We really know the answer and it's surely not Hillary or Obama . http://www.everettgroup.com/Commander-in-Chief_Preference.pdf I'm actually surprised such a high percentage of Democrats chose Clinton or Obama . What are their qualifications for military leadership ? I think this should be the most important decision in choosing a President and the Democrats don't even want to bring it up . They can talk about issues like immigration , abortion , health care , and Iraq but aren't these issues decided more by Congress than the President ? This has made me rethink my choice at the polls . I am very unhappy with the performance of the present administration but our servicemen deserve a qualified leader .
Who would make the best Commander In Chief ?
- Thread starter Crazynuff
- Start date
I don't know Crazy...isn't war also a Congressional issue as well?? I mean that the perfect leader would be versed in every aspect , such economy and foriegn policy and of course military matters....BUT isn't that why they have advisors out the kazoo to educate and brief them???
This country really needs a leader with economics background more then military...IMO
If you don't have a strong homeland it's hard to have a strong military....
This country really needs a leader with economics background more then military...IMO
If you don't have a strong homeland it's hard to have a strong military....
Jack_Berry
Moderator Emeritus
maybe charlton heston. he was moses so he could be potus. too bad his health is so bad.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Good question but the problem is McCain is not a leader, he is a senator. Obama and Hillary, forget them....
I stand on something that was said to me by a vet who got DSC, unless they reached high ranks military people don't make good political leaders.
In the case of McCain, I don't question his status of being a POW, I question his ability to look beyond his experience being tortured in order to defend American and Americans. I can not see leadership in his comments or actions and worry that he will compromise our safety.
Beside, a lot of people don't understand what he really did beside being shot down and caught. The guy has gone through a lot, but that does not make him the leader we need.
I stand on something that was said to me by a vet who got DSC, unless they reached high ranks military people don't make good political leaders.
In the case of McCain, I don't question his status of being a POW, I question his ability to look beyond his experience being tortured in order to defend American and Americans. I can not see leadership in his comments or actions and worry that he will compromise our safety.
Beside, a lot of people don't understand what he really did beside being shot down and caught. The guy has gone through a lot, but that does not make him the leader we need.
RON PAUL. Ontarioman you are absolutely correct. An economic background is necessary.
My other answer is the people of the U.S. need to be leaders not followers. I don't agree with putting rich people in office. It is a conflict of interest. Theirs and mine. LOL
My other answer is the people of the U.S. need to be leaders not followers. I don't agree with putting rich people in office. It is a conflict of interest. Theirs and mine. LOL
Last edited:
dieseldiva
Veteran Expediter
Last edited:
We have never been able to fill Ike's shoes , have we ? JFK was suitable as a leader but he was the one that got us involved in Viet Nam .
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Well Ike really got us started in 'nam. I think if JFK wasn't killed, he would have limited the war but with McNamara (Mr. we save 10 cents on each M16 if we leave off the trigger) and his BS, he was the one who was pushing things a bit too much with other advisers to both Johnson and Kennedy. Don't forget one of the biggest issues for Vietnam was not communism but the fact that it was our gateway to the pacific rim for a lot of commerce and it was considered a free trade/no tax zone. A lot of people forget that, and until '67 or early '68 a lot of things changed to remove that status, by that time it was too late.
Ike had a lot of issues, one was he was not a good leader for the economy. We went through two recessions (one mild, one serious) and cut back on spending a lot on the defense end of things which in turn put a lot of companies out of business. His leadership was also a problem with sending troops into Lebanon and helping the French with the Algiers problem (War of Algeria) - both really didn't do much good, if I remember right the french only a few years earlier cr*pped on us for our objection to the EU and later on de Gaulle said that we made a mistake being in Vietnam and what the US is doing is imperialism. Great coming from a country that is still unstable.
