=20[GCFL-discuss]=20President=20Bush=20Visits=20?= Supporters at the Home...

[gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net]

well said matthew
i totally agree with you. 
-Layne 
 
 
In a message dated 8/2/2004 11:48:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time,  
gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net writes:


>  I suppose we are all jerks now and then, but politicians are all jerks
>  now and then in public. I don't think jerk sums up John Kerry's  strengths
> and weaknesses very well. I do think we would be better off  with a
> commander in chief who has been in combat, who knows what  troops face in
> combat, whose leadership under fire was respected by  those who served
> under him, and who had the courage to come home,  after serving honorably
> in the military, to join other veterans in  saying, this war did not merit
> the sacrifices our fallen comrades were  called upon to make. That would
> make me feel a lot safer.
>  
> Siarlys

So I suppose serving only 4 months out of a normal 12  month period in
vietnam is better than nothing.  I guess it wouldn't  matter that it
was only 4 months because of some wound so minor that Kerry  had to
appeal to even get the purple heart, when so many would simply put  a
band-aid on a wound that small and call it a good day and get on  with
things.

Bush is certainly not ignorant to the needs of the  military. 
Throughout, there have been clearly defined objectives and  fairly
minimal rules of engagement.    It seems to me that if  there had not
been a well defined plan throughout, the casualty count might  have
actually been considerably worse than that predicted by all  the
liberal media and naysayers, rather than *considerably*  lower
(somewhere right around 1000 since we have been over there rather  than
the liberal media's claims that there would be over 5000  dead
coalition forces within 24 hours of entering).  It seems to me  that
there are an aweful lot of people choosing to look at two wars  started
and handled well by Bush and completely ignoring the 40+ times  the
military was employed by Clinton, including some of the worst  run
operations ever - Somalia, Mogadishu, and numerous others.

The  reality, however, is that a military record is only a minor piece
of the  list of things to consider.  A much larger issue is stance on
the  issues - something which Kerry seems to be rather inconsistant on.
After  all, Kerry voted *for* the war in Iraq.  But then, shortly into
the  war, switches sides with a bunch of his liberal friends and claims
he never  supported such a horrible thing.  Kerry tries to be all
things to  everybody and, IMHO, that kind of person cannot be trusted
with  anything.

Anyway, enough politics for me for  tonight.
Matthew


 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://gcfl.net/pipermail/gcfl-discuss/attachments/20040803/abe7a00c/attachment.html