| red-beard |
03-03-2008 03:38 PM |
But They Support the Troops!
But They Support the Troops!
By JAMES TARANTO
March 3, 2008
You'd think Hillary Clinton supporters would be worried mostly about Barack Obama, but a couple of them have turned their sights on the man who likely will oppose Obama in the general election, John McCain. And they are attacking him for his military service.
National Review's Byron York reports that "retired General Wesley Clark said John McCain's military experience is not the right kind of experience to command the nation's armed forces." He quotes Clark: In the national security business, the question is, do you have--when you have served in uniform, do you really have the relevant experience for making the decisions at the top that have to be made? Everybody admires John McCain's service as a fighter pilot, his courage as a prisoner of war. There's no issue there. He's a great man and an honorable man. But having served as a fighter pilot--and I know my experience as a company commander in Vietnam--that doesn't prepare you to be commander-in-chief in terms of dealing with the national strategic issues that are involved. It may give you a feeling for what the troops are going through in the process, but it doesn't give you the experience first hand of the national strategic issues. If you look at what Hillary Clinton has done during her time as the First Lady of the United States, her travel to 80 countries, her representing the U.S. abroad, plus her years in the Senate, I think she's the most experienced and capable person in the race, not only for representing am [sic] abroad, but for dealing with the tough issues of national security. The New York Observer reports that Gloria Steinem goes even further: Steinem raised McCain's Vietnam imprisonment as she sought to highlight an alleged gender-based media bias against Clinton. "Suppose John McCain had been Joan McCain and Joan McCain had got captured, shot down and been a POW for eight years. [The media would ask], 'What did you do wrong to get captured? What terrible things did you do while you were there as a captive for eight years?' " Steinem said, to laughter from the audience. McCain was, in fact, a prisoner of war for around five and a half years, during which time he was tortured repeatedly. Referring to his time in captivity, Steinem said with bewilderment, "I mean, hello? This is supposed to be a qualification to be president? I don't think so." Steinem's broader argument was that the media and the political world are too admiring of militarism in all its guises. "I am so grateful that she [Clinton] hasn't been trained to kill anybody. And she probably didn't even play war games as a kid. It's a great relief from Bush in his jump suit and from Kerry saluting." In a narrow sense, Clark and Steinem have a point: Although McCain's military service tells us something about his character and patriotism, it is not sufficient reason to consider him the best qualified candidate to be president. Voters can decide for themselves whether they agree with Clark that the "job" of first lady is the best preparation for the presidency, or with Steinem that war is icky boy stuff. The truth is, there probably are better arguments for the proposition that Mrs. Clinton would make a better president than McCain.
But do you remember how touchy Democrats got four years ago whenever anyone questioned whether John Kerry was qualified to be president simply by virtue of being a "war hero"? When some Republican National Convention delegates wore purple-heart bandages, Kerry accused them of "mocking our troops," when in fact they were mocking only him.
Steinem at least is consistent in disparaging Kerry's military service too. But it does seem as though the Democrats' gung-ho attitude toward Kerry in 2004 was merely a militarism of convenience.
|
