Thursday, September 09, 2004
Military Service
The left seems to think it their God-given right to instantly switch their positions on any subject just as soon as they perceive advantage for doing so.
When Clinton was running, military service (or lack thereof) was irrelevant. Then when Bush ran, all of a sudden his behavior in the National Guard is constantly questioned.
Now, in 2004, military service is the only thing that matters, except that when the Republicans decide to debate that military service (it's the only thing that matters, after all), they're not allowed to talk about it. Kerry can constantly push his military service on us, but we're not allowed to ask any questions regarding that military service. "Bring it on!" shouts Kerry when threatened with a military debate, but whines about his patriotism being questioned when he gets just what he asked for.
Now the left is harping on Bush's military service, despite the fact that he never made it an issue and has openly said that he hasn't always been a super model citizen. What difference does it make what he did in 1972? It doesn't make any difference what Kerry did in 1968-69 either, except he talks about it constantly, right now. It's what a candidate says and does now that's important. Did Bush lie about his service? Did he make it a centerpiece of his campaign?
One thing we know- Bush has had relevant, recent military experience, that we don't have to depend on thirty-year-old half-lost paperwork to evaluate. He led us to victory in Afghanistan and Iraq, and did so with character and integrity. I don't care what he did in the 70's. And I don't care what Kerry did in the 60's either, if he'd just shut up about it.
Update: Wow. It's even worse than I thought. Check this out- the document that the story I linked to depends on is apparently forged.
Update again: Maybe not.
A Further Update: Maybe so after all. The evidence is mounting.
When Clinton was running, military service (or lack thereof) was irrelevant. Then when Bush ran, all of a sudden his behavior in the National Guard is constantly questioned.
Now, in 2004, military service is the only thing that matters, except that when the Republicans decide to debate that military service (it's the only thing that matters, after all), they're not allowed to talk about it. Kerry can constantly push his military service on us, but we're not allowed to ask any questions regarding that military service. "Bring it on!" shouts Kerry when threatened with a military debate, but whines about his patriotism being questioned when he gets just what he asked for.
Now the left is harping on Bush's military service, despite the fact that he never made it an issue and has openly said that he hasn't always been a super model citizen. What difference does it make what he did in 1972? It doesn't make any difference what Kerry did in 1968-69 either, except he talks about it constantly, right now. It's what a candidate says and does now that's important. Did Bush lie about his service? Did he make it a centerpiece of his campaign?
One thing we know- Bush has had relevant, recent military experience, that we don't have to depend on thirty-year-old half-lost paperwork to evaluate. He led us to victory in Afghanistan and Iraq, and did so with character and integrity. I don't care what he did in the 70's. And I don't care what Kerry did in the 60's either, if he'd just shut up about it.
Update: Wow. It's even worse than I thought. Check this out- the document that the story I linked to depends on is apparently forged.
Update again: Maybe not.
A Further Update: Maybe so after all. The evidence is mounting.
Comments:
Post a Comment
