Thursday, May 01, 2003

Only a military man should be President?

Vietnam Vets Help Defend Sen. Kerry Thu May 1, 1:50 AM ET CONCORD, N.H. - The "Doghunters" are on the prowl. The band of Vietnam veterans who have been protecting John Kerry's political flank since 1984 will be canvassing American Legion halls and Veterans of Foreign Wars posts in coming weeks to mobilize support for the Democrat's presidential bid. The timing suggests a counteroffensive designed to help Kerry with military voters after he angered Republicans — and upset a few Democrats — with his wartime comment that the United States, like Iraq (news - web sites), needed a "regime change." Not so, say the Doghunters. "It has nothing to do with regime change," said John Hurley, an Army veteran and semiretired lawyer from Wellesley, Mass. "It's based on John's war record. John became very engaged with veterans as soon as he got back from Vietnam, and veterans in turn have become engaged with John." ... "I think we can put together the largest veteran organization ever to support a political candidate," Hurley said. "The message is simple: We want a veteran in the White House." I am glad that so many veterans are coming out to work for Kerry. But I am disturbed by that final comment. "We want a veteran" is a nice rallying cry. Indeed, I cheered at the thought at first. But, on further consideration I think it is a dangerous proposition. First of all, Clinton wasn't a veteran. Are these Kerry supporters now saying that it was a mistake to have Clinton as President because he wasn't a veteran? Second, Dean isn't a veteran. Nor are many of the other Dem. candidates (does Edward's have any military background?) What are the Kerry supporters going to do if Dean gets the nomination? Say that the "we want a veteran" claim no longer applies? I'm frankly disturbed by the idea that only a military person should be considered for President. I blame this in part on the recent confused usage of the title of "Commander in Chief". It is often used in a way that makes it sound like it is just another of the President's title in all of his or her functions. No. Bush is not the "Commander in Chief" of America. He is the "Commander in Chief" of the U.S. armed forces. Just read the Constitution: Article. II. Section. 2. Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. There is nothing here that says that Bush, or any President, is "Commander in Chief" of anything BUT the military. I was disturbed when Gore said that Bush was his "Commander in Chief". No. Gore is a civilian and, as such, HAS no "Commander in Chief". I was disturbed when Zell Miller, several months back made the claim that he thought it was his duty to give his "Commander in Chief" the support he needed in the Senate. No. Miller is a Senator. A member of a branch of government co-equal in power to that of the President. Legislatures should never consider themselves as subservient to the chief executive (a much better over-all title for President btw). Clinton was not my Commander in Chief. Bush is not my Commander in Chief. Dean (or Kerry) will not be my Commander in Chief. The confusion on this point is a bad harbinger for the future.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home