Bush wearing a fatigue jacket during a speech -- Is this wrong?

[Harry_Lime]

*Originally posted by Texican *
Being that his Dad was shot down in the Pacific in WW2, and had men on his plane die, he probably has a good idea about the dangers of military aviation.

“Shot down” is the key. Quite an unlikely occurrence over Modesto. The fact that his father knew how serious it was is likely the reason Bush, Jr. was where he was. (Funny how George McGovern, a man who flew 20+ bombing missions in WWII, was always seen as a wimp. It’s all about articfice, sometimes.)

As to the person who postulated Gore’s service, I don’t think having a personal bodyguard, serving in the journalism corps in the rear, and checking out WAY earlier than the regular grunts is indicative of hazardous service.

I’m not a big fan of Gore’s, and refused to vote for him in 2000. The other people I mentioned took bigger risks (as did Chuck Robb, who I forgot to mention the other day.) However, wearing a uniform in a war, in the country it’s being fought in, is hazardous. Being in the country is hazardous. Ask Bernard Fall.

[Harry_Lime]

*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
That’s not what I said. I’m just pointing out the math.

More people got killed on the US highways today than in the Korean DMZ. It still takes a lot more guts to serve there than take a trip to Safeway.

[Grelby]

This is kind of a ridiculous argument.

And yeah, I think Bush looks silly dressed up like that, but I think any government official looks silly dressed up like that…