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