Jayman
Expert Expediter
I dont really agree with the above statement, being retired military. A lot of your success in the military depends on other things besides your individual performance, as it does in any career. The military is a political force of its own, in a couple ways. 1. Your rise in position is somewhat political. You have to stroke the right people, or atleast go along with them. 2. Even though the military falls under civilian leadership...todays military has the power to turn the leaders head any which way they want, at times. This has been especially true under Democratic Presidents. Mostly because they do not understand the military from not having served in the armed forces. Or, because they are arrogant and look at the military as a servant to their whims. (Clintons) Under either scenero...in the end they will be distant and take a hands off approach to the military. (to one degree or another)This causes a void in power that will be filled by high ranking brass in the military which results in the military being able to bully or manipulate elected officials. Even the President.
But, back to the topic. Just because you dont go along with things that dont seem correct and fail to be promoted up through the ranks dont mean you cant lead.
Last edited:
greg334
Veteran Expediter
I somewhat see what you are saying but I am talking about leadership at the top, not subordinate leadership. Ike for example had to be the head of something rather large; he was an exception, not the rule. He made mistakes as president but he also had advisors.
JFK was groomed by his father and the political machine behind him, he already knew what he was doing by the time he was trying to get nominated in ’56.
I don’t see McCain with any of the leadership qualities what these other two had. For what it is worth, he has not been consistent in anything, and sorry to say that the best and strongest leaders we had who were pro military didn’t really serve.
No I don’t agree and if this was an inkling of truth to it, we would be in a different situation in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo. Especially in Iraq, the congress has been involved with making decisions on how to fight the war. The military is very limited, even at the chief of staff level on what they can and can not do. Many feel that the military is independent of the civilian leadership, it is not. In fact you should go and visit congress in some of the committee meetings and listen to how the congress keeps a tight control on some things in the military, like they have for the past 220 years.
I also think that there would never be a bullying of the president or any congressional member. It don’t matter who you are, you serve at their behest. They have the power, not the military and it is setup for a real serious reason that way.
Sorry, I know a lot of people who think they can lead. Many get through some sort of leadership training and fail to lead. Leading has to do with respect and at this point, McCain has not earned my respect as a politician – period. He has insulted me and my fellow Americans with his “no American can do this job” cr*p, he has been the author of bills that limit freedom of speech, he was a co-sponsor of a piece of legislation that not only cheapened the all important American citizenship but also sided with his colleagues who were incensed that the American people stopped the bill in it’s tracks. He may have been in the military, he may have been shot down and a POW but that is not a reason I can see to vote for him. It brings me back to what is the difference between the three – there really is none. We need real leadership, someone who stands on his convictions and follows through.
Jayman
Expert Expediter
I agree with some of what you said.
McCain in my books isnt the guy I would of picked to be the nominee for the GOP. I liked Huckabee, but I knew he wasnt popular enough and may have been too conservative for mainstream America.
Todays military has fallen under Bush's leadership because he commands more respect than the last two Democratic Presidents did. Those are the cases where the military pushed their way a bit more than normal. But, that comes back to the respect issue you mentioned. Neither Carter nor Clinton commanded the respect from the military they should have. But, that was because of their own actions. When Bush took office (following Clinton) he had to spend some time getting the military's leadership to submit to his authority since their was a bit of a void there caused by issues Clinton generated.
As far as leadership in general goes...I agree with you to a degree. Some think they can lead, but cant effectively. Some can, but never get the chance to prove it.
In my opinion though, when it comes to McCain, Hillary, and Obama. McCain will show this fall he is clearly the best candidate that we get to choose from. In a way, he kind of looks like the old regime. But, in other ways he is different. The other two in my opinion arent even close to commanding my respect. I have never been a huge fan of McCain, but I know Obama and Hillary are lucky just to be in the race. I was a Democrat until 92 when the Clintons entered the picture. If I was still a Democrat...I would be outraged that these two are the ones my party is putting forward.
Political parties cause division in this country. Get rid of them and you can create unity. United we stand, divided we fall.
"When the political columnists say 'Every thinking man'
they mean themselves, and when candidates appeal to
'Every intelligent voter' they mean everybody
who is going to vote for them."
