McCain's Military Service is Not a Qualification for the White House
by Chris Edelson

Gen. Wesley Clark is currently going through the ritualistic self-immolation required whenever the media seizes on a comment and tries to make it into a "gotcha!" moment.  Once he's done throwing himself to the wolves, the only response the media will accept when someone dares to do something other than genuflect before John McCain, the man they deem untouchable, perhaps we can more soberly evaluate what he said.

Clark did not "swiftboat" McCain (though McCain has bizarrely responded to Clark by using a Swiftboater as his mouthpiece).  Clark did not attack McCain's service–as Americablog and Media Matters note, he praised McCain's service.  When talking head Bob Schieffer asserted that, unlike McCain, Obama hadn't flown in a fighter plane and gotten shot down, Clark reasonably noted that this is not a qualification for being president.

Clark is right.  The media has, by its own admission, given McCain a pass on national security issues.  As Clark and Obama consistently say (and I certainly agree), McCain's service is worthy of respect.  But there is a difference between being respectful and being sycophantic.  The media has chosen the latter route with McCain, taking it as a given that his military service gives him an edge over Obama.  No one ever asks  a simple question: why?  Does serving in the military automatically qualify a candidate to be commander in chief?  Is a candidate who served in the military always stronger on national security than a candidate who has not served?

There is, of course, a big difference between military service and being president.  Of soldiers, sailors, airmen and women, we require physical courage and unquestioning obedience.  Admirable, or at least necessary, qualities, but not necessarily relevant to being president.  Of presidents, we demand good judgment.  When it comes to judgment, McCain got it absolutely wrong on Iraq.  He got it wrong on working to re-elect a failed president in 2004.  He got it wrong on changing his positions on tax cuts, immigration, offshore drilling, the religious right, and other matters. 

On the major national security decision of this century, Iraq, Obama got it right.  He recognized the war in Iraq for what it was, and is: a mistake and a distraction from the hunt to get Bin Laden and his followers, the people behind the 9/11 attacks.

Gen. Clark may be forced to fall on his sword–that's what our establishment media elites require of any who would challenge McCain's credentials.  The rest of us can respect McCain's service while continuing to insist that his service does not entitle him to a free pass on national security questions.  The media's coverage amounts to "turn off your brain, vote for McCain."  That may be good enough for media elites, but we can do much better than this fawning approach to campaign coverage.

Recommend this article...

Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto:

Be first to comment this article

Write Comment

Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article. Personal verbal attacks will be deleted. Please don't use comments to plug your web site. Such material will be removed. Just ensure to *Refresh* your browser for a new security code to be displayed prior to clicking on the 'Send' button. Keep in mind that the above process only applies if you simply entered the wrong security code.
Name:
E-mail
Homepage
Title:
BBCode:
Comment:
Code:*
	I wish to be contacted by email regarding additional comments

Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.4