What price truth?

By Ernest Dumas, Arkansas Times l Published: July 10, 2008

The worst aspect of this race for president is that it bears out John Milton's maxim that truth comes into the world a bastard, heaping ignominy upon those who dare to speak it.

Gen. Wesley Clark can attest to that. He uttered a line so unassailably true that John McCain himself would not deny its truth. Clark said that merely being shot down while flying a Navy plane in wartime did not qualify a person to be president. In fact, McCain had said as much in the past. But Clark has been so pilloried for the remark that Sen. Barack Obama had to criticize him and the general, a true war hero himself, was taken off the list of potential vice presidential candidates.

Clark had just finished praising McCain's courage and long service to the country and counted him one of his personal heroes but when his questioner noted that Obama had not flown a plane that was shot down Clark replied that it was true but that McCain's misfortune and heroic ordeal did not qualify him for president.

But Clark is not the first to be scorched by having the nerve to tell the plain truth, even if inadvertently. That was the case when Charlie Black, the lobbyist/publicist who advises McCain, told an interviewer that national security was McCain's best issue and when he was asked if another attack like 9/11 would help McCain he replied that undoubtedly it would. That is an article of faith for everybody, Democrats and Republicans alike, because the assumption is that terrorism would rise to the top of everyone's agenda again and people would rest their faith in the tough guy. Rationally, people should react just the opposite — it would show that the Republicans have not made us any safer — but that is not the common thinking. Black merely repeated the conventional wisdom. He apologized for his truthfulness and McCain repudiated him. You won't hear from Charlie Black again.

There was no dishonor but plenty of ignominy when Bill Clinton said Barack Obama's primary victory in South Carolina was not a shock because, after all, Rev. Jesse Jackson had carried the state, too. It was a simple statement of fact that it was the same large African-American vote that carried Obama to victory. But it was characterized as a denigration of the African-American candidate and it did untold harm to Clinton's own reputation and to his wife's candidacy.

Same with Geraldine Ferraro's famous remark that much of the excitement around the Obama campaign arose from his race. That is an indisputable fact that Obama's earnest admirers have no trouble admitting. But Ferraro was banished forever.

The list goes endlessly on.

At least General Clark did not apologize. A real tough guy who has told the truth would not.

New York Times | July 4, 2008

Rove’s Third Term

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Al Gore never claimed that he invented the Internet. Howard Dean didn’t scream. Hillary Clinton didn’t say she was staying in the race because Barack Obama might be assassinated. And Wesley Clark didn’t impugn John McCain’s military service.

Scott McClellan, the former White House press secretary, titled his tell-all memoir “What Happened.” But a true account of modern American politics should be titled “What Didn’t Happen.” Again and again we’ve had media firestorms over supposedly revealing incidents that never actually took place.

The latest fake scandal fit the usual pattern as an awkwardly phrased remark, lifted out of context and willfully misinterpreted, exploded across the airwaves.

What General Clark actually said was that Mr. McCain’s war service, though heroic, didn’t necessarily constitute a qualification for the presidency. It was a blunt but truthful remark, and not at all outrageous — especially given the fact that General Clark is himself a bona fide war hero.

Yet the Clark affair did reveal something important — not about General Clark, but about Mr. McCain. Now we know what a McCain administration would represent: namely, a third term for Karl Rove.

It was predictable that the McCain campaign would go wild over the Clark remarks. Mr. McCain’s run for the White House has always been based on persona rather than policy: he doesn’t have ideas that voters agree with, but he does have an inspiring life story — which, contrary to the myth of the modest maverick, he talks about all the time. The suggestion that this life story isn’t relevant to his quest for office was bound to provoke a violent reaction.

But the McCain campaign went beyond condemning General Clark’s remarks; it went out of its way to distort them. “This backhanded slap against John as not being a worthy warrior because he just got shot down is one of the more surprising insults in my military history,” said retired Col. Bud Day, who participated in a conference call organized by the campaign. In fact, General Clark had said no such thing.

