It never hurts to be informed. That should be the first thing one does before forming an opinion.
I'm a disabled vet. I served in the Navy before a lot of you were even born. As far as I'm concerned, the worst person to be commander in chief is a chicken hawk like Bush, who used his father's influence to avoid service in Vietnam, then avoided most of that "cush" berth too after he was grounded from flying for failing to achieve a required physical (public record here, folks, available for anyone to see). After being refused a transfer to Alabama twice, to a unit which didn't have the type of planes he was trained to fly, they finally granted the transfer after he'd ALREADY moved to Alabama anyway. No one at the base remembers seeing him, including both the CO and XO of the unit. His pay records reflect the fact that he was unpaid for that period. At no time after that did he ever regain flight status, after the first grounding, and despite having wasted thousands of taxpayer dollars to train him. Most notable during his supposed Alabama service was the fact that he went on an arranged date with President Nixon's daughter, and they sent the presidential chopper to pick him up (again public info, readily available to anyone with the guts to look). Again, no one else in the unit recalls this incident occuring on base - which is where he should have been. I'm pretty sure I'd remember if the president's helicopter came to my duty station. Who knows where Bush was actually picked up at the time? No one from the Alabama Guard unit, that's for sure. Where does Bush go next? He's transferred to an administrative unit based out of Denver, Colorado. Why? To make up lost time from his missing days, as required at the time. He never shows up in Denver for his administrative duty, either. He is, instead, already enrolled at Harvard Business School, and asks for an early discharge to attend school - after the fact. It is granted. No reason given for why. Here's a man, supposed to be serving make-up time for AWOL periods at an administrative unit which is known for just that purpose; and instead he's given an honorable discharge never having made up his AWOL time at all, as required by military rules at the time. Why? Hmmm, maybe because the most political of all military units is the National Guard? That is, of course, why it was famous during Vietnam for being the hiding place of the rich and powerful. Is it because daddy was at the time, first a U.S. Representative from Texas and then later the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N and a Special Envoy to China? Is it because Nixon was trying to marry W off to his daughter?
What does an experience like that do to someone who later in life wants to portray himself as being pro-military and gung-ho? I'd say it makes him dangerously gung-ho. It leads to severe cognitive dissonance. It leads to chest-thumping, jingoistic behavior that gets good people killed simply because they chose to actually serve.
Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather have someone who actually served his country rather than someone who avoided serving it. Because of that, I didn't support Clinton; and I'm not about to support Bush. And I'm not the only vet who thinks the same way -
http://www.vetsforkerry.com And if you really wish to educate yourselves about some of the truly horrific things that Bush is doing to the military and to veterans via his unfunded broken promises and under the table program cuts to support his tax cuts for himself and his rich buddies, like Cheney, then I suggest you visit the following sites:
http://www.vva.orghttp://www.vfw.org
