I would submit that a significant number of B-17 pilots and crew in WWII are clearly heros. That would also include some fighter pilots, but the bomber crews literally flew into the jaws of death on every mission and did it with grace and incredible courage, and some how managed to get their mangled planes back to base. And were ready to go for the next mission. I would agree with the original post that hot shot fighter pilots don't get the chance to demonstrate heroism all that much. The incidences of true heroism are generally limited to the grunt on the ground for. Fighter pilots are just too insulated from the war on the ground for the most part.

As for the difference between Clark and McCain, there are some stark constrasts. Clark's military record, if one really examines it, is far superior to McCain's. He was valedictorian of his West Point class, was an excellent leader of men, fought courageously in Nam (given his short time in combat), was wounded seriously in battle while continuing to lead his men, received the silver star for valor, rose to the rank of general, lead NATO in Bosnia, formed foreign policy, negotiated with national leaders and diplomats, and made a run at President. For all that, he's not a particularly good orator, and has a tendency to mis-speak on occasion. A common trait for military men. I've read comments about Clark from posters on this blog that state he was a kiss-up and opportunist. I know from experience that there are a lot of pissing matches in the service, especially from officiers as they jockey for promotions and rank. I think Clark was smart, ambitious, and probably stepped on a few toes on the way up. So what.

McCain got into the Naval Academy (with a lot of inside help from his military family), finished dead last at the bottom of his class, somehow made it through flight school, although he was a marginal pilot. In 28 missions in Nam, he lost three aircraft, the last being the one he where he was shot down. He was related to flying A4s, the bottom of heap as far as figher pilots in Nam. He was captured and endured 5 and half years as POW. Ostensibly, he demonstrated that he was tough and a survivor. His stint as a POW was not any better or worse than most of his fellow pilots that were shot down and captured. Just about all of them demonstrated the same level of toughness and survivability. He made it no further than the rank of captain, and with no real future in the Navy he got out. In fairness, he did become a squadron leader, but in peace time. Does this record make him a military expert? Hardly. Especially, when compared to Wesley Clark, who has legitimately qualified as a military expert. It certainly gives him no special qualifications for CIC. The last great general who went on to become a very good President was Ike, and McCain is no Eisenhower.

So the question is: does ole Wes hold just a little bit of resentment for McCain and how he is glorified for being a POW and hero, and isn't one tenth of the military man that he is? Probably.

As a vet, I get a little tired of the hero label be so loosely applied these days. Should anybody that serves in combat be considered a hero? I say no. I served in combat and sure as hell don’t consider myself to be a hero. Today, any bozo that can make it into the Army is labeled a hero. That's absurd. Becoming a hero has to be earned: by actions that demonstrate courage, valor, and putting the life of your fellow soldier above yours. Does Wesley Clark qualify? I think so. What about John McCain or any of the POWs in Nam. I think he qualifies for his courage, toughness, and looking out for his buddies, but so do all his fellow POWs.

In the end John McCain is simply a better politician than Wesley Clark, not a better hero.