( OY) BUSH APPROVAL RATING AT LOW POINT OF HIS TERM
 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4482401/

Extracts

A majority of Americans -- 57 percent -- say they want their next
president to steer the country away from the course set by Bush...

Bush no longer is viewed as someone who can bring the country together.

Two in three now say Bush cares more about protecting the interests of
large business corporations, up from 58 percent in December.

( OY) BUSH APPROVAL RATING AT LOW POINT OF HIS TERM
 

How about the other parts, Jim?

"Bush's overall support, 50 percent, was unchanged from February and equal
to the lowest of his presidency; only the war on terrorism continues to
garner him the support of more than six in 10 Americans."

( OY) BUSH APPROVAL RATING AT LOW POINT OF HIS TERM
 

Written by Richard Morin? Interesting. The Washington Post let's an
antiwar leftist write so-called "news" articles for its paper. Here's a
link to a website called www.why-war.com, which loves to quote Morin:

http://www.why-war.com/news/author.p...=Richard+Morin

Read all of the "unbiased (LOL!) news reporting" by Richard Morin.

And Harry says that Newsmax is bad...?




"Jim" wrote in message
...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4482401/

Extracts

A majority of Americans -- 57 percent -- say they want their next
president to steer the country away from the course set by Bush...

Bush no longer is viewed as someone who can bring the country together.

Two in three now say Bush cares more about protecting the interests of
large business corporations, up from 58 percent in December.

( Ot) BUSH APPROVAL RATING AT LOW POINT OF HIS TERM
 

You think this part is GOOD?

NOYB wrote:
How about the other parts, Jim?

"Bush's overall support, 50 percent, was unchanged from February and equal
to the ***lowest of his presidency***; only the war on terrorism continues to
garner him the support of more than six in 10 Americans."

( Ot) BUSH APPROVAL RATING AT LOW POINT OF HIS TERM
 

Jim wrote:

You think this part is GOOD?

NOYB wrote:

How about the other parts, Jim?

"Bush's overall support, 50 percent, was unchanged from February and
equal
to the ***lowest of his presidency***; only the war on terrorism
continues to
garner him the support of more than six in 10 Americans."



The only issue that concerns Noybby is that we continue to bomb the crap
out of everyone, in order to assure what he thinks will be world peace.

( OY) BUSH APPROVAL RATING AT LOW POINT OF HIS TERM
 

On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 12:48:54 -0500, Jim wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4482401/

Extracts

A majority of Americans -- 57 percent -- say they want their next
president to steer the country away from the course set by Bush...

Bush no longer is viewed as someone who can bring the country together.

Two in three now say Bush cares more about protecting the interests of
large business corporations, up from 58 percent in December.


Pick one of the following in this unbiased survey.

1. I'd rather the country continue in its downward economic spiral,
suffering the attacks of terrorists while losing millions of jobs
under the current president.

2. I'd rather have a brand new president who will change everything
for the better and make our lives all peaches and cream.

Gee, that would provide fair results. Probably worthy of a few column
inches in the Washington Post and the New York Times.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

( OY) BUSH APPROVAL RATING AT LOW POINT OF HIS TERM
 

John H wrote:
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 12:48:54 -0500, Jim wrote:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4482401/

Extracts

A majority of Americans -- 57 percent -- say they want their next
president to steer the country away from the course set by Bush...

Bush no longer is viewed as someone who can bring the country together.

Two in three now say Bush cares more about protecting the interests of
large business corporations, up from 58 percent in December.



Pick one of the following in this unbiased survey.

1. I'd rather the country continue in its downward economic spiral,
suffering the attacks of terrorists while losing millions of jobs
under the current president.


Gee, and we thought you were totally unaware of what was happening in
this country. But you do know.



2. I'd rather have a brand new president who will change everything
for the better and make our lives all peaches and cream.



Whatever a new president does, he cannot do worse than Bush.

( OY) BUSH APPROVAL RATING AT LOW POINT OF HIS TERM
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 12:48:54 -0500, Jim wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4482401/

Extracts

A majority of Americans -- 57 percent -- say they want their next
president to steer the country away from the course set by Bush...

Bush no longer is viewed as someone who can bring the country together.

Two in three now say Bush cares more about protecting the interests of
large business corporations, up from 58 percent in December.


Pick one of the following in this unbiased survey.

1. I'd rather the country continue in its downward economic spiral,
suffering the attacks of terrorists while losing millions of jobs
under the current president.

2. I'd rather have a brand new president who will change everything
for the better and make our lives all peaches and cream.

Gee, that would provide fair results. Probably worthy of a few column
inches in the Washington Post and the New York Times.

The headlines could have just as easily read.....Support for Kerry soft.

"Bush's overall support, 50 percent, was unchanged from February and equal
to the lowest of his presidency; only the war on terrorism continues to
garner him the support of more than six in 10 Americans."

