Ben Barnes: Partisan dig up or concerned supporter

[garnet]

Originally Posted by lookout123

the D's want to beat the shit out of Bush for a lot of reasons, but they keep going back to his ANG service. why, because it is easy. he was connected and got into a branch that was unlikely to go to vietnam, just like a lot of rich kids did. right or wrong it wasn't unusual......in the end, none of it really matters because these were the actions of young men from wealthy families, 30 + years ago. it is unreasonable to say they are fit or unfit for a leadership position in 2004 based on what they did in the late 60's and early 70's.

Hmmmm, it sure seemed like a big deal to the Republicans when Bill Clinton was guilty of the same "rich kid" offenses as George W. Bush. And to even compare the Vietnam service of Kerry and Bush is a joke--Kerry actually WENT to Vietnam. George didn't.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by garnet

Hmmmm, it sure seemed like a big deal to the Republicans when Bill Clinton was guilty of the same "rich kid" offenses as George W. Bush. And to even compare the Vietnam service of Kerry and Bush is a joke--Kerry actually WENT to Vietnam. George didn't.

what is your point garnet? that the republicans were asses in the '92 election? agreed. it is important to note that the '92 election pitted a vietnam era candidate against a WWII vet for the first time, so that is why it came to the forefront at the time. it was the last harrah for the WWII vets in the white house (nobody took dole seriously in '96, did they?). but it was ridiculous to worry about what an early 20 something did in the 70's then, as it is now.

[garnet]

Originally Posted by lookout123

what is your point garnet? that the republicans were asses in the '92 election? agreed. it is important to note that the '92 election pitted a vietnam era candidate against a WWII vet for the first time, so that is why it came to the forefront at the time. it was the last harrah for the WWII vets in the white house (nobody took dole seriously in '96, did they?). but it was ridiculous to worry about what an early 20 something did in the 70's then, as it is now.

I just think it's funny how you've got an excuse for the right wing no matter what they do. Very predictable. You call the the Republicans "asses" above and then turn around and give an explanation (excuse?) as to why what their dogging Clinton was acceptable as news fodder. Which is it? I can guarantee you that if the Vietnam records of Bush and Kerry were reversed you wouldn't be making the statement about how actions from 20-30 years ago don't matter.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by garnet

I just think it's funny how you've got an excuse for the right wing no matter what they do. Very predictable. You call the the Republicans "asses" above and then turn around and give an explanation (excuse?) as to why what their dogging Clinton was acceptable as news fodder. Which is it? I can guarantee you that if the Vietnam records of Bush and Kerry were reversed you wouldn't be making the statement about how actions from 20-30 years ago don't matter.

i wasn't making any excuses for reps in '92. i voted for clinton. and it wouldn't make any difference about the bush/kerry records being reversed. what happened 30 years ago is less important than what happens today. neither of them has an unblemished record from that time period, but what person lives through their 20's with nothing to be embarrassed of?