I had to drop that last post in a hurry because the baby woke up from his nap. I wasted his whole nap up here on the computer - stupid, stupid, stupid!
"Kerry does not oppose the efforts of our countrymen as they are in harms way. He commends their efforts. Kerry opposes the President, who is not and has never been in harm's way.
Calling a leader's actions into question does not tarnish those who MUST serve obediently under him."
In general, the President has not been in harms way, but his trip to Iraq at Xmas (or was it Thanksgiving?) was pretty cool. The troops sure seemed to get a charge out of it.
Kerry is careful in his speech to not belittle our soldiers (at least in this war
), but he certainly has denegrated the Iraqis and the soldiers our allies have contributed. Moreover, his criticisms of the way it has been waged IS an attack on our military. Bush didn't decide how many troops we would have there, Bush didn't decide which troops would be used where, Bush doesn't select their missions, their areas of operation, etc... A President would be a fool to think he knows better than his experienced generals and military advisors.
And, IMO, criticisms of the reasons for going to war (criticisms of Bush) undermines our efforts, puts the troops at greater risk and negatively effects their morale.
Assuming Kerry is elected, is he going to hang tough if things get nasty in "Bush's War"? I would expect a hard push by the terrorists to test his resolve. Kerry might just withdraw as he has stated publicly to everyone - including the terrorists - that this is a mistake. And he always has the convenient excuse that Bush started it.
If Bush is re-elected, the insurgents and terrorists know they're in deep do-do.
Also, Bush has the backing of the military personnel by a ratio of 4:1.