COMPARE: War Records
 

Yet another comparison thread (mmm...compare-y goodness right here) boys and girls. This time lets discuss the two presidential candidates military background.

Bush who did his little Air National Guard tour. Skipped out on some test, partied all the time, I'd bet. Used his uniform to get laid. Flew a jet drunk, probably.

Compared to...

Kerry and his Vietnam record. He was bashed fairly badly by vets who served with him. Called him a "loose cannon" among other things I don't feel like mentioning, but I'm sure someone will. He also pretended to toss his medals and so on and so forth.

And now the question to consider after comparisons and contrasts are made is...are either of these records going to be a factor (no matter how trivial) in the upcoming election? I'd say no. What do you think?

Also, feel free to add more info on either persons' military background. Try to include links to sources for my own amusement unless it's total common knowledge.

nah. the best i think any of it will do is look one side or the other look petty about shit. the AWOL thing was kind of a "well, what DID bush do?" moment, but it was NOT a bomb shell by any means. But despite being disproved, Byrd and Kennedy keep calling Bush AWOL and a deserter on the senate floor. I can't image that will be good for them in the long run, but hey, who knows?.

Bush also gets to take the "high ground" when people say "oh, he joined the guard so he wouldn’t have to go to ‘Nam!" because Bush gets to say "hey! don't denigrate the guard! Guardsmen are fighting and dieing in Iraq!" maybe he should demand apologies. that seems to be the vogue thing these days.

The Bush campaign has gone out of its way to say Kerry served proudly, though, so Kerry's attacks on Bush's service make him seem a little bit petty to some people.

On the other hand, there's republicans releasing stories about how Kerry supposedly lied about being in a fire fight and went to a doctor to get a 3mm shard of metal out from his skin in order to get a purple heart. If kerry can adequately refuse that, though, its a point for Kerry, no matter who initiated the claim. not to mention the running jokes about "Hi, I’m john Kerry. did you know I was in Vietnam?".


ultimately, though, I think the matter will be trivial, over all. this won't be a win or loose issue.

EDITED to spell check.

I don't think it should be an issue (I don't recall Roosevelt, Wilson, Truman, or Lincoln having their military experiences come into question) but inevitably it will be. Both sides will end up looking petty, but I think the democrats have the edge in that Kerry actually fought.

but the democrats are the only ones bringing it up. if anyone is critical of kerry because of what he did during or after vietnam, remember, its kerry that brings it up every speech. he campaigned with a bunch of viets standing at his side during each speech in the primaries. somene questions kerry's voting record, and all of a sudden kerry says they are playing dirty by questioning his service in vietnam.

in reality i dont see it as a big issue at all. kerry was a Lt. and was in combat for 3 or 4 months, bush was flying jets in Texas. Neither experience really makes them some great military commander like Eisenhower or Grant, or Washington.

Ah, yes. Kerry's proud military record. What did he think about the war he served in so valiantly in 1971?

"We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service as easily as this administration has wiped away their memories of us."

The Democrats thought they had a Real War Hero when the nominated him. but it turns out he was there for four months, probably lied about purple hearts so he could come back stateside and say the war was horrible, throw his medals (ribbons?) away and say that he, as well as every soldier, had committed atrocities.

Bush, on the other hand, doesn't mention much. But he's attacked for being in the guard, and he’s attacked with completely unsubstantiated claims of being AWOL. When a senator says that Dental records "only prove his teeth were there", they look petty and stupid.

i think Bush has an edge on the personal side of this political issue. but again, i don’t think its a winner or looser.


then, of course, there is the matter of Kerry's votes on Military Public policy. I think that’s a wee bit off topic, tho.



Edit: proofread

What was the life expectancy of a ground officer in vietnam again? I know it was under a day... I THINK under an hour. Four months of combat may not be much in say... Iraq, but in 'nam that's nothing to scoff at.

Other than that, I agree it's not going to matter a whole lot.

I think that was from a movie. Anyway, it was something like "The life expectancy of a ground officer in a contested helicopter landing in vietnam is four hours." or something like that. It had something to do with a serious firefight situation. I'm sure it takes more than a day to actually get to your assigned post and everything.

Well bush also has a Record as a comander in chief for the last 4 years. And I thinks its a good one. He is a strong commander and he fits the role pretty well. There defiently not the level of bitching here when Clinton was around. Most everyone here feels he has a good chance of being reelected. Even from the guys who just got back form Iraq.

JoeCB: "there definitely is not the level of bitching here when Clinton was around." Err...what? The bitching when Clinton was around was by the republicans who claimed he was doing things like stealing furniture from the white house to his very retirement. Whether from right or from left, and regardless of political alignment, I think there's, well, factually more "bitching" since GWB was elected.

While I don't think the military background is a big issue, I don't see why people like to point out that kerry "contradicted" himself. How is he? He was drafted like any person. Bravery and compliance don't equal hypocrisy. He may not have opposed it to the point of initial dodging of the draft, but why is it hypocritical to regret having taken part in the war? I don't know why the republicans are making such a big deal out of this.

I don't think the previous 4 years of presidency count. You can't use the previous 4 years in said position as fuel for why you should be in...well, said position or else it would be a never-ending cycle. Sure, Bush can use his past...ahem, victories in his campaign, but I don't think the "well, i was president before there i should be president now" philosophy works.

err...what happened to the part where they circled photos of his face in a crowd of protesters?