[jm951]

The part I'm still trying to figure out is why the libs insist that without "true" military experience, a candidate isn't fit to run the country. Let's look at a few with no military experience-

FDR (D)- WWII, had polio as a child and no military experience
Lincoln (R)- Civil War, no "real" military experience
Wilson (D)- WWI, setup the League of Nations
LBJ (D)- seriously escalated Vietnam
Nixon (R)- got us out of Vietnam, but had problems with his personnel
Truman (D)- WWII, convinced the Japanese to call it quits

So, I find the entire argument over military experience from both sides of the aisle to be specious. But if we're calling the Iraq war a "new Vietnam" let's just remember which party got us into it and which one got us out. History lesson time, pay attention class. Gulf of Tonkin, trumped up by Kennedy (D) to justify sending aid and advisors to SV to halt the "domino theory" of communism. The troop and aid levels were dramatically increased by LBJ (D) who micromanaged the war. LBJ, along with McNamara, would choose individual targets for air raids. They also thought that if they just bombed the NV enough, they would quit and agree to peace. That is the falsehood of liberalism when military operations are involved, you gain peace by winning, not negotiating. It took Nixon (R) to finally extricate us from the mess the (D) libs started in SE Asia, and if you look even deeper, the Civil Rights legislation was passed mainly with (R) support. Your homework assignment for today, Who were the "Dixiecrats" and what party did they belong to, what party did Gov. George Wallace belong to, and what was current (D-WV) Sen. Robert Byrd's rank in the KKK? Yes, he was a Klan member, where's the ACLU, NAACP, Jesse and Al S on that one and why aren't they demanding an apology and his resignation? If they crucified Sen. Lott for a remark about another Senator's service, they should be burning Byrd at the stake, but not a peep. Yet more double standards on the left.