The Federal Patriot--22 October 2004

Since John Kerry has hitched his entire presidential campaign to his military service record,he sure is parsimonious when it comes to releasing that record.Kerry has consistently refused to sign a Standard Form 180 authorizing the Dept.of Defense to release ALL his records.


George W.Bush's military records were so spotless that Dan Rather gleefully trotted out some fabricated documents in order to kick up a little dust.Of course,if Dan Rather were a real journalist rather than just a T.V.talking head,he might actually develope a source who could find out what the remaining(approximately 100)pages in Kerry's DoD service jacket reveal.


For his part,Kerry claims he received an"Honorable Discharge"and that all his records have been released and are posted on his website,Kerry-04.com--uh,make that John Kerry.com.But Kerry has refused to say WHEN he received an honorable discharge.Indeed,some of his records are posted on his site--but not all of them.Among Kerry's released records is a 1977 cover letter from Jimmy Carter's Navy Secretary,W.Graham Claytor.What is revealing about this document is that it notes Kerry's original discharge was subject to review by a "board of officers"--yet no such review should be necessary for an Honorable Discharge.


The review was conducted in accordance with "Title 10,U.S.Code Section 1162 and 1163," which pertains to grounds for involuntary separation from military service.


As many Vietnam veterans who served their nation with dignity and honor will recall,Jimmy Carter's first official act as president was the signing of Executive Order 4483--less than an hour after his inauguration on Jan.21,1977.
EO 4483 provided general amnesty for draft evaders,war protesters and other offenders of that era.It's corresponding,and equally dubious,DO directive took effect in March of 1977,expanding that amnesty to include separation from military service by other than honorable discharges.( My note: Can't you just see Ted Kennedy's hand in this?)


Thus,while Kerry can correctly say--thanks to Jimmy Carter--that he received an Honorable Discharge,others could also say with equal precision that he received a Dishonorable Discharge.His activities as a leader of VVAW were,indeed,forgiven by Carter's EO4483 and the subsequent DoD directive.


However,according to legal scholars,John Kerry's meetings with enemy agents from Communist North Vietnam on multiple occasions between 1970 and 1972 are NOT covered under EO4483.For that reason,we delivered to U.S.Attorney General John Ashcroft on Monday of this week(Oct.18,2004)a "petition for Investigation and Indictment," calling on the Department of Justice to determine conclusively whether Kerry's actions were in direct violation of UCMJ(article104 part 904),U.S.Code(18USC Sec.2381 and 18USC Sec.953)and other applicable laws and acts of congress,constitute treason.(To read the text of the petitioners' request link to http://patriotpetitions.us/kerry/letter.asp)


I wonder what, if anything, will be done.I wonder what would have been done if George Bush had been involved in anything half so damaging to thousands of lives and country as this evil man.Yet the Dems wanted to impeach President Bush because of the Iraq war;And would have tried to do so if records hadn't showed the Dems themselves voted for invasion of Iraq too.

Steve From Texas - Back from another great weekend.

Of course Bush's military record is spotless, he doesn't have one

And what are trying to say that Kerry did that was so damaging, your little bitch fest didn't say, I know he certainly didn't start the Viet Nam war. And from what I hear the worst thing was doing was trying to end that war, sounds terrible, where as Bush, uh, started some wars didn't he? I think I heard that somewhere. One based on some seriously dicey history with our "enemy" / ally Saddam.

Did you hear about the Iraq guard recruits that graduated and then were ambushed while unarmed on their way off the base of boot camp, killed execution style leaving around 50 dead? This wasn't the usual bomb attack, shits getting even crazier if you can imagine that, after a Bush ad showing such peaceful scenes of Iraq, ah, gotta love politics.

Nice spin attempt lefty. Still you can't answer the questions either can you?

Nope, the only one that can is kerry. All he has to do is sign the form 108, if he has nothing to hide then why doesn't he sign it?

Makes any intelligent individual wonder why and any ignorant one disregard.

