Wednesday, July 16, 2008

The Left is choosy about military service

If you read my blog with any regularity, you will know that I am not a fan of John McCain. That said, I do have to come to the defense of the Son of Cain on a matter about which I am hearing more and more: his military service. Incredibly enough, the Democrats and Obamamaniacs are actually attempting to minimize and downplay McCain's military service; service that spanned 22 years of flying military aircraft, 23 combat missions in Vietnam, and 5 years of captivity in a North Vietnamese hellhole. Yes, I have previously heard all about the controversies concerning the number of aircraft he crashed in his career, his reported propensity to give information to his captors in return for lenient treatment, and his favorable connections by way of his admiral father. Even taking that into consideration, you cannot deny his military accomplishments that I just mentioned.

The attacks by the Democrats of McCain's military record is quite laughable after the spectacle they made of themselves just four short years ago. Does the salute and saluation, "I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty!", come to mind? In the election of 2004, we heard over and over from the Left how John Kerry was a war hero and a Vietnam veteran, while George W. Bush hid from Vietnam service (although he was somehow intelligent enough to figure out how to fly fighter jets in the Air National Guard). This year, the roles are reversed. I have already laid out McCain's military credentials. After all the weight given to John Kerry by the Democrats because of his short few months of service in Vietnam, they won't give John McCain the time of day for his 6+ years of service during that conflict. As for Barack Obama? .............Hear that? Those are crickets chirping. He never even served in the military, and now the same people who so lauded Kerry, don't think it matters that Obama has no military record, and in fact appears to despise the military. The same thing happened during the Clinton era. In both the 1992 and 1996 elections, you had a Democrat who never even served, running against two decorated World War II combat veterans - George H.W. Bush and Robert Dole - but to the Clinton-loving Left, the military records of Bush and Dole meant squat.

If military service means so much to the Democrats - as evidenced by their adulation of John Kerry four years ago - when exactly is the lamestream media going to take Barack Obama to task for not even serving, rather than continue to minimize the 22 years that John McCain gave to this country?

For more on this hypocrisy, read this fine column by Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby.

Good Day to You, Sir

6 comments:

Law and Order Teacher said...

As Doc Holliday said in Tombstone, my hyprocrisy only goes so far. At least he had some morals.

The Vegas Art Guy said...

They liked Kerry because he trashed his fellow servicemen when he returned from Vietnam. You know, the country the dems betrayed? Had he not trashed the military he never would have been elected to anything on a democratic ticket...

Donalbain said...

It always puzzles me how every four years, American politics enters into a phase of "I spent more time in the military than you". I don't think any other country worries about it quite as much as the US. I think, however, that this will probably be the last time it happens. McCain is one of the last of a generation in which military service was the norm rather the exception to the rule.

Don, American said...

Dear minor Shakespearean character: Are you implying that the messiah Obama will disband the army when he surrenders to the Islamic terrorists?

Chanman said...

It seems that much about our country puzzles you donalbain.

Military service is by no means a requirement to be President of the United States - Lincoln was a better "general" than anyone but Grant - but seeing as how the job includes being commander in chief of our Armed Forces, then prior military service is always a plus; especially service that included a high rank and heavy responsibility that involved life and death decisions.

If the United States is going to continue to be seen by the rest of the world as the planet police, then perhaps it is preferable if the "Police Chief" has actually worn a badge at some point in his life.

Donalbain said...

Yes. That is exactly what I meant.
Oh wait. I just actually READ what I typed and it seems that is not what I said at all. Maybe you should try reading what I typed.