32
32
0
Of all the 44 Presidents this great country has had, do you think the ones with prior military service have proven to be the best ones? And if you want please name your favorite. Mine. Bush Sr.
Posted in these groups: 
Politics
Office of the President (POTUS)
Politics Office of the President (POTUS)
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 129
6
6
0
Even if a President were a veteran, would that qualify them to be Commander-in-Chief? Eisenhower was the only one to serve at a command level even approaching that one. George H W Bush was an excellent diplomat which served him well in forming a coalition to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. However, I don't think he learned those skills flying a torpedo bomber in WWII.Truman was a pretty good President. He only served as a captain of artillery in WWI. Grant had a lot of stars but only commanded an Army. Remember, the President commands every branch of service.
No, I don't look for military service of the person who would be President. I'm more concerned with who he would bring into his Administration. That's why I'm hoping that future Presidential candidates would name their proposed appointees so we could evaluate their ability to form and lead an effective Administration.
Lincoln was a master of the craft. He chose his rivals for the presidency to serve beside him. And you know he did a good job when every one of them headed the parade of mourners at his death. Although some were bitter rivals, all came to love him while working under him. That's the kind of leader we need more than ever.
And no, before you ask, having a bunch of Ivy League-educated ideologues serving as Czars is not a good qualification. In fact, it has proven to be a detriment...
No, I don't look for military service of the person who would be President. I'm more concerned with who he would bring into his Administration. That's why I'm hoping that future Presidential candidates would name their proposed appointees so we could evaluate their ability to form and lead an effective Administration.
Lincoln was a master of the craft. He chose his rivals for the presidency to serve beside him. And you know he did a good job when every one of them headed the parade of mourners at his death. Although some were bitter rivals, all came to love him while working under him. That's the kind of leader we need more than ever.
And no, before you ask, having a bunch of Ivy League-educated ideologues serving as Czars is not a good qualification. In fact, it has proven to be a detriment...
(6)
(0)
CPO James Page
Regardless of if we think an ex-military would make a good president. We will still continue to get the best man for POTUS money can buy.
(0)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
But how many realize that the money buying our politicians and elections comes from foreign sources just as easily as domestic sources.
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
CPO (Join to see) There's a big difference between "buying elections" and "buying politicians". "Buying elections" generally refers to exercising influence in the outcome of elections by sponsoring advertising that "sways" voters. "Buying politicians" is another way of saying "bribery". Then again, "buying elections" may directly result in "buying politicians". Thus, we should avoid voting for those politicians who take money for advertising from foreign sources just as we would avoid those that take bribes from any source. Of course, all this requires a well-informed electorate which requires an unbiased media reporting facts. Damn, it's a vicious circle, isn't it?
Ultimately, I fall back on my original contention: We the People are the problem. If enough of us can begin voting intelligently, ignoring the propaganda, and helping influence our communities to vote intelligently, all problems will be solved.
Can it be done? If not, this experiment in self-government is a failure.
Are you ready to give it up?
Ultimately, I fall back on my original contention: We the People are the problem. If enough of us can begin voting intelligently, ignoring the propaganda, and helping influence our communities to vote intelligently, all problems will be solved.
Can it be done? If not, this experiment in self-government is a failure.
Are you ready to give it up?
(0)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
I was adding to CPO Page's comment but I agree with your remarks. Big donor money is buying our politicians and buying our elections. Even if the act does not rise to quid pro quo criminal acts or outright bribery, there is still a subornment of the official and an undeniable level of corruption (despite what the Supreme Court declared last year). http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf
Unfortunately recent Supreme Court decisions also enable unlimited money from undisclosed donors. Thus it is impossible to know who is taking money or being supported by money from foreign sources. But of course, judges are politicians too and must run for office in most jurisdictions just like any other politician. Which is another fact that escapes most Americans. Yet, who is going to tell them? "We the people" own the airwaves and we may have thousands of channels on TV/Radio but nearly everything is owned by just five (5) corporations. http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/docs/DocumentsEssays/Media%20Ownership%20chart.pdf
We live at a time when it is absolutely imperative to think for ourselves, but most Americans are being absolutely overwhelmed with information and seem more than content to let others do their thinking for them. Certainly it seems the Fox News and MSNBC audiences are both among the zombie heads of the nation.
