The Right Kind of Military Experience – When the Generals Come Calling

Byron York, of the National Review Online, penned a piece on Sunday describing an attack by failed 2004 presidential candidate General Wesley Clark on John McCain. I don’t know Wes Clark but was in the military while he was (that’s kinda like saying I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night, eh?).

There was a recent conference call where some retired military leaders endorsed Hillary Clinton to be the next commander-in-chief. During that call Wes Clark made the following statement saying that McCain did not have the right kind of military experience:

“In the national security business, the question is, do you have — when you have served in uniform, do you really have the relevant experience for making the decisions at the top that have to be made? Everybody admires John McCain's service as a fighter pilot, his courage as a prisoner of war. There's no issue there. He's a great man and an honorable man. But having served as a fighter pilot — and I know my experience as a company commander in Vietnam — that doesn’t prepare you to be commander-in-chief in terms of dealing with the national strategic issues that are involved. It may give you a feeling for what the troops are going through in the process, but it doesn't give you the experience first hand of the national strategic issues.

If you look at what Hillary Clinton has done during her time as the First Lady of the United States, her travel to 80 countries, her representing the U.S. abroad, plus her years in the Senate, I think she's the most experienced and capable person in the race, not only for representing am abroad, but for dealing with the tough issues of national security.”

As I recall, General Clark was fired from his role as the NATO Commander (although in the military it is rarely said that one was fired – they were reassigned). In my career in the military (I just hope it was the right kind of experience to be voicing my opinion here), my observation was always that one has to really screw up to be relieved of a command before the tour was over. That just wasn’t something that was (or is) done lightly. Nonetheless, Wes Clark was fired from NATO.

But worse is why he was relieved a year early. During the 2004 presidential primaries, retired Gen. Hugh Shelton, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked if he would support retired Gen. Wesley Clark for president. He quickly took a drink of water. "That question makes me wish it were vodka," Shelton said. "I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote."

So, here is a guy relieved for “integrity and character” issues. This is not insignificant. And yet he thinks he knows what the right kind of military experience that is needed to be commander-in-chief.

But let’s look at what he said.

“But [McCain] having served as a fighter pilot — and I know my experience as a company commander in Vietnam — that doesn’t prepare you to be commander-in-chief in terms of dealing with the national strategic issues that are involved.”

First of all, Wes, how does being a company commander on the ground in Vietnam make one a better commander-in-chief than being a fighter pilot (I flew in jets in the Navy too)? Just what experience do you receive in a foxhole that others don’t? I might even say that McCain's experience in direct contact with the enemy on a daily basis makes him more qualified than the average grunt. After all, he was seeing them up close and personal.

But I’m curious as to how a foxhole provides you more “experience first hand of national strategic issues” than any other role in the military? The answer is – it doesn’t. So, tell me, Wes, how does being fired from NATO give you that experience?

Let’s look at past commanders-in-chief and see what in their career made them eligible to be our president and commander-in-chief. I won’t go back too far.

Woodrow Wilson, who led us into WWI, had NO military experience. Yet, he led the country into a war. He had been Governor of New Jersey, though.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (can I use his middle name), who commanded the military during WWII, was the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Wilson. That doesn’t really count for military experience since at that level you are really a politician trying to take care of the Navy. FDR had no time in uniform as far as I can tell.

Harry Truman was an artillery officer during WWI. So, we have the first US President in the 20th century to have both served in the military and to have led the military in a war. But, Truman wasn’t a company commander. Was his military experience the right kind? And we will never know but my guess is that if he hadn’t been FDR’s VP he would never have been president.

Dwight D. Eisenhower was a brilliant general in WWII. He led men in combat on a large scale. Unless you count the fact that he did start sending advisors to Vietnam he never led the military into a war as commander-in-chief. Did he have the right experience?

John Fitzgerald Kennedy (oops, there's that middle name again) was a PT boat skipper in WWII, not in a foxhole. He was courageous in saving his crew when they were sunk by a Japanese ship. Did that give him the right kind of military experience to lead us into Vietnam?

Lyndon Baines Johnson was Kennedy’s VP when he was assassinated. He, too, had been a naval reserve officer in WWII. Was this the right kind of military experience to keep us in Vietnam?

Richard Milhouse Nixon was also a naval reserve officer in the supply corps during WWII. Was that the right kind of military experience to lead us out of Vietnam?

