Weekly Standard Senior Editor on SBVT

[TexasTiger 13,006]

Yet in 2004, Republicans find themselves supporting a candidate, George W. Bush, with a slender and ambiguous military record against a man whose combat heroism has never (until now) been disputed. Further--and here we'll let slip a thinly disguised secret--Republicans are supporting a candidate that relatively few of them find personally or politically appealing. This is not the choice Republicans are supposed to be faced with. The 1990s were far better. In those days the Democrats did the proper thing, nominating a draft-dodger to run against George H.W. Bush, who was the youngest combat pilot in the Pacific theater in World War II, and then later, in 1996, against Bob Dole, who left a portion of his body on the beach at Anzio.

Republicans have no such luck this time, and so they scramble to reassure themselves that they nevertheless are doing the right thing, voting against a war hero. The simplest way to do this is to convince themselves that the war hero isn't really a war hero. If sufficient doubt about Kerry's record can be raised, we can vote for Bush without remorse. But the calculations are transparently desperate. Reading some of the anti-Kerry attacks over the last several weeks, you might conclude that this is the new conservative position: A veteran who volunteered for combat duty, spent four months under fire in Vietnam, and then exaggerated a bit so he could go home early is the inferior, morally and otherwise, of a man who had his father pull strings so he wouldn't have to go to Vietnam in the first place.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...3kldgc.asp?pg=2

[DKW 86 7,440]

Yet in 2004, Republicans find themselves supporting a candidate, George W. Bush, with a slender and ambiguous military record against a man whose combat heroism has never (until now) been disputed. Further--and here we'll let slip a thinly disguised secret--Republicans are supporting a candidate that relatively few of them find personally or politically appealing. This is not the choice Republicans are supposed to be faced with. The 1990s were far better. In those days the Democrats did the proper thing, nominating a draft-dodger to run against George H.W. Bush, who was the youngest combat pilot in the Pacific theater in World War II, and then later, in 1996, against Bob Dole, who left a portion of his body on the beach at Anzio.

Republicans have no such luck this time, and so they scramble to reassure themselves that they nevertheless are doing the right thing, voting against a war hero. The simplest way to do this is to convince themselves that the war hero isn't really a war hero. If sufficient doubt about Kerry's record can be raised, we can vote for Bush without remorse. But the calculations are transparently desperate. Reading some of the anti-Kerry attacks over the last several weeks, you might conclude that this is the new conservative position: A veteran who volunteered for combat duty, spent four months under fire in Vietnam, and then exaggerated a bit so he could go home early is the inferior, morally and otherwise, of a man who had his father pull strings so he wouldn't have to go to Vietnam in the first place.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...3kldgc.asp?pg=2

TT I will actually give you the first part of that one. We are not comfortabe with Bush on his War Record.

I disagree with the second half tho. Kerry is running from his Senate Record and we will attack him on that. That alone could likely lose the election for him. He has been absolutely silent on his own record so far.

This election will come down to Who do you trust more on the War on Terror and nothing more. Kerry will be shown to be weak. The Vets are thanking God we get a piece of John Kerry now for the slander he gave out for 33 years.

Someone should have told Kerry the old proverb: "Lord make all my words sweet, for tommorow I may have to eat them."

[Ranger12 46]

This is hililarious. Even when you guys kind of try to start talking about the issues, you still can't get past Kerry's military service can you? That just proves my point from the other thread that you liberals can't talk about anything but Kerry's trip to Vietnam.

You set yourself up for this one TT- Why was this not an issue when Clinton ran against war veterans? I remember the democrats saying this was not a prerequisite for being President. Now you want to come back and make that an issue. Man, you guys are incredible!

Wow, let's elect make John Kerry president right now because he served four months in Vietnam and Bush did not. Let's just throw out the fact that Kerry, for the last 20 years, has tried his best to handicap the military. I really love the comment that conservatives are voting "against a war hero". Too bad you are so blind to see the shamlessness in that comment. I am voting against an "anti-war leader that betrayed other soldiers after he left Vietnam and has since then tried to cripple our military and was okay with putting current and future soldiers into battle without the things they needed. A man whose platform depends on which group he is addressing". I am voting for a man that his proven himself a leader, and has stood by his morals and principles. Sometimes I did not agree with that man, but he did not try to bs me with his views.

I have stated this before, but since I am a war veteran, I am going to use the Kerry platform and run for President in 2008! Heck, I even served longer the four months and I am pretty sure I have seen more combat then Kerry. I also have no poltiical record to boast about either, just like my friend John Kerry. Heck, I should be a sure thing for the White House. But, just in case, I need another veteran as a running mate, even though Kerry's is not a veteran. Never can be too careful. David, GoAU, AUJarhead, Stoic, TIS (well, he is a little busy right now), or any other vets on the board- you guys up for running for VP?

