I have seen many questions about Bush and Cheney's military record , and see other posts about Republicans that did not serve in the military. Does this fact mean they should NOT have brought us to Iraq? I am confused, do you see it as hypocrisy that you should have served in the military to be Commander In Chief. There ARE many Democrats/libs that served this country, and I thank them for that. Are there not also many cons/rep that have done the same? McCain, Dole, etc.
Thank You for Your time.
2007-09-01 16:52:46 · 10 answers · asked by Supercell 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I don't think it's necessary for the Commander-in-Chief to have extensive military service - but it is important that they surround themselves with well-informed and experienced professionals in all areas of the cabinet and executive branch. In many ways, the President is a figure head of a much larger organization - I wouldn't say puppet, however. Really, I can't expect a single individual to be well versed in every aspect of society and government.
What becomes the issue is one of judgment - and if the judge is given incomplete or incompetent advice - then it all falls to pieces. I believe this is the case with GWB. I don't believe he's inherently inept as some may think - but I do think his organization is blinded by policywannabe. Name calling like "chickenhawk" and such does no good. If it makes certain people on the fringe feel good and laugh - great. But it only hurts their ultimate cause.
Remember, as bad as GWB appears to be - he still beat out the Democratic candidate. If the Democrats think 2008 is in the bag - they are probably mistaken and really need to look at what 2004 meant and how they've failed at the call of the people in the last 3 years.
2007-09-01 17:03:32 · answer #1 · answered by wigginsray 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
If a person has seen war first-hand, they are far less likely to see war as a solution--in fact, they will always see it as the very last resort. For example, Colin Powell felt it was a bad idea to invade Iraq because he has actually BEEN in a war.
People like Bush and Cheney who avoided military service tend to have a video-game idea of war and do not understand the agonies, the dangers, the injuries that last for decades, the harm to the country and the possible unintended consequences. Example: see Iraq.
2007-09-01 19:39:42 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Might be interesting to add a new legal requirement for serving as a President, Congressman, Senator, or high Administration official.
That requirement would be: If you have a son or daughter of military age, that child must be serving in a combat or combat support unit.
I wonder if the rationale for war would be quite so compelling if the risks were personal.
2007-09-01 17:27:02 · answer #3 · answered by Just an American 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Of course they are hypocrits. General Petraeus has been there beacon of hope. Waiting to hear some bad news from him. He was their hero upon delivery of bad news but now, even though he hasn't spoke at this deadline, they are already trying to discredit him. He's a General! He's not exactly someone who speaks lightly about anything, from what I understand yet, they are already discrediting him because he might have something that resembles optimism in his tone regarding the surge. So they burn him before he can even deliver what he sees! That's just, not very considerate and shows there is an alternative agenda operating here rather than doing the best job they can in the war.
And more of the lies talk! Man, when are democrats going to be responsible for their time in office! They voted to authorize use of force! They had the same intelligence as everybody else and yet, they were also fooled and lied to. Regardless of who was lied to, you cast your vote and it's on your conscious, nobody makes you cast a vote you don't want to. Grow up and take resonsibility for your actions.
2007-09-01 16:59:32 · answer #4 · answered by eldude 5 · 3⤊ 5⤋
none of that has any relevance when discussing why or why not, we should have invaded Iraq.
What does have relevance, is the fact that the Reagan Admin spent millions of tax dollars supplying Saddam to keep his minority controlled regime in power, while Iran supported ousting him and returning the Shi'ite majority to power.
Instead of that occurring, we invaded and returned them to power thinking that al-maliki isn't going to be grateful to his biggest supporter, a radical Shi'ite cleric and leader of the Mahdi army, Mugtada al-Sadr. He's a guy who hates the USA, and is being sheltered by a fellow Shi'ite, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the current President of Iran.
2007-09-01 16:59:06 · answer #5 · answered by avail_skillz 7 · 5⤊ 3⤋
That's not a reason for not bringing us to Iraq.The sundry lies and illegalities they perpetrated to instigate this war are reason enough,though.
It's just more Republican hypocrisy when men who went out of their way to avoid service,many of them during Vietnam,which they now hold up as a false analogy to the war in Iraq,to use propaganda like"if you don't support the war,you don't support the troops",and making the implication,and often outright stating,that those who oppose the war are traitors.and it is disgusting.
2007-09-01 16:59:29 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 5⤊ 4⤋
Trolling, a bipartisan issue. I was sincerely curious with my questions though.
As for the whole chickenhawk thing, it drives me crazy and I don't like the rhetoric.
2007-09-01 16:55:14 · answer #7 · answered by Ellinorianne 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋
No, we should not be in Iraq because Bush/Cheney cherry pick intel. to make a bogus case for the Iraq war, that is the reason that we should not be there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2007-09-01 16:57:35 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
Did you know that Canada had more Liberals during Vietnam that Conservatives? I guess the Liberals found their hiding places!
2007-09-01 16:57:57 · answer #9 · answered by Rocman 3 · 4⤊ 5⤋
well, bush said he believed in the vietnam war. if he really believed he would have gone to nam.
2007-09-01 16:55:56 · answer #10 · answered by soperson 4 · 4⤊ 4⤋