people want their leaders to be consistent.

They aren't. Certainly not over 30 years. I imagine I'll think quite differently in 30 years.

Rob

Why does anyone care, to the extent we are seeing today, what either of these guys did 30 odd years ago during the Vietnam war? You can either choose to believe that both these gentlemen served their country by performing military service honorably. Or, you can believe that GWB was AWOL and Kerry was a screw-up and lied about his wounds in Vietnam. Or, you can believe that one of them is pure as the driven snow and the other is satan--where their military service is involved. The point is, in the grand scheme of things, this simply should not matter--except as a very minor footnote to either of these guys' qualifications to be President of the United States.

Curt - awesome point - and then there's more useless drivel from the press:

"Dole added: "And here's, you know, a good guy, a good friend. I respect his record. But three Purple Hearts and never bled that I know of. I mean, they're all superficial wounds. Three Purple Hearts and you're out."

"Senator Kerry carries shrapnel in his thigh as distinct from President Bush who carries two fillings in his teeth from his service in the Alabama National Guard, which seems to be his only time that he showed up," John Podesta, former chief of staff in the Clinton White House, said on ABC's "This Week." - CNN.com

I'd almost understand the obsession with the past if there was nothing to talk about right now in the present - or if all of our problems were already solved - but how do we instigate the system to reconfigure itself so that we can debate and evaluate qualified candidates that will actually pursue a forward-moving agenda? Or are we true victims of a two-party system??

If their best example of their leadership abilities comes from their service in the military 30+ years ago--something is really wrong here.

Curt

I personally do not see anything coming from either of these guys that leads me to believe they have even the slightest clue of what needs to be done.

Hussein is gone and his two sons are dead. 3/4's of Al Queida's leadership is dead. Bin Laden is either dead or in hiding. Libya admitted to a nuclear program and volunteered to dismantle it. My taxes are lower. I could go on but I'll stop there for now.

In light of the above Curt, how can you say that Bush doesn't have a clue what needs to be done?

1) Going to war with Iraq was a mistake--financially, strategically and militarily.

2) We are running $500 billion annual budget deficits.

3) Most of our strongest former allies hate us.

4) I am willing to bet Al Queda is just as strong as it ever was.

5) Libya would likely have made the same decision anyway.

Now, back on subject...

Their military records per se should not matter, but their credibility and attitude towards fellow soldiers should and on this Kerry falls flat on his face. If Kerry had been a total bum in the military and admitted it and didn't embellish stories, etc. it would not be a point.

Kerry himself is making his 4 1/2 months in Vietnam the central part of his campaign and therefore it is fair game for the election debate. If he hadn't made such a big deal of it I will bet the Republicans wouldn't either to the extent that they have.

You can either choose to believe that both these gentlemen served their country by performing military service honorably. Or, you can believe that GWB was AWOL and Kerry was a screw-up and lied about his wounds in Vietnam. Or, you can believe that one of them is pure as the driven snow and the other is satan

You fail to mention the obvious choice of simply ignoring the smear merchants and observing the matters of public record. Bush made use of family influence to join the National Guard in order to avoid the Vietnam War, and had issues with even showing up. Kerry volunteered to serve, received exemplary performance reports, and was highly decorated for his service. He also returned home and became active in the movement against the Vietnam war.

I could care less about Bush's undistinguished record. There is nothing in his history that could overshadow his abysmal performance in office. Kerry's exemplary record and the moral fortitude he showed in volunteering, and in demonstrating against the war on his return uniquely qualifies him for the task of cleaning up the mess Bush has made of our foreign policy.

Possessing moral fortitude does not imply that one is pure, nor does the lack of it imply that one is satan. But you know that, and rather than admit the obvious you try to cast it as hyperbole. Dishonesty is always a sign of a flimsy argument.

There is little signal and much noise over this particular issue

Agreed on only that point. Which is why it makes sense to ignore the blatant smear campaigns and stick to matters of public record. This is the first time I have heard someone assert that Bush displayed moral fortitude during the Vietnam War. Do you have any reason to think that?

Do you think it requires a certain degree of moral fortitude to fly fighter aircraft for your country?

Whether or not Kerry posessed moral fortitude is exactly what is being questioned.