"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
A Discharge is evidence of completion of service. An Honorary Discharge
is
evidence of honorable completion of service. No further evidence is
needed.

double standard, double standard, double standard.

Why aren't Kerry's purple heats, and battlefield stars equally evident of
honorable service?

Because you can make an arguement that you were wounded during enemy action
when a mortar barage came at your camp while you were shaving and you nicked
yourself.

You guys spend $millions trying to refute the official records in Kerry's
case,
but when your guy comes under the microscope you say "the official records
support Bush's story, so case closed."

Ok, what about Kerry painting everyone in the military with a broad brush as
war criminals?

You guys are so transparent, you'll all be reincarnated as storm windows.
:-)

Kerry, is nothing more than an empty suite.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"TruthIsStrongerThanDeceit" wrote in message
...

We know Kerry served with valor in combat in Viet Nam, government
records
prove it. Government records or the lack thereof also prove Bush was
AWOL
during the Viet Nam war.



No we don't. We have not seen Kerry's records. Only a partial part
released by Kerry.

And, just how did Secretary of the Navy, the Honorable John Lehman's name
get onto Kerry's citation for a silver star? Oh, that's right you might not
remember that Lehman was Sectretary of the Navy during Reagan's first term a
whole ten years after Kerry got out of his commitment early.

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 17:10:09 -0400, jim-- wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 15:36:50 -0400, jim-- wrote:


Who are *you guys*? Certainly not the President or his campaign.

I'm not so sure.

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.pht...can_Connection

The President and his campaign staff had nothing to do with those
commercials and attacks. You know that.

No, I don't. "Nothing" denotes absolute. Ginsburg precludes that. Also,
search on some of the names at the above disinfopedia link.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Aug25.html

Can I put the President or Karl Rove behind it? No, but I am quite
suspicious of Rove. You may find the source questionable, but the content
of this article is illuminating:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/fre...0503_rove.html

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 17:10:09 -0400, jim-- wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 15:36:50 -0400, jim-- wrote:


Who are *you guys*? Certainly not the President or his campaign.

I'm not so sure.

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.pht...can_Connection

The President and his campaign staff had nothing to do with those
commercials and attacks. You know that.

No, I don't. "Nothing" denotes absolute. Ginsburg precludes that. Also,
search on some of the names at the above disinfopedia link.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Aug25.html

Can I put the President or Karl Rove behind it? No, but I am quite
suspicious of Rove. You may find the source questionable, but the content
of this article is illuminating:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/fre...0503_rove.html





As was the testimony of the Swift Boat vets. But in the end, what does it
matter...Vietnam is a thing of the distant past. Can they start discussion
the real issues already?

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 17:10:09 -0400, jim-- wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 15:36:50 -0400, jim-- wrote:


Who are *you guys*? Certainly not the President or his campaign.

I'm not so sure.


http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.pht...can_Connection

The President and his campaign staff had nothing to do with those
commercials and attacks. You know that.

No, I don't. "Nothing" denotes absolute. Ginsburg precludes that. Also,
search on some of the names at the above disinfopedia link.

CNN is a tool of the Kerry campaign:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/10/po...0advisers.html.
Allowing both Carville and Begala to consult on the Kerry campaign and
report for CNN is a breach of ethics.

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:19:53 -0400, jim-- wrote:


As was the testimony of the Swift Boat vets. But in the end, what does
it matter...Vietnam is a thing of the distant past. Can they start
discussion the real issues already?

Both candidates did what their country asked of them. Military service,
30 years ago, isn't an issue in my mind. As a people, we say we want an
issue driven campaign, but the reality is, we don't spend the time to know
the issues. Hell, a large chunk don't even bother to vote. We have these
negative, smoke and mirror campaigns because they work. We have the
democracy *we* deserve.

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:36:01 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


CNN is a tool of the Kerry campaign:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/10/po...0advisers.html.
Allowing both Carville and Begala to consult on the Kerry campaign and
report for CNN is a breach of ethics.

That may be, but Ben Ginsburg was the Bush campaign's lawyer and he
admittedly helped the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. I won't say he
coordinated, which would be illegal, but there is a connection. Since you
don't like CNN, you can read it he

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1199169/posts

Ok, what about Kerry painting everyone in the military with a broad brush as
war criminals?


Restate that with some attempt to be accurate, rather than inflammatory, and it
may be worthy of discussion.

"TruthIsStrongerThanDeceit" wrote in message ...

We know Kerry served with valor in combat in Viet Nam, government records
prove it. Government records or the lack thereof also prove Bush was AWOL
during the Viet Nam war.

"During" the Viet Nam war? When did Nixon declare a pullout?

The U.S. News analysis also showed that during the final two years of his
obligation, Bush did not comply with Air Force regulations that impose a
time limit on making up missed drills. What's more, he apparently never made
up five months of drills he missed in 1972, contrary to assertions by the
administration. White House officials did not respond to the analysis last
week but emphasized that Bush had "served honorably."

When did Kerry fullfill his ready reserve obligation? (It included drill time, BTW.)

Some experts say they remain mystified as to how Bush obtained an honorable
discharge. Lawrence Korb, a former top Defense Department official in the
Reagan administration, says the military records clearly show that Bush "had
not fulfilled his obligation" and "should have been called to active duty."

Why is Kerry's discharge dated 1978?

Bubba told them to shut the **** up about this.

They didn't listen.

LOL!


"Offbreed" wrote in message
om...
"TruthIsStrongerThanDeceit" wrote in message
...

We know Kerry served with valor in combat in Viet Nam, government
records
prove it. Government records or the lack thereof also prove Bush was
AWOL
during the Viet Nam war.

"During" the Viet Nam war? When did Nixon declare a pullout?

The U.S. News analysis also showed that during the final two years of
his
obligation, Bush did not comply with Air Force regulations that impose a
time limit on making up missed drills. What's more, he apparently never
made
up five months of drills he missed in 1972, contrary to assertions by
the
administration. White House officials did not respond to the analysis
last
week but emphasized that Bush had "served honorably."

When did Kerry fullfill his ready reserve obligation? (It included drill
time, BTW.)

Some experts say they remain mystified as to how Bush obtained an
honorable
discharge. Lawrence Korb, a former top Defense Department official in
the
Reagan administration, says the military records clearly show that Bush
"had
not fulfilled his obligation" and "should have been called to active
duty."

Why is Kerry's discharge dated 1978?