What is the fascination with his military record? Oh wait, its Mr. Kerry looking for a crutch he can stumble on.

Here is how I look at it: Kerry says a man who dodged the war can't be commander in Chief even while he supported Clinton, who was a Commander in Chief and ran off to England. He is 100 percent right; Clinton wasn't a great Commander in Chief. For those who may not get me, the Commander in Chief is the head of the armed forces, the president wears many hats and as Commander in Chief, I think Clinton was swishy washy. I think he could have acted on some issues that he chose to ignore.

So be it.

But this is the present time so Kerry claims that a man who did not show up for duty cannot be a good Commander In Chief. Well I see Bush as a very determined Commander at present. Way back when, while Bush didn't show up and sit in a hanger all day at his home National Guard unit, Kerry was fighting and winning medals. Then he came back and tossed them on a memorial and cried. Seems they both apparently showed some level of distain or distaste for the war. Kerry is like the Iraqi information minister preaching to a public while reality goes on all around us, "There are No Americans in Baghdad!" "You do not want someone who has never fought in a war to lead the military!" He says… well there are 2 wars going on in the Middle East? Wars you voted to start knowing that Bush was the Commander in Chief, and knowing it was the right thing to do, the right course of action… and Bush is doing as good a job as anyone could reasonably expect. In fact the left is suddenly supporting the war that Kerry will take over. Interesting switch…

Are we going to debate the current affairs of America or focus on a war fought by teenagers 30 years ago? If Bush hasn't already been FIGHTING a war for 2 years, I might have sided with you. But the issue is simply ludicrous to me now.