>>Hmm I'd like to see your data on that, especially since GI's - regardless of rank- are forbidden from expressing negative opinions about their leaders except under rigidly structured circumstances.
> >So when you see some WASP from the American Enterprise Institute who went through Harvard on dad's money and has never taken a bullet talking about Obama's relative popularity with GI's on FOX, you're sure that he's asked them, right?
>>
>>I'm sure that if you asked Halliburton, they'd prefer Bush, for sure.
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/02/war-vets-miss-commander-in-chief-george-w-bush/
>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/03/31/iraq-afghanistan_veterans_give_obama_poor_grades_122116.html
>
>Please name one time when I directly quoted a FOX news source. Hint: you won't find any. When I hear something on Fox, I check to see if it's been verified by someone more reputable.
>
>Also, current administration has had its share of for Halliburton-like situations.
>
>Look at the reaction Obama received recently at West Point.

I would say a scepticism between military and leader is a good thing.

Look where gung ho leaders with enthusiastic military following can lead countries.

And from the whole article not just the big fancy numbers.

" Iraq and Afghanistan veterans lean more Republican and conservative than other Americans, a factor that makes them more apt to be skeptical of a Democratic president generically."

"While Obama and Republicans both agreed to limited military benefit cuts in the past (before reversing them), the survey indicates that Obama's broader efforts to reduce military spending as the wars draw down runs up against a population of veterans who are deeply skeptical of being denied benefits they were promised."