Can I ask a Stupid question?

[Cryozombie]

Why do we care...

About Kerry OR Bush's service record?

Are those the issues that are going to be addressed by them as President of the United States?

:idunno:

 

[Cruentus]

Why do we care...

About Kerry OR Bush's service record?

Are those the issues that are going to be addressed by them as President of the United States?

:idunno:

I guess it's just more fun to attack character then discuss issues... :idunno:

 

[deadhand31]

You know, you were very misleading in your title. It's not a stupid question. However, I would like to say this:

The army apparently qualified Kerry for an honorable discharge. Ok, if he was honestly as bad as his opponents say, he wouldn't have gotten this. He's got an honorable discharge.

The national guard felt that Bush deserved an honorable discharge. If his opponents were true in what they say, getting this would be difficult. He's got an honorable discharge.

It's one reason why I feel Kerry isn't doing so well. He's focusing on the past. He should let it rest, and focus on his plans for what he's going to do in the future. He should just lay it out and say "I'm going to do this, this and this. I'm going to accomplish these tasks by doing this, this, and this."

I'll concede, Kerry's a war hero. Bush had what was classified as honorable service in the guard. Let's let it to rest and start focusing on TODAY'S issues.

 

[Tkang_TKD]

The army apparently qualified Kerry for an honorable discharge.

Not to nit-pick here, but Kerry served in the Navy.

It's one reason why I feel Kerry isn't doing so well. He's focusing on the past. He should let it rest, and focus on his plans for what he's going to do in the future. He should just lay it out and say "I'm going to do this, this and this. I'm going to accomplish these tasks by doing this, this, and this."

While I Agree with you completely about the candidates needing to discuss the issues instead of attacking the service records, I have to point out that Kerry was attacked first; and has responded in kind (Although his attacks have been pretty un-convincing).

Hopefully when we get around to having the debates, we can here what the candidates plan on doing in the future. It would be a welcome change.

 

[Phoenix44]

It's not the most important issue. But I guess a lot of people feel that Bush found it very easy to send other people to die in Iraq on a pretense when he avoided putting himself on the line.

And if you feel that Kerry spent too much time defending his service, it's because Bush's cronies challenged him on it. And PLEASE don't tell me "Well, Kerry brought up his medals in the first place." Wouldn't YOU mention YOUR medals on YOUR job application?

 

[Bammx2]

I thought everyone knew?!

"He who slings the most mud...wins"

 

[Rick Wade]

You know, you were very misleading in your title. It's not a stupid question. However, I would like to say this:

The army apparently qualified Kerry for an honorable discharge. Ok, if he was honestly as bad as his opponents say, he wouldn't have gotten this. He's got an honorable discharge.

The national guard felt that Bush deserved an honorable discharge. If his opponents were true in what they say, getting this would be difficult. He's got an honorable discharge.

It's one reason why I feel Kerry isn't doing so well. He's focusing on the past. He should let it rest, and focus on his plans for what he's going to do in the future. He should just lay it out and say "I'm going to do this, this and this. I'm going to accomplish these tasks by doing this, this, and this."

I'll concede, Kerry's a war hero. Bush had what was classified as honorable service in the guard. Let's let it to rest and start focusing on TODAY'S issues.

The army can't qualify Kerry for a Honorable discharge. He was in the Navy.

Sorry didn't see the previous post before I typed.

 

[Cryozombie]

And if you feel that Kerry spent too much time defending his service, it's because Bush's cronies challenged him on it. And PLEASE don't tell me "Well, Kerry brought up his medals in the first place." Wouldn't YOU mention YOUR medals on YOUR job application?

Well, granted I have no medals... but most of the time I dont even mention my service time on my Job applications/resume.

:idunno:

 

[Phoenix44]

Well, granted I have no medals... but most of the time I dont even mention my service time on my Job applications/resume.

Really? Well, I served in the US Public Health Service for 3 years, and yes, I do put it on my resume, along with any honors I earned in my career. I earned them.

 

[Rick Wade]

I gotta go with phoenix on this one I have been in the Navy for 15 years and still going I will put that on my resume. I probably won't list my awards on my application.

P.S. food for thought: When ADM Borda shot himself over his medal controversy SEN Kerry said that someone that falsified personal awards wasn't fit to lead our men.

V/R
Rick

 

[michaeledward]

In my observation, it went this way.


1) Many were concerned that Senator Kerry was not qualified to lead the nation in a time of war. Many also felt that the Democratic Party was anti-military. Because of these two assumptions, the Democratic National Convention was structured to highlight Kerry's military leadership qualifications (Bronze Star, Silver Star, Purple Hearts) and military support (all those Generals). The Convention was successful in building Kerry's military leadership credentials.

2) Because of the success of the Convention in introducing Kerry as a military leader (at the cost of domestic plans and senate records). The Republicans attacked Kerry's strengths; his war record (Swift Boat Veterans).

3) The Democrats were slow to respond to the attacks because they believe that the American Public would not respond favorably to 'Negative Campaigning'. This delay hurt Kerry's standings a great deal.

4) Kerry has made some statements concerning Iraq that will be difficult to reconcile if that becomes a major campaign issue, so in search of a target, Bush's service records served the function. I believe that Bush was a Deserter (although I didn't believe that back when Michael Moore stated it at that meeting here in New Hampshire). I believe he received an 'Honorable Discharge' for 2 reasons: a) The Son of a Congressmen/Ambassador b) the Vietnam War was winding down.