50% after six months of the nine dwarves bashing him daily.....that is damn
good.

"Also, Bush begins the campaign with a strong reservoir of support that
Kerry lacks: Nearly nine in 10 Bush supporters say they "strongly" support
him, compared with two in three Kerry voters. In addition, six in 10 Kerry
supporters say they are voting for the Democrat more as a protest against
Bush and his policies, and not because they are attracted to Kerry. By
contrast, nearly nine in 10 Bush voters say their support is based on their
feelings toward the president, not disapproval of Kerry."

Note also the poll was of 'registered' voters, not the more accurate
'likely' or probably voter. Polls of 'registered' voters historically have
swung to the liberal side.



John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

( Ot) BUSH APPROVAL RATING AT LOW POINT OF HIS TERM
 

"Jim" wrote in message
...
You think this part is GOOD?

NOYB wrote:
How about the other parts, Jim?

"Bush's overall support, 50 percent, was unchanged from February and
equal
to the ***lowest of his presidency***;

50% is the lowest of *Bush's* Presidency, but by historical standards for
this time of year in an election year, it's right on par with most
Presidents. On March 15-17th, 1996, the CNN/Gallup poll had Clinton at
52%. On January 5-7th, 1996, Clinton's Approval rating was at 42%.



only the war on terrorism continues to
garner him the support of more than six in 10 Americans."

60% is pretty damn good...especially when most Americans consider this one
of their top two issues.

( Ot) BUSH APPROVAL RATING AT LOW POINT OF HIS TERM
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jim wrote:

You think this part is GOOD?

NOYB wrote:

How about the other parts, Jim?

"Bush's overall support, 50 percent, was unchanged from February and
equal
to the ***lowest of his presidency***; only the war on terrorism
continues to
garner him the support of more than six in 10 Americans."



The only issue that concerns Noybby is that we continue to bomb the crap
out of everyone, in order to assure what he thinks will be world peace.

Kinda ironic, no?

However, I really don't care if the World is at peace. I *do* care if
individuals like bin Laden have the ability to control as vital a portion of
the World as the Middle East...and it's oil.

Our country's only weakness is our huge dependence on oil. Without it, we
can be brought to our knees economically. The peace and survival of the
United States of America is all that really matters to me.

( Ot) BUSH APPROVAL RATING AT LOW POINT OF HIS TERM
 

NOYB wrote:


However, I really don't care if the World is at peace. I *do* care if
individuals like bin Laden have the ability to control as vital a portion of
the World as the Middle East...and it's oil.

Our country's only weakness is our huge dependence on oil. Without it, we
can be brought to our knees economically. The peace and survival of the
United States of America is all that really matters to me.

In some number of years (some estimates are as low as 20) The oil will
be GONE! Then what???

We've talked a good game about alternate energy since 1972. Might be
time to actually DO something!

( Ot) BUSH APPROVAL RATING AT LOW POINT OF HIS TERM
 

"Jim" wrote in message
...


NOYB wrote:


However, I really don't care if the World is at peace. I *do* care if
individuals like bin Laden have the ability to control as vital a
portion of
the World as the Middle East...and it's oil.

Our country's only weakness is our huge dependence on oil. Without it,
we
can be brought to our knees economically. The peace and survival of the
United States of America is all that really matters to me.

In some number of years (some estimates are as low as 20) The oil will
be GONE! Then what???

Is that with or without opening up ANWR?
Is that with or without opening up the Gulf of Mexico?
Is that with or without opening up the coast of California?

Should start building more nuke plants so that they won't have to burn coal
or oil?

We've talked a good game about alternate energy since 1972. Might be
time to actually DO something!

What do you propose we do?

( Ot) BUSH APPROVAL RATING AT LOW POINT OF HIS TERM
 

On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 19:37:55 -0500, Bert Robbins wrote:


In some number of years (some estimates are as low as 20) The oil will
be GONE! Then what???

Is that with or without opening up ANWR? Is that with or without opening
up the Gulf of Mexico? Is that with or without opening up the coast of
California?

You must have been asleep the past 20 years. US oil production peaked in
the 1970s. Jim is talking world production, which, by most estimates, is
peaking now.

http://www.oilcrash.com/running.htm

Should start building more nuke plants so that they won't have to burn
coal or oil?

We should be so lucky. If oil was only energy, but it is not.

http://www.oilcrash.com/petroleum.htm


We've talked a good game about alternate energy since 1972. Might be
time to actually DO something!

What do you propose we do?

There was a time:

http://www.faultline.org/news/2001/1...ependence.html

Interesting reading:

http://dieoff.com/

The good news is, we don't have to worry about global warming:

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994216

( Ot) BUSH APPROVAL RATING AT LOW POINT OF HIS TERM
 

"NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jim wrote:

You think this part is GOOD?

