Re: General Petraeus Report
 

There are probably a large number of Senators and Representatives in the US Congress who also do not know the difference between a Sunni and a Shi'ite.

Do not think that Senator John McCain is an intellectual who would keep track of differences like this even if Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both seem like they have very gifted minds. Remember that any President's staff is going to have some first rate minds on it. Would not say that George W. Bush has a gifted mind. That's probably true of many US Presidents though that they are not academics but people of action. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critici...George_W._Bush

Re: General Petraeus Report
 

I wouldn't call President Bush a man of action, but a man of reaction. And ALWAYS with an inappropriate reaction. Even hearing upon 9/11 he still sat reading to the children with that "deer caught in the headlights" look... for 7 minutes! 7 minutes! :edit:

Please, not more of the same.

Re: General Petraeus Report
 

McCain is no intellectual. I read he graduated 5th from the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy at Annapolis. Obama, in contrast, graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, an impressive feat, and was president of the Harvard Law Review. True, the President would have the benefit of astute advisors; I personally would be more comfortable with someone I felt was intellectually gifted.

Re: General Petraeus Report
 

None of the three candidates are "dumb" by any stretch of the imagination.

As far as Sen. McCain's USNA standing, the context is not relative to the rigors of the institution. All of the service academies are known as being overall the most difficult institutions to complete, as they test considerably more than grey-matter capacity. My hat is tipped to all who have the fortitude to complete a service academy program, and one review of the curricula - to include required service activities during non-academic periods - can attest to their severity and content.

Call me old-fashioned, but character, integrity, ethics and concern for country-over-self mean more to me than someone's collegiate transcript. I'd like to know that when the going gets tough, there will be someone tough enough in the job whose concern is more about what's good for the country instead of what's good for his/her public image or party.

Sen. Obama definitely has the most impressive academic credentials, but I know a lot of smart people without the sense to get out of the rain. His past history does not show any concern-for-country, as evidenced by his missing over a third of all Senate votes during his one-and-only term (only half-completed) in the Senate. That to me indicates a me-first and everyone-else-second attitude, and I'm not that comfortable having someone as President that selfish.

Sen. Clinton is a very sharp and gutsy individual who has made it clear from the time she first crossed the 1600 PA Ave threshhold that her goal was to be President at any cost. I admire the ambition, but again there seems to be more concern with acquisition of title versus desire to serve the country as a whole.

Sen. McCain is definitely not the orator that Sen Obama is, and gaffs occur. Sen. McCain's academic credentials are not as impressive as either Sen. Obama or Clinton, however, when one looks at the chronolgical time-lines for the three, the person with a much greater record (at the same point in life) of unselfish service-to-country and experience in leadership, management and understanding of how the world works, Sen. McCain excels.

There is still a lot of campaign to go. Ironically, the only thing they all have in common is that they are U.S. Senators. That being the case, it seems the most logical means of comparison as to how they would perform as President would be how they performed as Senators - who fulfilled the duties of the office, who showed up for votes, how they voted, their abilities to work across-the-aisles with others, their understanding of issues (domestic and international). For those who want to discount Sen. McCain's military record, and those who want to attack Sen. Obama's cadre of private friends, and those who want to see Sen. Clinton as the sock-puppet of her husband - what other objective criteria is left other than Senatorial record?

Yes, comparing the records means not being swayed by glib catch-phrases and sound-bites, and not getting caught up in emotional demogogary - but actually doing "homework" to determine who can do the job based on track record. I'd do that just trying to select the person to fix my toilet, let alone trying to select the person to lead the nation.

Re: General Petraeus Report
 

Steve Z, did you vote Bush in -- twice? Don't answer that, just a guess. Because he has been the most "me-first and everyone-else second' president of my time. And I found it appalling. Not taking McCain's war-record away from him, but I don't want someone that ended up at the bottom of his class, no matter what college or Academy they graduated from and I certainly do not want another war monger. Intelligence or, lack there of, very much counts.

"I'm going to try to see if I can remember as much to make it sound like I'm smart on the subject." --George W. Bush, answering a question about a possible flu pandemic, Cleveland, July 10, 2007

"There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods today." John McCain --prior to visiting a Baghdad market while being flanked by 22 soldiers, 10 armored Humvees, and two Apache attack helicopters

Re: General Petraeus Report
 

Remember that from Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. I am not sure what people would have wanted President George W. Bush to do in that situation other than visit the kids as planned?? He probably had a very hard time dealing with that day as so many of us did.

Think that shows some courage not just going immediately to some kind of bunker as soon as the Secret Service or whoever knew that there were organized attacks being made against various prominent targets by terrorists.

Re: General Petraeus Report
 

Well, didn't vote for him the first time, did the second as the lesser of two BSers.

Again, I want to trust the person in the office to actually do the job. Yes, at this moment I'm leaning (and that's all it is) to Sen. McCain because he has fulfilled his duties as a Senator, making the votes, participating in the tough debates, and all of the unglamourous parts of the job. The other two seemed only interested in getting the titles of Senator so they could use it as credential for a higher title.

If they won't do the job as Senator because they are "too busy," I have a hard time believing they want to be President to actually do the job. Again, it seems they have more of a concern to later say "look at me, I'm President!"

All of the salesmanship on the campaign trail doesn't stack up to the track record to date. Actions do speak louder than words, and skating out of your current job's responsibilities doesn't demonstrate that you'll honor the next job's responsibilities.

Intellect is one thing, but true commitment to the job is another. That tell's me who will take the time to study the analyses, meet constantly with the advisors, and burn the midnight oil to keep up with the requirements of the job. Acquisition of the trappings (e.g., Senator ___ as a title) while shirking the responsibilities is not what I want in an employee - and the President is one of my (and millions of others') employees.

How anyone can label Sen. McCain as a war-monger is puzzling? Is it because he is a combat veteran? or because his academics have included military science? Or is it because he is honest enough to state the obvious as to the effects of military commitment? No one is more cautious and wary of committing the military to anything than someone who has smelt the cordite and experienced the results firsthand. The difference between the theorist and pragmatist is usually personal experience.

Re: General Petraeus Report
 

Steve Z, I actually do appreciate the way you think because it appears that you are, at least, open-minded. I called McCain a war monger because of his statements about Iraq going 100 years. Also, his temper tantrums are well documented and quite frankly, as I've stated before, I don't feel comfortable with a man with a short fuse being that close to the buttom. Just my opinion. :)

Re: General Petraeus Report
 

Looks like that will not be much of a factor -- McCain's temper tantrums-- http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.o...n_unlikely.php unless he pulls a Howard Dean. :joke:

Re: General Petraeus Report
 

Tal, I'm not worried about Public Forums, I'm worried about in private as President. :(

Re: General Petraeus Report
 

Again, we both want the most for our money. There's a lot I don't like about Sen McCain position-wise, but the commitment to fulfill the oath of office is a big one to me, and having that oath mean something other than words for a photo-op. If either of the other two could show some 'commitment' to what they promised to do, they'd be viewed as more than opportunists.

Re: General Petraeus Report
 

President Bush often argues that history will vindicate him. So he can't be pleased with an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted by the History News Network. It found that 98 percent of them believe that Bush's presidency has been a failure, while only about 2 percent see it as a success. Not only that, more than 61 percent of the historians say the current presidency is the worst in American history.

Re: General Petraeus Report
 

:bigthumbsup: Great post Junglejim!