VetVoice - Front Page

Chickenhawk Smears Clark;Tries to Speak for Military

Brandon Friedman — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:32:21 GMT

I just got done watching the clip below with a couple of Army buddies. We thought it was pretty funny how the doughy chickenhawk kid--Ben Ferguson--felt he was entitled to speak on behalf of the military. Non-serving, tough talkers like Ferguson are endlessly entertaining to us.

FERGUSON: You have a man that was shot down, stayed in captivity as a POW for five years and your guy--if you want to talk about experience--had 147 days in the Senate before he decided he wanted to be President of the United States of America. So it's pretty dumb for Wesley Clark to go out there and yes, it ticked off everyone in the military because this man--I mean, I'm sorry, being shot down, to say that doesn't qualify you to be President-this man has been around war, been in actual war zones while Wesley Clark was sitting in an air-conditioned room, telling people what to do with NATO, so I don't know if he's exactly the right guy to go out there.

But the fact that CNN had this kid on to talk about things for which he has no understanding wasn't the only thing that was disturbing. I love how it's totally unacceptable to give anything other than glowing reviews of John McCain's military experience in Media World, while it's okay to slander General Clark's military service.

After Ferguson said that Clark had "ticked off everyone in the military," he went on to say that John McCain had "been in actual war zones while Wesley Clark was sitting in an air-conditioned room, telling people what to do with NATO."

Ben needs to brush up on his talking points, because Clark was actually shot four times in Vietnam, and left the country on a stretcher. Most people would consider that having been in an "actual war zone." And to be honest, the next person to debate this kid on TV should ask for an apology--or just ask him what he has against wounded Vietnam veterans.

Oh, and Ben, since I know you're reading this. . .before you go on TV again to smear a decorated four-star general for having "ticked off everyone in the military," you should check in at VetVoice. We have lots of actual Iraq and Afghanistan veterans (and yes, I know you have friends in Iraq) who know you're full of shit.

H/T to Crooks and Liars

Tours Being Extended in Afghanistan

Brandon Friedman — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 18:16:44 GMT

Oh, look, there's a war going on in Afghanistan:

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon has extended the tour of 2,200 Marines in Afghanistan, after insisting for months the unit would come home on time.

For now the extension is only for 30 days. No one could have ever seen this coming.

McCain Flips at Legit Question

Jon Soltz — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 17:59:07 GMT

I've been running VoteVets.org for a couple of years now. In 2006 and in 2008, we endorsed a number of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans for Congress. It's still a story that the press is largely interested in, and when they call me to talk about it, I always -- always -- get the same first question:

What is it about their honorable service in Iraq and/or Afghanistan that qualifies them to go to Congress?

It's a legit question, and neither I, nor any of the candidates, take any umbrage at it. As veterans of the current conflicts, they have a unique perspective on the wars that should be part of the debate on the floor of Congress, and a vote that helps shapes our security policy.

Yesterday, John McCain was asked basically the same question by a brave reporter at ABC News. The reporter, not falling for the hysterics and mock-outrage of the McCain camp over General Wesley Clark's comments simply asked what John McCain's experiences in Vietnam did to prepare him to lead the largest military on the face of the earth.

McCain's response?

"Please," he said, recoiling back in his seat in distaste at the very question.

Uh uh. That's not good enough. You would assume that given all the whining over General Clark's legitimate point, that John McCain had some obvious answer to the question. Instead, he refused to answer the question, and let Joe Lieberman and Lindsay Graham come to his defense, babbling to the reporter about character, but not a word about qualifications.

The fact of the matter is that General Clark was absolutely right. McCain's service, while heroic and honorable, is not very relevant when it comes to preparing him to be the military's ultimate commander. His experience didn't involve executive decision making in the military, or global strategy. Very few candidates for the presidency have had the experience in life that prepares them for that role. In fact, McCain said it himself in 2003, that some of our best Commanders in Chief had no military experience at all.

That's why the McCain campaign went into all-out outrage mode over General Clark's comments. It wasn't about being offended. It wasn't even about General Clark. It was about lashing out so strongly that the media would cower in fear, and not even think about putting a question like this to McCain -- a question to which he has no answer, and is afraid of being exposed on that point. And, for most of the week, that strategy was successful, as the press wimped out, and repeated the McCain talking points.

The reporter from ABC News didn't fall for it, and did his job. But he didn't get an answer. Maybe now, reporters will stuff their guts back in their bodies and keep asking McCain this legit question -- a question I get a version of all the time from the same reporters.

It's a legit question, and it's a question for which the American people deserve an answer.

