Becoming Commander in Chief

Oh seriously. Can you be more patronizing? David Broder in today's Washington Post suggests that Democrats are unsuited to be Commander in Chief, or at least take much longer to learn how:

"The second reason Democrats struggle more with becoming commander in chief is that they have more things than do Republicans that they want to accomplish here at home. Time and money are always in short supply. The bigger the domestic agenda, the more resistance to being "diverted" into military adventures. Obama, like all his Democratic predecessors, has set big goals. Afghanistan has to look like a distraction to him."

"And a third reason is that today's Democrats really are isolated from the military. Harry Truman had been an artillery captain; John Kennedy and Carter, Navy officers. But Bill Clinton did everything possible to avoid the draft, and Obama, motivated as he was to public service, never gave a thought to volunteering for the military." [emphasis added]

Let's see. Cheney had 5 deferments from Vietnam because he had "other priorities." Bush used his family connections and got a cushy placement into the Air National Guard, then bailed on his obligations. When documentation was found proving this, a strawman was built turning the focus on Dan Rather not verifying the documents he had, rather than the veracity of the facts -- which were actually true, he just made the mistake of accepting ginned up documents given to him for that very reason. The truth of the story itself stands to this day.

In fact, Mr. Broder, in our current Senate, there are 12 Republican Vietnam Veterans and 14 Democrat, so somehow, your statement that Democrats are "isolated" from the military is somewhat disingenuous and as usual, written to further an agenda, not to explore truth.

Mr. Broder's article can be read here

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.

k