NOYB wrote:

How about the other parts, Jim?

"Bush's overall support, 50 percent, was unchanged from February and
equal
to the ***lowest of his presidency***; only the war on terrorism
continues to
garner him the support of more than six in 10 Americans."



The only issue that concerns Noybby is that we continue to bomb the crap
out of everyone, in order to assure what he thinks will be world peace.

Kinda ironic, no?

However, I really don't care if the World is at peace. I *do* care if
individuals like bin Laden have the ability to control as vital a portion of
the World as the Middle East...and it's oil.

Our country's only weakness is our huge dependence on oil. Without it, we
can be brought to our knees economically. The peace and survival of the
United States of America is all that really matters to me.

I think you should take a play from the conservative play book, if you
want to worry about the Mid East, it's oil, and it's rightful owner's
, move there.

( Ot) BUSH APPROVAL RATING AT LOW POINT OF HIS TERM
 

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message ...
"Jim" wrote in message
...


NOYB wrote:


However, I really don't care if the World is at peace. I *do* care if
individuals like bin Laden have the ability to control as vital a
portion of
the World as the Middle East...and it's oil.

Our country's only weakness is our huge dependence on oil. Without it,
we
can be brought to our knees economically. The peace and survival of the
United States of America is all that really matters to me.

In some number of years (some estimates are as low as 20) The oil will
be GONE! Then what???

Is that with or without opening up ANWR?
Is that with or without opening up the Gulf of Mexico?
Is that with or without opening up the coast of California?

Should start building more nuke plants so that they won't have to burn coal
or oil?

We've talked a good game about alternate energy since 1972. Might be
time to actually DO something!

What do you propose we do?


If you ask Jim or Kerry for that matter they will tell you... (opens
the can)... "Change, that's what we propose, and oh yeah, Bush is bad,
and of course, I served in Vietnam for four months...

( Ot) BUSH APPROVAL RATING AT LOW POINT OF HIS TERM
 

"Backyard Renegade" wrote in message
m...
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
"Jim" wrote in message
...


NOYB wrote:


However, I really don't care if the World is at peace. I *do* care
if
individuals like bin Laden have the ability to control as vital a
portion of
the World as the Middle East...and it's oil.

Our country's only weakness is our huge dependence on oil. Without
it,
we
can be brought to our knees economically. The peace and survival of
the
United States of America is all that really matters to me.

In some number of years (some estimates are as low as 20) The oil will
be GONE! Then what???

Is that with or without opening up ANWR?
Is that with or without opening up the Gulf of Mexico?
Is that with or without opening up the coast of California?

Should start building more nuke plants so that they won't have to burn
coal
or oil?

We've talked a good game about alternate energy since 1972. Might be
time to actually DO something!

What do you propose we do?


If you ask Jim or Kerry for that matter they will tell you... (opens
the can)... "Change, that's what we propose, and oh yeah, Bush is bad,
and of course, I served in Vietnam for four months...

....and got three purple hearts...one for a minor hand injury, one a minor
thigh injury, and a third one that caused me to be out of action for a
whopping two days. Oh yeah...and I was the commander on the boat...so *I
NOMINATED MYSELF FOR THOSE MEDALS*.

( Ot) BUSH APPROVAL RATING AT LOW POINT OF HIS TERM
 

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 22:53:57 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

[snip]

...and got three purple hearts...one for a minor hand injury, one a minor
thigh injury, and a third one that caused me to be out of action for a
whopping two days. Oh yeah...and I was the commander on the boat...so *I
NOMINATED MYSELF FOR THOSE MEDALS*.

The Purple Heart is not "nominated" or recommended. It is awarded automatically
when an individual meets the criteria.

Joe Parsons

( Ot) BUSH APPROVAL RATING AT LOW POINT OF HIS TERM
 

Joe Parsons wrote:
The Purple Heart is not "nominated" or recommended. It is awarded automatically
when an individual meets the criteria.

You can't expect these chickenhawks to know about stuff like that.

Besides, why let the facts get in the way of a smear campaign?

DSK

( Ot) BUSH APPROVAL RATING AT LOW POINT OF HIS TERM
 

"Joe Parsons" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 22:53:57 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

[snip]

...and got three purple hearts...one for a minor hand injury, one a minor
thigh injury, and a third one that caused me to be out of action for a
whopping two days. Oh yeah...and I was the commander on the boat...so *I
NOMINATED MYSELF FOR THOSE MEDALS*.

The Purple Heart is not "nominated" or recommended. It is awarded
automatically
when an individual meets the criteria.

And it is determined by the commander, whether the circumstances of the
injury "fit" those criteria. Guess what? Kerry was the commander who
determined if his injuries fit the criteria. He OK'd his own Purple Hearts.

