"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Just because something is written down, doesn't
mean it's not the truth or factual, even if MS Word was used instead
of a typewriter.

But it certainly leads one to be suspicious. And it does not lend veracity
to the argument. In other words, the argument falls flat without
verification.

Max

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

But, both me did not serve honorably. Kerry did, according to
Bush. Bush didn't according to several people, including his
own commander.

Then what, exactly, does an "honorable discharge" mean if not that?

Max

In article .net,
Maxprop wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

But, both me did not serve honorably. Kerry did, according to
Bush. Bush didn't according to several people, including his
own commander.

Then what, exactly, does an "honorable discharge" mean if not that?

It means exactly what it says. Unfortunately, getting your powerful
buddies to ensure that you get one isn't the same as earning one.



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article .net,
Maxprop wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Just because something is written down, doesn't
mean it's not the truth or factual, even if MS Word was used instead
of a typewriter.

But it certainly leads one to be suspicious. And it does not lend veracity
to the argument. In other words, the argument falls flat without
verification.

Ok. So, listen to the firsthand accounts by someone who was
there. Rather interviewed Bush's commander's secretary. She
also said that the documents didn't look right, but the content
was accurate. I suppose in the right-wing world she's gotta be
a liar.


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

It means exactly what it says. Unfortunately, getting your powerful
buddies to ensure that you get one isn't the same as earning one.

Let me see if I've got this right: Some people have been maligning Bush for
apparent discrepancies in his military record, and despite the lack of
legitimate documentation to verify their position, they are telling the
truth.

But some people have been maligning Kerry for apparent discrepancies in his
military record, and despite the lack of legitimate documentation to verify
their position, they are liars.

Does that about sum it up?

Max

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Ok. So, listen to the firsthand accounts by someone who was
there.

Ah, you mean like the Swiftboat Vets who served alongside Kerry in Vietnam?

Rather interviewed Bush's commander's secretary.

And he's telling the truth while Kerry's commanding officers are lying? Of
course we all know that secretaries never lie and commanding officers never
tell the truth, right?

She
also said that the documents didn't look right, but the content
was accurate.

Both Admiral Zumwalt and Rear Admiral Hoffman have stated that Kerry's
applications for the three Purple Hearts and his Silver Star were bogus.
Now why should we discount their proclamations while beliving some
secretary's claim?

I suppose in the right-wing world she's gotta be
a liar.

Nope. She may be telling the truth. So might the admirals. The point is
that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. (Hey, even the
genders are right in this case, eh?) You can't have it both ways. Without
documentation, neither side is verifiable.

Kerry could execute a Standard Form 180, releasing ALL his military records,
including the applications for the Purple Hearts and the Silver and Bronze
stars. And Bush could answer the questions of *where were you* and *why
didn't you report for the physical exam.* Until then it is all conjecture,
and for either the dems or GOP to claim otherwise is just so much smoking
blowing in the political wind.

Max

Ok. So, listen to the firsthand accounts by someone who was
there.


Maxprop wrote:
Ah, you mean like the Swiftboat Vets who served alongside Kerry in Vietnam?

There are several groups to choose from
1- guys who were on Kerry's boat
2- the Navy departmental bureaucracy who have reviewed all Kerry's
records, reports, & awards.
3- a group of paid shills, some of whom have recanted, most of whom have
contradicted themselves in their statements against Kerry.

We know wih group you place the most faith in.



Rather interviewed Bush's commander's secretary.


And he's telling the truth while Kerry's commanding officers are lying? Of
course we all know that secretaries never lie and commanding officers never
tell the truth, right?

You mean like when George Bush Jr's CO said he never remembered Bush
being in his unit at all?

Why don't we ask Vice President Cheney's fellow soldiers about his
service... oh wait, he had 'other priorities.'


Both Admiral Zumwalt and Rear Admiral Hoffman have stated that Kerry's
applications for the three Purple Hearts and his Silver Star were bogus.
Now why should we discount their proclamations while beliving some
secretary's claim?

Actually, that's a lie.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp

For one thing, Zumwalt died several years ago. Are we taking evidence
from seances now?


... Until then it is all conjecture,

And a lot of deliberate slander.

and for either the dems or GOP to claim otherwise is just so much smoking
blowing in the political wind.

And a big distraction from the real issues of this campaign, such as
Bush & Cheney's record of what they have accomplished in running this
country for the past 3 3/4 years.

