In the past few months John Kerry has emerged as the candidate most likely to beat Bush in 2004.

And if you ask people why they support Kerry, generally the only response you’ll get is, “He’s the most likely to beat Bush in 2004.” What a passionate and substantive reason to support a candidate. Moreover, if you confront these people with shortcomings in Kerry’s record, the most common response involves “Bush this” and “Bush that,” answering the Kerry question with a Bush accusation.

Perhaps if people are made aware of just a few of these Kerry questions it will prompt them to do some research. They then might be able to enjoy the pleasure of an intelligent debate instead of being reduced to monotonously repeating the “He’s better than Bush” mantra.

As a member of the armed services, I have the utmost respect for anyone who braves the hardships of combat – regardless of their political and ideological beliefs. But it’s what a soldier does with that experience that ultimately determines his viability and credibility in the public forum.

That said, Kerry did serve in Vietnam, and that alone warrants respect. But after his service, he testified before Congress that the very soldiers he fought with “… raped, cut off ears, cut off heads … cut off limbs … randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan … poisoned food stocks …” He also stated that those “… were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.”

Of course, the way Kerry worded the statement was that he did not actually witness these atrocities; he merely was relaying the message. In any case, he generalized the military as a brutal, ruthless force with no regard for human life, which is offensive to veterans and current service members alike.

If you speak with the vast majority of vets, their stories of interaction with indigenous people are completely contrary to the barbarous picture painted by Kerry. In fact, if Kerry was aware of atrocities, as he stated “officers at all levels of command were,” he was duty-bound to report them to his superior officers; anything else is dereliction of duty.

And since so many people are fixated on Bush’s National Guard record, why not apply the same scrutiny to Kerry? After Kerry received his third purple heart in four months, he immediately invoked Navy rule 1300.39, which allows a thrice-wounded soldier to request a reassignment, and be transferred stateside.

Now don’t get me wrong, your average soldier counted down the days until the end of his 13-month tour, but those “million-dollar wounds” were looked down upon as an easy way out. Ironically, Kerry’s military service suits him when it’s helpful but is off-limits when challenged.

We’ve all heard of the calculated act of protest in which he tossed his service medals over the White House fence. Well, actually, Kerry later admited, they were a friend’s medals. His own are displayed proudly in his Senate office.

And speaking of the Senate, it is extremely disturbing that Kerry voted to support the war in Iraq but not on the funds necessary to complete the mission: “I actually did vote for the $87 billion,” Kerry said, “before I voted against it.” I.e., I stuck my finger in the wind.

The pedestal Kerry has constructed for himself is riddled with questions that always are overlooked by an unrelenting hunger for the White House, and Kerry is playing on that hunger.

But voting requires a knowledge of what candidates are bringing to the table; thus far all Kerry has brought are complaints with the current administration and the usual “I’ll fix everything” rhetoric.

So before you return to your “Bush this” and “Bush that” ranting, defend Kerry by explaining his inadequacies, not comparing them to Bush’s.