It's hard for me to understand such one-sided antipathy for a man who served honorably in the military. He put his life on the line, which is a damn sight more than GWB did.

Tom, the purpose of comments is for debate. There can be no one-sided debate. Thanks for starting this one.

No antipathy, it's just that Kerry is the only known example of an American military commander abandoning his troops in time of war. Few Americans are aware of this. Benedict Arnold was also heroic prior to comitting treason.

By the way, are you saying that piloting military aircraft isn't inherently dangerous?

Answer required before proceeding. Careful here...

Granted, piloting (or even riding in) a military aircraft is dangerous. Flying domestic in the Air National Guard during the Vietnam War exposed one to considerably less danger than going to Vietnam, however. Many would see the opportunity to avoid combat AND getting to fly high performance aircraft as a win-win situation.

Your point about the carelessness over "AWOL" and "desertion" charges is well-taken, but I think we can agree that one can stay out of trouble and collect an Honorable Discharge in many different ways, not all of them honorable.

As for being "the only known example of an American military commander abandoning his troops in time of war," what are you talking about?

Dan, did you catch the quotes (from Kerry) in the "Forgive?" thread?

"I didn't really want to get involved in the war," the Globe cites Mr. Kerry saying in a 1986 book about Vietnam. "When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to do."

Yep. That's putting your life on the line, all right.

The man spent only 4 months in-country (if you want to include service in the electrical department of a missle frigate as in-country)! He got three scratches, then bugged out as soon as he could, using those three scratches as an excuse.

Me, I normally wouldn't be too hard on a record like this, but from day one of his campaign, Kerry (who, by the way, served in Vietnam) has been pushing his "war veteran" status into the public eye, with the enthusiastic cooperation of the media.

He wants to spotlight his record? Fine. But he better be able to stand up under the glare, amigo.

What he did was game the system so he could get his ticket punched the same way Kennedy did, and come back a "war hero," then get elected. Which plan, by the way, went by the wayside for 20 years after he encountered the political climate in 1969. So he publicly threw (what turned out NOT to be his) medals away to curry political favor instead, and literally accused his fellow veterans of war crimes.

Are there any other questions?

Great point, Casey. Also a great point from Tom:

what are you talking about?

we're talking about the fact that 68% of Americans think John Kerry did his duty for his country in Vietnam but only 49% know what he did in Vietnam.

He curtailed a one-year tour at after 3 months of duty (Dec-Mar). He left with three purple hearts for three scratches.

Might be okay for some but Kerry had command. Thus the only American commander to abandon his troops in time of war. ( Although the Iraqi commanders abandoned their troops in Desert Storm.)

And yea, Casey, I think we'd all let him live with his shame but the Democratic sleaze machine wants to call him a hero, and nobody in the media is going to call them on it. Word will get out because of sites like this one.

Spread the word.

Thanks for answering my question. It seems we could partition voters in three groups, let's call them left, right and center. You all are on the right, I'm on the left; we're not going to change that. The election is going to be decided by the center, some of whom served, most of whom didn't.

In this analysis of the candidates' military service, it seems the left/right discussion is colored by our politics. I don't see much desire here to weigh the facts, but rather a desire to select those that support previous conclusions. Vietnam was about as divisive a war as we've had. Clinton dodged military service completely, Bush got a good ol' boy pass into the ANG and Kerry got his "ticket punched" as safely as he could (by the analysis I read here). None of these compare with the less-privileged who served full terms without fame, who sacrificed limbs, lives or the chance for an untroubled life.

Of the two current candidates, it seems clear to me that Kerry's service had significantly greater risk, and honor. George W. Bush has matured and gained honorable qualities, but his "early days" are documented well enough that trying to put a gloss on his time in the Texas ANG seems like a desperate partisan exercise.

When Kerry came home, he protested against the war, as did other veterans, and many more who did not serve. Our ability -- our right -- to question military actions of our government is one of the things that makes this country worth fighting for. If you disagree with the stance he took, it's "abandoning the troops." If you agree with it, he was doing what he could to stop an unjust war and save more lives, on both sides.

But that was then, this is now.

The more salient questions are about our future. As so eloquently expressed in the essays on this site, our country has been attacked, and our focus on defense is extremely important. The response to 9/11 in the first months was measured, focused, and arguably effective. It seems unfortunate that a pre-determined agenda against Hussein's regime in Iraq distracted us from the "war on terror."

There is a huge difference between the honorable and patriotic support of our military, and the acceptance of all missions they are sent on by politicians as honorable. Strategically, I'm afraid that our adventure into Iraq is a collossal blunder. We were not prepared to deal with an ongoing insurgency, we let ourselves be misled by the INC and now we our resources and our people are being pushed to the limit, even as other threats in the world fester. If we'd directed our "nation-building" at Afghanistan, I think we'd be in a much stronger position: militarily, economically, and in creating an international coalition against terrorism.

Tom you seem reasonable. (Some folks show up here and defend Saddam, you are far from that sort) but you'll have a hard time convincing military guys that they

1. Weren't prepared for Iraq, bwefore or after the end of major hostilities - we were.

2. Kerry was honorable in service - no, he was the only American to abandon his command. Can't be glossed over.

3. Kerry saved lives by protesting - no, he prolonged the war. All protestors did. That's according to the North Vietnamese.

