Michael Cash <mikecash@buggerallspammers.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 05:29:05 +0000 (UTC), mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net
> brought down from the Mount tablets inscribed:

>>> found that to be a very minor part of the book. They're more ticked
>>> over his activities around 1971-1972.
>>
>>Well, yes, and that nasty old press has reported they began attacking
>>Kerry because of his anti-war stances back then.
>>
>>Not like they ever attacked, say, a MOH winner with anti-war stances,
>>though...

> How many MOH awardees (you don't "win" a MOH, it ain't a contest) with

Right, and Rhodes Scholar isn't an "accomplishment"?

So when Roosevelt won the MOH, nobody could properly write
"Three Army generals above Roosevelt in the chain of command, including
two who had already won the Medal of Honor themselves, recommended him
for the medal", right?

Or

"Three Army generals above Roosevelt in the chain of command, including
two who had already won the Medal of Honor themselves, recommended him
for the medal"

Right?

But of course, you gently concede the point, yes?

As for much of the rest, most of it centers around his anti-war
activities which I've already stated prompted most of the anti-Kerry 
noises.

> How many slept on watch?

A a couple in WWII, according to accounts I used to read when I was more
into the history of the time.

Mike