Seriously.
Let's make a list. Let's get all the 'Nam vets and say, "OK, you folks, you did your job for the country, you're about the right age, we want one of you to be in charge. Now let's get your credential, both positive and negative, and put them together and see which one of you should run the show. There are of course too many of you for all of you to be president, but maybe a couple/few of you." And so on.
My friend Bob, for example. Of all the 'Nam Vets, he's one of the most qualified. He was in the special forces, spent over six years in 'Nam, rose to the rank of officer (and back) several times, is heavily decorated, moderately wounded, and so on. Bob was loved by his fellow soldiers. He was once seriously wounded and left unconscious and face down in a swamp well behind enemy lines. He insists it was the comic books he was carrying in his ruck sack that made the other guys come back for him the next day, but I say it was his leadership skills. Most importantly, Bob has been in charge of a municipal, county, or state level executive agency every single day of his life since I first met him in 1973.
Or my Father-In-Law. He was not in combat, but he was in charge of some large portion of a boat, er, ship, in the GOT. He can pretty much fix anything and as he nears retirement, I think he'd like a relatively low stress job like being President (He's currently a corporate real estate lawyer). He was an officer, well decorated, and was viewed by all of his commanding officers as top notch.
Let's look at John McCain. He has already expressed an interest in being The President of the United States of America (codename: POTUS). How did John do in the military?
- Log in to post comments
WOW! He is so proud! While I agree that most anything is possible to achieve in this country, does that make him qualified at all?!?!
Hell, why stop there? Go find the serviceman/woman who has earned the most medals and make that person POTUS? Since being a war hero is such a good qualifier, shouldn't the BEST war hero be the one in the White House?
I think I have this right, but tell me if I'm wrong: John McCain is qualified to be president partially because he was a "hero" for being shot down and held prisoner. John Kerry wasn't qualified because he was a decorated Swift Boat officer who served his combat time IN combat, but...uh...was accused of lying by political foes? Is that correct?
When I was young and played "war" the players that got caught were called losers. Since when do soldiers/airmen/sailors/etc. that get caught become heroes?
Its been said before, but not often enough;
What's so heroic about bombing innocent civilians?
Not a criticism of McCain only.
When I was young and played "war" the players that got caught were called losers. Since when do soldiers/airmen/sailors/etc. that get caught become heroes?
I get it, you people don't like John McCain. That's fine. You're entitled to your opinion. But when you compare your childhood war games to the true suffering of war. You've completely lost your mind.
You should not be allowed any where near a voting booth.
Joel, "you people" is something of a flag in the blogosphere for someone who's upset past reason. Since you're not new here, and since I was ignoring the "When I was young" comment as too childish to merit a reaction, I'll just note that the point of the original post is not that his service does not speak to McCain's character, but that it requires more than this kind of service to make one fit for the presidency.
I really appreciate that you're not going silent (or away) for the duration of the election season, but please don't lump all us Obama supporters together either. There are enough idiots on both sides that neither one of us would want to be compared to.
And the links aren't personal. They're just some interesting observations about how the blogosphere works that I thought others might be interested in as well.
With his vast and unusual experience at being one, I feel JM is very highly qualified to be elected Prisoner of the United States (POTUS). Locking them up where they can't do any more harm should be regular policy, one that would have served us well over the past 8 years.
I forget who said it first, but if being a POW is all it takes to make you presidential material, then Guantanamo must be a leadership camp.
Stephanie, if you can find a post in support of John McCain in this thread, especially prior to my comment, I'll apologize for using the phrase you people as inappropriate.
Otherwise, I think it accurately describes the audience I was addressing.
Thank you,
Joel
Joel just performed a totally rigorous and comprehensive assessment of the demographics of this blog... based on 5 comments. Wheee!
But Joel has a bit of a point: the rules of the real world are different from the rules of kids' games. I think the idea is that if a soldier gets captured, his suffering during his imprisonment is seen as a sort of "sacrifice for the greater good", and that counts as some sort of brownie points or something. Maybe someone's written about this before.
-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism
Joel just performed a totally rigorous and comprehensive assessment of the demographics of this blog... based on 5 comments. Wheee!
No, I was speaking to the commentors on this post, all five of them.
counts as some sort of brownie points or something
Brownie points? It is disappointing to know there are people who see military service as you do.
Adding the word "all" doesn't turn 5 into a big number. Sorry.
Tell me, what notion of "military service" are you subscribing to that puts so much value on getting caught by enemies? Is there something honourable to being a POW in contrast to (horrors!) being able to fight without being caught? And what is it?
I still maintain that it's just as I said.
-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism
Tell me, what notion of "military service" are you subscribing to that puts so much value on getting caught by enemies? Is there something honourable to being a POW in contrast to (horrors!) being able to fight without being caught? And what is it?
It is the notion of being captured is one of the greatest fears of a soldier. It is the notion of losing years of your life, spent in captivity under deplorable conditions and torture as many thousands have. It is the notion of understanding that thousands of people have died due to the mistreatment suffered while being held as POWs.
