- What was wrong with the first George Bush, a truly decorated war hero? He flew 58 combat missions, was shot down by the Japanese, rescued by an American submarine, and awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for bravery in action. Did you suddenly veteran-loving Democrats vote for the elder George Bush when you had the chance?
- Why was Clinton the draft-dodger perfectly acceptable?
- Why not pluck some other veteran out of the crowd and make him or her President? Are all veterans equally qualified to be President? Wouldn't a veteran of the Gulf War make a more compelling candidate? I'm sure you can find someone who fought in Kuwait and is now 45 years old. If that's your criteria for a President, why go with the guy who fought in Vietnam thirty-five years ago?
- Why choose a veteran who then protested the war? I'm confused. Is being a veteran good, is being a war protester good, or do you have to be both?
I'm just amazed to hear the on-going discussion about Kerry's Vietnam experience, as if it's relevant. He just served as a Senator for nearly twenty years, and no one has anything to say about that??? You've got nothing to say about those recent 20 years of service as a United States Senator, but being in the Navy from 1966 to 1970 is what you think makes Kerry worthy of being elected President??? Would any of his Swift Boat buddies on the stage at the Democratic Convention be equally wonderful, given their years as veterans? If not, then let's hear about something else, other than his Vietnam war record!
With Clinton, you told us that a sexual indiscretion in the Oval Office doesn't matter, that lying under oath doesn't matter, and that dodging the draft didn't matter. Now, you've got a candidate that fought in Vietnam, and it's the most important thing about him. It seems to be the only thing about him!
58,000 Americans died in the war in Vietnam. Was every one of them a potential Presidential candidate? Since when does serving in the military make you Presidential material?!
The fact that you Democrats are hanging your hat on such tenuous, meaningless drivel as a war record from 35 years ago, and ignoring his more recent, more relevant history in the Senate, just makes me want to run the other way. At Kerry's own web site, it is easy to find detailed information about his four years of military service, but there is virtually no information about his twenty years in the Senate. There were tens of thousands of Vietnam veterans. There are one hundred United States Senators. Why would there be so much focus on Vietnam???
Don't any of you Bush-haters find anything troubling about this?