our next president should be an experienced military man. someone to lead america in the right direction. it probably wouldnt hurt if both the president & vp were ex-miltary.
but not someone who's military experience is mostly as a pencil pusher, we need
a man who has been in battle and who is intelligent, has common sense, and doesn't make decisions based on ideology or gut feelings, common sense would be refreshing as well.
hagel
webb
clark
Wesley Clark and Anthony Zinni are the only military generals qualified and avilable. I do not think Webb and Hagel were at an executive level of command. Being in battle in not at all prerequisite to executive ability.
Bill"for what we are together"
bill713.unity08@sbcglobal.net
clark and zinni are well qualified, however hagel & webb do have experience in political leadership roles as well as battle experience. hagel would be the more seasoned politician. i agree that clark & zinni have the most military experience well beyond the battle field. i think either or both would be viable choices.
Clark's Ideology far outweighs his military experience and common sense.
Wesley Clark's endorsement of Hillary Robem' Clinton shows he doesn't have enough sense to get in out of the rain!
I think Clark is pushing for a VP position for Hillary Clinton. He was on Fox and NBC this week and when asked about this he seemed interested.
I would add Colin Powell to your list.
Funny how those who have been to war aren't as anxious to see others die in another war - unlike the Chicken Hawks we have in power now.
Even tho I am vehemently opposed to our invasion & occupation of Iraq, I know that we would be in a much better position if experience had been listened to rather than the arrogant stupidity of Rumsfeld.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69 5th District, NJ
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
I agree. I think Clark is definitely angling for Veep with Hillary. Although he did a good job with NATO political aspects, Clark is not very popular with the most of the military higher brass incl Zinni/Shinseki and others. Has a rep of a political hack a** kisser even before he got into politics and considered to have little strategic quals. But anything would be better than what we got with Bush-Cheney-Rummy and company (low bar now!)
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
I hope you're wrong, John. I have no use for "politics as usual" Hillary, and if Clark links with her, I'd lose respect for him.
I don't know all I should about Clark, but I've read and listened to him, and I know he was first in his West Point class. His intelligence is palable, and after the past several years, intelligence would be SO refreshing.....
Just thought - the last president I recall being impressed with as intelligent was Carter - I voted for Ford, even tho I knew Ford wasn't as bright, but Ford was experienced and HONEST. Carter, too, was, and is, honest, but he's naive, and got eaten alive by politicians.
Is Clark political - yes, but to be an effective president you have to be. Carter wasn't political, and was consequently ineffective.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69 5th District, NJ
Carter was very intelligent but his big failing as Prez was that he took an engineering mentality and civics book approach to how government was SUPPOSE to work, but not how it actually worked in practice. Being the consumate engineer he thought you press a policy button here and things would automatically happen there in government much like what happens in the engineering drawings and the civic books.
Carter failed to see that implementers of policy in government are real people (and not blips on an engineering drawing) have their own agendas and you need constant full-court pressing/coddling and arm twisting at every step of the way to make sure those wonderful sounding policies (and many of his were) actually get implemented on the ground where the rubber meets the road. It was such ends-means disconnects and naivete that resulted in his Presidency being a failure IMHO even though I voted for the guy and really liked him as he was a decent person but just a lousy Prez.
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
I think more or Carter now, than I did when he was president. Unlike what we see/hear lately, he is NOT a hypocrite. He says he's Christian, and PRACTICES the teachings - Habitat for Humanity, visiting Africa to help, etc., - his actions speak louder than Bush's words.
I agree, John - Carter expected others to be honest and want what's best for America - he didn't deal with the personal agendas and dirty politics - we have an expert in those areas in place now....
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69 5th District, NJ
One of Carter's big failings is that he did not surround himself with top notch people who had knowdedge on the ways of Washington and implementation. All the good best policies in the the world are for naught if you do not take into consideration the means of implementing those policies. Implementation is 95% of the game. And good policies unimplemented or implemented poorly was what did Carter in and is now of recent the MO of government. In that implementation way Carter and Bush2 are similar. Has now allowed the Lobbyist/KStreeters to fill the void to make up for the demise of a moderating party structure esp in the last 8 years.
Ford/Reagan/Bush 1/Clinton at least surrounded themselves self with people in the know about Washington's ways and knew how to get things done policy wise. Reagan's staff was particularly adept (Jim Baker, Deaver, Howard Baker,etc) and knew how wwashington worked and how to get things done. Jim Baker and his full-court-press diplomacy in the leadup to Gulf War I was the template we needed in Gulf War II. Dubya did not learn well from daddy on staff and means of implementation and we are paying the price dearly in Iraq.
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
W did have Colin Powell, who is as good as any. Trouble is, he was ignored in favor of the ignorant, arrogant Rumsfeld.
Bush believes in the the old song, "where never is heard a discouraging word". Decisions should involve weighing plusses and minuses. When you exclude minuses in reaching a decision, you do so at peril. Bush/Rumsfeld weeded out generals who didn't say what he wanted to hear, like Shinseki.
