The only reason anybody is even bringing up the subject of 1960's era Vietnam conduct and choices a 2004 campaign issue is because:
1. The Democrats, especially DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe, made it an issue by portraying Kerry as the equivalent of Audie Murphy and portraying Bush as a coward and the equivalent of someone who fled to Canada.
2. The liberal news media enthusiastically jumped into that game.
So, that dead fish was put on the table by the Democrats and what goes around comes around.
An objective view of the Vietnam choices of both Bush and Kerry will show that both Kerry and Bush made choices designed to avoid Vietnam combat.
By contrast, my uncle volunteered and fought at the Bay of Pigs, volunteered for the U.S. Army immediately after his release as a Bay of Pigs POW, was severely wounded with the First Cavalry Division ealy in the Vietnam War, was severely wounded again later in the Vietnam War as a Green Beret and later engaged in covert combat with the Green Berets in South America. With Kerry's Band-Aid Purple Heart criteria, he could have been permanently out of combat after the first two weeks of his first Vietnam combat tour.
The illusion of a record such as that is what Kerry wants to portray to the voters. However, such an illusion is "Stolen Valor".
It was only by sheer bad luck that Kerry ended up in combat. By his own admission, Kerry stated that he chose swift boats precisely because "When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing." Once he was in combat, Kerry whined his way into three dubious Purple Hearts and sea-lawyered himself out of combat as fast as he possibly could.
Kerry has allowed his Democrat attack dogs to brand Bush as a coward for trying to avoid Vietnam combat. If pointing out, with Kerry's own words, that Kerry tried to do exactly the same thing is "belittling", then, so be it.
As it is now, the liberal press has been hyping the "Bush is a coward who avoided combat while Kerry is a brave stud who volunteered for combat" Big Lie. If left unaddressed, the Democrat created Big Lie can turn enough vote to potentially decide a close election.
The Big Lie has not come directly from Kerry himself. He coyly allows his DNC and liberal media attack dogs to put out the Big Lie.
However, with the power of the Internet, the objective examination of Kerry's Vietnam choices and his machinations to cut his combat tour short are beginning to come to light.
Journalists lurk on sites like FreeRepublic as it is a source of investigative footwork. The truth about Kerry is coming out and now journalists are beginning to present a more balanced picture of Kerry's Vietnam choices and manipulation of the Purple Heart requirements and the "Three Purple Hearts and you go home" policy.
This past week, our local newspaper had an article questioning the appropriateness of Kerry's manipulation of the "Three Purple Heart" rule.
Kerry's Vietnam choices and his sea-lawyering himself out of combat are a matter of fact.
If exposing the truth of those Vietnam choices and his sea-lawyering is "belittling", then Kerry has nobody but himself to blame. If Kerry had not wanted his own conduct examined, he should not have allowed his DNC and liberal media attack dogs to make George Bush's Vietnam conduct a major part of his attack campaign against Bush.
Although I have not kept a close eye on them, it seem to me, Destro, that your posts usually take a slant that opposes the use of American power. If that is a correct read of your underlying philosophy, then it makes perfect sense that you would advocate the perpetuation of the "Bush is a coward who avoided combat while Kerry is a brave stud who volunteered for combat" Big Lie.
A Kerry Presidency would definitely result result in an America unwilling to use it's power, even in it's own defense.