Quote:

Quote:

The problem I have with the lack of military service of some on the right wing is only that they decried Bill Clinton's lack of service. Like Dwight said, it's a goose, gander kind of thing
Also they need to disparage the service of those who are combat veterans who oppose their agenda in order to reduce the negative effect to their own campaigns.



The problem with Clinton was not that he had never been in the military. The problem was that he was on record saying he despised the military. That he lied his way out of military service. That he was on record saying the only reason he didn’t run to Canada to avoid the draft was to “Preserve his political viability.” That he had protested against the US military while in Europe. High ranking military officers were routinely shunned or insulted by his staffers. The military attaché who carries the nuclear codes was required to wear civilian clothes so as not to upset their staffers and political supporters. The list goes on and on.

Gore was a senators son who was purposely kept far from combat and had a bodyguard assigned to him to keep him safe. Once he had his Viet Nam service ribbon he left.

Kerry was only there to get his political ticket punched. He admitted that he panicked when he was reassigned from a very safe area to a zone where he might actually see combat. He wrote his own commendation recommendations because his superior officers knew he didn’t deserve them. He got out of there far short of a normal tour of duty and when he returned he acted as a propaganda agent of the enemy. He went before congress and told complete lies, accusing our troops of atrocities that never happened as if he had seen them. To top it off, he then tried to portray himself as a hero and a patriot.

The Democrats have lots of potential candidates who served honorably and a few who really were what John Kerry pretended to be. But they could never be nominated by their activist base. Bob Kerrey comes to mind.

As for the “Goose and Gander Thing.” When the Republicans nominate someone whose military career is as sordid as Kerry’s I’ll be glad to attack him too.



Quote:

Ian Williams – Asia Times August 7, 2004

This week Republican Senator John McCain showed an unusual nuance in United States politics. He supported his party's president, sort of, even as he dealt him one of the deadliest subtle put-downs in recent US history.

He called on the George W Bush campaign to condemn the recent anti-Kerry TV ads questioning the Democratic contender's Vietnam War record, saying, "I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam. I think George Bush served honorably in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War."

The contrast is killing. The advertisement, paid for by "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", alleges to be from a group of veterans who seem to have some form of recovered-memory syndrome, since they have only chosen to speak out some 35 years late. They have ties to the Republican Party going back as far as Richard Nixon. But as McCain so subtly implies, they all inadvertently confirm one thing. Kerry was in Vietnam, in combat.

In contrast, not even the best investigator's dirty-tricks department can find a single veteran who saw Bush in any military capacity whatsoever in Vietnam. Nor during his National Guard service in Alabama for 12 months from May 1972.

Indeed, there are no veterans to dispute the merit of First Lieutenant George W Bush's combat medals or the quality and depth of the wounds that he suffered for his Purple Hearts. Because he was never in combat.

Of course, that is the whole barb of Vietnam veteran McCain's nuanced knockout. Bush "honorably" chose the height of the Tet Offensive to engage in aggressive maneuvers - using his family influence to get into the Texas Air National Guard specifically to avoid being drafted to go to Vietnam.
To do so, he overcame a 25% score on his pilot aptitude test - and a series of driving convictions that should have required a special waiver. He was commissioned an officer despite having no pilot experience, no time in the Reserve Officer Training Corp, and without attending Officer Training School. He ticked the box saying "no" to overseas service.

It was not that he disagreed with the war. Not at all. He kept taking time off to go to campaign for Republican pro-war candidates around the US South.

It was in the course of one of these campaigns, in Alabama, that he secured a transfer to the local Air National Guard - and never turned up. He "failed to accomplish" his flight medical there, and then did not turn up to the inquiry that should have been called about his failure, which in effect deprived the US Air Force of several years' expensive training as a jet pilot.



I guess it just depends on whether or not you accept anything negative about your heroes, Larry.
The VietNam war was fought (mostly) by those who had no connections or deferments to keep them out of it. Those who had the means to avoid service, yet chose to serve are far better men than those who used privilege to avoid the war.
You won't convince me that the swift boat liars were anything other than a political tactic to negate the advantage held by Kerry in the military service department. That is, sadly the way politics have become in this country, real issues and honest debate have gone by the wayside in favor of sound bites and marketing. And the really sad part is that so many Americans are buying it. I think that has something to do with the apathy of many eligible voters these days. They see no real choice between the two (and only two) candidates for President. As a result, the extremists are now disproportionately represented in our government.

Contra todo mal, mezcal; contra todo bien, también