May 17, 2008

The revolving Democratic position on military service

Mark Steyn has it. I especially like this winner-of-a-passage from tomorrow's NY Times:

There is a feeling among some of McCain’s fellow veterans that his break with them on Iraq can be traced, at least partly, to his markedly different experience in Vietnam. McCain’s comrades in the Senate will not talk about this publicly... And yet in private discussions with friends and colleagues, some of them have pointed out that McCain, who was shot down and captured in 1967, spent the worst and most costly years of the war sealed away, both from the rice paddies of Indochina and from the outside world. During those years, McCain did not share the disillusioning and morally jarring experiences of soldiers like Kerry, Webb and Hagel, who found themselves unable to recognize their enemy in the confusion of the jungle; he never underwent the conversion that caused Kerry, for one, to toss away some of his war decorations during a protest at the Capitol. Whatever anger McCain felt remained focused on his captors, not on his own superiors back in Washington.

Absolutely frickin' incredible. Yeah, McCain didn't "share the disillusioning and morally jarring experiences" of those mentioned; he only "shared" in YEARS of physical torture. He got off "easy," eh?

I especially like how, somehow, Kerry's, Webb's and Hagel's 'Nam experiences are, to the Times, "morally superior" to those of McCain -- or to those of anyone else who served in Southeast Asia that might have a different view of that war's outcome. Or, to that of the current war in Iraq.

Even more pitiful are Iowa Senator Tom Harkin's comments:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain's family background as the son and grandson of admirals has given him a worldview shaped by the military, "and he has a hard time thinking beyond that. I think he's trapped in that ... everything is looked at from his life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous...

"He's running for commander in chief, and our Constitution says that should be a civilian ... and in some ways, I think it would be nice if that commander in chief had some military background, but I don't know if they need a whole lot.

"It's one thing to have been drafted and served, but another thing when you come from generations of military people and that's just how you're steeped..."

Gee, not only do Democrats view military service as admirable only when one of their party's presidential nominees has it, but it's also admirable when one wants to pad his resume -- like Harkin himself did back in 2004. A-hole.

More here.

Posted by Hube at May 17, 2008 09:50 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

McCain focused his anger on the enemy? How narrow and selfish of him.

Posted by: soccer dad at May 19, 2008 01:20 PM