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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Suma who wrote (211272)	11/11/2004 9:11:02 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573439

Thank you for your reply. I see that the only difference is that one man Bush made his record public while Kerry did not. Therefore, it is easier to INFER that because he did not release his records that there is something there to cover up. Its perhaps mostly that but also there is the fact that there was some sort of discharge paperwork for an honorable dischage that came out years later when Carter was president. Some have assumed that the discharge was retroactively changed to honorable, but its also possible that there was a mistake and Kerry was never formally discharged when he was supposed to be (perhaps like that guy who was in the Inactive Reserve for 13 years and shouldn't have been), and there are likely other posibilities I can't think of at the moment. I don't think its reasonable to go around saying that Kerry was dishonorably discharged. The evidence is too flimsy in my opinion. Similar to the evidence of some negative things that have been said about Bush. Its easier to make charges than it is to substantiate them. Tim

To: Suma who wrote (211272)	11/12/2004 10:13:04 AM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1573439

I HAD thought that Kerry was honorably discharged and had medals to prove his dedication and valor There was a credible dispute over his "dedication and valor". In particular, when you consider the circumstances (i.e., Kerry's BRIEF tour of duty in Vietnam, the allegations (with substantial support) that he was treating scratches (some even self-inflicted perhaps) as wounds worthy of a Purple Heart, and was working overtime to seek out the Purple Heart. I don't think Kerry should be discredited -- he DID serve, and honorably. However, his service, taken alone, does not form the basis for his election to the presidency. There is the 20-year Senate career that followed which frankly, should be far more important. Yet, it was hardly mentioned.