Politicians & Spinmasters cheapen true military service – Commentary by Steve Scroggins

The 2004 presidential campaign has brought forth all manner of sniping about the military service of the candidates.

Being the commander-in-chief is one the most important duties of any President, so it is relevant. Not all military leaders make good presidents (U.S. Grant for example), and some presidents do very well with no military training or experience (Jefferson for example).

President Bush's landing on an aircraft carrier (in full flight suit regalia) was an obvious ploy for attention and it drove Bush's critics nuts. It could be argued that it was a gesture to boost the morale of the troops. Democrats saw it only as showing off...at least, that was their spin on it. They railed about it because they knew it was effective. Naturally, the stunt put the hunt for damaging dirt on the President's service (or lack thereof) into high gear (again).

Now we've been through weeks of debate and research on the President's national guard service. A witch hunt? Or a valid inquiry? Ann Coulter points out in her column (below) that Bush's honorable service in the Guard has been well-documented and investigated years ago. She calls it "the most thoroughly investigated event since the Kennedy assassination."

The Ann Coulter columns (links) below caught my attention because they focused on former Georgia Senator Max Cleland.

Senator Cleland voted the Democratic/Liberal party line all the way (pro-Gun-Control, pro-Abortion, pro-Big-Government...). I wrote him numerous letters on specific legislation concerns and his condescending responses inspired me with a special desire to retire him early. His replacement has a number of problems, too, but that's another story. Cleland may have been a good soldier, but he was NOT a good Senator in my view given that his policy views differed significantly from most Georgians.

Cleland was recently brought out to be the designated attack dog against Bush's military record. The reason for his selection is obvious...they could play him as the "hero who left limbs on the battlefield." Who better to question Bush's national guard service? Ann Coulter nails the hypocrisy and the outright deception on the part of Democratic "hit squads."

Further, and even more disgraceful, the Democrats are trashing service in the National Guard as somehow less worthy of respect. Cleland sneeringly refers to them as "weekend warriors." As events in Iraq and Afghanistan are illustrating, the Reserve and the Guard are what enables our military to be an all-volunteer service. Many are pulling much longer tours than active duty personnel. The risks, the sacrifices and the service in the Guard and Reserves are every inch as valuable and honorable as active duty service.

To some degree, both Bush and Kerry invited some of the inquiries and criticisms by capitalizing on their military service. Too much "bragging" if you will. If you brag too much, your political enemies will try to knock you down. That's politics. Kerry's war protests, giving aid and comfort to an enemy during a war, deserve condemnation. Inquiries about Bush's service record are fine (if they weren't redundant), but they cross the line when they (Kerry, Cleland, et al) paint National Guard duty as anything other than honorable.

The way I see it, the service of thousands of honorable veterans (reserves, Guard and active duty) is cheapened when politicians lie and twist and spin their military records---or those of their opponents. Sure, many non-politicians exaggerate their records for business or promotional advantage, too. But we should expect a higher standard from those who would be president. True heroes don't have to brag.

The Cleland attacks on Bush are a particularly egregious abuse of our natural sympathies. Cleland himself played his "hero" status low key for many years, but recently he's allowed others to use him for their purposes. It's sad.

It speaks to the character of the people we choose to lead our government. When a person makes decisions in his early to mid-twenties to provide "plausible cover" for future political aspirations (Clinton comes to mind here), that tells me something about that person. To paraphrase what columnist David Broder once wrote, anyone who wants to be president badly enough to campaign and win is probably not safe to trust with such power.

Clearly, the President of the United States has far more power than is safe or prudent to entrust to one mere human. Our Founding Fathers would recoil if they could see how the President's role has been transformed since Lincoln broke the mold and converted our federal republic into a national empire. Fixing that is the subject for another column.

In the meantime, Is the truth too much to ask?

Come on, gentlemen. Don't insult our intelligence and don't insult our honorable veterans by twisting the truth for political gain.

Ann Coulter: Cleland Drops a Political Grenade

Ann Coulter: Omission Accomplished

Steve Scroggins is Adjutant of the Lt. James T. Woodward Camp 1399, Sons of Confederate Veterans, in Warner Robins, GA and a frequent GHC contributor of parody and political cartoons and graphics.