Clark wasn't saying *anything* about McCain's war record. Unlike the Swift Boaters, who claimed Kerry's war record wasn't a lie.

All he was saying is that the war record, in an of itself, is not a major qualification to be commander-in-chief.

It's unfortunate that he had to go through it, and it's heroic that McCain was able to survive as he did. But that doesn't mean that experience is enough, in isolation of anything else, to make one the prime candidate for Commander-in-Chief.

It's too bad Obama is trying to play it safe, when a good explanation is all it needs. Obama looks bad here no matter what, but he'd look better if he tried to explain that it wasn't actually a disparagement.

rather, the Swift Boaters were saying Kerry's war record was a lie. Not "wasn't".

Love it about time some one stood up for what they believed.....Way to go I would like to see him in the cabinet in the spot of Sec of Defence........

Gen. Clark's comment is the first crack in the John McCain truth. I think that if we look at what happened to him we can see that anyone that has been a POW probably suffers from rage, bad temper and has a "Shoot First" attitude.

Great comment, Nick B,
I will add that the Republicans can splatter mud but can't take it. Did they condemn the swift boat lies?

I commend Wesley Clark for this intelligent analysis

Since when is OK to minimise one's military record? What exactly gives Clark the status and right to talk about McCain's record? Supporting Obama does not have to happen by minimizing McCain record of war hero. Why can't Clark just plain support Obama by showing us how and why Omaba is more qualifyed than McCain? And what makes Obama qualifyied for POTUS? So stop attaking McCain - tell us why your man would be a better POTUS

Eric: A lot of people got shot down over Hanoi. It was one of the most dangerous places in the world to fly. It was before we had stealth to go in and knock out the anti air batteries before the major assault came. I am not saying we should vote for McCain because of his war record alone. But his courage in going back up to be shot down a third time should not be ignored, either. I don't think I would have had that kind of courage. And then to spend all those years in a POW camp - and the North Vietnamese knowing who his Dad was did not make it easy on him. I don't care who you vote for or why - though I hope its on issues. But your lack of respect for what McCain and many others went through saddens me.

It's true. Getting shot down does not qualify someone for the presidency, anymore than being an absentee senator from Illinois is a qualifier.

Clark for VP?

Who cares. I won't vote for either of the republicrat candidates. America needs a second party.

Clark the paper-pushing political general is cutting down the service record of a front-line soldier after defending Kerry's record?
What a partisan hack?

So let me get this straight...John "Vietnam" Kerry" was supposed to be off limits and you were condemned for questioning his military past. His military record screamed for clarification otherwise he wouldn't have been scrutinized as much as he was and still is. But since you've got a Dem General criticizing John McCain's record this is OK? And the best that BHO can do is say that he doesnt question his patriotism? And we're supposed be led to believe that BHO has better judgement? What a joke.

McCain's war record in and of itself doesn't make him an expert on foreign policy- I agree with that. But I don't believe that the Swift Boaters destroyed Kerry's candidacy. His antiwar activism was considered by many to be less than dignified long before he ran for president. Add that to all the other problems with him, and it's easy to see why he lost against a very weak incumbent. This independent will be voting Democrat in November, but I gotta tell you there's something I just don't like about Wesley Clark. You ever get those feelings about someone? You know, you just meet them and you take an immediate and visceral dislike? That's the way I feel about Clark.

It is pretty sad when disparaging someone's military service is acceptable. I didn't expect such poor judgment to be shown by a retired General. I am a 12 veteran and would rather have a President with some sort of experience in the military vs. one with no experience. I am sure our guys/gals in IRAQ feel their EXPERIENCE for this war is real experience. They don’t have to be in charge to have experience.

The general didn't minimise McCain's military record. All did was point out that his experiences in the services don't specially qualify him to be president.
Look at Eisenhower and Ulysses S Grant. They were soldier-presidents who served at the highest level, led whole armies and directed the conduct of entire wars. McCain is highly decorated and famed for what he went through, but he was a captain, not a five-star general. That's a naval captain, the equivalent of colonel, but it's still nowhere near the level of supreme commander. Or commander-in-chief. McCain is making his case based on his service as a senator, but some of his supporters on line seem to think he should be elected because he was a prisoner of war. I agree with General Clark that that is not a qualification for the position.

No one is doubting Sen.McCain's war record or loyalty. Gen. Clark has said nothing that I haven't also thought. I am concerned that McCain is 71 years old. He has attempted becoming republican nominee before...but didn't succeed. He is confused when making statements & Sen. Lieberman has had to correct him more than once Ive noticed. His obvious rage in the Senate is not news to Congress. I can't see him being a mediator if he were president.

Well, he is right. I mean, being a general sure as crap didnt help him with his presidential bid! HAHA. But on the flip side, if McCains military service, and long years as a senior senator doesnt qualify him, can I pose the question of, then what in sam hell makes his candidate Obama more qualified? Only 3 years as senator?

Klippa- I think you nailed it. McCain might make an excellent president, but his war record in and of itself is not a qualification for the presidency.

Remember, as many innocent were being tortured to death, Wesley Clark was switching caps with Bosnian Serb General Ratko Mladic and yuking it up for the cameras. Mladic is and was a fugitive war criminal. That's the kind of judgement Wesley Clark has!

So Carolyn, you'd like our president to wear dress uniforms to show their military past....

So being a banana republic with a military leadership is what you think this country needs....

No you need non-military men in the Whitehouse who use military power as a last resort... Unlike the current chimp in chief.

Everyone here who keeps talking about experience- some of our finest presidents (think Lincoln, jut for one) had less experience than Obama. Other qualities are at least as important. Power tends to corrupt.

I lost a lot of friends and family in vietnam, and I don't think of McCain as a Hero just because he was a POW. There were many POW's there. Clark did not insult his war record, he just stated his opinion. This is still a free country with freedom of speech. I happen to agree with Clark. McCain may have other good reasons he should be president, but being a POW isn't one of them.