Saw this on Facebook last night:
Now, leaving aside that the hat and jacket are from a Navy ship (clearly visible on the hat), I'm confused. We just had eight years where the president had never served a day in the military, so I thought we'd finally put to rest the served/didn't serve question.
In 1992, we had WWII war hero George H.W. Bush against draft-dodging Bill Clinton. Military service? We were told it didn't matter.
In 1996, it was Clinton against WWII war hero Bob Dole Clinton. Military service? Still didn't matter.
2000? George W. Bush (accused by the left of dodging the draft despite serving in the TX Air National Guard) against Al Gore Jr., who served honorably in Vietnam. Military service? Now means everything.
2004? The same George W. Bush against John Kerry, who also served honorably in Vietnam. Military service? Still means everything. Remember "Reporting for duty"?
2008? Barack Obama, never served, against John McCain. 5 years in the Hanoi Hilton? Yeah, he served honorably. Military service? Not only does it not matter, it wasn't even brought up.
So... Now military service matters again? Interesting that it's brought up after the election, given that Hillary Clinton not only didn't serve, but by being female, she didn't even have to worry about the draft.Or, is it possible that there are only certain times and circumstances that military service means anything? Like, say, depending on the political affiliation of the person in question.
I mean, not that our media would ever show bias or anything like that, of course...
That is all.