Nothing is easy with John Kerry, including filling out a form. Thomas Lipscomb of the Chicago Sun-Times digs into what ought not to be a mystery - just how did Kerry fill out his Form 180, and what records were released?
So how an SF 180 is filled out is as important as signing it. But no one in the press has yet claimed to have seen a copy of Kerry's SF-180. When asked if she had a copy of Kerry's SF 180, the Globe's Managing Editor Mary Jane Wilkinson said, "I haven't seen it, and I don't know if anyone here has."
Kerry's Senate offices could not provide a copy of the Kerry SF 180 and would not answer inquiries. Is it possible that Kerry filled it out wrong or sent it to the wrong place?
Folks who followed this will remember that Mr. Lipscomb was a terrier last fall, and struck gold (or at least, a nerve) with his articles about irregularities in the documentation of Kerry's medals.
However, I take exception to this:
Washington Post reporter Michael Dobbs has already found a discrepancy confirmed by the Department of the Navy of "at least a hundred pages" missing from those already disclosed by Kerry.
That is a defensible interpretation of this passage from what I am *assuming* is the relevant story:
A Freedom of Information Act request by The Post for Kerry's records produced six pages of information. A spokesman for the Navy Personnel Command, Mike McClellan, said he was not authorized to release the full file, which consists of at least a hundred pages.
However - it may be the case that these hundred pages include material which the Navy had released directly to Kerry, and which he had already posted on his website. That was my official editorial position last fall (oops, Sept 13 is "late last summer"), and I am sticking to it.
Frankly, I am not sure how either the Navy spokesman or Michael Dobbs, the WaPo reporter, would know if any of this Top One Hundred pages simply duplicated material Kerry had already released, unless they were able to compare the file with Kerry's website.
Resolving this should not be hard - someone should file a FOIA request for Kerry's records, and see what they get. Over to you, Mr. Lipscomb (who is probably days ahead of me here...).
MORE: We Need A Hero! Which is to say, if the WaPo can file a FOIA request, anyone can. And, depending in what Kerry signed, the Navy Personnel Command may be more forthcoming. Or, if not, that is a good hint about what Kerry actually authorized.
What the blogosphere (Right-Wing Kerry Kooks Subdivision) needs is someone who:
(1) is interested in this story;
(2) is not afraid of forms, including FOIA requests;
(3) has enough clout that the Navy will respond in this geologic era (the WaPo got timely turn-around, since the Swift controversies only took off in August);
(4) has the resources to follow through - my opinion is that any documents obtained should be "open-sourced" - find a website that can host the files, and let the rest of us rip through them.
Nominees are welcome - I am excused on points (2), (3), and (4).
UPDATE: Oh, don't bother - the NY Sun has tried the direct approach, and the stonewall continues:
The new release was prompted by a privacy waiver form, known as an SF-180, that Mr. Kerry signed on May 20, according a spokesman for the senator, David Wade.
A Navy spokesman, Lieutenant Commander Daniel Hernandez, said the waiver applied only to the Boston Globe and did not authorize release of Mr. Kerry's records to the public.
"Kerry controls the release of his records," Commander Hernandez said yesterday. "You have to talk to his office."
The senator also agreed to allow the Los Angeles Times to see his full record, Mr. Wade said yesterday. The spokesman did not respond to a question about why Mr. Kerry did not execute a broader release to all press organizations and the public. Asked whether the senator would permit release of the records to The New York Sun, Mr. Wade said, "The issue is over."
Mickey has lots.
And let's go back to what Kerry told Tim Russert last January:
MR. RUSSERT: Many people who've been criticizing you have said: Senator, if you would just do one thing and that is sign Form 180, which would allow historians and journalists complete access to all your military records. Thus far, you have gotten the records, released them through your campaign. They say you should not be the filter. Sign Form 180 and let the historians...
SEN. KERRY: I'd be happy to put the records out. We put all the records out that I had been sent by the military. Then at the last moment, they sent some more stuff, which had some things that weren't even relevant to the record. So when we get--I'm going to sit down with them and make sure that they are clear and I am clear as to what is in the record and what isn't in the record and we'll put it out. I have no problem with that.
MR. RUSSERT: Would you sign Form 180?
SEN. KERRY: But everything, Tim...
MR. RUSSERT: Would you sign Form 180?
SEN. KERRY: Yes, I will...
