<p>REL-dont look at my grammer too closely. Im an enginere.</p>
<p>^My point exactly! Some here find comfort in correcting grammatical mistakes. These people also are under the assumption that an argument can be bolstered when correctings other posters here. Quite honestly, this tenet is quite amusing!</p>
<p>
OOG, you certainly must know that those who were present at the engagement that resulted in the bronze star had “first hand knowledge” of his actions and that they need not to have been on his boat to know what happened. Actually, those not on his boat know more about what happened since he fled the scene while the others stayed to deal with the stricken boat. Only later did he come back and pick up Rasmussen. </p>
<p>So, you have two different views of what actually happened - both views from people with “first hand accounts”. How do you get at the truth? Why not look at the physical evidence? Shouldn’t “withering fire” result in holes in an aluminum boat? Too bad there weren’t any fresh holes to confirm Kerry’s story. If Kerry’s injury which resulted in his get-out-of-Nam-free card resulted from a mine explosion, since he was surrounded by the hull of his boat when the presumed explosion occurred, wouldn’t the shrapnel have had to puncture the hull to get at him? Too bad there was no such damage to his boat.</p>
<p>FF,</p>
<p>I guess that shrapnel would have to fly pretty far to make it to Georgia… no?</p>
<p>I’ll sum up this situation over service the way my brother put it. “At least he was there.”</p>
<p>My brother was a sargent and led long range patrols for close to two years incountry. He had seen death, destruction and took lives. He served his country with honor and distinction. He is/was a conservative, but not on this issue. When you bring up Kerry, you also bring up the aspect that none of this current administration was ever in the “S***”. For alot of those who served, being there… is a bigger factor than how he got wounded in the first place. He had to be there to get nicked, didn’t he? </p>
<p>So think before you point this particular finger, cause three point back at bush,cheney and rummy for getting to sit that one out. I know at least one vet who considers that to be important.</p>
<p>Maybe being there in the first place isn’t important to you?</p>
<p>Robert E. – Where, where are those miscreants who thus sully our common bond?! – I’ll take them down , I will!</p>
<p>In all sincerity, I find it very hard to take seriously any argument which lacks grammatical integrity. Also, I do not feel any “better” by pointing out every transgression. I am only trying to shine some light on an all too common occurrence – one that is not too far removed from illiteracy.</p>
<p>so FF, you think its better that Bush didn’t even show up to do much his service here in the states, missed tests, etc., than to have signed up and gone to Vietnam, lke so many Patriotic young men did…wow, Bush is infallible</p>
<p>I was against that war, but not against the soliders who went, my uncle was one</p>
<p>I’m sure my answers won’t be exciting to all the ideologues and politicos, but I can offer a good political “sciencey” explanation for why Bush’s ratings were high enough for election but now low.</p>
<p>– Bush, prior to the 2004 election, led the way in tax cuts and was fortunate enough to ride on a fairly decent growth of per capita income growth. That’s a HUGE factor in reelection.</p>
<p>– However, Bush now sits as president on top of a fairly unpopular war. That hurts approval ratings a fair amount, even if the correlation isn’t as strong as with income growth.</p>
<p>– Bush also suffers from incumbent fatigue-- in other words, people get tired of the incumbent.</p>
<p>– Whether or not you agree with his policies, he’s had a hard time keeping the bad stuff out of the limelight. Not all presidents suffer from this. </p>
<p>So it may not even be that Bush was an awful president. Many presidents that later have much higher approval ratings in hindsight suffer from low approval ratings at the end of their term.</p>
<p>Touche, Opie!</p>
<p>Frankly, I think it showed great intelligence and sound judgment on the part of his father to keep his son safe from the quagmire. And he didn’t even have to go to Canada to do it.</p>
<p>
Mini,</p>
<p>From my comment in the Path to 9/11 thread regarding Iraq-al Qaeda links:</p>
<p>
A recent Senate Intelligence Committee report rejects it’s earlier findings of fact and now declares there was no Iraq-al Qaeda link after all. In his recent [Weekly</a> Standard article](<a href=“http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/670bsucx.asp]Weekly”>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/670bsucx.asp), Thomas Joscelyn raises troubling facts about the second report, including that the Committee’s staff took Saddam Hussein’s word that the US was not Iraq’s enemy:</p>
<p>
I hope you find time to read all of Joscelyn’s article.</p>
<p>mini - Oh – something that every other father would not have done given the wealth and influence the Bush’s enjoy!!!</p>
<p>“A recent Senate Intelligence Committee report rejects it’s earlier findings of fact and now declares there was no Iraq-al Qaeda link after all. In a recent Weekly Standard article, Thomas Jocelyn raises troubling facts about the second report, including that in some cases the Committee’s staff took Saddam Hussein’s word that the US was not Iraq’s enemy.”</p>
<p>Excuse me, but the Senate Intelligence Committee Report was quoting BUSH’S CIA’S REPORT OF OCTOBER 2005. Jocelyn could have bothered to get his facts straight.</p>
<p>“Maybe being there in the first place isn’t important to you?”</p>
