(Bush via the Guard, Clinton via an educational deferment) SInce the President as Commander in Chief, has often aksed our young people to lay down their lives, wouldn't our best bet be to hire a vet for the job?
Regardless of party affiiation
2006-12-30 00:10:21 · 7 answers · asked by paulisfree2004 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Iraq51- the question reads elections not presidents, clinton and bush were each elected twice, also bush was in the Alabama guard and was awol, during the time. Youve missed the entire point.
2006-12-30 00:58:31 · update #1
daltonjam- in combat many of us enlisted men made decissions too, and any smart officer, always listened to his enisted's advise during combat. Espically a shave tail in the bush had best learn to allow the sgt to make the decisions and keep his but alive
2006-12-30 01:00:50 · update #2
Yes, it would be great if the Commander-in-Chief could be a veteran, but the way our system works, it is usually he who spends the most, wins the seat.
2006-12-30 00:23:07 · answer #1 · answered by mrjomorisin 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The problem with that is that it needs to be a war veteran. After seeing first hand the horrors of war it is less likely that they would promote it for any reason than self defense.
After an extended peace, there would be no more war veterans and no one eligible for office.
I think a better course would be to require the Commander in Chief to lead the charge and run the military campaign from the front lines.
The VP could remain to head up the domestic issue related to this country.
This could conceivably put any of our Washington legislators in harms way when war was declared, and reduce the use of military action.
BRING ALL OF OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!!
2006-12-30 08:20:29 · answer #2 · answered by Jack C 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm not a Clinton fan, but at least he went to class and was not out snorting coke living off daddy's name and money. Of course Clinton didn't inhale either ? I would guess, yes it could be better if the person is not an extremist. I thought Mc Cain wouldn't have been bad, but apparently its the in thing now days to attack someone who served in the military and elect people who haven't. I guess the old "people who live in glass houses" can really be impacted by political spin.
2006-12-30 08:29:13 · answer #3 · answered by David B 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
if a person served in the armed forces , and was only an enlisted man, and made no command decision, what effect would that have on the person to make presidential decisions? i dont believe it would matter either way if a person serves in the armed forces or not.
2006-12-30 08:22:08 · answer #4 · answered by daltonjames3 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
One was smoking pot in Europe the other was flying fighter planes.HMMM not much of a comparison there.
2006-12-30 08:40:10 · answer #5 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Did Ronald McDonald serve in Vietnam? I'd vote for him.
2006-12-30 08:12:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
You might have a good point!
2006-12-30 08:21:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