"Mark S. Holden" wrote:

The allegations about GWB are old -
people (snip)


I doubt we would even be talking about Bush's military service today if
there had not been almost fanatical attempts to discredit Kerry's military
service prior to that. But, once those attempts were made to discredit
Kerry's service, there were obviously going to be attempts to look more
closely at Bush's military service during that same time period. And I think
even you would agree that Bush's military service was rather lackluster.


Likewise, Sen. Kerry's performance in
the Senate is a better indicator of what
kind of leader he would be as President
than what he did over 30 years ago.
Unfortunately, Sen. Kerry keeps bringing
up Vietnam.


I must have missed where Kerry claimed Vietnam was an "indicator of what
kind of leader he would be as President." At the very most, his prior
military service might illustrate some limited knowledge of military
procedures and technology, but that is only one, relatively small, aspect of
the presidency (the president doesn't fight wars, he simply orders others to
do so).


(snip) Experts they checked with
warned them they looked like obvious
forgeries. (snip)


I saw no mention of the "experts" saying that ("they looked like obvious
forgeries"). Instead, as I understand it, they said it would be difficult to
fully verify the authenticity of photocopies.

Stewart

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...

I doubt we would even be talking about Bush's military service today if
there had not been almost fanatical attempts to discredit Kerry's military
service prior to that.

Ahem, errrr, Dwight, I know this is going to be
really hard to believe, seeing as you're all of
twenty or twenty-five years old and know
everything.... but Kerry discredited *himself*
by committing treason almost thirty years
before George Bush became president.

"Isle Of The Dead" wrote:

(snip) seeing as you're all of twenty or twenty-
five years old and know everything.... but
Kerry discredited *himself* by committing
treason (snip)


Well, clearly unlike you, I'm at least old enough to know the legal
definition of the word "treason." Mere words, in a country with a right to
free speech, is never treason. Perhaps you would like to change that, but
that is the law at the moment.

Stewart

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...


Well, clearly unlike you, I'm at least old enough to know the legal
definition of the word "treason." Mere words, in a country with a right to
free speech, is never treason. Perhaps you would like to change that, but
that is the law at the moment.


Perhaps you'd like to acknowledge that Kerry met with
Vietnamese officials in the Paris peace negotiations.

Oh, yeah, right, you're old enough to know the words,
but not the facts.

"Isle Of The Dead" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote:
Well, clearly unlike you, I'm at least old
enough to know the legal definition of the
word "treason." Mere words, in a country
with a right to free speech, is never treason.
Perhaps you would like to change that, but
that is the law at the moment.


Perhaps you'd like to acknowledge that Kerry
met with Vietnamese officials in the Paris peace
negotiations. (snip)


Okay. While on a trip to Paris, Kerry briefly met with some of the
participants of the peace talks at a meeting which included members of the
delegations from both North and South Vietnam. Now that I've acknowleged it,
perhaps you can explain how that constitutes treason. At the very most,
meetings like this might be twisted to fit a violation of U.S. Code 18 U.S.C
953 (correspondence with foreign governments), but the FBI, which maintained
surveillance on Kerry at the time (along with so many other Americans),
obviously found no foundation for such charges.

Stewart