The deal is this. Bush says that he is more qualified to
conduct military security. He didn't serve in Vietnam. Kerry
did and distinguised himself. How can Bush be more qualified?

Kerry served on military intelligence committees.

As far as I'm concerned, was is not the answer and never was.

But on this issue of military security, Kerry is more consistent and more qualifed than Bush because he knows more about it.

Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz,Rove are what Al Franken, who did serve,
calls "chickenhawks".

As far as I'm concerned, the real candidate is Kucinich who
opposed Vietnam, the Gulf War and the Iraq War from the beginning.
But for Bush to call Kerry soft on security when he and Max
Cleland damn near lost their lives is audacious hypocrisy from
one who dodged Vietnam.

Finally Bush discovered that he couldn't do a foreign policy
without the UN. But look at the cost for his mistake.

Frank