In article ,
Horvath wrote:
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 14:36:55 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote this crap:


And before you get your panties in a wad, Kerry also requested an early
discharge for the same reason. It also was granted.


Don't forget that I'm stupid.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!


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

In article ,
Horvath wrote:
On 22 Sep 2004 12:07:28 -0700, (Jonathan
Ganz) wrote this crap:

And before you get your panties in a wad, Kerry also requested an early
discharge for the same reason. It also was granted.

After he was wounded three times, which is why it was granted.


Bzzzzt! Wrong answer! He was sent stateside after leaving Vietnam.
Then he pulled strings to get an early out. Check the records.

Check your butt. You'll find your boyfriend buried up to his
shoulders.
--
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

You're right. He left VN under the auspices of his three PHs. He then
made a request to leave the military, I believe as you claim. So, he
was upfront about his request, and according to the military
fullfilled his duties. He didn't fail to show up for a physical
against the orders of his commander like someone else.

Right. But both men received honorable discharges, and early ones at that.

Max

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

So, I think we really need to hear why he didn't show up, don't you???
I think we can take a good guess, which means that there is a lot of
negative speculation going on for no reason other than he's being
stupid by not saying (stupid or smart I guess).

Tonight Bill O'Reilly talked about his interview with Bush that occurred
today. It will be shown on The Factor on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday.
O'Reilly said he asked Bush about this very thing, among other things.
Maybe the answer is forthcoming, eh?

Max

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Well, you can't be all bad if someone in your family can think
rationally. :-)

My brother would probably disagree. :-)

Max

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Powerful friends who helped him shirk his duties, helped him overcome
any bad press he was going to get from his commander.

In the several years prior to this supposed failure to report, he
accumulated ten to twenty times the number of points required to remain in
good stead in each year. He flew often. Isn't it just possible that he was
beginning to concentrate on his political career during that last year?

Max

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 04:01:28 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:


"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Powerful friends who helped him shirk his duties, helped him overcome
any bad press he was going to get from his commander.

In the several years prior to this supposed failure to report, he
accumulated ten to twenty times the number of points required to remain in
good stead in each year. He flew often. Isn't it just possible that he was
beginning to concentrate on his political career during that last year?

Max

I don't believe anyone disputes the fact that he met the requirements
of a weekend warrior for the first four years of his six year
obligation. Why his father shipped him off to Alabama in 1972 is a
mystery, but by the accounts of the folks working on that campaign in
Alabama, it certainly wasn't because Bush was serious about "his
political career."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20.../index_np.html

In the spring of 1972, George H.W. Bush phoned his friend and asked a
favor: Could Allison find a place on the Senate campaign he was
managing in Alabama for his troublesome eldest son, the 25-year-old
George W. Bush?

"The impression I had was that Georgie was raising a lot of hell in
Houston, getting in trouble and embarrassing the family, and they just
really wanted to get him out of Houston and under Jimmy's wing,"
Allison's widow, Linda, told me. "And Jimmy said, 'Sure.' He was so
loyal."

Linda Allison's story, never before published, contradicts the Bush
campaign's assertion that George W. Bush transferred from the Texas
Air National Guard to the Alabama National Guard in 1972 because he
received an irresistible offer to gain high-level experience on the
campaign of Bush family friend Winton "Red" Blount. In fact, according
to what Allison says her late husband told her, the younger Bush had
become a political liability for his father, who was then the United
States ambassador to the United Nations, and the family wanted him out
of Texas. "I think they wanted someone they trusted to keep an eye on
him."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When Bush returned to Houston, but not to his unit, he spent several
months doing volunteer work with inner city youth in Operation PULL,
work that sounds suspiciously like community service "volunteer" work
by someone who may well have gotten in trouble with his father, or,
more likely, the law. The rumored 1972 cocaine arrest and the
subsequent changing of his driver's license number connects the dots,
but is not, as yet, provable.

In article .net,
Maxprop wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

You're right. He left VN under the auspices of his three PHs. He then
made a request to leave the military, I believe as you claim. So, he
was upfront about his request, and according to the military
fullfilled his duties. He didn't fail to show up for a physical
against the orders of his commander like someone else.

Right. But both men received honorable discharges, and early ones at that.

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



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

In article k.net,
Maxprop wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Powerful friends who helped him shirk his duties, helped him overcome
any bad press he was going to get from his commander.

In the several years prior to this supposed failure to report, he
accumulated ten to twenty times the number of points required to remain in
good stead in each year. He flew often. Isn't it just possible that he was
beginning to concentrate on his political career during that last year?

