Retired
muttered out loud a
I’ve had for months since this field has narrowed to two presidential candidates: What foreign policy experience does
have that qualifies him or will make him a more experienced president over
? McCain, and his campaign staff tout his being shot down during the Vietnam War and he wears his POW status as a badge of honor, as he should. Other candidates during this year’s campaign season have spent much time genuflecting at the alter of the McCain military service, but what about this services makes him ready to be commander-in-chief?
Voters confuse the heck out of me every four years. On the one hand they harpoon candidates for not serving; then they get a candidate who serves and they find reason to dump on them as was the case with John Kerry. This season McCain’s POW status seems to be the test for presidential readiness and experience. Are voters saying now that service in the military qualifies one to be commander-in-chief and capable of handling U.S. foreign policy? That’s analogous to me saying since I’ve worked at ABC, I can now claim experience to run a media conglomerate or television network. Or is it the appearance of not providing enough deference to veterans that’s offensive? Or is it fear of appearing unpatriotic?
Equally disturbing is the Obama camp’s
of the statements by Clark. I can’t for the life of me find fault with anything Clark said. Flying a jet and being shot down is not akin to managing the military and calling for strikes against our enemies. What exactly is Obama backing away from in Clark’s statement?
-Golf
-Golf
No comments:
Post a Comment