The Strategist or The Loyalist, whichever you prefer. I think most people know the difference between being a soldier and being a terrorist. The same goes for an officer and a politician, and while everyone has the right to serve their country the way they see fit, it's still necessary to ask what the hell they are doing running for office. I am not qualified to comment on Senator John Kerry's military service. I know nothing of it, and don't have access to any government records that would tell me. I am, however, qualified to comment on what Senator Kerry is currently doing, and I think it is safe to say that a qualified non-partisan observer would have a difficult time seeing it as anything but "running for office". I am reasonably qualified to make such a statement. My last employer was a US Senator, and I worked in a senior leadership position in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on a piece of legislation that involved a lot of foreign policy matters. Since I'm very much into foreign policy, you can see that my perspective is a little bit skewed. From my perspective, the only reason that John Kerry is doing any such thing would be to look more war-savvy and patriotic, for no other purpose that to win an election. Does John Kerry serve his country? I have no idea. What I do know is that John Kerry has been on the wrong side of a lot of decisions and policies that relate to the war on terrorism. He's been wrong about Iraq. He's been wrong about the Patriot Act. He's been wrong about wiretapping. He's been wrong about invading Iran. He's been wrong about Israel, about Hezbollah, about the Lebanese war, and about Afghanistan. He's been wrong about trade policy. He's been wrong about Israel. He's been wrong about abortion. So when you watch John Kerry's speeches and read his campaign rhetoric about how he is "for the soldiers", I'd like you to consider the fact that this guy is in a different league of incompetence. For the record, the man has also been very wrong about the Patriot Act. I don't want you to think for one minute that I don't support our troops. I do. I have relatives who are in the US military, and two who are overseas right now, fighting this war that is being fought for reasons that are unclear to me. One of them is in Fallujah, and the other is up north in Mosul. No doubt you know someone in the service right now. We all do. The service members who are doing their best to prosecute this war and do what needs to be done are heroes in my book, so yes, I want them to be well-paid and well-equipped and given all the support that they can possibly get. But as for this guy? I've never had the chance to meet him or shake his hand, or anything of the sort. He may be a great guy. Maybe he is not. I have no idea. But one thing I do know is that no one who has been in the military for a long time, as Senator Kerry must have been, is going to fall for anything he says that relates to our military service. To believe John Kerry's rhetoric that he will "get better results" would be like believing anything that Ronald Reagan said. Re: The Strategist or The Loyalist, whichever you prefer. Originally posted by kalu While this is the case, the American people will have the opportunity to choose the person they think is best suited for that particular position, hopefully with a little more objectivity than the ones that are currently serving. True, but I would agree with the one thing kalu said in regards to Kerry. The public will need to choose someone with "a little more objectivity than the ones that are currently serving." I see this as being a good thing. I think that the current people we have doing the job are not much more competent than anyone else in government. The fact of the matter is that we have been sending young, inexperienced people into the government at such a rapid rate that it really boggles my mind. These are people who should have no business being in such an important position to begin with. It makes me sick to my stomach to think that we are using their lives in such a way that we are abusing them. It is sickening. If I was forced to vote tomorrow, I would vote for Kerry. Originally posted by stupor I am not qualified to comment on Senator John Kerry's military service. I know nothing of it, and don't have access to any government records that would tell me. I am, however, qualified to comment on what Senator Kerry is currently doing, and I think it is safe to say that a qualified non-partisan observer would have a difficult time seeing it as anything but "running for office". I do think your assessment is a bit off. From what I read, he has gone to Washington, sat down with people who could give him a better understanding of what this country faces, and he has put forth bills that are to our advantage. I'd say that is doing something worthwhile. I don't want the man to be my president or a president in general, but I think it is good for someone to be paying attention and doing things that they can actually help with. As opposed to going out into the world and pointing our nation toward chaos and destruction. I don't want John Kerry to be the next president, but I think it is important for him to have an impact on our nation's foreign policy. It is just one person, one person who probably isn't going to do much good, but at least he's there. Originally posted by stupor What I do know is that John Kerry has been wrong about Iraq. He's been wrong about the Patriot Act. He's been wrong about wiretapping. He's been wrong about invading Iran. He's been wrong about Israel, about Hezbollah, about the Lebanese war, and about Afghanistan. He's been wrong about trade policy. He's been wrong about Israel. He's been wrong about abortion. I didn't know that. I thought he was a hawk, but I did not know how anti-war he was. For that reason alone, I would not vote for him. I also think he'd be a great Secretary of State, but that's beside the point. I think there are a lot of people in the same boat, but I do not think it has anything to do with being pro-war or anti-war. I think that there are plenty of people with their heads on straight. Not all of them would be qualified to be in our government, but there are people out there who are capable of serving who are not pro-war or anti-war. Originally posted by kalu I think that it is a good thing for a man who goes off to war to come back with a deeper appreciation of all the factors involved in the war, and that is the only thing that I can think of that would make Kerry qualified to be president. The man is very well-versed in all matters foreign, but he is clearly not pro-war or pro-torture. He also seems to understand that the American economy cannot prosper by trading with China, and that it is becoming increasingly obvious that the American people will not blindly follow any politician who suggests it should be done. To be honest, I don't think a man who is well-versed in foreign policy is necessarily qualified to be president. Even if we were in the middle of a war right now, I'd still not want a president who hasn't served in the military. And you know what else I'd ask? Would they be willing to be more pro-choice? I think not. I don't agree with everything this guy says or believes, but I think he's willing to get things done. For the most part, I believe that any of these decisions are better made by the people who actually have the experience. Re: The Strategist or The Loyalist, whichever you prefer. I don't want the man to be my president or a president in general, but I think it is good for someone to be paying attention and doing things that they can actually help with. As opposed to going out into the world and pointing our nation toward chaos and destruction. I don't want John Kerry to be the next president, but I think it is important for him to have an impact on our nation's foreign policy. I don't agree with you. It may be good for someone to be paying attention, but he didn't do what he said he would. In fact, John Kerry seems to be running on one of the issues that he has failed on in the past. The majority of what John Kerry has to say to you is to remind you how wrong he is and how right he is. I think you underestimate the lack of knowledge in this world. It's common knowledge that there will always be people, even in a nation as large as America, who think they know more than they actually do. This is exactly the sort of thing that I expect to hear from a lot of politicians. People will always have those who disagree with them, and when they do, they will try to convince