[rexbo 104]

Volunteered for "combat" duty? When Kerry volunteered to drive a Swift Boat, they were just doing coastal patrol; he volunteered for the least risk command postition there was in the Navy in Vietnam at the time. Just before he got there, the commander US Naval Forces in SV decided to start using them to actually patrol the rivers in-country and come into contact with the enemy. Maybe that explains why he started collecting Purple Hearts so quickly once he got there, the first day!!

When Kerry signed up to command a Swift boat in the summer of 1968, he was inspired by the example of his hero, John F. Kennedy, who had commanded the PT-109 patrol boat in the Pacific in World War II. But Kerry had little expectation of seeing serious action. At the time the Swift boats -- or PCFs (patrol craft fast), in Navy jargon -- were largely restricted to coastal patrols. "I didn't really want to get involved in the war," Kerry wrote in a book of war reminiscences published in 1986.

The role of the Swift boats changed dramatically toward the end of 1968, when Adm. Elmo R. Zumwalt Jr., commander of U.S. naval forces in South Vietnam, decided to use them to block Vietcong supply routes through the Mekong Delta. Hundreds of young men such as Kerry, with little combat experience, suddenly found themselves face to face with the enemy.

Swift Boat Accounts Incomplete

[TexasTiger 13,006]

This is hililarious. Even when you guys kind of try to start talking about the issues, you still can't get past Kerry's military service can you? That just proves my point from the other thread that you liberals can't talk about anything but Kerry's trip to Vietnam.

You set yourself up for this one TT- Why was this not an issue when Clinton ran against war veterans? I remember the democrats saying this was not a prerequisite for being President. Now you want to come back and make that an issue. Man, you guys are incredible!

Wow, let's elect make John Kerry president right now because he served four months in Vietnam and Bush did not. Let's just throw out the fact that Kerry, for the last 20 years, has tried his best to handicap the military. I really love the comment that conservatives are voting "against a war hero". Too bad you are so blind to see the shamlessness in that comment. I am voting against an "anti-war leader that betrayed other soldiers after he left Vietnam and has since then tried to cripple our military and was okay with putting current and future soldiers into battle without the things they needed. A man whose platform depends on which group he is addressing". I am voting for a man that his proven himself a leader, and has stood by his morals and principles. Sometimes I did not agree with that man, but he did not try to bs me with his views.

I have stated this before, but since I am a war veteran, I am going to use the Kerry platform and run for President in 2008! Heck, I even served longer the four months and I am pretty sure I have seen more combat then Kerry. I also have no poltiical record to boast about either, just like my friend John Kerry. Heck, I should be a sure thing for the White House. But, just in case, I need another veteran as a running mate, even though Kerry's is not a veteran. Never can be too careful. David, GoAU, AUJarhead, Stoic, TIS (well, he is a little busy right now), or any other vets on the board- you guys up for running for VP?

You're arguing with the Weekly Standard here, Ranger. One of the top conservative publications. Right them a letter. It it's like a typical post you'll probably wind up with and FBI file, if you don't already have one.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

Volunteered for "combat" duty?  When Kerry volunteered to drive a Swift Boat, they were just doing coastal patrol; he volunteered for the least risk command postition there was in the Navy in Vietnam at the time.  Just before he got there, the commander US Naval Forces in SV decided to start using them to actually patrol the rivers in-country and come into contact with the enemy.  Maybe that explains why he started collecting Purple Hearts so quickly once he got there, the first day!!

When Kerry signed up to command a Swift boat in the summer of 1968, he was inspired by the example of his hero, John F. Kennedy, who had commanded the PT-109 patrol boat in the Pacific in World War II. But Kerry had little expectation of seeing serious action. At the time the Swift boats -- or PCFs (patrol craft fast), in Navy jargon -- were largely restricted to coastal patrols. "I didn't really want to get involved in the war," Kerry wrote in a book of war reminiscences published in 1986.

The role of the Swift boats changed dramatically toward the end of 1968, when Adm. Elmo R. Zumwalt Jr., commander of U.S. naval forces in South Vietnam, decided to use them to block Vietcong supply routes through the Mekong Delta. Hundreds of young men such as Kerry, with little combat experience, suddenly found themselves face to face with the enemy.

Swift Boat Accounts Incomplete

Guess that kinda shoots holes in the theory that he went there to rack up medals to feed a political ambition. No wait. You guys can hold tons of cotradictory positions as long as they serve your purposes.

Here's the real contrast:

I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes.  George W. Bush  1990

Definitely sounds like he considered that shotgun thing. There's a real man, for ya. Makes you proud to be an American, don't it?

[DKW 86 7,440]

If you can live with His Slickness, I can live with Bush, at least he served somewhere doing something besides smoking dope in England.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

If you can live with His Slickness, I can live with Bush, at least he served somewhere doing something besides smoking dope in England.

You do know Clinton's not running this time, don't you?