[spacefreak]

Wow... falsified military records. Man, the hits just keep coming.

News accounts questioning Mr. Kerry's DD 214 ( a veteran's record of transfer or separation), which lists his Silver Star with a combat "V" (for valor) and is posted at JohnKerry.com. According to military experts and historians, the combat "V" is never awarded with a Silver Star. As Henry Mark and Erika Holzer note in Frontpagemag.com, "it would be redundant to award a Silver Star for 'gallantry' and then embellish it with a 'V' for valor." The authors also cite the Navy Awards Manual, which describes the laws concerning Combat Distinguishing Devices: Prior to 1974, "the 'V' was authorized for wear on the Legion of Merit, Bronze Star Medal, Joint Service Commendation Medal, Navy Commendation Medal and Navy Achievement Medal." Since then, about four more medals have been authorized. Conspicuously missing of course is the Silver Star.

On Friday, the Chicago Sun-Times ran a similar story by Thomas Lipscomb, who spoke to B.G. Burkett, author of "Stolen Valor" and recipient of the Army's highest award given to a civilian, the Distinguished Civilian Service Award. For his book, Mr. Burkett had to read thousands of military records to uncover phony claims of awards. "I've run across several claims for Silver Stars with combat 'V's, but they were all in fake records," he told Mr. Lipscomb.

Mr. and Mrs. Holzer bring up another interesting point. Over at JohnKerry.com, the Navy citation for Mr. Kerry's Silver Star does not mention the combat "V". It appears, then, that the Navy didn't mistakingly grant a "V" with Mr. Kerry's Silver Star. So, how did it get into Mr. Kerry's DD 214?

This is more serious than one would think. In Title 19, U.S. Code, Section 1001, the law states: "Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the United States, knowingly and willfully ... makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both." As Mr. Lipscomb reports, a complaint filed by Mr. Burkett actually led to the sentencing of Navy Capt. Roger D. Edwards to 115 days in the brig for falsification of his records.

Mr. Kerry has yet another inconsistency to account for, and this one is by no means a question of foggy memories.

'V' for valor or Kerry's version?

Kerry citation a 'total mystery' to ex-Navy chief

Kerry Stonewalling on Medals Mystery

Kerry's War vs. Kerry

[zigzag]

If Kerry falsified anything, that would certainly be the end of it for him. But wouldn't it be prudent to wait and see if there's an explanation? I don't believe The Navy has said anything just yet.

[BlackGriffen]

Given Simey's explanation this sounds like a garden variety desk jockey error (eg type-o, or full on mistake).

As if having a V on his discharge papers or not is critical. Does it really make that big a difference? I mean, in the electorate. Who the Hell knows that Kerry got a "V" with his silver star, and considers that the deciding factor above and beyond that he earned a silver star at all?

I just do not see sufficient motive to forge a "V," lending further weight to the mistake theory.

BlackGriffen

[smacintush]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Given Simey's explanation this sounds like a garden variety desk jockey error (eg type-o, or full on mistake).

As if having a V on his discharge papers or not is critical. Does it really make that big a difference? I mean, in the electorate. Who the Hell knows that Kerry got a "V" with his silver star, and considers that the deciding factor above and beyond that he earned a silver star at all?

I just do not see sufficient motive to forge a "V," lending further weight to the mistake theory.

BlackGriffen

I think you need to read more carefully.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by smacintush:
I think you need to read more carefully.

Just to make you happy.. *rereads*

Nope, I'm still confident in the words I wrote.

I think you need to think more carefully.

BG

[smacintush]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Given Simey's explanation this sounds like a garden variety desk jockey error (eg type-o, or full on mistake).

As if having a V on his discharge papers or not is critical. Does it really make that big a difference? I mean, in the electorate. Who the Hell knows that Kerry got a "V" with his silver star, and considers that the deciding factor above and beyond that he earned a silver star at all?

I just do not see sufficient motive to forge a "V," lending further weight to the mistake theory.

BlackGriffen

From what I'm reading, a mistake of this type sounds unlikely but possible. A more likely clerical error would be to omit the thing altogether.

