This has absolutely nothing to do with Bush's Guard service. It has EVERYTHING to do with the Dem's desperation in trying to find an "issue" since it's patently obvious they're going to be wearing their collective arses as hats come November.
This lame attempt at trying to contrast Bush's service with Kerry's is just that..............incredibly weak, incredibly lame; a non-issue.
If THIS is all they've got...................................................................
BTW.........re: Kerry's service: I salute any man (or woman) who put on a uniform and wound up on the other side of the world in defense of their country.....or even just following orders, no matter their individual motivation. Can't take that away from Mr. Kerry. That said.........I haven't seen any evidence that he was a true "hero". Not saying he wasn't.......just haven't seen proof or real eyewitness accounts. Either way, his behavior upon returning was nigh unto treasonous.
No, can't take that away. Can point out he returned to foment anti-war protests that specifically charged U.S. soldiers with being criminals. John Kerry aided and abetted the anti-soldier sentiment that swept the country and resulted in other soldiers returning home only to be spat upon.
John Kerry wishes to wear the mantle of hero while having participated in denigrating others who served. See his testimony before Congress. Outrageous.
I'll repeat. I have never questioned what he actually did over in Vietnam. He saved a man's life. Fine. That does not mean his subsequent actions should then be off limits to question.
What is more honorable, serving in the National Guard and doing so quietly, or serving in Vietnam, then coming home and throwing away medals and protesting the war?
What is more honorable, using your service to the country as a political motive, or quietly honoring your record by just saying you served proudly?
What is more honorable, touting the many medals you've received, or humbling yourself and your service as Bob Dole and GHWB did?
What is more honorable, trying to make an political issue of serving your country or simply honoring all those who did so voluntarily and willingly.
What is more honorable, using a non-starter issue to basically tell the American people that not only did Democrats miss some key information on Bush's service record four years ago, but they also didn't have the correct strategy four years ago and want another chance to slander his service, or simply thanking those who have served- not matter when or how
What is more honorable, saying you carried an M-16 and know what it is like to really serve, or to be a life-long military secretary who battles bureaucracy everyday?
Anyone who has served in the military knows where honor lies. And Kerry is not only ostracizing himself from other Vietnam Vets by bragging about his chest of medals, but he's also completely removing himself from any military service by creating an elitist attitude among all soldiers, past and present.
At any point during GWB's election campaign, did he use his military record as a campaign issue? No. Because he was humbled by the experience to just proudly serve like so many others. It's called humility, something Kerry knows nothing about. So keep it up, ketchup boy. Not only will those serving proudly in the military abandon you, but vets will as well. Why? Because anyone who has served (and most Americans) knows the difference between honor and hubris.
We've already seen that Kerry does not.