( Ot) BUSH APPROVAL RATING AT LOW POINT OF HIS TERM
 

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 02:39:15 +0000, NOYB wrote:


And it is determined by the commander, whether the circumstances of the
injury "fit" those criteria. Guess what? Kerry was the commander who
determined if his injuries fit the criteria. He OK'd his own Purple
Hearts.

LOL, in November, Kerry may become the Commander in Chief, but in Vietnam
his commander was George Elliot. Elliot approved Kerry's medals. NOYB,
I'm a little surprised you buy into this BS. Picking apart Kerry's war
record seems more than a little petty. The underlying fact remains, Kerry
did what his country asked of him, no more, no less.

( Ot) BUSH APPROVAL RATING AT LOW POINT OF HIS TERM
 

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 02:39:15 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Joe Parsons" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 22:53:57 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

[snip]

...and got three purple hearts...one for a minor hand injury, one a minor
thigh injury, and a third one that caused me to be out of action for a
whopping two days. Oh yeah...and I was the commander on the boat...so *I
NOMINATED MYSELF FOR THOSE MEDALS*.

The Purple Heart is not "nominated" or recommended. It is awarded
automatically
when an individual meets the criteria.

And it is determined by the commander, whether the circumstances of the
injury "fit" those criteria. Guess what? Kerry was the commander who
determined if his injuries fit the criteria. He OK'd his own Purple Hearts.

Are you suggesting that Lt. Kerry, having been wounded, should not have received
the Purple Heart?

( Ot) BUSH APPROVAL RATING AT LOW POINT OF HIS TERM
 

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:26:06 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 02:39:15 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Joe Parsons" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 22:53:57 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

[snip]

...and got three purple hearts...one for a minor hand injury, one a minor
thigh injury, and a third one that caused me to be out of action for a
whopping two days. Oh yeah...and I was the commander on the boat...so *I
NOMINATED MYSELF FOR THOSE MEDALS*.

The Purple Heart is not "nominated" or recommended. It is awarded
automatically
when an individual meets the criteria.

And it is determined by the commander, whether the circumstances of the
injury "fit" those criteria. Guess what? Kerry was the commander who
determined if his injuries fit the criteria. He OK'd his own Purple Hearts.

Are you suggesting that Lt. Kerry, having been wounded, should not have received
the Purple Heart?

I think the idea is more that the ownership of one or more Purple
Hearts does not make one a "war hero."

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

( Ot) BUSH APPROVAL RATING AT LOW POINT OF HIS TERM
 

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:45:53 -0500, John H wrote:


I think the idea is more that the ownership of one or more Purple Hearts
does not make one a "war hero."

Perhaps, but a Bronze Star and a Silver Star usually meet that criteria.

( Ot) BUSH APPROVAL RATING AT LOW POINT OF HIS TERM
 

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:39:19 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:45:53 -0500, John H wrote:


I think the idea is more that the ownership of one or more Purple Hearts
does not make one a "war hero."

Perhaps, but a Bronze Star and a Silver Star usually meet that criteria.

A Bronze Star may be awarded for Valor (heroism) or Service. I believe
his Bronze Star was awarded for service, i.e. he did his time.

The Silver Star is a valor (heroism) award. The degree of valor
necessary for the award is a matter of the judgement of the
authorizing officer. Below is an extract from the given site:

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/co...y.asp?aid=6249

Extract: He then took command of a second swift boat, No. 94, which
operated in the Mekong Delta. Under his command they totaled 18
missions over a period of 48 days, a far cry from the many who
completed full tours of duty there, Oliver North and Sen. John McCain
among this group. It was with this assignment that he was awarded his
Silver Star for killing a Viet Cong soldier who was already pinned
down and wounded in a ''Hooch'' courtesy of Kerry’s .50 caliber
gunner. It was also on swift boat No. 94 where he received his third
Purple Heart for once again receiving a minor wound from a mine that
went off adjacent to his swift boat. Later, when asked about the
severity of the combat injuries Kerry himself said that one of them
cost him about two days of service, and that the other two did not
interrupt his duty. He classified himself as ''walking wounded.''

Does this make him a "war hero?" For sure, these awards have no
bearing on his presidential qualifications.


John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

( Ot) BUSH APPROVAL RATING AT LOW POINT OF HIS TERM
 

"Joe Parsons" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 02:39:15 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Joe Parsons" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 22:53:57 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

[snip]

...and got three purple hearts...one for a minor hand injury, one a
minor
thigh injury, and a third one that caused me to be out of action for a
whopping two days. Oh yeah...and I was the commander on the boat...so
*I
NOMINATED MYSELF FOR THOSE MEDALS*.

The Purple Heart is not "nominated" or recommended. It is awarded
automatically
when an individual meets the criteria.

