posted October 10, 2006 10:07 AM            

That hasn't happened. What has happened is continuing attacks on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who exposed John Heinz Kerry as the fraud he is.

Since Traitor Kerry is making noises like he's going to be a democrat candidate for President in 2008, it's time for someone in the press to ask Traitor Kerry about his military record.

"Senator Kerry, when are you going to sign form SF-180 to release all your military records as you have repeatedly promised"?

Tuesday, Oct. 10, 2006 8:16 a.m. EDT
Sen. Kerry Again Rips Swift Boat Vets

DES MOINES, Iowa -- U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., lashed out yesterday against a group that bashed him during his last run at the White House.

Kerry, who made a weekend appearance in northwest Iowa, said he is concerned that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is again resorting to "the politics of fear and smear.”

The group, financed by Texas conservatives, ran commercials questioning his record of being a decorated Vietnam veteran - the centerpiece of his presidential campaign in 2004.

"We’re not going to give them an ounce of daylight,” said Kerry, who is considering another run at the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.

The senator said his response to the commercials was not strong enough.

"We thought the fact that the truth was out there was enough,” he said.

"Clearly it wasn’t.”

Those same conservatives have formed another group this year - Economic Freedom Fund - and are attacking Democrats across the country. Part of the campaign includes $500,000 to bash Rep. Leonard Boswell, D-Iowa, who is seeking re-election in the 3rd District in central Iowa.

Boswell is being challenged by Republican state Senate President Jeff Lamberti of Ankeny in a race that has included significant cash from both parties.

Boswell retired after 20 years in the Army, including two tours in Vietnam as a helicopter pilot.

posted October 10, 2006 11:14 AM            

"End of story? So, the swiftboat veterans were wrong afterall? Much ado about nothing?

Hardly. Turns out that Mr. Kerry's file remains incomplete. The records released to the Globe were apparently drawn from Navy archives, not those of National Personnel Records Center, based in St. Louis. After a military member leaves the service, the complete file is transferred to the archive in St. Louis. There may be more information in those files, which Kerry has not released, so far."

Why the deception?

Tuesday, June 21, 2005

Mr. Kerry's SF 180, Part II

Today's New York Sun revisits the issue of Senator John Kerry, and his recently-signed SF 180, the Defense Department document authorizing release of his military records.

Kerry supporters claim the files--which were released to three "friendly" media outlets in late May and early June--provide the complete record of Kerry's Vietnam-era service in the Navy. Others have their doubts. Swift Boat leader John O'Neil has speculated that certain documents may have been expunged from the Senator's military records. For example, the records released to the Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times and the Associated Press offer no explanation as to why Senator Kerry obtained his honorable discharge in 1978--almost six years after he left the Navy. Virtually all military members know the status of their discharge at the time they leave service.

As you may recall, Senator Kerry applied for admission to Harvard Law School after leaving the Navy, but his request was denied. A member of admission committee reportedly said that Kerry was turned down, in part, because of issues with his military record that might prevent eventual admission to the bar.

More than three decades later, key portions of Mr. Kerry's service record remain as murky as elusive as ever. The New York Sun--which has pursued this story with dogged determination--has submitted its own request for a copy of the Senator's military record, and service-related medical files. Mr. Kerry has denied the Sun's request. Go figure.

posted October 10, 2006 01:30 PM            

I'm not the one who showed up at the democrat national convention, snapped off a sloppy salute and said..."My name is John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty".

I'm not the person running around America bashing the President and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, speculating about another run for the presidency in 2008.

Talk about pure, unadulterated hate acoustic...you'll find plenty on this forum directed straight at the United States, the United States military and President Bush.

Before you rush over with your feather duster to dust off my lampshades, you should fire up a skip-loader and clean the hateful horsesh*t off leftist floors. It's getting deep.