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

More Delays With Iraq SOFA

Chris LeJeune — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 17:07:57 GMT

The US presence in Iraq continues to be on a legal timeline. The UN mandate governing our operations in Iraq expires at the end of this year. Without any other legal mandate, we will be unable to continue operations in Iraq. Rather than renew the UN mandate, the Bush administration has been negotiating with the government of Iraq in order to form a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the United States and Iraq that would allow for a continued military presence in Iraq. This has been very controversial politically for both countries. The governing political parties of Iraq oppose a long term military presence as they feel it encroaches on their sovereignty. Maliki has also promised Ahmadinejad that Iraq will not be used as a staging area for an attack on Iran, and that the continued presence of US military is not a security threat to their country.

A majority of the Iraqi parliament wrote to the US congress last week rejecting a long-term security deal with Washington if it is not linked to a requirement that US forces leave.
"The majority of Iraqi representatives strongly reject any military-security, economic, commercial, agricultural, investment or political agreement with the United States that is not linked to clear mechanisms that obligate the occupying American military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq," the letter to the leaders of Congress said.

A majority of the Iraqi population does not want a long term military presence in Iraq, and Iraqi politicians are mindful of this as election time nears. At the same tine, the US is also approaching elections, and the war in Iraq is extremely unpopular among the majority of the American people.

Some concessions have been made in the SOFA thus far to ease concerns of the Iraqi government. For one, American military leaders will be required to seek permission of the Iraqi government prior to launching military operations inside Iraq. Essentially, soldiers will reside on base in Iraq and will be called on when the Iraqis feel their help is needed. Secondly, American contractors in Iraq will not have immunity and will be subject to Iraqi law.

BAGHDAD - Iraq's foreign minister said Tuesday that the United States had agreed to lift immunity for foreign security contractors operating in Iraq, making them subject to prosecution under Iraqi law, according to Iraqi politicians.

Although these concessions have gone a long way to ease the concerns of the Iraqi people, the SOFA is still a difficult task. At one point, Prime Minister Maliki even stated that negotiations are at a "dead end" because each side refused the other's demands . Now, it seems, more roadblocks are impeding the negotiations between our two countries.

BAGHDAD - Declaring that there will not be "another colonization of Iraq," Iraq's foreign minister raised the possibility on Wednesday that a full security agreement with the United States might not be reached this year, and that if one was, it would be a short-term pact.
At a news conference in Baghdad, the foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, told reporters that some headway had been made, but that negotiators were deadlocked over issues like the extent of Iraqi control over American military operations and the right of American soldiers to detain suspects without the approval of Iraqi authorities.

Considering that the majority of the Iraqi government is made up of the Dawa Party ( who bombed American and French embassies in Kuwait in 2003) and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) I can understand why American military commanders would have a hard time seeking approval for military operations from the Iraqi government. We trust the Iraqi military so much that we are using spy satellites to watch their movements.

"There is controversy here in Iraq," Mr. Zebari said. "We have an election here; they have an election there. It's a political matter."
Noting that the United States cannot stay in Iraq without legal authorization, Mr. Zebari cited three options: "Either we conclude a status of forces agreement; or we have an interim agreement until a SOFA can be completed; or we go back to the Security Council at the end of the year and ask for another extension."

An extension of the UN mandate would also have to be ratified by the Iraqi parliament, according to their constitution.

Mr. Zebari also indicated that even a full agreement would be short. "We are not talking about 50 years, 25 years or 10 years; we are negotiating about one or two years, so this is not going to be another colonization of Iraq," he said.
Most Iraqi policy makers predict that the two sides will reach an interim agreement, though possibly one that will extend longer than Mr. Zebari described. "We are thinking there is no benefit from signing a long-term security agreement," said Eman al-Asadi, a member of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a leading Shiite party.
Still, no one is giving up yet on negotiating a larger agreement, said Hassan Sinead, a member of Dawa, Mr. Maliki's party.

Open Thread

Brandon Friedman — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 07:07:42 GMT

For whatever's on your mind. . . .

Oh, and I just thought of something: Ever notice how you never hear any Afghanistan veterans call Iraq the "central front" in the "War on Terror?"

Kiowa Helicopter Shot Down Near Kabul

RockRichard — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:57:45 GMT

If you ask me, this is another product of the neglect of the war in Afghanistan:

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - A helicopter from the U.S.-led forces was shot down south of the Afghan capital Wednesday, but the crew escaped without serious injury, the coalition said.
...
Logar police chief Mohammed Mustafa Khan said reports from his officers in the remote district suggested Taliban militants shot down the helicopter with a rocket-propelled grenade.
...
Most recently, seven soldiers died when a Chinook helicopter was shot down during an air assault in the southern province of Helmand in May 2007.

That crash in May 2007 runs through my mind fairly often. I was laying in my rack at Kandahar Airfield in the middle of the night, unable to sleep. Normally, I worked the night shift in the TOC as the Battle NCO during missions. On the night of May 30th, however, I switched shifts with the day shift NCO. It was nice to see the sun for a day, but my sleep schedule was now backwards.

