[mrustow]

When I grew up, it was taken for granted that every president would have served his country under combat arms. Bush II notwithstanding, I think that was a proper expectation. It involved a moral and citizenship test, but also a realistic understanding of warfare. When I look at today's politicians, whether they are appeasment-minded Dems or hawkish GOPers, all I see is a bunch of draft-dodgers.

[Fudd]

When I grew up, it was taken for granted that every president would have served his country under combat arms.

I am assuming that you are a boomer. Your parent's generation (my grandparents) sent a lot of young men into the war, and every President from Ike to GHWB served in that war, if I remember correctly. However, the rapist and W are boomers too. Their war did not involve as much of the population as did WWII, so it is not surprising that we see fewer candidates with a military background.

...all I see is a bunch of draft-dodgers. (dems and GOP'ers).

I don't think that one's military service (or lack thereof) is a qualifier for serving as President. Consider Gen. Clark - who on FR would vote for him because of his service record? Another retired general is on the record as saying he would not vote for Clark because of character issues.

[arete]

When I look at today's politicians, whether they are appeasment-minded Dems or hawkish GOPers, all I see is a bunch of draft-dodgers.

Yeah, somehow joining the air guard to protect TX while the country was at war, might not have gone over well with Patton.

Richard W.