Why are American's so obsessed with having Presidents with military backgrounds? The record of such presidents has not been all that admirable.
The escalating battle of words and documents over George Bush’s National Guard record and John Kerry’s Vietnam War record ignore the much more important question: What the hell difference does it make whether either candidate has any “military experience”?
Let’s assume for a moment, in the face of all the evidence, the George Bush did in fact serve a full hitch in the Texas Air National Guard. What does the ability to do a smart salute, make his bed, and fly a plane have to do with running a country? Actually, we already have the answer in Bush’s record. The answer: absolutely nothing. Bush the vet has proven inept at managing the economy, inept at providing leadership of the country (if leadership means anything, it means getting everyone to pull together, and he’s only pulled the country apart at the seams), and inept at organizing and running a war.
As for Kerry, we should be asking not whether or not his chest full of medals was earned, and whether he exhibited genuine courage under fire, but what being captain of a little 50-foot motorboat has to do with running a country. Again the answer has to be nothing.
For the rest of this column, please go (at no charge) to This Can't Be Happening! .
Original: What is this American Fetish About Military "Experience" for Presidents?