Plenty cool in the apartment here, but thanks for your concern. It is an oven outside.
Seriously, I don't think that glorious military service is a requirement for leadership, and most people agree. The lack of any combat experience comes into play w/ the current crowd of Bozos since they are so intent on starting wars in foreign lands for dubious reasons, and for most leaders a thourough understanding of (recent) history would be a sufficient substitute for actually living the war part of history. In Bush's case, he was neither a scholar nor a soldier, he is no more qualified to send young people off to die than PeeWee Herman.
Since you brought up Clinton, (HTF do you right-wingers manage to insert him into any political discussion??), he was a great scholar and historian, like most notable leaders. There is an old saying, "not all readers are leaders, but all leaders are readers". Except Bush. His Dad was, Nixon was, etc., so it's not simply an anti-GOP thing for me. Your guy is ignorant, and dishonest to boot. Clinton was very loathe to sacrifice young blood for political means when there was any other possible way to go, so he is off the hook in the sissy-hawk department, unlike Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et. al......
The "War on Terrorism" is a joke....., they haven't even secured the borders of this country or airplane cockpits yet. A frikking joke. They are invading countries that were planned out before 9/11, completely unconcerned and ignorant about the costs of war, these clowns need to go! I'd vote for Martha Stewart against these A-holes, but I also think that John Kerry is a great guy.
