Do Veterans make better Presidents?

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/02/bush-at-ft-hood/
"Lt. Gen. Cone had requested that Bush and Mrs. Bush visit with the wounded and their families, after Bush sent his condolences. The former president was "honored to be able to do that," Sherzer said, but he coordinated with the base to make sure he was coming at an appropriate time. He was not stopped at the gate, as described in the e-mail, because he was expected and because he had a Secret Service escort."

Certainly in terms of experience, we want the best, most knowledgeable and experienced person to fill the lofty shoes of the president. In my humble opinion, that includes a distinguished military career. There is so much that can't be taught in the political and civilian sector that one learns by being part of something bigger than yourself. That being said, I believe it should not be a requirement, because it may disqualify a great candidate that did not have the opportunity to join the military....It is an honor and a privilege to serve your country, but it's not be for everyone..and there are many different ways to serve your country, personally, I would prefer to put a president with military service in the oval office, provided they are the best, most experienced candidate...Military service alone is usually not enough to qualify a person for the most demanding job in the world.

gonna disagree with you there CPO DC, because if you take snopes as a reliable source then you just shoot yourself in the foot and lose credibility. snopes is run by a liberal husband and wife team that do NOT research anything and just take whatever MSM shoves out.

I fully agree SA Ken Swan.I only refrenced the story to show where I got my information.My "Fact" as CPO DC referred to was in fact a true statement.George and Laura are often seen in the neighborhood,without secret service.

While I see the point of military experience helping someone be a better President, in some cases it does not. Carter for example was a shining example of someone who excelled in the Nuclear Navy and has done more charity work than the Presidents who came after him combined. Horrible President though. Bush, his military record is as sketchy as they come and has quite a few large gaps in it. But as President, his record of doing things was not great. Ronald Reagan made over 400 training films during WW2 and never saw combat. Did any of that experience play into what he did as President. Bush senior was the only one since Ike who saw any serious combat time. He lasted one term. Clinton and Obama? No experience for either one. Clinton was great on getting the economy going during his term, but not fondly remembered by the military. Obama, every stat I can find on him has him average. As far as I can see, military experience is not all that helpful as President. And from what I remember from being in the Corps, I met a lot of smart people in the Corps, I also met a lot of dumbass's as well. So maybe it’s kind of a crap shoot.

all have very good points about the president being a veteran or not and history seems to bear witness to this in this nations time of need. Advisors to the president can make or break any situation that arises. As President Bush stated, I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed , but I know people who are and that was his goal to surround himself with the smartest people. It is a shame that the parties cannot work together and to have the best people on there team, I seem to see the recycling of the same names as each party takes control when elected.

I may have strayed from the point of the question.Being in the military,certainly makes you no smarter.What it does provide you with is a better understanding of what goes on in the military.So many things in America depend on the various branches of service.Defense,employment,skill levels ( not everyone carries a rifle),and so much more.A great deal of time is spent on monies and equipment.Many cities around bases rely on the post for income.When decisions are made to cut budgets,it is detrimental to others outside of the military.Deciding to fight or not fight is only one decision.being from a military background gives you an insight to these matters.Agreed, that being in the military won`t make you a "better" President,but it could keep you from being a "worst"
President.

SGT Audas, please review the history of how may military leaders were "dismissed for various reason" during a "time of world turmoil". How many "retired" during BW Bush admin? How many were relieved during FD Roosevelt admin? How many did Lincoln cut loose in spite of great support for the military leader?

Bush 43 was the first USAF officer to be POTUS.

MAJ Reams, The devil is in the details with Bush 43, but I believe he is viewed in the ANG category as opposed to USAF category. Furthermore, depending on the definition of "veteran" used, Bush 43 is not legally considered to be a veteran in some quarters.

By statute, a veteran is defined as a “person who served in the active military, naval, or air service, and who was discharged or released therefrom under conditions other than dishonorable.” (38 USC §101(2); 38 CFR §3.1(d)) Not all types of military service are considered "active military service" and members of the Guard who have never been activated for federal active duty military service, and consequently have not served on regular federal active duty, do not meet the active duty requirement for the definition of a veteran for VA benefits or employee preference.

Under 5 USC § 2108(1) “veteran” means an individual who—
(B) served on active duty as defined by section 101 (21) of title 38 at any time in the armed forces for a period of more than 180 consecutive days any part of which occurred after January 31, 1955, and before October 15, 1976, not including service under section 12103 (d) of title 10 pursuant to an enlistment in the Army National Guard or the Air National Guard...

A Vietnam Era Veteran is "A person who served on active duty for a period of more than 180 days and was discharged or released therefrom with other than a dishonorable discharge, if any part of such active duty occurred in the Republic of Vietnam between February 28, 1961 and May 7, 1975, or between August 5, 1964 and May 7, 1975...."

Does Bush 43 (GW Bush) qualify as a veteran?

Bush 43 was a member of the Texas Air National Guard and also had requested transfer to the Alabama Air National Guard. As state NG units, no element of the TX ANG or AL ANG is under the USAF command. State ANG are under the jurisdiction of the state's Governor though the office of the state Adjutant General unless they are federalized by order of the President. To the best of my knowledge, neither ANG was federalized during Bush's tenure.

However under the current "Total Force" concept, ANG units are considered to be Air Reserve Components (ARC) of the USAF just like USAFR units. Furthermore, after his early discharge from the TX ANG and being dropped to the IRR for the remainder of his military obligation, GW Bush did receive a discharge from the USAF.