Legitimate questions

It makes me sick how quick everyone, lead by the media hungry for sensations, seems to be to bury the questioner for asking legitimate questions.

Look at this latest episode with Gen Clark. Without quoting, it seems to me that at least one of the things he is saying, or at least is implying, is that we should all be more informed on what exactly that "military experience" of Sen McCain is or was. What is wrong with wanting to know the details in order to make educated, intelligent decisions? Especially since that experience is often used as one of the important arguments for his fitness to be the president. Should we just follow what some authority out there says? I do not think so.

But no! Gen Clark is now atacked from all sides for asking clarifying questions about Sen McCain's military experience or his service to the country, you name it.

I think Gen Clark's questions were legitimate and many of us, including myself, might want to know the answers to them. Plus, from what I know, he did not volunteer that subject, he was apparently asked by an interviewer to offer his judgment on the value of Sen McCain's military experience.

When making such crucial decisions like electing a president, it would be very irresponsible not to ask those sorts of questions -- not as challenges disputing the significance of the claim, but rather as requests for more information.

Unless, of course, we are supposed to remain ignorant and elect the president based on how much we (dis)like the nominee in general or on how many signs we see in our neighborhoods supporting a nominee. In either case, people get presidents they deserve.