Kinda sick of hearing posters here try to convince others to give John Kerry and others a 'pass' due simply to the fact that they served our country in combat. While I have tremendous amount of respect for their service and sacrifice, it seems to me that combat service does NOT correlate directly to 'civilian' factors such as an ability to govern well....at any level.
The following statement was from a Veteran regarding John Kerry and his service. My response follows.
"Go after the man's voting record and positions. He served in combat. Attacking his service diminishes you, not him."
First off, let me personally thank you for your service to our country.
Now, I would agree more with your position regarding Kerry's war record IF he had chosen, like yourself, Bob Dole, and countless others, to let his Vietnam record speak for itself. BUT, confirmed by a Mr. Oliphant (a Boston reporter who has been reporting on Mr. Kerry since 1971), instead Kerry has chosen to make his Vietnam service the cornerstone of not only this campaign but also every other he has ran in. Mr. Oliphant was asked if he was suprised at the furor surrounding this Vietnam issue and his response was that since Kerry had used this as a central plank of his platform, that Mr. Oliphant was only surprised at the current response as voters in Massachussetts never seemed to care that much in Kerry's previous campaigns. One may suppose that this lack of response was due in large part to influence of the Kennedy and Dukakis families in Massachussetts.
As Kerry has made the issue of his service in Vietnam a cornerstone of his campaign, then why should we not question every element of it as we would if his centerpiece was an economic policy, foreign policy, or domestic issues? I can look at the same situation if Kerry had NOT used his service in Vietnam as such a centerpiece, then the undecided voters and those of us that do not like Kerry, would simply attack his political positions such as liberal vs. conservative, gun rights, abortion rights, foreign policies, etc. BUT, if you will remember the recent Democratic National Convention, Kerry outlined no such policy. In fact Kerry indicated he had no platform of any kind...no coherent policy to differentiate him from GWB's adminstration. Instead he marches to the podium, delivers a crappy salute and says, "John Kerry, reporting for duty." Come on, now.
Without a unique set of policies to question, and since his only unique contribution to his platform is his often referred to Vietnam record...AND since that record is now being shown to possibly be 'factually challenged', voters have very little to question.
Kerry, by limiting his policy statements and by championing his service record has brought these questions upon himself.
PERSONAL NOTE- Kerry is being revealed as just a couple of steps away from being that 'Gunshow SEAL' walking around loudly exclaming just how bad he was in ____________. And how if he told you just exactly what he did over there, he'd have to kill you because all of his records are sealed, due to opsec...you know.
I do not know you, but if he was shown to be a fake; lied about his first wound, lied about delivering CIA agents 'upriver', in Cambodia Christmas Eve '68 as per orders from Pres. Nixon (a full month before Nixon took the oath of office, by the way), put himself in for his Bronze Star and Silver Star (awarded w/in 2 weeks with no investigation and based soley on his own testimony), his second and third wound episodes are beginning to sound 'fishy', AND the Senate level bashing he gave ALL Vietnam Veterans upon his return, and throws "his"medals away....would you still support his right to respect for his service?