The man said the ONLY time he's seen the combat "V" with the Silver Star is on falsifications

And the part where Lehman denies ever filling out or signing the citation?

Nicking himself with a grenade launcher and then getting a purple heart for it?

These thing combined with the earlier charges of lying from the SBV's points to Kerry AT LEAST exaggerating his service and maybe outright falsifying.

NONE of this PROVES anything yet but as the saying goes: "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck."

IF this were to be the case that doesn't matter to you?

[Spheric Harlot]

I missed the part where the Navy said anything (as per thread title).

[typoon]

Well One person in the Navy who SERVED on John Kerry's boat said he requested a Purple heart for a self inflicted nick. This guy in my book has a lot of credibility considering he is a retired Admiral in the Navy.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak...s-novak27.html

NEW YORK -- Retired Rear Adm. William L. Schachte Jr. said Thursday in his first on-the-record interview about the swift boat veterans dispute that "I was absolutely in the skimmer" in the early morning on Dec. 2, 1968, when Lt. (j.g.) John Kerry was involved in an incident that led to his first Purple Heart.

"Kerry nicked himself with a M-79 [grenade launcher]," Schachte said in a telephone interview from his home in Charleston, S.C. He said, "Kerry requested a Purple Heart."

[Beewee]

Let me ask two simple questions:

1. How does, having a great military record make you a better President?

2. How does, lying about a great military record make you a bad President.

You all realize that these people have lied to us about bigger stuff than this, right?

[typoon]

Originally posted by Beewee:
Let me ask two simple questions:

1. How does, having a great military record make you a better President?

2. How does, lying about a great military record make you a bad President.

You all realize that these people have lied to us about bigger stuff than this, right?

It has nothing to do with Military record. It has to do with the FACT that Kerry is trying to make himself out to be a war hero (When he isn't)and bringing his Military record into this whole thing.

You are right it really doesn't have anything to do with how good or bad someone will be as president.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
I missed the part where the Navy said anything (as per thread title).

Yes. It looks like Kerry isn't the only one prone to exaggeration

[BlackGriffen]

Also, check out Kerry's DD215 (a set of corrections to the DD214). First, note the date: 2001/03/12. It looks like the form was to correct precisely the kind of mistake Simey mentioned (ie forgotten standard medals).

I've also taken a close look at the DD214. Given that it's a 'with combat "v"' it couldn't have been a simple type-o. It is, however, the kind of mistake that's easy to make when doing data entry, especially when you're tired.


Couldn't this all be settled rather quickly with a FOI request to the USN for their copy of the records?

Worst case scenario in my mind, Kerry files another DD215 and this all blows over.

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

To echo BlackGriffin (and not just because he's referred to me as some kind of authority) I don't think there is much to read into here. The V identifier is used on medals that can be awarded both for service and for valor. The Bronze Star, for example, can be awarded as a Bronze Star or as the "Bronze Star with V Device." If it is the latter, it signifies that the award was for valor, not for service, as most Bronze Stars are awarded for service. It would be a serious forgery to claim a V device on a Bronze Star if it wasn't awarded with one.

However, the Silver Star can only be awarded for valor, so a V device is unnecessary. Therefore, whatever his DD-214 mistakenly said about his Silver Star, it is clear he got it for valor.

Now, it may be that people unfamiliar with military awards and who wish to falsify having a Silver Star when they in fact don't have one might mistakenly say they have a Silver Star with V Device. That might lead an investigator to look closely at that claim. But that doesn't apply here because it is clear that the Navy really did award him the medal. It's just that it is misnamed on his DD-214. That's not a big deal and was more than likely a clerk's error.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Beewee:
Let me ask two simple questions:

1. How does, having a great military record make you a better President?

Actually, a good military record can indicate a good understanding of the military and its workings; such an understanding can prove valuable. Of course, a good record doesn't necessarily mean that this understanding is there, but it's a fairly strong indicator.

2. How does, lying about a great military record make you a bad President.

You all realize that these people have lied to us about bigger stuff than this, right?

