Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: stuartcr
If a newspaper produced four tons of material there are some folks who will dismiss it all as a Democratic plot. I'm always amazed at how belonging to a party means you MUST be a true believe and put aside anything damaging to your own case or candidate and put aside anything positive that applies to the other. People are FLAWED. It looks as if he, like many in that era, wanted to get out of Vietnam and got enrolled in the Guard with his Dad's help. He was not the only one who would have done that. But dimissing it all as a big Democratic plot is not the whole story: there are some real questions about his military service. I don't think it precludes him from re-election. But if we were so absolutely tough on Clinton why shouldn't we apply the same standards to President Bush...unless we only apply certain standards to the other side.
38 posted on 02/05/2004 9:33:41 AM PST by jraven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]


To: jraven
If a newspaper produced four tons of material there are some folks who will dismiss it all as a Democratic plot. I'm always amazed at how belonging to a party means you MUST be a true believe and put aside anything damaging to your own case or candidate and put aside anything positive that applies to the other. People are FLAWED. It looks as if he, like many in that era, wanted to get out of Vietnam and got enrolled in the Guard with his Dad's help. He was not the only one who would have done that. But dimissing it all as a big Democratic plot is not the whole story: there are some real questions about his military service. I don't think it precludes him from re-election. But if we were so absolutely tough on Clinton why shouldn't we apply the same standards to President Bush...unless we only apply certain standards to the other side.

Point taken. But there are no "four tons" of material. A more apt comparison would be a loaf of stale bread. I don't see anyone on this site being disinclined to complain about the President when they think he is wrong, or flawed as you prefer. I personally find the illegal immigrant issue particularly vexing, and don't hesitate to harp about it. It isn't the story that is the "Democratic plot" but the fact that the Dems are pulling it out of their hindquarters again, trying to breathe life into an essentially dead story.

Since you insist on bringing in Slick, the difference between Bush and Clinton is that Bush took an honorable and legitimate avenue of avoiding going to Vietnam, if that was his intention (it would have been mine!). Clinton did not. Add to that the fact that he actively demonstrated against the US (between women) on foreign soil. At lease Kerry had the sense to do his dirty work on American soil.

Frankly, I am appalled (and Kerry used to be) that the roles of people in a war that is over 30 years old is even an issue. Kerry, McAuliffe, and Clark's resuscitation of the tired story simply shows the shallowness of their campaigns, and the fact that Kerry has to say the word Vietnam in every other sentence. As Hannity is fond of saying, the Dems have no new ideas. Attack the US, the President etc., all for political gain, with little concern for the direct and indirect aid and comfort their criticisms give the likes of bin Laden.

45 posted on 02/05/2004 10:21:30 AM PST by SpinyNorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson