During Wartime should we only elect Military Men/Women?

[dave29]

Important Question. Since the jist of the Clark/Kerry argument is that we need someone with Military experience to be President - during times of War, do you think we as Democrats should be electing those that are "perceived" as strong on foreign policy because of their military background?

If so, why

If not, why not.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. No but certainly electing someone who has experience with successfully

resolving the war that is already in situ is a valid consederation at this time.

OR at least someone who can come up with a viable plan to exit without causing more death and destruction for Americans or the country we invade.

[Rowdyboy]

2. Of course not

Nothing about that in the qualifcations listed in the constitution. Also doesn't say he/she cannot be military. Go figure? Perhaps they though we might think for ourselves and decide individually, since each case is different.

Neither Wesley Clark nor John Kerry have ever averred what you allege. They both have qualifications other than their military service. But feel free to misrepresent all you like.

[JohnKleeb]

3. Go McClellan ;)

Come on you guys, he is better than Lincoln.
However I cant say that legitly because Abe Lincoln was a vet too, but Mac was a former union general and everyone knew it. Sarcaism obviously. Generals ran quite a few times in the 1800's and perhaps to your suprise, they didnt do so well, Hancock lost to Garfield well he was a vet too, Scott to Pierce, and of course the case I cite above. No we dont need a vet during war time.

[Hoosier Democrat]

4. One's military service should not be a litmus test

Regarding military service:

This idea of needing a military background to lead the country during wartime is just not credible. If you look at history, our most successful wartime president (FDR) had no military service, neither did Woodrow Wilson who led us through World War I.


While I do see military service as a positive, I will not cast my vote based solely on it. Especially in John Kerry's case; he seems to have started playing this card AFTER his dramatic drop in the polls.


Ironically, William McKinley was a decorated Civil War hero who, as a politician, was not much more than a puppet of corporate interests. McKinley's cronies fanned the flames of "patriotism" and "liberation" into an unprovoked war on Spain just to seize Spain's resources for ourselves. Damn, glad that could never happen again.

[BOSSHOG]

11. A Military leader is needed to get us OUT of War

not to perpetuate the mistakes of predecessors.

[WillyT]

5. Can You Imagine General LeMay As Pres During The Bay Of Pigs ???

I can.

:nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke:

:scared:

On edit: And NO, I wasn't implying or comparing Clark to LeMay in any way. Just pointing out that there are many Generals who you would NOT want as President. That is all.

[JaneQPublic]

10. Imagine: "President Patton" or "President MacAurthur" (n/t)

[JohnKleeb]

13. McArthur groan

That no good sob nearly got my grandfather killed by wanting to invade China. Patton, he never considered running, he wasnt very political, I dont think but people tell me he was a winger, and in fact supposely his son like criticized John Kerry during his days protesting Vietnam.

[ArkDem]

29. I didn't know he had a son named Like.

.

[janx]

14. LOL!

"President Patton" !

[rucky]

6. The Military is Ideologically Poisoned

Clark & Kerry are the exceptions - not the rules. Leaders like that don't come around as often as wars do, so it would be imprudent to make a blanket statement like that.

As a voter, I'm looking at their policies - but perhaps less critically because of their miliary experience.

[BOSSHOG]

7. As opposed to Neocons voting for Chickenhawks?

I voted NO in your loaded question poll because military experience is not a constitutionally mandated prerequisite for election to President. Are those with zero military experience supposed to be "perceived" as being weak on foreign policy? Can one imply that from your post? Actually, we should elect strong military leaders in times of PEACE - so things stay that way. We are "AT WAR" because we have a child at the helm. Who better to get us out, than a man who knows how to, a man who knows the military, a man experienced in foreign policy, a man who has been there and done that. Just two cents worth from an old fart veteran who served for 24 years and hates war. If only bush and cheney hated war.