<p>Oh come on now Opie, quit the condecension, that’s the role of CGM. OOG presented some disingenuous (to put it mildly) information and the truth needed to be spelled out. From someone like OOG who says that Bush “lied” about WMD and Iraq/al-Qaeda connections, it is quite ironic that he tries to pull such whoppers.</p>
<p>Yes, he was there for which I give him some credit … he could have gone to England and smoked dope with Clinton. However, it’s not like he was chomping on the bit to “serve his country”. He first tried to get out of serving entirely by getting a student deferment for grad school. When that didn’t pan out, he volunteered for the safest branch of the service during Nam - the Navy. When he volunteered for Swift Boat duty they were used in a non-combat mode and hence also very safe. Only after he was committed to it did they change their role to very dangerous duty. So, I would hardly characterize Kerry as Rambo. He’s certainly no John McCain.</p>
<p>
Oh! Oh! Call on me! I found one in 10 seconds! Here you go…
<a href=“http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040210-082910-8424r.htm[/url]”>http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040210-082910-8424r.htm</a>
In fact, I can’t think of a single person who credibly asserted those things, Loog–Oh that’s right, Mary Mapes and whatsisname…Dan Rather. “Fake but accurate” is what he called his own documentation.</p>
<p>As for the heroic John “Audie” Kerry, I have no idea if this statement: “None of those in the attack ad by the Swift Boat group actually served on Kerry’s boat” is accurate, but let’s assume that it is. I don’t know if their non-appearance on the ad indicates a disagreement with the Swift Boat vets and support for Kerry), but you are suggesting that the 5 enlisted crewmen’s non-appearance countermands the appearance and public statements of his commanding officer, his unit commander, and the majority of his fellow officers, who did serve along side him. Those men considered him a grandstanding shmuck who endangered fellow sailors in his perepatetic attempts to garner an absurd number of war decorations and then didi out of country to start his political career. You did know that as the commander of his boat, he was responsible for writing himself up for medals, didn’t you? It’s one of the reasons that, despite several promises, he has never signed the requisite papers to open his full military record to public inspection. If a fraction of the number of Bush’s fellow officers and higher-ups had come forward with far less serious accusations, you can bet it would have been all over the airwaves, and Bush wouldn’t be president. A conspiracy, no doubt.</p>
<p>I don’t know why I bother. Just print this, ball it up, and put it in your pipe and smoke it. Don’t forget your granny-glasses.</p>
<p>In reply to Opie, I share your brother’s view up to a point; I do think that having seen the elephant is a good thing for those in national government–although I don’t think that not having been there should be exclusionary, something Kerry himself noted when he was trotted out to defend Democrats running for office who hadn’t “been there.” I think your brother would agree that even a LRRP would find it unusual to have a new man come in and earn the Silver and Bronze Stars plus three Purple Hearts in four months. And I’ll bet he wouldn’t have abandoned his team and gone home on the technicality of three minor injuries.</p>
<p>"It’s one of the reasons that, despite several promises, he has never signed the requisite papers to open his full military record to public inspection. "</p>
<p>The rest of your post is spot on, but I believe that Kerry FINALLY did sign the papers to reveal his record. That is when it was found out that his grades at Yale were worse than Bush’s. He certainly didn’t want to have that get out.</p>
<p>
A link, Mini, and you don’t have to yell.</p>
<p>at least he had records, unlike Bush…but guess Kerry doing duty wasn’t enough, but if Bush’s pathetic service career is better than all those vets that actually went, you dont have much respect for our troops do you…support our troops, don’t think you some of you do…ANYONE who steps up thinking they are doing the right thing is honorable, even if I disagree that what they are doing is the right path as a country, guess some of you have much lower standards…cut and running which is what Bush did you find admirable…k</p>
<p>
I don’t think so. The details of his awards haven’t been made public, nor were details of why his received his discharge papers so long afterwards (I don’t remember the year, but it was way beyond when it should have been.)</p>
<p>
I believe that Kerry did sign Form 180 authorizing the release of his military records but that he only authorized distribution to certain recipients (including the Boston Globe) that have selectively quoted from but have not released the full contents. In addition, there are concerns about the release since the number of documents released were less than had been earlier reported as in his file.</p>
<p>Here’s a link to a cached article from the Boston Globe: <a href=“http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?p=kerry+military+records+release&fr=yfp-t-500&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&u=www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/kerry_allows_navy_release_of_military_medical_records/&w=kerry+military+records+release&d=aD-jIyQ8Nciu&icp=1&.intl=us[/url]”>http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?p=kerry+military+records+release&fr=yfp-t-500&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&u=www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/kerry_allows_navy_release_of_military_medical_records/&w=kerry+military+records+release&d=aD-jIyQ8Nciu&icp=1&.intl=us</a>. Access to the article itself requires registration.</p>
<p>Ari,</p>
<p>I have no objection to your analysis and, in fact, I agree with it. Why would you think otherwise?</p>