A casual examination of only the first 3 pages on this forum produced this horsesh*t...from the usual leftist suspects....hateful whining denunciations directly or indirectly aimed at Bush.
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/002793.html
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/002800.html
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/002796.html
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/002803.html
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/002801.html
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/002791.html
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/002792.html
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/002691.html
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/002783.html
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/002782.html
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/002781.html
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/002776.html
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/002756.html
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/002768.html
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/002767.html
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/002753.html
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/002726.html
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/002719.html
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/002714.html
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/002718.html
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/002710.html

posted October 10, 2006 01:31 PM            

Attacking the President with false accusations is quite different that bringing up a relevent story concerning a Senator. Kerry is the one that led the attack on October 10th, thus putting him on center stage once again. How can jwhop be accused of bringing up an old issues when it is actually a current event?

posted October 10, 2006 02:36 PM            

I have read numerous posts where people bring up topics from years past in order to bash on someone currently. One only has to see the remarks made about the President and his past, which is nothing compared to the same jerks that keep bringing up his wife's accident that resulted in the death of someone she loved when she was a teenager. It comes across as perfectly legit to have people bring out skeletons from the closets of Conservatives, but once you bring up ANYTHING about a Liberal we end up getting "that was a decade ago, that doesn't count, it's not relevant"

Then again, it would be easy for you to say I am guilty (or we conservatives) of commiting the same acts of bringing up the past.

posted October 10, 2006 02:57 PM            

You're probably right about people bringing up Bush's past. I tend to stay out of Rainbow's threads these days, so that could be true. I think that I largely speak for myself in this forum as I don't consider myself to be the same as some of the other Democrats here. I don't think there's any comparison between Jwhop and I as far as what we post.

posted October 10, 2006 03:10 PM            

quote:

---

This is simply Jwhop trying once again to make Democrats look bad by implying that there's something Democrats aren't revealing....acoustic

---

Trying to make democrats look bad

I don't need to do that acoustic. democrats do a perfectly fine job of that with their lies and hypocrisy.

Who can forget democrats giving a standing ovation to Gerry Stubbs after he actually had homosexual sex with a page who was underage at the time. Now, democrats are foaming at the mouth about IM's...no physical contact mind you, just IM's and email...and want us to believe they are concerned about the children.

"My name is John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty".

"I hate Republicans"...Howard Dean. Yep!

"We can't win in Iraq"...John Murtha. Nope!

"Our military forces are terrorizing Iraqi women and children"...John Kerry. Nope!

"No controlling legal authority"...Algore. Nope!

"I did not have sex with that woman..Ms Lewdinski...Commander Corruption. Nope!

"It depends on what the definition of IS, Is...Commander Corruption. Nope!

Kerry's remarks are topical...because Kerry himself keeps bringing the issues up.

**Edit**

The real issue with Kerry is his discharge...6 years after it should have happened. The real issue with Kerry is why Jimmy Carter had to convene a special military discharge panel to get Kerry formally discharged from military service.

What's in Kerry's service record which prevented his discharge for 6 years after an automatic discharge should have happened?

posted October 10, 2006 04:43 PM              

first jwhop starts a thread falsely accusing kerry of not signing the 180 form, then, when he finds out kerry did sign it, complains that 'not enough information was released', as if thats kerrys fault.....

kerry was in the naval reserves until 1978.....thats when he was discharged......mystery solved.....

so jwhop, did junior sign a form 180???....hmmmmmm??

posted October 10, 2006 04:58 PM              

quote:

---

I tend to stay out of Rainbow's threads these days, so that could be true.....

---

Why thank you, AG.....That is very considerate of you...

posted October 10, 2006 05:06 PM              

....If i may comment on your last post.......

posted October 10, 2006 05:23 PM            

It's an open question as to whether Kerry ever did sign that SF-180. The newspapers to which Kerry supposedly released his records have not..to my knowledge reproduced those records in print. Further, it appears the records on Kerry's website are from the Naval Archives and not from the National Personnel Records Center which is the permanent storage facility for the complete military records of military personnel.

There is something wrong with Kerry's discharge. The President of the United States DOES NOT convene a military panel to grant a discharge to military officers in the normal course of operations. Yet, that's exactly what happened in Kerry's case.

Kerry's Discharge Is Questioned by an Ex-JAG Officer

By THOMAS LIPSCOMB - Special to the Sun
November 1, 2004

A former officer in the Navy's Judge Advocate General Corps Reserve has built a case that Senator Kerry was other than honorably discharged from the Navy by 1975, The New York Sun has learned.