When it became obvious that I wouldn't fall asleep anytime soon, I got up and went to go check out the news. One of the first items I saw was that a U.S. helicopter had crashed in southern Afghanistan. The worst circumstances imaginable entered my mind. We were in-filling by CH-47 Chinook into the Kajaki District of Helmand Province for the beginning of Operation Kulang Hellion. We had the full support of all American rotary in Regional Command South that night. All of this added up meant that if a U.S. chopper had gone down in Southern Afghanistan, it was part of our mission.

I headed for the TOC as quick as I could. When I arrived I learned the situation was not as bad as it could have been, but still not good. The bird had been shot down after it dropped a lift of my battalion's Soldiers. On the return trip it flew over an area of the battle box that had yet to be cleared when it was hit by a shoulder fired rocket by Taliban forces. The air crew, a British soldier and a Canadian journalist were killed.

The events of May 30th were startling. No one had thought that the previously obliterated Taliban had the capabilities or the fire power to bring down an American aircraft. In the previous six years of the war only four helicopters had been downed due to hostile action. Two of those were during Operation Anaconda way back in March of 2002. Since May of 2007, three American choppers have been shot down.

Count this as more evidence that we have neglected Afghanistan to fight the needless, pointless war of choice in Iraq. In doing so, we have allowed a nearly defeated Taliban to fester and become a legitimate challenge to the security of the Afghan people, as well as our Soldiers within their borders.

Army Shuts Down Popular Milblogger in Iraq

Brandon Friedman — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:31:02 GMT

Wired.com's Danger Room is reporting that the Army has ordered a ~~infantry~~ cavalry officer in Iraq to cease blogging and to remove all previous content from his popular blog:

An outspoken soldier who wrote one of the most brutally honest blogs ever to come out of Iraq has been forced to shut down his site, after criticizing his superior officers one time too often.
In Iraq since December, 2007, the pseudonymous "LT [Lieutenant] G," described firefights and combat patrols and tribal meetings and the banality of life on base with equal measures of sarcasm, aggression, introspection, and attention to detail. Within months, his site, Kaboom: A Soldier's War Journal, became one of the military's blogosphere's best-loved voices from the war.

There are arguments to be made on both sides of this deal, and even LT G has accepted some responsibility for the situation going sour. He wrote this a few days ago, before being told to pull his site completely:

Due to a rash posting on my part, and decisions made above my pay-grade, I have been ordered to stop posting on Kaboom, effective immediately. Though I committed no OPSEC violations, due to a series of extenuating circumstances -- the least of which was me being on leave -- my "The Only Difference Between Martyrdom and Suicide is Press Coverage" post on May 28 did not go through the normal vetting channels. It's totally on me, as it was too much unfiltered truth. I'm a soldier first, and orders are orders. So it is.
If you think, please think of us. If you pray, please pray for us. The second half of our deployment will be just as challenging and dangerous as the first half.
Thank you for caring. Agree or disagree with the war, if you're reading this, you are engaged and aware. As long as that is still occurring in a free society, there is something worth the fighting for.

I sincerely hope that the Army is only enforcing the regulations out of a sense of fairness to other soldiers who blog. If they're not--and this just a reaction to criticism coming from within the ranks--then this will stand as just another bumbling example of the poor leadership that has gripped the highest levels of the Army in recent years.

Either way, we'll miss LT G's writing.

Group Needs Information for VA Investigation

Brandon Friedman — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 06:55:47 GMT

This has gotten pushed by the wayside with all the Clark uproar, but Disability Rights Advocates is working on another investigation of the VA. If you can help them out, please contact them directly. The intro is here, and the full letter they've sent is below the fold.

Disability Rights Advocates is conducting an investigation of the accessibility of VA hospitals and clinics. We would like to hear from you about your experiences at these facilities. If you have a mobility disability, a vision disability, a hearing disability, and/or Traumatic Brain Injury, you are entitled to full access and reasonable accommodations, whether or not your disability is service connected. We want to know if these accommodations are being provided. Please contact us at va.access@gdblegal.com and we can set up a time to talk with you about your experiences.

Continue reading below. . . .

If you have a mobility disability:
Whether you use a wheelchair or another form of assistive device, or whether your mobility is impaired in any way due to disability, we want to know about your experience with access at VA hospitals or clinics:
Is there adequate accessible parking?

Are there access barriers as you travel through the hospital or clinic? For example, are there adequate ramps and accessible pathways? Are doors, counters, elevators and restrooms accessible?

Is there enough room for you and your mobility device in patient check-in or waiting areas?

