Who gets to judge?

Jonah Goldberg, of National Review Online, hit the nail on the head. He is griping in this article about people who complain that so-an-so doesn't have the right to judge because they weren't there. He explains that we don't allow someone to serve as juror who was an eyewitness to a crime.

After pointing out that Democrats were making this case when Bill Clinton ran for president the first time, he then makes this excellent observation.

My point isn't the usual hypocrisy gotcha, though that's certainly worth pointing out. It's that experience — while more often than not superior to the lack of it — isn't as powerful or important as we like to think. If service in Vietnam or in uniform were the prerequisite for correct thinking on military and foreign-policy issues, then you'd think Veterans would all agree with each other. Obviously, they don't. The media's favorite veteran, John McCain, disagrees with John Kerry about Iraq and most foreign-policy issues (depending on which day of the week Kerry is talking). John Edwards talks about how Kerry still carries shrapnel in his leg and therefore...therefore...therefore, well, something along the lines of nobody's ever allowed to criticize John Kerry. Obviously, that's idiotic on its face. If it's not, maybe we should count the side with the most shrapnel in its collective body and declare it the most qualified to lead the country. My guess is Karl Rove would be happy with that.