And it is determined by the commander, whether the circumstances of the
injury "fit" those criteria. Guess what? Kerry was the commander who
determined if his injuries fit the criteria. He OK'd his own Purple
Hearts.

Are you suggesting that Lt. Kerry, having been wounded, should not have
received
the Purple Heart?

I'm suggesting that he either embellished or lied about the extent of his
first two injuries so as to be eligible for the Purple Heart.

( Ot) BUSH APPROVAL RATING AT LOW POINT OF HIS TERM
 

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:13:15 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Joe Parsons" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 02:39:15 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Joe Parsons" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 22:53:57 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

[snip]

...and got three purple hearts...one for a minor hand injury, one a
minor
thigh injury, and a third one that caused me to be out of action for a
whopping two days. Oh yeah...and I was the commander on the boat...so
*I
NOMINATED MYSELF FOR THOSE MEDALS*.

The Purple Heart is not "nominated" or recommended. It is awarded
automatically
when an individual meets the criteria.

And it is determined by the commander, whether the circumstances of the
injury "fit" those criteria. Guess what? Kerry was the commander who
determined if his injuries fit the criteria. He OK'd his own Purple
Hearts.

Are you suggesting that Lt. Kerry, having been wounded, should not have
received
the Purple Heart?

I'm suggesting that he either embellished or lied about the extent of his
first two injuries so as to be eligible for the Purple Heart.

Then I'd suggest that you are reaching for any premise, regardless how trivial
or petty, to try to discredit him.

Setting that pettiness aside for a second, however, how do you believe he might
"lie or embellish" injuries that were treated by one or more hospital corpsmen
and/or medical officers?

Keep in mind that the criteria for the award are quite specific--and they do
*not* involve any specific degree of seriousness ("Sorry, Mr. Kerry; that's just
a little flesh wound from a .22 cal round. You don't get a Purple Heart.").

Have you ever considered spending some time on the water? It does wonders for
one's state of mind.

Joe Parsons

( Ot) BUSH APPROVAL RATING AT LOW POINT OF HIS TERM
 

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 13:08:08 -0500, John H wrote:


Perhaps, but a Bronze Star and a Silver Star usually meet that criteria.

A Bronze Star may be awarded for Valor (heroism) or Service. I believe his
Bronze Star was awarded for service, i.e. he did his time.

His Bronze Star was awarded for pulling a man out of the water while under
fire.

( Ot) BUSH APPROVAL RATING AT LOW POINT OF HIS TERM
 

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:13:11 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 13:08:08 -0500, John H wrote:


Perhaps, but a Bronze Star and a Silver Star usually meet that criteria.

A Bronze Star may be awarded for Valor (heroism) or Service. I believe his
Bronze Star was awarded for service, i.e. he did his time.

His Bronze Star was awarded for pulling a man out of the water while under
fire.

He probably just made that up.

Oh, wait...Kerry's Bronze Star citation was signed by Adm. Zumwalt:

Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry was serving as an Officer-in-Charge of Inshore
Patrol Craft 94, one of five boats conducting a Sealords operation in the Bay
Hap River. While exiting the river, a mine detonated under another Inshore
Patrol Craft and almost simultaneously, another mine detonated wounding
Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry in the right arm. In addition, all units began
receiving small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks. When
Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry discovered he had a man overboard, he returned
upriver to assist. The man in the water was receiving sniper fire from both
banks. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry directed his gunners to provide
suppressing fire, while from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding
and in pain and with disregard for his personal safety, he pulled the man
aboard. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry then directed his boat to return to and
assist the other damaged boat to safety. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry's
calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping
with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.

( Ot) BUSH APPROVAL RATING AT LOW POINT OF HIS TERM
 

Joe Parsons wrote:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:13:11 -0500, thunder wrote:


On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 13:08:08 -0500, John H wrote:



Perhaps, but a Bronze Star and a Silver Star usually meet that criteria.

A Bronze Star may be awarded for Valor (heroism) or Service. I believe his
Bronze Star was awarded for service, i.e. he did his time.

His Bronze Star was awarded for pulling a man out of the water while under
fire.


He probably just made that up.

Oh, wait...Kerry's Bronze Star citation was signed by Adm. Zumwalt:

Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry was serving as an Officer-in-Charge of Inshore
Patrol Craft 94, one of five boats conducting a Sealords operation in the Bay
Hap River. While exiting the river, a mine detonated under another Inshore
Patrol Craft and almost simultaneously, another mine detonated wounding
Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry in the right arm. In addition, all units began
receiving small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks. When
Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry discovered he had a man overboard, he returned
upriver to assist. The man in the water was receiving sniper fire from both
banks. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry directed his gunners to provide
suppressing fire, while from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding
and in pain and with disregard for his personal safety, he pulled the man
aboard. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry then directed his boat to return to and
assist the other damaged boat to safety. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry's
calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping
with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.



