A List of Those Who Served and those who didn't serve:

[thedrifter]

War, it seems, is one of those things that the more you know about it, the less you want any part of it. With Iraq in the crosshairs, the leading voices to go to war belong to those who have no...

[thedrifter]

OTHERS

BILL CLINTON
Title: Former President
Stance on Iraq: Pro-war. The goal to remove Saddam was adopted
during Clinton's reign on the eve of his impeachment vote, though
recently he has raised doubts about going after him.
Military history: None, with Vietnam deferment.

DAN QUAYLE ( news - web sites)
Title: Former Vice President
Stance on Iraq: Pro-war
Military history: None. Served in the National Guard.

GEORGE H. W. BUSH
Title: Former President
Stance on Iraq: Pro-war
Military history: WWII fighter pilot.

JAMES BAKER
Title: Former Secretary of State
Stance on Iraq: Anti-war. Warned last week that acting unilaterally against Iraq would be unwise.
Military history: Spent two years of active duty as a lieutenant in
the United States Marine Corps in the 1950s.

JACK KEMP
Title: Former Congressman
Stance on Iraq: Pro-war
Military history: None. Played pro football instead.

TOM HAYDEN
Title: Former California state Senator
Stance on Iraq: Anti-war
Military history: None

WAYNE LaPIERRE
Title: Executive vice president of National Rifle Association
Stance on Iraq: Pro-war
Military history: None

BILL O'REILLY
Title: Fox News commentator, "The O'Reilly Factor"
Stance on Iraq: Pro-war
Military history: None

FRANK GAFFNEY
Title: Founder/director of the Center for Security Policy
Stance on Iraq: Pro-war
Military history: None

WILLIAM KRISTOL
Title: Editor of The Weekly Standard
Stance on Iraq: Pro-war
Military history: None

ROBERT KAGAN
Title: Member of Project for a New American Century
Stance on Iraq: Pro-war
Military history: None

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER
Title: Nationally syndicated columnist
Stance on Iraq: Pro-war
Military history: Missed out because he is Canadian.

GARY BAUER ( news - web sites)
Title: Christian Right leader
Stance on Iraq: Pro-war
Military history: None

MARTIN PERETZ
Title: The New Republic editor
Stance on Iraq: Pro-war
Military history: None

WILLIAM BENNETT
Title: Former drug czar; co-director of Empower America
Stance on Iraq: Pro-war
Military history: None

GEORGE WILL
Title: Essayist
Stance on Iraq: Pro-war
Military history: None

NEWT GINGRICH
Title: Former House Speaker
Stance on Iraq: Pro-war
Military history: None

RUSH LIMBAUGH
Title: Radio personality
Stance on Iraq: Pro-war
Military history: Missed Vietnam because of anal cysts.

BRITT HUME
Title: FOX commentator
Stance on Iraq: Pro-war
Military history: None

ALAN KEYES ( news - web sites)
Title: MSNBC host
Stance on Iraq: Pro-war
Military history: None

JERRY FALWELL
Title: Religious personality
Stance on Iraq: Pro-war
Military history: None

KENNETH STARR
Title: Former independent counsel
Stance on Iraq: Pro-war
Military history: None

ANTONIN SCALIA ( news - web sites)
Title: U.S. Supreme Court ( news - web sites) Justice
Stance on Iraq: Pro-war
Military history: None

CLARENCE THOMAS ( news - web sites)
Title: U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Stance on Iraq: Pro-war
Military history: None

RUDY GIULIANI
Title: Former mayor of New York
Stance on Iraq: Pro-war
Military history: None

SYLVESTER STALLONE
Title: Actor
Stance on Iraq: Pro-war
Military history: None

Sempers,

Roger

[SgtMac]

Isn't it amazing how many people screaming for WAR have never served in the military let alone been in combat. Myself, strictly a peace time warrior and never having to test myself under fire, I always believe that war should only be the last resort. At the same time, I recognize that some times certain entities leave this country with no options. Our government should always undertake military action only after careful consideration of the cost (mainly in potential losses in lives). Is there no other alternative? If not, then do it right and with the will to WIN!!!

[Sparrowhawk]

Not one of them in that whole list was a MARINE!

[badbob]

Bob Neener
Stance on Iraq: ATTACK - the sooner the better
Military History: Vietnam - 1st Hand & Extensive

It would appear that I have more experience with war than all but maybe 4 of the principles on your list, and there are a ton of us here on this forum who poses that same experience, and almost to the man, we're ready hit em today with everything we've got.

