For several days I've been listening to news commentators breathlessly express shock that Gen. Wesley Clark called Sen. John McCain's military record into question. Even Barack Obama seemed to separate himself from the Clark attack.

I finally saw the broadcast in question. Clark was being interviewed by CBS newsman Bob Schiefer. During the interview, Clark said McCain's experience as a Navy squadron commander didn't really qualify as executive/administrative experience. Not much question there.

Schiefer then replied that Obama has no more administrative experience. Not much question there, either.

Then, Schiefer noted that Obama didn't even have the experience of being shot down in a jet plane and living as a prisoner of war.  Not much question there, either. Obama hasn't.

But Clark replied that being shot down and being a prisoner of war doesn't qualify a man to be commander-in-chief of America's armed forces. That was the comment that got everyone so upset.

I suppose Clark might have issued the customary qualifications about McCain's sacrifice (though he had done so earlier in the conversation) but what, really, did Clark say that was so out-of-line?

McCain's experiences qualify him as a brave and admirable American. An "American hero," to use Obama's words. But being a prisoner of war 40 years ago doesn't qualify one to be president. We owe prisoners of war a debt of gratitude and a debt of honor. We don't owe them the presidency.

I just don't see how Clark really dissed McCain or, even, called his sacrifice into question. Once again, we're taking words out of context and, then, by our reaction, changing the context.  It doesn't help the national dialogue much.