The likely Democratic candidate FOUGHT in a war 35 years ago. He cites his military service to support his claim of fitness to be Commander in Chief. Meanwhile the Republican incumbent and his staff have successfully RUN two wars during his term. In light of these facts, can someone explain to me why Bush’s old National Guard record is a more important credential of military competence than is his record since Sept. 11, 2001?
UPDATE: The question may now be moot. Jim Miller explains why.