Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Originally posted by: mPartialOb
...hmmmmm...let's see...
....buddies in Vietnam fighting Communism....Texas National Guard...
So this applies now, even though much more recent events give us a good view of how both candidates view national defense?
Really? I only have vague impressions of how either views national defense. We know Bush doesn't treat veterans very well and has at times resisted efforts to improve conditions and benefits for troops. We know Bush neglected our pursuit of al Qaida -- you remember al Qaida, the guys who
attacked the U.S. -- so he could focus on other issues. Other than that, Bush and Kerry appear about the same on defense based on the little we've seen.
If the position is national
offense, however, the view is much clearer. Bush is a war-monger who advocates the pre-emptive and unilateral use of U.S. military might, even if he has to invent reasons to do so. Kerry, on the other hand, isn't as eager to send Americans to their deaths for political purposes.
I'm quite confident Kerry will fully and enthusiastically support
defending America, as the need arises.
....fellow Americans taking shots from the enemy....leggy Lubbock broads and Friday night poker...
fact is no body's got their sht together by 22; or should we not have elected Clinton for dodging the draft and smoking weed?
Hint: Clinton isn't running this year. Kerry is. Move on.
....young boys in desperate need of help from every able bodied American....cushy officers lounge and scotch on the cheap
so now it's un-American to be an officer in the air-force instead of a grunt on the ground; yea right.
Hmmmm. Think, think, think. Grunt on the ground vs. Air Force. Might there be any other differences? Wait ... it's coming to me ... got it!
Do you s'pose maybe, just maybe, that the grunt vs. pilot thing might be a bit of a diversion? Do you s'pose the fact that Kerry actually served in combat, overseas, taking fire, while Bush put in a weekend here and there in Texas (and maybe Alabama) might be the real issue? Do you s'pose maybe you're being dishonest because you can't accept any criticism of His Mediocrity, King George?
Never mind, it's a rhetorical question.
....obligation to fully support the war in the most effective way possible....minimium requirement 3000 miles away from the enemy.
still better than Clinton who actually left the country at a time of war. Let's not buy hypocrisy for decision making.
Hint: Clinton isn't running this year. Kerry is. Move on.
(Side note: it is hilarious how Bush apologists continually fall back on Clinton-bashing when they can't figure out how to rationalize Bush's poor performance.)
....punji sticks....'Bama chicks
.....hmmmm
You fellers are making' this so HAAAAARD !
It takes a truly ignorant mind to decide the leader of the free world NOT by his career in political service and world-view, but by things done in his early 20s.
It takes a truly ignorant mind to ignore the hundreds of thousands of lines that have been posted here blasting Bush for his abominable record in politcal service and his dangerously arrogant world view. Bush "youthful" indiscretions -- which lasted into his forties, by the way -- are a side issue, trotted out when some YABA dares denounce Kerry's own, legitimate "youthful" achievements. Next time try reading some of the other threads here before you start making grand declarations about others' ignorance.
of course your nothing' but a troll anyway and this thread should be locked.
Funny, that's how I see many of your posts.
Facebook
Twitter