"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

Sorry, Doug, but something that happened 30 years ago is not
news...it's
history.




In that case, it matters nothing to you that Clinton chose not to
get
his
head blown off in a maniac's war.

No, it really doesn't. What bothers me more is someone like Kerry
who,
35
years later, tries to exploit the fact that he spent approximately 4
more
months in Vietnam than George W. Bush. Are we supposed to believe
that
we
can learn more about the man from the 4 months he spent in Vietnam
than
from
the 20+ years he spent in Congress voting against military, defense,
and
intelligence spending?

Puh-leeeeze!




1) You learn that Kerry made a committment and followed through with it,
as
opposed to Bush, who apparently has something to hide about his service
records. Otherwise, he'd explain the lapse in paychecks for 3 months.

2) Kerry voted against WHICH spending? Please provide specific bill
numbers,
and let us know which Republicans voted against them, too. Some
legislation
deserves to be killed. You know that.


Kerry knew that the supplemental to Senate bill 1689 included things like
body armor to troops, and pay raises and/or extension of benefits for
veterans. Yet, he voted to kill the entire bill. It's fine to be against
certain provisions in a bill, but must you kill the entire bill because of
a
couple of provisions that you don't like? Particularly when those
provisions would save the life of soldiers at a time when they're in
harm's
way? That was a terrible choice on Kerry's part...and no explanation is
satisfactory to the family of any soldier who could have been killed
because
he didn't have the necessary body armor.



So, you don't know why he voted against it? Are you aware that some slobs in
Congress tag totally unrelated (and often hideous) riders onto bills?