Actually, I think this argument is wrong on both sides. Both Bush and Kerry fulfilled their military duty when they were young men in their twenties, and both got honorable discharges and were not subjected to any disciplinary action. Kerry was in combat and got medals, and Bush was not in combat and not on full-time active duty. both, however, played by the rules and did what it took to get finished with their obligation.

But that's about as far as it goes. We have to remember that military service is a game to young men in their twenties. You do certain things, you get a discharge. You do certain extra things, you get a medal. The military keeps records of discharges and some medals and some disciplinary actions, but any documentation beyond that is very sketchy. I did my time in the civilized environment of Berlin, in 1970-73. Years later, I needed to get pay information so I could get retirement credit for my military service - the records were no longer complete, so much of the information had to be extrapolated. If you were to question my military service, I wouldn't be able to prove or disprove much. Most of the records are gone, and I flat-out can't remember much of it. But there is proof called a DD-214, that shows I did my time and got an honorable discharge. My time of trial is over - the result of that trial is the DD-214.

I think the same is true for Bush and Kerry. Most people know that at the time Bush served, the National Guard and Reserve were a joke, weekend recreation for boys who wanted to legally evade the draft. Still, it was completely legal. Bush played the game and got his discharge, so I don't think he can be faulted for that. He passed the test and got his papers. Lots of people missed Guard and Reserve meetings and got honorable discharges - why should Bush be thought of differently? After all, he has never claimed to have been heroic in military service, or in anything. Nonetheless, he did his duty.

Everybody also knows that combat duty in Vietnam was NOT a joke, and Kerry should get credit for having gone through it. He played the game, did what was required to get his medals and discharge, and got out. He passed the test and got his papers - but the papers do show he should get extra credit for medals and combat duty. This was over thirty years ago - it's far too late to question the validity of the test.

For both Bush and Kerry, the only true record of their service is that DD-214. They had to fulfill certain requirements to get credit on that document, and they did what it took. It's really unfair to put those documents to the test now, all these years later. The evidence beyond those discharge documents is incomplete and misleading. Any attempt to reconstruct the military service of Bush and Kerry is bound to have skewed results. It's just not fair to try it. I think we should accept their discharge records, and stop trying to smear these men for something that happened so long ago, when they were so young.

I think both sides should be ashamed their smear attempts in this matter.

-Joe Offer, Democrat-