chalu, last paragraph first. The term "front lines" belongs to the ground pounders, in that they are on a line of either offense, or defense, and in most cases are looking at the enemy in the flesh, instead of at 12-25,000 feet. They can see each other's faces on many occasions. Any air action, not including air to air combat, while having a certain element of danger, is not the same as warrior against warrior. The air to air phase of the Viet Nam war,was very early and very brief. From then on it was air strikes against ground installations of a stubborn, and crafty enemy but, with less sophisticated hardware than we had. As I said, I deeply respect any person who engages in combat for the US. The fact that it was a stupid, and overly costly, war not withstanding, the individual combat person should have been hailed as a hero instead of being so maltreated by the American public. After all, it was a politicians' war with no evident intention of winning.
Now, to the crux of the matter. It may become neccessary for me to vote for McCain in November, and I want to know why I should for some reason other than a war record. What, and where, has he shown leadership qualities? Where, and how, has he exhibited this common sense you talk bout? Outburst of temper, and failure to be aware of, or indecision about, his wife's drug connection, are disappointing. I have not seen his voting record, and would appreciate knowing where to easily find it somewhere other that his website, or other controlled source.
Reagan was a most unusual, pleasant surprise, as President. He learned a good portion of his conservative thinking from Goldwater who, had LBJ not used such vindictive campaign practices, probably would have been president, and changed politics, and the American image greatly. Other than him, winners from "outside the establishment" have been disappointing. Carter was, and is, a good human being, but was a totally ineffective president. Even Eisenhower, was pretty good but, relatively ineffective. Then the worst of all, we have had 7 years of degradation of the office of the president, and are ridiculed by most, if not all, of the rest of the world.
If it proves out that GW is a pawn of the Republican establishment, that has not slapped Clinton around as they should, instead of biased reporting, then I will have to consider rethinking my position. That is not a pleasant outlook. Not like I am stubborn, or anything. ~H~ |
