Yes, I have read all the Kerry in Vietnam bashing here. What I do not understand is how Bush, by not even showing up, has demonstrated better leadership. It is a point that is noticeably missing in the discussion.
Again, where are the Bush's military (service) record is better than Kerry's because... post's?
Unless I have been misreading things, most of this thread is just bashing Kerry for having served in a war. Of course, war is ugly, and what happens during a war is up to the victors to describe. In Vietnam, however, nothing has ever been described as clearly victorious, and 40 years later, the participants do not agree what happened. Had the U.S. been successful in that war, I am certain that Pres. Bush’s service (lack of) would have eliminated him from contention for the office, which he currently serves. |