Gerald Ford was another naval officer that served in WWII. Did he have the right kind of military experience? We’ll never know because he never led us in a war.

Jimmy Carter was also a naval officer and served primarily in the submarine service. Was this the right kind of military service to qualify as commander-in-chief? Let’s look at the Iranian hostage crisis to get that answer.

Ronald Reagan served in a motion picture unit during WWII because he was nearsighted and that excluded him from serving overseas. Was this the right kind of military experience?

George H. W. Bush was a navy pilot in WWII and was also shot down. Fortunately, he was rescued. But being a pilot like McCain, was that the right kind of military experience? Was he qualified to lead us to victory in Desert Storm?

William Jefferson Clinton never served in the military. Clark supports him and Hillary so what in their background gives them the right kind of military experience? WJC took us to Kosovo and Somalia. Was he qualified?

George W. Bush was a pilot in the Air National Guard. Was it the right kind of experience to be commander-in-chief?

My point here is that where I believe military experience is a plus for anyone to be our commander-in-chief, it isn’t really required. And if a candidate has military experience it really doesn’t matter what they did in the military. I just showed you a wide variety of military experience in the above past presidents, and some that had zero experience.

Whether or not a presidential candidate ever served in the military in any capacity is not that important to me. What is important is what they stand for and how well they can lead.

So Wes Clark is out to lunch on this. And to say that Hillary’s “ time as the First Lady of the United States, her travel to 80 countries, her representing the U.S. abroad, plus her years in the Senate” make her the most qualified person to be our next commander-in-chief is not only grossly idiotic but it gives credence to Gen. Shelton’s decision to fire him, and it should have been for more than Clark’s integrity and character flaws. After this comment he should add stupidity to the list of reasons.

And, Wes? Since when does military experience equate to right kind of domestic and economic expertise?


A-6Dude

Woman Warrior

4 parts vodka
1 part blue curacao
1 part freshly squeezed lime


Shake with ice until very cold and strain into a chilled cocktail glass. Garnish with a lime.

Berkeley Declares War on Marines

Among the classifications that liberals use to describe conservatives and republicans are: intolerant, narrow-minded, racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic and mean spirited, and the list goes on. Basically, we are not tolerant of alternative and different points of view.

Here’s what I’ve noticed about liberals: the very same people that accuse us of being any one or more of the above adjectives exhibit those traits FAR beyond that with which we are said to do. It starts with their intolerance of any opposing viewpoint and spreads out from there.

So, we shouldn’t be surprised by a story coming out of Berkeley, CA today. It appears that the local government wants the Marines out. We’re not talking about a Marine Corps base or airfield or supply depot. We’re talking about a recruiting office. The recruiting office opened in Berkeley a little over a year ago. They were quietly doing their business of recruiting volunteers to become Marine officers. That is, until about four months ago when Code Pink began regular sidewalk protests against these baby killers.

Then, the Berkeley City Council passed a measure by a vote of 8-1 to tell the Marines their downtown recruiting station is not welcome and "if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome guests."

Who would make better guests then? Perhaps Osama bin Laden or three or four of his followers? Or maybe they could turn the place into a day worker site. As long as it’s something that is against America I’m sure it will be acceptable.

The council also voted to explore enforcing a city anti-discrimination law, focusing on the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. This is where they expose their hypocrisy. Remember the tolerance and inclusion that they say we don’t exhibit? Well, I don’t see it on display by them either. In fact, I see bigotry, intolerance, discrimination and absolute un-patriotic behavior.

Liberals are HYPOCRITES! They are all for tolerance and diversity as long as you are agreeing with them. Just ask the liberal that keyed my car during the 2004 election because I had a Bush sticker on it. I had to check my Webster’s dictionary to make sure I new where to send the updated definition of tolerance to for inclusion in their next edition.

Then, in a separate 8-1 vote, the council voted to give protest group Code Pink a parking space in front of the recruiting office once a week for six months and a free sound permit for protesting once a week.

Now, I wonder if they would have voted to give a pro-war group that same type of privilege to protest in front of City Hall. Or, would they give Pro-Life group the same deal to protest in front of a baby killing clinic.

And then, it gets even more telling about who these people are.

