BK>>>>>>  Most likely not. She has little to do with the
actual operation
 BK>>>>>>  of the military, and little qualification to
exercise such
 BK>>>>>>  command if she tried.

 JM>>>>> Exactly where in Mr. Obama's history ...

 BK>>>>  The question was not who is more qualified,

 JM>>> Damn good thing for Obama because if it were he would be in
 JM>>> fourth place.

 BK>>  Third place,

 JM> Fourth place out of the two running for President and the
 JM> two running for VP.

 JM> Another words Obama is the least qualified to be CIC.

 No, Palin is least qualified, haveing zero national experience,
 and zero foreign policy or defense policy exposure. McCain is
 second least qualified, haveing revealed he either cannot or
 will not think beyond his fixed notions of how the war should
 go, and will not accept that it is not the place of the US to
 run the world.

 Just today I heard a radio interview in which McCain refused to
 say he would meet with the prime minister of Spain. Spain has
 troops fighting with us in Afghanistan. McCain won't agree to
 meet with the leader of a country that is sending their men to
 join with ours in the battle against our real enemies?

 Either he is absurdly narrow minded, or his mind is failing and
 he does not realize he is insulting an ally.

 Oh, and don't forget what I posted before, about how France sent
 more men and ships to Afghanistan than England did. Would McCain
 insult the British leaders? Would he meet with the French?

 McCain said he would rather lose and election than lose a war. I
 ask, how many of our soldiers have to die for him to win that
 election. How many allies is he willing to lose to win that
 election? How many wrongheaded policies is he willing to commit
 this country to in order to win the election?

BOB KLAHN bob.klahn{at}sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Don't get caught between the dog and the tree.
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a