The most important thing a President can have is integrity. A lack of integrity directly compromises fitness for leadership, because people don't tend to follow someone they don't feel they can trust. You're right that a good military record is a relatively small thing. But if a candidate will lie about something this minor, can he really be trusted with anything more important than that?

[Millennium]

For the record, I don't intend to pass judgment one way or another on the records; the truth or falsity of these will come out in the wash. I only mean to comment on why the question is important. It holds equally true for Bush.

[BlackGriffen]

I would like to add that if this were a forgery operation, they would have mentioned the "V" in the Silver Star award letter, much like it is mentioned in the Bronze Star award letter and recommendation.

BG

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Beewee:
Let me ask two simple questions:

1. How does, having a great military record make you a better President?

2. How does, lying about a great military record make you a bad President.

You all realize that these people have lied to us about bigger stuff than this, right?

I don't think any of it is relevant to today's issues. But that's the republicans strategy - sling mud at your opponent in such volume that they have no opportunity to talk about the issues and spend their time defending themselves. Think about what's NOT being discussed as we untangle all this Swift Boat nonsense.

A politicians character does have some relevance in a political campaign but all you really need to know about Kerry's service is that he volunteered for combat duty and served 'admirably" (Bush's own words).

Also, somebody needs to end this ridiculous talking point about it being Kerry's fault we're talking about this. The idea that 'Kerry brought this upon himself' because he made it a central point at the DNC is hogwash. You don't write a book, publish it and mount a huge PR campaign in two weeks. These Swift boat guys have been lying in the weeds for months, probably longer. They registered their website in April and announced themselves to the world in early May, months before the DNC.

Does anybody doubt that the Republican's didn't prepare similar smear campaigns for all the Democrats in the primaries in case somebody besides Kerry emerged? I'm sure there were plans for Dean, Clark, Edwards and all of them. You're not seeing them only because Kerry won the nomination.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
You don't write a book, publish it and mount a huge PR campaign in two weeks. These Swift boat guys have been lying in the weeds for months, probably longer. They registered their website in April and announced themselves to the world in early May, months before the DNC.

They held a press conference on May 4, 2004 at the National Press Club in Washington. and the media barely acknowledged it. So they raised money and bought an ad.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Millennium:
The most important thing a President can have is integrity.

Not sure either candidate has it, so I'm ready to move on.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
They held a press conference on May 4, 2004 at the National Press Club in Washington. and the media barely acknowledged it. So they raised money and bought an ad.

That's my point. It had nothing to do with what Kerry did at the DNC. These guys have been waiting to smear him for months.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
That's my point. It had nothing to do with what Kerry did at the DNC. These guys have been waiting to smear him for months.

Kerry has been riding his Vietnam heroics for a year. He didn't just bring it up out of nowhere at the convention. Pay attention.

Why don't you have Cambodia Kerry try to contradict these decorated military veterans with actual proof instead of running around whining about being 'smeared'?

Bush has been smeared for 3 years. We haven't heard him whine about it.

[itai195]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Bush has been smeared for 3 years. We haven't heard him whine about it.

You're right, his administration responds in kind. Kerry's 'whining' seems to be an attempt to put an end to Republican smear tactics, but then other Democratic supporters go and bring up issues such as Bush's military service again... neither side has much credibility anymore.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Kerry has been riding his Vietnam heroics for a year. He didn't just bring it up out of nowhere at the convention. Pay attention.

For someone who persists in starting threads with sensationalized titles based on Drudge and NewsMax items, paying attention would indeed be sound advice. Rightly or wrongly, many people are under the impression that the Swift Boat controversy arose after the convention, precisely because, as you point out, no one seemed that interested before then, and the book/ad didn't come out until afterwards. The larger point is that these attacks would be occurring whether Kerry had been riding his Vietnam heroics for a year or not.

Why don't you have Cambodia Kerry try to contradict these decorated military veterans with actual proof instead of running around whining about being 'smeared'?

Haven't you been paying attention? The Swift Boat people have been contradicted every which way by their own words and by the official documentation. The only charge that appears to have any merit is the Cambodia story, which I agree appears to be an embellishment, if not a wholesale fabrication (the evidence I've seen is that he was near, but not in, Cambodia at the time), and for which Kerry should answer.

