TheAnvil 0 #26 December 30, 2008 I vote no. I don't think a President need have first hand knowledge of the military in order to effectively employ it. The JCS and military people themselves see to the strategy and tactics - the civilian leadership sets the goals for the military to achieve. Setting an additional requirement of military service would deprive us of some fine minds and with the all-but-zero-defect mentality (against one party at any rate) we have as a nation with regards to politicians and political appointees already depriving us of many capable public servants, reducing the pool would be a bad move in my opinion. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
J_Cook 0 #27 December 30, 2008 QuoteNope.. being ex-military does not qualify one to open-minded leadership. If anything it could make them more dictatorial. What is required is an intelligent, open-minded HONEST person. Quoted because I couldn't have said it better. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #28 December 30, 2008 Quote I do not think it is needed as a requirement. But on the other hand should not be frowned upon. I usually give a +1 to the candidate who served before the candidate who did not. but it still comes down to the whole package for me, not just one part. Matt More or less, what he said...So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #29 December 30, 2008 QuoteWhy did a picture of Bush sitting in a classroom immediatly after being told of the attacks on 911 attacks just pop into my head? I think a lot of people would say that someone who's dad got him into the Guard to dodge Vietnam, then missed most or all of his work there, does not qualify as military service. So I don't think W is a good example of how military service (which he lacks) contributes to leadership. On the other hand, someone convicted of drunk driving should automatically be disqualified for POTUS. That sort of bad judgment couldn't make for a very good president.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #30 December 31, 2008 QuoteQuoteWhy did a picture of Bush sitting in a classroom immediatly after being told of the attacks on 911 attacks just pop into my head? I think a lot of people would say that someone who's dad got him into the Guard to dodge Vietnam, then missed most or all of his work there, does not qualify as military service. So I don't think W is a good example of how military service (which he lacks) contributes to leadership. Too bad the actual military records don't support your version of history. There was no 'waiting list' and his unit HAD pilots rotating to 'Nam - hardly the best choice for someone that was 'dodging Vietnam', don't you think?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #31 December 31, 2008 Quote Too bad the actual military records don't support your version of history. There was no 'waiting list' and his unit HAD pilots rotating to 'Nam - hardly the best choice for someone that was 'dodging Vietnam', don't you think? Huh.... That right there is some SEVERE revisionist history I know he is your personal hero and all but DAYUM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #32 December 31, 2008 Quote Quote Too bad the actual military records don't support your version of history. There was no 'waiting list' and his unit HAD pilots rotating to 'Nam - hardly the best choice for someone that was 'dodging Vietnam', don't you think? Huh.... That right there is some SEVERE revisionist history I know he is your personal hero and all but DAYUM The records say what they say - not my fault if you can't accept that.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #33 December 31, 2008 Now where the fuck did I put my hip waders its gettin purty deep againQuote The records say what they say - not my fault if you can't accept that. What they are sayin must not be in a form of english you can understand http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_W._Bush's_military_service "Bush signed a six-year "military service obligation," he was required to attend at least 44 inactive-duty training drills each fiscal year beginning July 1. But Bush's own records show that he fell short of that requirement, attending only 36 drills in the 1972-73 period, and only 12 in the 1973-74 period." [1] Bush's military records reveal that he did not do any duty between April 16 and October 28, 1972 and missed training altogether in December 1972 and February and March 1973. There were no records of him having served with any unit in Alabama. It is a requirement of members of the National Guard that they accumulate a minimum of 50 service points in a year. (Each full day of weekend training is worth two points). On May 2, 1973 one of Bush's superiors noted that "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of report. A civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to Montgomery, Alabama. He cleared this base on 15 May 1972 and has been performing equivalent training in a non-flying status with the 187th Tac Recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama." However, no records for service in Alabama exist.[2] Subsequently Bush spent 36 days in May, June and July 1973 on duty, accumulating 41 points. According to the Boston Globe, he was then awarded 15 'gratuitous' service points - enough to get him across the 50 service points threshold. His last service day was July 30, 1973 and - while originally due to serve through to November 1974 - was honourably discharged early to enable him to attend Harvard Business School. [3] Furthermore, a U.S. News analysis showed that "during the final two years of his obligation, Bush did not comply with Air Force regulations that impose a time limit on making up missed drills. What's more, he apparently never made up five months of drills he missed in 1972, contrary to assertions by the administration." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #34 December 31, 2008 QuoteWhat they are sayin must not be in a form of english you can understand From a link on your own quoted source: http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/graphics/bushNaGuard_page2.pdf Unless I've misunderstood something, the numerals "5" and "6" taken in that order comprise the number "56" which is, in fact, greater than the number "50". I guess they must teach math differently in "real america" than they do in "flyover land".Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #35 December 31, 2008 SO if you had complied with Air Force Regulations as he had..... would YOU be in custody of the SP's on base or not.. I bet you or I would have been given a dishonorable discharge. I saw the part about "gratuitous" points.. the fact is.. as I put in bold.. he was not there for duty... had no intention of fullfilling his contract for 6 years.... I think the math out here outside of flyover land stands. Interesting how you can worship a deserter Mikeee..... sliding ethics again from the most partisan poster on DIZZY DOT COM. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #36 December 31, 2008 QuoteSO if you had complied with Air Force Regulations as he had..... would YOU be in custody of the SP's on base or not.. I bet you or I would have been given a dishonorable discharge. You and I were on active duty, not Guard. As I told the other poster, I'll be sure to let the coworkers that are inactive that they're actually deserters by your logic. QuoteI saw the part about "gratuitous" points.. the fact is.. as I put in bold.. he was not there for duty... had no intention of fullfilling his contract for 6 years.... Oddly enough, I didn't see the word "gratuitous" anywhere on the record posted . QuoteI think the math out here outside of flyover land stands. 56 is less than 50 out there? No wonder shit is so screwed up. QuoteInteresting how you can worship a deserter Mikeee..... When was the court martial, I must have missed it. Quote sliding ethics again from the most partisan poster on DIZZY DOT COM. Don't be so hard on yourself - it's not like we didn't know that already.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #37 December 31, 2008 Quote Oddly enough, I didn't see the word "gratuitous" anywhere on the record posted . Quote Subsequently Bush spent 36 days in May, June and July 1973 on duty, accumulating 41 points. According to the Boston Globe, he was then awarded 15 'gratuitous' service points - enough to get him across the 50 service points threshold. Ah yes.. selective blindness now.. perhaps if you read something other than the versions posted by Lush Rimjob and Faux News. Editing is a particular specialty.. of theirs... in your "Fair and Balanced" world. Quote sliding ethics again from the most partisan poster on DIZZY DOT COM. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Don't be so hard on yourself - it's not like we didn't know that already. Hey it aint me that has been swooning over to kiss the Incompetent in Charge's figutative posterior in about every other post for nearly 8 years nowDont you have enough awards for Defender of the Right Wing Realm yet Mikeee??? Are you still going to tell us all how great the last 8 years were like you have been telling us how horrible that Clinton was for the last 8, going forward with the doom and gloom of your commie muslim non american president for the next 8???? I am reallly looking forward to all the posts you make for the next 8 years Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #38 January 1, 2009 QuoteQuote The current POTUS felt he was better qualified to make the decisions than his Generals... and those that did not agree were sacked Isn't it fair to say that Nixon and LBJ felt they were better qualified as well? And you have to think Ike still believed in himself. Nixon and LBJ both served in the Navy in WWII. Nixon as a supply officer in the South Pacific, where he at least had to get by on less, living on some remote island. Johnson made three recon flights and arranged to award himself a Silver Star before returning to Congress, where he'd already been holding a seat from Texas. If this is what qualifies as military service, you tell me.... Nixon, aside from running a sucessful poker game, at least did a credible job of keeping supplies moving - and somebody had to do that, they couldn't ALL be line officers, or command PT boats like JFK (too bad Nixon couldn't "speedboat" Kennedy, as close as that election was...). Our greatest President served in the militia during the Blackhawk Wars and was evidently disciplined and punished for some infractions he committed fighting the Indians. So much for Abraham Lincoln... Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #39 January 1, 2009 Quote Quote Oddly enough, I didn't see the word "gratuitous" anywhere on the record posted . Quote Subsequently Bush spent 36 days in May, June and July 1973 on duty, accumulating 41 points. According to the Boston Globe, he was then awarded 15 'gratuitous' service points - enough to get him across the 50 service points threshold. Ah yes.. selective blindness now.. perhaps if you read something other than the versions posted by Lush Rimjob and Faux News. Editing is a particular specialty.. of theirs... in your "Fair and Balanced" world. RECORD != NEWSPAPER....do try to keep up, dear. Quote I am reallly looking forward to all the posts you make for the next 8 years You'll reap what you've sown, yes.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #40 January 1, 2009 QuoteI do not think it is needed as a requirement. But on the other hand should not be frowned upon. I usually give a +1 to the candidate who served before the candidate who did not. but it still comes down to the whole package for me, not just one part. Matt Concur heartily. If one looks at my response on “What makes a good candidate for president?” + addendum from November 2007, a candidate gets a “+2” from me. There’s a big difference between valuing service and making it an institutional requirement, e.g., amending the Constitution. The error bars of Speakers Corner polls are hard to estimate. A 23% affirmative response is embarrassing. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #41 January 1, 2009 For those who voted to change the US constitution, perhaps it’s ironic that Russia also changed it’s Constitution regarding President this week -- largely assessed to enable Putin to return to power either immediately, as Russia is experiencing greater economic difficulties than the US, or in 2012. In a world in which there is an additional requirement of military service in a branch of the US military, in addition to having eliminated President Jefferson, President John Adams, President FD Roosevelt, and President Lincoln (his 80 days chasing wild onions and killing mosquitoes were in the Illinois militia not the US Army or US Navy), one can easily think of a long list of individuals today who would be ineligible: SecState Condoleezza Rice, Gov Mike Huckabee, Gov Mitt Romney, Gov Bobby Jindal, Gov Tim Pawlenty, Sen Sam Brownback, Rep. Duncan Hunter, Rep. Tom Tancredo, Mayor Rudy Giuliani. But eligible would be Markos Moulitsas Zúñiga (US Army). And perhaps most illustrative and resonating – altho’ not the best argument, imo – of why such a requirement is not a good idea: Eligible - Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who served honorably in the US Marine Corps and the US Navy. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #42 January 1, 2009 Quote Our greatest President served in the militia during the Blackhawk Wars and was evidently disciplined and punished for some infractions he committed fighting the Indians. So much for Abraham Lincoln... I’m curious: to what incident are you referring? I’m not familiar with that one … I’m wondering if you’re combining the drunken incident by those under his charge for which Lincoln was essentially found responsible for the behavior of those under him) and was punished by having to carry a wooden sword for two days with the time in which Lincoln purportedly prevented others in the Illinois militia from killing an old Indian, who was initially alleged to be an enemy spy, who they encountered? More on that incident. Or something else? But I’m just an unauthorized armchair Lincoln historian. VR/Marg p.s. I hadn’t thought of it explicitly before but the Black Hawk War and other Indian wars might be informative for thinking about dealing with insurgencies in which we are engaged today. Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
