According to the Navy's Inspector General, procedures were properly
followed in awarding Kerry's medals.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040918/D855P5QG0.html

You have to read between the lines and understand the ramificaitons of
reviewing decorations. If something is found to have been done in error it
will call into question all of the awards presented prior to and subsequent
to Kerry's award. That would be a very large mess that nobody wants.


Bert, if we read between the lines we see that *no* amount of evidence will
disway you guys on the radio right from your assertion that John Kerry lied,
cheated, and practically stole every one of his decorations. That's Rush
Limbaugh's story, and by Gawd you're stickin' to it.

Any evidence in the official records always seems to be wrong, written by
Kerry, or part of a service-wide, administrative coverup of tens of thousands
questionable awards, (and Kerry is probably responsible for as well).

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 07:05:10 -0400, thunder
wrote:

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:04:07 +0100, John Hill wrote:


Well AIUI the officer who signed the commendation was unaware of many of
the facts and the proper process was not followed.

According to the Navy's Inspector General, procedures were properly
followed in awarding Kerry's medals.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040918/D855P5QG0.html


According to his (now retired)CO there were things misreported to him.

JH

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 09:19:51 -0400, thunder
wrote:

You have to read between the lines and understand the ramificaitons of
reviewing decorations. If something is found to have been done in error it
will call into question all of the awards presented prior to and
subsequent to Kerry's award. That would be a very large mess that nobody
wants.

I'm not calling into question *any* awards, including Kerry's. In fact,
I'm not questioning either of the two candidates military service, Bush or
Kerry.


Which is *my* point. It is not very relevant

JH

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:36:44 +0100, John Hill wrote:


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040918/D855P5QG0.html


According to his (now retired)CO there were things misreported to him.


George Elliot's statements have recently been all over the board, but he
*did* recommend Kerry for the Silver Star.

http://www.factcheck.org/miscreports.aspx?docid=232

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 21:15:30 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Why'd it take 30 years before Kerry was granted an honorable discharge?
Isn't that usually issued right away?

It didn't. Have you been listening to Rush lately?

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_...y_records.html

Honestly, I don't know where I heard or read it. So according to the
documents posted on his Website, Kerry was discharged to the naval Reserves
in 1973, and honorably discharged from the Reserves in 1978? So he was
protesting the war while still an Officer in the military? I don't really
care...but some might.

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:37:23 +0100, John Hill wrote:


I'm not calling into question *any* awards, including Kerry's. In fact,
I'm not questioning either of the two candidates military service, Bush
or Kerry.


Which is *my* point. It is not very relevant

Then don't be calling Kerry's service "dubious". That is very relevant.

John Hill wrote in message . ..
On 22 Sep 2004 15:45:57 -0700, (Sam) wrote:

But then the liberal response is always one of feelings, not reason or
argument - as you demonstrate so very well.

JH

It's more like Bush shed his skin than changed his life. JH, how can
you tout a "committed christian" and then ask for reason and argument?
Reason and argument eliminate religion as a possibility. Tell me some
of the reasons and arguments christians use to justify war and rampant
killing, especially the pre-emptive sort.


All I am suggesting is that he changed his life, something Kerry
hasn't done. Kerry has only changed his wife - for a slicker, richer
one who suited his political ambitions.

Belief in God is not the important component here - life and value
change is.

JH

Kerry's life changed way back in Vietnam when he was 20 or so.
Spoonfed Georgie Boy, the inspiration for the phrase "Born on third
base, thinks he hit a triple", had to go 40 years before he "changed".
Kerry saw a moral inequity and changed, Bush drank and snorted his way
to the bottom of the barrel and was henpecked into changing. Kerry's
change was outward, to help others, to stop an unjust war, Bush's
change was inward, to help himself, to keep his wife from leaving his
sorry ass. They both have religion, Kerry keeps his to himself, Bush
wears his on his sleeve and uses it as a political tool to snare the
ignorant.

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:46:44 -0400, thunder
wrote:



I'm not calling into question *any* awards, including Kerry's. In fact,
I'm not questioning either of the two candidates military service, Bush
or Kerry.


Which is *my* point. It is not very relevant

Then don't be calling Kerry's service "dubious". That is very relevant.


Don't see how

JH

On 23 Sep 2004 16:07:18 -0700, (Sam) wrote:

Kerry's life changed way back in Vietnam when he was 20 or so.
Spoonfed Georgie Boy, the inspiration for the phrase "Born on third
base, thinks he hit a triple", had to go 40 years before he "changed".
Kerry saw a moral inequity and changed, Bush drank and snorted his way
to the bottom of the barrel and was henpecked into changing. Kerry's
change was outward, to help others, to stop an unjust war, Bush's
change was inward, to help himself, to keep his wife from leaving his
sorry ass. They both have religion, Kerry keeps his to himself, Bush
wears his on his sleeve and uses it as a political tool to snare the
ignorant.

Of course if I were a cynic I would think that Kerry planned his life
post Vietnam and went after the main chance all the way.

JH

John Hill wrote in message . ..
On 23 Sep 2004 16:07:18 -0700, (Sam) wrote:

Kerry's life changed way back in Vietnam when he was 20 or so.
Spoonfed Georgie Boy, the inspiration for the phrase "Born on third
base, thinks he hit a triple", had to go 40 years before he "changed".
Kerry saw a moral inequity and changed, Bush drank and snorted his way
to the bottom of the barrel and was henpecked into changing. Kerry's
change was outward, to help others, to stop an unjust war, Bush's
change was inward, to help himself, to keep his wife from leaving his
sorry ass. They both have religion, Kerry keeps his to himself, Bush
wears his on his sleeve and uses it as a political tool to snare the
ignorant.

Of course if I were a cynic I would think that Kerry planned his life
post Vietnam and went after the main chance all the way.

JH

And so when Bush went awol from the National Guard to work for his
father's campaign, he was just fartin around, high on life and toot
with no political ambititions?