"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