Hard to believe that this current procedure is satisfying all "journalists and historians", without Kerry as the filter.
When asked if she had a copy of Kerry's SF 180, the Globe's Managing Editor Mary Jane Wilkinson said, "I haven't seen it, and I don't know if anyone here has."
1. Isn't the Form 180 itself part of the record, and therefore would presumably have been released to the Globe if the "complete" record was released?
2. Michael Kranish states, in his article: "On May 20, Kerry signed a document called Standard Form 180, authorizing the Navy to send an 'undeleted' copy of his 'complete military service record and medical record' to the Globe." If the Globe doesn't have the actual Form 180, as signed by Kerry, how does Kranish know that the Form 180 authorizes the Navy to send him a "complete military service record and medical record"? That's a direct quote, presumably straight from the Form 180, no? Was he just told by Kerry people that's what the Form 180 says, and he forgot to attribute the quotation to them?
Posted by: Al | June 09, 2005 at 03:43 PM
You're not turning a little "Ahab-ish" on this topic, one hopes.
Or just on a quixotic adventure?
Melville or Cervantes?
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG | June 09, 2005 at 04:50 PM
Per the instructions on the SF 180, the completed form should have gone to the National Personnel Records Center (Military Personnel Records) in St. Louis. (You can download the form here.) The addresses are on page 2 of the form (page 3 of the file).
Al is correct – if the paper did not see the form, it would not know what was requested, or if an “undeleted” Report of Separation was in fact requested per Section II, item #1. The deleted version has sensitive info withheld. The undeleted is described as follows:
Note that the individual may narrowly (or broadly) define what is to be released in Section II, item #2.
Call me Ishmael
Posted by: The Kid | June 09, 2005 at 04:53 PM
LOTS more at Mickey. Basically, Kerry is controling the release of docs.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2120319/
Posted by: TM | June 09, 2005 at 05:15 PM
TM: This whole business is starting to remind me of the Clintonian exercise of deny, delay, provide a response, change the subject, and then demand that we move on because the issue has been addressed.
Some thought it politically skillful.
Others ponder "what would have been" were Clinton to have immediately come clean, take a short-term hit in the polls, and let a forgiving public move on at their own pace, rather than be lectured to do so.
Even at this short distance, it appears Clinton's flaws will be a major component of his legacy. Kerry seems headed in the same direction. Inexplicable.
Posted by: Forbes | June 09, 2005 at 05:39 PM
Under the Freedom of Information Act and persuant legal rulings, FOIA requests must be handled in the order they are received. The law stipulates tight turn around times (4 or 6 weeks), but bowing to reality, courts have said that a good-faith effort by the government is enough. And letting WaPo or other people with clout skip in line is illegal.
Posted by: AJ | June 09, 2005 at 06:07 PM
Well, maybe it was a slow summer, or maybe the WaPo was eerily prescient, but the Swift Boat story came to life in August, and they had their FOIA answer in time for a story on Aug 22.
Posted by: TM | June 09, 2005 at 07:19 PM
One collateral consequence: next time Kerry gripes about the media, ask him why it is that he trusts the Globe and the LAT more than the rest of the media, such that he has granted them special, preferential access. I mean, he is basically, with his actions, signalling which media organs he thinks are in the bag for him.
Posted by: Crank | June 09, 2005 at 07:21 PM
Hmmmm.
You know what? The more Kerry squirms out of releasing his records, the more curious I am.
I really have to wonder at what kind of dirt there is in there. It really has to be something enormously substantial. If, by some incredible circumstance, there really isn't anything in his records, and he actually has an explanation for all the discrepencies, then he's an even bigger idiot that all of us think he is.
Posted by: ed | June 09, 2005 at 09:13 PM
Crank –
Good point – Kerry was obviously (hopefully?) looking for dogs that won’t bark.
Courtesy of Kausfiles, we learn from Independent Sources that the LA Times - how shall we put this? – overlooked Kerry’s academic record. They had the records, but used much of the piece to beat on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
In a follow-up article Independent Sources rubs the left coast non-pointer’s nose in its droppings by citing several sources who announced before the election that they were voting for Lurch because he was so much more the intellectual, making the case that it was the press that heralded the tall one as the cerebral candidate. Why did the New Yorker go through all the effort to illegally obtain and publish Bush’s Yale transcript, and not do the same for Kerry’s? Or did they in fact obtain Kerry’s transcript and not find it newsworthy because his academic average was a point lower than Bush’s?
