On CBS's Face the Nation, General Clark said that he believed John McCain was "untried and untested." Journalist Bob Schieffer asked him to explain what he meant. How could Clark make such a claim when "you're talking about somebody who was a prisoner of war? He was a squadron commander of the largest squadron in the Navy. He's been on the Senate Armed Services Committee for many years. How can you say that John McCain is un-untested and untried?" And here's General Clark's answer:>

Because in the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk. It's a matter of gauging your opponents, and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. 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 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. But he hasn't held executive responsibility.

As a retired military officer and a soldier who served his country for over thirty years, I can tell you that there's nothing in what Wes Clark said with which I disagree. He has not only stated the facts, he knows something about them. John McCain was a prisoner of war, an officer who served as a squadron commander, and has been and is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. John McCain can put his service to country up against anyone's. But General Clark has served also -- and with great courage: he was wounded four times in Vietnam -- and like John McCain, he has met and seen the enemy.

Is what Wesley Clark said true? Let's check some other facts: John McCain made claims about progress in security by walking through the streets of Baghdad. But as I recall, he was protected by at least a platoon of American soldiers and helicopters lying overhead. In matters of national security, as General Clark pointed out, "it's a matter of understanding risk," and it's "gauging your opponents;" and it's also a "matter of being held accountable."

... [B]eing a prisoner of the Vietnamese and serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee does not automatically qualify one for the position of Commander-in-Chief -- understanding risks, gauging your opponents and being held accountable does. We must end this glib obeisance to sacrifice and ask deeper questions: is a man who sings "bomb, bomb, bomb ... bomb, bomb Iran" a man who understands risks? Is a man who says that we must keep our troops in Iraq until we achieve an ill-defined "victory" really know how to gauge America's opponents. If we want to hold people accountable, then let's stand behind my friend Wes Clark -- and hold John McCain accountable for what he's said.

Clark didn't question McCain's service or his patriotism. What he did question was McCain's judgment. And isn't that what Obama has claimed all along, that judgment is the key issue for determining who should have his or her hands on the nuclear button? Rejecting General Clark was wrong. It's not too late to defend him with the basic theme of Obama's camapign: John McCain lacks the judgment to be given command over the largest military on earth.

In politics one can run away from an opponent's perceived strength or one can attack it straight on. The more Democrats run away from McCain's perceived strength of being superior in the area of national security, the greater that strength will become. Unlike Bush who swift boated Kerry, we don't need to slander McCain's military record. We just need to tell the truth. I suggest Obama allow General Clark and others to do that if he is unwilling to do it himself, without rejecting the messenger or suggesting that any statements about McCain's qualifications to be the head of our Armed Forces are off limits. Why build up your opponent's strength? Why make McCain's military service more than what it is in the minds of the public. The Republican's aren't afraid to attack Obama on his perceived strengths. Let's not be afraid to attack McCain on the only thing he supposedly has going for him: his national security bona fides.

Because as General Clark said, when you look at them closely "there's no there there."