Can you get to exam rooms, hospital rooms and laboratories and have your medical care provided with adequate comfort and privacy?

Can you access medical equipment such as exam tables, scales and diagnostic equipment safely, independently and with dignity?

Can you access other public areas at the hospital or clinic, such as the pharmacy, cafeteria/canteen, or gift shop?

Does the staff seem to be knowledgeable and trained to address your needs arising out of your mobility disability?

If you have a vision disability:
Whether you are blind, legally blind, or have low vision, we want to know about your experiences with access at VA hospitals and/or clinics:
Are there access barriers such as protruding objects and lack of detectible warnings as you travel through the hospital or clinic?

Is there accessible signage so you can navigate through the hospital or clinic?

Are you able to obtain information such as forms, notices and prescription information in accessible formats?

Can you access your hospital or clinic's information technology, such as websites or registration kiosks?

Does the staff seem to be knowledgeable and trained to address your needs arising out of your visual impairment (including allowing you to be accompanied by your service animal)?

Have you experienced other barriers due to your vision disability?

If you have a hearing disability:
Whether you are deaf or hearing impaired, we want to know about your experiences with access at VA hospitals and/or clinics:
Can you communicate effectively with VA personnel to make appointments and understand your medical needs and treatment?

Do you receive interpreters or assistive listening services when necessary?

Does the staff seem to be knowledgeable and trained to address your needs arising out of your hearing impairment?

Have you experienced other barriers due to your hearing disability?

If you have Traumatic Brain Injury:
Can you communicate effectively with VA personnel to make appointments and understand your medical needs and treatment?

Do you receive adequate guidance from VA personnel to make decisions regarding medical care and treatment based on informed consent?

Does the staff seem to be knowledgeable and trained to address your needs arising out of your brain injury?

Have you experienced other barriers due to your disability?

Disability Rights Advocates is a non-profit organization based in California that is dedicated to protecting the rights of people with all types of disabilities, including disabled veterans. DRA is one of the two law firms that is challenging the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA's) practices in failing to adequately treat veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and we also have a longstanding interest in ensuring disabled individuals' equal access to prompt medical care. For more information about DRA, please visit www.dralegal.org.
To set up at time to talk about your experiences at VA hospitals and/or clinics, email va.access@gdblegal.com, or call toll-free at 800/332-6177 (or TTY at 510/665-8716).

The Media's "Wes Clark Hyperventorama"

Brandon Friedman — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 02:17:18 GMT

Wow. This compilation from Talking Points Memo spread across the internet fast:

Yes, America, that's your media hard at work smearing General Wesley Clark (Ret.)--the last U.S. general to win a war, and a man who left Vietnam on a stretcher after being shot four times.

Obama Comments on the Media's Treatment of General Clark

Brandon Friedman — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 21:50:38 GMT

Over the roar of ignorant media pundits and political "strategists" who've managed to twist General Clark's words, Senator Barack Obama has now injected a little sanity into the conversation by rejecting the idea that Clark "swiftboated" anyone.

Obama also claimed that his comments yesterday were not aimed at General Clark.

REPORTER: I wonder what you think about General Clark's comments both Sunday and today, and even further, I'm wondering if you can say if you really think those kinds of comments are much different from the swiftboat types of questions that Senator Kerry faced about his Vietnam experience.
BARACK OBAMA: I don't think that General Clark had the same intent as the swiftboat ads that we saw four years ago. I don't--I reject that analogy. But, what I've also said, repeatedly, is that Senator McCain deserves the most-the utmost-honor and respect for his service to our country. I've said that repeatedly, I've said it all the time. I noticed that, I think, in at least one publication it was reported that my comments yesterday about Senator McCain were in a response to General Clark. I think my staff will confirm that was in a draft of that speech that I had written two months ago. So, I have repeatedly insisted that Senator McCain's service is heroic and that he deserves our respect for that. Now, I have differences with him on policy. And I will vigorously debate a lot of the decisions he's made when it comes to national security that I think have weakened our capacity to meet the threats and challenges of the 21st century, but that certainly doesn't detract from his past service to America.

McCain Lags in Military Donors

RockRichard — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 21:06:03 GMT

The Charlotte Examiner has a great article contrasting the views of different military personnel and veterans as to who they support for President. The article hits both sides fairly well. What really comes through to me is that the Republicans cannot take the military vote for granted as they have in years past.

The most interesting fact, however is this: John McCain is losing the money race by more than $100,000 among donors who cite "military" as their occupation. The decimal places speak volumes as to the opinion of veterans on John McCain's lockstep policy agreement with the failed strategies of the current administration that has failed the military, its veterans, and the American people.