If you can prove that Kerry falsified pertinent documents, you win. But contrary to your thread title, the Navy has not yet said anything of the sort.

[PacHead]

All I have to say is, if his military records were forged, Kerry is toast. Something is definitely very fishy in the Kerry camp.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by PacHead:
All I have to say is, if his National Guard records were forged, Bush is toast. Something is definitely very fishy in the Bush camp.

Fixed.

(sorry, I couldn't resist...)

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Kerry has been riding his Vietnam heroics for a year. He didn't just bring it up out of nowhere at the convention. Pay attention.

You keep making my point. Again, this ISN"T about Kerry trotting out his swift boat crew at the DNC. These smear campaigns have been in the works for months, probably longer. O'Neil could probably be classified as a stalker considering how long he's been whining about Kerry.

This is standard Bush campaign procedure. Smear, and then smear again. Anything to avoid discussing issues or his own record.

I'm just hoping most people can see through the charade it is. Are people realizing that by giving this discredited group more time that we're NOT talking about Iraq, Abu Graib, net loss of jobs, environmental rollbacks, etc., etc.? I don't know if they realize it or not. I never see poll numbers on negative campaigning.

[Arkham_c]

The real truth is, nobody cares.

I don't care if Bush served in the Guard or not.
I don't care if Kerry nicked himself and asked for a Purple Heart.

Those of us over 30 can all agree on these three points:

1) Both men were young back when all of this happened.
2) Young people are stupid and do things without thinking of the consequences.
3) Both of them would do things differently now if they had the chance, I'm sure.

Contrary to the above opinion, I don't think riding around, either in a boat or a plane, shooting at the enemy will make anyone a better president. The president is largely a figurehead whose power is primarily in the veto. Being in the military or not matters less than other things like knowing how to manipulate a bunch of other sleazy politicians.

I want to vote based on what they will do or not do in office. But instead of telling us what they will vote for, vote against, or promote, they waste time with all this silliness. I don't care about polling, bumps, mud-slinging ads, or military records. I want the two candidates to simply tell me, "I will vote for X, Y, and Z, and will vote against Q,R, and S if you elect me", and if they stick to it, I'll know who to vote for.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
You keep making my point. Again, this ISN"T about Kerry trotting out his swift boat crew at the DNC. These smear campaigns have been in the works for months, probably longer. O'Neil could probably be classified as a stalker considering how long he's been whining about Kerry.

This is standard Bush campaign procedure. Smear, and then smear again. Anything to avoid discussing issues or his own record.

I'm just hoping most people can see through the charade it is. Are people realizing that by giving this discredited group more time that we're NOT talking about Iraq, Abu Graib, net loss of jobs, environmental rollbacks, etc., etc.? I don't know if they realize it or not. I never see poll numbers on negative campaigning.

Interesting take. So would you agree that the "Bush AWOL" story and "Bush Lied!!!!" stories are "smear" campaigns?

And what about Abu-Ghraib? There were suggestions a while back from Democrats that Bush had "condoned torture." Is that a "smear"? What about Fahrenheit 9/11? Smear?

Or is it only a smear if it doesn't play by Kerry's playbook?

[smacintush]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Interesting take. So would you agree that the "Bush AWOL" story and "Bush Lied!!!!" stories are "smear" campaigns?

Of course not. Republicans "smear", Democrats "reveal the truth".

[Logic]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
I missed the part where the Navy said anything (as per thread title).

^^

[Logic]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
It looks like Kerry isn't the only one prone to exaggeration

^^^

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Interesting take. So would you agree that the "Bush AWOL" story and "Bush Lied!!!!" stories are "smear" campaigns?

I might go halfway with you on this. I think the AWOL story is not that important in and of itself (as I've previously stated). I find the coverup of it suspicious, but just what's on the face of it, if he avoided service, just say he avoided service like a lot of people did at that time.

However, holding Bush to the fact that he lied to invade Iraq is NOT a smear, but a valid concern and criticism of what he bases his foreign policy decisions on, and whether we can count on anything he says without sufficient corroborating evidence.