Quote by: Franklin P. Adams
Be not intimidated...
nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties
by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency.
These, as they are often used, are but three different names
for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice."
Quote by: John Adams
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,
tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."
Quote by: Samuel Adams
"When the political columnists say 'Every thinking man'
they mean themselves, and when candidates appeal to
'Every intelligent voter' they mean everybody
who is going to vote for them."
Quote by: Franklin P. Adams
Be not intimidated...
nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties
by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency.
These, as they are often used, are but three different names
for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice."
Quote by: John Adams
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,
tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."
Quote by: Samuel Adams
TwoMotherTrkrs
Seasoned Expediter
Our Service People deserve someone who votes in favor of Vet's interests also. Say what you will...I'm voting for Obama if I get the chance. I'm sick of all the corporatists, including Hillary.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
I can't understand why?
If you want someone who will treat the armed forces with respect, then Obama is not the person.
If you don't want a corporatist in office, Obama is not the person.
I truly think that Obama is reaching out and yanking on emotional strings with help of the media, he is more of an elitist than Bill/Hillary thought to be. Read what his wife has been saying about this country, look at their background. He has done little to really help anyone and as a senator has done nothing, where is the experience?
He has been groomed by the very people who are themselves as corrupt as they can get. He comes from a state where they put in jail a governor and another one may be heading that way.
What has really been a bother is the fact he has sat in a church that has used religion to espouse hatred and bigotry. Hijacking a religion to speak of hate and bigotry is not a good thing, it shows weak character. He has yet to denounce what has been talked about, but he wants it to be a race issue, he wants to fan the smoldering embers of what was to bring it up as a fire in the American political scene.
He has been friends with a person who is a terrorist, who bombed buildings and is an exact equivalent to Tim McVeige. This guy said he didn't go far enough in killing people, what kind of president can Obama make when he has friends like that?
Isn't the character of a person include who you associate with to make sure that you deal with somewhat ethical people?
I think Bush has proved how one administration can ruin a country in 8 years. I am angry at the
continuous lies, embarassed of the leadership, and insulted at the abuse this administration has performed.
Let see, A war based on lies, An economy in the trash, An environmental policy that has irreversible damage, foreign policy that has brought the world against us, Yes, these guys have done so well and proved themselves to us, lets go again and vote in Mr. McBush, I mean McCain, for another 8 years. You really think we can afford that?
They all need to be charged for war crimes and not only publicly pay for there mis-treatment of power, but personally pay also. I believe the Bush administration should lose there fortunes and all the personal gain they have received over the last 8 years. And with that said, I wouldn't vote for another Republican in office for nothing, not even if it was Jesus Christ himself running as a republican! Oh, and by the way, I'm from Arizona, I voted for McCain. I liked him until I understood his policies and watched his tune change 4 years ago. McCain is not who you may think he is. All I can say is, whoever you vote for, don't believe what any of them say. They just want you to vote for them and get them into office. BELIEVE IN YOU not them, DO THE RESEARCH, THEN VOTE!
continuous lies, embarassed of the leadership, and insulted at the abuse this administration has performed.
Let see, A war based on lies, An economy in the trash, An environmental policy that has irreversible damage, foreign policy that has brought the world against us, Yes, these guys have done so well and proved themselves to us, lets go again and vote in Mr. McBush, I mean McCain, for another 8 years. You really think we can afford that?
They all need to be charged for war crimes and not only publicly pay for there mis-treatment of power, but personally pay also. I believe the Bush administration should lose there fortunes and all the personal gain they have received over the last 8 years. And with that said, I wouldn't vote for another Republican in office for nothing, not even if it was Jesus Christ himself running as a republican! Oh, and by the way, I'm from Arizona, I voted for McCain. I liked him until I understood his policies and watched his tune change 4 years ago. McCain is not who you may think he is. All I can say is, whoever you vote for, don't believe what any of them say. They just want you to vote for them and get them into office. BELIEVE IN YOU not them, DO THE RESEARCH, THEN VOTE!
