Respect the Service; Confront the Man

Quick way to explain the difference between what the Swift-Boat Liars did to John Kerry and what Gen. Wesley Clark is saying about John McCain:

"Swift-boating" attacks the man by lying about the service. Clark respects the service, but questions its relevance to the office sought by the man.

Salon has the video of Clark making his case, and Steve Benen comments:

Perhaps because of the four stars on his shoulder, retired Gen. Wesley Clark is bolder than most when it comes to criticizing John McCain's efforts to connect his military experience with his presidential qualifications. Indeed, Clark has been tougher than most in pushing back against the Republican nominee's pitch.

SNIP

It's not especially surprising that Clark's remarks aren't going over well on the right. Several conservative bloggers have the outrage meter turned up to 11, and the McCain campaign issued a statement accusing the Obama campaign of wanting to "question John McCain's military service," and allowing Obama's campaign surrogates "to demean and attack John McCain's military service record."

This morning on MSNBC, Mika Brzezinski and Andrea Mitchell admonished Clark, insisting that his remarks weren't "fair." Yesterday, CNN's Rick Sanchez accused Clark of trying to "Swift boat" McCain.

I can appreciate the fact that Clark's comments might seem intemperate, but the reaction is more than a little over the top.

First, there are no similarities between Clark's remarks and the Swift boat attacks. Clark never said, and wouldn't say, that McCain lied about his service, or won medals he hadn't earned.

Second, did Clark say anything that was, you know, false? To be sure, McCain served heroically, and endured torture and abuse that I can hardly imagine as a POW. The nation will always owe him a debt of gratitude for what he endured. But Clark's point is that this service, four decades ago, does not necessarily constitute a presidential qualification today. We don't hear that often, but that doesn't make it outrageous.

And at HuffPo, John Soltz of VoteVets bolsters Clark's argument and offers a way to express support for General Clark.

This wasn't a swift boating, or any low politics. General Clark called McCain a hero to millions for his sacrifice. And, that's a pretty big statement coming from a man who, himself, left Vietnam on a stretcher. But, facts are facts:

• Senator McCain's service and experience, both as a POW and as a Senator apparently hasn't infused him with a dose of good judgment.

• Senator McCain's experience hasn't led him to realize that the war in Iraq and it's continuance has empowered and emboldened Iran, and destabilized the region.

• Senator McCain's experience hasn't caused him to recognize that we're losing ground in Afghanistan, and Osama bin Laden is still out there, plotting.

• Senator McCain's experience didn't lead him to support the 21st Century GI Bill -- he opposed it. It didn't even make him feel the need to get back to Washington to vote on this -- one of the most important veterans' bills this Congress. He twice skipped votes on the GI Bill, to fundraise.

• Senator McCain's experience didn't help him empathize with troops are overstretched and overdeployed, when he voted against the bipartisan Webb-Hagel "Dwell Time Amendment," which would have given troops as much time at home as in the field.

Senator McCain is running on his experience, saying it makes him ready to lead right away. By doing so, he is asking people to look at what that experience taught him. By looking at Senator McCain's positions and votes (or lack of them), it seems that experience has not given him the right judgment on important issues of our time. And, while we should all honor Senator McCain's service, that doesn't mean we should necessarily honor it by putting him in the White House to take up George W. Bush's third term.

So, General Clark is 100 percent absolutely right, and he should not back down. I'd hope that some of the so-called progressives on television back him up on this, and not get intimidated by the media and McCain campaign press releases. These are important times, and deserve a blunt and honest debate.

In some circles, that's just called 'straight talk.'

UPDATE: Since a lot of you are sending words of support on here for General Clark, we started a petition where you can sign to thank him, and tell him to keep it up. We will take the petition to General Clark, personally. Also, it's important to sign, so we can show the media that we've got his back.

Sign the petition, and don't let anyone get away with calling Clark's straight talk "swift-boating."

Cross-posted at Blue in the Bluegrass.

There's more: "Respect the Service; Confront the Man" >>

Dodd Questions Legality of Fox Recess Appointment

Senator Christopher Dodd (D, CT) has indicated he will seek a legal opinion on the recess appointment of Sam “Swift Boat Liar” Fox to be Ambassador to Belgium.

Fox would serve in a voluntary capacity, without pay, but there are legal questions about the interpretation of the law the way the Bush White House reads it.

In the White House interpretation of the law, Fox could serve as ambassador voluntarily, so long as he agreed not to sue the government later for not being compensated for his services.

But there is a catch…

Under federal law, “voluntary service” is prohibited when the position in question has a fixed rate of pay – and ambassadorships have a fixed pay rate. The salary is a “statutory entitlement” and therefore unwaivable. That is how the Government Accountability Office, an arm of Congress, interprets the law.

Look for this to be a major issue when an angry congress returns to session next week.

This appears to be far from over.

There's more: "Dodd Questions Legality of Fox Recess Appointment" >>

McCaskill should rethink support for Fox

We exist to hold congress accountable. That means that when we are unhappy with the actions of our elected representatives, we do not simply look away if they have the "right" party signifier behind their name. In the spirit of this endeavor, I am calling Claire McCaskill on the carpet for her support of the nomination of Sam Fox to be the ambassador to Belgium.

Fox was a donor to the Swift Boat Veterans smear campaign during the 2004 presidential election.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrats are raising concerns about President Bush's nominee for ambassador to Belgium because he gave money to the group that impugned Sen. John Kerry's war record during the 2004 presidential campaign.

With a vote set Wednesday in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, said Tuesday he opposes the nomination of businessman Sam Fox because Fox "refused to apologize for his behavior" during a confirmation hearing last month.

"U.S. ambassadors need to be both responsible and credible, and Mr. Fox's support for an organization known to have spread falsehoods illustrates neither," said Dodd, who is seeking the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

Fox, one of the nation's most prominent Republican fundraisers, made a $50,000 contribution to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Many Democrats blamed the group for sinking Kerry's presidential bid after it aired a series of TV ads that claimed the Massachusetts Democrat did not deserve his Vietnam War medals.

[snip]

"I would have preferred you saying, you know, 'In retrospect, looking back, contributing to the Swift Boat campaign was a mistake and I wish I hadn't done it,' " Obama told Fox.

Fox has garnered the public support of Sens. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, and Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut Independent, both of whom testified for him.

I’m sorry – but Josh Marshall is right – there are some things that are just beyond the pale. The Swift Boaters crossed a line and should, as a result, be denied participation in the political process forevermore – not rewarded with plum ambassadorships.

There is simply no excuse for this, and I hope Senator McCaskill rethinks her support of this man.

(*Her office has been contacted for comment but has not returned calls as yet. When they do, the comment will be posted as an update.)

If you want to contact the Senators office to express an opinion about this, her office phone number is 202-224-6154 and her web page with all contact information is here.

There's more: "McCaskill should rethink support for Fox" >>