>Hey George,
>
>I never understood this argument. I have had many CIOs that could not program, yet were more than capable of running their respective areas. They delegate the details. I have also seen great coders fail miserably at becoming supervisors/directors because they weren't able to see the big picture or deal with direct reports. I don't believe experiencing combat directly correlates with the ability to lead, but not having served, I might not have a good perspective on it.

Very good. I've wondered why the media hasn't picked up on this notion. If having served in Vietnam or any other conflict would make you a good leader, it stands to reason that we should seek out the most decorated soldier (combat decorations only please) and make them our fearless leader. Add to that the fact that Kerry only served 4 months, we've been discussing his record longer than he spent there. During his tenure, his record is suspect and he still refuses to release ALL his records. Why would that be, is there something there that would be damning? I think that must be true, becuase if it innured to his benefit, he would have rolled it out long ago.

Along these same lines, let me say that as a cop, I've seen many a good street cop get promoted, only to become a terrible manager. Just because you're good at one thing, doesn't necessarily mean you'll be good when you move up the ladder. Usually the cop, if they aren't a good manager, hates the job and wishes they were back doing the job they loved and hired in to do in the first place. The money and prestige override that though.



>
><snip>
>>While Bush, Cheney, and Rumfield have zero combat experience, Kerry does. Yet these people question his qualifications to be Commander-In-Chief?
><snip>