Talking heads of the television news media are espousing, “Why is a 35 year old war important in today’s time?” Editorials within print media pages are asking, “John Kerry’s a patriot, and served honorably. Why discuss his past?” So, let’s ask the important question. Why is a 35 year old war important in today’s political election season? Why all the time and ink for discussing what Sen. Kerry did or did not do while he was serving in Vietnam?

First of all, Sen. Kerry did volunteer to go into the Navy. He did such because he had run out of deferments from being drafted and by enlisting, he was able to choose his mission specialty and course of his career. He chose to go, whether by hook or crook. Many political opponents bring up the fact that Kerry – and not President Bush – spent time in Vietnam. President Bush was a member of the Texas Air National guard, as a pilot flying F-102s. He did not serve in Vietnam because his National Guard unit was not called up for duty.

For some people, serving in the reserves or the National Guard is not considered full service, since they are not in the active military, and they only serve part time. Now, due to the ongoing war in Afghanistan and Iraq, this is far from the case. National guard units in addition to reserves are serving alongside the active duty members of the military. So, now, can segregating the active duty members from the reserves and National Guard units distill the question of military service? Hardly. Most of the “weekend warriors” are doing as much if not more than some active duty units still on assignment in other parts of the country.

So should the media – print and television – harp on this one aspect of the candidates? Normally, they wouldn’t, but since one particular candidate has built his entire presidential campaign on his four months of service participating in the war in Vietnam, he has left his statements, war record, and actions open for scrutiny. The scrutiny of his record is in the book, Unfit for Command and scrutiny of his actions and statements are evident in the advertisements as well as the time the veterans are spending getting their message out with the American people.

Obviously, the advertisements are making some impact. Just yesterday, retired Senator John Glenn (D-Ohio) has jumped into the political fray by appealing to the President to condemn the advertisements being sponsored by the SBVfT. Unfortunately for Mr. Glenn and Mr. Cleland, the President is not able to do this, thanks to Sen. McCain and newly enacted legislation – the McClain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2004.

If the President were to speak out, and condemn this group and their advertising, then he would be in violation of CFR laws. He would also be going against what he wants to do, which is allowing this group of people their free speech, and not hinder their rights to speak out in the political process. So, the President has taken the high road, condemning all 527 groups – which are soft money political groups, in that they are not subject to the same scrutiny actual political groups are. With 527 groups, they do not have to divulge their donors, nor have them identified, if they do not wish. Other groups do that for them, such as Open Secrets.

Unfortunately, for Kerry, his record this week has come under considerable fire. Part of Kerry’s service record documents that he earned a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts, which allowed him an early leave from Vietnam. This week, Rear Admiral William Schachte (USN, ret.) interviewed with Lisa Myers (of NBC) John Kerry for President he lists two different citations for his Silver Star – the third highest award a serviceman can receive. In reality, he has three. Vice Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, who was the Commander of the 7th Naval District, Vietnam, issued the first one. The second citation for the same medal was from Adm. John Hyland, who was the commander of Pacific Naval Forces (CINCPAC) and the third was by the Secretary of the Navy, Jim Lehman. There is just one little problem with this: Lehman was the Secretary of the Navy from 1981 to 1987 – under President Reagan. So why would the SecNav reissue a citation at least 10 years later if there was already one? Why would John Chafee, who was the SecNav during Kerry’s time of service, not sign it?

What does all this mean to the average, run of the mill voter with minimal political interest? Well, it could mean that the person who is running for President has some unresolved issues that the press is beginning to inquire about. Are those issues from 35 years ago important during this election? Well, it depends on how much integrity and character you want the candidate to have.

So, the ultimate question is, Who is more qualified, a senator with 4 months combat service, and a total of 3 ½ years naval service, or the incumbent, who has been the Commander in Chief of all the armed forces for the last 3 ½ years, 2 ½ of which we’ve been in a war?