Media hypocrisy re: Kerry and McCain's military service

College Confidential Community
1

<p>I usually don't like to complain about the media because that's a loser's game, but I have to comment about the outrageous media hypocrisy regarding the military service of John McCain with regards to how they treated John Kerry's service 4 years ago.</p>

<p>For those of you who do not know, Gen. Wesley Clark went on a few shows in the past couple of weeks questioning the validity of McCain's claim that having been a POW makes him uniquely qualified to be a commander-in-chief. Clark made the perfectly reasonable (and perhaps correct) argument that having had your plane shot at 40 years ago does not imbue you with diplomatic and tactical prowess. ESPECIALLY if the said person whose plane was shot at was so fundamentally wrong on the most important foreign policy decision of our generation: Iraq.</p>

<p>But the media is now in a frenzy over the audacity of a 4-star general who was a former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO to question Big John on military matters. John McCain fought in a war. And he's a white man. And he's conservative. Thus, he has the necessary trifecta of what "military credentials" actually mean in America. </p>

<p>Flash back to 2004, when John Kerry, who by all means was also a hero in Vietnam, was maliciously smeared by blatant lies by paid-off partisan veterans, the media did nothing to help him. They gleefully joined in on tearing him down and hardly even questioned the veracity and motives of his attackers. Where was their sense of protecting military honour back then?</p>

2

<p>They still valued military heros back then, they just naturally assumed that a liberal could never, in fact, be a military hero, and so drew the conclusion that Kerry was not a military hero, but rather a subversive operative working for the Russians. (Notice when you rearrange the letters of John Forbes Kerry, you get noneother than Korfrex Osbehn!! . . . Kinda sounds Russian).</p>

3

<p>No the fact of the matter, is that McCain was in a POW camp for five years when bc of his father he could have been released. In addition the claims that clark made were non sensical he states, that McCain in not qualified bc he lead the largest troop group in Vietnam and also stayed and was tortured for his men, and that leads to the question if that didn't qualify McCain then Obama isn't qualified to run a high school bc he has absolutely no executive experience. That is different, bc Clark wasn't there with McCain in that plane, but the swift boat ppl were ppl who said they served with Kerry and questioned his service. There is a big difference.</p>

4

<p>The difference comes in the fact that Clark states McCain isn't qualified bc he was shot down, tortured for five years, and lead (if I am not mistaken) the largest troop unit in Vietnam. If McCain isn't qualified, then Obama shouldn't run anything bc he has NO executive experience, and it is a shame that he is the candidate for the republicans a 1 term senator, who has no executive experience, wow how politics have changed ;)!</p>

5

<p>Sorry about the double post it was a mistake.</p>

6

<p>Honestly, I see it as the media taking the easy way out both times. Any political bias aside (it's possible that it played a role, but it probably wasn't the crucial factor), it's simpler and more sensationalistic to attack someone than to get an accurate understanding of what really happened and/or examining both sides of the issue.</p>

<p>Simply put, it was probably quicker, easier, and more likely to get good ratings (in their mind) for the media to jump on the Swift Boat scandal without fact-checking the claims made. Similarly, a fair reporting job on General Clark's comments would have ideally led to a collective examining of this issue: does McCain's military experience alone make him more qualified than Obama, who has none? But it was simply easier to attack Clark for his comments, and probably garnered ratings that more thoughtful coverage supposedly wouldn't have. I agree fully that the media didn't do what it should have in either case, but I wouldn't be so sure that an outright conservative bias is to blame.</p>

7

<p>Another thing is the rhetoric he used he said: "Riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down does not qualify you to be commander in chief."
That diction has a certain irrevant connotation and therefore has a sense that he is demeaning and belittling a very honorable thing that John McCain did.</p>

8

<p>
[quote]
No the fact of the matter, is that McCain was in a POW camp for five years when bc of his father he could have been released.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What are you talking about? Don't you know that McCain withheld his identity from the Viet Cong because if they knew who he was, they would've killed him? So the Viet Cong sure as hell weren't going to free him because of who is father was; quite the opposite, really. </p>

<p>
[quote]
McCain in not qualified bc he lead the largest troop group in Vietnam

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'd like to see some proof. </p>

<p>When Schieffer said that McCain was the leader of some squadron, Clark pointed out that it wasn't a wartime squadron. And why the hell would the military give McCain any wartime command when he was like the 5th worst student at West Point (unlike Clark, who was the valedictorian)? </p>

