Quoth "-=jd=-" in
:

What fairly tales might those be? You're acting on your
faith in Kerry from a distance.

The contents of "Unfit For Command."

The Swift Vets are acting on personal observations and
experience.

They SAY that they are. I don't buy it.

The testimony of those closest to Kerry at the time of the
events agrees with his story, as does all available
contemporaneous official documentation. All of those who
contradict the official record were at some remove from Kerry,
either in distance or time or both, and nearly every day,
another Swift Vet comes forward to complain that O'Neill is
lying, or admits that his affidavit is pure hearsay, or is
caught lying about other important matters, either related or
unrelated, or that O'Neill is using his name without his
permission.

Moreover, Nixon had access to all Kerry's official records 35
years ago when he hired on O'Neill to pursue him, and was
unable to find any dirt in them -- this at a time when any
such dirt would have been fresh and most readily available.

Nixon was not one to leave dirt unused if it was available for
use.

Occam's Razor says the simplest solution is the most likely;
in this case, the simplest solution is that O'Neil and his co-
conspirators have been holding a nagging grudge against Kerry
for 35 years, and now, toward the end of their lives, are
willing to lie brutally in a final effort to satisfy that
grudge and deny Kerry the Presidency, knowing that they will
be well taken care of by Bush's corporate cronies whether or
not they are successful.

It doesn't make sense - why would he wear a *unit* citation
for a unit photo?

What "unit photo"? The photo in the Bush library is an
individual photo.

Anyway, who knows why? Perhaps he felt as though he didn't
look distinguished enough without it. Who knows what went
through the cocaine-and-alcohol-addled brain of that young
second lieutenant at the time?

Only he can answer the question.




--
Where was AWOL George W. Bush?
http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1.htm
Any government will waste money.
Only the worst waste lives.

"AEllery" wrote in message
...
It doesn't make sense - why would he wear a *unit* citation for a unit
photo?


What's this got to do with this newsgroup please?!

Mike

"AEllery" wrote:

Unit citations are authorized for wear
by members of the unit while they are
assigned to it. I've been assigned to
USAF and USA units and this was
true in both instances.


Not true. An Outstanding Unit Award is for those members actually serving
in the unit during the specific period described in the written citation
authorizing the award. Anyone arriving to the unit later clearly did nothing
during the period described in the citation to justify wearing an award
given to those actually serving in the unit during that period.

Stewart

"-=jd=-" wrote:

It doesn't make sense - why would he
wear a *unit* citation for a unit photo?
Like I said, a unit citation doesn't reflect
on the individual - it reflects on the unit
as a whole. (snip)


First, as I said elsewhere, an Outstanding Unit Award is for those members
actually serving in the unit during the specific period described in the
written citation authorizing the award. It is awarded to unit members for
individual and joint efforts which resulted in the outstanding performance
of the unit as a whole. Clearly, anyone arriving to the unit later did
nothing during the period described in the citation to justify wearing an
award given to those actually serving in the unit during that period.

Second, I don't understand your "unit photo" argument. As you well know,
military members are never allowed, for any reason, to wear ribbons or
medals unless specifically authorized. The regulations are very clear about
this, describing both non-judicial and judicial punishment for such
violations. As such, how does your "unit photo" argument negate this?


(snip) If the Air Force see's fit to
dole out some punishment for Bush's
unauthorized display of a *unit* citation,
then so be it. (snip)


Lets be realistic here. Since Bush is no longer on active duty, the Air
Force has no jurisdiction. The United States Code (federal law) would apply
instead. Further, since the picture is old (the statute of limitations has
expired on it), the only way a violation could exist is if the award is
still claimed today. I've seen no such claim by Bush.

Stewart

"dxAce" wrote:

(snip) why don't you tell us how many
'closed' hearings John Fraud Kerry
attended? What percentage?


I don't know. Since they are closed meetings, what happens during those
meetings, including those attending, are by design and intent unknown.

Stewart

"Mike Terry" wrote:

Please post radio items, not politics
to a radio newsgroup. (snip)


Mike, what do you listen to on your shortwave? If you're like most here, I
suspect the answer will be news, politics, world affairs, and so on.
Therefore, it seems obvious these topics are directly related to shortwave
radio.

Stewart

"Mark S. Holden" wrote:

This might be an effective argument
if Sen. Kerry asked to have his
attendance records for closed
meetings released.


Beyond the recording of actual votes for the various recommendations to
the full Senate, are attendance records actually kept for closed Committee
meetings? I'm serious. I don't know the answer to that.


But public or private, (snip)


Don't confuse the "closed meetings" of Committee members with "public
hearings."

Stewart

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Mark S. Holden" wrote:

This might be an effective argument
if Sen. Kerry asked to have his
attendance records for closed
meetings released.



Beyond the recording of actual votes for the various recommendations to
the full Senate, are attendance records actually kept for closed Committee
meetings? I'm serious. I don't know the answer to that.


Dennis Hassert and John Warner have both publicly said the information
about his attendance can be released if Sen. Kerry gives permission.
(Warner said it on Meet the Press)

So far, the Kerry campaign doesn't seem to have offered a response.




But public or private, (snip)



Don't confuse the "closed meetings" of Committee members with "public
hearings."


I'm not.

Stewart

"-=jd=-" wrote:

(snip) I have a feeling you would
demand an explanation from Bush,
but allow Kerry a pass on his
improprieties.


Did you see me ask, or advocate, for an explanation, from either?

Stewart

"Mark S. Holden" wrote:

Dennis Hassert and John Warner
have both publicly said the information
about his attendance can be released
if Sen. Kerry gives permission. (Warner
said it on Meet the Press)

So far, the Kerry campaign doesn't
seem to have offered a response.


Can you blame him, Mark? This is clearly a one sided deal. Are Dennis
Hassert and John Warner going to release their committee attendance history?
Are the other Intelligence Committee members? Is Bush going to account for
his Intelligence briefings and activities? Of course not. It's all on Kerry
instead. As such, the only thing Kerry has done wrong, in my opinion, is not
telling all those asking for this information to go to hell.

Stewart