BLACKPOWER":36lmu8mi said:
SPRINGER FARMS MURRAY GRE":36lmu8mi said:
BLACKPOWER":36lmu8mi said:
Dave":36lmu8mi said:
I was wondering the same thing. All my friends who were sent over there spent 12 to 14 months per tour. I have read where Kerry spent 4 months in country. I have never seen anything about two tours.
If serving in 'Nam is a requirement for being President why was Clinton in office for 8 years? He wasn't even in the National Guard.
Kerry is the one who brought it up that his service qualifies him as a leader. There were thousands of Lieutenants who served in 'Nam. Does that make them qualified to lead the country? How about 19 years in the Senate and only pass two bill where he was the prime sponsor? Does this qualify him to lead? I am not Bush's greatest fan but I don't see where Kerry is in the slightest way qualified. If the people in Mass. were paying attention to him and his record they would have elected someone else to the Senate years ago.
Dave
You guys are impossible. I vote independently, on the guys character, I have not endorsed one guy or the other, I do take offense to people making a mockery of Kerry's service record. For christ sake the man went into combat, shot people and what shot at. Whether or not the man a (D) or an (R) in front of his name is irrelevant. Why do you so vehemently insist on questioning and tearing down Kerry's war record? Could it be because your party is trying to draw attention away from Bush's record (or lack thereof)? I find it petty, shocking and sickening that a man who laid his life on the line for his country should have to defend his military record against a man who was AWOL for duty 8,000 miles away from the front lines.
Bush has never said anything about Kerry's service accept that Kerry's service was more honorable than his own because Kerry went into battle. Bush has questioned Kerry's senate voting record which is good indicator as to where Kerry stands.
Kerry voted for the war.
Kerry then stated that he was against the war.
Then stated he never even read the one page intelligence briefing before voting for the war (now that's leadership).
Then he stated that he would have voted for the war even if he had known there were no WMDs.
Now he is saying that it was the wrong war at the wrong time and in the wrong place.
And just a couple of days ago stated that the war in Iraq was part of the war on terrorism.
Some people are against the war in Iraq and that's fine. I personal agree with it. Iraq will be a democracy. Libia gave up its WMDs the day after Hussein was pulled out of his hole. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are now rounding up terrorist. And the terrorist are fighting our armed soldiers off American soil instead of killing our defenseless unsuspecting children, women, and men here at home.
I agree that Bush is spending way too much. There has been a 50% increase in education spending in the last 3 years (a much bigger increase than all eight years of Clinton nothing to be proud of). Throwing money at a problem is not the solution. I would love to see vouchers brought up again. Nothing causes an improvement in a product like having to compete for the dollars that are available.
Love the tax cuts. Nothing spurs on investing, spending, and jobs like money in the hands of the people who are willing to work and improve themselves. Ever recieved a raise to only to bring home less money. My Father has and I bet you at least know of someone. There should not be a penalty for working hard and earning a raise.