I agree. "We the people" are the problem and we are getting about the same as most of us put in to it - - crap.
Unfortunately recent Supreme Court decisions also enable unlimited money from undisclosed donors. Thus it is impossible to know who is taking money or being supported by money from foreign sources. But of course, judges are politicians too and must run for office in most jurisdictions just like any other politician. Which is another fact that escapes most Americans. Yet, who is going to tell them? "We the people" own the airwaves and we may have thousands of channels on TV/Radio but nearly everything is owned by just five (5) corporations. http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/docs/DocumentsEssays/Media%20Ownership%20chart.pdf
We live at a time when it is absolutely imperative to think for ourselves, but most Americans are being absolutely overwhelmed with information and seem more than content to let others do their thinking for them. Certainly it seems the Fox News and MSNBC audiences are both among the zombie heads of the nation.
I agree. "We the people" are the problem and we are getting about the same as most of us put in to it - - crap.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
I feel that since the president is where we ultimately get our orders to start a war then yes i feel that the president should have to serve to understand. Understand that when he gives the orders what all they mean all the way down to the toilet scrubbing food cooking vets.
(6)
(0)
5
5
0
Yes, I do. As a matter of fact, I feel like it should be pre-requisite to be the Commander in Chief of America's armed forces. My favorites are George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush. Not sure if Ronald Reagan was a veteran or not, but if he wasn't, he was my favorite non-veteran president. If he was, he tops my list of favorite veteran presidents.
(5)
(0)
MAJ Ronnie Reams
RR was originally commissioned in the Cavalry, when they rode horses, back in the 30s. When the war started he transferred to the USAAF and ended the War as a Captain. He was the only USAAF officer to be POTUS.
(3)
(0)
SPC Edward Tapper
MAJ Reams, thank you, Sir, for the information. Just goes to show, you're never too old to learn something new. I do enjoy learning more about our military history.
(2)
(0)
Suspended Profile
I would say absolutely.
I have long lamented that since HWBush and Desert Storm, we haven't had a CINC who served. I feel that our CINCs have been too quick to send the troops in, and don't really understand the impact of what they are ordering. In reality, Reagan was the same way.
This isn't always true, but it's true enough...
I have long lamented that since HWBush and Desert Storm, we haven't had a CINC who served. I feel that our CINCs have been too quick to send the troops in, and don't really understand the impact of what they are ordering. In reality, Reagan was the same way.
This isn't always true, but it's true enough...
SN Kyle Carpenter
The Last combat veteran to run seriously was John McCain, who has wanted troops sent almost everywhere...
(3)
(0)
Suspended Profile
Lt Col Skip Fleshman I acknowledge GW Bush's time in the Texas Air Guard. At the same time, he never did any operational deployments as far as I understand. It's better than never having worn the uniform, but I'd much rather have seen someone like his father, who did go to combat...
Suspended Profile
SN Kyle Carpenter it's worse than that. John McCain is supporting Obama's cuts in military pay and benefits, increases in TRICARE costs and elimination of our pensions. He got his but he doesn't want his shipmates to get theirs...
SGT (Join to see)
It was unbelievable when I realized what he was doing. Naturally you would think he would be a service member and vets, spokesman against cuts in the VA system, reduction in pay and benefits. All of a sudden, he went from being one of my heroes to being one of my enemies. That's the best way I can describe him not supporting his military brothers and sisters. I'm glad he wasn't elected President. No telling where we would be if he was. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who feels like I do.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
I actually think that it should be mandatory. We don't need another community advisor, that's for sure. The benefit of having first hand experience regarding the military and their missions is a plus for the Commander in Chief. It shows his/her patriotism, it's an example of leadership, it helps prepare them for the political strains. I mean, there are just great reasons why one Should be.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
It's great for them to have military service, my three favorites:
President George Washington
President Dwight D. Eisenhower
President Ronald Reagan
President George Washington
President Dwight D. Eisenhower
President Ronald Reagan
(4)
(0)
SSG Don Waggoner
I didn't take it as criticism. I just wanted to explain. I usually take a slight liberal bent and Reagan isn't one of my favorite presidents, though not for the reasons you described. I do think he did a very good job in building our confidence, but in doing so caused other systemic problems that have yet to be resolved. And, personally, I don't think Carter has been given a fair hearing. If you read the history of the Delta Force and its commander, and read about what happened at Desert One, Carter was highly thought of in the handling of the mission. His problems with Congress were too much to overcome, however. I am not sure how his service influenced his management of the military. And, thanks for your comment.
