Why George W. Bush's military record matters

[vicman]

Military service is NOT a requirement to be president of our democracy. But questions of character (as the Swift Boat Liars have brought front and center) do matter. There were many ways of avoiding service during the Vietnam war. American citizens made so many different decisions about this question in those years. George W. Bush avoided involvment by taking upon himself an obligation. The obligation invloved service in the Texas Air National Guard. He incurred that obligation and took an oath when he was inducted. By all available accounts, he fell short of fulfilling that obligation. Bill Clinton avoided service by means which did not include taking any obligation upon himself (except perhaps to finish his college education - which he did). Indeed, even the likes of Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, John Ashcroft, Tom Delay, and yes... Rush limbaugh, do not bear the burden that their glorious leader does. They never signed on the dotted line. They never raised their right hands and swore an oath. George did. And then he demonstrated that he did not have the character or the courage to follow through. The first minute the obligation became inconvenient to him, he blew it off and/or treated it with disdain. In the case of the others, the only dishonor depends upon one's personal point of view. But in George's case, it is simply undeniable that he made a promise and broke it.

[Demonaut]

1. an argument to be made to any and all vets whether they served during

war or peace, good post

[arbusto_baboso]

2. There's a still larger question here: Does service qualify one to be

President? By itself, no.

However, in this case, Kerry's service and Bush's lack of the same show that Kerry was willing to sacrifice on behalf of his nation, and Bush was not. This is STILL true today.

Further, Bush's refusal to take any responsibility for his AWOL year, demonstrates another thing that is still true today. The buffoon can't even say that he's made any mistakes while pResident. He won't take ANY responsibility for any of his actions.

Kerry's part in the anti-war movement shows his willingness to take responsibility and coreect any wrongs he feels he may have committed.

It IS all about character. Kerry has it, Bush never did.

[vicman]

3. Precisely

[zydeco]

4. What does his inability to have his subordinates

locate his military records say about his leadership. The leader of one of the most powerful nations is unable to move a few federal employees to find his own personal records as he promised on MTP. I think this either proves an inability to lead of proclivity to lying.

[tjwash]

5. It is not a requirement...

...but it is a gauge of ones character. That shrub chose a champagne unit over real duty speaks volumes about his character. That he is attacking Kerry on his military service while forgetting about the above, speaks volumes about his common sense.

[Dawgs]

6. Right on..

I don't necessarily agree that Bush should be questioned for what he did or did not do. Unfortunately, they(Bushies) were smart enough to hide or destroy his records. Until we have a smoking gun I don't think his military record can be used, even though I do believe he didn't do shit with the military for a period of that time.

What does bother me is how you have some people attacking Kerry's war record as though he wouldn't be a good Commander and Chief. To me the comparison is simple. If you played football in the NFL would you want to be coached by someone who has actually played the game, or by someone who just watches it on television. John Kerry has been shot at, and also killed men, during a bloody and gruesome war. I don't care if he was there for three days. He understands what it's like to fight for his life on the battlefield. Bush does not.

For that fact alone he would be a better Commander and Chief. I am amazed that others would so blindly follow a man that f**ked up one war, and attack another that has actually fought in one.

[vicman]

7. The sad thing is

I simply cannot understand the thought processes of human beings who call themselves "Republicans" these days. Anymore than I can understand any human being who would commit murder or rape. I admit it. I cannot even come close to getting inside the minds of those people. I cannot excuse what they do because I cannot even understand it. Values are values. Truth is truth. We are unfortunate bastards who happened to be born into a "democracy. (hell, some of us even arrived here recently of our own choice)" We are denied the munificence of a KING to tell us what to do, what to think. We are saddled with the burden of thinking for ourselves. It's a curse, and our only gift in this life. Our burden condemns us to eternal vigilance. We have to wait before acting, until some semblance of truth is available to us. It would be so nice to act upon our first emotional impulse, and have the KING reinforce our brashness. How simple, how elegantly necessary for the richest among us... But no, we have to think, we have to collect information and weigh each missive's individual worth. I feel sorry for us, but I wouldn't have it any other way. Freedom is hard, slavery is easy.