Steve From Texas - speaking what's right!

One more lefty,

http://www.wedgewoodsubdivision.com/unfit_epilogue.pdf


Good summary of the book where the authors discuss Kerry's and media response to the swifties' charges.


How anyone could give a pass on these charges is beyond me. Kerry has made no attempt to lay them to rest. Why? The only answer is that he can't.


Post war activities most relevant for me to his qualification or lack there of to be president.

Steve From Texas - Makes you wonder HuH?

"I wonder what would have been done if George Bush had been involved in anything half so damaging to thousands of lives and country as this evil man."

What did Kerry do that was damaging, you did not answer me?

And Bush is in the middle of just that, what do you personaly "know" (as much as any of us can) or understand to be the reason for us to be in Iraq?

I'm very curious about these allegations against Kerry, I'm quite unhappy with the vets against vets thing, but quite frankly, if anyone is at any fault for anything to do with the Vietnam war, its not Kerry, its the government, thats why its not as much an issue to me perhaps, just like now, I don't blame our soldiers, they get lied to just as much as us, I know, I was one, in intelligence no less. But also like I said, Kerry was obviously against the war, and from all I've ever heard and especially what more I heard today, I don't blame him one bit.

I just recently got another lesson in the atrocities of our own government and our "foriegn policy". Steve, if you didn't believe me when I talked about our government being full of lies, I sincerely wish you would take a look specifically at the CIA and our secret wars, some that become unsecret like Vietnam. I know I wasn't taught these things in school.

Our own ex CIA operatives (and in this case a head of the CIA) are the ones this info was coming from, about what our government has been doing since the National Security Act, and it is absolutely illegal, vile, and the reason other country's hate us (with very good reason I might add). Quite frankly again, if all this info is true, something absolutely has to be done, we are a country with a laundry list of war crimes, that we never get punished for since no one will or can except us or the UN, which mostly listens to us, but even they condemned stuff like the Panama invasion, you think Saddam was bad, you think mass graves are only his work, think again. So far from what I've seen, every leader deamed bad or evil was at one time our ally or tool, who we armed and trained to do some of our dirty work, then, we fuckin end up calling them evil, especially if they try to stop any more interventions of ours. Its ludicrous, fightening, and flat out disgusting the things OUR government has done. Most the leaders we have taken out to replace with our puppets were democratically elected, hows that for starters. Most of the uprisings were to overthrow these puppets who do tend to be freaking evil, apparently just like us.

I think it is important that I say US, because its all in our names, we don't tend to realize it or care long enough to worry, which is our duty, no one is watching over our government, and that leaves us, the common citizens, but we are left ignorant because of lies in the guise of national security.

You've heard the term shadow government right? What do you know about things of this nature? Do you think we have ever wronged another country in any of our conflicts, known or otherwise?

I wasn't trying to spin anything other than maybe back to center, because I was so amazed at what you said about Kerry being an evil man, but not why, and that you seem to think, according to your post, that Bush Jr's hands are clean.

Is that what you think? You mentioned not liking him but you didn't say why.

"I wonder what would have been done if George Bush had been involved in anything half so damaging to thousands of lives and country as this evil man."

And to answer the question, because he is doing exactly what you said, unless we the people start actually getting our heads out of our asses (me included) about our governments acts (including Iraq today), absolutely nothing will happen to him, not a damn thing, and he's not even the biggest problem, its bigger than him, right now there are 3 things we really need to worry about, I'll start from the bottom, 3. terrorists, 2 our own government, 1 our forced ignorance and complacency.

Our country has great potential, but we are in serious trouble, and have been for some years. We all know that politicians lie right, do you think it stops when they take office?

Hey steve, I don't think you site link worked.

"Still you can't answer the questions either can you?"

If you are referring to me somehow answering the questions about Kerry's war record or even after, of course I can't, I wasn't there and I don't have all the info. And I highly doubt you do either.

First off lefty, there's really no need for quoting my threads. I may be up in my age but trust me, I remember what I typed.

