Pot, Meet Kettle

Well, that's the way certain nutroots are spinning Wesley Clark's disgusting attack on John McCain, his POW status, and military and political experience.

I won't bother linking to the stories left and right about the situation, but, needless to say, it was stunning for Clark to state that McCain's service to this country in and out of the military doesn't qualify him for "executive responsibility." My only thought while reading a host of stories yesterday was, "And what in Obama's resume qualifies him?" Some apologists have tried to say that shilling for developers qualifies, but I don't see that as any more germaine to executive duties (including running the military) than serving in the military and working on Congressional committees which oversee military matters. Oh, wait. I guess I think having served in the military--with or without POW status--makes one more qualified to discuss military matters.

Amusingly, the droolers from the left are now crowing that this is "just like what happened to John Kerry." Well, not quite. For starters, the original complaints--and the main argument used against Kerry--concerned his conduct when he came back from Vietnam. That's when he came home and slandered his fellow soldiers and claimed he'd "heard of and seen" atrocities, something that he should have reported at the time if he weren't lying. This isn't even going into the more esoteric claims: Christmas in Laos, his Purple Hearts, etc. The problem, in McCain's case, is that the man was actually tortured for years, which is more than shrapnel in one's posterior.

The fact is, moonbats hate the military anyway. They see nothing wrong with showing disrespect for a POW, just as they really didn't have any respect for anyone in the military. To now have a four-star general licking the boots of "community activist" Barack Obama really just shows what Democrats believe about military service.

Michelle Malkin has a nice post on exactly the kind of guy Wesley Clark is.