"I believe in the Code Pink cause. The Marines don't belong here, they shouldn't have come here, and they should leave," said Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates.

Mayor Bates, you are entitled to your opinions. And you are free to express them regardless of how idiotic you sound doing so. But do you know why you are able to say these things and make a fool of yourself? Because the very Marines that you so despise and want out of your city are the same ones that freely put their lives on the line so that you can express your 1st Amendment rights, you ungrateful piece of s**t!

And now Code Pink is circulating petitions to get a measure on the ballot in November making it more difficult to open military recruiting offices in Berkeley if they are near homes, parks, schools, churches, libraries or health clinics (read: baby killing clinics) or anywhere else that anyone of the very tolerant citizens of Berkeley might find themselves having to endure the offense of the presence of a United States Marine.

Code Pink has the right to protest. And though I don’t agree with them I wouldn’t begrudge them their constitutional right to protest, even against the very people that secure that right. But they are protesting the wrong people.

Marines, or any other service for that matter, do not determine whether or not we go to war or when. Their job is to execute policy. That policy is set by the government. The President decides on taking us to war and the Congress must approve it. Like it or not, that is what has happened.

So, if these sheep want to protest, they should be outside of the White House and Capitol letting the politicians that approved this war know what they think. Insulting and impugning the honor of the Marines that protect their right to protest is ludicrous and deplorable.

Some business owners aren't happy with the weekly protests. "My husband's business is right upstairs, and this (protesting) is bordering on harassment," Dori Schmidt told the council. "I hope this stops."

Dori, you have just as much right to counter-protest if you wish. Why not do it? At least you’d be protesting against the right people – Code Pink.

These people, the Berkeley liberals and Code Pink, have no honor or courage. As far as I’m concerned they can protest all day long. They are hypocrites and cowards and do not represent what is good in America.

But at least they are not trying to convince us they support the troops like their liberal counterparts in Congress.

A-6Dude

Here’s an appropriate martini for this post:
Pink Gin Martini
2 parts gin
Bitters to taste

Shake over ice until COLD and strain into a cocktail glass. Garnish with a twist.

My Contract with America

A local talk radio station host, Chris Core, had listeners call in early last year to see if they could define a new Contract with America. There were a lot of good ideas submitted and some that were not so good. So I started thinking about it and came up with what I will call My Contract with America.

In my almost perfect world the items below would be part of what I would change if I could. The list is not all inclusive. I took parts of the list from the radio show and added a lot of my own ideas.

I don’t write in legal-speak so most of these are just plain-language tenants I would like to see incorporated. I know that this would not be easy and some may need re-thinking but we have to start somewhere.

So, at a minimum, here is the contract I would make with America:

I Believe that America is the greatest country ever:
-Freedom is the root of that greatness.

-In general, government is not the solution to our problems, it is often THE problem.

Balanced budget:
-The budget of the United States Federal Government must be balanced every fiscal year.

All Federally funded programs must show a measurable return on investment:
-Government spending must be treated like household spending (without credit cards).

-Government spending must not exceed the amount of taxes taken in.

-Any program or governmental agency/department that receives federal government funding must show a measurable return on that investment (ROI). Those metrics will have to be determined for each recipient program/agency/department.

-Any program or governmental agency/department that receives federal funds and does not meet a defined measure of effectiveness will have a penalty applied in the form of reduced funding the next year.

-Repeated failure to meet performance metrics may result in total de-funding. Here’s why… Americans have to live within their economic means and so should the government. This means that taxes must not be raised just to have more to spend.

-Any new program or governmental agency/department designated to receive government funds must have a measurable ROI defined prior to receiving those funds.

IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL:
-The southern border between the United States and Mexico must be secured within one year by fence, personnel and/or electronic devices in order to stop illegal entry into the United States.

-Unless one of your parents is a legal U.S. citizen, a child born here is not automatically a U.S. citizen (of course, this last one would require a change to Constitution).

-Any children who have been born in the United States of parents who are illegally in this country (commonly known as “anchor babies”) will have to pursue the same path for American citizenship as any other immigrant wanting to become a U.S. citizen.

PROTECTION OF THE AMERICAN CULTURE AND ELECTORAL PROCESS:
-English shall be designated as the official language of the United States. All ballots for elections shall be printed only in English.

-Anyone who wishes to vote shall be required to provide verified proof of U.S. citizenship at the polling booth.

