Let Me Get This Straight

[adios]

The Kerry die hards state that:

Kerry's service in Viet Nam is better, more honorable, what have you than Bush having strings pulled to serve in the National Guard.

Kerry was right about wide spread atrocities in Viet Nam and that official military policy more or less created the atmosphere that led to these atrocities and that the military condoned such activity. Basically they seem to hold the position that Viet Nam was an unjust, morally wrong war.


My question is why is Kerry's conduct regarding Viet Nam better, more honorable, what have you than Bush's ie why do the die hard Kerry supporters feel it is better to serve and participate in a morally wrong and unjust war where atrocitiess are widespread than to avoid serving in such a war?

[SnakeRat]

Kerry volunteering to risk his life for his country demonstrates bravery and patriotism.

Bush pulled strings in order to not get shipped out, then didn't even show up for the easy duty he was assigned.
Bush's actions demonstrate cowardice and a lack of responsibility.

Bush didn't avoid serving because the war was unjust, he avoided serving because he wanted to party.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Kerry volunteering to risk his life for his country demonstrates bravery and patriotism.

Bush pulled strings in order to not get shipped out, then didn't even show up for the easy duty he was assigned.
Bush's actions demonstrate cowardice and a lack of responsibility.

Bush didn't avoid serving because the war was unjust, he avoided serving because he wanted to party.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the face of it Kerry's record seems more honorable. However we won't be able to make a truely fair comparison until we see all of Kerry's record, not just what he spoon feeds us off his website.

Stu

[Cyrus]

Here it is, in black and white pixels on your screen :

John Kerry believed the war in Vietnam was just and that his country was right to fight it. He promptly went to fight in the war and did not shirk from his duty, nor did he show cowardice in the face of the enemy.

Subsequently, what he saw in that war made him re-think his unthinkingly patriotic position and turn him into an oponent of the war. He went on to denounce it and rveeal a number of atrocities he had witnessed or taken part in.

You can't get more decent than that.

George W Bush also supported the war in Vietnam, perhaps even more passionately than John Kerry! But, instead of going in to fight in the war he believed in, he allowed his family to pull strings and place him in the relative safety of the Air National Guard. Possibly this assignment was more dangerous than being in the Delta rice puddies, and Bush had to protect the Houston skies from communist pilots flying over. We will never know. (To add insult to injury, the official records of Bush's military service do not exactly confirm his version of events, to say the least. It is quite possible that he did not serve out the full extent of even that safe gig.)

Bush subsequently went on to denounce those who protested against the Vietnam war, including the war's veterans, as "traitors" and "cowards". A practice that is being nobly still carried on today, against John Kerry, by Bush camp-supported groups, like the Swift Liars Group.

You can't get more hypocritical than that.

...People change. The task is to change for the better. Kerry served his country (even if all his medals are to be ignored) and then changed his mind, on grounds of decency and conviction. Bush did not change. He is still the same. But some people admire this quality in a man.

[ThaSaltCracka]

here is just one cracka's opinion.....
Kerry went and fought.... which means to me admirable
Bush was scared to go.....understandable, IMO. My pops was in the air force during Viet Nam, and so was his brother. My pops was flew over Viiet Nam several times, but also served in Turkey and Thailand, both hot spots during the war. His brother was in Korea, right on the DMZ. So IMO, both of them were helping the country out, just like both Bush and Kerry. I truely believe that you didn't have to serve directly in Viet Nam to serve our country in the late 60's and early 70's.

anyways.....

I have said several times the issue of viet nam war record is irrelvant to this electon, and the only people who seem to care( especially on this forum) are pundits and political nerds.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
why is Kerry's conduct regarding Viet Nam better, more honorable, what have you than Bush's

[/ QUOTE ]
Kerry's service in Vietnam is utterly worthless as a testament to his character or his fitness for commanding the armed forces.

His conduct "regarding Viet Nam," however, would have to include his high profile opposition to the war, which I gather was fairly effective. This provides some redeeming value to an otherwise condemnable participation in a criminal war.

