I guess because the other one thinks he's a war president, but only knows war from the outside. It makes a difference to some people, I should think.
I imagine 4 months in VietNam seemed a lot longer than 4 months in peaceful America.
But in politics, the 17 years in congress and his record should mean more. Service in the military hardly qualifies anyone to be president.
I agree. But this is a different kind of election! Do you think people want to hear every detail of 17 years of service? They want to hear what makes him different from Bush. His voting record is readily available.
McGentrix wrote:But in politics, the 17 years in congress and his record should mean more. Service in the military hardly qualifies anyone to be president.
Hardly? I beg to differ. No single accomplishment can qualify someone to be a president but some aspects will be good to have. One of those is military service, it tells the people that you will put your life on the line for your country. You can say all the technicalities you want, saying it shouldn't matter and whatnot, but the fact is, it does.
McGentrix wrote:Service in the military hardly qualifies anyone to be president.
Boy, ain't that the truth... :wink:
At least John Kerry showed up, though...
Here's one reason to play it up:
In a recent speech, John Edwards said:
"If you have any question about what John Kerry's made of, about his leadership ability, about his strength and his courage, just spend three minutes, three minutes with the men who served with him 30 years ago who still stand by his side. They saw up close when their lives were at risk that this man is a leader, that he has courage, determination, and he would never leave any American behind."
I've seen that, big deal.
Can't please everybody.
Kind of invalidates Edwards quote, doesn't it?
Then he ran like a turkey after four months, we can really depend on him in the long run, eh?
He checked out as soon as could then came back and made up a bunch stories to cover his arse for leaving is 'band of you're on your own' brothers.
Continued his political course while his 'brothers' continued to fight, that's courage and determination, eh.
If it matters that much to you, then I'd have to point out that it was more courage and determination than Bush showed! Is that your bottom line, then?
the reincarnation of suzy wrote:If it matters that much to you, then I'd have to point out that it was more courage and determination than Bush showed! Is that your bottom line, then?
Even Kerry said he wouldn't question a persons decision they made about whether to enter the VN war or not, of course later he flopped on that too.
That's the bottom line.
Whew! We were almost ready to have a conversation about JOHN F'ING KERRY!!!! Not George Bush. Could you just ONCE, deal with the fact that Kerry can be discussed without comparing him to anyone? You brought the topic up, now discuss it!
You asked why his service keeps getting so much attention. I told you! Sorry, but it does relate to Bush and his service, or lack thereof. Did you want to change the subject, then?
Hey, I understand the reason to keep harping on Kerry's VN service, it's the only thing he's got.
If that's the case, then Bush has nothing.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:If that's the case, then Bush has nothing.
Cycloptichorn
yeah, except for four years experience as the President of the United States of America. Hardly worth noting.
well, as Bush 41 said about 4 years experience as the president------------
Well, just remember what happened to the last JFK that was president...