A simpler way to put it would be: what happened 35 years ago does no affect me now, Lying about Iraq and losing thousand troops and even more numbers of civilians DOES affect me now in terms of whether I think Bush is fit to command.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Interesting take. So would you agree that the "Bush AWOL" story and "Bush Lied!!!!" stories are "smear" campaigns?

There's an important difference, though. One is based on an opinion derived from a valid interpretation of the facts. The other is literally just making shit up.

IMHO, the following attacks are at least somewhat valid:

• Bush (admin) lied
• Bush AWOL
• Kerry is a flip-flopper
• Kerry in Cambodia or not
• etc

The following are based on nothing but making shit up:

• Everything else form the SBVT
• The Bush/Hitler comparison submitted to Moveon.org (and that Moveon was too stupid to filter)

BlackGriffen

[smacintush]

Originally posted by Arkham_c:
The real truth is, nobody cares.

I don't care if Bush served in the Guard or not.
I don't care if Kerry nicked himself and asked for a Purple Heart.

Those of us over 30 can all agree on these three points:

1) Both men were young back when all of this happened.
2) Young people are stupid and do things without thinking of the consequences.
3) Both of them would do things differently now if they had the chance, I'm sure.

Contrary to the above opinion, I don't think riding around, either in a boat or a plane, shooting at the enemy will make anyone a better president. The president is largely a figurehead whose power is primarily in the veto. Being in the military or not matters less than other things like knowing how to manipulate a bunch of other sleazy politicians.

I want to vote based on what they will do or not do in office. But instead of telling us what they will vote for, vote against, or promote, they waste time with all this silliness. I don't care about polling, bumps, mud-slinging ads, or military records. I want the two candidates to simply tell me, "I will vote for X, Y, and Z, and will vote against Q,R, and S if you elect me", and if they stick to it, I'll know who to vote for.

Those 3 points are very good ones. The problem is now you must look at how both men handle these charges. One simply shrugs it off and the other denies, whines, cries foul and stonewalls. Which one show the kind of maturity it takes to lead?

I'm tired of the double standard. Bush gets attacked for months on his record (Bush's military record was attacked FIRST BTW) and when Kerry gets attacked does he simply refute it or prove it wrong? No. He whines that it's not right and that Bush should demand that it stops.

I guess that's different huh.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
And what about Abu-Ghraib? There were suggestions a while back from Democrats that Bush had "condoned torture." Is that a "smear"? What about Fahrenheit 9/11? Smear?

Or is it only a smear if it doesn't play by Kerry's playbook?

Well, there were the memos from the DoJ, not to mention the widespread pattern of it being in more than just Abu Ghraib (what makes that case special was that we got pictures, not that the torture existed) - eg other Iraqi prisons, Afghanistan prisons, and Guantanamo.

F 9/11 - some of the opinions derived from facts were definition specious/smears. Some of the factual interpretations were also questionable. Overall, though, F9/11 didn't just pull $hit out of midair - it was all opinions based on data, or a somewhat less than totally honest look at the same. Disingenuous, yes, but not quite the same as an outright lie.

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I might go halfway with you on this. . . A simpler way to put it would be: what happened 35 years ago does no affect me now, Lying about Iraq and losing thousand troops and even more numbers of civilians DOES affect me now in terms of whether I think Bush is fit to command.

But from the Swiftvets point of view, they feel that Kerry is, as they put it "unfit to command." They don't think it is irrelevant, so why do you get to label their criticisms a "smear?"

I submit that labeling criticism a "smear" is itself a smear. The use of the word smear is primarily intended to score partisan points.

[Zimphire]

<-- Kerry.

[itai195]

Originally posted by smacintush:
Those 3 points are very good ones. The problem is now you must look at how both men handle these charges. One simply shrugs it off and the other denies, whines, cries foul and stonewalls. Which one show the kind of maturity it takes to lead?

Wait, which one do you think shrugs it off and which one stonewalls? Because I seem to recall a certain candidate claiming his military records mysteriously vanished one day, and then miraculously finding them several days later. Do you seriously expect Kerry to just shrug this off?

