ripping them by distorting their meanings would be a sound action towards the most important election our country ever has, for the president of the United States. Too bad folks must always muddy the waters to support what they believe.
Posted by: Thea Hardy | July 04, 2008 at 03:29 PM