Having experienced people near at hand isn't any good if you ignore them.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69 5th District, NJ
Powell would have been so much better back as NSC advisor to Bush2. He was out of his element at State IMHO. Bush 2 had Condi vetting very poorly the intel. Powell's experience would have done much much better and called them on the discrepancies if he would have been at NSC. And they had of all people Don (bull in the china shop) Rumsfeld going to Europe to do the diplomacy in the leadup months to Gulf War II! What stupidity having that guy doing that. Powell went to Europe just once in the leadup and Rummy went about a dozen times. Go figure!!
And the US leadup diplomacy with Turkey was really blown big time. Jim Baker must have been crying back at Rice U! Turkey and or some other key ME local power(s) (Egypt, Jordan etc) was the key to making the plan work at all and giving some Strategic Context to this sucker. People in the area would have then known we were serious. All the way around poorly planned and executed. Thus the results we see now that Petreus, Gates and Company are just starting to clean up. It'll take a looonnngg time - and a lot of American Bipartisan patience which I hope we have. Remember Korea and remember the Truman-Eisenhower handoff folks!! Some good lessons there!
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
I believe we only need a president that will listen to military leadership when it comes to military and foreign policy matters. Most military leadership is not neccessaryly good at domestic matters.
Betty
Betty327@ptd.net
AND-
We have to stop looking to the military to solve political and/or diplomatic situations. We should have military for defense. Period.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69 5th District, NJ
Hey Ike wasn't to shabby and history is treating him increasingly well esp on domestic matters and civil rights. Actually military people have probably the BEST experience in dealing with people of all walks of lives and races. More so than many of the rest of us IMHO. And at the top level, the brass deals diplomatically with governments and intl institutions daily. Not to shabby any of those guys with good experience and leadership quals in actually running something and not just pontificating! Look at Zinni and Clark. Maybe not my first choices but definitly not a bad options and we should consider. As always it depends on the individual person. so let's not blanket dismiss the military folks PLEASE!! Hagel, Webb, Zinni, Clark are all excellent and much better than many of the other candidates out there now!
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
Maybe we should back the candidate that the military, retired and active, supports most, Ron Paul! Do you have any idea why this is so? My guess is they have seen war and are voting for peace!
Was Ron ever in the military. What's the story there HC??
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
john completyely agree with your first post today.
i think ronpaul was a military flight doc during vietnam but didnt serve in vietnam.
He was a flight surgeon in '60's. Thank you for asking!
Thanks HC and Scand! I think military service definitely helps ones quals!!
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
Unlike civilian candidates, military candidates have specific training in leadership. This is an under rated qualification. An ex military candidate understands the burden/responsibility of leadership includes a need to be in touch with the pulse of those being led. A military leader understands that reciprocal relationship. A military candidate just might be the right type of individual to not turn a deaf ear from the voice of the governed.
It has been 48 years since our last ex military president, maybe we are past due to elect an ex military president to start the process of listening to the people again.
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!
I agree Phil. The military leadership training is oriented to connecting the ends with the means - something our political leadership should become more acquainted with. If we would have listed to Zinni, Shinseki and the rest we would not be where we are today in Iraq cleaning up the civilian political leadership's vast ends-means disconnects.
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
Perhaps it is this very leadership trait in Powell that causes him to be appear more solid in his choices. Maybe his very appeal is a result of his leadership training which is lacking in his civilian political opponents.
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!
Military experience (of any kind)can be an advantage for a leader, but if we are talking about a high-command position, then I wonder if it isn't more of a curse. Most high ranking military people (other than George Washington, or Jackson) ended up being mediocre-to-ineffective presidents.
Jeff C
leikec@yahoo.com
In looking for a "strong military" leader, we may be thinking reflexively because of the current administration. Maybe we only need a leader that listens to the advice of respected military leaders?
-GP (gp.in.minnesota@gmail.com)
Join the Unity08 Delegate wiki today! http://www.unity-usa.org
What about Eisenhower Jeff (see below)? History is treating him kinder as the archives are coming open on his administration. Grant was one of the most corrupt for sure. But Ike's example in modern times is pretty instructive. and I think this upcoming election is going to echo 1952 a great deal politically. Although Bush is by far no Truman, the politics now are fairly congruent with 1951-1952.
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
Although I tend to be somewhat reflexively anti-millitary I think General Zinni may be the perfect candidate to guide us forward. I'm reading his book and find him non-partisan, and humble. Zinni is not a politican but he is a patriot and I think he might run on the Unity ticket if we were to nominate him. Most Democrats or Republicans would not abab=ndon their party except for those with unhealthy super large egos (read Guliani or Richardson, ...). While these examples might be moderates, they have the wrong temperments and motivations. I feel certain that Clark has already been picked by Hillary to be her VP. Nobody releases a book like his if there not a candidate of some sort.