Ignoring Clark's praise, LA Times uncritically reported McCain camp's assertion that Clark "didn't pay proper homage" to his POW service
SUMMARY: In an article about Wesley Clark's June 29 comments, the Los Angeles Times reported the McCain campaign's assertion that "Clark didn't pay proper homage" to Sen. John McCain's service as a POW in Vietnam, but did not report that, in fact, Clark said: "I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands of millions of others in the Armed Forces as a prisoner of war."
In a July 2 Los Angeles Times article about June 29 comments retired Gen. Wesley Clark made about Sen. John McCain on CBS' Face the Nation, staff writer Peter Nicholas wrote that, "by the reckoning of the McCain campaign, Clark didn't pay proper homage to McCain's greatest sacrifice: 5 1/2 years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam." But Nicholas did not note that, during his Face the Nation appearance, Clark specifically praised McCain's service as a POW, saying: "I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands of millions of others in the Armed Forces as a prisoner of war."
As Media Matters for America has documented, numerous media outlets have echoed the false claim by the McCain campaign that "Clark attacked John McCain's military service record."
From the July 2 Los Angeles Times article:
A war lingers in Iraq; the economy falters at home. But since Sunday, the 2008 presidential race seems to have been consumed by what a retired general said on a television talk show.
Retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark appeared on CBS' "Face the Nation" and questioned whether famed war hero John McCain had the executive experience to be commander in chief.
Worse, by the reckoning of the McCain campaign, Clark didn't pay proper homage to McCain's greatest sacrifice: 5 1/2 years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam.
When host Bob Schieffer countered that Barack Obama, unlike McCain, had never been shot down in a fighter plane, Clark replied: "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."
The two campaigns batted that around the next day. And on Tuesday, it was clear that the issue was still with us.
No amount of praise for McCain's war service by Clark would have been enough. These people smelled blood, and they were going to swarm and attack no matter how badly they had to misrepresent what Clark said.
Ohhhhh . . .
Pretty much what I thought. So if Bush can go after McCain, why can't someone from an opposing party? Again, I wonder if the public doesn't know better or wants to believe the daily garbage they are fed. I had a friend this morning tell me Barack received a discount on his home. I said so. He said "they're" gonna attack him on this. Come to find out, he's saving 300 bucks a month. Who the hell wouldn't want a break on their mortgage and take it if they could get it? How is this an attacking point, but stating the truth, being a P.O.W. doesn't equate to good president, this is an issue.
I'm sorry, I'm having a rough week following all of this bs.
" vertainly ' should read " certainly ". apologies to my english teacher. i am writing " certainly " on the blackboard 100 times.
"Clark didn't pay proper homage" to Sen. John McCain's service as a POW in Vietnam,
All hail the mighty, super, fantastic, incredible, patriotic POW!!!
Is
"Clark didn't pay proper homage" to Sen. John McCain's service as a POW in Vietnam,
All hail the mighty, super, fantastic, incredible, patriotic POW!!!
Is
that"Clark didn't pay proper homage" to Sen. John McCain's service as a POW in Vietnam...
Apparently McCain believes that proper "homage" for his service would be to elect him President. If McCain wants proper "homage" for his service let him go to a VFW meeting.
While in no way making light of McCain 5 years plus in captivity, which must have been horrendous, this is Presidential politics. How do we know McCain did not cooperate with his captors and received preferential treatment? If McCain wants "homage" at least he should be open and forthright about the experience. And exactly how does McCain's POW experience render him better qualified for the Presidency? How do we know the horrible experience didn't make him insane? But McCain refuses to discuss the matter at all. Again, this is Presidential politics, not a VFW meeting...
How do we know McCain did not cooperate with his captors and received preferential treatment?
Because there's no evidence to support that.
Let's not go there. That's just fodder for the wingnuts.
We cannot simultaneously attack them for misrepresenting Clark's perfectly legitimate comments AND engage in wild speculation about McCain's time as a POW.
The point is that McCain's service is more or less sacrosanct and at NO time did Clark disparage it.
Because there's no evidence to support that.
That's the point. Maybe you didn't read his/her point on another recent thread, but the gist of it was the media has told lies about Obama to the point they are being accepted as truth. Known truths are being ignored to push lies and it's totally acceptable when discussing Obama. So why isn't McCain treated to this same bias? Because he's the "media darling" is a weak excuse.