To my knowledge, Bush never lifted a hand to try to stop the war. His father was a major supporter of the war. He was therefore content to sit it out and have other people fight it. OTOH, had he avoided Vietnam service on moral grounds (like Clinton), and had Kerry not spoken out against the war, he would have taken at least one morally superior course of action.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I think this entire debate underscores what's wrong with the 2-party system. In '92 & '96, the GOP thought it was important that *their* candidate had a service record and Clinton did not. The Democrats, on the other hand stressed that military service was not a prerequisite for the Presidency.Now in 2004, they suddenly reverse positions. It is nothing short of opportunistic partisanship.

That is one reason why I DON'T CARE WHO WINS (unless of course we enter another dimention and Michael Banarik wins [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img])

[theBruiser500]

[ QUOTE ]
John Kerry believed the war in Vietnam was just and that his country was right to fight it. He promptly went to fight in the war and did not shirk from his duty, nor did he show cowardice in the face of the enemy.

Subsequently, what he saw in that war made him re-think his unthinkingly patriotic position and turn him into an oponent of the war. He went on to denounce it and rveeal a number of atrocities he had witnessed or taken part in.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly. and really, i think the fact that he then went against the war after having served in it shows a lot more courage and principle than remaining mute on the subject.

[Utah]

He went on to denounce it and rveeal a number of atrocities he had witnessed or taken part in.

Name one atrocity he revealed. Kerry couldnt name one on Dick Cavett and he cant name one now unless I have missed something. Please enlighten me if I had.

You say "taken part in". Are you saying Kerry committed war crimes? If so, shouldnt he be prosecuted? I dont believe there is a statute of limitations on war crimes is there?

"You can't get more decent than that"
So, if you denounce the war crimes you committed then you are a stand up guy?

he allowed his family to pull strings and place him in the relative safety of the Air National Guard
Strong assertion. Any proof? I know. I know. There is none. But boy I am sure it is fun to say.

To add insult to injury, the official records of Bush's military service do not exactly confirm his version of events, to say the least. It is quite possible that he did not serve out the full extent of even that safe gig.
Um. Yes they do. Prove otherwise. I know. I know. You cant. But I am sure it is fun to say.

A practice that is being nobly still carried on today, against John Kerry, by Bush camp-supported groups, like the Swift Liars Group.
Strong assertion. Any proof? I know. I know. There is none. But boy I am sure it is fun to say.

Also, why is it okay to completely trash veterans who support Bush and to call then vial names while veterans who support Kerry are simply to be believed. Is it not possible that those supporting Kerry could be engaging in the same kind of lies that you claim the Swift Boat Vets are engaging in? Do you not think that the Kerry Vets are not Democrats?

and then changed his mind, on grounds of decency and conviction
To you have an inside view to the workings of John Kerry's mind? It couldnt be that he was simply engaging in political opportunism?

Let me ask you. Did you support Bob Dole when he went against Clinton? I mean, you had a war verteran who was actually wounded in combat versus a pure draft dodger. I mean, even if Bush took an easy path it certainly was a hell of a lot better than what Clinton did. Did that make Clinton unworthy of serving?

The whole "bush didnt serve and Kerry did so Kerry is better" is a completely silly argument and its completely disingenuous of the liberal crowd. This same group bashing Bush would still welcome Clinton back with open arms.

The question is not one of service. Lets even stipulate that Kerry's service was "better" than Bush's. That in no way exempts Kerry's record from being scutinized (and to be be honest, Bushes record should be scrutinized as well). Kerry has basically said - "I am fit to command because of my vietnam experience". Okay - lets examine that service then to see if it is so. Bush is not saying "I am fit to command because of my national guard experience". So, it should take less relevance - although it is not completely unimportant.

To illustrate the point. Lets say you and I were both fighting for a job. I argued that I should have the job because I have 10 years of rock solid experience in the field, even though I went to a community college and I was a complete screwoff during that times. You argued that you should get the job because, even though you had less experience, you went to harvard college, got a stanford MBA, and busted your ass during that time. So, the employer says okay, lets examine your Harvard and Stanford credentials since that is what you are basing your qualifications on. Now, it comes to light that you lied about some of your credentials and you behaved inappropriately during that time. You couldnt say, "well, my school credentials cannot be questioned because my opponent went to a community college during that time!!" Why is a voters examination of Kerry's Vietnam experience any different.?

[superleeds]

Bush didn't avoid the war because he thought it was wrong, he avoided it because he did not want to run the risk of being killed or seriously injured, something an awful lot of American combatants had no choice in.