Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (61714)	8/19/2004 7:17:45 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793917

Wow! This dynamite! Kerry changed the record on his medal. A Collection of thoughts blog. From the Washington Times comes the following: Uneven military service records have proved toxic to John Kerry's campaign for president, prompting him to post his full military record on his Web site for critics to peruse. But one sharp-eyed Washington Times reader — a former B-52 pilot and U.S. Air Force colonel — isn't buying Mr. Kerry's pre-emptive strike. "I looked at that Web site and the first thing I looked at was Kerry's Silver Star citation. Guess what? It is for an action that took place in 1969, but it is signed by Secretary of the Navy John Lehman. Strangely, Lehman was secretary of the Navy from 1981 to 1987," he noted. "How could Kerry have received a citation from an official that would not be in office for 12 years? This was NOT just a case of providing a new copy of a citation for the office to replace one that was lost (destroyed/thrown over a wall). This effort by Lehman & Kerry actually changed Kerry's official Navy record, sometime in the 80s," he continued. "What other portions of his record did Kerry have Lehman sanitize or spiffy up? Evidently, Kerry did not think his original Silver Star made him look 'heroic' enough, so he provided 'suggested' words for a new certificate. This certainly calls Kerry's entire Navy record into question." jenmartinez.com

To: LindyBill who wrote (61714)	8/19/2004 7:32:58 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793917

The main thing about Thurlow on Matthews is that Matthews ran the entire SwiftVets commercial all the way through before the attack started. I wonder what it would have cost them to buy that kind of network coverage. I don't think Thurlow came across well, the bit about the "master plan" was better left unsaid. But I've said all along that attacking the medals is the weakest part of the Swiftie argument. And the WashPost writer was fair in saying that it's impossible to tell given the available records exactly what happened, we're all just guessing.

To: LindyBill who wrote (61714)	8/19/2004 7:39:30 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793917

I broke my vow and watched Matthews. Gosh, he is an awful man. Thurlow came across (to me) as a well-intentioned person who is doing something he believes in as honestly as possible. He isn't clever or slick and he doesn;t sound politically savvy at all, but he did manage to avoid some of the little traps Matthews sets. I wasn't terribly impressed by Matthews' big finale (should a man who didn't serve in Vietnam question a real vet on his service!-- wow, gee Chris, this sure gets to the truth about Thurlow). It made me laugh when Thurlow said, I DID serve. So Matthews had to explain, no I meant Bush, which just RUINED the dramatic effect of his incensed accusation. I can't get past my antipathy toward Matthews to be unbiased about anything he says. He could be interviewing Saddam and I would probably be cheering for the wrong guy.