-NO government forms or business shall be conducted in any other language but English.

VOTER IDs:
-All U.S. citizens that are legally allowed to vote must provide proof of citizenship in the form of a birth certificate or other acceptable form of identification.

-This form of positive ID must be shown in order to vote.

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE:
-This Congress will set a maximum of ten years by which time the United States must become fully independent of any foreign sources for its energy supply. We put a man on the moon in a decade and I think we can do this in a decade too.

-This will include, but not be limited to, expanded oil exploration and refining, and production of alternative sources such as nuclear power, ethanol, natural gas, solar, and/or wind.

CONGRESSIONAL REFORM:
-All bills must be approved or rejected solely on their own merit (that is, nothing unrelated to the intent of the original bill may be added). If you want a pork-spending bill then do it in the form of a bill that stands alone.

-There is no longer the ability to filibuster.

-All presidential appointments will receive a confirmation or rejection vote within 90 days of their nomination.

-No public office-holder may do business with, or try to influence, the vote of elected officials (lobbying) within 2 years of having left public office.

-Term limits will be set for all federally elected officials. House of Representatives will be changed to four (4) year terms and limited to three terms in office. The Senate will be limited to two terms in office. Unless running for President, no elected official shall serve longer than 14 years (total) in an elected federal office.

-Federally elected and appointed officials that choose to run for an office other than that which they currently hold must resign from their current office before seeking election for another office.

REFORM THE IRS and OUR TAX CODE:
-We will have an honest and open debate on migrating our current tax system to a flat tax, national sales tax or a similar form of taxation.

-Our current tax code is too complex and we need to move to a more simplistic plan.

A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD:
-All laws that apply to the rest of the country shall apply equally to Congress. This includes such laws as those enacted by the EEOC and OSHA.

-So that members of Congress may better relate to the average American, the Congressional pension plan shall be ended, and Congress will pay into, and receive, the same Social Security benefits as any other American.

-Congress shall receive no health care benefits that it cannot offer to each and every other American citizen.

I know that there are other areas that can be addressed and some of these may be incomplete. So, send my your ideas or recommendations. Then vote for me when I run for President ... why wait, write me in!

A-6Dude

Cigar Lover’s Martini
2.5 parts VS Cognac
0.5 parts Tawny Port

Shake over ice and strain into a chilled cocktail glass. Enjoy with a medium-to-heavy bodied cigar.

Halloween is bewitching

Blogging is new to me! I've read them from time to time but have never written one ... until now.

The catalyst for starting one occurred on Halloween. There was an article in the Washington Times entitled "Halloween bewitches schools". Having two kids in elementary school I was curious. I had an idea what it was about and I wasn't disappointed. I know that we are almost a month past Halloween but it's not just Halloween that is affected.

Apparently, certain holidays and their celebrations present problems for school systems in America (although this article was only about school systems in the greater DC metro area). It seems that some of our traditional holidays and/or their names are offensive to some groups. So, to make everyone comfortable, some schools have decided to change the name of the holiday or just not celebrate it at all. Not all are doing this, but it seems that a lot of them are. And it just isn't in this area of the country. And, as I write this there is another 'bewitching' article coming out of one of the Seattle school systems.

So how did this happen? When I was a kid ( a long time ago) we celebrated all of the holidays. We also called them by their real names. We looked forward to them. And the more we had the better for us. As a military brat we moved often and there was always a diverse group of kids everywhere I went (although we didn't use the word 'diverse' then, we just knew we were from different places). With all of these diverse kids from around the world we celebrated a lot of holidays. The more the merrier - it beat listening to the teachers. That's how kids view it!!

The reporter for the article interviewed representatives from several schools in surrounding counties to see how Halloween was being celebrated...or not. Some of the schools had no problem with the term Halloween. Others did.

As I read further in the article I started to see what the problem was (as if I didn't already know) ... someone might be uncomfortable or offended.

I was most alarmed by a comment Wayde Byard (Public Information Officer for the Loudoun County Schools) made in the article. Mr. Byard is quoted as saying "We're a multicultural school district. So a lot of people come here and simply don't understand [Halloween]." YGBSM!

It seems that now, those of us that were born and raised in this country have to be careful because our way of life might make a newcomer (citizen or not) uncomfortable? I thought perhaps I had fallen asleep and it was six months later (April Fool's Day....oh, can I call it that?).

