Bush Outserves Kerry

Originally posted by KellyB369
Isn't Kerry the one who said many years ago that he would never use his war experience for political gain? Defending yourself is one thing but he has gone way beyond that. I honestly could care less what he did in Vietnam vs. what Bush did or didn't do in the National Guard. Bush has served this country for the last 4 years and dealt with the war of today. Kerry can't decide what he thinks about the war of today. I fear for the future of our country if the power is shifted into the hands of a man who doesn't have a clue what he believes.

Right on

[Kevin]

Originally posted by KellyB369
Isn't Kerry the one who said many years ago that he would never use his war experience for political gain? .

Apparenly he changed his mind.

--- He does that I'm told.

[WCUgirl]

It's obvious both candidates are getting quite good at changing their minds. What's your point? I'm sure half the people on this board swore at least once in their life that they'd never go Greek...

[Rudey]

Originally posted by AXiD670
It's obvious both candidates are getting quite good at changing their minds. What's your point? I'm sure half the people on this board swore at least once in their life that they'd never go Greek...

What? Kerry straddles an issue. There is a difference between no wanting to answer something and not wanting to give your opinion and changing your opinion based on different environments and actions, etc. Everyone has to be flexible to deal with change, the difference is that Kerry doesn't change, he flip-flops and straddles. See the thread on Kerry flip-flopping and straddling Iraq.

-Rudey

[Kevin]

The difference between me changing my mind about joining a fraternity and Kerry changing his mind about a war is exponential.

Personal decisions and the decisions that impact the entire world are two very different things. In the former, whether you waiver in your support for one issue or the other matters to you only. In the later, it could change the course of history.

I don't feel like Kerry is solid enough to do what's right. I'm not sure he's even capable of making strong decisions. When in his life has he chosen something and stuck with it? The leader of the free world has to be able to do that. He's proventhat in his campaign completely changing his message every time it seems like he might be able to one-up someone.

[Rudey]

I'm just sad that Kerry has dropped talking about his service and is now using his cronies to attack Bush's national guard service. I can't imagine how many men and women are insulted by these people. Disgusting.

-Rudey

[RACooper]

Originally posted by Rudey
I'm just sad that Kerry has dropped talking about his service and is now using his cronies to attack Bush's national guard service. I can't imagine how many men and women are insulted by these people. Disgusting.

-Rudey

And I can't imagine how many people were insulted by Bush and Cheney's cronies attack the service of Kerry in Vietnam. Both sides are equally guilty of this disgusting mud-slinging - neither can hold the high ground on this issue anymore.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by RACooper
And I can't imagine how many people were insulted by Bush and Cheney's cronies attack the service of Kerry in Vietnam. Both sides are equally guilty of this disgusting mud-slinging - neither can hold the high ground on this issue anymore.

1) They weren't his cronies.
2) Bush condemned it and talked about how Kerry served with honor.
3) Kerry acts like it's bad but does it himself? So he knows something is bad and does it...OK.
4) You are not an American citizen with the right to vote in our American election so it's funny how you keep trying to get that "voice" and interfere.

-Rudey

[WCUgirl]

Originally posted by ktsnake
The difference between me changing my mind about joining a fraternity and Kerry changing his mind about a war is exponential.

Personal decisions and the decisions that impact the entire world are two very different things. In the former, whether you waiver in your support for one issue or the other matters to you only. In the later, it could change the course of history.

I don't feel like Kerry is solid enough to do what's right. I'm not sure he's even capable of making strong decisions. When in his life has he chosen something and stuck with it? The leader of the free world has to be able to do that. He's proventhat in his campaign completely changing his message every time it seems like he might be able to one-up someone.

I wholeheartedly agree - there is a difference b/w a decision about joining a GLO and a decision about war. I was trying to make a light-hearted point, and was actually referring to his decision about using his military service in his campaign, which, again, I agree, is not near the level of the decision about war, but I'll respond anyways.

