Hey, this thing went off my radar screen a month ago, and I've just now had a chance to read the responses. For the record, I was clearly the first to point out that:

1. The fact that one had previously served in the military or not had no particular effect on ones ability to lead a nation in military activities.

2. That it was intellectually dishonest to attempt to point out the veterans who were indicating some reservations about the impending conflict with Iraq, without pointing out the numerous Veterans groups who supported the President. In point of fact, it appears that most of these veterans are now backing the President in whole or in signifcant part of his endeavors.

3. That absent the "bag of pus" adjective, my discussion of Clinton's lack of military experience (or his lying to get clear of that experience) and what is now clearly acknowledged as his inadequate response to bin Laden's actions, is more clearly inline with Boberts "chicken hawk" theory than any person now serving in the Bush Administration, veteran or not.

4. That whether you agree with the current trend in our "war on terrorism", Bush and his administration, have for the most part, been singularly effective in pursuit of what most people view as the "bad guys" in this affair. Let's review:
       a. Taliban crushed with only three combat casualties.
       b. He's poised on a Congressional vote to give him the freedom he needs to continue the "war."
       c. He steps out of the ABM treaty with all parties now in basic agreement with the process.
       d. Congressional elections (give or take an NJ) headed in his favor [against all normal trends].
       e. The UN still as useless as ever, but consulted with nonetheless...

5. And finally to OBU: You seem to forget that the hippie/Quakers did absolutely nothing to "end" slavery in the US. It was the armed intervention of Republicans who freed the slaves in the US, (the Democrats being the slave holders) in a long and costly "war". The underground railroad was certainly more Republican than Quaker, once you count the political persuation of all its members, during it's existence. The "Party of Lincoln" was expressly formed over the issue of slavery, and only after Secession was the preservation of the Union a second aim. And since those people cared enough to go to war over it, the Quakers lose by comparison.

And to the rest of you, please don't try to tell a combat veteran that running away is bravery in another direction... do the plastic surgery on your own history in private... The Veterans Administration pays me 60% for my mine...