WorldNetDaily | July 4, 2008

The relevance of being shot down

By BILL PRESS

It's only July, but already we know the rules of this year's presidential campaign. Actually, they're the same rules that apply every election: You can say anything you want about the Democratic candidate, but you have to treat the Republican candidate with kid gloves.

In 2000, for example, you could accuse Al Gore of taking bribes from China, but you could not question George Bush's use of cocaine. In 2004, it was fine to smear John Kerry's war record, but forbidden to wonder why George Bush never showed up for National Guard duty.

Here we go again. In 2008, it's OK to suggest, as conservative bloggers do daily, that Barack Obama is a gay, American-hating, chain-smoking Muslim. But not OK to suggest that just because John McCain was shot down and spent six years in the Hanoi Hilton does not, in itself, qualify him to be president. Unfortunately, Gen. Wesley Clark learned that lesson the hard way.

Appearing on CBS's "Face the Nation," Clark began by praising McCain's military service, calling him a "hero" for the courage he showed as a prisoner of war. However, Clark correctly pointed out, donning the uniform alone does not make the wearer presidential timber. In choosing a president, what's important is the judgment that a candidate has shown and his experience in making executive decisions.

Host Bob Schieffer persisted. Didn't his being shot down give McCain an advantage over Obama? Whereupon Gen. Clark gave his now-famous answer: "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."

Ironically, Clark didn't say anything John McCain hadn't already said himself. I've heard him, several times, entertain audiences with the same self-deprecating, joke: "It doesn't take a lot of talent to get shot down. I was able to intercept a surface-to-air missile with my own airplane."

But for his comment, Clark was not only condemned by the McCain campaign, he was thrown under the bus by his own candidate. Why? Clark did nothing wrong. He merely told the truth. Yes, we honor every man and woman who wears the uniform. We especially honor those who are shot down and taken prisoner. But that doesn't mean they're all qualified to be president.

Again, what counts is judgment. How much judgment did John McCain show when he suggested it would be OK for American forces to remain in Iraq another 100 years? When he opposed the latest version of the GI Bill? When he supported the CIA's continued use of waterboarding? When he condemned the Supreme Court's granting prisoners at Guantanamo Bay the right to challenge their confinement in civilian court "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." Some former fighter pilots might have shown better judgment on those issues. This one did not.

The way Gen. Clark was treated was unfair. But what's more unfair is the double standard applied to Democratic and Republican candidates. Why is John McCain's military service out of bounds in 2008, when it was considered perfectly fair to challenge John Kerry's war credentials in 2004, or Max Cleland's in 2002?

Atlantic Eye: Defending Gen. Wesley Clark

By MARC S. ELLENBOGEN, UPI Internationall Columnist | Published: July 3, 2008 at 7:20 PM

...Had the Bush administration had more men with character; had those who have it not been afraid to use it; and those who received the information not been terrified to stand by it; the United States would not be in the disastrous muddle it's in today. A Democratic president -- any new president -- needs men and women around him who will tell the God's honest truth -- blunt, unfiltered and accurate....

OXFORD, England, July 3 (UPI) -- Gen. Wesley Clark has served the United States with honor for 45 years -- 38 of them in the military.

He was valedictorian of his class at West Point. He was supreme allied commander Europe. He is a great military strategist, a great commander.

Wes Clark was my choice for president in 2004; I co-hosted him in Geneva. He was my choice again in 2008. I have gotten to know him. I like the man.

Like all great leaders, Clark can be a very difficult compatriot. He has great character. He is temperamental. He is tough, smart and forthright.

General Wesley Clark on CNN's The Situation Room

July 1. 2008
Transcript by Melange

John Roberts: Wesley Clark is not backing down. The retired Army general reiterates something that has ignited a political firestorm. Clark says, while he respects John McCain's military service, that military service does not automatically qualify McCain to be Commander in Chief. General, thanks for being with us today. You ...you've been under a lot of fire since Sunday over some comments that you made talking with my former colleague Bob Schieffer on ...on Face the Nation. You were talking about John McCain's wartime experience and how you believe that that did not qualify him to be president on ...on its basic merits. Let's play that particular part of the interview where Bob Schieffer asked you a question about qualifications and you responded.