(3)
(0)
SSG Peter Muse
Sometimes military service was caused by an act of being drafted. Sometimes it was a part of pedicure grooming and sometimes it was an act of patriotism and as we know, sometimes a hail mary pass. All have the same potential to help a person change their character and none are guarantees.
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
I would like to say now this topic isn't going to end well. :)
Didn't serve (in chronological order):
John Adams-none, but take part in a naval battle, supposedly dressed as a marine, assisting in the defense.
John Quincy Adams-none
Martin van Buren-none
Grover Cleveland-none, drafted civil war, paid $150 substitution fee (legal)
William Taft-none, Secretary of war 1904-08, joined Connecticut's home guard during WWI. (After president)
Woodrow Wilson-none
Warren Harding-none
Calvin Coolidge-none
Herbert Hoover-humanitarian aid during WWI, guide to marines during boxer rebellion
Franklin Roosevelt- tried to enlist navy during Spanish American war, had measles. Assistant Secretary of navy during WWI, offered resignation for commission, denied by president.
Bill Clinton- deferment, 2a, school, later registered, number not chosen
Barak Obama-none
And there is my contribution to the topic, I'm getting my popcorn.
Didn't serve (in chronological order):
John Adams-none, but take part in a naval battle, supposedly dressed as a marine, assisting in the defense.
John Quincy Adams-none
Martin van Buren-none
Grover Cleveland-none, drafted civil war, paid $150 substitution fee (legal)
William Taft-none, Secretary of war 1904-08, joined Connecticut's home guard during WWI. (After president)
Woodrow Wilson-none
Warren Harding-none
Calvin Coolidge-none
Herbert Hoover-humanitarian aid during WWI, guide to marines during boxer rebellion
Franklin Roosevelt- tried to enlist navy during Spanish American war, had measles. Assistant Secretary of navy during WWI, offered resignation for commission, denied by president.
Bill Clinton- deferment, 2a, school, later registered, number not chosen
Barak Obama-none
And there is my contribution to the topic, I'm getting my popcorn.
(4)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
It's interesting that during both world wars the person in charge had no military experience but are typically on lists of best presidents. Martin van buren normally on the list of worst. Maybe military experience might have helped him manage the second Seminole war better, but it probably wouldn't have done anything for his other problems, a congress who hated him for being too close to Jackson, a people who disliked him for not being Jackson, the panic of 1837 that turned into a depression.
Herbert Hoover is another usually on the list of worst but I don't see how anybody as president during the start of the great depression was going to come out unscathed. He was a business man and very hands off the economy, doing things conservatives today say should be done to end the pain quickly but criticized by the left as heartless. Followed by FDR who did things liberals say should be done to minimize the pain but conservatives say extends it.
Herbert Hoover is another usually on the list of worst but I don't see how anybody as president during the start of the great depression was going to come out unscathed. He was a business man and very hands off the economy, doing things conservatives today say should be done to end the pain quickly but criticized by the left as heartless. Followed by FDR who did things liberals say should be done to minimize the pain but conservatives say extends it.
(1)
(0)
SGT Ronald Audas
Until Vietnam,most military decisions were made by a war dept.made up of military personel.Therefore it was not so critical that the President have military experience.Since a lot of procedures in current wars are political,It wouldn`t hurt to have someone with the right military background.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
3
3
0
3
3
0
I believe that military service adds to the spectrum of life experiences that I want my CIC to have. I think it is far more important that all of our elected officials have had a real, non-government job somewhere in their adult life.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google