[smacintush]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:


A simpler way to put it would be: what happened 35 years ago does no affect me now,

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=201344

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=225535

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Interesting take. So would you agree that the "Bush AWOL" story and "Bush Lied!!!!" stories are "smear" campaigns?

And what about Abu-Ghraib? There were suggestions a while back from Democrats that Bush had "condoned torture." Is that a "smear"? What about Fahrenheit 9/11? Smear?

Or is it only a smear if it doesn't play by Kerry's playbook?

I'm talking about THIS issue about THIS smear campaign.

You want to expand the generalizations and talk about dirty politics practiced by both democrats and republicans? Or expand it even further and talk about the failings of the human race? Fine. Go ahead and start you own thread.

Abu Graib questions and F/11 challenged Bush on issues that he's directly responsible for in his job as President of the United States. Those topics are fair game because those are the issues that are relevant to the president's job performance. That's totally different than challenging something that happened 35 years ago and has no relevance to the issues we face going forward. I'm not comfortable with all the hyperbole but there's not much one can do about that.

I don't care about Kerry's service. I don't care about Bush's service for that matter either. IMHO, they're both irrelevant to the issues today. All I know is that instead of discussing the real issues, which is 4 years of Bush policy, the talk is dominated by this military nonsense.

(jeez, one's gotta respond immediately on this board. you guys are already 5 topics removed form what we were talking about)

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
But from the Swiftvets point of view, they feel that Kerry is, as they put it "unfit to command." They don't think it is irrelevant, so why do you get to label their criticisms a "smear?"

And? So what? There are extreme leftists who are comparing Bush to Hitler. Should those charges be treated with as much seriousness as these discredited swift boats guys? I don't think so. They're nutjobs. Are you just learning there are extremists on both side of the political spectrum?

For 98% of the people in America these are irrelevant to today's issues.

[placebo1969]

Originally posted by smacintush:
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=201344

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=225535

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
But from the Swiftvets point of view, they feel that Kerry is, as they put it "unfit to command." They don't think it is irrelevant, so why do you get to label their criticisms a "smear?"

I submit that labeling criticism a "smear" is itself a smear. The use of the word smear is primarily intended to score partisan points.

see, this is why its wrong to meet you halfway.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by smacintush:
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=201344

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=225535

right. if you'll note, my concern, as always, is with the suspicious coverup rather than his ducking service.

Or, in terms of how attacking Kerry makes no sense if he has this glaring hole in his record.

Thanks for looking that up to support my points.

[Zimphire]

The guy basically lied on his resume to the presidency.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The guy basically lied on his resume to the presidency.

Bush? for once I agree with you.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by vmpaul:

For 98% of the people in America these are irrelevant to today's issues.

And this is simply not true. If this whole issue was irrelevant and no big deal, then Kerry wouldn't be frothing at the mouth regarding the ads, and his poll numbers wouldn't be dropping in multiple states etc.



You may go on believing it is "irrelevant", but that is simply not the case.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Bush? for once I agree with you.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by PacHead:
And this is simply not true. If this whole issue was irrelevant and no big deal, then Kerry wouldn't be frothing at the mouth regarding the ads, and his poll numbers wouldn't be dropping in multiple states etc.



You may go on believing it is "irrelevant", but that is simply not the case.

sorry, but that is not a valid argument. If a candidate is being attacked, he must either address the attack or ignore it. It's a trap either way. If he addresses the attack, you get the accusation like you just made, if you ignore it, then he's accused of not addressing it because you have something to hide.

your passive-aggressive BS tactic is transparent and pointless.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
sorry, but that is not a valid argument. If a candidate is being attacked, he must either address the attack or ignore it. It's a trap either way. If he addresses the attack, you get the accusation like you just made, if you ignore it, then he's accused of not addressing it because you have something to hide.

your passive-aggressive BS tactic is transparent and pointless.

And Kerry has done neither. He has certainly not ignored the allegations, and he hasn't addressed them in a satisfactory way either. He can just release ALL of his military records.
The dude is running for president, what has he to hide ?