Word of the Day
Implacable (adj.): see "liberal Democrats"
1996: You don't need to have any military experience to be an effective and competent Commander in Chief.
2004: It's important that the President be someone with actual military experience, someone who knows the horrors of war.
2008: People with too much military experience should not be elected president.
You people do realize how utterly moronic you sound when you spew forth this kind of nonsense, don't you?
Something tells me that if Barack Obama selects as his running mate someone who served in the military, we will immediately find out just what is the "perfect amount" of military experience that a candidate should have.
Until 2012, of course, when the next version comes out.
Also, from the article linked above:
Wow, a career politician and liberal Democrat mangling the meaning of the Constitution.
Now, there's a first.
The Constitution makes no recommendations as to what kind of person "should" be elected president. It simply lists the requirements a person must meet (citizenship, age, residency) in order to be eligible to hold the office, and states that the President shall not receive any other federal or state government salary during his term.
For Harkin to imply that somewhere within Article II - The Executive Branch is the suggestion that those with military experience should not be elected president shows a severe lack of understanding of the Constitution, and the principles delineated therein, that he has sworn to support and defend.
Either that, or he's simply lying to his constituents and doesn't give a shit.
But, hey, what's more important? Respecting the Constitutional principles upon which our country was founded, and speaking truthfully to the American people about the same, or blatantly distorting the meaning of the Constitution to serve your partisan purposes and to besmirch a Republican candidate?
UPDATE: In Harkin's defense, he did endorse Dean over Kerry in 2004, so he's at least consistent in the "military experience" department.
1996: You don't need to have any military experience to be an effective and competent Commander in Chief.
2004: It's important that the President be someone with actual military experience, someone who knows the horrors of war.
2008: People with too much military experience should not be elected president.
You people do realize how utterly moronic you sound when you spew forth this kind of nonsense, don't you?
Something tells me that if Barack Obama selects as his running mate someone who served in the military, we will immediately find out just what is the "perfect amount" of military experience that a candidate should have.
Until 2012, of course, when the next version comes out.
Also, from the article linked above:
"But now McCain is running for a higher office. He's running for commander in chief, and our Constitution says that should be a civilian," [Sen. Tom Harkin, D-LA] said.
Wow, a career politician and liberal Democrat mangling the meaning of the Constitution.
Now, there's a first.
The Constitution makes no recommendations as to what kind of person "should" be elected president. It simply lists the requirements a person must meet (citizenship, age, residency) in order to be eligible to hold the office, and states that the President shall not receive any other federal or state government salary during his term.
For Harkin to imply that somewhere within Article II - The Executive Branch is the suggestion that those with military experience should not be elected president shows a severe lack of understanding of the Constitution, and the principles delineated therein, that he has sworn to support and defend.
Either that, or he's simply lying to his constituents and doesn't give a shit.
But, hey, what's more important? Respecting the Constitutional principles upon which our country was founded, and speaking truthfully to the American people about the same, or blatantly distorting the meaning of the Constitution to serve your partisan purposes and to besmirch a Republican candidate?
UPDATE: In Harkin's defense, he did endorse Dean over Kerry in 2004, so he's at least consistent in the "military experience" department.
