Changing Times, Changing Targets

[Bill Greenwood]

In the past, it was consdiered a plus for a candidate to have military service, with notable examples of this being "Ike' and "JFK", and also Sen. Mcgovern who was a decorated B-24 pilot in WWII, though not elected, and more recenlty Sen Mccain.
Ike, of course demostrated leadership and governing capiblity just under the highest levels, ie FDR, Sir Winston Churchill and Stalin. Those who had doubts about the war, ie Lindberg were considered not just mistaken but lacking character.Lindberg thought Stalin was a bigger threat than even Hitler, and that maybe Britain would not prevail. Good thing Stalin and Hitler did not ally for the war. Churchill, when critisized about Stalin, said that he'd speak well of the devil if Lucifer was fighting Hitler, and of Stalin, " in his heart, such as he has one, he knows we (Allies) are right".

If not a man in service, people were still expecedt to support a war, most any war, until at least Vietnam when some changes began even if slowly.

But it is not so absolute nowadays. One surprising point in the debate last night was when Both candidates were trying to diavow any support for the Iraq War, with one claiming to be against it from the start. Each in hindsight was trying to portay how wise they were in foresight at the start, not just be patriotic to blindly follow a lead to any war. It is notable that all those years ago the resolution that started the Vietnam war, passed the Senate 89 to 1, with lone opponent Wayne Morse of Oregon. Think how lonely that position was then and how right he was in retrospect.And nowadays it is hard to deal with our enemies and conflict goes on and on in some form. Could even Ike or JFK "win" this? Candiates now are hesitant to put their name behind an rash action. Are they using better judgement and wisdom,not to rush in or just dont see a clear path?
I know I havent written this as well as Id like, but if you saw that segment last night it was a notable change from past.