Defending the Pres

Well it looks as though the documents showing President Bush skipping out on National Guard duty might be a bit suspect. Or maybe not, CBS is standing behind them 100%. I ask you, does it matter one whit if the documents are true or false? This issue has been looked at every freaking ten minutes for the last 4 years, and sure his service may be a little suspect but it was twenty years ago.

Twenty years, a long time, and at this point we pretty much know how Bush is going to govern. We know he’s going to be an inept public speaker, we know he’s going to have certain religious leanings, we know he’s going to spend money like a hacker with a newly ripped platinum card. Knowledge of Bush’s service in the guard shouldn’t sway a single vote.

I know it is a reaction to the swift boat veterans for the truth. You know the guys who are secretly pissed that Kerry came home and protested against the police action in Viet Nam. Sure they pretend that he got all those medals by pleading and whining but their true reasons are fairly transparent. Still just because those swift boat guys are pretty much (insert profanity of choice here) doesn’t mean that the same kind of mud should be slung at the President.

The time for contesting medals, contesting service was back in the day. Back when Bush was in the guard and when Kerry was in the Navy. Once they both received honorable discharges, you’ve gotta go with that. Obviously Bush’s attendance wasn’t a big enough deal to prevent an Honorable Discharge and Kerry’s medals were uncommented on for twenty years. Heck, I’d call him a war hero.

I’m not saying that the candidate’s service during the Viet Nam era is unimportant, it’s not. If you want to President (and thus commander in chief) your response when called upon is of some importance. That said I really can’t fault the Pres for being all that he could be one weekend a month and two weeks a year. I’m sure I would have done the same thing. I also respect Kerry for actually spending time in Viet Nam.

So here’s what I’m taking away from the entire two party mess:
Kerry went to Viet Nam and fought bravely, Bush stayed at home and ate Nachos. This, in my mind, does not disqualify GWB as presidential material. After all I really can’t hold it against the guy, it was an unpopular action and all, war was never declared and Viet Nam posed no direct threat to the US. Hmmm seems reminiscent of a current mid east conflict.

On the other hand I can’t go all gaga over Kerry’s service. Sure he shot a guy, and that would be useful if the President was going to hunt down and kill Osama Bin Laden personally (we would know Kerry has it in him) but that is not the case. We need a manager for the entire country and I’m sorry but three purple hearts just makes you a respectable war hero, not a decent president.

Bill Clinton was a pretty good President, no really. Sure Bubba lacked the moral authority that people seem to crave (though I will note if you’re getting your morals from a President that seems a little weak to me) but he got a lot of stuff done. Michael Moore called him the best Republican president ever. I agree. So I’ll let a few personal foibles slide for some decent management. After all we are after a president not a Pope.

In short I care much more about what the candidates will do in the future than what they did twenty years ago. A fellow mymacer first espoused that view (the excellent Bruce Black, the funny one, not the comedy central guy).

And that folks, is all I’ve got for quite awhile. I’m suffering form a really bad case of writers block sparked by wide disinterest. Consider yourselves lucky.