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."