Good Krugman column

And this marks the first time that Raznor's Rants links to a a column by Krugman. (I never bothered reading his stuff before because I was instantly sick of his "Bush is wrong but he's right about Iraq" stance) Here's an excerpt:

Gen. Georges Boulanger cut a fine figure; he looked splendid in uniform, and magnificent on horseback. So his handlers made sure that he appeared in uniform, astride a horse, as often as possible.

It worked: Boulanger became immensely popular. If he hadn't lost his nerve on the night of the attempted putsch, French democracy might have ended in 1889.

We do things differently here — or we used to. Has "man on horseback" politics come to America?

Some background: the Constitution declares the president commander in chief of the armed forces to make it clear that civilians, not the military, hold ultimate authority. That's why American presidents traditionally make a point of avoiding military affectations. Dwight Eisenhower was a victorious general and John Kennedy a genuine war hero, but while in office neither wore anything that resembled military garb.

Given that history, George Bush's "Top Gun" act aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln — c'mon, guys, it wasn't about honoring the troops, it was about showing the president in a flight suit — was as scary as it was funny.

-------------------------------------------------

But U.S. television coverage ranged from respectful to gushing. Nobody pointed out that Mr. Bush was breaking an important tradition. And nobody seemed bothered that Mr. Bush, who appears to have skipped more than a year of the National Guard service that kept him out of Vietnam, is now emphasizing his flying experience. (Spare me the hate mail. An exhaustive study by The Boston Globe found no evidence that Mr. Bush fulfilled any of his duties during that missing year. And since Mr. Bush has chosen to play up his National Guard career, this can't be shrugged off as old news.)

Read the rest. Really, you've already read close to a half of it above.

Let's face it, Bush is acting like an Imperial dictator, not a President. If you want to see another President who so brazenly flaunted his military service, you have to go back all the way to 1789, when George Washington showed up to his inauguration in a full General's uniform. But this latter act can be forgiven because:

1) There weren't any Presidential traditions yet, and Washington was enstated President because of his military leadership.

and 2) Washington actually served his country by leading the Rebellion that led to the country's existence. Bush couldn't even show up to the National Guard, even though the only reason he was in the National Guard was so he wouldn't have to serve in Vietnam.

Frankly, the military shouldn't be sucking up to this man, they should be court martialing him.

And you know what, if it were someone else I wouldn't care. If Bush was never a public figure, then I could understand him letting his privelege get him out of Vietnam, I'd do the same thing in that position. And it's not like I'd necessarily condone him going AWOL, I'd understand the military's need to prosecute this, but what would I care if some rich kid didn't show up for his military service.

But when he flaunts a military record that doesn't exist and uses the US military as a political tool, and spends huge Defense dollars on a campaign stunt, that's where we look at his past and say, besides being a militant tyrant, he's a liar and hypocrite. And let's not forget that.