how can you say there is little experience difference between the 2?
that's fairly ridiculous, no?
you can say a lot about these 2 men but to compare their experiences in life and in politics...they can't be equated.
of course, senators should never be elected.
experience as valuable to a president, making hard decisions, executive decisions. neither have it. mccain would be a better commander in chief, having first hand knowledge, but really with bush we see that doesn't make much of a difference.
the commander in chief...who would be better...that is the easy question to answer between these 2.
obviously mccain. it's not the soldier aspect...but the decisiveness.
i mentioned this in a post a while back, after i read his 2nd book that it is painfully obvious that obama will have trouble making the hard decision. not only things like sending in the troops but things like ordering troops to go rescue one soldier who is down. And I think he has issues with ordering the secret service to protect him. He just doesn't have that decisiveness to put people in harm's way. As a person...that's awesome. As a commander in chief? awful. This worries me. alot. and it's probably the biggest strike against him since in my opinion the president's most important duty is as commander in chief.
this reminds me of carter, but worse.
jfk, fdr, truman, lbj and even clinton did not have that problem (though clinton hated the military). obama would be too much of a human being and i think would be wrought with guilt if one soldier was hurt doing his duty.
again, that's a noble thing as a person, but not as a military commander
i doubt bush is there ordering soldiers himself. after 8 years of bush as CIC i don't think ANYONE would be bad as it. some coked up spoiled moron could lead our troops? its obvious that bad commanders are easily handled in the military, thankfully.
not so sure about any of what you say.
bush's problem with iraq had more to do with politics than military bungling. they wanted to limit the causalties in the begining.
it was never enough troops because of that.
i have a problem with someone who says that the CIC has to be 100% before he sends in troops anywhere or treats the troops like children instead of soldiers or adults.
the only bad thing would be if a modern president (or VP in cheney's case) actually feels like he HAS to be a true commander in chief. then it would be bad even in mccain's case.
no such thing as a true CIC except for George Washington.
Even Lincoln gave his troops and commanders lots of latitude. only washington spearheaded the troops himself.
and even washington did it before being president really. so you agree, being a good cic isn't so important after all. we've had a lot of potential bad ones mitigated, presumably, by decent generals just below.
what i'm saying is that being a cic is the most important function of the president. but, only washington was a true cic as he lead his troops into battle as president.
but being a cic with the help of the military and the civilian leaders is extremely important.
to be decisive is crucial.
no, not really. the president never gets involved deeply into each and every decision in the field, that would be disatsterous. especially since very few of them have been few with real military experience. they have always left it up to the generals and on down the line and don't micromanage, luckily. we haven't had what i would have considered (before hand) to be a good one since maybe johnson.
we've had two micromanagers we had in the past 30 years...carter and clinton
but while it is the secty of state and defense that runs the military, it is still the president's decision
and again, getting shot down and spending years in a camp doesn't mean that you'll be a good one at all.
i predict the vps will be two governors.
could be right.
obama could take the gov of NM or WV
mccain could take the gov of Minnesota
Quick Links
Latest Comment
Re: sick.....:( - You're welcome, Hope you're feeling better by now too Boo. ♥ Wendy
| Terms of Service
| Privacy Policy