Psst...did you know that when McCain was staying at the Hanoi Hilton, it was actually a 4-star Hilton Hotel? Room service, expensive haircuts, indoctrination classes, all provided by the North Vietnamese free of charge.
Pass it on.
Irony,
I know you are trying to make a point... similar to Clark. And like Clark it is unseemly.
AA, you REALLY are not that bright on this. Examine the quote once again...
"Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."
There is absolutely NOTHING about that statement that denigrates McCain, his service, or his POW experience. NOTHING. Accept it simply because that is the truth. The quote says exactly what it means and if you 'spin' it any differently then you are in the wrong. Period.
You can't say you understand this and simultaneously not understand what the issue is here.
"Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."
"Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president, so saying that Obama doesn't have those qualifications doesn't say anything about judging who would be the best candidate. Why do you bring up McCain's being shot down and being a POW when it has nothing to do with his qualifications for President, Bob Schieffer?"
It sheds a little light onto what a joke this claim is. Clark was told by an interviewer that Obama's resume lacks the bullet point of getting removed from the sky by enemy fire. Clark's only error here was taking the bait and using the interviewers "getting shot down" words to give our ADD MSM their soundbite to flash at its pundits like a parent waves keys at a baby.
"What many people find objectionable is that it inadvertently trivializes being almost killed and being held as prisoner of war for five years."
Sorry, no sale. Nothing was 'trivialized'. A statement was made - a TRUE statement - and that's all it is. Anyone who 'reads' more into it is simply 'reaching' for a partisan purpose.
And no surprise whatsoever that the Right is 'reaching' big-time here.
Rabbit,
Your condescension not withstanding. As long as you denigrate those who disagree with you as being sheep or dim witted, you'll never acheive any understanding as to why they hold opinions different than yours.
To repeatedly rely on that crutch makes you guilty of the same thing you criticize of others.
So let me get this straight. As long as you get outraged about something, then your criticism is automatically valid, is that about right? Because you can always point to the fact that there's controversy, and then if that controversy is said to be overblown because of idiots and sheep you act all indignant. So there's no possible way for there to be a phony controversy, since the only way to point that out is to "denigrate" those that you "disagree" with. No matter how nicely you phrase it, it's still insulting, because the behavior is not respectable.
Nice setup you got going there, but anyone with a set of principles and a brain isn't going to buy it.
August,
Frankly I don't remember any of these so-called attacks on McCain's military credentials back in the 2000 primaries. In the week I've been perusing these threads, (most of which concern McCain and Clark,) I do not recall any proofs or links to support the contention that Bush denigrated McCain. Any help would be appreciated.
Secondly, it is a losing issue to attack any part of McCain's experience as a POW. We all recognize that Clark was trying to make a political point. His comment effectively negated the prelude. While Clark is factually correct, he trivialized McCain's POW experience by discounting it as a qualifier to be President. That trivialization and discounting of McCain's POW experience is so politically tone deaf that it offended lots of people.
After all, words have meaning. :-)
McCain said they should both yank their negative ads. Bush said he wouldn't because McCain's were worse. Bush stood beside a renegade veteran who accused McCain of abandoning veterans. McCain said that was just sad.
This is from a Mediamatters article in 2000 I think. The information is out there. It's not hard to find if you google. That's if you want to find it.
August,
It seems to me your example does not support your contention. McCain's record on Veteran benefits is fair game. I've seen it posted here many times.
What in the world would make you think I don't believe Muslim's can be President or think the Constitution prohibits them from becoming President?
What does that have to do with this discussion? We both know Obama is a Christian.
C'mon back in from the fringe my friend. :-)
No problemo. I enjoy the discussion.
Bush Supporters Questioned McCain’s Sanity.
“Some of George W. Bush's supporters have questioned Republican presidential candidate John McCain's fitness for the White House, suggesting that his five years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam drove him insane at the time.”
Rove Suggests Former POW McCain Committed Treason and Fathered Child With Black Prostitute.
In 2000, McCain operatives in SC accused Rove of spreading rumors against McCain, such as “suggestions that McCain had committed treason while a prisoner of war, and had fathered a child by a black prostitute,” according to the New Yorker.
I remember those pretty vividly.
...McCain operatives accuse Rove...
So in your mind it must be true?
