............................................

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Hillary, The Most Popular Lady in USA

Hillary the War Hero


On St. Patrick’s Day, Hillary Clinton boasted that she had firsthand experience in a war zone. She claimed that back in 1996, when she was First Lady, she flew directly into harm’s way during a visit to Bosnia. “I remember landing under sniper fire,” Clinton declared. “There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.” She added, “But it was a moment of great pride for me.”

Clinton offered the story as evidence of her courage under fire. Although she never served in the military, she cited the Bosnia story as an example that she was not afraid to face enemy fire in a war zone.

There was just one problem with her story. None of it was true.

This week, video emerged of Clinton’s arrival at the Tuzla airport. Instead of depicting a tense, sniper-infested war zone, it revealed that school children, not gun-toting Serbs, greeted Clinton at the airport. Instead of racing to her vehicle to avoid getting shot, Clinton enjoyed a reception on the tarmac that included U.S. military personnel and friendly Bosnian civilians. They welcomed her with flowers, handshakes, and poems.

After the video’s release, Clinton changed her story. She claimed that her St. Patrick’s Day misstatement resulted from “sleep deprivation.” But now it turns out that she made the same bogus claims about her Tuzla trip on at least two prior occasions, going as far back as December.

Needless to say, the flap makes Clinton look very foolish. But she’s not the first politician to make such a mistake. Political candidates have been embellishing their “war records” since the days of ancient Rome.

If there were a gold medal for telling stories of completely bogus heroics, it would go to Lyndon Johnson. During World War II, when LBJ was a young Congressman from Texas, he got himself awarded the Silver Star for valor in combat. What made the award particularly noteworthy was the fact that Johnson never got within 100 miles of the Japanese. His military service consisted of a six-month span in which he toured U.S. military bases in the south Pacific in early 1942. During his time on active duty, he never saw battle and never heard a shot fired in anger. Shortly thereafter, President Roosevelt banned sitting members of Congress, including Johnson, from serving on active duty. Nevertheless, for the rest of his life, Johnson would tell gripping and completely untrue stories of the “bombing runs” he flew against the Japanese during World War II.

Not all politicians feel compelled to fabricate war stories. Some politicians are honest about their lack of wartime heroics. Abraham Lincoln, who spent three months in the Illinois state militia during the Black Hawk War of 1832, freely admitted that the only blood he ever shed for his country was to “mosquitos.”

Nevertheless, as Clinton’s Tuzla whopper shows, many politicians believe that experience under fire gives them a special advantage with the voters. Some politicians, including Clinton, will even make up stories of courage under fire to gain that advantage.

But are they right? Do voters care if politicians have experience in war?

Those questions have special relevance in 2008 because one of the candidates is a genuine war hero. In the 1960s, John McCain flew 23 combat missions over North Vietnam. He also narrowly avoided death during the devastating fire aboard the U.S.S. Forrestal in July 1967. Although he was offered the opportunity to return home, McCain declined it and secured a transfer to another aircraft carrier. Three months later McCain was shot down during a mission over Hanoi. He would spend the next five and a half years in captivity.

Does McCain’s distinguished war record give him an advantage in the general election?
If recent history is any guide, the answer is no.

To be sure, we’ve elected plenty of combat veterans in the past. They include George Washington (French and Indian War), James Monroe (American Revolution), Andrew Jackson (War of 1812), William Henry Harrison (War of 1812), Zachary Taylor (War of 1812), Ulysses S. Grant (Mexican War), Rutherford B. Hayes (Civil War), James Garfield (Civil War), Benjamin Harrison (Civil War), William McKinley (Civil War), Theodore Roosevelt (Spanish-American War), Harry Truman (World War I), John Kennedy (World War II), Gerald Ford (World War II), and George H. W. Bush (World War II). In all, 15 of our 42 presidents have had combat experience, and many others served in the military but never saw battle.

At first blush, that would seem to indicate that going into harm’s way is a great asset for a presidential candidate. But if you look closer, what’s striking is that only four presidents in the last 100 years have had combat experience: Truman, Kennedy, Ford, and Bush Sr.

Moreover, in the last 40 years, combat veterans have lost more presidential races than they’ve won. George McGovern flew 35 bombing missions over Nazi-occupied Europe during World War II and won a chest full of medals, but that didn’t prevent him from losing 49 of 50 states to Richard Nixon in the 1972 presidential election. In 1976, Gerald Ford, who won 10 battle stars in the Pacific during World War II, lost to Jimmy Carter, whose Navy career consisted solely of peacetime service. George H. W. Bush flew 58 combat missions in the Pacific during World War II, but nevertheless in 1992 he lost to Bill Clinton, a man who by his own admission used every legal method at his disposal to avoid military service during the Vietnam War. And in 1996 Clinton went on to easily defeat Bob Dole, a decorated World War II veteran who lost the use of his right arm after being wounded in combat in Italy.

Moreover, it should not be forgotten that John McCain’s record of heroism didn’t help him during his 2000 campaign against George W. Bush, a man who unlike his father had no combat experience whatsoever. In 2004, Bush Jr. went on to defeat John Kerry, a Navy veteran who saw combat while commanding a patrol boat on the Mekong Delta during the Vietnam War.

So why doesn’t experience on the frontlines matter to voters any more? Part of the reason is demographics. During the Second World War, more than 75% of American men between the ages of 18 and 40 served in the military. It is a very different story today. Although we are engaged in two wars, less than 1% of the American population is currently serving in the U.S. military. In the nation as a whole, military veterans compose only about 12% of the population. The number of veterans shrinks every year, particularly as the World War II generation dies off.

As a result, relatively few Americans have first-hand experience with the military, and an even smaller number have combat experience. The bottom line is that as an institution the military has become a mystery to the great majority of Americans.

There are other factors at work as well. In recent elections, the clear trend is that voters prefer candidates with charisma over candidates with strong resumes (thus, Clinton over Bush Sr in 1992 and Bush Jr. over Al Gore in 2000). Wartime heroics are nice, but they aren’t going to make up for other shortcomings in a candidacy. For example, in 1996 Bob Dole’s dour appearance and acerbic wit made a much deeper impression on voters than stories of his World War II experiences.

There are many lessons here, but two stand out. The first is that voters care a lot more about a candidate’s personality, television appearance, and position on the issues than about a candidate’s biography. That’s something McCain should bear in mind. If he wins on November 4, it won’t be because of his long and admirable service in the Navy. It will be because of his stand on the issues and his ability to connect with voters.

The other lesson is that in the 24/7 news culture in which we live, candidates tell fibs about their biographies at their peril. In an age of Youtube and LexisNexis, candidates simply won’t get away any longer with fabricated war stories like those LBJ told a half century ago. Through the uproar over her bogus Tuzla story, Hillary Clinton has learned that lesson the hard way.

Related Links:

Posted by Md Mominul Islam at 10:18 PM

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)