SwiftVets.com

Msgt_Ret · Seaman Recruit Joined: 22 Sep 2004 Posts: 4

Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

"The Navy records posted on Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign Web site have stirred suspicion of wrongdoing among Internet bloggers, but authoritative sources say the documents show that the ex-Navy officer fulfilled his duty."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041018-124856-1545r.htm

arkadyfolkner · PO3 Joined: 12 Sep 2004 Posts: 271

damage control and a steaming pile of monkey poo

LewWaters · Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:14 am Post subject:

sdonions · PO3 Joined: 21 Jul 2004 Posts: 294

msindependent · Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:22 am Post subject:

When are reporters going to start named their sources? What authoritative source? What Navy source? I want names. Good mention of book though.

ord33 · Rear Admiral Joined: 11 Aug 2004 Posts: 670 Location: Ohio

Here is the Washington Times Article, my comments are in "quotes".

The Navy records posted on Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign Web site have stirred suspicion of wrongdoing among Internet bloggers

greasepaint · Seaman Joined: 10 Aug 2004 Posts: 177 Location: Texas

When Kerry took the job of an admiral's aide, he signed a contract
extension, extending his active duty obligation thru Aug. '70.
His original obligation, three years active duty as an officer
(does not count officer's candidate school), was thru mid-Dec '69.
( I think) He got credit for active duty, thru Feb.'70.
Kerry was let off the hook for six months of active duty.

SBD · Admiral Joined: 19 Aug 2004 Posts: 1022

I posted this on another thread but thought it might fit better here. If you notice, the writer says that only Medical Records and College docs are still not released. If that is true then what could be written in those 100 pages of medical reports? We know it has nothing to do with his physical war injuries but what about his mental injuries? I think Kerry's wife let something out of the bag to The Washington Post last year that Kerry clearly did not want discussed.

Here's something else Carter did during his first few years on office. It's interesting how the names of the past seem to creep up in the most interesting places.

The Lost is Found: Post-traumatic Stress Disorder
http://www.istss.org/What/history2.htm

In the meantime, President Carter had appointed Max Cleland as Director of the Veterans Administration and Alan Cranston assumed the chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs. Cleland called a meeting with Art Blank, Charles Figley, Shad Meshad, John Wilson, William Mahedy and others to make specific recommendations for a VA readjustment counseling program.

I seem to remember Teresa Kerry commenting on John Kerry's nightmares about Vietnam.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39691-2002May31?language=printer

The Heart of Politics
One Woman, Two Senators and Presidential Ambitions: The Washington Tale of John Kerry and Teresa Heinz

Part of Heinz's charm is that she has no patience for this. When Kerry is asked about the nightmares that haunted his sleep for years after he returned from Vietnam, he shrugs. "I don't think I've had a nightmare in a long time," he says. But then Heinz begins to mimic Kerry having a Vietnam nightmare.

"Down! Down, down!" she yells, patting her hands down on her auburn hair.

"I haven't gotten slapped yet," she says. "But there were times when I thought I might get throttled."

Kerry quivers his right foot and steers the discussion to the counseling programs he has supported for Vietnam veterans. Asked if he has been in therapy himself, he non-answers. "It doesn't bother me anymore, I just go back to sleep."

Heinz presses him. "Not therapy for the dreams, therapy for the angst," she says, and looks quizzically at him, awaiting an answer. Kerry shakes his head "No."This is not your father's political couple, though you wonder, at this moment, if Kerry wishes it were.

Maybe he won't sign the Form 180 because his discharged was changed to honorable due to PTSD. I remember thinking that Max Cleland was going overboard with the trip to the Texas ranch but if he knew something else, I could see why there was such desperation. I think that we have a right to know this information and we should continue to demand it.

If this is true, it would truly be an October Suprise and until Kerry signs Form 180, this is just as plausable as any other scenario.

SBD

P.S. This is just a guess, I have not found the documentation "Yet" but I am sure that the other side will start to attack me as being cruel, etc. We can usually judge how close we are to the truth by how loudly and violent the Kerry team becomes.

sevry · Commander Joined: 13 Aug 2004 Posts: 326

sevry · Commander Joined: 13 Aug 2004 Posts: 326

Dimsdale · Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 pm Post subject:

Tilly · Seaman Apprentice Joined: 12 Aug 2004 Posts: 97

"Authoritative" sources, huh?

Hm. Does this mean a midnight phone call to ... Wesley Clark? Bumping into RICHARD Clark at a cocktail party? Perhaps one of Hillary Clinton's staffers ... maybe a janitor at the Pentagon ....

I support the freedom of the press in the fiber of my very being, but the press needs to start verifying their un-named sources ... because these sources make the MSM look more and more idiotic, in the service of the Democrats.

Hondo · LCDR Joined: 26 Aug 2004 Posts: 423 Location: USA

greasepaint, sevry:

Apples and oranges. The 6 year figure refers to the total service committment (Active PLUS Reserve) that Kerry signed up for in 1966. At the time, I believe the norms were 3yrs active/3yrs reserve and 4yrs active/2yrs reserve. It's entirely possible his job as an Admiral's aide required an extension of his active duty time - which was subsequently waived.

Tilly:

The Washington Times is a pretty damn conservative newspaper. They are definitely NOT in Kerry's camp. From what I've read of Scarborough's previous work, he seems both well-connected and thorough.
_________________
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse."
-- John Stuart Mill

Navy_Navy_Navy · Admin Joined: 07 May 2004 Posts: 5777

Is it just me or does this article seem to address nothing of substance that was in the Libscomb article, except the board review?

It was possible that all officers received a board review in the Reserves prior to discharge, but a board review under those specific references?

I'd love to know who the reporter spoke to - what "Navy spokesman?"
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother

SBD · Admiral Joined: 19 Aug 2004 Posts: 1022

Quote:

Navy officials say today that the board was standard operating procedure at that time for all reservists and does not indicate Mr. Kerry did anything wrong.

And they never said it didn't. They were investigating, if you read the cited statutes, cases possibly involving involuntary separation, under less than honorable conditions that is. Another went to reactiving personnel from inactive duty, if I recall. But the original statutes were struck in 1994. I've not seen anybody post the original language. I can only read the substitute provisions now online. Others, such as Lipscomb, have pointed out the juxtaposition of Carter's general amnesty and Kerry's 1978 review.

Here is the document I found regarding 1162 and 1163
http://66.135.39.97/chapter59-seperation.pdf

SBD