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.

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

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 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