if the election is between Obama and McCain, the republics will win in either case. The past 2 weeks have shown O moving closer and, in some cases, even past, chimpy's policies. How about privatizing social security???? His "aides" are saying he has a plan to start messing with that. The one party system has arrived - or is at least on the way.

"Pass the cheetos, please." WKC

And make that a stiff drink.

When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends.
Japanese Proverb

to stop distorting General Clark's comments. It's here.

Does anyone really think Bush will catch bin Ladin?

If you didn't get a chance to contribute to
the celebration of our Independence, following
"The Week from Hell," you have until midnight
Sunday, CDT. Here's the link:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15998

And I'll definitely give you stars if you
pony up and leave a message!

By Stephanie Salter
The Tribune-Star
TERRE HAUTE — Warning: This is an attack column.

In the old days, before last weekend, it would have been just a newspaper essay in which a few observations and opinions were expressed about John McCain, the most famous American prisoner of the Vietnam War.

But that was before retired Gen. Wesley Clark demonstrated that an attack is not what it used to be, especially when the alleged attackee is McCain.

As the headlines began appearing, I wondered what had possessed Clark. Over and over, that awful, violent word kept popping up.

“Clark Attacks McCain’s War Record.”

“McCain Campaign Responds to Clark Attack.”

“Obama Distances Himself from Clark’s Attack on McCain.”

No big fan of the Sunday Washington political shows, I hadn’t a clue as to what vile things Clark had said on “Face the Nation” about the Vietnam War hero and presumed GOP presidential candidate. But if McCain supporters were “insulted” and the presumed Democratic candidate was “distancing” himself from the words — if most of the mainstream news media were classifying them as an “attack” — I figured they must be terrible.

When I finally found a transcript of Clark’s full remarks to host Bob Schieffer (see inset), I sought out the general’s specific references to McCain’s war years. Instead of an assault, I found:

“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.”

Where was the attack?

Speaking at length of the national security challenges of our nation’s highest office and of McCain’s varied life experiences, including Vietnam, Clark said he didn’t think the latter qualified McCain for the former.

When Schieffer countered that Barack Obama “has not had any of those [qualifying] experiences, either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down,” Clark replied with what became the bloody switchblade offered in evidence by every self-appointed prosecutor with a computer keyboard or a show on cable news:

“Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualifier to be president …”

The horror, the horror.

Is what we have here a kind of American version of Muhammad’s image?

While the holy Qu’ran doesn’t specifically prohibit such a practice, for many Muslims, any attempt to depict their religion’s founder is an attack on him and an insult to all followers of Islam. Protests and demands for the death of offending imagists, even non-Muslims, have followed such attempts.

McCain’s five-and-a-half years as a POW are becoming similarly sacrosanct. To refer to them as anything but a qualification for whatever McCain wants them to be, is to be perceived by many as attacking his military service, insulting all U.S. troops who ever served, and threatening the very principles that make us free.

So, here comes the “attack.”

I, too, don’t think that riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualifier to be president. I don’t think it’s a qualifier to be a U.S. senator, a secretary of state or the mayor of Terre Haute, Indiana.

Riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down does not qualify a person to be the CEO of a Fortune 500 company or a sales rep for Amway, a firefighter, a lifeguard, a nurse, a computer programmer, a TV pundit, a preacher, a parent, a teacher, a spouse, a Christian or — brace yourselves — a good U.S. citizen.

Riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down, surviving nearly six hellish years in a POW hole and triumphing over the physical and emotional scars of that nightmare does qualify a person to be thought of, referred to and held up as an example of “a hero.” It qualifies a person to be admired, respected, listened to, honored and possibly emulated.

But it does not make all other qualifications for president, or any other job, insignificant in comparison.

That is what Wesley Clark was saying on “Face the Nation,” and what Barack Obama should have immediately and loudly affirmed.

It is what many conservative columnists were saying a few years ago, as well. (Check out the golden oldies compiled by Media Matters at mediamatters.org). Here’s a sample by National Review online editor Jonah Goldberg from Aug. 26, 2004:

“John Edwards talks about how [John] Kerry still carries shrapnel in his leg and therefore … therefore … therefore, well, something along the lines of nobody’s ever allowed to criticize John Kerry. Obviously, that’s idiotic on its face. If it’s not, maybe we should count the side with the most collective shrapnel in its collective body and declare it the most qualified to lead the country. My guess is Karl Rove would be happy with that.”

That, of course, was back when the decorated Vietnam War veteran and presidential candidate was Kerry, and his opponent was the sometime-Reservist and non-combatant George W. Bush. Remember? It was an era of opinions, not attacks.

Stephanie Salter can be reached at (812) 231-4229 or

.