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Macmov,
I can’t agree with the lies part, simply because the war is the fault of the UN, the EU and congress before Bush. All of them had a hand in it; Bush is an easy person to blame. You have to look at the UN and what was uncovered there. I seen them in action, I know they are not the organization that Eleanor and others planned it to be, it is a mess and it is a tyrannical organization that is an extension of Stalinism. We had one person who was regarded by many in diplomatic corp as the person who could have forced changes, Bolton but the democrats disagreed with the person or the idea that we should not force real reform at the UN. Maybe cutting them off would help. By the way, a lot has been covered up about the Oil for Food program, talk about a conspiracy.
I surely don’t agree with the environmental damage because I didn’t see where we have large tracts of land being uninhabitable. We have under his administration tightened up diesel engine emissions to a ridicules level and in some cases the EPA has gone after some sources of pollution that was ignored by previous administrations, one being right here in Detroit. We were far better off with Clinton’s policies of lax policies than Bush. But again, we really need to look at the EPA and how it effects the country – remember it is chartered not to look at economic impact of the country.
Foreign policy is always the problem but truthfully I don’t care what France, Germany or Saudi’s feel about us, they need us. The foreign policies of other countries don’t come into play at all when we look at the bigger picture, for example china and how they are now colonizing parts of Africa, interesting to say the least no one cares about that.
War crimes?
What war crimes?
He is a constitutionally elected official of our country, and to even approach the UN/World Court concept that he is a war criminal just absolutely puts us on a crash course as a country. Look at things carefully and think. If we start saying our people need to stand trial for things that are within our laws, then what’s next? Foreign rule? The Supreme Court stopped that in its tracks by saying a sovereign state, Texas, does not have to listen to the federal government or the world court rulings – they just saved our country.
The subject of torture may be what you are driving at, well I want to have a government who will put mine and yours safety first about a foreign national. I don’t want to have the hands tied of the people who put their lives on the line when it comes to intelligence, torture if they have to, I don’t care because I look at the WTC and all the other things and I remain angry that we don’t do more.
Bush can be impeached over the border issue, just like many of the mayors and township officials can be thrown out of office because they don’t uphold the constitution or the laws of the country. He has been ineffective in his doing nothing to stop an invasion, not illegal immigration but a real invasion. He also has not enforced the banking laws of the country, looking the other way while banks allow invaders to open accounts and a line of credit. His administration has allowed, may be even ordered the treasury department to work with Mexico to allow international transactions to happen faster – all impeachable.
Carter’s administration and Clinton’s didn’t help the country.
As for McCain, I noticed that too. I don’t trust him but what can you do, elect a socialist? Elect a fascist? Not much of a choice. I heard something disgusting the other day, elect McCain and hope he makes it through one year and then the VP will take over.
I can’t agree with the lies part, simply because the war is the fault of the UN, the EU and congress before Bush. All of them had a hand in it; Bush is an easy person to blame. You have to look at the UN and what was uncovered there. I seen them in action, I know they are not the organization that Eleanor and others planned it to be, it is a mess and it is a tyrannical organization that is an extension of Stalinism. We had one person who was regarded by many in diplomatic corp as the person who could have forced changes, Bolton but the democrats disagreed with the person or the idea that we should not force real reform at the UN. Maybe cutting them off would help. By the way, a lot has been covered up about the Oil for Food program, talk about a conspiracy.
I surely don’t agree with the environmental damage because I didn’t see where we have large tracts of land being uninhabitable. We have under his administration tightened up diesel engine emissions to a ridicules level and in some cases the EPA has gone after some sources of pollution that was ignored by previous administrations, one being right here in Detroit. We were far better off with Clinton’s policies of lax policies than Bush. But again, we really need to look at the EPA and how it effects the country – remember it is chartered not to look at economic impact of the country.
