On August 24, 2004, Thomas Sowell's column was titled
"Vets vs. Kerry on Vietnam." Go to:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20040824.shtml
__________________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
[...]
"The Kerry version of events begins with his
volunteering to serve in the Vietnam war. The
O'Neill version has Kerry's draft board reject-
ing his application for a deferment and Kerry
then enlisting in the Naval Reserve -- not the
Navy, as in Brinkley's book.
"Enlisting in the Naval Reserves is not very
different from enlisting in the National Guard.
The big difference is that John Kerry happened
to get sent to Vietnam and George Bush did not.
But those decisions were made by people far
above them in the military chain of command.
"Yet some in the media and elsewhere have acted
as if it was heroic for John Kerry to have
enlisted in the Naval Reserve and cowardly for
George Bush to have enlisted in the National
Guard. But none has bothered to show what
essential difference -- if any -- there is
between these two back-up branches of service.
__________________________________________________________________________
Papa Jack comments:
This is really interesting. Many of the snide insults
directed by the liberals at President Bush implied he
was a coward for being a fighter pilot in the Texas
National Guard.
Now we find that the big "four-month war hero" John
Kerry only joined the Navy Reserve. But, his unit
got activated and called to Viet Nam -- not because
Kerry volunteered, but, rather, because of the luck
of the draw.
Does that mean Kerry was also a coward for trying to
find a way to avoid combat duty? If it was NOT cowardly
for Kerry to join the Navy Reserve, why was it cowardly
for young Bush to join the National Guard? Huh? 8^)
BTW, I spent 26 years in the Air Force and I never saw
any fighter pilots who were the least bit cowardly.
.
|
