Steve Hochstadt’s July 11 guest column, judging the character of Bush and Kerry, serves up a softball that I cannot let pass.

In concluding that the president has no military or presidential character, he relies mainly on the premise that by serving in the Air National Guard, Bush “hid from danger,” “avoided military service” and “shirked his responsibilities,” and on Michael Moore’s incorrect claim that Bush was AWOL

The premise is wrong. Eyewitnesses and President Bush’s records confirm that he fulfilled his military commitment. Further, being a Guard fighter pilot was a dangerous job and no guarantee of not being sent to Vietnam.

The entire argument is a red herring. This election is not about which candidate can jump into a fighter jet or swift boat and go to war, and combat experience does not qualify one to be a wartime president.

Bush has been commander in chief for nearly four years. That is the relevant experience by which to judge him.

Hochstadt has us believe that the Vietnam era is the relevant time frame since that is the last time Kerry showed any character.

Both Hochstadt and Kerry imply Bush is responsible for Abu Ghraib, yet Kerry has said he committed atrocities in Vietnam. Kerry says he believes life begins at conception, but supports access to abortions. Kerry is a political windsock that rises and points in whatever direction the slightest puff blows. It is his record that shows a lack of character.

Scott Gardner, Auburn

Copy the Story Link