My retort to a repug RE: repug's contradictory views on military service

[Lerkfish]

something I posted to a repug on another board who was saying dems were inconsistent to vote for Kerry, and to vote for Clinton, who got a deferrement:

A final thought on this issue:

Republicans and Bush supporters: SINCE it is people of YOUR political persuasion that insist on service to god and country, and hate draft dodgers, it is a contradiction that YOU strain at the gnat of Kerry, who served, and yet SWALLOW the camel of Bush's noncombat and protected role.

For YOU it is inconsistent. However, for most liberals or nonrepublicans, we do not require military service to consider one capable of leading the country, so for us to support Kerry AND support Clinton (who attended college to get a defferment) is NOT a contradiction, since we consider individual reactions to the vietnam war (which we ALL recognize as a quagmire, right?) reasonable within the context.

I have often said that I personally do not care if Bush avoided vietnam, most wealthy or influential famlies pulled strings to keep their kids safe, that was the way things were back then. I lived through the sixties, so I fault no one who did serve, and fault no one who didnt serve. And, just as often I've said I supported those who did and continue to serve in the armed forces. For me, this is no contradiction but rather an acceptance of the individual's decision to deal with the situation.

BUT, and this is a big BUT, how do you explain the contradiction within the republican party, where they called someone who actually served in vietnam a coward, or try to claim his medals were gotten under fishy circumstances---but yet continue to support the guy who avoided vietnam and couldn't be bothered to even show up?

Further, if you guys think purple hearts are given out like candy to just anyone, that cheapens the medal for ALL recipients, not just Kerry. In effect, you guys are disrespecting the ability of the military to correctly and honorably decide who gets what type of medal. Why do you impugn the military? The decision to award the medal was made by people other than Kerry. To call the medal bogus is to call the people who awarded it to him corrupt, and calls into question EVERY soldier who received a medal.

It is this contradiction that puzzles me the most. IF INDEED you are saying that proper military service is a make or break issue for you and why you reject Kerry, then by the same token, you must reject Bush even more so....

[Catch22Dem]

1. Very good

I may steal part of that and use it on my co-worker. The part about questioning the ability of the military to decide who gets what medal and how it calls into question everyone who has received one. Yeah, I think I'll be borrowing that.

[Lerkfish]

5. Feel free to borrow any part of it....

the more it gets spread around, the better...

I just get tired of the inverted logic of freepers.

[yellerpup]

2. Good argument

Too logical to make sense to a repug, though. Thanks.

[Lerkfish]

4. lol! good point. nt

[DemonFighterLives]

3. Nice points

I was talking to one the other day who says he was captured and tortured. He said he got cut on bungy sticks and refused his purple heart.
I said that at least Kerry served and anyone smearing another veteran gets no respect from me.

:)

[Kierkegaard]

6. What's even more interesting...

is the idea that Kerry's commanding officers supposedly thought little of him, he was undeserving, cowardly, whining, but yet, they risk their rank by breaking naval regulations to 'give' the medals to Kerry. What kind of argument is that? Answer: typical logicless repuglican slander.