Who knows. The point is that he refuses to say. And, he disobeyed
direct orders.


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

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 22 Sep 2004 12:08:30 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

The facts in the documents are not in dispute, only the documents
themselves.

That's the kind of sloppy thinking the proponents of the Dems' party line
hope voters will accept. For a more careful reading see

Actually, it's very precise thinking. Just because something is
written down doesn't make it factual or the truth. Of course, the same
goes the other way. 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.

--
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

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

And, we all laughed at you. What's your point Mr. Poodle?

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On 23 Sep 2004 23:11:31 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

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

I've previously pointed out how muddle-headed that statement is.

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.

Where have you been? Kerry refuses to make his service records available.
Funny he takes no heat for this from the evening news folks like Bush does.

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

The Kerry handlers have already come out and said the first medal was
probably not deserved. Kerry's commanding officer said he through Kerry out of
his office (tent) when he applied for the medal. Then he said Kerry went
around him to obtain the medal.
What has Kerry voted for while in office that you admire?

S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"Trains are a winter sport"

In article ,
SAIL LOCO wrote:
Where have you been? Kerry refuses to make his service records available.
Funny he takes no heat for this from the evening news folks like Bush does.

I guess even O'Reilly can understand there's a world of difference
between not showing up for a physical against a direct order
vs. serving honorably.

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

The Kerry handlers have already come out and said the first medal was
probably not deserved. Kerry's commanding officer said he through Kerry out of
his office (tent) when he applied for the medal. Then he said Kerry went
around him to obtain the medal.

More right wing bs.

What has Kerry voted for while in office that you admire?

Just about everything if you bother to actually read about his votes.

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

In article ,
Maxprop wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

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

Yes. The ones on his boat.

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?

Who is he? It's a woman. What's her motivation? She said she liked
Bush. She seemed pretty credible to me. Which commanding officers are
those? Doug already posted the link about the fabrications.

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?

Bull****.

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.

You didn't even bother to check the facts did you?

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.

Asked and answered.

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

OTOH your point is why there are so many contradictions in the "Swift
Boat Veterans For (ahem) Truth" between each others stories; and in many
cases, with the the stories they have told now against Kerry and the
stories they told back then.

I have read extensively regarding the Swift Boat Veterans since I was in
Vietnam in the Navy. I haven't seen the contradictions you speak of.


"some" = 1(that's one)
Usually "some" = at least 3.

That's right. Some is usually 3 or more. I've only read about one guy
changing his story. Would you post the names of the other two.

"Contradicted"= 0, unless you can post a link to the contrary written by
the person in question.

Haven't seen any contradictions in their stories. Please post.

So, your standard of proof varies according to what you want to believe?

No, as you can see I'm asking you for proof since I haven't seen anything
regarding your statements anywhere else.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"Trains are a winter sport"

I guess that comes under the heading of "heard it so often you think it
must be true."

So DSK, are you staiting here in public that Kerry has not refused to release
his records?
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"Trains are a winter sport"

Right on! Thank God for Dan Rather!

There's a man of integrity. Ole Dan claims to be a marine. Problem is he quit
boot camp. If you don't finish boot camp you ain't a marine.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"Trains are a winter sport"

SAIL LOCO wrote:
I have read extensively regarding the Swift Boat Veterans since I was in
Vietnam in the Navy. I haven't seen the contradictions you speak of.

Of course not.

Have you read about John O'Neill's testimony that he was with Kerry in
Camobodia, and his testimony that Kerry lied about being in Cambodia?
Seems to me that one or the other must be... umm... not entirely truthful.



That's right. Some is usually 3 or more. I've only read about one guy
changing his story. Would you post the names of the other two.

Actually I think there's seven or eight who have been challenged on
"inconsistancies" in their story, and recanted, including the one who
claimed to be Kerry's CO and later changed this to say he 'was in
Kerry's chain of command.'

Not to mention that the whole 'Swift Boat Veteran' thing was originally
purported to be a "public service" by patriotic veterans, and it turned
out to be paid for by Republicans and directed (albeit in a quasi-legal
under-the-counter way) by the Bush-Cheney campaign.


Haven't seen any contradictions in their stories.

Well, if you read the paid-for advertising, of course you won't. If OTOH
you check into the news, you will.


So, your standard of proof varies according to what you want to believe?

No, as you can see I'm asking you for proof since I haven't seen anything
regarding your statements anywhere else.

