Oh snap, this writer just nails it (War Service and who really did it.)

[TayTay]

Don't politicize service


July 11, 2006
Page: A11.0
Dateline: Ohio

To the editor of The Post:

I read with amusement Harold Vick's letter, "Bush, military deserve support" which ran recently in the Kentucky Post. To separate the grain from the chaff, the military does indeed deserve our support because they are an instrument of civilian authority and the national will of an informed electorate. However, that does not entitle the civilian authority to the same support when they misuse this instrument by lying and misleading the electorate into a war of choice and mismanaging the military by sending them into harm's way ill-prepared and with no plan for extricating them.

In a display of mental gymnastics rarely equaled on the pages of this newspaper, George Bush's antics in the National Guard back in the 1960s and 1970s and Dick Cheney's five deferments from military service are made to seem superior to the military service of men like Al Gore and John Kerry, both of whom served ably in real combat in real danger in a real war. Let a candid world judge the facts of these cases.

While both John Kerry and Al Gore served in the Vietnam War, neither George Bush nor Dick Cheney did. Both Gore and Kerry volunteered to serve in Vietnam while Bush through his father's connections was given a placement in the National Guard and Cheney received five deferments. John Kerry volunteered for Swift Boat duty in Vietnam, which is regarded as hazardous duty. George Bush volunteered to work on a senatorial campaign in Alabama, widely regarded as low risk, although his candidate lost. John Kerry was awarded a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. In contrast, Bush was penalized in the late 1960s for bad attendance, suspended from flying for failure to perform to USAF Texas Air National Guard standards and failure to meet the requirements of an annual physical examination. Finally, for a long period of time in 1973, George Bush was not observed at the base where he was stationed.

All of this begs two questions. Was Mr. Vick opposed to men such as Bill Clinton for not serving in Vietnam before he was for them in the cases of Bush and Cheney? Was Mr. Vick against "cut and run" in the case of Clinton before he was for it in the cases of Bush and Cheney? Inquiring minds would love to know.

As for Bush's educational achievements, he got to Yale as a legacy of his grandfather, Sen. Preston Bush, and his father, a distinguished alumnus who also served ably in World War II, George Herbert Walker Bush. One wonders whether his service will be held against him by Mr. Vick as Kerry's and Gore's were held against them. Had Bush's name merely been George Walker, the only way he would have gotten to Yale was on a tour bus.

As a "legacy" he spent much of his time there, by his own admission, drinking. After his illustrious academic career, he miserably failed in every business venture in which he was engaged, but was always bailed out by "Daddy's" deep pockets and those of his Arabian friends.

It's a sad state of affairs when men who served their country honorably in times of war at real peril to themselves can have their service denigrated in the name of petty partisanship. Men like Bush and Cheney love the military, but not the men who serve in it as soldiers. Look at the cuts they've made to veterans' benefits if you want proof of that.

Jeffrey Hampton

Morningview, Ky.

[sandnsea]

1. Wish we'd had a million of these in 2004

This is all that ever needed to be said in 2004, over and over again. This is backbone, the ability of every Democrat to think straight and the courage to stick to the main point no matter what kind of shit they throw back.