Clem was a WW1 veteran who had landed on Gallipoli so he had every reason to go after the Churchill of WW1 who had designed the Galipolli landings.

Clem also ran the UK during ww2 as the chief domestic administrator of the state.

Clem had a bio the length of your arm and he instituted the NHS.

the path for criminal prosecution of the telecoms and the government officials with whom they conspired, is wide open.

What his campaign should not be doing is lending its imprimatur to the proposition that because McCain saw combat in Vietnam and suffered as a POW that he has the judgment to be an effective president.

is just more of his typical brainless "analysis" and bloviating.

Look, I should think that anyone with a lick of common sense realizes that the McCain camp is hardly asserting that "because McCain saw combat in Vietnam and suffered as a POW that he has the judgment to be an effective president".

This, you see, for the logically challenged, is what is called a straw man argument.

Isn't it about a thousand times more plausible that what is really being implied by the McCain camp is that seeing combat and suffering as a POW is one of a complex of facts about McCain that suggests he would be an effective CIC?

The point is, yes, McCain put his life on the line for his country in combat, and suffered as a POW, showing some real heroism in the process. But that is not all there is to John McCain's background that prepares him for the role of CiC. He also assumed a command position in the Navy. He also has been involved for decades in the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Senate. Perhaps none of these by themselves make for a highly qualified CiC, but putting them altogether, yes, that would make him nearly uniquely qualified as politicians go (and who is going to be President but a politician?) to undertake that role.

Update at 8 p.m. ET: Clark has now issued a statement defending his remarks and explaining their context. Here's what he said:

    There are many important issues in this presidential election, clearly one of the most important issues is national security and keeping the American people safe. In my opinion, protecting the American people is the most important duty of our next President. I have made comments in the past about John McCain's service and I want to reiterate them in order be crystal clear. As I have said before I honor John McCain's service as a prisoner of war and a Vietnam Veteran. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. I would never dishonor the service of someone who chose to wear the uniform for our nation.

    John McCain is running his campaign on his experience and how his experience would benefit him and our nation as President. That experience shows courage and commitment to our country - but it doesn't include executive experience wrestling with national policy or go-to-war decisions. And in this area his judgment has been flawed - he not only supported going into a war we didn't have to fight in Iraq, but has time and again undervalued other, non-military elements of national power that must be used effectively to protect America. But as an American and former military officer I will not back down if I believe someone doesn't have sound judgment when it comes to our nation's most critical issues.

usatoday.com

In my opinion, Gen. Clark's statements are an intentional process to slam dunk a potential issue very early in the campaign--before the convention.  It appears as if the disinformation hacks are so lazy & inert that the general had to repeat his statements several times in different venues before the lame stream media actually saw that there was conflict, drama, & newsy red meat in the story.

Scheiffer rose to Gen. Clark's bait like a trout to a well-tied fly.

If this is played right, the McCain campaign will choose to leave the military career arguments off the agenda.

I'm a veteran.  In my opinion there is very little about military service that stands as in indicator of success in government, business, or social service & humanitarian work.  As with all other people, some veterans are excellent in what they do; others, maybe not so much.

For some reason, the political parties have turned to mid-level naval officers as presidents & candidates since 1960.  Kennedy, L. Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter & Bush held the office.  Kerry & McCain became nominees & Perot did a 3rd party gig.

In my most hateful moments, it seems very clear that George W. Bush, 43rd President, was a fully trained jet fighter pilot and that experience did not keep him from being the least qualified president in the nation's 232 year history & clearly the worst commander-in-chief.  [Bush 41 flew reciprocating engine propeller aircraft & fared marginally better than #1 son, although he did bail-out twice.]

 McCain's "truth squad" is Orwellian.  The Obama campaign should have just said nothing in response.  

 I am kind of surprised that this is headline news now.  He's been hitting at McCain for weeks.  What changed?

Is it sexist to call Bush a ba$tard?

Is this racist? Or ageist?

If it was sexist when someone asked McCain how to beat the b!tch, then is it sexist to ask how we'll beat that ba$tard McCain?

If it's racist to call Obama arrogant, is it ageist to call McCain confused?

I think Obama should be pushing the economy.  A man with good ideas that will help the American people will be patriotic by default.  Show people it is in their interest to vote for you, and they can and will.  Issues can trump identities.  As it is, Obama focusing on being patriotic only brings those questions to the fore.  

So, where did all ofthis start up?  Why did Clarke even bring this up if it isn't a claim that McCain has ever made?

 I would agree that we have not made it to a neutral society, and my attack on Molly was hyperbolic; I apologize for making an irrational comment.

 I watched Kathy Griffin's show last night. She was referring to herself as a $2 wh@re for 'the gays.' She and all the gays were tossing around the word b!tches and calling each other slut or whatever abrasive term they could come up with. As I watched the show, it struck me that I would not want to watch that show with my grandmother, but there was Griffin having her own mom on the show, giving her Kathy Griffin condoms and talking about old people having slutty tendencies.

My theory on words like b!tch, ho, slut, and even the n-word and terms like white trash or cracker is that pop culture has--or will--rob them of their venom. When Kathy Griffin calls herself a b!tch or a ho just before calling a man the same name, it loses its poison. We've seen this happen already with the n-word in hip-hop.

 I also watched Hell's Kitchen last night. On the show, one guy called another guy a b!tch, and one girl called everybody else b!tches. B!tching is a verb in the vernacular. I understand feminisms general discomfort with the word due to its history, but I think we should accept and embrace the fact that the word is changing. Now that it is applied to men as well as women, it is a more universal term, and should be allowed to continue its move into obscurity. This happens with words all the time. If I took the time, I could research various etymologies that have changed, words that once were obscene that are now bland, and words that were once innocuous that now carry a sharp edge. The fact that we are living through a transitional phase presents us with an opportunity to expedite the progress between the sexes, and I think we should take advantage of it.

 Other than her quip about the boys ganging up on her in Iowa, I never heard Hillary play the victim, either, and even then she made light of it. I think she understands that as an individual she has crossed a threshhold where her eligibility for victimhood is greatly diminished. Will there always be morons like the 'iron my shirt' guys? Oh yeah. Should they get to be the focus of the election? Not in a million years.