Vietnam era service IS relevant.

[Ready4Change]

I've heard it said that service during the Vietnam era is irrelevant to the Presidency. I dispute this. While I agree that military service is not, nor should it be, required in a presidential candidate, I do think that how that service is performed is HIGHLY relevant, as it is a strong indication of that persons character.

Bush used family connections to avoid a combat posting in Vietnam. He apparently served well for several years, then just walked away. He then used family connections to get an honorable discharge. The order of that is important. Bush walked away from completing his service. THEN he used connections to get the "honorable" discharge. Because of that discharge I won't critique to quality of his service. However, because of the manner in which he got that discharge I WILL critique his character. He's a quitter, who relied on his connections to cover his back when his character failed him.

Kerry, on the other hand, volunteered for combat duty when his connections would have allowed him to avoid it. When his particular posting changed from light to heavy combat his did not shirk his duty. He lead mean into battle, and those men are still filled with praise for him, often crediting him with saving their lives. The same military that gave Bush an honorable discharge also gave Kerry Silver and Bronze Stars, as well as 3 Purple Hearts, all earned in combat zones. Kerry was allowed to end his combat service after being awarded the 3rd Purple Heart, and he did. Serving in combat had changed his opinion of the validity of the war, and after being discharged he pursued an end to a war he now considered harmfull to his nation and his people.

To me the difference in these two candidate characters, as seen through the lens of Vietnam, is as clear as night and day. And it is very, VERY relevant.

[Inland]

1. Bush pretends to be a regular guy you would like to meet

and fact is, the last thing he has ever wanted is to have anything in common with a regular guy.

Regular people get drafted or go to war.

Regular people LOSE money when their business fail.

Regular people are judged by their performance.

Regular people don't have rich patrons.

Regular people pay for the mistakes and evil done by people like Bush.

That's why Bush's ability, and willingness, to take advantage counts. And kerry is the mirror image, thank God.

[annabanana]

2. THANK YOU!!

His behavior back then shows his complete lack of respect for the Military. Since he's been Commander in Cheif, he's ignored the best, most accurate assesments that he's received from the Commaders in the field about what is required...where it is required....and why it is required. His continued lack of respect is spelled out in his treatment of the veterans who served our country for generations. He doesn't allow America to publicly mourn out dead (slipping them back into the country under cover of darkness).....He has NEVER attended a funeral of one of the fallen.

His scorn for our Armed Services in endless........

[Warpy]

3. It's the CHARACTER issue.

Clinton was against the war, avoided the war, and remained against the war, often vocally.

Kerry volunteered for the war, fought two tours in it honorably, and changed his mind about the war, its conduct, and the reasons for its continuation, and he organized other vets against it and spoke out.

Bush supported the war but didn't think he should have to dirty his own hands with it, got into a safe Guard slot through family pressure, failed to complete his requirements and simply walked away. His family connections got him his position, lack of prosecution for failure to live up to it, and an honorable discharge when one was needed. There is no record that Bush was ever against that war.

Now what does that say about all these men? Clinton was against it and remained so. Kerry fought it and changed his mind when he saw what it was all about. Bush partied and skated on things that would get ordinary people thrown into jail.

War president my arse.

[mbali]

4. It sure was relevant a month ago, wasn't it? n/t

[Ready4Change]

6. Yes, it was.

Now it's all "That was a painful time in our history, so let's not rehash it."

Yes, it was painful. But Bush tried to ignore it. Kerry faced it head on, and did what he could to end it and start the healing.

I started out as an ABB voter. But as I've looked under the surface of these issues I've become a big fan of Kerry. I'm now voting for Kerry, in addition to voting against Bush.

[seabeyond]

5. i personally think it is a huge part

as you say shows bush character and how he is misrepresentling who he is to people today. just like his failed businesses. why should we think he could be competent when all in his history shows exactly the opposite

and it is important kerry volunteered for war, recogized we lost and went after the decision makers when he came back. went into battle, saved lives. so relevent to the iraq war and handling of.

yes it is relevent

[Ready4Change]

7. The final thing I forgot to add.

Since so many people avoided combat service in Vietnam, particularly later in the conflict, I could almost forgive Bush for using his connections as he did. If only he would come out and declare that's what he did I'd give him some credit. But he never has, and I doubt he ever will. Bush is too in love with the trappings of the brave warrior to ever admit he was anything but during Vietnam.

[THUNDER HANDS]

8. Actually, what's more relevant

is that bush tried to cover it up for so many years. That he lied about completing his service, moreso than the simple fact that he didn't fufill his requirements.

[maine_raptor]

9. It's relevant for another reason too

There's a War on.

The willingness to take direct orders 30 years ago is relevant to the ability to give orders as Commander-in-Chief today.

[actinide92]

War experience has an advantage - it can be learned from

Vietnam was lost partly because the politicians constrained the military and prevented them from crushing Hanoi. So the NVA always had a nice safeish place to attack from. In the War on Terror Bush looks to be doing the same thing.

Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen - may be home to Sunni fanatics like those that attacked on 9-11 and are all safe places away from the US military.

[actinide92]

12. War experience has an advantage - it can be learned from

Vietnam was lost partly because the politicians constrained the military and prevented them from crushing Hanoi. So the NVA always had a nice safeish place to attack from. In the War on Terror Bush looks to be doing the same thing.

Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen - may be home to Sunni fanatics like those that attacked on 9-11 and are all safe places away from the US military.

[Ready4Change]

10. Wow, Bobby Muller must have read my mind!

Just saw an interview on CNN with Robert O. ( Bobby) Muller, President of the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation. Very impressive, and I hope we hear a lot more from him. He said much of the above, and then some!

[merbex]

11. It's relevant for a variety of reasons

Because the two men are of the same generation you can compare apples to apples i.e. how each responded to the most important issue facing young men in their twenties in the 1960's

How they responded to Vietnam has set the tone for the rest of their lives up to this point.You all know the details to which I am refering.

Our guy has character in spades

The only thing that can be said about B* is that he has been quite a character-NEGATIVELY