<p>
[quote]
if that didn't qualify McCain then Obama isn't qualified to run a high school bc he has absolutely no executive experience.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Obama has never claimed he has had any executive experience. As Clark repeatedly states in defiance to the willful ignorance of some stupid conservatives, Obama is running on his judgment (i.e. Iraq), character (i.e. not flip-flopping on things like taxes, diplomatic approaches, and quite frankly, not being Bush (something McCain struggles with).</p>

<p>
[quote]
That is different, bc Clark wasn't there with McCain in that plane, but the swift boat ppl were ppl who said they served with Kerry and questioned his service. There is a big difference.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Those "objective witnesses" had very dubious accounts and more than a handful of them were paid-off partisans who actually never were there with Kerry during the actions they accused him of doing. In contrast, Clark is a 4-star general who was a former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO who successfully engineered an American campaign in Kosovo that had 0 American casualties.</p>

<p>The big question is this: do you believe that having your plane shot at is an unquestionable merit of qualification for being president, worthy of excoriation if even the slightest hint of the contrary is even dare uttered?</p>

9

<p>
[quote]
And why the hell would the military give McCain any wartime command when he was like the 5th worst student at West Point (unlike Clark, who was the valedictorian)?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>McCain went to Annapolis, not West Point. Army=different than Navy. </p>

<p>Aside from being a POW, McCain was nearly killed when his plane was hit by a stray rocket while aboard the USS Forrestal. IIRC, dozens of other sailors on the ship weren't so lucky. </p>

<p>Kerry got a few scratches on a boat in Nam. McCain spent YEARS in the Hanoi Hilton. Kerry came back from Vietnam and protested with Jane Fonda. McCain did nothing of the sort. That is the difference.</p>

10

<p>
[quote]
McCain went to Annapolis, not West Point. Army=different than Navy.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>My mistake. However, the key point is that McCain was the class dunce, so to speak. Ain't no general in the world gonna put him in any executive position of command.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Aside from being a POW, McCain was nearly killed when his plane was hit by a stray rocket while aboard the USS Forrestal. IIRC, dozens of other sailors on the ship weren't so lucky.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Wes Clark was also gravely wounded in Vietnam. Or does his liberal values "heal" those wounds?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Kerry got a few scratches on a boat in Nam. McCain spent YEARS in the Hanoi Hilton. Kerry came back from Vietnam and protested with Jane Fonda. McCain did nothing of the sort. That is the difference.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Who are you to say that Kerry "got a few scratches"? Were you there with him on the Mekong? Have you done anything as half as remotely as patriotic as John Kerry did when he volunteered to serve in Vietnam despite the wide availability of deferrals and other chickenhawk ****?</p>

<p>So protesting the war was unpatriotic? Kerry was no draft dodger either; he actually served there, saw with his own eyes the error of the war, and stated his mind. But I suppose in your view, admitting to mistakes is unpatriotic and unmacho.</p>

11

<p>
[quote]
No the fact of the matter, is that McCain was in a POW camp for five years when bc of his father he could have been released. In addition the claims that clark made were non sensical he states, that McCain in not qualified bc he lead the largest troop group in Vietnam and also stayed and was tortured for his men, and that leads to the question if that didn't qualify McCain then Obama isn't qualified to run a high school bc he has absolutely no executive experience.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The Kerry and McCain situations are TOTALLY different (tho the media, going for the LOWEST denominator and big headlines choose not to see the difference).</p>

<p>The Swiftboat guys totally attacked Kerry’s character and actions during his time of service.</p>

<p>Clark did not impugn McCain’s service and instead, just merely stated that serving or being a POW doesn’t qualify one to be President – in which he is totally correct.</p>

<p>How many Americans have served and/or been POWs? Millions. Does/did that make them qualified to be President? </p>

<p>And for the record, McCain has no executive experience as well.</p>

<p>The closest either candidate has to executive experience is running their campaigns.</p>

<p>Obama, by all accounts, has hired and managed his campaign staff and strategy brilliantly – beating a candidate who had all the advantages and that all the pundits thought had the nomination in the bag.</p>

<p>McCain’s campaign, otoh, has been less than impressive.</p>

<p>Furthermore, for someone who touts his military and foreign policy “expertise” – he was totally wrong in thinking that the Iraq conflict would be “quick and easy”. </p>

<p>Evidently, he didn’t learn much from his Annapolis military history classes (long insurgencies are to be expected in such conflicts) or from his experience in Vietnam for that matter.</p>

12

<p>
[quote]
Evidently, he didn’t learn much from his Annapolis military history

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Probably because he was one of the dumbest students in his class.</p>

13

<p>Really one of the dumbest? Who are you to speak ill of someone, and as anyone in their right mind can attest it is not your intelligence that makes you succesfull it is your hard work and dedication, of which is wholefully more important in a leader (especially with strong advisors).</p>