Let's Take A Look At The Military Records

[KCFlyer]

Well using that criteria, every president should have served in the military. Honest question - did you vote for Clinton?

[post="194022"][/post]​

HOnest answer - no. Perot in 1992 and Dole in 1996.

 

[TWAnr]

Awarded under questionable circumstances at best; for which neither YOU nor I have the facts.

[post="193973"][/post]​

The Navy had the facts and awarded those medals.

 

[sentrido]

Isnt it funny how Bush's military documents giving him an Honerable discharge are unassailable, but the documents about Kerry's medals are questionable?

 

[Seatacus]

What a lame thread of junk this is....................

Good point, but is funny to see people get all worked up about it. Just gotta laugh.................

 

[TheLazarusman]

The Navy had the facts and awarded those medals.

[post="194117"][/post]​

Look and see whose name is on some of those reports the Navy got their facts from. Who filled out the details of the action? Lt. John Kerry. Oh, can I fill out a report and give myself a medal too? I'm not saying he isn't a veteran, and I'm not saying he didn't see action, and I'm not saying he doesn't deserve our respect for it; I'm just saying can we get the record straight? I don't know if you or I can. That's up to someone with more clout than the common voter. Like I said before, let's don't get in a pissing contest over that.

 

[USAir757]

HOnest answer - no. Perot in 1992 and Dole in 1996.

How about Gore vs. GWB?

 

[TWAnr]

Like I said before, let's don't get in a pissing contest over that.

[post="194321"][/post]​

Then don't start one.

If you think that you are going to get away with making these false assertions and not get a response because you have unilaterally declared that you don't want a pissing contest, despite having started one, you are wrong.

Every single unbiased source, from www.snopes.com to www.factcheck.org , has corroborated the legitimacy of Kerry's medals. Even Republican Senator John McCain, who has endorsed Bush' reelection, has defended Kerry against the false claims that you are spreading.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp

http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html

 

[TheLazarusman]

Have I been biased in any of the comments I've made on this thread? Not really. Just because I think the man's medals are questionable don't mean I think the man is. I think I've made that clear. I never said he wasn't there in the boat on that day. One things for sure, though; you and I weren't. So WE don't really know what happened do WE? And neither does factcheck or snopes. Only the vets that were there that day do; and they can't agree themselves. Lt. Kerry was there; and he had his own opinion of what happened, which he noted in the reports. For this he received a medal. This thread is about the military records of the men; not the men themselves. I'm not knocking your candidate; I've said that already. I just don't agree with his record. And until someone can show me some proof I won't. And you can't do that; because even the guys that were there can't agree on what that truth was. Still want to piss? My bladder's getting empty.

 

[USAir757]

Still don't know what skelletons lie in the closet held within "The New Soldier."

Sure would be interesting to find out why the Kerry team has adamantly opposed the idea of discussing that at all.

 

[NWA/AMT]

Look and see whose name is on some of those reports the Navy got their facts from. Who filled out the details of the action? Lt. John Kerry.

[post="194321"][/post]​

As the commander of the unit engaged, by regulations he is the one to prepare, or cause to be prepared for his approval and endorsement, after-action reports of the unit under his command. However, these are not submissions for decorations and during the Vietnam era personnel were not permitted to submit themselves for medals or awards.

Nor are such after-action reports the only data used by higher command to make the determination regarding any decorations or awards, as each medal has standards regarding the number of witnesses and independent verification required to verify the actions of the individual.

The US Navy has verified that John Kerry was awarded his medals in accordance with Navy Regulations, as has the Bush campaign, so where's the question?

 

[TheLazarusman]

Nor are such after-action reports the only data used by higher command to make the determination regarding any decorations or awards, as each medal has standards regarding the number of witnesses and independent verification required to verify the actions of the individual.

The US Navy has verified that John Kerry was awarded his medals in accordance with Navy Regulations, as has the Bush campaign, so where's the question?

[post="194370"][/post]​

You stated my opinion for me. The after-action reports are not the only data used by higher command to make the determination regarding any decorations or awards; but they are some of the data used in consideration. Other data used includes standards regarding the number of witnesses and independent verification. The witnesses that were there that day still can't agree on what happened. There is no question. My point is made.

 

[NWA/AMT]

Sure would be interesting to find out why the Kerry team has adamantly opposed the idea of discussing that at all.

[post="194368"][/post]​

Funny, it certainly seems they have been willing to respond to the attacks against Kerry's record, even though those attacks lack a shred of evidence and the financing of the groups attacking him calls into question their true objectives.

http://www.johnkerry.com/rapidresponse/082104_swift.html

http://www.johnkerry.com/rapidresponse/080504_truth.html

And Kerry has also been far more forthcoming with his military records than Bush:

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/...ry_records.html

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/...at_reports.html

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/...nd_history.html

But perhaps the reason they have not allowed it to become THE issue of the campaign is that they know there are far more important issues facing this nation than what happened in the Mekong Delta 35 years ago or what didn't happen in the Alabama National Guard 33 years ago.

 

[TheLazarusman]

[/quote]
But perhaps the reason they have not allowed it to become THE issue of the campaign is that they know there are far more important issues facing this nation than what happened in the Mekong Delta 35 years ago or what didn't happen in the Alabama National Guard 33 years ago.

[post="194374"][/post]​

[/quote]

Well, I must admit, I agree with you 100% on that!

 

[NWA/AMT]

You stated my opinion for me.

[post="194373"][/post]​

No, I stated the facts. For the medals to have been awarded in the first place required the witnesses you refer to to swear or affirm their statements of events, and I have not seen anyone involved officially recant their sworn statements made at the time. In fact the Navy, and the Bush campaign, have gone on record stating that the medals were legitimate, which is the opposite of your point. The only ones I see who have a problem with Kerry's medals are those for whom they are politically inconvenient.

 

[USAir757]

Funny, it certainly seems they have been willing to respond to the attacks against Kerry's record, even though those attacks lack a shred of evidence and the financing of the groups attacking him calls into question their true objectives.

http://www.johnkerry.com/rapidresponse/082104_swift.html

http://www.johnkerry.com/rapidresponse/080504_truth.html

And Kerry has also been far more forthcoming with his military records than Bush:

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/...ry_records.html

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/...at_reports.html

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/...nd_history.html

Which one of these links addresses the book he wrote, "The New Soldier"? I couldn't seem to find it on my own.

But perhaps the reason they have not allowed it to become THE issue of the campaign is that they know there are far more important issues facing this nation than what happened in the Mekong Delta 35 years ago or what didn't happen in the Alabama National Guard 33 years ago.

I believe nobody, including the candidates, want it to be THE issue of the campaign. That's why they didn't address it in debate, and they rarely bring it out themselves in their rallies and speeches. But for some reason, people like to bring it up again and again for another round of the same back and forth.