Lost in the hue and cry is the reality that he's right

Despite heavy criticism, Gen. Wesley Clark is standing by his statement this weekend that Sen. John MCain's military experience doesn't qualify him to be commander-in-chief.... "I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war," Clark said of McCain on Sunday. "But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded -- that wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall.".... That statement from Clark has come under withering criticism from McCain's campaign and was rejected by Sen. Barack Obama, both of whom (along with the media) distorted Clark's words by painting them as an attack on McCain's military service. (Notably, several U.S. veterans, including Iraq vet and VoteVets.org chairman Jon Soltz, and Lt. Gen. Robert Gard Jr. have come to Clark's defense.)

I've never made a secret of my admiration for Gen. Wesley Clark. The man may not be a flaming Liberal, but he is a Democrat with an impeccable and unblemished record of military service. When it comes security and military issues, no Republican could presume to hold Clark's jock. If anyone else had criticized McCain as Clark did, I might be convinced to go along with those heavily invested in criticizing and repudiating him. Here's the problem, though: I strongly believe that Clark was right. Though his criticism of McCain is not something that Sen. Barack Obama could reasonably get away with, and though Obama had little choice but to repudiate Clark, the point Clark made is spot on.

Yes, Sen. John McCain served his country ably and well. He endured five years as a POW in North Vietnam- a harrowing experience that no reasonable person would wish on their worst enemy. But does this qualify him to be Commander in Chief? Just because McCain flew a plane, got shot down, and spent five years in the Hanoi Hilton...well, how does that translate into executive experience? Sure, he knows firsthand the terrible realities of war. Few have lived and suffered those realities as Sen. McCain has. I salute him for the sacrifices he made and the suffering he endured. Nonetheless, I can't see how those horrific experiences translate to being qualified to be Commander in Chief.

If Sen. McCain is going to claim that his war experience makes him somehow more qualified to commit American soldiers to fight- and possibly die- for their country, he's going to have to expect that such claims will be carefully examined. Frankly, from where I sit, they don't hold water. OK, so Sen. McCain understands war in an up close and personal manner that Sen. Obama never will. I get that. Still, I fail to see how that ipso facto translates to McCain being more qualified to be Commander in Chief. Prior military experience, while certainly helpful, is no indication of future performance as Commander in Chief.

I applaud Gen. Clark for having the cojones to stand up and speak his mind. After all, if anyone has any credibility when it comes to committing Americans to combat, it's Clark. His criticism of Sen. McCain is spot on, and lost in the hue and cry of political correctness is the reality that he's right. Perhaps Gen. Clark's criticism wasn't the most politically astute thing he could have said, but I don't see how any could reasonably accuse him of being wrong. Because he's not...and the sooner Americans come to grips with this truth, the better of we, and our sons and daughters in uniform, will be.