McCain's "Truth Squad" is Nom de Plume for "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth"

RockRichard — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 13:00:00 GMT

If you aren't listening to the P.O.T.U.S '08 channel on XM radio, you are really missing out. It's nonstop election coverage, 24/7. Everything from analysis, to speeches, to campaign conference calls. Today, they even had some schmuck named Brandon Friedman on.

I tuned into a John McCain conference call today while driving to the grocery store. Predictably, the call was no more than a reaction to General Wesley Clark being brave enough to point out that McCain's military service, in and of itself, does not qualify him to be President. Of course, the McCain "Truth Squad" mischaracterized General Clark's comments as an attack on the Senator's service, even though General Clark specifically noted that McCain was a hero of his.

What really caught my attention, though, was the name of Colonel Bud Day. Colonel Day, like John McCain, is a war hero. He spent several years sharing a prison cell in Hanoi with Senator McCain and was awarded the Medal of Honor. He appeared on the call as part of the "Truth Squad" to distort General Clark's comments. He also released a statement in support of the Senator:

Going 'downtown' to Hanoi was absolutely the most dangerous enterprise anyone could be involved in, in 1967. It was the most heavily defended city in the world and no one who had been downtown, no one who had been in a Vietnamese prison, no one who fought combat in Vietnam will ever question John McCain's warrior credentials. This backhanded slap against John of not being a worth y warrior because he just got shot down is one of the more surprising insults in my military history.

General Clark of course did not attack McCain's "warrior credentials" or call him an "unworthy warrior". He challenged his Presidential credentials and suggested that being a "worthy warrior" does not alone make him worthy to be President.

Colonel Day's name may sound familiar to you for another reason. Watch this video, specifically the 38 second mark:

That's Colonel Day appearing in a deplorable Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad that was run against Senator John Kerry in the 2004 Presidential campaign. The ad was later proven to be false.

Just after Colonel Day, you'll see Commander Paul Galanti. What's notable about Commander Galanti? First of all, according to his own website, Commander Galanti chaired McCain's 2000 election campaign in Virginia. Commander Galanti also released a statement for the McCain campaign distorting the comments of General Clark:

It is clear that Barack Obama, by allowing his campaign to attack the service of John McCain, will say and do anything to get elected.

Once again, General Clark never attacked Senator McCain's service. See for yourself:

I'm beating a dead horse that has been beat plenty on this site already, but it is a point that needs to be made. General Clark even went as far as calling McCain one of his heroes and never once came close to attacking McCain's service. We all here have served, yet how many among us have had the necessary experiences and possess the requisite knowledge to be President of the United States (disclaimer: do not use the previous eight years in making this judgment)?

Now here is the kicker: these two war heroes, and war heroes they are, who openly lied about and attacked the service of John Kerry and who are now attaching themselves to the hip of Senator McCain were condemned by the same Senator McCain in 2004:

"I deplore this kind of politics. I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable," McCain told the Associated Press. "As it is, none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crew have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam. I think George Bush served honorably in the Texas National Guard during the Vietnam War. "It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me," he said, referring to accusations from Bush surrogates during the 2000 GOP primary fight that McCain had betrayed veterans. McCain is supporting Bush's re-election and is serving as the president's campaign chairman in the senator's home state of Arizona. McCain said he hoped that President Bush had no role in "such a cheap stunt" and urged the Bush campaign to condemn the ad.

John McCain, Bud Day and Paul Galanti are all war heroes. As is General Clark who returned from Vietnam after receiving four bullet wounds. The difference is that while General Clark reasonably questioned a political candidates ability to lead a nation, John McCain welcomed into his flock two dishonest, deplorable political operatives who he previously described as "dishonorable".

Veterans Respond to General Clark's Comments

Brandon Friedman — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 02:33:38 GMT

We've heard from the pundits, the "strategists," and the politicians all day long on Wesley Clark's recent comments.

That said, I've been terribly disappointed by the Democratic "strategists" who've fallen all over themselves in order to talk about how sacred military service is--specifically John McCain's--and how awful General Wesley Clark's comments were, even though not one "strategist" that I've listened to today has ever served a minute in uniform. These ignorant, knee-jerking consultants on TV have been in an apparent race to concede ultimate authority on military matters to John McCain and the Republican Party since Sunday night. It's disgusting. And these concessions have been so over-the-top destructive to our long-term plans for running the country, that I'm not even sure where to begin.

The bottom line is this: If Democrats tuck tail and run from Republicans in this instance, we run the risk of ceding authority on military issues to John McCain for the rest of the campaign. Whether you like Clark or not, everyone has an interest in defending him vigorously in this case. We cannot allow the Right and the media to get away with trashing the first guy to come out in prime time to slam McCain's military "expertise." If our organizations don't defend Clark as being right in this case, we give in to the idea that Republicans are the parents in terms of national defense, and Democrats are the children--something those on the Right will be more than happy to reinforce.

