Bush wants to be remembered as a war president. In history great leaders, Caesar, Alexander the Great, Duke of Wellington, Eisenhower, Churchill etc, have led their men and women from the front in battle. What we have is a president and his cronies who are prepared to send other peoples children to their death but avoided the Draft or any form of conflict themselves.
2006-07-27 14:32:41 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes, send them all in! Add Howard and Blair too, they shouldn't be sitting on the sidelines either! Then at least the war would have a point to it....
2006-07-27 14:58:47 · answer #1 · answered by Aussie Chick 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
If I were President I would be on the battlefield. It’s a personal choice that every President has to make. FDR never stepped foot on the battle field. Nor did Eisenhower during his term of office. Not everyone can be George Washington suppressing uprising by ridding on his white horse and carrying a long sword.
2006-07-27 14:57:15 · answer #2 · answered by Thomas the Tank 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Many are attorneys and that they be attentive to all the tricks. that's extra proper to comfortably overlook than to be charged with purgery in a while. interior the tell all books after the Bush administration is finished we are able to locate a lot of stuff uncovered. it will be stuff we gained't even think of advantageous now. i think of we've basically considered the top of the corruption iceberg with those human beings. i spotted how while no longer one be conscious approximately Clinton exchange into stated on your question how some cowards keep away from the question promptly and circulate via their previous known "properly Clinton did it too". merely because of the fact one fool lies does that mean the all could? good grief? If something they could be placing the coolest occasion. They claimed to deliver honesty and integrity decrease back to the White homestead yet they do the comparable as who they complained approximately and worse. Hypocrites all.
2016-11-03 03:56:00 · answer #3 · answered by Erika 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not necassarily. Roosevelt never fought on the feild, and neither did Churchill. Napolean led his men into battle, and them all into Slaughter. Imagine that the President did go into battle and was killed, and his replacement went to battle and was killed. It wouldnt be good.
2006-07-27 14:37:12 · answer #4 · answered by Ray A 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's a childish argument - kinda like me saying Have you ever held a political office? If you haven't then you shouldn't be allowed to voice your opinion here on YA's political page.
Clinton had no military service but yet he was able to shoot missiles into Serbia & Iran. Why wasn't he on the navy ships pressing the fire button? See Childish!
2006-07-27 14:39:23 · answer #5 · answered by therandman 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The one American you mention, Eisenhower, was a terrible president. I think a case can be made that he was in fact the start of our capitulation to the worst of the Arabs. He conceded Iran's moral claim to nationalize western oil fields. Thanks Dwight, you are at the start of the so called war on terror.
2006-07-27 15:00:45 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, last I checked, FDR, Clinton, Lincoln and others never were on the battlefield either.
2006-07-27 14:37:55 · answer #7 · answered by dasher 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are on the Battlefield, more so than a smart *** punk that is not dry befhind the ears. You do not know sh--t from shoe polish.
2006-07-27 14:38:05 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not just on the battlefield - but in the front lines.
2006-07-27 14:37:58 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are on the battle field every day. You have all the answers have you been on the battle field yet?
2006-07-27 14:36:17 · answer #10 · answered by rosi l 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