Second, I don't believe anyone here is questioning that our government lies. Well duh! And that's not only our current government but also of the past, yes even the demoncraps.

The whole point of this thread isn't about asshole Bush, if the government lies, who was a vet and who was not, but about WHY kerry will not release his records.

I'm not questioning why kerry protested the war, fought in the war, etc. As a citizen I'm simply asking, if this person wants to be my president then I want to know why he is trying to hide information from me?

You should be asking the same, if kerry has nothing to hide then why won't he release his records?

Hello! McFly!!

Steve From Texas - once again keeping you lefties straight.

Here you go lefty,

Read this and think about it. It's long but a great read.

Steve From Texas - always willing to help you out!

Never Apologize, Never Explain
From the November 1 / November 8, 2004 issue: John Kerry's real record as an antiwar activist. by Joshua Muravchik 11/01/2004, Volume 010, Issue 08

JOHN KERRY SAYS HE IS "PROUD" of his activities in opposition to the Vietnam War. Why, then, have he and his spokesmen consistently misrepresented them? Indeed the Kerry camp has been so effective in obscuring this history that both the New York Times and the Washington Post were forced to run corrections on the subject recently because their reporters relied on misinformation that the Kerry camp had succeeded in putting into wide circulation.

When the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth unveiled the fourth in their series of television ads--this one accusing Kerry of having "secretly met with the enemy" in Paris--both papers went into full debunking mode. The Post ran 600 words under the headline: "Ad Says Kerry 'Secretly' Met With Enemy; But He Told Congress of It." The story explained that the Swifties were "referring to a meeting Kerry had in early 1971 with leaders of the communist delegation that was negotiating with U.S. representatives at the Paris peace talks. The meeting, however, was not a secret. Kerry . . . mentioned it in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April of that year."

The next morning the Post ran a correction. The previous day's story, it noted, "incorrectly said that John F. Kerry met with a Vietnamese communist delegation in Paris in 1971. The meeting was in 1970." The correction did not acknowledge, however, that this apparently minor error invalidated the entire point of the Post's impeachment of the Swifties' ad. Kerry's visit to Paris took place in or around May 1970, eleven months before his Foreign Relations Committee testimony. In other words, his meeting with the Communists (while he was still a reserve officer in the U.S. Navy) appears to have been kept secret for nearly a year.

In downplaying Kerry's meetings with the Communists, campaign spokesmen have deliberately sown the impression that Kerry was in Paris on his honeymoon, a story that has been repeated in the press and on the Internet. The Boston Globe reported: "After their May 1970 marriage, Kerry traveled to Paris with his wife, Julia Thorne, on a private trip, [Kerry spokesman Michael] Meehan said." But various biographies agree that Kerry and his bride honeymooned in Jamaica, an ocean away. The exact dates of their trip to Paris have not been established: It came just after or before or even in the midst of this honeymoon, and the trip seems to have been made expressly for the purpose of meeting with the Communists, although Meehan denies this.

Almost immediately upon returning from his discussions with Communist leaders (and perhaps at their suggestion), Kerry joined the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. (Over the previous months he had garnered attention by speaking out against the war but had operated independently.) He was immediately appointed to the group's executive committee by its director, Al Hubbard, a radical affiliated with the Black Panther party. From then on, Kerry twinned with Hubbard as the organization's principal spokesmen.

One thing that may have contributed to the Post's confusion about the year was that Kerry did go to Paris to meet the Communists in 1971, some time during the summer, probably in August. But this was a second trip, and Kerry's advocates have done their best to veil the fact that there was more than one trip. Indeed, FBI files reveal that Kerry planned a third such trip together with Hubbard for November of that year. But, as it turned out, Hubbard went without Kerry, perhaps because the two had by then fallen out over revelations that Hubbard's repeated claims to have been an officer and a Vietnam vet were fabricated. (He had been an enlisted man and had never been in Vietnam.) The fact that there was a second and a planned third trip exclusively to meet with the Communists strengthens the inference that this was also the nature of the first trip, despite Meehan's denials.

