Quote:
Originally Posted by PhiGam
I just wanted you to clarify that military service is not important to you when you choose a leader- you just enjoy trashing people with views that aren't like your own. I'm defending Bush here and I completely dislike the guy's policies and think he is a terrible president.
|
If he won't go on the record, I will: a President with a military service record is not a must for me. Commander in Chief of the armed forces is only one of the President's jobs, and if I had to choose between someone whose career was primarily in the military versus someone in civilian government, business or law, I'd prefer the latter due to what I feel is more applicable to the daily duties of the President and how he/she must relate to the American public and colleagues/branches of govt. The military of course gives men and women many transferable skills, but most Americans are not good little soldiers who appreciate an unquestionable leader - in fact, the way our goverment is set up is meant to prevent the kind of rank-and-file in the military. I'd rather have an intellectual with general legal, legislative and/or business experience that understands financial policy, constitutional rights, public policy, international business and relations, and most importantly, has the good sense to rely on the expertise of his/her select advisors and colleagues when he/she doesn't know the best course - especially in military matters, where I feel the generals, Pentagon and such are at the top of their game.
ETA: Though I made special note that Bush did not serve in combat, I did so because I felt he had no right to accurately describe "a day in the life" of a soldier at war and empathize with the troops he was speaking to. He may be able to sympathize, which he should, but he cannot empathize.
Hybrid Mode
