I thought about this because of Bill Clinton. This man ran away from the draft and refused to serve in the military, but he can run for president and be commander in chief of the military. I just wanted to see what others thought. Oh, and I don't care about his political affiliation either.
2006-11-15 16:43:57 · 12 answers · asked by Shiva07 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
I agree, the President should at least be extremely patriotic and willing to die for his country as an example for everyone else. I think people in general don't hold standards too high anymore.
2006-11-15 16:47:54 · answer #1 · answered by uknowme 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
At least Clinton openly opposed the Vietnam War (not necessarily the wisest or safest move for someone who might have political ambitions) and he has to get some credit for standing up for something. Bush, on the other hand played it safe and managed to avoid (run away, if you wish) service while maintaining the façade of supporting (but not too much) the war. Bush took the ideal position for a coward who believes in nothing except himself and his image.
In any case, and regardless of Clinton or Bush, the answer is yes. America’s Founding Fathers put the military under secular civilian authority for a reason. They did not trust a standing military anymore than Eisenhower trusted the military-industrial complex. Military service is not a criteria for being President, not should it.
2006-11-16 00:53:45 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
The draft is not a requirement for one to become a President. Thus, Bill Clinto became a President even though he ran away from it.
2006-11-16 01:04:40 · answer #3 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Perhaps the libs prefer one buttplug who started to serve but then turned coward and traitor by faking wounds and then putting himself in for medals he didn't earn in order to bug out on the brave men he was supposed to be serving with. Then testified before Congress telling a pack of lies about those same brave men and openly going to Paris to collaborate with the enemy while still serving on active duty, and who now not allow his service records to be open for public inspection. I spent 14 month in combat in Viet Nam so I think I have the right to ask how many of these geniuses who constantly complain about the President's National Guard service actually served in anything. The only thing most of them served was fast-food burgers.
2006-11-16 07:04:59 · answer #4 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It is very bad to change the constitution everytime something seems wrong. The foundation of this country depends on leaving that thing alone.
2006-11-16 00:55:09 · answer #5 · answered by breastfed43 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well lets not forget you have an active president who went AWOL during Nam and was only in the reserves. Yet he sends the reservist first to an active war zone. Something hypocritical there don't ya think?
2006-11-16 00:49:39 · answer #6 · answered by Gettin_by 3 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Opposing a war in not as bad as going AWOL.
2006-11-16 07:59:00 · answer #7 · answered by Paul K 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, but then it just goes to show you, just what that much money and backstabbing can get you. How much brown do you think he had to wear on his nose to get there?
2006-11-16 02:48:42 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No he is not a law abiding citizen and he is a traitor.
2006-11-16 12:53:53 · answer #9 · answered by joevette 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If he kills people on the street it's bad.If he kills people for his country it good.What difference does it make.
2006-11-16 03:21:18 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