service, but for Vietnam combat service. Upon return he spoke out,
but he earned that right. As a Yale graduate and combat vet he had a
good resume to question gov't policy.
Some people are asking why it's important since it happened 30 years ago.
It's important because there's a good argument that Mr. Bush rushed to
combat. There's a theory that says this could be because he's never
been there himself and so doesn't fully understand what war means.
Having been in combat Mr. Kerry may be more thoughtful before heading
into battle.
I think it's an interesting fact that none of the "vulcans" ever
served in the military - Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice, Libby.
Rumsfeld served, but not in combat. He was a Naval pilot and a flight
instructor.
----- Original Message -----
From: Tangorre, Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:51:02 -0400
Subject: RE: Naval Records dispute claims by anti Kerry Vets
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I envy the man for taking a stance AFTER he saw the war up close and
personal. Just because it is supposed to be so patriotic and honorable
to serve does not mean you come away with the same mindset after a war
that you went in with. Mind you I do not know the specifics of Kerry's
opposition to the war, but he had big enough balls to go into war and
then bigger balls to speak out against it... how can you try to mar any
of it?!!! Two thumbs up for the guy.
Michael T. Tangorre
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