The correction that the New York Times ran also stemmed from the Swifties' ad. It had to do not with the date of Kerry's visit to Paris but with the identity of his interlocutors there. "In another broadside against Mr. Kerry," the paper had reported, "the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, whose past accusations have frequently been unsubstantiated, says in a new commercial that Mr. Kerry went to Paris in the 1970s and 'secretly met with the enemy.'" Then the Times rejoined: "Mr. Kerry testified shortly thereafter that he had met with both sides at the Vietnam peace talks to discuss the status of prisoners of war." In a follow-up two days later, the paper repeated this account.

The next week, however, the Times's correction acknowledged that it had "misidentified the parties with whom Mr. Kerry said he had met at the Paris peace talks. . . . The parties were the two Communist delegations-North Vietnam and the Viet Cong's Provisional Revolutionary Government." The Times clearly exonerated Kerry of its error, noting that "he did not say he had met with 'both sides.'" This is true to a point. In 1971 when Kerry described his first Paris meeting, he said he had talked to "both delegations" and went on to explain that he meant both Communist delegations. But when the issue of Kerry's dealings with the Communists had resurfaced earlier this campaign year, his aides characteristically fudged the issue. The Boston Globe, again relying on what it was told by Kerry campaign spokesman Michael Meehan, reported that Kerry had met with "members of both delegations to the peace talks," which certainly gave readers the impression that he had met with both sides. Globe correspondent Patrick Healy confirms that this is what he understood Meehan to mean.

Why all the obfuscation from the Kerry camp? Because his activities were not as innocent as he would like them to be remembered. The antiwar movement, broadly speaking, had two wings. To one, the war was a tragedy: America's actions were well-intentioned but misguided. To the other, the war was a crime: America's motives were less worthy of sympathy than those of its enemies. Kerry sometimes sounded as if he were in the former camp, as when he warned against being "the last man to die for a mistake." More often, he was in the latter camp, as when he accused American forces of "crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command," a kind of language he never used about the behavior of Communist forces.

America had gotten so far off track that we needed a "revolution" to recapture our founding principles, Kerry said, while also suggesting that our enemies were more in tune with those principles. Ho Chi Minh, he declared, was "the George Washington of Vietnam" who was trying "to install the same provisions into the government of Vietnam" that appeared in the U.S. Constitution.

This attitude underlay his trips to meet with the Communist delegations in Paris. Although he accused American leaders of lying, he returned from Paris to endorse the Viet Cong's "peace plan" as if the pronouncements of Communist leaders deserved to be taken at face value. The Viet Cong's foreign minister, Madame Binh, had told him, he said, that "if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal, the prisoners of war would be returned." The fact that she said so, he suggested, proved that President Nixon was lying: "I think this negates very clearly the argument of the president that we have to maintain a presence in Vietnam, to use as a negotiating block for the return of those prisoners. The setting of a date will accomplish that."

Today, Kerry and his surrogates make it sound as if his meetings with Communist officials were motivated by concern for American POWs. But this stands history on its head. Disregarding entirely the Geneva convention in their treatment of American prisoners, the Communists used the POWs as hostages, pressing America to capitulate in order to get its men back. Some of the more extreme antiwar leaders collaborated with Hanoi in this extortionate game, leading to deep resentment among most POWs for dishonoring and sabotaging the cause for which they had sacrificed so much.

Vietnam Veterans Against the War, the group Kerry led, was squarely in the radical wing of the antiwar movement, which is the reason for another of Kerry's misrepresentations. VVAW was so extreme that at its November 1971 leadership conference in Kansas City a motion was tabled to resort to terrorism and commence assassinating America's elected officials. Although the motion was voted down after lengthy debate, the very fact that it was given serious consideration shows just how far-out VVAW was. Probably for that reason, Kerry had denied being present at the meeting in Kansas City. Gerald Nicosia, author of a highly sympathetic account of veterans' antiwar activities, reported in the Los Angeles Times earlier this year that "several people at the Kansas City meeting recently said . . . that they had been told by the Kerry campaign not to speak about those events without permission." However, when FBI files released under the Freedom of Information Act placed him at the meeting, Kerry withdrew his earlier denial, admitting he may have been there but saying he had "no personal recollection" of it.

