Wednesday, August 18, 2004

Those in white houses....

Despite attempts from the right to downplay John Kerry's Vietnam servive, we should not dismiss the difference the candidates' military experience so quickly. A significant part of the job of President is the role of Commander-in-Chief of our military. Someone's military record (or, in Bush's case, lack of) speaks directly to their qualifications to be Commander-in-Chief. If a newspaper was hiring an Editor-in-Chief, a candidate with previous journalism experience would be more qualified over one without. In this election, John Kerry's military experience makes him more qualified to be Commander-in-Chief than Bush, simple as that. Kerry has seen the horrors of war first-hand, and as a result, I believe he would be less cavalier about sending our troops into harm's way than someone who has not seen these horrors, ie - Bush.

Ironically, this was the GOP's argument in 1992 and 1996 when they ran Bush Sr. and Dole, both decorated WWII veterans, against Clinton, who, like Bush Jr. and Cheney, avoided Vietnam. Unlike Clinton, Bush and Cheney supported the Vietnam War, which also makes their avoidance of service hypocritical. However, even if you discount all the arguments I have made above, consider one, simple and powerful fact that comes from the military records of the two candidates - John Kerry has proven that he is willing to die for the United States of America, George W. Bush has not.


Steven said...

Of America's 43 presidents, 25 have served in the military. Approximately 30 percent serving in the House and Senate today are veterans. Yet, can you really say that military service has an edge for presidency?

In comparison, Jimmy Carter was a United States Naval officer and Bill Clinton dodged the draft to stay out of the Vietnam War, yet both had no idea how to command our country. George W. Bush flew fighter jets on weekends in the Texas National Guard during America's most unpopular war, but does that really mean Kerry qualifies as a president just because he is "willing to die for his country?"

The answer is no, because ideology and worldview, not simply experience, are what qualify a person for the presidency. Wearing a military uniform does not qualify anyone to be president.

Simply put, Kerry is underserving, not because of his military experience or the courage to fight in a battle, but rather because he slapped America in the face no sooner than he stepped foot back on American soil by protesting everything about the War.

I, as a former U.S. Marine for 8 years believe Kerry was at the wrong demonstration at the wrong time!

9:56 PM  
Bill said... Clinton created 23 million jobs and yet you say he had no clue how to command the country? At least Clinton wasn't a hypocrite for dodging the war like Bush and Cheney, both of whom supported the war but avoided serving in it.

1:25 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home