DSK

"Maxprop" wrote in message
. net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

It means exactly what it says. Unfortunately, getting your powerful
buddies to ensure that you get one isn't the same as earning one.

Let me see if I've got this right: Some people have been maligning Bush
for
apparent discrepancies in his military record, and despite the lack of
legitimate documentation to verify their position, they are telling the
truth.

I don't know about some people. I know that I would like to have him
answer a simple question. So far, he hasn't.

But some people have been maligning Kerry for apparent discrepancies in
his
military record, and despite the lack of legitimate documentation to
verify
their position, they are liars.

Again, I don't know about some people. I know that Kerry received medals
for his actions. His record is fairly complete and public for the most part.
If
there is more information, I'd love to see it.

Given the two situations, I'm inclined to vote for someone who has had
distinguished military service and a long public record, most of which I
like
vs. someone who won't answer direct questions about his verified inability
to show up and who has made an immense number of mistakes while in
office.

"Maxprop" wrote in message
. net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Ok. So, listen to the firsthand accounts by someone who was
there.

Ah, you mean like the Swiftboat Vets who served alongside Kerry in
Vietnam?

Yes! The ones who were on his boat and know what happened. Not the ones
who might have been in the neighborhood and who are being supported by
Karl Rove and the RNC.

Rather interviewed Bush's commander's secretary.

And he's telling the truth while Kerry's commanding officers are lying?
Of
course we all know that secretaries never lie and commanding officers
never
tell the truth, right?

He? You mean she. She seemed pretty credible to me. She *liked* Bush.

She
also said that the documents didn't look right, but the content
was accurate.

Both Admiral Zumwalt and Rear Admiral Hoffman have stated that Kerry's
applications for the three Purple Hearts and his Silver Star were bogus.
Now why should we discount their proclamations while beliving some
secretary's claim?

Where do you get this??? So, if that's the case then the entire chain of
command should be brought to justice for lying! I would support that!

I suppose in the right-wing world she's gotta be
a liar.

Nope. She may be telling the truth. So might the admirals. The point is
that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. (Hey, even the
genders are right in this case, eh?) You can't have it both ways.
Without
documentation, neither side is verifiable.

The admirals?? Hahahah... good one.

Kerry could execute a Standard Form 180, releasing ALL his military
records,
including the applications for the Purple Hearts and the Silver and Bronze
stars. And Bush could answer the questions of *where were you* and *why
didn't you report for the physical exam.* Until then it is all
conjecture,
and for either the dems or GOP to claim otherwise is just so much smoking
blowing in the political wind.

Fine. So why doesn't Bush just answer? Perhaps he can't. Why doesn't Kerry
release all the records? Perhaps he doesn't give a crap what other people
think.

It would really be helpful if Max would check his facts before he
cites them as facts.... sigh....

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Ok. So, listen to the firsthand accounts by someone who was
there.


Maxprop wrote:
Ah, you mean like the Swiftboat Vets who served alongside Kerry in
Vietnam?

There are several groups to choose from
1- guys who were on Kerry's boat
2- the Navy departmental bureaucracy who have reviewed all Kerry's
records, reports, & awards.
3- a group of paid shills, some of whom have recanted, most of whom have
contradicted themselves in their statements against Kerry.

We know wih group you place the most faith in.



Rather interviewed Bush's commander's secretary.


And he's telling the truth while Kerry's commanding officers are lying?
Of
course we all know that secretaries never lie and commanding officers
never
tell the truth, right?

You mean like when George Bush Jr's CO said he never remembered Bush being
in his unit at all?

Why don't we ask Vice President Cheney's fellow soldiers about his
service... oh wait, he had 'other priorities.'


Both Admiral Zumwalt and Rear Admiral Hoffman have stated that Kerry's
applications for the three Purple Hearts and his Silver Star were bogus.
Now why should we discount their proclamations while beliving some
secretary's claim?

Actually, that's a lie.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp

For one thing, Zumwalt died several years ago. Are we taking evidence from
seances now?


... Until then it is all conjecture,

And a lot of deliberate slander.

and for either the dems or GOP to claim otherwise is just so much smoking
blowing in the political wind.

And a big distraction from the real issues of this campaign, such as Bush
& Cheney's record of what they have accomplished in running this country
for the past 3 3/4 years.

DSK