Again claptrap.

In an excellent editorial in the Washington Post, that BS was put to rest as they compared those Presidents who had experience in war prior to the conflict during their presidency, and the conduct of Presidents who had little or no wartime experience, but who conducted a wartime presidency. Examples given were Lincoln vs Grant, FDR vs Ike, etc. The point they were making was that there is no correlation between wartime service and an ability to fight a war as President. Johnson was a Navy Officer during WWII (so were Nixon and Kennedy) and none of their performances during the Vietnam War were exceptionaly good.

Any excuse will serve a fool...

By the way, from the above I take it that you also thought our previous lying, draft-dodging, bag of pus, was a singularly inept President. Leave it to the rationals in the crowd to point out, you can't have it both ways.

And obviously, you would not have the guts to make the comparison, which became clear, when Bush was urged to respond like Clinton right after 9/11, and he retorted that he "Wasn't going to fire off a bunch of million dollar missiles, to go through some empty tents and smack a camel in the ass". Sounds like a basic grasp of "strategery" to me...

And while you ineptly quote those with war experience as being against the war, why do you ignore the fact that the national veterans groups are the most supportive of these actions? Or the many veterans who support the Presidents stand while currently in positions of political power. This is a diverse issue with diverse viewpoints by diverse groups of people. To quote one group, without acknowledging the others, approaches dishonesty...

And regarding your Dept of Peace thread some time ago. did you note that of the three sponsors of the bill, one was indicted and convicted, one was voted out of office, and the last has been laughed at so may times, he no longer brings it up?

(By the way, Lt, USMC, Vietnam...)