The FBI files, however, don't just reflect Kerry's presence. They show a raucous two-day debate, changing venue midstream when someone announced excitedly that the meeting hall was bugged. The highlight of the gathering was a bitter running battle between Kerry and Hubbard, the two former friends and co-leaders. The brouhaha culminated with Hubbard pulling down his pants to show his scars and Kerry finally resigning from the organization which he had so famously led. Participants interviewed by reporters--including Kerry supporters--scoff at Kerry's claim to have forgotten his starring role at this climactic event.

After the war, when Communist repression spread over South Vietnam sending hundreds of thousands of "boat people" to face likely death at sea, dozens of former antiwar leaders led by singer Joan Baez took out newspaper ads decrying the abuses. Those who joined in the statement did not say that they regretted opposing the war, but they faced up to some sense of responsibility for the painful consequences of what they had advocated. The signers included many from the moderate antiwar camp and even some radicals like the priests Daniel and Philip Berrigan, but John Kerry's name could not be found among them.

Just as he has never brought himself to apologize for having said that committing war crimes was the norm for American soldiers in Vietnam, so Kerry could never voice remorse for what happened to the South Vietnamese when the Communists took over. Although his campaign themes often sound like a litany of second-guessing (in Iraq, Americans did too much of the fighting; in Afghanistan, Americans did too little), Kerry seems never to second-guess himself. Whatever he did, he's proud of it, even if he has to misrepresent it. That would be a worrisome trait in a president.

Joshua Muravchik is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute

Kerry showed no remorse for the fall of Sout Vietnam!

So... you're saying he didn't care that an rightwing dictatorship was replaced by a left win dictatorship?!

Bastard!

God, where do you find such ignorant and bias dribble. Hiding any parts of a persons past that can be seen as disagreable by the public is a must for any politician hoping to take office, you say they lie, pretty much if not all of them, then what do you expect, he's trying to be president right, not an honest man. Maybe he is even bad at lying and that is why he won't talk, and his campaign lies for him, and if you are about to get mad at him for not being honest, well how well do you think an honest man would hold up in the white house, assasination anyone? We need to focus not on the quality of the candidates but the quality of the system, the government is full of cover ups and lies, or items of national security, he's not allowed to tell the truth, wtf? Its one thing for something to be kept secret for the safety of lives, its another to conceal illegal acts.

( Kerry may need other people to lie for him because he is too honest, what if that were the case, what if all he talked about in his past is right and just, but if made public could get him killed let alone hated by ignorant and manipulated voters, standing up to the government that publicly can get you killed if you get people to start questioning too)

The article talked as though Kerry was wrong in his beliefs and actions or seemed to hint that way, and that is an assumption to begin with, depending on the validity of the information I spoke of makes me even possibly agree with Kerry, also depending on exactly what happened with Kerry.

Dumbteen, that article says nothing about his remorse, other than he didn't sign some newspaper article, big woop. He was probably arguing our place there to begin with which is still in debate today.

Oh, and steve, you still haven't said anything as to why you called Kerry and evil man. Please do.

I find it amazing at how you lefties choose to ignore fact but love to dance in rivers of rumors.

Hey leftfoot, ever hear the old sayng, "Where there's smoke, there's fire"?

Steve From Texas - keeping you libby's straight

Whatever, Steve.

Excellent response Dummyteen!

BRAVO!! BRAVO!!

Steve From Texas -~note to self, our future is in trouble~

What the hell are talking about steve, and you still didn't answer my question, what are YOU saying Kerry did to be considered evil, are you capable of answering that question, what rumors am I dancing with, what the hell are you talking about?