<p>What is most disappointing about the entire dialog on this issue (not here on this board but in the media and amongst the “pundits”) is that no one is actually addressing the merits of what Gen. Clark actually said:</p>
<p>“I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.”</p>
<p>Is that statement un-true? If it is “un-true” what is the argument to support the notion that this particular experience IS a qualification to become President? Was Adm Stocksdale, a war hero of the FIRST DEGREE, qualified to be VP in 1992, because of this same experience? </p>
<p>Instead of addressing questions like this logically and with a little thought behind it, the critics are accusing him of “smearing” McCain’s war record and the Obama supporters have gone into “apolgetic” and “distancing mode”. It appears there is no room in politics for an intellectual discussion about the merits of what is said. Instead it’s all about how we 'feel". This is how the electorate gets duped.</p>
<p>Gen Clark should not have made that statement–not because it was untrue (or true), but because it would never be discussed in terms of its truth or un-truth–it would just generate more political babble serving to confuse an already less than informed electorate.</p>