Foreign policy is always the problem but truthfully I don’t care what France, Germany or Saudi’s feel about us, they need us. The foreign policies of other countries don’t come into play at all when we look at the bigger picture, for example china and how they are now colonizing parts of Africa, interesting to say the least no one cares about that.
War crimes?
What war crimes?
He is a constitutionally elected official of our country, and to even approach the UN/World Court concept that he is a war criminal just absolutely puts us on a crash course as a country. Look at things carefully and think. If we start saying our people need to stand trial for things that are within our laws, then what’s next? Foreign rule? The Supreme Court stopped that in its tracks by saying a sovereign state, Texas, does not have to listen to the federal government or the world court rulings – they just saved our country.
The subject of torture may be what you are driving at, well I want to have a government who will put mine and yours safety first about a foreign national. I don’t want to have the hands tied of the people who put their lives on the line when it comes to intelligence, torture if they have to, I don’t care because I look at the WTC and all the other things and I remain angry that we don’t do more.
Bush can be impeached over the border issue, just like many of the mayors and township officials can be thrown out of office because they don’t uphold the constitution or the laws of the country. He has been ineffective in his doing nothing to stop an invasion, not illegal immigration but a real invasion. He also has not enforced the banking laws of the country, looking the other way while banks allow invaders to open accounts and a line of credit. His administration has allowed, may be even ordered the treasury department to work with Mexico to allow international transactions to happen faster – all impeachable.
Carter’s administration and Clinton’s didn’t help the country.
As for McCain, I noticed that too. I don’t trust him but what can you do, elect a socialist? Elect a fascist? Not much of a choice. I heard something disgusting the other day, elect McCain and hope he makes it through one year and then the VP will take over.
Greg,
Your post just proved my point about Carter. If you cannot blame Bush alone you cannot blame Carter. Who we have in Congress has alot to do with what policies are in place.
Let not one man take the blame for this toilet that we are in but the many that helped flush the toilet.
Hear, hear...
Your post just proved my point about Carter. If you cannot blame Bush alone you cannot blame Carter. Who we have in Congress has alot to do with what policies are in place.
Let not one man take the blame for this toilet that we are in but the many that helped flush the toilet.
Hear, hear...
You got it. Fire them all... Let's not be fooled again.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
But here is the thing, these are different times.
Bush followed Clinton's policies which was the official government policies, force a change of government in Iraq. He did not change anything (focusing on Iraq here), he did not go to the UN and say "we are going to invade Iraq and that's it" but followed the mandates from the UN.
It was the UN that set us up for Iraq, it was Clinton's administration who gave us the a real reason to go, and it was the congress who gave permission. Where Bush failed is having journalist involved with the war - embedding them (hint they have no constitutional right to be there and they are not above any citizen), he did not secure the borders of Iraq (hint who would expect him to when he can't here) and he looked at the Iraqi people as they were Europeans (hint he didn't understand the culture).
On the other hand;
Carter changed US policy towards the government of Iran, forcing the Shah to fall from power and opening up the resources for Islamic Fundamentalist. This followed other changes of policy about the Middle East that effect the country today.
He changed the policy in Central America, allowing a revolution to take place where Castro and Russia supported the new regime and were a lot of killing (more than Iraq) has taken place.
He changed the policies on how we handle the intelligences we gathers and how it is gathered, changing the CIA forever, forcing more controls on both them and the FBI, creating a new court system that was outside of the constitution and putting us on a dangerous path.
By far Carter is still the worst president. Bush is also on that list but because the border only.
Also now to add to this, take a serious read of Stalin and his world, compare it to Saddam's world. See what the Iraqis faced. I think for our involvement there, the people are far better off than they were under Saddam. I think that we gave them back something that they needed and Iran is still very nervous.
The problem with Iran is that we need to fully support the groups within it's borders to make a change in their government. Don't think for a minute that the people don't know what's going on in Iraq and see what changes of culture and life styles. A revolution can happen in Iran if we stop worrying about Iraq and pull behind the troops. You really need to talk to some of these Iraqis and even Iranians living here to know they want to live like we do - free.