BRH

McCain's heart wasn't in it. Looked like the whole thing was a trip to the dentist for him. Rudy yammered on forever. He didn't finish until 11:20 and he had plenty of opportunities to close on high notes. Basically as far as I can tell the argument is that we should re-elect George Bush because we were attacked on 9/11. There were fewer words about domestic policy in tonight's speeches than there were George Bush sightings in Alabama in the 1970s. Negative, negative, negative. Attack Kerry, attack Kerry, attack Kerry. McCain even took a gratuitous shot at Michael Moore and liked the response so much he said it again. No plan for the future. And how about Giuliani's craven "when I saw the towers fall, I said without thinking, 'Thank God George Bush is our president'" comment. Yeah Rudy, I was saying that too when I was watching people jump to their deaths. Oh you said it without thinking -- that makes more sense. Well, at least you weren't struck mute like the guy you were thanking God was your president... This is the best they got? Whoop de damn doo.

Well and good. But certainly, given the panoply of options available to a Yale graduate in 1966 (or 1968, as the case may be), volunteering for Swift Boat duty had to be pretty high on the dangerousness list. I've seen estimates that the casualty rate for Swift Boats in riverine operations was around 75%. One link Of course, the point above was that Kerry didn't exactly volunteer for riverine ops; the plan changed after he volunteered. But if George Bush can deflect criticism of his Guard service by saying "If my unit had been called, I would have gone," then certainly John Kerry can take credit for the danger he faced in Vietnam, whether or not he initially expected that danger.

Of course, Clinton is the only Democratic presidential candidate since 1968 -- a period covering eight presidential elections -- who did not serve in the military. Even Mondale and Dukakis served tours in the Army, Carter served in the Navy (and was a USNA grad), and George McGovern flew the maximum of 35 Liberator missions in WWII.

And by the Republicans.

"Oxymoron" wasn't the word that came immediately to mind. But it was close.

It was July 1932. Hoover ordered the eviction of the protesting veterans from the Mall by federal troops led by none other than Douglas MacArthur. link

Now we just sit back and wait for the shouts of "lemming" and "put down the Kool-Aid" and "cut and paste from DNC talking points" ad infinitum, ad nauseam. You know, instead of a debate on the issues.

Can I get a link on that stat, because Google's not giving anything up. Sounds a bit fishy to me.

You know, Herbert Hoover had a lot more experience in dealing with the national economy at hand in 1932 than Franklin Roosevelt did. Good thing the electorate didn't base its decision on that factor.

Christ almighty. I suppose he could have signed up for something really dangerous, like defending the skies over Lubbock.

By your logic, every incumbent president deserves to be re-elected because he's had four years' more experience in the job than the other guy.

Edwards was born on June 10, 1953. His draft lottery number (as determined on 2/2/72 for all men born in 1953) was 178, but no new draft orders were issued after 1972. See here. So, although Edwards's age cohort did have a draft lottery, nobody born in 1972 received draft orders -- and even if they had, 178 was probably high enough that he wasn't going to serve anyway, even if he didn't go to college (which he did). I'm just posting this in case some yahoo here decides that John Edwards dodged the draft or something ludicrous like that.

The National Guard of today is quite a bit different from the National Guard of 1968. We had a draft back then, remember ("there was one?") and those were the people who went to Vietnam. Some Guard units got called up to Vietnam, but not many. Neither of the units to which Bush was assigned was called up, and even if they were, he wasn't trained on any aircraft that were actually being used in Vietnam. I don't know the numbers offhand but I'll bet my house that members of the National Guard of 2003-04 have spent more days in-country than those who served in the National Guard between 1957-75.

Well, he certainly didn't learn from stuff like this.

Some interesting reading here.

And good morning to you too. What's a squirral, anyway?

Hey. I don't watch Oprah.

Eisenhower wasn't a huge war hero? But you're right about Grant's presidency.

I thought so. I'm just hoping Bush's service record gives the same or more pause to those who served more.

Ditto here, and maybe that's why I respect it more than do those who served more than he did.

Damn! Stole my line.

Now he didn't even serve his country, according to you. You guys have got to be kidding me.

You know this for a fact, then?

They have backed away from the timing of his searing memory but not from the searing memory itself.

In a vacuum, your points have some validity. I think the reason your argument isn't stronger is that, by any measure, when John Kerry's service to this nation during Vietnam is stacked up against George W. Bush's, there is absolutely no contest at all. So Kerry came home from Vietnam after four months of combat. Not only did George Bush not set foot outside this country, he got a transfer to another state's Guard so he could work on a political campaign, then missed his flight physical, then didn't show up for drills, and finally was released early so he could go to business school. And while Kerry has produced several witnesses who attest not only to his presence but his bravery in Vietnam, Bush has yet to produce one credible witness who can attest to his PRESENCE at drills in Alabama. Who can be fairly said to have done his duty? Certainly not Bush. If Bush had done a full year's combat tour in Vietnam, don't you think his supporters would be on a teeny bit stronger ground criticizing Kerry's four months there? With regard to Kerry's anti-war activities, I think the majority of this country today thinks our involvement in Vietnam was a mistake and needlessly wasted the lives of over 57,000 Americans. It's unfortunate and tragic that the civilian portion of the anti-war movement included the returning soldiers in its wrath. Most of the returning veterans who were against the war -- including John Kerry -- did not do this. The Winter Soldier Investigation and Kerry's subsequent testimony to the Senate FRC were intended to expose the wrongheaded policies that our government was forcing the troops to effectuate in Vietnam, not as an indictment of the troops themselves. I disagree that he "assaulted the honor and dignity of those he had abandoned." His target clearly was the government that put them in such an untenable situation. I.e., I do understand the rage of the veterans who think Kerry was attacking them. Some of them -- many of them, maybe -- didn't participate in such "atrocities." Others probably did, but feel that Kerry violated some code by reporting it -- and maybe they just didn't want to be reminded of it. Whatever the reason, I understand their anger. But that is no reason to do what they have done in 2004, which is to spread lies and other baseless smears across the factual record of John Kerry's service in combat.