"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 the 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. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn't a wartime squadron."
"I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president."
Now Republicans and media commentators are either saying or implying that Clark crossed over a line. He said something he shouldn't have said. He actually dared to say that being a fighter pilot, being shot down, and being a POW do not automatically qualify someone to be president. I don't care how long you have been a Republican, or how much you admire McCain for what he endured, you cannot disagree with what Clark said.
So why are some making it such a big deal?
Because this attacks McCain's strength? Perhaps.
Because in this country WAR is a sacrament and you can't criticize the high priests of war? Maybe.
Except....Republicans routinely criticize Democratic war heroes. Remember how John Kerry's service in Vietnam was attacked by the Swift Boat liars? Remember how Vietnam war hero and triple amputee Max Cleland was compared to Osama bin Laden just so he could be defeated in an election?
So does this mean in the sacrament of war, only Republicans are allowed to be high priests? Only Republicans are immune from criticism? Democrats may be war heroes, but unless they join the Republican Party they are only war heroes in their own minds?
Barack Obama is consistent. Whenever he mentions John McCain, he always starts by honoring his service and heroism. Republicans, on the other hand, never speak with respect about Democratic warriors.
So if it takes another war hero, Wesley Clark, to say the obvious - being shot down and being a POW may make you heroic, but it doesn't qualify you to be president - then good for him.
We are choosing a president this year, not a general, not a pilot, not a war hero. Part of the job of the president is to be commander in chief of the armed services, which is a civilian role. And we have never, to my knowledge, elected a former POW as president.
The president is much more than just commander in chief, though, as much as the McCain folks would like you to forget that. The president must oversee the economy, the budget, foreign policy, and internal matters such as education, energy, healthcare, civil rights and urban problems. He must understand the Constitution, the way government works, something about economics, civil rights, agriculture, the environment, and America's relationship with the rest of the world.
Being shot down over Vietnam nearly forty years ago, and being held as a POW, may build a man's character, but it doesn't qualify you to handle any of these issues. Nor, for that matter, does it qualify you to be commander in chief.