This idea that we can't question someone's expertise on military matters simply because they served could very easily become the next "whoever is against the war is unpatriotic" mantra. And that's not something I'm prepared to accept.

That said, one group we really haven't heard much from today is the group that's actually served in Iraq and Afghanistan. But that changes now.

Here are a handful of the messages we've received at VoteVets.org since this morning. Judge for yourselves what the troops who are left-of-center think about this whole deal.

General Clark was right. Service as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces is only one of the roles of a president. General Clark did not attack Senator McCain's ability to be president, he simply pointed out that his military service does not inherently qualify him for that role.
Chris LeJeune
Salt Lake City, UT
Iraq Veteran
Army
2003-04

General Clark is right. We should honor the service of any veteran who has suffered in war, but I don't think that in itself qualifies one to be the Commander-in-Chief. And that's the point General Clark was making. He wasn't attacking Senator McCain personally, and anyone who says otherwise is being disingenuous.
Patrick Almand
Dallas, TX
Iraq Veteran
Army
2004-05

General Clark is on point in his comments about Senator McCain. There are many fine leaders in the military. Some--like Senator McCain--have persevered through the most terrible of circumstances. They are all heroes, but they do not necessarily possess the skills to lead the free world. If Senator McCain really wants to show his Commander-in-Chief credentials, perhaps he should start advocating for a sound national security strategy, rather than marching in the proverbial formation of eight years of failed Bush administration policy.
Richard Smith
Huntsville, AL
Afghanistan Veteran
Army
2007-08

Combat veterans understand that General Clark did not denigrate Senator McCain's honorable service to this nation. In fact, it's Senator McCain's lack of support for the troops--like his opposition to the new GI Bill until recently--which dishonors and dismisses the selfless sacrifices made by our brave men and women in uniform. General Clark understands these things and is never hesitant to speak out about them. General Clark has our back and I have his.
Ernesto Estrada
San Francisco, CA
Iraq Veteran
Marine Corps
2003

General Clark's criticism is accurate and well-founded. No one is disputing the fact that Senator McCain served his nation with honor, and I am forever grateful for his sacrifice. That being said, the question at hand is whether the senator's military service alone qualifies him to serve as Commander-in-Chief. Despite Senator McCain's horrific experiences in Vietnam, during his tenure in the Senate, he has been a staunch advocate of the disastrous war in Iraq and the Bush administration's failed foreign policy. Senator McCain did not support the Webb-Hagel G.I. Bill or the dwell-time amendment, either of which would have reduced some measure of the emotional and financial stress on active duty service members and veterans. General Clark was not attacking John McCain's military service--he was questioning whether he learned anything from that experience.
Casey Howard
Colorado Springs, CO
Iraq Veteran
Army
2005-06

In no way has General Clark questioned the honorable service or the patriotism of Captain McCain. Rather, he questioned the judgment of Senator McCain who has foolishly endorsed the failed neo-conservative foreign policy of the Bush administration.
Peter Granato
Washington, DC
Iraq Veteran
Army
2003-04

General Clark needs to be making these comments. Its the only way to get through the free pass the media is giving John McCain because of his honorable service as a POW.
Elliot Anderson
Las Vegas, NV
Afghanistan Veteran
Marine Corps
2004-05

General Clark and John McCain are both equally honorable patriots. However, if we can't have an honest and open debate about policy and military experiences, then the significance of this campaign will be greatly diminished. This is something on which John McCain has based his entire campaign and, therefore, General Clark was totally justified in pointing it out.
David Brignac
Baton Rouge, LA
Afghanistan Veteran
Army
2006-07

As a third-generation Army veteran, I've been fortunate to know many admirable men and women with service in the Armed Forces, but I'm also rational enough to understand that military service alone is not a qualification to be President of the United States . Having the foresight to avoid unnecessary wars and the compassion to fund health care and education for returning veterans is also essential; unfortunately, Senator McCain seems to focus solely on sending troops to war while ignoring other problems facing our nation. With American jobs going overseas, home values plummeting, and our nation's educational and health care programs under-funded, we need a national strategy focused on resolving our problems both home and abroad. While John McCain's Veteran and POW status makes him a hero to me and many others, his background in no way qualifies him to tackle the challenges facing our country.
Aaron Bailey
Ann Arbor, MI
Afghanistan Veteran
Army
2007

To attack General Clark for stating what should be obvious -- that military service alone does not automatically qualify one to be Commander in Chief or President -- is ridiculous. Some of our most successful presidents have not served in the armed forces. President Bush did fly a plane in the military -- and his record as Commander-in-Chief has been disastrous. While everyone should respect the service and sacrifice of John McCain (which General Clark did), this respect must not be a gag on honest questions or open debate.
Kayla Williams, Author of Love My Rifle More than You
Broadlands, VA
Iraq Veteran
Army
2003-04

