is a man who sings "bomb, bomb, bomb ... bomb, bomb Iran" a man who understands risks?

Loving it!

Now that the Obama campaign has disassociated itself from Clark's comments here's hoping Clark will rally a group of 'veterans for the truth' to take it to McCain in ways that the Obama campaign can't.

Not to attack or distort McCain's service (which Clark did not)as the swiftboters did but to punch holes in the myth that his service automatically qualifies him as C-i-C and makes him immune from any criticism on national security.

I have a couple of friends who are highly decorated Vietnam Veterans. They were authentic hero's in the war and no doubt if called now they would give their lives for family or country and in a street fight I'd pick them to have my back but I would not trust either of them to run even a taco stand. I respect their service, courage and character but that doesn't magically qualify them for executive responsibility.

They should put up a 527 TV ad with McCain singing bomb, bomb, bomb Iran, making the 100 years comment and making the case that he has neither the temperament, judgment or experience to be C-i-C.

I'm glad to see at least a few Democrats have some spine. My first reaction to our running with our tails between our legs as soon as the media and the Gas & Oil Party took after Wes Clark was, "Oh, there we go again."

Remember: Wes Clark actually does have things named after him in greater Serbia. He must have some diplomacy skills. You think Iraq - Iran is bad? I'll wager the permutation of factions in Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia, Kosovo, etc. etc. makes our current situation look easy by comparison.

Here's something to think about: McCain has enough trouble keeping his facts straight between Al-Qaeda, Shias, Sunnis, al Sadr, and Iran. Just imagine if he had to give discourse on all the players in the Balkans.

Clark is answering questions from Robin ROberts with utmost clarity, refused to apologize for his comment, and explains very clearly that the comment came as a direct response to a question he was posed about that very scenario of McCain being on that plane shot down.

OBAMA, SHAME ON YOU. THERE IS NO NEED TO BE DEFENSIVE WHATSOEVER.

And I hope Hillary supporters and Obama supporters stop acting like blind idiots and start supporting what is right. Not what is convenient.

Hey Clark, I know about him:  He's was Commander in Charge in Bosnia who bombed the Chinese Embassay there, wronging killing a couple dozen Chinese.  For that goof, he was relieved of command.  He's a self serving, ambitious, back stabbing jerk.

Give me a break.

John McCain has NEVER used his time as a POW to explain his credentials to be commander in chief. In fact, he has been hesitant to talk about his time, unlike John Kerry who opened his acceptance speech at the 2004 DNC bragging about his time in Vietnam.

Even Obama's chief strategist admitted this morning on Morning Joe that McCain does not hold up his Vietnam experience as the reason he's qualified to be commander in chief.

No matter who you support, who should be able to acknowledge when your candidate or one of his surrogates makes a mistake. To question McCain's military service is insulting and DOES NOTHING to advance the real debate about issues that impact Americans. That's what Obama promised to talk about during his primary campaign. His surrogates should get the memo and stick to the message.

Case in point: Obama delivered a superb speech yesterday on patriotism, but it was all but eclipsed by Clark's comments. The general did not help Obama out. He only hurt him.

Why, it's almost as if there's some kind of strategy to have guys with military creds making these statements, while the candidate who lacks such creds stays out of it.  

Oh come one, McCain is quietly trumpeting his military service as his BEST reason to be CiC.  And it is not stated that former Navy Squadron Commander McCain is running for pres, it is Vietnam Vet and former POW McCain is running for Pres.  He is ABSOLUTELY running on his Vietnam credentials...as he should because it is the best he has to run on, not that it means much.

Yes, Clark bombed the Chinese Embassy and I for one think it was for good reason.  The Clintons were so tight with the Chinese that He knew he would be asked to step down and "fall on his sword" after doing it, but sometimes good soldiers do what is best for the country over what is best for them.  But considering how things turned out in the Balkans vs. how things turned out in Iraq...I knwo which general I would rather follow.

And I think this gives Clark the ability to show how GOOD of a VP he would be.  If someone can go out and undercut one of the main "selling points" of the opponent with his own initiative, I think that makes him look BETTER.

But I have a serious thought to float out here, if only to see what other people think...what about Gen. Powell as VP?

Before the actual Primaries started I visited some pretty hateful racist military oriented places.
These crazies didn't like Kerry(or any Dem) but hated McCain.

They and their 3 toed kind will not have McCain's back.

I have no problem with Obama not embracing Clarke's statements on McHero -- which are off message for him. But they are the truth and I applaude Clarke for sticking by them.

I'm still looking, hard, to find a reason to support Obama. The little D next to his name is not enough. I am having a hard time believing he represents change when he runs for cover on something like this.

General Clark said nothing wrong. He recognizes McCain's honorable service, and makes a point of mentioning it. Obama was wrong to distance himself from the General. He needs the General's help.

This is why Democrats get their asses handed to them when they should win by a landslide. He's cowering like the rest of them.

This is not a change we can believe in. Come on, Obama, give me some reason to vote for you. Something. Anything at all.

As a Vietnam vet, from what I read (if I have read all his comments in context), Clark is not impugning McCain's war service, or diminishing his brave time as a POW; he is simply saying that McCain has not served in the military in an executive capacity, directing men, etc., a la Eisenhower, a la Colin Powell...and as someone who has, Clark is qualified to make that distinction.  The McCain camp, some of the media and others, are blowing things up...

Is it such a leap of gray matter or a deviation from love of country, or attacking someone's service to say (or admit) that McCain's military experience is not executive, not a generalship for example, and does not qualify him in that area.  If this small feat of the mind is intellectually demanding, we need smarter newsmen.  If it is heart rending to our patriotism, found love of country on a surer ground than blind affection that believes fair criticism is motivated only to smear and attack. And let us be a smarter public who won't buy commentary and journalism worthy only of recycling.

Hasn't recent experience (and even basic social studies classes) taught us that to criticize the president or our military men is not impugning the flag or country, just as critically discerning weak aspects of McCain's experience does not discount or impugn his bravery and the merit he displayed; and that it isn't a means to impugn the flag, the military, our war dead, etc., etc.

We need more knowledgeable, brave and critical eyes all around us - in the press, the public and the military. If we had them in 2002 and 2003, the military might not have gone along with attacking Saddam and Iraq for Bin Laden's evil deeds...for more about the need for military competence instead of "general" malfeasance, see my blog at http://www.wrathofmcgrath.com