liberals support both but bash Bush on his military service. Shouldn't you have to serve before you can lead the country?
2007-01-13 01:32:53 · 21 answers · asked by ? 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Too bad you can't see the reactions of users when they read questions . I was smiling ! Smiling because the 'supposedly big issue' of military service records of candidates only seemed to matter to the Left when they had a potential 'whipping boy' . Now that the Left's candidates are minus any military service.. ...it won't be that 'big issue' that it once was . Ahhhh the precise definition of HYPOCRISY !!!
2007-01-13 01:39:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
They have just as much "military service" as Dick Cheney, Tom Delay, Dennis Hastert, Bill Frist, Mitch McConnell, John Ashcroft and Karl Rove. Which is none.
Using your argument that only those serving in the military are fit to be leaders would exclude FDR, John Adams, John Quincy Adams from eligibilty for the presidency.
2007-01-13 01:45:01 · answer #2 · answered by harrisnish 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it definitely adds a level of credibility when making military decisions, but I don't think you should *have* to serve in the military to be the President.
I think that if everybody knew about the outright hatred that the Clintons had for the military, less people would have voted for them.
2007-01-13 01:45:27 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are right.
Bush and Cheney were a colossal mistake to run this country. Oh, and Ronald Reagan,and Nixon and Clinton, too.
Jimmy Carter, Ford and George HW Bush were OK.
2007-01-13 01:58:33 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
a lot for all of you understanding the structure at the same time as its on your income! BTW speaking about hoping someone offs the president etc will be seen as treason if it got here about to were GW! Pelosi is the subsequent .....even if you wish it or not! Now did you recognize WHY this replaced into finished? provide you a contact...FDR!
2016-11-23 15:48:26 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think you should have to serve in the military before you get elected or appointed to any role in the white house.
2007-01-13 01:36:26 · answer #6 · answered by BORED AT WORK 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
about the same as bush - I'm certainly not a fan of any of the three but at least the women didn't join up then have daddy get them out of doing their "time"...anyone that lived in that era knows that is how the rich "did things" much as they do now....screw the middle-class!
2007-01-13 01:43:02 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
bush never saw viet nam ,he partied in the U.S.A. when people like me ,19 yr. old, were sent to fight in viet nam. very few kids
of the gov.elected ever see war. we suffer from the sickness
called"senators son" it ain`t me... so don`t be barkin` about women and their military records, it`s been a mans duty,and our
pres. was in the military but he didn`t serve...
2007-01-13 01:46:09 · answer #8 · answered by Michael L 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think military service should be a requirement for any representative, senator or higher position.
2007-01-13 01:39:11 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Zero, zip, nada.
But remember that if you are a Liberal having no military service is a badge of honor, rather like spitting on the troops or screaming "BABY KILLER!!!"
Our greatest enemy is no longer terrorism, its the Democrats, RINOs, and Media who want us to lose in Iraq despite the consequences of Iran conquering the whole of the middle east, requiring us to fight WW3.
2007-01-13 01:37:30 · answer #10 · answered by Eric K 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