And the neocons say...

[youbet]

"He mighta-coulda seen combat" sounds weak to me since he essentially dropped out.

I don't understand why so many people are so intent on delving into Bush's military record. That's not the issue behind Iraq. We've even had prominant media personalities get canned over false documents regarding this!

He served in the Guard and saw no combat. Period. No president has seen combat duty since WW2! Clinton didn't serve at all. Carter served but saw no combat. The rest WW2 or earlier.

When you say "sounds weak to me," where are you going with that? Are you looking for another WW2 so that high percentages of our citizens see combat duty? Sicko astro. Sheeesh.........

Look here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_military_service

 

[2B]

I find it amazing that the same people that slam GB-II for him "only" being a pilot in the National Guard (and presumably not killed in Nam like they would have preferred) and find weak "facts" to back them up can turn right around and honor BC for his non-service and draft "protesting." I guess "your guy" is always honorable and righteous.

These guys are both ancient history as far as 2008 presidential candidates go. Of course, the dems don't see a problem with Hillary's husband getting her the NY senate slot for an obvious run at the presidency. They are too busy yelling about GB-I getting his son special "favors."

I'd comment on the collection of other potential candidates but it isn't worth it at this point. I believe the final nominees are not nationwide household names yet. Former senators have also generally not been our better presidents. I realize the dems will bring up St. John K but he wasn't president long enough for an honest evaluation. His VP (Johnson) was probably one of the better ones but that will probably start an unintended firestorm. Senators have a bad record at getting elected so that's something to think about.