Wednesday, April 28, 2004
Hiding Out in the National Guard
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004
From: "Richard"
To: editor@201k.com
For some dumb reason the usual cast of characters, consisting of Republican attack dogs, Bush cheerleaders, and conservative pundit ideologues who regularly work the television/radio news/talk show circuit, and the conservative hosts of those shows, insist on putting a focus on John Kerry's military career with their inane obsession with his medals. Their refusal to let go of this issue is mind boggling because it puts focus on the military records of both Bush and Kerry, and Bush can't win that argument. They're so blinded by hate and ideology they can't see what a stupid tactic this is. As a Kerry supporter, I say to them, "bring it on dummies."
Now that Kerry has released his complete military record, they've had to drop their pathetic attempts to discredit one of Kerry's three Purple Hearts and they've moved on to whether or not he threw his medals or ribbons, or whatever (who cares) onto the White House lawn during an anti Viet Nam War demonstration.
There's no way to win the argument that says Bush's choice to serve (translation "hide") in the National Guard during the Viet Nam era was service that was equal to that of John Kerry's.
The National Guard in the 1960's was not the National Guard as we know it today. In the '60's the National Guard was well known to be a safe repository for draft eligible men who wanted to avoid risking their lives in an unjust and immoral war, but needed to find a way to fulfill their military obligation and avoid the draft. The truth was that the chances of a National Guardsman being sent to Viet Nam were very slim. I know of dozens of men (lots of '60's college grads who's draft deferments had expired) who signed up in the Guard precisely for that reason. Even though National Guard service during that era was pretty much a complete waste of time and taxpayer's money (except for the rare activation in the case of a domestic emergency) the possibility of getting drafted made it an appealing alternative. As a result, there were long waiting lists to enlist. But George Bush, thanks to family ties, got pushed right to the top of the list.
So maybe Bush did technically fulfill his military obligation. The emphasis is on "maybe", because there's strong doubt as to whether he actually completely fulfilled his duty. But Bush's fuzzy National Guard service record doesn't hold a candle to the military service of John Kerry who volunteered to serve in combat, and did so with courage and honor. Case closed.
And so, if the issue of "who's military service to the country was most admirable" is a voting issue, Kerry wins hands down.
Richard
From: "Richard"
To: editor@201k.com
For some dumb reason the usual cast of characters, consisting of Republican attack dogs, Bush cheerleaders, and conservative pundit ideologues who regularly work the television/radio news/talk show circuit, and the conservative hosts of those shows, insist on putting a focus on John Kerry's military career with their inane obsession with his medals. Their refusal to let go of this issue is mind boggling because it puts focus on the military records of both Bush and Kerry, and Bush can't win that argument. They're so blinded by hate and ideology they can't see what a stupid tactic this is. As a Kerry supporter, I say to them, "bring it on dummies."
Now that Kerry has released his complete military record, they've had to drop their pathetic attempts to discredit one of Kerry's three Purple Hearts and they've moved on to whether or not he threw his medals or ribbons, or whatever (who cares) onto the White House lawn during an anti Viet Nam War demonstration.
There's no way to win the argument that says Bush's choice to serve (translation "hide") in the National Guard during the Viet Nam era was service that was equal to that of John Kerry's.
The National Guard in the 1960's was not the National Guard as we know it today. In the '60's the National Guard was well known to be a safe repository for draft eligible men who wanted to avoid risking their lives in an unjust and immoral war, but needed to find a way to fulfill their military obligation and avoid the draft. The truth was that the chances of a National Guardsman being sent to Viet Nam were very slim. I know of dozens of men (lots of '60's college grads who's draft deferments had expired) who signed up in the Guard precisely for that reason. Even though National Guard service during that era was pretty much a complete waste of time and taxpayer's money (except for the rare activation in the case of a domestic emergency) the possibility of getting drafted made it an appealing alternative. As a result, there were long waiting lists to enlist. But George Bush, thanks to family ties, got pushed right to the top of the list.
So maybe Bush did technically fulfill his military obligation. The emphasis is on "maybe", because there's strong doubt as to whether he actually completely fulfilled his duty. But Bush's fuzzy National Guard service record doesn't hold a candle to the military service of John Kerry who volunteered to serve in combat, and did so with courage and honor. Case closed.
And so, if the issue of "who's military service to the country was most admirable" is a voting issue, Kerry wins hands down.
Richard
