James Joyner has an excellent post on the “Chicken Hawk” issue (which, for reasons that have nothing to do with politics, always reminds me of Foghorn Leghorn cartoons)–his analogies to firefighters and law enforcement are apt.

At any rate, while I can see the point about saying that in the late 60s/early 70s Kerry’s service was of an order higher than Bush’s, and certainly multiple quanta more impressive than Cheney’s lack of service.

Fine.

However:

1) What does that have to do with the quality, or lack thereof, of the subsequent political careers of the three gentlemen?

2) What does that have to do with whether Bush or Kerry would make a better President?

3) I would note: George H. W. Bush was an authentic war hero, as was Bob Dole: both were beaten soundly by Bill Clinton, who wasn’t a war hero. Carer was in the Navy, Reagan made some propaganda films, yet Reagan won. U. S. Grant was a general and won the CIvil War, but was a rotten President. FDR never served in the military, yet was a successful CINC. To my knowledge Thomas Jefferson never served in the military. Was Zachary Taylor a great President? Washington and Jackson left their marks, to be sure. In other words: what exactly does military service mean about being President? Is there a correlation of note?

4) Above all else, as I noted yesterday: why should serving in the military mean you are safe from all criticisms on your post-military defense-related activities?