1. Clinton never tried to portray himself as a "war president". 2. We weren't at war during the 1992 and 1996 elections.
Not to mention, Clinton never criticized Bush41 or Dole's war records. He obviously has more respect for veterans than the current Republican leadership and their sheep.
I can't speak for anyone else, but for the umpteenth time I'm not disparaging his service. The question looms, though, about the legitimacy of his decorations. Would all of you stop pretending that there is not a distinction between the two things....
The only reason that "the question looms" is because the GOP attack machine has questioned that legitimacy. I was never aware that there was such a thing as a "legitimate" war wound and an illegitimate one. Kerry was wounded three times in battle while Bush "served" in Texas and Alabama. The GOP have no right whatsoever to question the "legitimacy" of Kerry's war wounds as their candidate chose NOT to serve in Vietnam and even left his "service" early so that he could work on a political campaign. ANY wound suffered in battle is a legitimate PH earner in my book.
there is a difference 1. Kerry (or Bush) controlled if they went to Vietnam (or not) 2. Kerry (or Bush) did NOT control medals awarded to him end of argument
Why does this fall on Kerry? He can't demand a purple heart. You get wounded, you get treated. Wounds are logged, if the people responsible for handing out PHs think it deserves one, they hand it out. What did Kerry do wrong? Was he supposed to leave the shrapnel in his arm and hope it didn't get infected?
Are you really so obtuse that you believe that GWB has to say it "himself" in order for it to have relevance?
I believe he is more of a patriot because he spilled his blood on the battlefield in defense of this country, yes. ALL soldiers who spill their blood on the battlefield are more patriotic than those of us who sit at home and watch the war on TV and in the newspapers.
the fact remains that the decision to award him a PH was not his and was dependant on doctors, commanding officers, etc the decision to go to Vietnam was John Kerry's, as was GWB and Cheney's decision not to go
Did he? Your entire premise for bringing this up hinges on Kerry having some control over whether he is awarded a Purple Heart.
So what is the premise? You can't give yourself a PH, you can't ask for one, you can't campaign for one (I, John Kerry, believe that I should be your next Purple Heart winner, remember, vote for my Purple Heart in 69'. Oh, and visit KerryforPurpleHeart69.com) So, if you are intellectually curious if John Kerry recieved a Purple Heart he shouldn't have gotten, shouldn't your focus be on the person or persons who gave it to him?
The premise is that there are those who got Purple Hearts because they had their legs blown off and there are those who got a purple heart because they got a deep scratch. If I were the latter, I don't think I'd be crowing about it. Stories suggest that Kerry's medals may, in part, belong to the latter group. What is wrong with knowing the truth about it? What are all of you so afraid of? If it's nothing; it's nothing. Let's out the story and move on or move in.
It's what he runs on because the Republicans make it an issue. They claim Bush is a more qualified Commander-in-Chief. I guess AWOL national guard chicken-hawks make good CiCs; they don't have to envision how all of those people will be dying in War.