General Clark's comments were taken completely out of context by the media. He never questioned McCain's service to the nation. He only repeated the words of the reporter asking the questions. General Clark is one of the most qualified voices in the debate over U.S. foreign policy, and it would be a huge loss for the pro-military crowd if his voice were silenced over this nonsense.
Peter O'Brien
Boston, MA
Iraq and Afghanistan Veteran
Army
2001-03

General Clark is right. Gen. Clark has seen combat as a company commander in Vietnam as well as the commanding General in Kosovo. If anyone knows that military service alone does not qualify one to be the President of the United States, General Clark is it.
Brian McGough
Broadlands, VA
Iraq, and Afghanistan Veteran
Army
2001-03

My fiance and I both served with the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault). He was infantry and served two tours in Iraq, I was a public affairs specialist (journalist, photographer). Like many, we both saw a lot of death and destruction. As a result, we are both strong opponents of Senator John McCain, as are many of our fellow veterans. We were so relieved to see General Clark say publicly what so many of us who served in uniform have been thinking. Not only do we fundamentally oppose Senator McCain's view on the war, but we are appalled by his constant commitment to voting against, or abstaining from voting, bills that would improve the welfare of service members and veterans.
No one disputes that Senator McCain served honorably in the Navy and is to be commended for his actions. He is truly an American war hero. But these events occurred 40 years ago and the circumstances under which he served in Vietnam (both in the country and under military regulations) are very different from those faced by service members serving in Iraq and Afghanistan today. Americans should be looking at his current record--and not lingering on his past one to see just how much he understands about this war and how committed he is to this country's troops.
Linsay Rousseau Burnett and Robert Huddleston
Clarksville, TN
Iraq Veterans
Army
2003-04 and 2005-06

General Wesley Clark is the leader of veterans in the progressive movement. As such, he will defend himself and other, like-minded veterans will defend him--publicly. All parties interested in having the support of the military support should take note.

Clark Refuses to Back Down

Brandon Friedman — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:43:04 GMT

I just received this statement via email from a spokesperson person for General Clark:

Statement by General Wesley K. Clark (Ret.)
"There are many important issues in this Presidential election, clearly one of the most important issues is national security and keeping the American people safe. In my opinion, protecting the American people is the most important duty of our next President. I have made comments in the past about John McCain's service and I want to reiterate them in order be crystal clear. As I have said before I honor John McCain's service as a prisoner of war and a Vietnam Veteran. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. I would never dishonor the service of someone who chose to wear the uniform for our nation.
"John McCain is running his campaign on his experience and how his experience would benefit him and our nation as President. That experience shows courage and commitment to our country - but it doesn't include executive experience wrestling with national policy or go-to-war decisions. And in this area his judgment has been flawed - he not only supported going into a war we didn't have to fight in Iraq, but has time and again undervalued other, non-military elements of national power that must be used effectively to protect America But as an American and former military officer I will not back down if I believe someone doesn't have sound judgment when it comes to our nation's most critical issues."

Defending Wes Clark

Lt. General Robert G. Gard Jr. (USA, Ret.) — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:01:40 GMT

The controversy over my colleague General Wesley Clark's comments on John McCain have generated a lot of media comment, much of it negative. I have known General Clark for many years: we served in the same Army and for the same country. He's a patriot. So to suppose that somehow Wesley Clark would denigrate John McCain's service to his country, while praising his bravery during the time that Senator McCain spent in an enemy prison, is absolutely ludicrous. So let's check the facts.

On CBS's "Face the Nation," General Clark said that he believed John McCain was "untried and untested." Journalist Bob Schieffer asked him to explain what he meant. How could Clark make such a claim when "you're talking about somebody who was a prisoner of war? He was a squadron commander of the largest squadron in the Navy. He's been on the Senate Armed Services Committee for lo these many years. How can you say that John McCain is un-untested and untried?" And here's General Clark's answer:

Because in the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk. It's a matter of gauging your opponents, and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility.

As a retired military officer and a soldier who served his country for over thirty years, I can tell you that there's nothing in what Wes Clark said with which I disagree. He has not only stated the facts, he knows something about them. John McCain was a prisoner of war, an officer who served as a squadron commander, and has been and is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. John McCain can put his service to country up against anyone's. But General Clark has served also -- and with great courage: he was wounded four times in Vietnam -- and like John McCain, he has met and seen the enemy.

Is what Wesley Clark said true? Let's check some other facts: John McCain made claims about progress in security by walking through the streets of Baghdad. But as I recall, he was protected by at least a platoon of American soldiers and helicopters lying overhead. In matters of national security, as General Clark pointed out, "it's a matter of understanding risk," and it's "gauging your opponents;" and it's also a "matter of being held accountable."