Personally, I don't like Kerry as a candidate for President. When we had a trillion and one Democrats announce their candidacy, he was not anywhere near the top of my list. But at this point, he's my only choice now, isn't he? How you feel about Kerry is how I feel about Bush. I don't think he's a solid leader. I think he makes bad decisions. I think he's a flip-flopper. But I'm not going to run around and use that as my only argument. It's petty, and it gets really repetitive (I know, I know, if he didn't flip-flop so much we wouldn't have so many opportunities to comment, right? ). Why is past military service such a big issue? It's just one big pissing contest over who's military service was longer/better and it has no bearing on who will be better at leading our country.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by Rudey
1) They weren't his cronies.
2) Bush condemned it and talked about how Kerry served with honor.
3) Kerry acts like it's bad but does it himself? So he knows something is bad and does it...OK.
4) You are not an American citizen with the right to vote in our American election so it's funny how you keep trying to get that "voice" and interfere.

-Rudey

Okay I guess that Cordier and Ginsberg's connections to both the Bush campaign and the Swiftboat people are fabrications of the evil Liberal left?

Again dismissing me as a Canadian is starting to get tired... because last time I checked I still have the right to freedom of speech (both up here and down there). Whether my opinions influence you or others isn't up to me... are you scared of opinions that may oppose yours?

[aurora_borealis]

I wish all parties involved would stop focusing on a war from forty years ago, and have discussion about the war going on now.

[DeltAlum]

I'm so sick of this debate that I'm not going to read the whole thing.

There is one thing that I'll point out though after skimming the first couple of posts.

Everyone in the military service in those days was in for six years. Depending on what branch, it could be two years of active duty and four year of ready or inactive reserves (if drafted by the Army), three years active and three years reserves (joined the Army) or four years active and two years reserves (joined any of the other services). Only the Army drafted.

I have tried to figure out how President Bush became an officer. I haven't seen anywhere that he was in ROTC or OCS. Same with Kerry. I just don't know.

However, you can't concentrate on Kerry's four months actually in combat and assume that that was his entire military career. Both would have had to complete some kind of boot camp and additional schooling for their specialties.

For special circumstances, one could get out of active duty early (something like going to college), but generally by only a few months.

Bottom line is this: Assuming there were no really sneaky strings pulled (nothing would surprize me, though), Kerry signed up for a mininum of four years of active duty and Bush for six months. I'm sure that to get into pilot training, the President had to commit to some additional time -- but probably not four years.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by RACooper
Okay I guess that Cordier and Ginsberg's connections to both the Bush campaign and the Swiftboat people are fabrications of the evil Liberal left?

Again dismissing me as a Canadian is starting to get tired... because last time I checked I still have the right to freedom of speech (both up here and down there). Whether my opinions influence you or others isn't up to me... are you scared of opinions that may oppose yours?

Ummm they're not connected?

And I couldn't care what freedom is guaranteed in Canada. In the USA, we have freedom of speech.

Nobody is scared of your opinion. You can never back anything up and always spew lies and I manage to make you look pretty bad. And it's obvious you wish you were an American and wish you could vote, but in actuality you're just trying to interfere.

-Rudey

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
I'm so sick of this debate that I'm not going to read the whole thing.

There is one thing that I'll point out though after skimming the first couple of posts.

Everyone in the military service in those days was in for six years. Depending on what branch, it could be two years of active duty and four year of ready or inactive reserves (if drafted by the Army), three years active and three years reserves (joined the Army) or four years active and two years reserves (joined any of the other services). Only the Army drafted.

I have tried to figure out how President Bush became an officer. I haven't seen anywhere that he was in ROTC or OCS. Same with Kerry. I just don't know.

However, you can't concentrate on Kerry's four months actually in combat and assume that that was his entire military career. Both would have had to complete some kind of boot camp and additional schooling for their specialties.

For special circumstances, one could get out of active duty early (something like going to college), but generally by only a few months.

Bottom line is this: Assuming there were no really sneaky strings pulled (nothing would surprize me, though), Kerry signed up for a mininum of four years of active duty and Bush for six months. I'm sure that to get into pilot training, the President had to commit to some additional time -- but probably not four years.

So Bush served longer than Kerry?

-Rudey

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Rudey
So Bush served longer than Kerry?

-Rudey

No.

Providing there were no "early outs" granted, they both had a six year obligation.

Kerry was in the regular Navy, which was a four year active duty committment.

Bush was in the National Guard which was a six month active duty committment.

It is very likely that Bush had to agree to an additional couple of years in order to get into pilot school. Probably not four years, though.

I think in a post just prior to mine, Hoosier said something about the F-102 (Delta Dart) becomming obsolete. That's true, however when that happens, a guard unit is upgraded to newer aircraft and the pilots in the unit upgrade as well. When an aircraft is retired, its pilots aren't retired with it.