Bush, our current president, was not a war hero. Granted this was not his first elected office, but he had led no armies to victory.
Of course, I can’t say that he has done very well in his position as Commander in Chief.
I have no problem electing a non-warrior to office. Maybe they will be better at diplomatic solutions to problems. I see wars as a total failure of politicians to achieve a solution without destruction and loss of human life. Meaning they have done a poor job.
While Bush has disappointed me on some things, I'm damn glad he was in office when 9/11 occurred instead of some namby-pamby like Ron Paul.
I shudder to think what our nation would be now if it were led by some Al Qaeda appeaser.
Al Qaeda is wounded and limping now, thanks to the right leadership at the right time. Ol' Cut-and- Run Paul would have just further enabled and emboldened them and we'd all be in harm's way.
Nor do I. My point is that presidents are usually politicians with experience in office -- the only way around that is to be a war hero. Either works. I can't think of a president who was neither.
Andrew Jackson, US Grant, Ike, and maybe WH Harrison -- those are the only presidents I can think of who held no prior elected office, and they were all victorious generals.