Those in white houses....
Despite attempts from the right to downplay John Kerry's Vietnam servive, we should not dismiss the difference the candidates' military experience so quickly. A significant part of the job of President is the role of Commander-in-Chief of our military. Someone's military record (or, in Bush's case, lack of) speaks directly to their qualifications to be Commander-in-Chief. If a newspaper was hiring an Editor-in-Chief, a candidate with previous journalism experience would be more qualified over one without. In this election, John Kerry's military experience makes him more qualified to be Commander-in-Chief than Bush, simple as that. Kerry has seen the horrors of war first-hand, and as a result, I believe he would be less cavalier about sending our troops into harm's way than someone who has not seen these horrors, ie - Bush.
Ironically, this was the GOP's argument in 1992 and 1996 when they ran Bush Sr. and Dole, both decorated WWII veterans, against Clinton, who, like Bush Jr. and Cheney, avoided Vietnam. Unlike Clinton, Bush and Cheney supported the Vietnam War, which also makes their avoidance of service hypocritical. However, even if you discount all the arguments I have made above, consider one, simple and powerful fact that comes from the military records of the two candidates - John Kerry has proven that he is willing to die for the United States of America, George W. Bush has not.
Ironically, this was the GOP's argument in 1992 and 1996 when they ran Bush Sr. and Dole, both decorated WWII veterans, against Clinton, who, like Bush Jr. and Cheney, avoided Vietnam. Unlike Clinton, Bush and Cheney supported the Vietnam War, which also makes their avoidance of service hypocritical. However, even if you discount all the arguments I have made above, consider one, simple and powerful fact that comes from the military records of the two candidates - John Kerry has proven that he is willing to die for the United States of America, George W. Bush has not.
