RideRocket
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2005
- Posts
- 3,009
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 49
- Points
- 268
- Location
- Arlington, VA, USA
- Sexuality
- 80% Straight, 20% Gay
- Gender
- Male
ClaireTalon said:I wonder that nobody has yet come up with the possible problem of the military placing a very dependent officer into the President's office, hoping to bargain from his decisions. To avoid such an unpleasant mishap, as well as someone with token service, my suggestion would be having the candidate's military career examined by an ad-hoc committee of officers, who could then express a positive/negative recommendation for the candidate. They should decide along such criterions as combat experience, awards, evaluation reports, eventual reprimands etc. Necessarily these officers would have to be elected and nominated anew with every election, and be ruled out for all further elections after their participation.
Unfortunately, the reason this will never work is that it will be immediately corrupted by those with a political agenda. For example, John Kerry's service in Vietnam is commendable. However, his service (while still in the military!) after returning and joining the anti-war movement is not.
I don't mean this in terms of anti-war = bad, but while he was testifying before Congress and 'secretly' meeting the enemy (Vietnamese delegations), he was still in the military, and thus still had certain rules and regulations to abide by. If such a committee were to exist to review his potential for candidacy, what would they find? As of right now, they would find nothing because his records have been sealed. Why have they been sealed? Kerry certainly won't tell us, but many believe he was given a dishonorable discharge because of his actions upon returning from Vietnam.
Anyway, not a Kerry-bashing, just an example of why this type of committee wouldn't work.