I read this and thought some of yous might "appreciate" this
Arguable yes.
Bush only choice?
_______________________________________
This is an obviously biased excerpt I caught in an e-mail:
You're trying to chose a Commander in Chief of America's armed forces who, for the next few years, we lead our armed forces as they fight World War IV, the war against Islamic Terrorism. Here are your two choices:
A: A man who's military service consists first of serving in the Air National Guard where he earned exemplary ratings from his superiors as a military leader and as a jet fighter pilot; and who then served for four years as the Commander in Chief of America's armed forces. During those four years as Commander in Chief he built the morale and strength of the U.S. armed forces; decimated the ranks of the Islamic terrorist organization that attacked America on 9/11, and liberated two countries -- freeing millions of people from tyranny in the process. A man, by the way, who has and will continue to have the respect and admiration of the men and women who serve our country in uniform.
B: A man who went to Vietnam as a Naval officer suffered three flesh wounds, two of them minor, wrote some of his own commendations for Purple Hearts, and upon the receipt of his third Purple Heart immediately asked to be sent back to the United States. Time in Vietnam? Four months. After discharge from the Navy this man became a radical opponent of the action in Vietnam, testifying before congress of various atrocities committed by American servicemen there which, admittedly, he did not witness. This man then voted against virtually every major Pentagon weapons program during his tenure in the U.S. Senate. He does not have and never will have the respect and admiration of the men and women who now serve our country in uniform.
Someone bring me a bucket. Quick. 
Linear Mode
