@ david sugarman

"Let's look at Pat Tillman, the paradigm. why did he go? all anyone has to do is look at his jaw to see testosterone poisoning. it was fine curtailed into football but once unleashed into combat led to unnecessary risks. he wanted to kill and wound up dead. ok, you think i couldn't hold a candle to him. fine. but i am the fittest (as in darwin) and the world would be better off if there were more me than tillmans. that's what i think. i truly think i, in my live cowardice am better than tillman in his dead glory."

Sir, I hope you live to a very old age...you deserve it. You claim cowardice and are the fittest and are better than those who die in battle. I hope you live to a ripe old age and when the final time comes, I hope you remember that it was gallant men lie Tillman who ALLOWED you to die in your bed of old age.

You can go comforted in the fact that there will be others of similar bravery like Tillman who will keep those you love safe and sound long after you're gone. You will die a very selfish individual indeed.

@ david sugarman

"I "enjoy all the freedom" while you snarl and piss at the borders. good. you protect, while ones with enough intellect to appreciate it ("a republic as long as you can keep it") utilize the democracy. that's the way it should be. are there enough to vote in Obama? i hope so."

Sir, the point is you do NOT keep it...you allow others to defend it and to die in making things safe so you can appreciate the freedom while you complain about those who ensure you have it.

@ david sugar

"i'll admit, that is ONE thing the military teaches very well. (anti-frag insurance?). i did become anti-army after seeing what happened to my classmates - our experiences color our expectations. what's remarkable is how similar we are - having the same culture. i had a thought. if you were my warden at guantanamo i wouldn't be afraid but if it wasn't cuba but iran i would be shitting pickles (here's thinking of you, suarez!). (vote for obama, chief!)"

Sir, I suspect you wouldn't have much time to be afraid in Iran, as they do have a vulgar habit of decapitating prisoners rather than keeping them.

Sir (or Ma'am),

I also do not have a problem with protest. I DO have a problem with Code Pink, however. The problem is NOT that they want to protest the Marines. My problem is during the time they wanted to block the door and refuse those wishing to join the Marines admittance to do so. In my opinion, your right to protest ends where my right to enter a building and sign up begins.

Other than that, they can protest away. I don't even have any problem with them trying to talk to the potential soldiers to discourage them. If someone can talk them out of signing up, then they probably weren't that committed to doing it in the first place. But blocking the entrance so they cannot get in...THAT I DO have a problem with.

Sir, everyone is human and subject to making mistakes...but if you just generalize them all to be evil, then you are basically saying society is nothing but a corrupt machine and life is basically worthless. I choose to believe otherwise.

we only have a limited background for both candidates.

Thus we have to look at all their backgrounds to determine which would be the better candidate.

While Clark was not wrong in that JUST being in charge of a squadron doesn't make you a viable candidate, it certainly doesn't disqualify you either. (On a sidenote here - Clark seemed to think John Kerry's service made him the best candidate for President, so one must wonder why he thinks John McCain's service does not).

At any rate the situation requires voters to look at the full backgrounds of both candidates. Leading a squadron can be used as an example of leadership and waiting your turn when you could have gotten out of a POW camp early can be used as an example of integrety.

The point is, all we have to go on is both of these guys backgrounds...so we have to evaluate ALL of their background information.

I haven't decided WHICH one to vote for as yet myself.

@ Manny,

"who is swift boating who? and who is the hero? a Navy pilot shot down and taken prisoner, or a General that stopped the genocide in Kosovo without losing a single man?"

That's the problem...they are BOTH heroes...but Clark should have found a better way to say what he wanted to say. He specifically said that his service was not a qualification to be President...but it IS an example of his leadership.

Let's face it, neither of the two candidates have much in the way of executive experience to demonstrate their viability as a President...so all we can use to determine which is the best person for the job is whatever leadership positions, skills and backgrounds they DO have to look at.