These latter-day armchair generals really chap my asterisk.

I have thought many times before, that the difference between John Kerry then and John Kerry 35 years later -- it's not him but the population that is different. Now relatively few voters, parents, teachers, movers and shakers ever served in wartime or at all, certainly few of the reporters, editorialists and talking heads.

Back then most HAD; now most have NOT. That just has to matter, in profound cultural ways we can't even understand or allow for.

Oh, and one other thing -- I have a "rational" problem with glorifying the counsel of "those who have been there" because it's inevitably so selective -- the only ones any of us ever glorify are the selected ones we agree with, and then we find various reasons to trash the ones whose politics we can't stomach.

This cuts both ways of course, against those who hate the Swiftboaters and those who hate Kerry. And whatever one thinks of George W. Bush, I believe he did serve during wartime, unlike Bill Clinton? They all served and pretty much together during the same armed conflict and with similar risks and rewards at stake both personally and for the country, yet drew opposite conclusions from their experiences -- so that common service wasn't common at all, and can't possibly be the relevant factor that automatically makes their politics trump the rest of us who didn't -- can it?

isn't Lincoln known for getting the best counselors he could get to help him in government?

the problem with Bush is that he decides what is going to be a good idea and then bends facts to fit that decision. Nobody can accuse Lincoln --or for that matter any other president in the history of this country-- of being so disengaged from reality like Bush is.

Yes, Liza! I heard Doris Kearns Goodwin on NPR this summer about her Lincoln history, Team of Rivals

These men, all accomplished, nationally known, and presidential, originally disdained Lincoln for his backwoods upbringing and lack of experience, and were shocked and humiliated at losing to this relatively obscure Illinois lawyer. Yet Lincoln not only convinced them to join his administration--Seward as secretary of state, Chase as secretary of the treasury, and Bates as attorney general--he ultimately gained their admiration and respect as well.

How he soothed egos, turned rivals into allies, and dealt with many challenges to his leadership, all for the sake of the greater good, is largely what Goodwin's fine book is about. Had he not possessed the wisdom and confidence to select and work with the best people, she argues, he could not have led the nation through one of its darkest periods.">

Obviously here are more critical leadership skills than "war" and maybe we ought to honor, reward and follow politicians with Lincoln's attributes regardless of military service. I think it's fair to say neither Kerry NOR Bush excels at overcoming the shortcomings of their upbringing, soothing egos to turn rivals into allies, listening to wise counsel with whom they personally disagree, and dealing as effective leaders with challenges for the greater good.

You are off topic. The thread is about "arm chair generals" and how they're not to be trusted in matters of war because they don't have military experience. To that non-point, I responded that therefore Lincoln's role in the civil war was invalid and suspect because of his lack of military past. But the Civil War wrong anyway, right, because "war is not the answer"

Actually, the armchair generals to whom I was referring (as was Mr. O'Donnell) are all the yammering-head idiots, self-sanctifying pundits, rubber-stamp political 'operatives', and their annoying ilk that so cretinously clutter up the so-called news programs every time you press the channel-change button on your lifestyle-enhancement device of choice.

For the record, the lanky Mr. Lincoln (while he may well have been holy hell on haberdashers and shoe salesmen) despite his own lack of direct military experience did do a worthy job of exercising leadership and oversight of his camp-chair generals while serving as commander-in-chief -- with, as has been duly noted, the assistance though not always the support of an unusually broad spectrum of advisers and cabinet members.

And I also do espouse the notion that "war is not the answer." Don't even have to call a lifeline or look it up on The Google to know that one, nosirree Bob. Instead, as Thomas Mann so aptly phrased it, "War is only a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."

And in yr hmbl crspndnt's opinion, those who are too cowardly to pursue the cause of peace while still being too craven to serve in the cause of war have absolutely *no* business insisting that others should have to do so in their place.

Just my $.02, of course. YMMV.