John Hill wrote:

I don't recall John Kerry ever claiming to now being "holier than thou."
But, then, as far as I know, Kerry isn't a booze-ingesting,
coke-snorting skirt chaser...


But he did "Report for duty" raising the spectre of his dubious
service


There is nothing dubious about Kerry's military service. He served
honorably in Vietnam, and he received a number of decorations you do not
get gor attendance.

It is Bush's military service that is dubious.




--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John Hill wrote:

I don't recall John Kerry ever claiming to now being "holier than thou."
But, then, as far as I know, Kerry isn't a booze-ingesting,
coke-snorting skirt chaser...


But he did "Report for duty" raising the spectre of his dubious
service


There is nothing dubious about Kerry's military service. He served
honorably in Vietnam, and he received a number of decorations you do not
get gor attendance.


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

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

"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 Wed, 22 Sep 2004 15:30:22 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

But he did "Report for duty" raising the spectre of his dubious
service


There is nothing dubious about Kerry's military service. He served
honorably in Vietnam, and he received a number of decorations you do not
get gor attendance.


Well AIUI the officer who signed the commendation was unaware of many
of the facts and the proper process was not followed. AFAIK he got
decorations for what I would have considered a day at the office for
my troops.

JH


It is Bush's military service that is dubious.

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

"thunder" wrote in message
...
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

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.

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:02:40 -0400, Bert Robbins 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.

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 18:37:23 +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.