In logic, conflation is the error of treating two distinct concepts as if they were one. We witnessed a perfect example of this in the press treatment of the Wesley Clark statement regarding John McCain. Asked on the Sunday morning program Face The Nation, hosted by Bob Sheiffer whether John McCain's military experience qualified him to become president, General Clark (a pro military guy himself) responded that flying jets, getting shot down, being a POW were not necessarily presidential qualifications.
The aghast Sheiffer demanded an explanation, wherein Clark explained the differences between policy setting, planning and administration and following orders. He never disparaged McCain's courage, patriotism, or honesty.
McCain's people were outraged. How could anyone question McCain's military record? By yesterday evening, Obama was distancing himself from Clark.
I am perplexed. Why can't Obama (or some journalist) simply point out that Clark never attacked McCain's patriotism or courage? The comments about the qualifications for president were restricted to whether combat military service was pertinent to the job as commander in chief. (If so, maybe they should have nominated Colin Powell.)
But some conservatives have been very successful in raising conflation to a conversational art. Let anyone utter a word of dissention from the party line and their patriotism is called into question. This flap is proof that the mix of disinformation and moral clarity creates a potent brew.
2 comments:
You say: “General Clark (a pro military guy himself) responded that [John McCain’s] flying jets, getting shot down, being a POW were not necessarily presidential qualifications.” You should check back. I think he said “riding in a plane, etc.” Wes (his nom de guerre) could not have been more dismissive. Your other point is however correct, this is not executive experience. But then, who said it was? I wish you would stop flacking for such metrosexuals as Wes Clark and those other talking heads who are vying to become Barak Obama’s butt boys. (Yes, this is dismissive of Bill Clinton’s little general who was promoted far beyond his level of competency so to do Slick Willy’s bidding. I wish I could be even more so.)
Your quibble with the precise wording of the quote does little to advance any arguement against my characterization of the statement. I repeat: He (Clark) never disparaged McCain's courage, patriotism, or honesty. Your attack is perplexing.
You ask "Who says that [McCain's] military experience qualifies him for the office of president." Answer: McCain! Click this:
http://www.johnmccain.com/service/service.htm?sid=google&t=service
Post a Comment