Obviously you didn't read the WHOLE "dumbass link", because the WHOLE "dumbass link" goes on to DEBUNK as a LIE the letter that precedes. Don't you know what SNOPES is?

no, i didnt read the whole thing, it did strange thing to my IE. sorry to brand you as a republican, I know how bad that is. and i don't know what SNOPES is, and i kinda feel cool cuz i don't and you do. i am trying hard to not become an internet geek. besides, FOX news says the only thing on the internet is porn.

Heehee. Well SNOPES is the urban legend database. They debunk or confirm urban legends and rumors. It's fabulous.

ahhhhhh. dammit, now im closer to knowing things about the internet...

thanks for info, though. i'll go back and read that sober sometime, i promise.

lets not kid ourselves out JFK. this guy got to hang out with the original JFK when he was a kid, he's a member of yale's skull and bones, and he put up millions of his own dollars to finance his campaign. he's about as upper crust as a guy can get. however, he VOLUNTEERED to go to vietman, was wounded (regardless of severity) and although WE HAD better choices a couple of months ago this is the guy we MUST elect to replace that awol idiot sitting in the white house now.

I give it a 4, but you can't dance to it.

Commander in the Navy is equal to Lieutenant Colonel in the Army, 4 steps down from Admiral. It is an officer position.

I think that what Oninotaki was referring to is the fact that, as a Lieutenant, Kerry commanded a boat crew of 5, as opposed to, say, thousands or tens of thousands of soldiers.

At any rate, rank is not a definite qualifier of leadership, and not all positions of leadership/responsibility are directly comparable.

Some sergeants demonstrate far more leadership than officers, and a Captain commanding a mere 12-man Special Forces A-Team can be said to be more experienced, better trained, and better qualified than most Captains commanding a 150-man line Infantry Company.

[Edited on Apr 21, 2004 by Phoebus]

I don't particularly care if a Presidential candidate served or not in the military. I would assume that if they didn't, and they were lacking in that experience, they would get advisors who had. I didn't vote against Clinton because he didn't go to Vietnam or even because he dodged the draft. I just didn't like his policies. and it always makes me somewhat smile somewhat sick that the same people (mostly) who criticize Bush for dodging Vietnam war era military duties would have been against the war and supported draft dodging for anyone else.
since when does military experience equate to being a good president anyway?
I want a president who cares about our military and directs it in an intelligent fashion. that's all that matters.
and when it comes down to it, I'm voting against Bush because he's a bigot and that more than anything else is something I will not countenance.

i like this statement best, regardless of context.

i would like to point out that presidents with military records are usually pretty damn good ones. Grant, Ike, and Kennedy come to mind.

the post IS called "Commander in Chief"