The "honorable discharge" on the Kerry Web site appears to be a Carter administration substitute for an original action expunged from Mr. Kerry's record, according to Mark Sullivan, who retired as a captain in the Navy's Judge Advocate General Corps Reserve in 2003 after 33 years of service as a judge advocate. Mr. Sullivan served in the office of the Secretary of the Navy between 1975 and 1977.

On behalf of the Kerry campaign, Michael Meehan and others have repeatedly insisted that all of Mr. Kerry's military records are on his Web site atjohnkerry.com, except for his medical records.

"If that is the case," Mr. Sullivan said, "the true story isn't what was on the Web site. It's what's missing. There should have been an honorable discharge certificate issued to Kerry in 1975,if not earlier, three years after his transfer to the Standby Reserve-Inactive."

Another retired Navy Reserve officer, who served three tours in the Navy's Bureau of Personnel, points out that there should also have been a certified letter giving Mr. Kerry a choice of a reserve reaffiliation or separation and discharge. If Mr. Meehan is correct and all the documents are indeed on the Web site, the absence of any documents from 1972 to 1978 in the posted Kerry files is a glaring hole in the record.

The applicable U.S. Navy regulation, now found at MILPERSMAN 1920-210 "Types of Discharge for Officers," lists five examples of conditions required to receive an honorable discharge certificate, four required to receive a general discharge "not of such a nature as to require discharge under conditions other than honorable," and seven for "the lowest type of separation from the naval service. It is now officially in all respects equivalent to a dishonorable discharge."

Kerry spokesmen have also repeatedly said that the senator has an honorable discharge. And there is indeed a cover letter to an honorable discharge dated February 16,1978,on the Kerry Web site. It is in form and reference to regulation exactly the same as one granted Swiftboat Veterans for Truth member Robert Shirley on March 12, 1971, during a periodic "reduction in force (RIF)" by the Naval Reserve. The only significant difference between Mr. Kerry's and Mr. Shirley's is the signature information and the dates. In a RIF, officers who no longer have skills or are of an age group the Navy wishes to keep in reserve are involuntarily separated by the Navy and given their appropriate discharge. This is a normal and ongoing activity and there is no stigma attached to it.

Kerry spokesman David Wade did not reply when asked if Mr. Kerry was other than honorably discharged before he was honorably discharged.

"Mr. Meehan may well be right and all Mr. Kerry's military records are on his Web site," Mr. Sullivan said. "Unlike en listed members, officers do not receive other than honorable, or dishonorable, certificates of discharge. To the contrary, the rule is that no certificate will be awarded to an officer separated wherever the circumstances prompting separation are not deemed consonant with traditional naval concepts of honor. The absence of an honorable discharge certificate for a separated naval officer is, therefore, a harsh and severe sanction and is, in fact, the treatment given officers who are dismissed after a general court-martial."

With the only discharge document cited by Mr. Kerry issued in 1978, three years after the last date it should have been issued, the absence of a certificate from 1975 leaves only two possibilities. Either Mr. Kerry received an "other than honorable" certificate that has been removed in a review purging it from his records, or even worse, he received no certificate at all. In both cases there would have been a loss of all of Mr. Kerry's medals and the suspension of all benefits of service.

Certainly something was wrong as early as 1973 when Mr. Kerry was applying to law school.

Mr. Kerry has said, "I applied to Harvard, Boston University, and Boston College. I was extremely late. Only BC would entertain a late application."

It is hard to see why Mr. Kerry had to file an "extremely late" application since he lost the congressional race in Lowell, Mass., the first week of November 1972 and was basically doing nothing until he entered law school the following September of 1973.A member of the Harvard Law School admissions committee recalled that the real reason Mr. Kerry was not admitted was because the committee was concerned that because Mr. Kerry had received a less than honorable discharge they were not sure he could be admitted to any state bar.

The fact that Mr. Kerry had cancelled his candidacy for a Congressional seat in 1970 in favor of Father Robert Drinan cannot have hurt Mr. Kerry's admission to Boston College. The Reverend Robert Drinan's previous position was dean of the Boston College Law School.

