July 04, 2008

Another disgusting Philly Inquirer op-ed

The Inquirer does it again. This time, just in time for Independence Day, they defend Wes Clark's recent disparaging comments again John McCain, all the while blasting Obama for not defending Clark, and, of course, omitting Clark's hypocrisy:

The real Barack Obama would not have so quickly disowned Gen. Wesley Clark for simply telling the truth: Surviving five years in a prisoner-of-war camp, while admirable, does not by itself qualify John McCain to be commander in chief.

Unlike what many news outlets have reported, Clark, on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday, did not question either McCain's heroism or patriotism. In fact, Clark said flat-out that McCain had been one of his own heroes during Vietnam.

Oh, right. Clark "did not question either McCain's heroism or patriotism." He just implied that McCain is incompetent: "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president." Y'see, McCain didn't pilot the plane according to Clark; he was just "riding" in it. And then he had to go and get himself shot down! What good "plane rider" does that, right?

It's an opinion that Wesley Clark is uniquely qualified to express. Like McCain, Clark is a war hero: In 1970 Vietnam, after being grievously wounded in battle, Clark directed his men in a victorious counterattack, earning a Silver Star for bravery.

Yet, unlike McCain, Clark also has had extensive experience in the upper echelons of the military as the supreme allied commander in Europe and NATO from 1997 to 2000.

So Clark knows the difference between what it takes to show personal courage on the battlefield (or a POW camp) and the skill and experience necessary to conceive of and execute successful military strategy.

He's done it all. John McCain has not.

That may be. Funny, then, that Clark praised John Kerry four years ago -- Kerry, whose military experience was substantially less than that of John McCain. Clark said of Kerry:

War. War. I’ve been there. So has John Kerry. I’ve heard the thump of enemy mortars. I’ve seen the tracers fly. Bled on the battlefield. Recovered in hospitals. Received and obeyed orders. Sent men and women into battle. Awarded medals, comforted families, attended funerals.

He’s seen the flash of the tracers. He’s lived the values of service and sacrifice. In the Navy, as a prosecutor, as a senator, he proved his physical courage under fire. And he’s proved his moral courage too.

And John Kerry knows that members of our armed forces embody the best of America’s values: service, sacrifice, courage, compassion.

He knows that the members in the armed forces are serving to build something greater than themselves. They’re serving to build something worth fighting for. They’re serving to build something worth dying for.

John Kerry knows that the men and women who serve and our veterans are a company of heroes. And everyone who fights for the best in American life is also a hero: firemen, police officers, teachers and so many others.

I say to you tonight: John Kerry’s time to lead this company of heroes has arrived. Right here, right now, in this town, tonight, from this place, we set out together to put our country back on track to security and freedom and opportunity.

America, hear this soldier.

So, basically, all Kerry's military experience enabled him to do (according to Clark) was to "know" what the military is all about. That was sufficient for Clark to recommend Kerry for president four years ago. But now, somehow, McCain's decades of experience is ... insufficient for the land's highest office.

The Inquirer then goes on to note that Clark is a "hero" for his role in commanding troops in Kosovo:

The 1999 battle of Kosovo that Wesley Clark directed is the most successful American military endeavor in the last half-century: It saved the Albanians in that province from an actual threat - genocide - while incurring not a single American casualty. Not one.

I wonder if the Inquirer was railing against the "illegality" of the Kosovo campaign in 1999. Even Clark himself allowed that the war was "technically illegal" because the UN Security Council didn't approve it. Of course, contrariwise, Clark a few years later complained that the Iraq War is illegal!

And I wonder why the Inquirer cleverly omitted the fact that Clark was dismissed from his command for the very thing they praise him for -- judgment?

Wes was NATO Commander and running things in Kosovo, when for one of the very first times we worked directly with Russian troops in a peace-keeping role. Gen. Clark inaugurated our inaugural operation with a new ally, by ordering a British General to militarily interdict the Russians as they attempted to occupy the airport they believed they were to safeguard and operate from. Wes had other ideas and absent Gen. Mike Jackson of the British Army, he would have picked a fight with a country we had just ended 40 years of Cold War with. I can hardly emphasize the tremendously poor judgment that would put a nascent relationship with the most dangerous nation we have ever had a beef with in jeopardy. At most it was an administrative dispute about which units from the same team would handle which sectors, Clark escalated things in a way that showed his complete unsuitability for great responsibility.

See here for more on the incident.

Lastly, the Inquirer attempts to tie in Iraq directly to McCain's supposed incompetence in foreign policy:

Compare that to John McCain's war in Iraq. Waged against a trumped-up threat of weapons of mass destruction, it has accomplished nothing, but at a terrible cost: the lives of thousands of American soldiers, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, environmental and economic devastation.

Ah yes. "Trumped up" even though practically everybody -- here and abroad -- believed Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs. "Accomplished nothing," despite the fact that millions of Iraqis are free of a despotic ruler (somehow, it was OK to utilize US forces to yank Slobodan Milošević in Kosovo ... must be because it was "free" of American casualties); and cripes, what war doesn't entail "environmental and economic devastation?" Unreal.

To the Inquirer, Iraq is McCain's war because he supported it and still does; however, they conveniently forget McCain's frequent criticism (see here, among myriad other links) of the way the war has been handled since day one.

The genius editors conclude by expressing the desire that Wes Clark "lead us in battle again - a political battle this time." What does this mean? Obama should give him the VP spot? Keep Clark on the offensive as an Obama surrogate? Yeah, that'll surely work -- 'cause Clark sure is offensive.

Good luck.

(Thanks to the ever-vigilant Gooch for the tip!)

Posted by Hube at July 4, 2008 11:40 AM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

How can I say this Hube?

The liberal democrats can't seem to help themselves. They keep selecting unlikeable, unelectable, weasels as their "veteran" standard bearers. I.E. Al Bore, John Kerry, Wes Clark, etc.

As to the Inquirer, I am conflicted - I want to cancel my paid subscription to punish the far-left liberal, America-hating scum like Satullo, Timpane, Heller and all the other liberal pukes like them who are sabotaging the new owner's chances for success. But I like getting a paper everyday.

Posted by: AJ Lynch at July 4, 2008 10:28 PM