At that time, Noybby was trying tu suck sustenance out of a formula bottle.

( Ot) BUSH APPROVAL RATING AT LOW POINT OF HIS TERM
 

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:13:11 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 13:08:08 -0500, John H wrote:


Perhaps, but a Bronze Star and a Silver Star usually meet that criteria.

A Bronze Star may be awarded for Valor (heroism) or Service. I believe his
Bronze Star was awarded for service, i.e. he did his time.

His Bronze Star was awarded for pulling a man out of the water while under
fire.

Thanks for informing me. In that case it was a Bronze Star for Valor.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

( Ot) BUSH APPROVAL RATING AT LOW POINT OF HIS TERM
 

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:54:10 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:13:11 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 13:08:08 -0500, John H wrote:


Perhaps, but a Bronze Star and a Silver Star usually meet that criteria.

A Bronze Star may be awarded for Valor (heroism) or Service. I believe his
Bronze Star was awarded for service, i.e. he did his time.

His Bronze Star was awarded for pulling a man out of the water while under
fire.

He probably just made that up.

Oh, wait...Kerry's Bronze Star citation was signed by Adm. Zumwalt:

Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry was serving as an Officer-in-Charge of Inshore
Patrol Craft 94, one of five boats conducting a Sealords operation in the Bay
Hap River. While exiting the river, a mine detonated under another Inshore
Patrol Craft and almost simultaneously, another mine detonated wounding
Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry in the right arm. In addition, all units began
receiving small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks. When
Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry discovered he had a man overboard, he returned
upriver to assist. The man in the water was receiving sniper fire from both
banks. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry directed his gunners to provide
suppressing fire, while from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding
and in pain and with disregard for his personal safety, he pulled the man
aboard. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry then directed his boat to return to and
assist the other damaged boat to safety. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry's
calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping
with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.


The signature of Admiral Zumwalt, unless done for some political
reason, was basically automatic and has no bearing on the truth of the
citation. Normally a Bronze Star is signed by a two star or higher.
The citation and recommendation for the award are normally prepared by
the individual's commander or his designee.

Kerry had a choice to make. Either he would run, knowing he had a man,
alive, in the river, or he would return to pick him up. I doubt if
many, given that choice, would have run, especially with witnesses on
board.

I wonder if the gunners suppressing enemy fire received like awards.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

( Ot) BUSH APPROVAL RATING AT LOW POINT OF HIS TERM
 

"Joe Parsons" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:13:11 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 13:08:08 -0500, John H wrote:


Perhaps, but a Bronze Star and a Silver Star usually meet that
criteria.

A Bronze Star may be awarded for Valor (heroism) or Service. I believe
his
Bronze Star was awarded for service, i.e. he did his time.

His Bronze Star was awarded for pulling a man out of the water while
under
fire.

He probably just made that up.

Oh, wait...Kerry's Bronze Star citation was signed by Adm. Zumwalt:

Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry was serving as an Officer-in-Charge of
Inshore
Patrol Craft 94, one of five boats conducting a Sealords operation in the
Bay
Hap River. While exiting the river, a mine detonated under another Inshore
Patrol Craft and almost simultaneously, another mine detonated wounding
Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry in the right arm. In addition, all units
began
receiving small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks. When
Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry discovered he had a man overboard, he
returned
upriver to assist. The man in the water was receiving sniper fire from
both
banks. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry directed his gunners to provide
suppressing fire, while from an exposed position on the bow, his arm
bleeding
and in pain and with disregard for his personal safety, he pulled the man
aboard. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry then directed his boat to return
to and
assist the other damaged boat to safety. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry's
calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in
keeping
with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.


OK, you've convinced me. I guess that I'll vote for Kerry now. Afterall,
his action on a boat in Vietnam means more than a 20+ year voting history in
Congress which validates him as our country's most liberal Senator.

( Ot) BUSH APPROVAL RATING AT LOW POINT OF HIS TERM
 

John H wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:54:10 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:


On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:13:11 -0500, thunder wrote:


On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 13:08:08 -0500, John H wrote:



Perhaps, but a Bronze Star and a Silver Star usually meet that criteria.

A Bronze Star may be awarded for Valor (heroism) or Service. I believe his
Bronze Star was awarded for service, i.e. he did his time.

His Bronze Star was awarded for pulling a man out of the water while under
fire.

He probably just made that up.

