If service in Viet Nam is the only qualification to be president, and Bush, Cheney and others are unqualified because they didn't go and put their lives in danger and get shot at, then Why did Bill Clinton ever get elected. Unlike others who were honest enough to avoid service by finding other LEGITIMATE ways to occupy their time or do some service to the country in other ways, Clinton, as I recall Signed up for ROTC when he thought he was going to be subject to the draft. He was intent to USE that as his out for the draft. Then, when he learned that he didn't need the Deferment(?) he sent a letter stating that he loathed the military and was choosing NOT to keep the comittment to ROTC that he had previously intended to use. When it was to his benefit he was intent to seek it's shelter and security. When he didn't need it he completely cast it asside.

For what it is worth, at least Bush joined the National Guard and fulfilled his obligation. Now, I know some whould say the gap in his service says that he didn't keep that comittment. Until someone can produce the evidance of that, I still contend he did more service and more honorably than Bill Clinton did. Documents will show that he didn't serve. Lack of documents don't show anything. Reason is that documents can be lost, misfiled, accidentally destroyed, stored in a location where there was a fire, flood or other disaster and may no longer exist. They could have been lost during a transfer of documents from one location to another. They may still exhist in files in a location other than where they are expected. Boxes of old documents are lost and found all the time. There is also a possibility, as I read somewhere just this morning, that the files in question were never filed in the first place. It was said in the story I read that of 5 documents that are specifically being requested, some were at the discretion of the supervising officers and in the NG at the time were often never even filed. So, if the country can see past Bill Clinton's lack of service I don't understand why this issue with Bush, Cheney or others is of any issue. While I may not have been a big Dole fan, based on the comparison between Kerry and Bush on the Viet Nam issue, Bob Dole was a bonofied hero and Bill Clinton was the coward. We should have had a President Dole.

I don't hold anything against Kerry for his service. I do think though that the words of so many people who are willing to put their faces and names and reputations on the line for their convictions is something that can't be ignored. I would like to see Kerry directly address the issues.

Actually, I would like to see everyone put this whole Viet Nam thing to rest. It is IRRELEVENT in my decisions as to who to vote for. However, Kerry started his speech at the convention, "Reporting for Duty" or something like that. The whole campaign has been centered around his service, his Purple Hearts and Bronze and Silver Stars. He has chosen to put all this as the Number 1 accomplishment on his resume. Therefore, when people raise issues that his record may be embellished or that After Incident Reports may have been exagerated or carefully worded for better advantage which resulted in awards for incidents that might not have been deserving, I think those issues need to be addressed directly.

I don't have any doubt that he saved the persons life that he did. He deserves commendation and his medal for that. However, so many people have said that the fire that was reported at that incident was OUTGOING and not incoming and that the absense of damage on the boats and absense of other injuries were inconsistent with a rescue mission that took place over such a long period of time in a narrow river if the enemy was firing from shore at them. It has been said that the damages that did occour were caused by the explosion of the original mine.

So, it is a legitimate issue because the Kerry campaign chose to run on that as THE qualification of Kerry and that Bush is thus Unqualified. Until they address these issues DIRECTLY, I am afraid there will be some suspicion of the validity of the Swift Boat Veterans charges.

I really wish everyone could be consistant and admit that when Bill Clinton was running and Viet Nam Service was raised as the qualification card. It was determined that the issue was not valid. His lack of service should not have dissqualified him. So, why should it dissqualify Bush? Either it isn't an issue now as it wasn't then, or John Kerry should be president and Bill Clinton should have never been elected.

Then there is the whole Post Viet Nam generation of people who, based on this logic, will not be qualified to be elected to public office because they didn't choose to join the VOLUNTEER military. I, for one, was in grade school when Viet Nam ended. I never served in the military as I was fortunate enough to grow up in a relatively peaceful time where my service wasn't demanded or required. By the time that service was needed, I was too old to serve anyways. Besides, when I intended to join ROTC in College my doctors advised against it and told me I, probably, would not have passed the physicals due to medical issues including hearing loss... I went to school at a Military Academy (Army JROTC) through High School and really would have liked to join ROTC and then the military. I wanted to join the airforce but was told that Jet Engines would likely cause me to become deaf due to existing nerve damage. The Army would have been the same story with Infantry etc. I also had some interest in the Navy but there wasn't a NROTC program where I was in school. So, I went on without serving. I guess that disqualifies me from ever holding elected office. Not that I really have any intentions of it. I just think of all the fine people that I know who NEVER served in the military and the contributions they could give to our country. Or the many who served in the National Guard and are some sort of second class citizens because of it. It is sad to think that they are not welcome to contribute to our society because they never served in Viet Nam or in the military and were never shot in a war zone or don't have a piece of shrapnel in their leg.