I read that some of these people being interviewed want to call Halloween something other than Halloween to 'steer the celebration away from "scary" and toward "positive". Is that unbelievable, or what?!! Actually, it's not unbelievable. I've been watching it happen for years.

C'mon!! Even as a kid Halloween was never "scary". And we "positively" looked forward to that day each year so we could go from class to class and trick or treat, get some candy and then do it again that night.

First of all, America's culture (and yes, we have one) was formed over the last couple of hundred years in large part by those people from other cultures that came to this country to live the American life. A lot of those people brought traditions that have been adopted to create the culture of America. Our culture is different than other countries and we should be glad for that, and we should defend it.

Multiculturalism is the death knell to a society. We are a melting pot society, not an a la carte salad bar. When people come to this country they need to adapt to our way of life. We can and should respect their differences but we should not have to alter our culture or traditions for them. They have a choice on whether to live here or not.

I cannot imagine moving to another country to live and not learning the language (if it isn't already English) and learning and accepting their customs and traditions. Having been in 18 other countries in the world I can tell you that every country has its own culture. Well, at least those 18 that I visited had individual cultures. So I tried to learn as much as I could before and during my visits to these countries to make the experience more rewarding. But I never dreamed of asking those countries to change their way of life to accomodate me. How arrogant would that be? I was in their country and felt it was incumbent upon me to honor their customs.

I said that I have been watching this happen for years now. I have two children in the Loudoun County School District and for the last five years they have come home with projects that they make at Christmas time (oops, sorry, I mean Winter time) such as the dreidles and menorahs, and they get told all about Kwanzaa and yet, although about 85% of the people of this country are Christians and celebrate Christmas, they are told they can make snowflakes and snowmen but nothing that has a religious theme or symbol to it. No kidding - my wife was helping in my daughter's class a couple of years ago and she was asked not to bring anything in other than a snowflake or a snowman...no crosses, no stars, no candy canes, no Christmas tree cutouts and no reference to what Christmas is really about.

Why not? I want my kids to learn about other cultures and their traditions like I did growing up. I also want them to be able to celebrate our traditions too.

I, for one, am tired of the so-called 'enlightened' belief that we have to give up our way of life to make those from other cultures feel 'comfortable'. Those people who came to this country chose to do so and, in making that choice, should understand our culture, customs and traditions.

And if they don't like certain celebrations or traditions -- then they have the option of not participating...just like anyone else. But those traditions and celebrations should not have to be watered down and/or renamed just because a tiny minority don't ;understand' them or feel uncomfortable. How about sharing things from your culture with us. Like I said, as a kid we welcomed any new tradition that gave us a reason to have something to celebrate instead of having to listen to the teacher.

So, if these people come here and 'simply don't understand it', as Mr. Byard says, then they should learn it. No one requires them to participate. This is our country, and if someone wants to come here and live then they should assimilate into our culture. The surest way to destroy any culture is to try to make it multicultural.

And, why is it that the majority of the population has to kowtow to those that preach tolerance? Where is their tolerance to our own traditions and celebrations? But all is not lost, according to the article, in one of the school districts they are 'allowed' to sing Christmas hymns as long as they 'play songs from other religions as well'. I have no problem with that. So, why can't we let our kids celebrate our traditions like Christmas as long as we recognize the others? Common sense seems to be MIA.

Another thing, let's refer to our celebrations by their real names. Have the guts to call things what they are: Halloween is Halloween; Thanksgiving is Thanksgiving; Christmas is Christmas; Hanukkah is Hanukkah; Ramadan is Ramadan; Easter is Easter and I could go on.

This is supposed to be free country and yet those of us who grew up here are finding it harder to celebrate our traditions, whether based in religion or not, because those that preach tolerance and diversity don't practice what they preach. Or, someone might not understand it. Give me a break!!!

It's time for a martini and a cigar.

A6Dude

I know it's a little late but here is a Halloween martini from my collection of over 700 recipes:

Dracula's Kiss:

2 parts Black Cherry Vodka, 1 part Grenadine, 3 parts Coke.

Pour the Grenadine into a COLD cocktail glass. Float the Vodka over it and fill with Coke. Garnish with a cherry - it should float on top of the Grenadine.