Oh, wait...Kerry's Bronze Star citation was signed by Adm. Zumwalt:

Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry was serving as an Officer-in-Charge of Inshore
Patrol Craft 94, one of five boats conducting a Sealords operation in the Bay
Hap River. While exiting the river, a mine detonated under another Inshore
Patrol Craft and almost simultaneously, another mine detonated wounding
Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry in the right arm. In addition, all units began
receiving small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks. When
Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry discovered he had a man overboard, he returned
upriver to assist. The man in the water was receiving sniper fire from both
banks. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry directed his gunners to provide
suppressing fire, while from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding
and in pain and with disregard for his personal safety, he pulled the man
aboard. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry then directed his boat to return to and
assist the other damaged boat to safety. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry's
calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping
with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.



The signature of Admiral Zumwalt, unless done for some political
reason, was basically automatic and has no bearing on the truth of the
citation. Normally a Bronze Star is signed by a two star or higher.
The citation and recommendation for the award are normally prepared by
the individual's commander or his designee.

Kerry had a choice to make. Either he would run, knowing he had a man,
alive, in the river, or he would return to pick him up. I doubt if
many, given that choice, would have run, especially with witnesses on
board.

I wonder if the gunners suppressing enemy fire received like awards.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


Did you get an attendance award, Herring?

( Ot) BUSH APPROVAL RATING AT LOW POINT OF HIS TERM
 

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 22:20:01 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

"Joe Parsons" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:13:11 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 13:08:08 -0500, John H wrote:


Perhaps, but a Bronze Star and a Silver Star usually meet that
criteria.

A Bronze Star may be awarded for Valor (heroism) or Service. I believe
his
Bronze Star was awarded for service, i.e. he did his time.

His Bronze Star was awarded for pulling a man out of the water while
under
fire.

He probably just made that up.

Oh, wait...Kerry's Bronze Star citation was signed by Adm. Zumwalt:

Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry was serving as an Officer-in-Charge of
Inshore
Patrol Craft 94, one of five boats conducting a Sealords operation in the
Bay
Hap River. While exiting the river, a mine detonated under another Inshore
Patrol Craft and almost simultaneously, another mine detonated wounding
Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry in the right arm. In addition, all units
began
receiving small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks. When
Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry discovered he had a man overboard, he
returned
upriver to assist. The man in the water was receiving sniper fire from
both
banks. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry directed his gunners to provide
suppressing fire, while from an exposed position on the bow, his arm
bleeding
and in pain and with disregard for his personal safety, he pulled the man
aboard. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry then directed his boat to return
to and
assist the other damaged boat to safety. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry's
calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in
keeping
with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.


OK, you've convinced me. I guess that I'll vote for Kerry now. Afterall,
his action on a boat in Vietnam means more than a 20+ year voting history in
Congress which validates him as our country's most liberal Senator.

I don't care whom you vote for. But in your eagerness to discredit
him--espsecially by less than honest means--you reveal a great deal about
yourself.

Joe Parsons

( Ot) BUSH APPROVAL RATING AT LOW POINT OF HIS TERM
 

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:15:04 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:54:10 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:


On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:13:11 -0500, thunder wrote:


On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 13:08:08 -0500, John H wrote:



Perhaps, but a Bronze Star and a Silver Star usually meet that criteria.

A Bronze Star may be awarded for Valor (heroism) or Service. I believe his
Bronze Star was awarded for service, i.e. he did his time.

His Bronze Star was awarded for pulling a man out of the water while under
fire.

He probably just made that up.

Oh, wait...Kerry's Bronze Star citation was signed by Adm. Zumwalt:

Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry was serving as an Officer-in-Charge of Inshore
Patrol Craft 94, one of five boats conducting a Sealords operation in the Bay
Hap River. While exiting the river, a mine detonated under another Inshore
Patrol Craft and almost simultaneously, another mine detonated wounding
Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry in the right arm. In addition, all units began
receiving small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks. When
Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry discovered he had a man overboard, he returned
upriver to assist. The man in the water was receiving sniper fire from both
banks. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry directed his gunners to provide
suppressing fire, while from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding
and in pain and with disregard for his personal safety, he pulled the man
aboard. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry then directed his boat to return to and
assist the other damaged boat to safety. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry's
calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping
with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.



The signature of Admiral Zumwalt, unless done for some political
reason, was basically automatic and has no bearing on the truth of the
citation. Normally a Bronze Star is signed by a two star or higher.
The citation and recommendation for the award are normally prepared by
the individual's commander or his designee.

Kerry had a choice to make. Either he would run, knowing he had a man,
alive, in the river, or he would return to pick him up. I doubt if
many, given that choice, would have run, especially with witnesses on
board.

I wonder if the gunners suppressing enemy fire received like awards.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


Did you get an attendance award, Herring?

Got my share, Harry, and you?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

( Ot) BUSH APPROVAL RATING AT LOW POINT OF HIS TERM
 

John H wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:15:04 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


John H wrote:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:54:10 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:



On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:13:11 -0500, thunder wrote:



On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 13:08:08 -0500, John H wrote:




Perhaps, but a Bronze Star and a Silver Star usually meet that criteria.

