Quote:

---

McCain also launched a missle from the deck of the USS Forrestal that killed 124 sailors, i

---

Wrong

Quote:

---

JFK's boat was attacked run over by a Japanese Destroyer that didn't even know it had hit him

---

fc2112 said:

---

... with no military experience.

Hard to believe, but from 1789 to 1909, we only had four presidents with no military experience - John Adams, JQ Adams, Martin Van Buren and Grover Cleveland. It was practically a prerequisite.

From 1909 to 1945, none of the presidents had any miliary experience.

Starting with Truman, all presidents had World War II experience (or right after for Carter) up to George Bush.

Since 1993, only W. had any military background, and that was Texas Air National Guard.

The trend could simply mean we haven't had a big war and so not that many veterans. But recent candidates like John McCain, Al Gore and Bob Dole did not get a bump from their service which seemed more distinguished than the man who bat them.

---

So that is so statistically random that it seems meaningless. Guessing the bolded statement is correct. It is just a reflection of historical wars.

PaulsBunions said:

---

DallasAg 94 said:

---

Military was the primary source of leadership for many, up until the 1900s.

For some, JFK, and people like McCain and John Kerry... and W (mentioned) their military service was little more than a CV/Resume builder and checkmark for political advancement.

---

JFK, McCain, and Kerry all nearly died in the service, I don't know if I'd go so far as to say it was just a resume builder

---

It is pretty universally accepted that, regardless of whether John Kerry told significant lies (number and scope) about his 4 month service in country, the wounds he received were far from serious. He never "nearly died."

Vance will start the trend back.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

doubledog said:

---

TXAG 05 said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

doubledog said:

---

Military experience does not always play out...

U.S. Grant, arguably the top general (either side) of the Civil War (3 army surrenders, no defeats etc) and one of the worst presidents (too naive of the political arena).

Zach Taylor, (like Grant) good general, poor president (although he did die in office).

---

And Grant was pretty much a failure in life before the Civil War.

---

And while popular for winning the civil war, he was pretty unsuccessful in life after his presidency, dying penniless .

---

All true. Grant's best attributes were under fire with his back against a wall. All other times he made poor decisions.

---

It also helped that he had superior numbers, was better equipped and the tactics of the time were still Napoleonic and relied heavily on accepting significant casualties as you marched directly into canno and musket fire by the enemy.

---

As I understand it, his losses were comparable to many generals of that war and he understood and took advantage of his advantages. I love how people love to use those as some sort of way to discredit what he did.

---

This is true. The "lost cause myth" painted Grant as a butcher, to raise Lee to saint hood, to justify the confederate loss and deflect people from other causes. The truth is that the losses in the Civil War are closer to those suffered in WWI for entrenched troops than open field battles.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

doubledog said:

---

TXAG 05 said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

doubledog said:

---

Military experience does not always play out...

U.S. Grant, arguably the top general (either side) of the Civil War (3 army surrenders, no defeats etc) and one of the worst presidents (too naive of the political arena).

Zach Taylor, (like Grant) good general, poor president (although he did die in office).

---

And Grant was pretty much a failure in life before the Civil War.

---

And while popular for winning the civil war, he was pretty unsuccessful in life after his presidency, dying penniless .

---

All true. Grant's best attributes were under fire with his back against a wall. All other times he made poor decisions.

---

It also helped that he had superior numbers, was better equipped and the tactics of the time were still Napoleonic and relied heavily on accepting significant casualties as you marched directly into canno and musket fire by the enemy.

---

As I understand it, his losses were comparable to many generals of that war and he understood and took advantage of his advantages. I love how people love to use those as some sort of way to discredit what he did.

---

Yes, his losses were comparable. It was a function of the tactics of the time - wars were still fought using Napoleonic tactics which essentially involved lining everybody up and understanding that losses were going to be high on both sides.

Grant had the advantage of more guys, more guns and better supply lines than Lee or anybody in the south did. In a war of attrition, which is what it had become towards the end, those things are what wins wars. And Grant obviously capitalized them and won, it's smart to maximize yoru strengths and expose your enemies weaknesses.

I never discredited what he did, just pointed out that he had advantages over everybody else and used them.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

McCain also launched a missle from the deck of the USS Forrestal that killed 124 sailors, i

---

Wrong

---

I corrected myself in a subsequent post

GAC06 said:

---

It shouldn't be possible to drop a bomb in that situation. Master arm off, weapons pinned safe before taxiing to the catapult, other safeties like not being able to arm with the gear down. Even if he had "dropped a bomb" it wouldn't matter with the conflagration that ensued, where a numerous bombs cooked off.