It is the notion that we do not live in a society where we believe every soldier must fight to the death and there is dishonor in being captured. At least I assume you do not live in such a barbaric society.
It is the notion that you really do not have the right to sit in judgement of these men and women who have already given so much.
I would argue that if the assertion is being made that a man has more of a right to be president than another because he was a POW, then the issue of judgment (in this matter) is 100% the responsibility of each and every voter.
I, for one, did not want to judge John McCain's value as a President on the basis of his Viet Nam war record. But he and his campaign are asking that I do.
Until proven otherwise, I judge him unworthy.
I want to see the details of the investigation of the fire on the carrier that he was involved in as well as his capture and imprisonment to see if he was in any way responsible for the death or injury of others or the loss of expensive equipment (I believe several planes were blown up during the carrier fire), or if he made any mistakes that led to his own capture. I want to know if he broke under torture. I want to know if he committed treason. I want to know if he was the screw up in the military that he claims he was, how bad was it, and why he was not court martialed. Did he have some sort of influence that kept him out if the brig? When he was shot down, was that an accident, a random act, a mistake, or was he fragged?
Since the McCain campaign has chosen to bludgeon the rest of us with J.M'm military misfortune, I demand a full and open investigation of every aspect of it.
Every. Aspect.
I want his record on the table for careful scrutiny and I want him held to the same standard John Kerry was held to during the last election.
Now.
No, what you're asserting is that there's dishonour in not being captured, that being able to fight the enemy -- instead of labouring for the enemy -- somehow makes one an inferior person.
lolwut?
I'm not judging "these men and women", I'm judging one person, and that's John Sidney McCain.
He, not "these men and women", is the one running for President.He, not "these men and women", is the one who has a chance of leading the US for the next 4 years.He, not "these men and women", is the one using his capture by the enemy as a catch-all excuse against any and all criticism.He, not "these men and women", is the one who doesn't know how many houses he has.He, not "these men and women", is the one who chose Palin as his running mate. (OK, perhaps I'm wrong on the last one: the choice was made by Karl Rove, who incidentally wasn't a POW.)
And we have every constitutional right to judge him.
-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism
No, what you're asserting is that there's dishonour in not being captured, that being able to fight the enemy
No, what I asserted is that being captured is one of the greatest fears for soldiers. Soldiers understand that what is in store for the POW and because of this, those who have survived the ordeal have earned our respect.
You on the other hand, stated they earned brownie points, or something.
I think the idea is that if a soldier gets captured, his suffering during his imprisonment is seen as a sort of "sacrifice for the greater good", and that counts as some sort of brownie points or something.
I want his record on the table for careful scrutiny and I want him held to the same standard John Kerry was held to during the last election.
Greg, the Swiftboating of John Kerry during the last election was a terrible thing and it should not have happened. Especially coming from someone like George W. Bush.
Swiftboating is wrong, no matter who is doing it and swiftboating John McCain is not going to set things right. You should take the high road.
In that case, any soldier can "earn" your "respect" simply by getting caught. Oh, and by surviving -- because, after all, those who don't survive won't be around to enjoy your "respect" anyway.
Again, isn't it a greater achievement to not get caught? You're talking as if soldiers who don't get captured somehow put their lives at less risk on the battlefield. Do you seriously think that?
It's not "swiftboating" if the McCain campaign started it in the first place. If McCain doesn't want people to question his military record, then maybe he shouldn't keep talking about it.
-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism
In that case, any soldier can "earn" your "respect" simply by getting caught.
Actually, all soldiers have earned my respect. Simply by getting caught? No. Being captured is a hazard, I'm not going to negatively judge any soldier who was unfortunate enough to have been captured.
Again, isn't it a greater achievement to not get caught?
Soldiers are asked to go places that put them at risk of being killed or captured and they willingly go there. To do so is a great acheivment.
You're talking as if soldiers who don't get captured somehow put their lives at less risk on the battlefield. Do you seriously think that?
Absolutely not. That is what you are saying. I'm saying the soldiers who have endured the additional hardship of being a POW have earned my respect, and sympathy. I cannot imagine enduring what they have had to endure.
Joel, my respect for my friends and family with military service, and for those who served with them, are part of the reason I will not vote for McCain. He has repeatedly voted against VA funding. He supports continuing a war in which my friends have fought and been injured and to which they may have to return. He opposed the GI Bill to provide them with educational funds, saying their opportunities to better themselves should be limited to military service because he doesn't trust that enough people will continue to choose to serve otherwise.
I don't oppose McCain because I don't appreciate his military service and sacrifices. I oppose him because he doesn't appreciate anyone else's.
I actually know now and have known over many years a fair number of soldiers. Some have earned my highest possible respect, many have earned my basic respect, a few have not earned my respect at all as solders. One of the latter group also failed to earn the respect of the Navy and was thrown out. Another went AWOL but if they knew what he did he would have been prosecuted. Others are simply individuals that do not earn respect just because they put on uniform, even if they are ordered into battle.
I guess this is just something that should be thought about rather than blabbered about. The military tries to teach its minions that they must earn respect. No one in the military is telling the new recruits that they deserve respect simply by showing up.