And if you want to say "the military is stretched" then the only way to finish that sentance is to say "so we must pull out of Bosnia and Kosovo now."

I could go on, but I'll let others have a shot.

But I'll add that America is nowhere near total war (think WWII) yet in the war on terror. And though it may never occur to you to join up and fight, it will to many others should the need arise.

Patriots, if you will, in the true sense of the word.

Its all about the oil-for-food Tom. We know whats going on.

Nice try though.

And Tom, we're neither left nor right - we're military. This is a military point of view.

We defend all. We don't fit that mold.

Tom, thank you for an intelligent answer. I have to say it's rather refreshing to hear from someone who can disagree without wearing a tinfoil hat. :)

Just to get it out of the way, I'm not "right wing." It just so happens that I disagree with Bush, and much of the conservative/GOP less than I disagree with the liberal/DNC. I am more or less a Federalist. You don't find many of us these days. :)

I noticed that you have backed away from your earlier statement that "[Kerry] put his life on the line." I'm glad to see that you (apparently) agree that that was not the case after all.

Your claim that "Kerry's service had significantly greater risk" is statistically weak. You can find summaries of Vietnam casualties at http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/CASUALTY/vietnam.pdf. Please note that total hostile deaths for the U.S. Navy is 1,628. Note that this does not include non-hostile deaths. Total wounded -not mortal- is 4,178.

Note that the Navy had the lowest casualty rate of any service in Vietnam. Also note that U.S. Army non-hostile deaths are over 4 times the Navy hostile deaths.

I had trouble finding specifics on F-102 accident rates. Aside from comments from men who flew the Dagger, I found this: http://www.milblog.org/MTA/archives/000827.html
"The F-104 was sort of like owning the sharpest knife in the world. It was an honest airplane; you knew what was going on all the time. but like using a sharp knife, you better not make any mistakes. it did not suffer fools at all. The engine-out landing pattern was wild; 15,000 and 260 over the runway and one turn, 240 KIAS over the threshold. Drop the gear by the emergency release during the flare! Rate of descent stabilized with gear down, engine off, at 240KIAS was about 11,000FPM. No slack there. The bird got a bad rep during its infancy - in the USAF about a third of them were lost to engine failure before GE got the bugs out of it. In the Luftwaffe a lot of accidents were due to a combination of green pilots, poor maintenance and lousy (normal) European wx. With 4 tanks - fairly common LW configuration - the liftoff speed is around 215 KIAS. On an 8000 foot runway there is NO slack at all."

Note that this refers to the F-104 Starfighter, not the F-102, but the Dagger was nearly as dangerous. I did find: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1989/KJJ.htm
which said that losses for the F-102 for the first 90,000 hours was 27, while losses after 213,000 hours was 38. Comparable numbers for the F-104 were 43, and 88.

I also found: http://www.milblog.org/MTA/archives/000816.html, wherein a veteran wrote
"[Bush] flew an aircraft that had a 1 in 5 chance of killing him over a 10 year period."

1/5 ten years

Blast it! That's what I get for hitting "Post" insted of "Preview."

Then the browser ate my follow-up. Aack.

Conclusion: I think that Dennis had it right: this is a division between military, and non-military; or at least those who just don't understand how things military work.

Ok, if the dimension at hand is military / non-military, I'll acknowledge being the latter, and attempt to respond to some of the points raised.

Iraq preparation: it seems an awkward fit, at best, to have a military fighting force serve as police in a foreign country. I mean no criticism of military preparedness, but rather that the administration leaders did not anticipate the needs beyond a successful Blitzkrieg. Looting, attacks on infrastructure, insurgency, that sort of thing. The rational thing for Iraqis to do would have been to welcome the US and coalition forces as liberators, but war has a way of messing with rationality. Imagine how we'd respond to foreign powers attacking the US to depose a corrupt and despotic regime.

"The only commander to abandon his troops" -- I'm still not buying that, I'm sorry. Accepting the facts as laid out here does not support that charge, any more than Bush's glide through the ANG supports a charge of desertion.

"Its all about the oil-for-food Tom. We know whats going on." Hmm, I guess I don't. What does this mean, exactly?

"...you have backed away from your earlier statement that '[Kerry] put his life on the line.'" Again, I don't understand this. The facts referenced on this site that are undisputed show him in the theater of war, wounded by shrapnel, the enemy shooting at him and so on. That he chose to take the administrative exit offered for someone with 3 Purple Hearts does not strike me as cowardice. I don't know where my own breaking point is, and can't guess where it is for anyone else. I won't dispute there are greater heroes in our history and our present-day military. We've seen measures of both candidates responses under fire, and both can be criticized. (I'd be interested in your military responses to http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html, for example.)

The statistics of relative risk are an interesting analytic pursuit, but they don't tell us much about character or honor. We all drive cars and don't give much thought to the risk involved; no one treats it as heroism. Would I rather skipper a patrol boat in Vietnam or fly an F-102 for occasional sorties over Texas? I'm pretty sure I'd take the latter. Up until the last one broke up on re-entry, I would've taken a seat on the shuttle without hesitation. I'd probably still do it, but I know my palms would sweat a lot more now.

Point of note

If that was then and this is now, then why worry about Bushs service?

In either event he served his full tenure while carry bailed after 4 motnhs then turned around and began protesting as well as be littling all the mud sloggers still in service overseas.

Bush never criticised his fellow soldiers.

Thats enough for me right there.