First of all, check Webster's for definitions for connected and affiliated. We aren't. In your words, nuff said.

Second, I am not your sweety. I did not denigrate you in my post. I tried to be respectful and would appreciate the same. You don't know me. You don't know what my political beliefs are, my background is. You find it convenient to attempt to pigeonhole me into one category. I have never heard of Hannity and Colmes, for the record. I have heard of O'Reilly, although I have NEVER watched his program thank you very much. I do not need to watch any program, news or otherwise, that assumes that I need them to tell me how to think. I have had many an argument about Bush and the things he has done that I am not pleased with. I, at least, have the courage to say that. You, and so many others, make Kerry sound like the second coming.

Third, as for needing that article "to bolster my opinion of John Kerry". I don't. I was fighting in this issue at the time of the committee hearings. I have friends who were at the hearings. I have the transcripts for the hearings. I am well aware of what happened. Many aren't and Sydney Schanberg's article provides an incredibly accurate synopsis. I also like the fact that 1. It's published in a left wing publication. 2. He has written as many articles, if not more, that are derogatory of Bush. 3. His reputation as a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist is impeccable. People could learn from his integrity. Not many are willing to look at both candidates objectively. I am the first to admit that my objectivity for John Kerry went out the window 12 years ago. Did you even know his name 12 years ago? Maybe you did. But many that are beating their breasts for him now, didn't. Don't take my word for any of it. Or Sydney Schanberg's. Talk to people who have been fighting in this issue since the time of the hearings. Find people who were there. Get it firsthand from someone. Most can't be bothered to do that much research.

Fourth, where do you get that I said one word about John McCain's military service? I did not. He was co-chair of the Committee and shares the blame. This has nothing to do with his military service. Do you skew everything you say to that degree? Also, you don't know who I've met. I've had the privelege of meeting a Congressional Medal of Honor winner, several former POWs, the man who mentored me in the POW issue was a veteran of WW2, Korea, and 4 tours in Vietnam. He would also boot me in the ass if he knew I was referring to him as a hero. I have been honored to meet many. It is one of the benefits of being involved, seriously involved, with veterans' issues.

Fifth, as for current issues, I posted that with regard to the Montagnard predicament. We don't know what Bush would have done because it wasn't allowed to come to the floor for a vote so we could find out. I do know that the VA funding is up 33% since 2001. A million more vets are being treated in the VA system then were being treated in 2001. This is from Secretary Principi's own words. Is it enough, no. But it's a helluva lot better than it was 3 years ago, even with the billion dollar cut that I have heard is being discussed. How many have written their congressperson or Senator voicing their objection to the cut? Or will they wait until after the fact, as with this issue, and complain about it then. I know from Anne Mills Griffiths, the head of the National League of Families, that they are not endorsing Kerry, that President Bush, for the first time, has put into specific language the criteria that Vietnam must meet in order to be seen as "cooperating" in the effort to account for our missing men. If they don't meet this criteria, they don't get any financial aid from us.

The only thing you said that holds one drop of water with me is "All it does is divide us, when we need to be united for our brothers." In that you are correct. When the membership was polled, why didn't you send your email to National then, expressing your opinion that we should not involve ourselves?

Lisa, you just as well give up, you can not "reason" with a FOOL ( Harry Moyer), he is like a fly in the bedroom after you turn the light out, a "nuisance".
Webster's says a Nuisance is "that which annoys or causes trouble; a person or thing that is troublesome or obtrusive.{Fr-L nocere, to hurt.} In that, you will find Harry's picture ........

I wonder why RT endorsed Bush the first election over Gore?Bush never did anything for vets while Gov of Texas?Now he has even done more to hurt vets than to help them and yet RT endorses him again?

As it was explained to me. Both Gore and Bush were invited to the national convention, to either come themselves or send a representative with a platform. Gore never even deigned to reply. Bush sent two reps.

Lisa - Like Fireboss said -
you can't reason with Moyer
He is bought and paid for by
SKerry

Just a wannbe Warrior trying
to talk the talk but when it
was showtime in Vietnam
couldn't walk the walk

That's why Today he's with the Boy Scouts
Cause he couldn't hang with Real Men

He really needs to be pitied
He has been carrying a tremendous
burden all these years knowing
the only reason he's Free to spout
his Socialist agenda is because
of the effort of Greater Men that
he long discovered he could never be

So don't let him bother you Lisa (and
Fireboss) He's just a worthless WIMP
Voice crying in the wilderness begging
for recognition cause he hasn't did
anything in his pathetic little life
to earn or deserve any crediability

Rangers Lead The Way !

Jim
Out