The LA Times is wrong.

This isn't about fitness, it's about character.

The article has the facts about McCain's time as a P.O.W. and his subsequent recovery, and the author suggests that if McCain is "fully disabled" as his pension indicates that he might somehow be unfit to serve as President. That's provocative, and it may help ratings for Vartabedian as he struggles to earn notoriety as a staff writer, but it's a red herring.

Nobody will deny that a retired military person is entitled to a pension. Nobody will argue that physical disabilities would disqualify a person from seeking this high office. Everybody can agree that years as a P.O.W. will require rehabilitative care and support.

So where's the beef?

The issue is character. In describing McCain's career after being released, Vartabedian offers these two facts:

After he was released in 1973, he returned home on crutches and began a painful physical rehabilitation. He later regained flight status and commanded a Navy squadron before retiring from the service in 1981.

Fair enough. The issue isn't about the tax-free status of that $58,000 pension, either. It's the implication about the character of a guy who claims a disability-status pension after he "...regained flight status and commanded a Navy squadron..." What kind of double standard is that?

He's a patriot, he earned a military pension...

...but either he's disabled, or he's not; I'm having trouble reconciling a naval flight surgeon finding an officer who needed rehabilitation fit to lead a squadron yet that same officer retiring with a disability pension based on events before he was re-certified to fly. Robert Schriebman, a senior Pentagon tax advisor and tax attorney who recently retired as a judge advocate for a unit of the California National Guard asks, If McCain can hike across the Grand Canyon, then why should he be getting disability payments from the government...?

Seriously, I don't care if they're tax exempt pension payments, I trust his rehabilitation left him physically fit enough for the rigors of elected office, but can anybody explain that to me how this double-standard fits with the moral character we want in office in Washington?