[richlevy]

Originally posted by mrnoodle
A nicely written, coherent response

But I can't agree on several key points in your argument. First of all, attacking Bush's service record is one thing. Degrading service in the National Guard is another thing altogether. And that's exactly what the liberals are doing, whether intentionally or not. There are Guardsmen getting shot at right now in Iraq, yet the liberal side wants to paint Guard service as some kind of 'military lite' for people afraid to get their hands dirty. That's just plain untrue and insulting.

I find a conflict in your arguments. First you defend Bush by stating that people opt out of Guard meetings all of the time, but that it is not 'military lite'. I agree that today's Guard is right in the middle of it all. And the sacrifice that these men are making, thanks to our current president, is inspiring and heartbreaking. But at the time Bush was in the Guard, it was a way to serve with no risk.

People opt out of Guard meetings all the time for various personal reasons, and it's never met with this kind of scrutiny.

That because 'people' don't singlehandedly start wars and overrun countries.

And as you said, Kerry's valor in combat, while admirable, doesn't equate to an ability to administrate the most powerful military force in the world. I think both sides are kind of missing the mark by even bringing up ANY of this. Kerry did what he was told, Bush did what he was told. Kerry was active duty, so that meant a different set of orders, hence a different outcome for the two.

But it does speak to character, the ability to make decisions under pressure, and the ability to manage situations when they begin to fall apart. You don't win silver and bronze starts for just doing what you're told. They are given for actions 'above and beyond' doing what you are told. I cannot even imagine Bush in the same situation as Kerry was in performing on the same level as Kerry.

As far as administrating the most powerful military force in the world, I think most objective views of the war in Iraq past the 'mission accomplished' point set by President Bush would note the lack of planning, supply, organization, etc.

Secondly, Reaganomics WAS GOOD ECONOMIC POLICY. I'm not going to back down on this.

While I admire your gumption, I have to disagree. Some deregulation may have been necessary, but throwing open the doors did not work in the long run. Reagan made a lot of money for some very influential people, which may be one reason they love him so much. However, his policies ignored the reality that enough monopolies and oligopolies existed that regulation was necessary for a fair market. The burnout at the end of the 80's was partly due to the market realizing that there were long term consequences to the short term gains.

You can't negotiate with someone who straps bombs to himself and runs into a shopping center screaming something about Allah. Bush's foreign policy is exactly what we need to remain safe.

You also can't bomb everyplace they might be or invade every country where you think they may be hiding. Bush is basically pointing his finger at almost every country in the middle east. But he's treating North Korea with kid gloves because they have nuclear weapons. This lesson is not lost on any country. GWB has done more to promote nuclear proliferation than Dr. Strangelove.

BTW, a few hours after I wrote my post about presidents who were veterans and Eisenhower, I heard a commentator bring up the same points.