[Padraig18]

8. No.

:)

[WiseMen]

9. NO AT ALL. But Voters give Repub benefit of the doubt. Not so with Dems.

Credibility as CIC in a time of war will really be a big issue unless the Dems can take it off the table with Kerry or Clark nomination.

Even then, Bush will have to be hit hard for AWOL history and record of deciept and incompetence re Iraq.

[bearfartinthewoods]

12. no ...wartime is the worst time for a military man as prez

there has to be a balance of power in that aspect of government as well. military minds belong in the pentagon...not in the white house.

[Desertrose]

19. Amen to that BFITW

I agree its the worst time....balance!!

I agree that military minds don't have a place in the WH- thats why there is the petagon- to seperate things out.

Peace
DR

[BOSSHOG]

20. Unless you want to end "War" time

[democratreformed]

15. No

My opinion is that we should always seek to elect the person who is best for the job. My support of my candidate has little to do with military experience.

Edit: Where in the heck did that other title come from? I must've been talking and trying to write at the same time.

[dogman]

16. We should elect a leader.

Someone who isn't trying to go a different direction every time the wind changes.
Someone who takes responsibility for what they say and do. Not someone who takes an Internet poll every time a decision must be made.

[AndyTiedye]

26. Sounds Like Dennis or Carol

> Someone who isn't trying to go a different direction every time the wind changes.
> Someone who takes responsibility for what they say and do. Not someone who takes an Internet poll every time a decision must be made.

[forgethell]

17. No, military experience

is not necessary in a CIVILIAN leader. Naturally, it is a + for the ole resume.

What is important is what direction he is taking the country, and can he be trusted, ant least by the people that agree with his direction, and give him their vote.

[dogman]

18. We should elect a leader.

It should be a person who does not shift directions with the changing wind. It should be someone who takes responsibility for there words and deeds. It should not be someone who takes an Internet poll every time a decision needs to be made.

[JVS]

21. Yes. The military is the most wonderful thing in our society

[el_gato]

24. you must be joking

[JohnKleeb]

27. he is

[kerry-is-my-prez]

22. Who are the military people? Didn't know that we had people in the

military running....

[el_gato]

23. War is a Scam

just ask halliburton bechtel dupont dyncorp etc.

[LuminousX]

25. People who only have military experience aren't suitable for civilian

governance. When a person has a hammer, the world looks like a nail.

[JohnKleeb]

28. Ike would prove you wrong but generally speaking that is so

[LuminousX]

32. Many would prove me wrong; I'm speaking in broad strokes

if I may be allowed to mix my metaphor

[AndyTiedye]

30. My Biggest Concern With Clark is the Lack of Experience in Public Office

He has never held any public office before, whatsoever.
Does he have the skills needed to be a good President?

I'm sure he would be better able to handle the Presidency
than the current occupant, but that is a very low standard.

[Albert Einstein]

31. It would be a plus. Dean's skiing history makes him look like a draft

dodger. That will hurt. Kucinich had a legitimate excuse and is the ranking Democrat on a committee that is very important with respect to the war effort. Kerry and Clark seem to have the best military background and could nail Bush on his. I don't know about Edwards but he seems like a really nice guy.

[EXE619K]

33. No.

I'm rather troubled by the post-9/11 American mentality of "WE NEED A STRONG MILITARY LEADER" BS. We're not The Roman Empire, nor are we The reincarnation of the Third Reich.
During my time in USAEUR, I've heard some terrible things about General Clark(mostly about arrogance seemed to be the general consensus). But, these so-called "negative" perceptions about him is a good thing.
For those of you who have been in the service, I'm sure you're well aware that the military is the biggest bureaucracy run by rampant cronism. All these negative attacks on Gen. Clark, IMO, sets himself apart from the other military types who blindly support the GOP establishment.

Although, I'm an ardent Dean supporter, I have the utmost regards for General Clark and he would make one of the finest presidents.
For those of you who attack the General without merit should feel lucky that a man with credentials such as General Clark is on "our" side.


DEAN LEADS THE WAY!