So I too honor John McCain. And, like General Clark, I acknowledge his sacrifice for his country. But being a prisoner of the Vietnamese and serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee does not automatically qualify one for the position of Commander-in-Chief -- understanding risks, gauging your opponents and being held accountable does. We must end this glib obeisance to sacrifice and ask deeper questions: is a man who sings "bomb, bomb, bomb ... bomb, bomb Iran" a man who understands risks? Is a man who says that we must keep our troops in Iraq until we achieve an ill-defined "victory" really know how to gauge America's opponents. If we want to hold people accountable, then let's stand behind my friend Wes Clark -- and hold John McCain accountable for what he's said.

Oh, and one more thing: today President Bush signed the GI Bill --which Senator Barack Obama has unstintingly supported . The bill will spend $63 billion over ten years for increased college aid for military service members and veterans who served after September 11, 2001. Good judgment?

John McCain opposed it.

Lt. General Robert G. Gard Jr. (USA, Ret.) is the steering committee chairman of Vets for Obama. Visit their official site or join them on Facebook.

VoteVets Petitions Clark; Asks Him Not to Back Down

Brandon Friedman — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:39:38 GMT

VoteVets.org started a petition this afternoon asking its members to thank General Clark for his remarks, while at the same time asking him not to back down. We need all the signatures we can get. You can sign the petition by clicking here.

Bush thanks McCain for Passing Expanded G.I. Bill After Bush and McCain Oppose G.I. Bill Expansion

RockRichard — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:25:46 GMT

No rest for the ridiculous:

Now in all fairness, we should thank President Bush. He did, this morning, sign the bill which contained the GI Bill update that we have all worked so hard for. Congratulations to all of you. Make sure you use those benefits. You've earned them!

The signature, however, comes only after over a year of political maneuvering and arm twisting. I'd estimate that the President only signed it because he knew it was the only way this lame duck would get his war funding. Don't be misled by The Decider's rhetoric: he opposed this bill from the start. So did several other Senators. Notable on that list are three Veterans who have obviously forsaken their own: Senators Graham (R-SC), Burr (R-NC) and, you guessed it, McCain (R-AZ). This dubious gang of three actually tried to make an election year issue out a bill they introduced which was worse than the previously introduced Webb-Hagel G.I. Bill. That's right. The man who wants to lead the free world was openly displaying what I like to call "leadership through regression".

Which is why the President's thank you list is curious to me. Of the five Senators Bush thanked, three of them opposed the GI Bill he signed into law today. McCain was not even present for the vote, refusing to put his name behind the principle he had previously championed: defeat of substantially increased education benefits for Veterans. In case you were wondering, the only other Senator to miss this vote is recovering from brain surgery.

ThinkProgress has more details.

UPDATE: Forget to mention this: conspicuously absent is Bush's thank yous was Senator Hagel, a Republican who has repeatedly criticized Bush and was with Senator Webb on this since the beginning. Another example of this President playing politics on Veterans' issues.

Prominent Blogs Rallying around Clark, Scolding Media

Brandon Friedman — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:54:14 GMT

While the media continues to forward McCain talking points to America about General Wesley Clark's recent remarks, prominent political blogs have begun to push back. The following have each offered up a sturdy defense of Clark, showing that, if nothing else, the netroots will not be browbeaten by the McCain campaign--or by certain political "strategists"--on the topic of national defense:

Daily Kos
Talking Points Memo
MyDD

Jon Soltz has added his defense on The Huffington Post, and we have two pieces here on VetVoice.

UPDATE: More from:

Eschaton
Media Matters
Open Left
Firedoglake

More should follow. . . .

"We are marked."

Brandon Friedman — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:29:24 GMT

If you've ever served in combat--or if you're close to someone who has--you need to read this piece in yesterday's Washington Post.

John McCain is Not the Moral Authority on War

Brandon Friedman — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:26:06 GMT

As we begin the work of counteracting those attacking General Wesley Clark (Ret.) for daring to say that John McCain's experience in Vietnam doesn't qualify him to be the Commander-in-Chief, let's not forget that Clark, too, returned home from Vietnam on a stretcher after being shot four times.

John McCain served honorably, he endured pain that few in this country can imagine, and his life was turned upside down--forever. But he is not the only American to have suffered in a war. Clark returned with grievous injuries, as have thousands of troops who've served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

John McCain's service to the nation during Vietnam was admirable, but it made him no more qualified to be President than any other young officer who has returned from Iraq paralyzed from the neck down.

John McCain knows things about war that civilians can never know. He has sacrificed more and suffered more than most Americans ever will. John McCain is a war veteran. Just like the rest of us.

The media needs to understand this.