Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Okay, help me figure something out here. Kerry, for many months, has been throwing out his war record to everyone, and slamming Bush for hiding his. It has been said that Bush has spent time in the Air Force Reserve, we just don't know how long he's been there. But as far as we know, he put in some millitary service.

Anyway, so Kerry thinks Bush is the wrong person to command our millitary (among other things) because of lax millitary service. But hold on, Mabel! What about Mr. Clinton? You know, one of the keynote speakers of this years DNC? As I do recall, he was a DRAFT DODGER OF THE EXACT SAME WAR KERRY SAID HE FOUGHT IN!

Wait, so you're saying that a Democrat backing Kerry, a Vietnam war veteran, was a draft dodger of the same war? He must be infurriated! But, he's not. I guess since you're in the same party, it doesn't matter what your credentials were. If Kerry (and the Democratic party) were so concerned about Bush's time served in the millitary, and have this treated as a bad thing, then why would you allow a draft-dodger, which is worse, to support you for your presidency? Sounds like double-standards to me. "Boo on Bush for not proving his time spent in service, but let's not say anything about Clinton who dodged the draft". Come on, people.

This is why I've said before that I don't care about someone's war record. It shouldn't be the basis for who becomes president, or even partial basis of it. If that were so, would Clinton have even been elected?

But this goes beyond the war record. It's about double-standards. Why does the Democratic party see that this is fine, yet if a Republican does it, they get called on it. Just like Gov. Schwarzenegger's remark about Democrats being "girly men". To me, that wasn't a very scathing remark, yet people blew this out of proprotion, and are expecting him to appologize. Yet at Kerry's fundraisers, it's okay for celebrities who support him come on stage and make rude and lewd sexual innuendos about the president. I don't remember his campagin appologizing?

I don't think it's fair to say it's wrong for one person to do or say something, and yet you do it yourself. It's hypocritical. And before you get on my ass about bashing democrats or the democratic party, this post was not to be that point. I'm asking why the Democratic party think it's okay to do something or support something within themselves, but blast the other party when they do the same thing. And I'm sure that Republicans have done this in the past as well with issuse and such, and that's wrong too. But when one party keeps blasting the other for something that someone in their party has done (and not chastize that person about it), it just seems stupid.

Bush used his family to get a cush job in the guards in utah. DURING VIETNAM! I guess his family hooked him of for charlies in utah!

Not only that...but sadly, he....(documented even) didnt show up.

So, his parents getting him a "cush" job in the reserve is worse than draft dodging?

Clinton isn't running for president, so whats your point?

He WAS president, and he was a speaker for Kerry. That's the point. Here, Kerry has been making jabs at Bush's millitary carrer, while he sees nothing wrong with ex-president Clinton's draft-dodging. If a millitary record were that important to him, wouldn't Kerry have told Clinton not to show up? Of course not, because Kerry needs Clinton. I'm just saying that that was a double-standard, and any referrence to Bush's millitary history shouldn't be trumped up like it has been.

Clinton actually made a reference to his lack of military experience during his speech. The fact is, the military experience just wasn't a big issue when Clinton was running for president, and it is now. I'm sure there are plenty of people who spoke for Kerry that have no military background.

Originally Posted by BlueStorm781 He WAS president, and he was a speaker for Kerry. That's the point. Here, Kerry has been making jabs at Bush's millitary carrer, while he sees nothing wrong with ex-president Clinton's draft-dodging. If a millitary record were that important to him, wouldn't Kerry have told Clinton not to show up? Of course not, because Kerry needs Clinton. I'm just saying that that was a double-standard, and any referrence to Bush's millitary history shouldn't be trumped up like it has been.

Clinton was decidedly reserved about committing our troops to foreign action. Bush is committing everything we have, to the point where they may reinstate the draft. It's this fundamental difference that brings the President under scrutiny for his military record, since it seems he is out of touch with what is required to make an educated decision about what circumstances in which he should commit our troops to action. People that have been in combat, or as part of the military machine, will have a better perspective on war and would be more likely to make a decision in the best interest of our troops as well as our public. If someone like Colin Powell was calling the shots, I think the public would be more apt to trust his decisions where military action is concerned.

Goddamnit, why couldn't McCain have won the GOP nomination in 2000?

i've got a better question.

Kerry was soo against Vietnam. He came home and protested it. So why is he mad that Bush didnt take part in the war?


that would be like me saying "The war in Iraq is a pointless war and it should never have been fought. And you are a bad person because you didnt serve in the war."

Originally Posted by Cracka i've got a better question. Kerry was soo against Vietnam. He came home and protested it. So why is he mad that Bush didnt take part in the war? that would be like me saying "The war in Iraq is a pointless war and it should never have been fought. And you are a bad person because you didnt serve in the war."

I don't think Kerry is angry that Bush didn't take part in the war. I don't recall one rancorous statement on his part about Bush's service record. I'm certain he would rather no one have taken part in that war, GW included.

As has been said, Bush's service record is an issue because he hasn't been honest about it, and because he has committed so many troops to war without ever having served in one himself. The fact that so many Repubs have tried to smear Kerry's exemplary war record (even here on CAG) shows that they know this is a real issue and a real weakness for Bush. They can't say anything good about their man -- well, not with a straight face -- so they tear down the opponent.

That's why this election has been so nasty from the Repub side. They have nothing good to report that would sway swing voters. All they can do is throw mud at Kerry and hope some sticks.

Originally Posted by WildWop Clinton was decidedly reserved about committing our troops to foreign action. Bush is committing everything we have, to the point where they may reinstate the draft. It's this fundamental difference that brings the President under scrutiny for his military record, since it seems he is out of touch with what is required to make an educated decision about what circumstances in which he should commit our troops to action. People that have been in combat, or as part of the military machine, will have a better perspective on war and would be more likely to make a decision in the best interest of our troops as well as our public. If someone like Colin Powell was calling the shots, I think the public would be more apt to trust his decisions where military action is concerned. Goddamnit, why couldn't McCain have won the GOP nomination in 2000?

I 100% agree about the fact that McCain should have gotten the GOP nomination. Bush was not my choice for who should be the republican candidate. I would have rather had McCain as president. I don't think there would be as many problems as we've seen in Bush's presidency if McCain were in charge.

The point, as dennis_t mentions, isn't Bush's lack of service. It's not even that he was in the Air National Guard, as opposed to going to Vietnam. It's that his record is full of holes. No documents that have been released show beyond even a marginal doubt that he actually properly served his time in the service. The records actually show that he was suspended from flying for not taking a physical. The military spends millions training people to fly. In return, they require a commitment of many years, before they let you off the hook. That's the tradeoff. Bush stopped flying not because he'd "paid back" for his training, not because his type of plane became obsolete, but because he skipped a necessary physical.

He's lied about his service, in his own book - he says he continued to fly for several years after returning from Alabama, where he worked on a friend's political campaign. That is not so, and there are records to prove it.

The issue isn't that Bush got a cushy job because his father's a very powerful man. The issue is that he failed to complete his service, lied about doing so, and uses his supposed service as political leverage.

Clinton did none of those things. Thus, the difference.

seppo

Kerry is just responding to the Bush/Cheny team taking shots at his war record and patriotism.

Kerry can bitch about the war because he was there fightin in. He saw the battlefield, unlike most americans and it changed him. Repubs complain about hit bein anti-war after he got back, well at least he went. Someone else most likely died because Bush took a spot in the National Guard.

Yeah, and Bush is a war monger, yet he didn't fight, and Kerry wants war to be a last resort because he did fight, and now Republicans are calling him a sissy wiener.