It just seems to me, that if someone is going to possibly send our military into harms way, they should at least have a glimps of what it is about?
2007-02-23 03:10:35 · 19 answers · asked by ProLife Liberal 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Yes, grump I do remember. And I remember how he tried to circumvent Federal, State, and City government laws and election regulations to try to stay mayor of NYC
2007-02-23 08:00:15 · update #1
Lincoln was part of the Illinois militia for a short time, during the battle with Indians. Ronald Reagan, even though he never went through any military training, was given a direct commission to make training movies. FDR was a cripple, and not being a veteran ignored the warnings of the attack on Pearl Harbor, giving my argument credence.
2007-02-24 02:22:33 · update #2
How do you explain William Jefferson Clinton? The only military experience he had was protesting it. if it was not for his constant campaigning and legacy building, we might not be in the Middle East today. Don't tell me about how he lowered the deficit, he did that by closing down bases and stripping the military. Who do you think came up with those plans with him? Hillary of course.
2007-02-23 03:23:12 · answer #1 · answered by lumpy r 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Having served a couple years in the reserves (as Bush did) or even seeing active service in a peacetime military isn't much of a qualification - as any analyst will tell you, running a war is a lot different than fighting in one. I, too, would like to see a Commander in Chief who served but nowadays, when the post-draft generation is coming of age, that isn't feasible.
Looking back at the last few Presidents, can one really argue that Carter was a better President than Reagan because of his service? Or Bush Jr. is better than Clinton? Or, going even further back, that Grant was better than Lincoln? The correlation between military service and ability to govern is practically non-existent.
2007-02-23 03:21:16 · answer #2 · answered by JerH1 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
First off, OUR troops have been in harms way for quite some time. NO other govt. on this planet is as well equipped to hunt down the Islamic cowards as we are. Guess we have to be the NEW WORLD POLICE, NOBODY else wants the job. Having a military background IS a plus but not essential. As long as we act like a NATION!! There is truth in the words that "you can fight them THERE,or you can fight them HERE!" IF we have to fight them HERE,then MANY Americans are going to be slaughtered like the SHEEP that they are! THAT SIMPLE!! We do not always have to be at war,but we MUST maintain OUR country to OUR rules,like it or not! Remember...WE did NOT start 9/11/01.
2007-02-26 17:16:57 · answer #3 · answered by Pat A 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i might vote fro Giuliani. we desire a nuts and bolts guy, no longer a huge dreamer suitable now. The Iraq conflict has drained the treasury and the money will never be there to start a team of latest classes. i think of Obama is a robust guy, nonetheless. in line with hazard in a decade he will have an mind-blowing music checklist like Rudy, and the cases would be suitable for his candidacy.
2016-10-16 07:58:07 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its all about the team. A good leader puts together a great team. Bush has a team that matched who he is...bad leader, self serving, pre-designed motives, lack of knowledge of world politics. Had he or anyone on his team known about World Politics, they would have known exactly what would happen in Iraq. SO whom ever the next Pres is needs to have a great team, an analytical mind, the ability to listen to all sides, no preordained motivation, no connection to oil or other self serving interests and then when it does come to war. Lets have a leader who knows and understands world politics. Cultures of other people. Its not about the military its about the leadership and the brain!!!!
2007-02-23 03:27:03 · answer #5 · answered by meldorhan 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
And be capable to handle stress & listen to good advise, etc.....
Giuliani is arrogant, bigoted, ill tempered and a womanizer. He divorced his 2nd wife, Donna Hanover, by announcing it at a press conference instead of telling her first. He was having an affair with an aide living at Gracie Mansion while still married and mayor of NY and he took credit for all the good things that were done by others in NYC. He fired William Bratton; the police commissioner in 1994 when he found out he made the cover of Time magazine because he (Giuliani) wanted to take the credit for the innovative crime fighting. I lived in NY during his dictatorship, and believe me, I would not want him as president. His character is far worse than Bush & Clinton's worse faults rolled into one, if you can believe that's possible. His name should be Mussoliani.
As for 9/11…. he’s no hero, he just happened to be in the right place at the right time. The real heroes of 9/11 were the NYC firefighters & police plus all the other forces from the surrounding tri-state areas who voluntarily came to pitch in & help us.”
OK, here'a a link from Newsweek:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17081159/sit...
His resume:
http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=7ebb4b22-83ac-4da6-8073-c70a66166ea5
2007-02-23 03:28:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
A military background is not a prerequisite for president. If you're concerned about how they will do as Commander-in- Chief, vote for the candidate with the most character. Leadership comes easy to those with good values.
2007-02-23 03:17:51 · answer #7 · answered by Matt 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Having served in the military is not a requirement for president. But, last time I checked, the President does not have the authority to declare war. I could have sworn Congress has the last say when it comes to that.
2007-02-23 03:23:50 · answer #8 · answered by Dragonman 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Why?? What does any military experience have to do with being a good president? I'll answer that.... nothing. There are bigger, better things to consider like their values and if they are a strong leader who is not afriad to do what needs to be done in spite of Liberals bashing them constantly.
2007-02-23 03:19:27 · answer #9 · answered by Dave 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The founding fathers apparently thought differently. They didn't include military service as a requirement for being president.
2007-02-23 03:15:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