Your rank probably made you responsible for the rating of many soldiers. The example I thought of seemed to lead me to believe that Purple Hearts were handed out like m&m's, and a full tour was a good bit shorter than a year, but that's just me and me alone. How about you, do you see him as a friend of the 2nd?
Craig, reference Kerry, I always thought the back and forth between his campaign and Bush's reference military service was stupid. Both served, both received honorable discharges. Good place to leave it. But Kerry & Co stepped on it big time, IMO, by trying to make an issue of Kerry's service (I remember his "reporting for duty!" speech at the Dem convention) vs Bush's. I once heard Bob Dole--a man with a military record that's pretty hard to question--remark that he'd told Kerry he should have been a "quiet hero". IMO, too bad Dole didn't use Clinton's draft dodging record to beat him over the head. But that was before 9/11, and other than veterans, no one really cared.
I recall a couple libs, on another board, stating that Bush had gone "AWOL". I was in the Reserves at the same time as Bush (late 60's), and actually had similar "irregularities" on my record: missed drills, missed Annual Training. In my case, it was because I moved from Iowa to DC (to take a job with CIA). It was 1968 and I had less than 6 months left before my enlistment was up. I visited 2 or 3 Guard and Reserve units out there. Because of Vietnam, those units were full strength and they had no interest whatsoever in welcoming me for the few months I had left. But everyone who was in the Reserves back then understood that. When I reenlisted several years later, post-CIA, those "irregularities" were right there for everyone to see. No one ever questioned them. It never came up when my paperwork went in for a Top Secret clearance; never came up when my commanding officer put me in for a direct commission; never came up when I was selected to command units on a couple different occasions.
All that being said . . . sure, there are veterans who are anti-hunting and anti-gun. It is their RIGHT to hold that position, whether we agree with them or not. But that does not change the fact that by serving, they made a commitment to the very Constitution that gives us the right to support gun ownership--but which also gives them the right to oppose it.
Re the comment on Justice Scalia, further down the line, I had to look up his bio. He came of age when the draft really meant something--as I did. However--and the same is true for me--back then, it was pretty much an automatic deferment if you went to college. (I joined the Guard in high school, and my fellow college-bound classmates thought I was nuts because I didn't have to do it.) But Scalia (in addition to being a very dedicated hunter) ended up with perhaps the very best platform from which to defend gun rights. A lot of people, unless they're somehow disqualified from serving, have the opportunity to join the military. In contrast, only a very few are ever going to sit on the federal bench (let alone the Supreme Court!), where they have an even greater opportunity to demonstrate their support for the Second Amendment.
