are flat out stupid. What could possible make a vet more qualified just due to that fact. Don't say the discipline, it isn't a good reason, don't say it makes them a better CIC, that's bull (Bush helped prove that). It takes "discipline" to pull yourself through four or more years of college too, but that alone is also not a good yardstick for President. Presidents have all the finest military minds in our country on tap, they only need to be good decision makers based upon that information. Bush was a quasi-military man, and he repeatedly disregarded the advice of Military experts in his quest for war.

I believe a Eisenhower is a rare bird, he knew the value of peace, and the price of war.

A President should be selected based upon his total image, not his military service.

It shows a willingness to make sacrifices for one's country and a loyalty to the constitution and the rule of law. And being in the military builds character...

That's why Junior wipes his butt with the US Constitution. How did he put it? That g damned piece of paper?

RScommon:

That's why Junior wipes his butt with the US Constitution. How did he put it? That g damned piece of paper?

I don't consider Bush a "real" veteran. That is why I voted for Gore and Kerry...

"are flat out stupid."

We'll leave that judgement for our readers, Jesse. I think CiC should be a veteran, Bushieheads and Hopeheads disagree.

I vote what I think, you are free to do the same, comfortable in the knowledge that most Americans aren't vets and are more comfortable with guys who had better things to do than serve and who were unwilling to interupt their careers for a hitch and take the risk of actually putting their butts where their mouths were. Main reason I voted Kerry over the little reservist and supported McCain over the little reservist in 2000. I think experience shows my judgement correct, that people who think war is a videogame, like LBJ, Reagan, and Little George, don't make good CiC's.

Their criteria ridiculous. Ulysses S. Grant, not only a vet, but a general, was an abominable president. Plagues by scandals , his administration was full of criminals:

Although Grant himself did not profit from corruption among his subordinates, he did not take a firm stance against malefactors and failed to react strongly even after their guilt was established. When critics complained, he vigorously attacked them. He was weak in his selection of subordinates, favoring colleagues from the war over those with more practical political experience. He alienated party leaders by giving many posts to his friends and political contributors rather than supporting the party's needs. His failure to establish working political alliances in Congress allowed the scandals to spin out of control. At the conclusion of his second term, Grant wrote to Congress that "Failures have been errors of judgment, not of intent."

(Much of that is reminiscent of GWB's administration). Obviously, that one qualification did not serve Grant well. His decsion making ability on the battlefield did not translate to making wise decsions in the White House.

It is foolish and shortsighted to eliminate all other talents and abilities as factors in deciding who will be a better president.

Time to jump on the Obama bandwagon. This McCain guy doesn't support the troops. Look at his stance on the new GI bill.

All pure fluff. Hard work, getting an education are character builders, military discipline teaches obedience but not necessarily "character".

"Obviously, that one qualification did not serve Grant well."

True, and I haven't heard anyone claim that military service is the only qualification. I consider it a bare minimum, but not a single qualification.

You Hopies sound like the Bushieheads when Kerry was running.

One of our finest recent Presidents was Clinton, not just my opinion, an opinion shared be most. Economy was good, we had no huge troop deployments, law enforcement was bolstered by "cop on the street" money, the government was moving in the right direction.

We have over the last decades built a permanent war mentality and what has it yielded? We are disrespected worldwide just as the Russians used to be. Old friends have abandoned us. We are in horrible financial straits. Get real with your "vet" theory.

Iraq has been as video game for a nation who doesn't have to even pay for it.................NOW, and that at the hands of a "military man" (no matter what you call him).

So you feel it is intelligent to limit the field to that small portion of America that has been in the military? Rule out most candidates to select one who "served"? Think about how that limits the potential for greatness in the WH.

"I haven't heard anyone claim that military service is the only qualification."

Then you haven't been paying attention to the posters here, just this morning.

<link>

<link>

I won't give it any more time than that.

JesseD:

So you feel it is intelligent to limit the field to that small portion of America that has been in the military? Rule out most candidates to select one who "served"? Think about how that limits the potential for greatness in the WH.

No - we aren't telling you how to vote. We're just telling you how WE vote...

"Iraq has been as video game for a nation who doesn't have to even pay for it.................NOW, and that at the hands of a "military man" (no matter what you call him)."

Bush, Reagan, and LBJ weren't military men, they were rear echalon reservists. LBJ was in a special reserve unit for congressional staff, Reagan had poor eyesight and watched combat films for his hitch, and Little George, like Dan Quayle, was a legalized draftdodger whose powerful relatives got him into a closed Guard unit.

As for Clinton, we got lucky. Like Carter, he learned the lessons of previous asymetrical warfare and didn't do anything stupid. He was helped by a hostile, peacepunk congress who wouldn't give him money. As Obama is no St. Bill, not sure Clinton has any predictive value for Barry bin Barack.

You say "we" like all vets feel that way, they don't.