That's a completely partisan job - especially when the only ideal is making the rich richer. So subtract that.

You are quite right, of course. I debated about that one, and included it as it was quasi-governmental.

4 years in House
2 years ambassador to UN
1.75 years chairman of RNC
1.25 years head liaison in China
1 year director CIA
=====================
14 years public service before White House

12 more as VP and President

And he did more public service as a past President from age 69 to age 94

* I regard chair of RNC as a form of public service for a guy who could have gone back to the oil business and made millions.

...distinct from political office/appointments.

I was in the Air Force for 4 years of active duty, and 8 years in the serves. That time, in no way, would have made me feel qualified to run for office.

of all the US military forces, I think military service is very relevant towards a person becoming qualified to doing the job.

It strikes me a little like a captain using the experience of being a sailor before taking over as captain of a ship.

I do not see it as a must-have requirement but I do see it as very useful experience to do the job. If I had two identical candidates and one had 4 years of military service like Bush did and the other did not, it is a no brainer - I take the candidate with the military experience.

To eliminate him as a potential rival for Presidential nominee in the future thinking that no one who served as CIA chief could run.

Apparently was a very good headcofcthe CIA for the long term professionals who felt decimated after the Church hearings.

Apparently he had frequent coffee hours at the end of the day and invited both high and low level staff to come and asked each of them what they did.

He also wrote frequent notes of thanks and support and had a dramatic impact on moral.