Semper Fi,
Bob

[Norton1]

I see you and I were in the same space in time at one time. I was one of the radio operators that were net control for Starlite, and I was on Double eagle I and II. My last op was Hastings.

I may be one of the few folks who is not so excited about us getting involved with Iraq. And I've got my own share of experience with war. There needs to be a couple of things occur before I am going to encourage us to go after this bunch. Not that I want to take a sensual shower with Saddam - I don't - BUT

The American people are going to need to be behind this - I would not wish our welcome home on anyone - and if the public doesn't support it then those troops won't get what they deserve. I really want to see some first hand info on Iraq having weapons that are purported. And I want to see all of those combat veterans who are now opposed to our being involved change their stance. They are way up the food chain from me and I believe have a better understanding of what is really at stake.

I've learned that what appears to be rarely is -

Have a superb day my Brothers and Sisters

[Barrio_rat]

What exactly does this have to do with the price of chicken feed?

No where, that I know of, does it require persons who are elected to government to have served in the military. Every president after FDR has served in the military except for Bill Clinton. I didn't care that he had not served. That did not matter to me. What mattered to me, in his case, was how he avoided serving.

Various deferments were given to avoid the draft. Many took advantage of them and used them to keep from being drafted. Others just happened to fall in that catagory. Both of my grandfathers did not serve during WWII. They both did their part here in the States. They each had deferments from serving.

Some of those listed are of persons who served but question it because it was not during a time of war or they were with a unit that did not go into battle. Since when has this been a requirement for those who have served? Do those that have never gone into battle or served in a hostile area deserve less respect? I don't think so. If I had signed up for 4 years instead of 6, I would have missed going to the Persian Gulf. Something I'm glad I did - it was my duty to go - but it is also something I could have lived without doing.

Personally, I believe ALL should serve. I also believe, in a free society, that it is wrong to require service of everyone. It is people like those of us who are on this site that keep those kind of freedoms alive. So people have the choice in whether they serve or not. Also, so that they can voice their opinion. If they believe in defense of this country, they are entitled to their view on how that defense is best achieved. Argue with them on the merrit of their case and point out if it is flawed. Look to their record as well, but a record on consistancy. Yes, many of them are hypocrites. Many of them choose to send our brothers, sister, fathers, sons, daughters, moms and dads into harms way when they themselves would not. But those people are on both sides of the isle.

Every time this type of issue was brought up during the Clinton years, it was swept under the rug. Now these same people that did the sweeping for 8 years are pulling it back out. If you are going to compare, do it fairly and consistantly.

I am not a big fan of many of these people. Nor do I wish us to go engage in warfare when it can be avoided. We were attacked. We have the right to defend ourselves. The government has the obligation to defend the nation. These people in government know a great deal more than we do about what is going on. And well they should! If they don't, something is seriously wrong. They don't need to tell us everything they know and every reason they have for attacking a certian enemy in a certain way. I've stated this before; Until they show that they are going in the wrong direction and making poor decisions, I will back them.

It is good to question government and what their motives are but do it fairly. I would also look to the motives of those who are making these lists. Who are they? Why do they choose to do this now and not when Clinton had our military spread out all over the world doing nothing much more than depleting resourses?

We've been hearing two sides to an argument from people who are very credible. A lot of what they say (on both sides) makes sense. Some of it is utter nonsense... again, both sides! I say, take out the nonsense - and the politics - and stick to valid arguments. Let the most credible win and go forth with a plan from there.

[badbob]

Based on the presentation, I posses more military qualifications than most of those folks who will be deciding the fate of thousands or military and civilian lives.

And believe me, I’m not qualified.


Semper Fi,
Bob

[wrbones]

But I'm sick to death of Beiruit's, Tehrans', Somalia's, Bosnia's, and crap like that. If and when we go, do it right and finish the bastards off the first time.

[NamGrunt68]

What frosts my azz about some of the Politicians that didn't serve in a War is that when it comes time to send the bro's to war, the politicians that have sons and daughters of age will figure out a way to keep them here in the good ole USA....I ain't sayin all of em will, but ya can bet yer azz a lot of em will !!!!!

I ain't gonna git into all of what I feel about politicians avoiding the draft and other crap during Nam, cuz I ain't got enuff blood pressure meds to handle it !! But you can bet hundreds of boys of age that were related to the Politicians that sent us there didn't go because of their daddy's or Uncles positions in DC.....lots of em !!!