What would you accept as proof? Maxpropsprit insists that all "media"
including web sites are biased; although he seems to not realize that
this makes his info biased as well.

DSK

Right on! Thank God for Dan Rather!

???

SAIL LOCO wrote:
There's a man of integrity. Ole Dan claims to be a marine. Problem is he quit
boot camp. If you don't finish boot camp you ain't a marine.

Now there I agree with you.

DSK

"Maxprop" wrote ...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
bla bla bla bla liberal blather

You can't have it both ways.

Uh, you are talking to Jon, right?

SV

"Maxprop" wrote in message
. net...
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?

Is our perception is wrong?

Are you telling us that Bush fought for his country in Vietnam while Kerry's
family helped him to dodge the draft?


I find this quite difficult to believe. Bush doesn't look as if he has
sufficient sphincter control to prevent embarrassment in a close quarters
combat situation.


Regards


Donal
--

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Perhaps he doesn't give a crap what other people
think.

Oh yeah, that certainly would be true in an election year. LOL.

Max

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message

"Maxprop" wrote ...

You can't have it both ways.

Uh, you are talking to Jon, right?

Yeah. If I'd been talking to Kerry I'd know full well that HE can have it
both ways, and usually does.

Max

In article ,
DSK wrote:
Right on! Thank God for Dan Rather!

???

SAIL LOCO wrote:
There's a man of integrity. Ole Dan claims to be a marine. Problem is he quit
boot camp. If you don't finish boot camp you ain't a marine.

Now there I agree with you.

Doug, this was totally tongue in cheek....




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

In article ,
Scott Vernon wrote:

"Maxprop" wrote ...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
bla bla bla bla liberal blather

You can't have it both ways.


Only Horass would make a statement like this. :-)


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

In article et,
Maxprop wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Perhaps he doesn't give a crap what other people
think.

Oh yeah, that certainly would be true in an election year. LOL.

Well, that's certainly Bush's attitude!!



--
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

. 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.

So would I. Particularly the applications for those medals. Ever wonder
who wrote 'em?

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.

What is being discussed is essentially fitness to be the Commander in Chief
of the US military forces. Bush has done this for four years. Like his
decisions or not, he's proven himself up to the job with consistency and
unflagging support for our troops. Kerry, OTOH, has not had the benefit of
demonstrating this. So we must rely on his fitness to be the CiC from his
previous military history. What bothers me most is that he maligned ALL the
US troops in Vietnam, calling them "war criminals" while aiding and abetting
the enemy (meeting with Madame Bihn, the titular leader of the PRG, or Viet
Cong, in Paris) while still a member of the Naval Reserves, which is truly a
war crime and treasonous. He is unfit for command, IMO, to quote the title
of the book.

YMMV. The voters will decide.

Max

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On 23 Sep 2004 23:11:31 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

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

I've previously pointed out how muddle-headed that statement is.



Dave, Which is more important? ... the truth ... or the presentation?


Does it really matter if the presentation was flawed?



Regards


Donal
--

In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

So would I. Particularly the applications for those medals. Ever wonder
who wrote 'em?

And ever wonder who approved them??

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.

What is being discussed is essentially fitness to be the Commander in Chief
of the US military forces. Bush has done this for four years. Like his
decisions or not, he's proven himself up to the job with consistency and
unflagging support for our troops. Kerry, OTOH, has not had the benefit of

Totally wrong! He's put our troops in harms way for no good reason and
got 1000 of them killed, not to mention getting the rest of the world
to hate us! Great job. Sure he's been consistent... consistently
wrong.

demonstrating this. So we must rely on his fitness to be the CiC from his
previous military history. What bothers me most is that he maligned ALL the
US troops in Vietnam, calling them "war criminals" while aiding and abetting
the enemy (meeting with Madame Bihn, the titular leader of the PRG, or Viet
Cong, in Paris) while still a member of the Naval Reserves, which is truly a
war crime and treasonous. He is unfit for command, IMO, to quote the title
of the book.

Yes, Kerry has demonstrated his leadership abilities both in war and
in Congress. He never maligned "ALL" of the troops in VN. If you
actually listen to what he said, you'd know that. You're being quite
sloppy and fast and loose with the facts.
--
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

What has Kerry voted for while in office that you admire?

Just about everything if you bother to actually read about his votes.

Ah, then you must be happy that Kerry went out of his way to block The
Vietnam Human Rights Act, an amendment to HR 1950, which would provide for
improving human rights and religious freedom in Vietnam prior to that
country receiving money from, or trade status with, the US?

Max