In article , dwhite110
@optonline.net says...
"Al Spohn" wrote in message
news:MPG.1bbb41862ea5addd9896f9@mayonews...

Your point is well taken. And in the context of this thread, I think
anyone involved with bureaucracy can site tons of meetings where showing
up 10% of the time and getting real work done in meantime makes more
sense than a consistent attendance record. I don't know enough to say
that this is the case with the meetings Kerry is missing (although my
experience with the Defense Dept bureaucracy surely makes this a
believable possibility,) but I'm saying the concept at least warrants
investigation before condemning him.


OK, bottom line, no BS.

Woops, that rules me out right off the bat :-)

You have a guy tooting his horn on how he is a
member of the security council and that is a real feather in his cap at this
point in time. Then you find out he missed most of the meetings, staff or
no staff, he missed them. Doesn't this mean anything? How can an observer
not think this is a negative?

I'll grant you that it comes off as negative. For me it merely
reinforces the fact that he is a windbag, which is to say, a politician.
It's just that I get the impression that when something looks overtly
negative on it's face when it comes to Bush, his supporters are always
willing to delve into details and examine circumstances (e.g., NG
service... "Woops, I guess where did those dang records go?") but with
Kerry (e.g., missed meetings) a simple "gimme a break" is all the
consideration that is warranted. I know that goes both ways - I'm
probably just sensitized to the Kerry treatment because I (grudgingly)
come down on his side by a fairly narrow margin.

- Al