Mike wrote:

No, he was aware of it when he was awarded it...it just didn't make sense
to
him.


Really? And where do you get this conclusion from?

From an ABC radio interview. He was asked about the citation claiming enemy
fire and he stated he was surprised by that since there was no enemy fire.

In an interview with the Washington Post this week, Mr. Thurlow stated
he had received the award "for helping to rescue the boat that was
mined."

The issue isn't what the award was given for, but the circumstances involved.
Enemy fire is not required to receive a Bronze Star.

You and I have both served and am sure both have medals. Mine are
nothing to write home to mom about, but I do know that when I was
awarded them, I was verbally informed of why I was getting them

Me too, however I was not forewarned of the citation text.

The Republican Party made actions during the Vietnam war a related
presidential election issue from 1991-2000

Close, they made it an issue in 1992. When that failed, they *did not* make any
mention of Vietnam in '96. They did tout Dole's WWII record, but did not make
it the center piece of the campaign.

why is it now unrelated?

I guess the same question could also be put the DNC. 12 years ago Kerry himself
stated that Clinton's actions during the war were not relevent to the
Presidential election and he chastized the Republican party for opening old
wounds. What's changed since '92?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"