Pretty much the only thing you can fault McCain for from that incident is incorrectly stating in his book that the rocket hit his aircraft instead of the one right next to him.

---

Completely incorrect, but whatever.

Which part?

schmellba99 said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

McCain also launched a missle from the deck of the USS Forrestal that killed 124 sailors, i

---

Wrong

---

I corrected myself in a subsequent post

---

This isn't the first time you've posted the same lie and been corrected.

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3459322/1?f5oldtopic=1

two (adams) of the four in the "first stage" were pretty good.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

W also owned/managed the Texas Rangers.

---

I cannot sit idle while similar false claims about other notable politicians mentioned in this thread are debunked.

While it's true "W" had a sizeable ownership interest in the Rangers, his placement in that position was a coordinated effort to rehabilitate a history of failure at nearly everything & to prop-up both his likeability & the public's trust by creating the perception that "W" could financially manage & run a large organization, thereby paving the way for his gubernatorial run. The truth is that he wasn't allowed to handle anything of significance with the Rangers; instead, all he had to do was be seen watching baseball games. Therefore, his time with the Rangers is hardly comparable or worthy of the "businessman" label used for Trump & others.

FWIW, I WAS a huge "W" fanboy; I also adored the Bush family, especially Barbara Bush. However, I learned a lot about that family, & as a result, I'll NEVER sing their praises ever again.

I'd like to add that both "W" & Jeb were actually HORRIBLE business men, but especially "W", who couldn't find oil even if he was standing knee-high in a puddle of crude. Furthermore, both "W" & Jeb owe a huge thanks to cocaine smuggler Barry Seal for the influx of money that they had lost over time due to their business acumen (or lack thereof); unfortunately for Barry, he continued to use the secret camera the CIA installed on his planes when he was in the USA rather than only when he was in South America to photograph Pablo Escobar, Jorge Achoa, &/or images of the Sandanistas loading cocaine onto his planes.

As a result, there were ALLEGEDLY several images of Jeb & "W" engaging in conduct & handling "product"; this would explain why black sedans were parked in front of Barry Seal's residence & elsewhere as 'men in black' were hauling black plastic trash bags out of them while Barry Seal was still "warm" in his car after being machine-gunned to death by Columbian hitmen.

schmellba99 said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

doubledog said:

---

TXAG 05 said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

doubledog said:

---

Military experience does not always play out...

U.S. Grant, arguably the top general (either side) of the Civil War (3 army surrenders, no defeats etc) and one of the worst presidents (too naive of the political arena).

Zach Taylor, (like Grant) good general, poor president (although he did die in office).

---

And Grant was pretty much a failure in life before the Civil War.

---

And while popular for winning the civil war, he was pretty unsuccessful in life after his presidency, dying penniless .

---

All true. Grant's best attributes were under fire with his back against a wall. All other times he made poor decisions.

---

It also helped that he had superior numbers, was better equipped and the tactics of the time were still Napoleonic and relied heavily on accepting significant casualties as you marched directly into canno and musket fire by the enemy.

---

As I understand it, his losses were comparable to many generals of that war and he understood and took advantage of his advantages. I love how people love to use those as some sort of way to discredit what he did.

---

Yes, his losses were comparable. It was a function of the tactics of the time - wars were still fought using Napoleonic tactics which essentially involved lining everybody up and understanding that losses were going to be high on both sides.

Grant had the advantage of more guys, more guns and better supply lines than Lee or anybody in the south did. In a war of attrition, which is what it had become towards the end, those things are what wins wars. And Grant obviously capitalized them and won, it's smart to maximize yoru strengths and expose your enemies weaknesses.

I never discredited what he did, just pointed out that he had advantages over everybody else and used them.

---

The tactics in the Civil War at the time of the overland campaign, was not Napoleonic, rather they were entrenchment, as in WWI. As I have said, at the battle of Chancellorsville, Hooker had about 130,000 men to Lee's 60,000 about the same as the Battle of the Wilderness for Grant and Lee. As we know Lee won a decisive tactical victory at Chancellorsville, which sent Hooker retreating. The Chancellorsville battle was won by a single flanking attack (by Jackson). At the Wilderness, Lee sprang a double flanking attack (right and left flanks) against Grant/Mead. Hooker ran, Grant simply maneuvered toward Richmond. Lee met his match in Grant and that was the big difference.

also Donald Trump did go to a Military boarding school for four years.

although he then dodged the draft.

Edited out after reading about W above.