OUCH! Paul burns Gingrich on his dedication to the Military

"He's probably as aggressive with the military as anybody," Paul said on Fox News. "He supports all the wars in the Middle East a thousand times more than I would. But you know in the nineteen-sixties when I was drafted in the military, he got several deferments. He chose not to go. Now he'll send our kids to war."

"At that time he said that one person wouldn't make a difference," Paul said. "He didn't see how he could make a difference. So I see that as important information. People should know that. It reflects on him."

politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...

This is a huge stab at Newt right where it hurts. Obama doesn't have military experience, Bush never had much of one and I think it's important (especially if you want to send others off to war)

Our Defence Minister in Canada, Peter MacKay, is a lawyer... Which doesn't make me feel the safest lol
:-/

Our Defence Minister, Peter MacKay is just a money spending douche.
That being said, Ron Paul should be the Commander-In-Chief. The reason for that is simple.... If you are going to be running a country, (and presumably the free world), you should have some sort of military experience.

'Nuff said.

reply to post by moondoggy2

I disagree. If you are in charge of the military, you should be well acquainted with the damage it does to the human body, both physically and psychologically. Like a Doctor. Using only military men such as generals will only lead to more war. People (TPTB) seem only too willing to engage in conflict with absolutely no consideration for the consequences for the people on both sides.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya....

The government can call on any expertise it needs, as and when the situation arises. We have seen too much destruction. It's is time for a change. A big change.