Posted on 01/19/2007 6:31:20 AM PST by bushfamfan
Considering the dangerous time we are in and the Iraq war and continual threats we are facing from terrorists and with the American people forgetting 9/11 and the consequences more and more I just wanted to know everyone's opinion on the upcoming election and if it would be more helpful for the nominee to have military experience?
The chicken hawk nonsense only sells to the far-left who wouldn't support a conservative with 30 years of military service. Military experience is a minor factor.
So in otherwords ONLY Duncan Hunter and McCain are the ones who should run??? Sorry, I don't think so. FDR had no military experience and he won and was president during World War II.
The far left supported Clinton and he did not have anything but contempt for the military. They supported FDR and he had no military experience. The far left will not support any Republican candidate...period.
BINGO!!!
I'm sorry but the public admires those who serve. And, honestly, can you not agree that it is always better to have a president that has military/combat experience? Not as the ONLY thing but to go along with their other qualities that you mostly agree with?
The only thing that matters is that one is strong on defense and supports the military. Would you trust Rush Limbaugh or John Kerry with defense of America?
Duncan Hunter!
Military experience does not matter. Look at John Kerry! You could have military experience and still be an idiot!
I have lots of disagreements with his policies, but what about FDR? He was unfit for service for medical reasons.
Face it, the 'independents' who don't follow politics much liked McCain largely due to the fact everyone knows his military experience? But McCain's downfall is his politics aside from that. Now I'm not saying they HAVE to have the military experience but when you consider all the candidates and they have many of your politics AND the military experience, it is ALWAYS better with that.
Hogwash!
I go by policy experience and issues. As long as they support the military and will take care of this country. If I wanted military experience I would have voted for Kerry since he had combat experience which Bush did not. But then again I'm not a Democrat and I hate Kerry.
John Murtha, John Kerry, Wesley Clark ,Jim Webb and so on...
Sorry, military service and combat experience is not the
most important thing. Besides, after Bill Clinton it was
supposed to be a non-issue.
Neither.
Do I have to?
I believe it is always better when the candidate has the military experience and especially now when we are in a war on terrorism. The issue back with Clintoon was the economy, now it is war.
FDR pushed us into WWII (not to say that we could have stayed out of it anyway). It was the only thing that got the U.S. economy, the rest of the world too, going after his eight years of socialist manipulations had done nothing. America did not win the war because of FDR, but because of the American People. His dealings (concessions) with the Russians, are still being felt today.
I agree that a President should not have to have served in the military. Not all non-military people are as deplorable as Bill Clinton. But I also think that it is a plus if they have so served.
What do you mean? He never attempted to enlist; after university and law school, he became an attorney in New York City.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.