5) Today, the true contest began. Kerry began to attack Bush's strength. For the past several months, the thought in the Kerry campaign has apparently been, anything but the war. Somehow, they finally figured out that this election is all about the War in Iraq. If you didn't see Kerry's speech from this morning ... find a copy. It defines this election.

Each campaign has to fight against the other sides strength. Bush has been fighting that battle for months. Kerry started today.

Mike

 

[rmcrobertson]

I agree. This is the first time Kerry's sounded stronger and smarter than Bush in about a month.

Shame Bill Clinton's not fully available. I heard him on John Stewart's show, and he was funny as hell, and smart as hell--and pissed off into the bargain. As he should be.

 

[Mark Weiser]

Well I have a major problem with what Kerry did when he got back from the War. Being a Veteran myself of 20 years I find it extremely offensive that a Vet would throw his medals over the White House Fence. I am sorry that is a NO GO in my book no matter what the motivation was by Kerry. CASE CLOSED your thru Dude.

 

[rmcrobertson]

But it does not in any way bother you that the sitting President of the United States--a man who has built his political career on loud, aggressive flag-waving and loud, aggressive attacks on the patriotism of his opponents--not only got his daddy to pull strings and get him into the Guard so he could avoid going to Vietnam, but appears to never even have finished his Guard service responsibly?

And well, I know this won't help--but I suspect that throwing the medals was MEANT to be offensive to the likes of Richard Nixon.

I understand very well that symbols are everything, but somehow I find My Lai and the pointless deaths of around 60,000 Americans and 10-20 times that many Vietnamese one hell of a lot more offensive than throwing a few chunks of metal with cloth attached over a wall.

 

[shesulsa]

1. Let's think about how vietnam vets were received when they returned home. They were ridiculed, persecuted and shunned. These particular veterans witnessed the kind of warfare that had not yet been seen. Medals probably meant nothing to a great many of them. I think anger drives us to do many things we may or may not regret later.

2. I think I remember Kerry saying something about another vet that gave his medals to Kerry and said he didn't want them because he wished he hadn't gone - having fought in the war, this man opposed it - and Kerry, thinking he was doing what the guy wanted, threw that man's medals. Anyone else hear this? any verification on it?

3. If Kerry actually did throw away his medal...we all do things in anger and resentment we later consider regrettable. It is part of human growth and healing.

4. Do you want someone judging you based on one stupid thing you did (albeit significant) when you were young, dumb and full of something?

 

[michaeledward]

Well I have a major problem with what Kerry did when he got back from the War. Being a Veteran myself of 20 years I find it extremely offensive that a Vet would throw his medals over the White House Fence. I am sorry that is a NO GO in my book no matter what the motivation was by Kerry. CASE CLOSED your thru Dude.

Mark, can you please justify the Vietnam war?

What made it the correct policy?
Why was it worth the sacrafice of 59,000 of your military colleagues live?
Knowing what we know today, should we re-fight that war?

 

[MisterMike]

Don't you have the option to turn down the awards? Why would you accept them and then toss them over a fence? Was this the first documented flip-flop?

Curious...

 

[OULobo]

The only thing I think that service record has to do with the Presidency is knowing what war is really like. I feel a little more secure about a Pres. that truely understands what war costs, because he's already been in one. When it comes to the two candidates, it's just funny to me to see that the one the never really went to a war is the most willing to get into one.

 

[loki09789]

If you are using the military records as part of a profile and it supports some character trait (strength for supporters and weakness for opponents) that you want to indicate, then fine. If you want to say that Kerry is a flip flop leader and say that he threw his medals but then wants to 'pin them back on' for the campaign and put that with his political alignment toward the war and his endorsement of spending but the his outspoken criticism.... then it makes sense that you are describing a pattern.

The above WAS ONLY AN EXAMPLE and not intended as any thing else.

Kerry should probably focus on his own political track record (highlights and reforms...) if he is running for POTUS instead of the former service record so much... but that would be in a reasonable comparison and not the 'Reality show' celebrity status publicity that we are seeing currently.

As far as military service, I would say that Kerry probably has a stronger position because of his combat vet status. My question is this though: How long was his tour in country? How many tours did he do? From the memoirs I have read, Naval officers (Reserve at least, I think) only did six month rotations in country or at least in combat zones...which is still more than Bush did but not nearly as long as WWII/Korean war Vets turned politicians would have done.

 

[shesulsa]

The only thing I think that service record has to do with the Presidency is knowing what war is really like. I feel a little more secure about a Pres. that truely understands what war costs, because he's already been in one. When it comes to the two candidates, it's just funny to me to see that the one the never really went to a war is the most willing to get into one.

Fair - and I agree. It's so easy to rally around war as a cause. One almost must believe in the cause and support the war effort if one has a friend, sibling or child serving in it and I'm sure it's difficult to want to recognize the flaws behind war effort when we go to it so often as we Americans seem to like to do. If we're going to elect a president who managed to cover his butt during wartime, then he'd better be one helluva man - Dubya aint it, in my opinion. And the war vet who flashes the big, fake, toothy grin and tries to talk tough and ride out swinging based mostly on his war record (Kerry) doesn't cut it either.