August,
I don't remember it being much of an issue at all. The fact that McCain operatives in one State accused Rove sounds like typical second rate political ploy to me. I don't recall any of that ever have been proven that Rove did any of that. If you have any evidence pointing that direction, I think it would be helpful.
Frankly I don't remember any of these so-called attacks on McCain's military credentials back in the 2000 primaries.
The anatomy of a smear campaign-By Richard H. Davis | March 21, 2004
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/03/21/the_anatomy_of_a_smear_campaign/
OR
http://www.usvetdsp.com/mccainpg.htm
On the positive side, this indicates that the Troglodytes know the real issues are against them this time. They will continually try to distract the public with this trivial politically correct crap.
The purple heart band-aids were in poor taste.
I don't recall Coulter's attack on Cleland. Do you have any link? What specifically did Coulter attack about Cleland? As an aside, why do you think Kerry sent Cleland to Bush's ranch with that letter trying to call of the SBVTs?
Try this:
http://www.observer.com/node/48824
"the 2008 presidential race seems to have been consumed by what a retired general said on a television talk show."
I can't possibly know if that's true: I wish it were, but I doubt it is... the whole thing seems to be winding down fast, too fast for me (we've gone from "attacked" to "criticized" to "didn't pay proper homage", all in less than three days).
I say the McCain campaign is doing everything they can to ignore what the General said: even this L.A. Times piece (or the excerpts from it) attributes the downgraded characterization of "didn't pay proper homage" to "the McCain campaign" itself, with no direct quote, or any named person who might have said that.
John McCain and his campaign want what General Wesley Clark said to just go away... but I want it repeated and discussed and examined: and both of our reasons for wanting what we want, are the same reason...
Because it's the truth!
That's why they want it to go away, and that's why I want it to stay: it's the truth!
I'm going to rephrase what the General said, and I say this is in no way different in the least, from the General's observation:
"I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is not a qualification to Command the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps in IRAQ"
That's the same exact thing that the General said, and it's the truth... it wasn't personal, it wasn't attacking, it wasn't criticism (unless you count the pointing out of the qualifications that a person does not truly have, as being criticism)... I don't even think it's the downgraded "didn't pay proper homage", what the General said.
Anyway, it's the truth: the mission in IRAQ is a ground mission: it is the mission of the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps: all the work and all the risk and all the sacrifice is being made on the ground, by them, the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps: General Wesley Clark is U.S. Army: he knows, that "riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is not a qualification to Command the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps in IRAQ"
...I bet he even knows the difference between the two separate and opposed sects of Islam that constitute the insurgency in IRAQ: John McCain is completely unqualified to Command the U.S. Army in IRAQ: he is worse than unqualified, he is a danger and a threat to that Command, for his persistent ignorance of what almost everyone who follows IRAQ knows (the different sects of the insurgency there), and for his persistent and ignorant and insane embrace of George W. Bush, and his IRAQ schemes.
It's the truth, and McCain and his people would just as soon it go away, or otherwise spin it differently, into an improper homage.
They're going to beat this one sentance into the ground.I can't imagine it's convincing anybody except for the already safely zombifies Repooplickens.
BTW,Just got back from a little drive, and heard pedophile draft-dodger El Rushbo call Gen. Clark a "thug". I got yer proper homage, right here!
They're going to beat this one sentance into the ground
"I voted for it, before I voted against it" redux.
God, Republicans are stupid for fall for this fake outrage.
I'm confused. Which lie is it that we keep alive?
ps. Thanks for the "left" handed compliment.
Check out this website by Ted Sampley, who was Bush's hatchet man against McCain in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004:
http://www.usvetdsp.com/
See these two articles:
http://www.usvetdsp.com/mar08/mccain_manchurian.htm
http://www.usvetdsp.com/dec07/mccain_suicide_ptsd.htm
Now, I can't say one way or another if all of this info is true...but, IMO, it's plausible. Why should McCain get a free pass? Kerry got none. Barack Obama isn't getting one.
I'm looking forward to our local 4th of July parade again this year. Local fire engines, politicians, FFA beauty queens, highschool bands, and neighborhood floats. Small town Americana at it's best!
Have a great holiday everyone!
"Small town Americana"---AA
real America
If McCain's vaunted honesty and courage really existed, he would have agreed with Clark and then gone on to discuss what actually qualifies him to become President. The fact that he didn't do so suggests that: (1) He isn't honest and/or (2) He isn't qualified to become President.