Originally posted by BP:
it's annoying how far people will go to try and discredit kerry's service or belittle the fact that he actually fought in a war.

i find it more interesting why none of bush's reserve buddies have come out to vouch for him performing his reserve duties in the 3 months or so of his service that seem to be lost in time...



I also find it rather annoying that people still try and discredit Bush's service based on THREE MONTHS in question. I agree with Dave (surprise) that he shouldn't think military service alone qualifies him to lead our country, and I disagre with the fact that people are trying to "belittle" him... rather, they're trying to point out the glaring contradictions in Kerry's past.

Originally posted by BP:
in addition i don't think it's fair for people to point to kerry's voting record as a senator as indicative of his expected service as our eventual president. there are so many other battles being fought in the senate that you can't take someone's voting record at face value imo.


I agree with this completely... however, I'm not taking Kerry's voting record at face value. Individual votes are far too complex, with lots of hidden provisions, pork barrel legislation, etc. I don't particularly find fault with his individual "votes".

HOWEVER, I take major issue with his serious swings in policy and thought. Outside of just his "votes", the fact that he served "so valiantly" in Vietnam, then came back and declared his fellow soldiers "war criminals", (pretended to) throw his medals at Congress, then ran for president a few years later and pretended to be a war hero again. The fact that he spoke out publicly against Saddam and in support of the war in Iraq (despite voting AGAINST the first war), and now says that we "never should've gone in." Or how about the fact that the NUMBER ONE taker of special interest money in the Senate criticizes Bush for "being in bed with Enron, Halliburton, etc."

Originally posted by BP:
however, we do know that kerry's current qualifications to be president are more than what bush had at the time he was elected.



I disagree... why does being in the Senate make you any more qualified than being Governor? There are TWO senators from every state, but only ONE governor, so in theory its more difficult to get elected to be governor. The President governs our nation, so the job is more akin to governor than senator, who is simply a legislator. Does the fact that he's had plenty of years inside the beltway to become corrupt like all other politicians make him more qualified? I, for one, would prefer an outsider. Sure he may not know the ins and outs of navigating the political backwaters, but he'd surely be much more in touch with the rest of America, and those American's that the President serves and represents.

Diesel owns you