A lot of time and bandwith has been spent on this board (and other forums) discussing the military histories of Pres. Bush, Sen. Kerry, Gen (Ret.) Clark, etc. I have generally stayed out of these discussions, in part due to a lack of time, and in part because I am personally not as passionate about the issue on either side as others are. That said, I thought I'd offer my opinion on the accusations that Pres. Bush was AWOL, Sen. Kerry is a hypocrite veteran, etc. I am sure everyone here has been waiting with baited breath for this First I would like to preface my comments by saying that I was not alive during the Vietnam era, and only know what I do about it through conversation with those who lived during the time and served in the war, history books, lectures, television documentaries, etc. Furthermore, I have nothing but the utmost respect for the men and women who serve and served our country. Like many (if not most) here I have relatives that were in the armed services that I am incredibly proud of, and always will be. I can personally say that absent a direct threat against our land I likely would not have the courage that they have and had. Looking at the accusations against Pres. Bush first. He has been accused of "dodging the draft" by exploiting his family's connections to get preferential placement in the National Guard during Vietnam. Furthermore, it is alleged that he was AWOL for at least a portion of his service. Frankly, I just do not care. I do not believe that Pres. Bush's service record, or lackthereof, is relevant to his ability (or lackthereof) to be an effective President. Even if the accusations are true and it is proven that Pres. Bush lied to us all along about his placement in the Guard and being AWOL, I don't care. Just as I did not think the questions asked of Pres. Clinton regarding Ms. Lewinsky or Ms. Jones were relevant and he should have answered as such, nor do I believe these questions to be relevant. Vietnam ended more than thirty years ago and nothing that he or anyone else did in that period makes them more or less qualified to hold public office. I am more interested in his service record as President than his service record in Vietnam. I am also more concerned with his politics, policies and agenda than anything else. Those are the factors that would affect our nation, and me more than what he did in the 1960s and 1970s. As for Sen. Kerry, like all men and women who have served our nation he deserves our utmost respect and admiration for the sacrifice he made, and the ultimate sacrifice he was willing to make. Furthermore, he is certainly deserving to be respected as a war hero if our military accorded him such an honor. As for the accusations and criticisms of his post-war actions, I again do not care. First and foremost it was again a long time ago. What he did (or didn't do) will not have any bearing on this country or me in 2004 and beyond. Second, I personally do not believe it to be hypocritical for a person to have served their country and then subsequently criticize the cause of their service. I certainly did not experience what he did, and sure as hell hope nobody ever has to again. Similar to Pres. Bush I am most interested in his history as a Senator, his policies, politics and agenda. Those are the items that matter most to me when I step into the voting booth. I personally believe that certain people too often use Vietnam as a lithmus test for political office. To me it is not. The test should be what someone stands for, the likelihood they'll continue to stand for that after elected, and how they perform once in office. The President is the CEO of America and I evalute him (or hopefully someday soon her) on their performance and what I believe they can deliver in the position. What is nauseating to me is that both parties use military service (and lackthereof) as a positive and a negative, depending on the circumstance. It did not matter in 1988 that then Sen. Quayle may have used family influence to dodge the draft. Republicans certainly felt so, Democrats disagreed. Nor did it matter in 1992 that then Gov. Clinton was at Oxford during Vietnam and even may have protested it. Republicans certainly felt it did matter, Democrats then disagreed. Its a vicious cycle of saying someething matters only when it benefits you, and that (to answer a thread from a couple weeks ago) is partisan politics at its worst. Anyhow, this is just my humble opinion.