A Bronze Star may be awarded for Valor (heroism) or Service. I believe his
Bronze Star was awarded for service, i.e. he did his time.

His Bronze Star was awarded for pulling a man out of the water while under
fire.

He probably just made that up.

Oh, wait...Kerry's Bronze Star citation was signed by Adm. Zumwalt:

Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry was serving as an Officer-in-Charge of Inshore
Patrol Craft 94, one of five boats conducting a Sealords operation in the Bay
Hap River. While exiting the river, a mine detonated under another Inshore
Patrol Craft and almost simultaneously, another mine detonated wounding
Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry in the right arm. In addition, all units began
receiving small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks. When
Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry discovered he had a man overboard, he returned
upriver to assist. The man in the water was receiving sniper fire from both
banks. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry directed his gunners to provide
suppressing fire, while from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding
and in pain and with disregard for his personal safety, he pulled the man
aboard. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry then directed his boat to return to and
assist the other damaged boat to safety. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry's
calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping
with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.



The signature of Admiral Zumwalt, unless done for some political
reason, was basically automatic and has no bearing on the truth of the
citation. Normally a Bronze Star is signed by a two star or higher.
The citation and recommendation for the award are normally prepared by
the individual's commander or his designee.

Kerry had a choice to make. Either he would run, knowing he had a man,
alive, in the river, or he would return to pick him up. I doubt if
many, given that choice, would have run, especially with witnesses on
board.

I wonder if the gunners suppressing enemy fire received like awards.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


Did you get an attendance award, Herring?


Got my share, Harry, and you?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

Got your share of showing up ribbons, eh?

( Ot) BUSH APPROVAL RATING AT LOW POINT OF HIS TERM
 

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 20:59:26 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:15:04 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


John H wrote:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:54:10 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:



On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:13:11 -0500, thunder wrote:



On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 13:08:08 -0500, John H wrote:




Perhaps, but a Bronze Star and a Silver Star usually meet that criteria.

A Bronze Star may be awarded for Valor (heroism) or Service. I believe his
Bronze Star was awarded for service, i.e. he did his time.

His Bronze Star was awarded for pulling a man out of the water while under
fire.

He probably just made that up.

Oh, wait...Kerry's Bronze Star citation was signed by Adm. Zumwalt:

Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry was serving as an Officer-in-Charge of Inshore
Patrol Craft 94, one of five boats conducting a Sealords operation in the Bay
Hap River. While exiting the river, a mine detonated under another Inshore
Patrol Craft and almost simultaneously, another mine detonated wounding
Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry in the right arm. In addition, all units began
receiving small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks. When
Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry discovered he had a man overboard, he returned
upriver to assist. The man in the water was receiving sniper fire from both
banks. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry directed his gunners to provide
suppressing fire, while from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding
and in pain and with disregard for his personal safety, he pulled the man
aboard. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry then directed his boat to return to and
assist the other damaged boat to safety. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry's
calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping
with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.



The signature of Admiral Zumwalt, unless done for some political
reason, was basically automatic and has no bearing on the truth of the
citation. Normally a Bronze Star is signed by a two star or higher.
The citation and recommendation for the award are normally prepared by
the individual's commander or his designee.

Kerry had a choice to make. Either he would run, knowing he had a man,
alive, in the river, or he would return to pick him up. I doubt if
many, given that choice, would have run, especially with witnesses on
board.

I wonder if the gunners suppressing enemy fire received like awards.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


Did you get an attendance award, Herring?


Got my share, Harry, and you?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

Got your share of showing up ribbons, eh?

What do you want, Harry? Do you want a list of my awards or what?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

( Ot) BUSH APPROVAL RATING AT LOW POINT OF HIS TERM
 

John H wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 20:59:26 -0500, Harry Krause


Got your share of showing up ribbons, eh?


What do you want, Harry? Do you want a list of my awards or what?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


I'd be more impressed with a list of BSA merit badges.

( Ot) BUSH APPROVAL RATING AT LOW POINT OF HIS TERM
 

NOYB wrote:
I'm suggesting that he either embellished or lied about the extent of his
first two injuries so as to be eligible for the Purple Heart.

In other words, you're a liar, so you are convinced that he must be too?

Why do you not answer my questions?

DSK

( Ot) BUSH APPROVAL RATING AT LOW POINT OF HIS TERM
 

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 04:53:54 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 20:59:26 -0500, Harry Krause


Got your share of showing up ribbons, eh?


What do you want, Harry? Do you want a list of my awards or what?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


I'd be more impressed with a list of BSA merit badges.

Then stop asking about them.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!