Black Box Report

Gen. Wesley Clark had the temerity to suggest that John McCain's military service, admirable as it was, might not automatically qualify him for president.

Cue the Mother of All Hissy Fits! Conservative blogs were outraged!....Even more than usual. McCain's base, the media, excoriated Clark for "criticizing" McCain's military record - even though Clark did no such thing. As with certain high-profile teevee pundits making bone-headed rookie mistakes - repeatedly - these network anchors are well-paid enough to master the simple art of reading comprehension:

It’s crucially important that we have a political debate in this country that’s at least sophisticated enough to be able to handle the following rather basic idea: Arguing that a person’s record of military service is not a qualification for the presidency does not constitute “attacking” their military credentials; nor can it be described as invoking their military service against them, or as denying their record of war heroism.

That’s not a very high bar for sophistication. But right now it’s one the press isn’t capable of clearing.

Some even suggested Clark's comments were an attempt at "Swiftboating." But that word does not mean what they think it means:

Now that “swift-boating” has entered the vernacular, let us remember that the original SwiftBoat Veterans for “Truth” were for the most part neither in their hope to take down Kerry’s candidacy. Has Wesley Clark in some way made any untrue allegations in saying that being a POW and a non-combat era fighter pilot does not necessarily qualify you for the highest elected office in the land?

Not according to John McCain:

Clark’s argument that military service is not sufficient alone to be president is an argument that has been made by McCain himself:

- During an interview with National Journal, John McCain was asked if “military service inherently makes somebody better equipped to be commander-in-chief.” McCain said, “Absolutely not…I absolutely don’t believe that it’s necessary.” [National Journal, 2/15/2003]

- I believe that military service is the most honorable endeavor an American may undertake. But I’ve never believed that lack of military service disqualifies one from occupying positions of political leadership or as Commander and Chief. In America, the people are sovereign, and they decide who is and is not qualified to lead us. [American Legion Speech, 9/7/1999]

- Earlier this year at Washington’s Gridiron Club, where humor is the required fare, McCain lay bare what underlies his candidacy. Wearing a jacket outlandishly festooned with dozens of fake military medals, McCain said, “The question I ask myself every morning while shaving in front of the mirror is: OK, John, you’re an incredible war hero, an inspiration to all Americans. But what qualifies you to be president of the United States?” [Minneapolis Star Tribune, 11/7/1999]

Of course, that was the old John McCain. The "new" (but still old) John McCain thinks differently, and is apparently impervious to irony:

In hopes of nipping any criticism in the bud, the [McCain] campaign brought on board a man quite familiar with how these types of attacks gain legs: Bud Day, a fellow POW who was part of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that worked so hard to defame Sen. John Kerry's own Vietnam record.

McCain's campaign would prefer that the only person to talk about McCain's service should be McCain. He mentions it constantly, and even has footage of his tiome as a POW in a campaign ad. So that pretty much puts it on the table. And Josh Marshall at TPM thinks it's a good discussion to have:

Does McCain's military record mean that even the Democrats have to concede the point that he's more qualified to be commander-in-chief of the US armed forces, that his foreign and national security policy judgment is superior to Obama's? It's simply a fact that McCain has a record of really poor judgment on a whole list of key foreign policy and national security questions.

His apparent willingness to bomb Iran first and ask questions later, for example.

But all this is beside the point. For years, one of conservatives' bread and butter plays was smearing the military service of anyone* who disagreed with them, Bush, the Iraq War or any aspect of the GWOT (* see John Kerry, Scott Beauchamp, and of course Gen. Wesley Clark).

And while Clark said his comments were his own and did not represent Barack Obama's views in any way, conservatives are still trying to tie the two together:

If the willingness to fight for your country, put your life on the line and suffer the brutality McCain suffered as a POW doesn't make the cut as far as qualifications go, how far below that does a "community organizer" show up on the list of non-qualifications?

Let me see if I can explain this.

On the left is Barack Obama's experience as a community organizer. On the right is John McCain's military service. You can make juice out of both, but beyond that, they aren't really comparable and shouldn't be the only considerations when ordering breakfast.

Or electing a president.