Kerry & Bush.

This is coolbert:

I agree 100 % with Colonel Craig on this matter of the Vietnam Era records of Kerry and Bush.

BOTH did serve honorably.

I see absolutely nothing in the records of either man that says otherwise. What people are seeing is nothing more than a misunderstanding of military protocol and the way the military operates. A mountain is being made out of a mole hill [if that]!!

These persons criticizing both men usually themselves are not military people to begin with.

Persons criticizing Bush's National Guard service are not aware that the Guard quite often has policies, regulations, and procedures different in peace time than that of the regular military.

And those military people that are say criticizing Kerry are in all probability just plain ordinary mistaken about they purportedly "saw". It is their version of things. In situations such as the Swift boat operations, things just happen too quick and there is too much chaos to make definitive statements about what exactly happened.

Craig is absolutely correct in saying that negative campaigning and advertising works.

It works, and all too well.

Negative advertising is also a brother to the concept of the big lie.

Tell an untruth, tell it often enough, and sooner or later it will become to be believed.

Say that Bush was a coward and a shirker for joining the Guard and it will become believed to some extent.

Say that Kerry was a fabricator of decorations and did what he did to make "good press" of a dubious war record and it will become to be believed to some extent also.

And even if not believed with vigor, will cast doubt upon the person's credibility. The victim of the negative advertising has to spend a lot of time explaining himself to the public, and usually will have a hard time doing so.

And all this negative advertising about "war records" that occurred over thirty years ago comes as somewhat of a surprise to me.

This did not happen to any extent that I can remember in the year 2000 campaign.

Gore did serve in Vietnam, but with qualifications. He was trained as a supply clerk, but went to Vietnam and served as four months as a "journalist". All the while having a body guard present at all times [it was felt that being the son of a prominent Senator might invite other GI's to resent him and take it out physically on him! [Albert]].

Surely in the year 2000 someone from the Democratic side had done research on Bush and checked out his military service? So why was this sort of thing about war record not an object of the year 2000 Presidential campaign? Why now such a big thing.

And if distinguished military record is an important factor in deciding who becomes President, then why was Clinton elected twice, defeating on both occasions men who DID have distinguished military records, while Clinton himself was anything but a military man.

Not only did Clinton "shirk" military duty, he was a MAJOR organizer of anti-war protests [so much a major organizer that he did not complete his Rhodes Scholar studies as he spent so much time other than studying].

In addition, Clinton visited Moscow as part of an organizing campaign for anti-war activity sponsored by the Communist party.

During that time, Clinton HAD to have come to the attention of the various Soviet intelligence services and the International Department of the Soviet Communist party. HE HAD TO HAVE BEEN OF GREAT INTEREST TO THE COMMUNISTS AS A POTENTIAL RECRUIT. I don't recall any of this being an issue during either Presidential campaign in 1992 or 1996, or if so, it was only in passing.

It is obvious that the comments of Jesse the Body Ventura, [James Janos], the professional wrestler turned Governor of Minnesota and ex-Navy SEAL, are absolutely correct on this issue of military service and the Presidency.

What Jesse said was that military service should be considered a plus when considering whether a man is worthy to be President, but only a plus among a whole lot of factors. It should be only one thing among a number of things that the voter has to consider.

I think this whole problem with negative advertising about the Presidential candidates "war records" began early in the year when certain gadflies began a lot of name calling directed at Bush. Called him deserter, AWOL, coward, shirker, chickenhawk, etc.

And now these same persons are probably amazed when the Bush team fights back. Well, you don't do stuff like that. Call persons running for high office names and then expect them not to fight back. They will fight back, and sometimes will fight back dirty too. Don't be surprised when it happens.

And all this criticism of Bush about being a deserter, AWOL, etc., may be just an example of people who do just not understand how things work in the reserve or in the National Guard.

The National Guard for instance, is in peace-time a semi-autonomous entity that has to an extent it's own regulations, policies, procedures, etc.

It could very well be that pertinent records of Bush have just been destroyed [weeded] as a normal procedure. Records that were no longer germane to service and not worth keeping in files forever and ever [I have personally seen this done. What is supposed to occur is that records are "weeded, a copy is supposed to be given to the person whose file is being "weeded". Quite often this does not happen].

And it may be that a five month absence is not unusual. A lot of discretion is given to commanders of units in Guard and Reserve units as to attendance of individual troops. To try to produce dental records, or pay stubs, or whatever, is an effort in futility. You will never satisfy your critics, they do not want to be satisfied.

Keep this in mind about Bush's military records too.

As Craig has said, flying the F-102 was not an easy task. Being a military pilot is not an easy task period. Bush had to have done a lot of active duty service just to learn to fly period. This does not include the time spent preparing for duty as a combat pilot. It may have been Bush spent more time on active duty just training as a pilot than Kerry spent as a naval combat commander!

And most important of all, we have A CURRENT WAR WE ARE FIGHTING THAT CANNOT BE LOST!

There are many more important issues beyond the war that also need attention. Everyone know this. Diverting attention from the current issues and the war is just bad politics and bad for everyone. We as a society must attend to issues at hand and deal with them. And find the man best suited to handle them. And this is not done by dredging up old news that this not pertinent from thirty or more years ago.

To those persons that are engaging in this "war record" negative advertising, remember, "Don't use immoral means to achieve moral ends" [Warren G. Harding].

coolbert.