Grant, Carter, Ford, Roosevelt...I simply don't think that it matters.
What I care about is a person with the integrity to equip and train those forces contemplated for battle to be ready for the task, including the requiem.
In my experience, that judgement is not limited to those who have served.

I'm not saying you don't. But you could have put together an equally long list of politicians who were not wartime veterans and then come up with bad things to say about them. It's just a collection of subjective, anecdotal comments that means little.

I think Rick meant vet as in military active duty veteran, not as in veterinarian.

That would mean that AGore is a vet.

Our Director is a war veteran. He says he'd rather have someone with war experience to lead the country because he feels they will not act hastily when it comes to such things.....

I agree with those who prefer someone with military -- preferably combat -- experience. But only if all other elements were equal. And they never seem to be.

Dubya's concept of a war with 'no casualties' has more to do with his idea that he's on a Mission from God, but some actual combat experience would have been a very good thing.