Given this, it is likely that a legal review took place that effectively purged Mr. Kerry's Navy files and arranged for the three-year-late honorable discharge in 1978.There were two avenues during the 1977-1978 time period. This could have been under President Carter's Executive Order 11967, under which thousands received pardons and upgrades for harsh discharges or other offenses under the Selective Service Act. Or it might have merged into efforts by the military to comply with the demands of the 1975 Church Committee. Mr. Sullivan was personally involved in the 1976 and 1977 records review answering Senator Kennedy's demands to determine the scope of any counterintelligence abuses by the military.

In the Foreign Surveillance Act of 1977, legislation introduced by Mr. Kennedy to enforce the findings of the Church Committee, there is language that literally describes the behavior of Mr. Kerry. The defined behavior that could no longer be subject to surveillance without warrants includes: "Americans having contact with foreign powers in the case of Americans who were active in the protest against U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Some of them may have attended international conferences at which there were representatives of foreign powers, as defined in the bill, or may have been directly in communication with foreign governments concerning this issue."

One of Mr. Kerry's first acts of office as he entered the Senate on January 3, 1985, was making sure what was still in the Navy files. A report was returned to Mr. Kerry by a Navy JAG on January 25, 1985, and appears on the Kerry Web site. There is an enclosure listed that may have contained a list of files, according to David Myers, the JAG who prepared it, that is not on Mr. Kerry's Web site. It could have provided an index for all of Mr. Kerry's Navy files.

All officials with knowledge of what specifically happened in Mr. Kerry's case are muzzled by the Privacy Act of 1974.The act makes it a crime for federal employees to knowingly disclose personal information or records.

posted October 10, 2006 06:40 PM              

quote:

---

Yeah, Bush said he would sign a SF-180 to release his military records and did so.--jwhop

---

i wasnt asking you for your word on that jwhop, i want a source.....

posted October 10, 2006 07:27 PM            

The form authorizes the release of military records to a specific individual or entity. That individual/entity is designated in Part III of the form. Aditionally, in Part II of the form, the veteran designates whether an edited or unedited record is released. In Part II they can designate whether discharge information is released or not. That would be very important in the Kerry case based on questions about the nature of his discharge.

This first came up relative to President Bush based on a Freedom of Information Request (I forget who filed the request, News Organization, ACLU, ?). But, when Bush signed his SF 180 he authorized release of all his records to the organization that made the FOIA request.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004549.php

posted October 10, 2006 07:55 PM              

youve got to do better than that, thats worse than newsmax

posted October 10, 2006 08:08 PM              

********

quote:

---

Bush did not sign form 180, but he did issue an executive order to release all the documents, which is the functional equivalent. Bush has been more forthcoming than Kerry, at any rate. Kerry promised (more than once) that he would sign form 180. I have a very strong hunch that he will NEVER sign that form while he still has political ambitions

---

posted October 10, 2006 08:28 PM              

quote:

---

I don't believe he signed any form, but he did authorize making his military records available publicly, We have released all the records, and reporters were allowed to look at his medical records as well."---press secretary Scott McClellan

---

posted October 10, 2006 11:44 PM            

Michelle Malkin says Bush signed an SF-180 and another source says Bush signed an Executive Order.

It seems there were pieces of Bush records scattered around which were missed in initial releases of documents.

Let's not forget Bush was Texas Air National Guard and their records are not kept at the same location as Kerry's would have been. Upon examination, and I just now thought about this...it may be true Bush did not sign an SF-180. That form is for United States Military personnel and Bush was Texas Air National Guard so that form might not have been appropriate or of any use in securing the release of Bush records.

An Executive Order is an Order from the Commander in Chief...in this case, to find and release all of the Bush military records.

The press seems happy and didn't question Bush further...or should I say, the press was unhappy to not find anything they could use against Bush. Except for Dan Blather and CBS who attempted to use forged National Guard documents to help Kerry get elected in 2004.

posted October 11, 2006 12:15 AM              

quote:

---

Michelle Malkin says Bush signed an SF-180 --jwhop

---