The really great news is that we now know for sure what the LA Times is good for and why their readership has declined: fewer people are getting puppies.
Posted by: The Kid | June 09, 2005 at 11:04 PM
Perversely, Kerry is dragging this whole shameful mess into fuller view with his machinations. What an expression of guilt! Perhaps the upshot will be therapeutic.
================================================================
Posted by: kim | June 10, 2005 at 07:35 AM
"However, I take exception to this: ["hundred pages" excerpt]"
The "100 pages" does not appear to be supportable. A less commonly cited article from Judicial Watch has a much more defensible claim that there are 31 unreleased pages:
Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 10, 2005 at 08:53 AM
Kid:
Kudos for the Indpendent Sources lead. I'm still laughing. I always thought thar was something funny about the way that the LA Times edited details.
Whilst on the subject, did you see Howard Dean's job performance review as given by Independent Sources? (http://independentsources.com/2005/06/03/howard-deans-job-performance-gets-an-f/)
Something tells me that the Times won't be printing that or anything similar.
Posted by: LBPolyGrad | June 10, 2005 at 10:21 AM
Does Kerry think he can keep this up through the primaries? Once Hillary's Rottweilers get into the act?
Posted by: richard mcenroe | June 10, 2005 at 10:44 AM
There once was a vet named John
Whose high office hopes are gone
"Those swift vets", said he
"Got nothin on me
Hey, come back, I got medals in Nam"
Sorry. Somehow, I can't find the high seriousness necessary for this topic...
Posted by: Appalled Moderate | June 10, 2005 at 10:54 AM
There once was a tall, dour veteran
Who thought candidacy was great fun.
He said: "Why the vapors,
"O'er some dumb ol papers?"
"A 180? I swear that I signed one!"
Hillary! says "Son of a gun,"
Can't he see, I am The One?"
Cuz she knows he'd be cool,
and not act the fool,
Unless he was going to run.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 10, 2005 at 01:04 PM
Is it possible to make this process longer and more painful than Kerry has made it? I don't think so.
Just release ALL the records to the public.....and that's all you have to do.
Is there something difficult about that? Why is this taking so long?
Posted by: Les Nessman | June 10, 2005 at 01:21 PM
re: ground truth.
Perhaps we should try a different path. Bleg for an interested lawyer-vet and have them go talk to the Navy and DoD records people and see if its possible and what procedures are required to order the release of "all his records" while withholding some old embarrassment, perhaps a night in the brig for being drunk and disorderly, or some (slightly) embarrassing medical detail. Where the scenario posed is "this person wants to release an edited record to a potential employer, without disclosing the fact that the records are incomplete."
Posted by: Ari Tai | June 10, 2005 at 01:45 PM
Forbes, you are correct -- there couldn't be a better analogy than the one with clinton. 60% of the country thinks we are headed in the wrong direction, but whether a few pages are missing from a former presidential candidates miitary record are the most important matter of the day. I really hope something is there for the sake of the right-wing blog -- not that I think any of them would blink, if absolutely nothing was there.
Been busy in reality. but I'm pretty convinced now, even if Kerry had released it during the election -- it owuldn't have mattered at all. Not at all.
Posted by: Jor | June 10, 2005 at 09:29 PM
So Jor, nothing in there to refute the Swifties? That would have changed the election results.
===============================================================
Posted by: kim | June 10, 2005 at 11:03 PM
Hmmm.
"I really hope something is there for the sake of the right-wing blog -- not that I think any of them would blink, if absolutely nothing was there."
Considering Kerry's extreme reluctance to open those files, I have every reason to believe that all sorts of damning evidence is in there.
Then there's Kerry himself. I have every confidence in Kerry being .... well ... Kerry.
Posted by: ed | June 11, 2005 at 09:14 AM
Even on a slow news day, this is more a matter of idle curiosity than anything else. I also have to admit I thought it pretty much a non-issue when it first came up, but with Kerry's strange reaction, I'm starting to get intrigued.
For a bunch of reasons, the discharge thing doesn't seem very likely. Neither does hiding grades or some minor incident (e.g., a letter of reprimand) make much sense--the cure is worse than the disease. Looking through his fitreps, the only obvious hole is the first Purple Heart, which is never mentioned (but could be an oversight).
Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 11, 2005 at 10:12 AM
The other interesting thing in the Sun story was this half-quote from LCDR Hernandez:
It's not clear whether he's saying the entire record was released, or just that the pertinent release came from the full record. In any event, without looking at the 180 or full access to the record, it's impossible to tell.Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 11, 2005 at 10:36 AM
Kim, and Ed -- initially I agreed with you. There must be something there if he won't open it up. But let's get real, Instapundit, Powerline, etc. would just find something else to get riled up on. This happened 30 some years ago -- and he won several medals of honor -- or at least one. Do you really think Glenn Reynolds or HindRockect were going to change their vote or even alter their opinions if he released his 180? Give me a break.
Posted by: Jor | June 11, 2005 at 12:36 PM
"But let's get real, Instapundit, Powerline, etc. would just find something else to get riled up on."
I suspect at least part of the reason they think it newsworthy is because it illustrates how blogs can give a story legs even if the MSM is trying to bury it. At this point the loser's military record is hardly riveting.
"This happened 30 some years ago -- and he won several medals of honor -- or at least one."
It certainly would have been old news if he hadn't made it the central theme of his campaign.
BTW, a Medal of Honor (CMOH) is a very big deal (there have been three since Vietnam, all posthumous). Next in line comes the Navy Cross (or DSC, or other service equivalents) . . . a Silver Star is the third tier, a Bronze Star is fourth. Kerry has one Silver Star, and one Bronze Star. (Former Senator Bob Kerrey has a CMOH, which causes some confusion.)
Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 11, 2005 at 01:13 PM
Cecil, I agree with MSM spin on it. I'm not even sure any more if bloggers just use that to get more power for themself, or to push forward their preferred (right or left) agendas.
Regarding Kerry's central war theme -- let's make an apples to apples comparison. In 2000 -- one of Bush's themes was that he was the MBA president. And on a cursory glance that was pretty much true -- he had an MBA, worked in the private sector, etc. etc. However, if you looked at his performance in the private sector -- it was pretty abysmal. I don't really recall this getting nearly the attention Kerry's war record received by the MSM. And Kerry had what are normally considered honoroable medals for military service (btw, thanks for the correction). In comparison, after your first job, nobody cares where you got your MBA from. Business is about putting up or shutting up. If Bush's MBA from Harvard didn't translate into results, than the MBA doesnt mean squat.
Posted by: Jor | June 11, 2005 at 01:24 PM
"I agree with MSM spin on it."
Hardly surprising, as it fits your political views. For those of us who disagree, the tendency to "spike" stories is less attractive. I also suspect that's one of the main drivers behind new media (and focusing on stories that show their muscle is understandable).
"one of Bush's themes was that he was the MBA president."
ISTM the "MBA President" meme was less about the election than an attempt afterward to describe his management style (e.g., I missed the "reporting for finals" speech). In any event, the story died for lack of interest.
"And Kerry had what are normally considered honoroable medals for military service (btw, thanks for the correction)."
They certainly are honorable (and you're welcome). They aren't, however, into "Sacred Cow" territory, which a CMOH arguably would be. Taken as a whole, his record is also certainly honorable . . . which makes the convoluted machinations to hide what must be some little piece of it baffling.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 11, 2005 at 03:11 PM
Cecil, I meant I agreed with the reason you were saying right wing bloggers are covering this story soo much. (i.e. covering msm spin, more so than merits of actual story).
The MBA thing wasn't important this past year, but in 2000 I think it was critical. Just as Kerry was using the war hero image to sell himself as not soft on terror -- Bush used his MBA and private industry experience to sell the fact that he could "get the job done". He might not be the most eloquent speaker -- but he had the credentials (MBA from harvard) and work experience in industry -- to do the job. He needed it to combat the "he's an idiot meme". Of course if you take a more than cursory look at his work experience, its hard to make the case for a successful executive.
Posted by: Jor | June 11, 2005 at 04:28 PM
"I meant I agreed with the reason you were saying right wing bloggers are covering this story soo much."
Sorry, shoulda figured that's what you meant.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 11, 2005 at 10:05 PM
Bush's MBA is helping him CEO the world.
========================================
Posted by: kim | June 12, 2005 at 12:17 AM
Sheeple! ,the true release of any and all military records will not EVER be released by John Skerry. Never! Shillery would just love it.
Posted by: Pugsley Debrute | June 13, 2005 at 11:01 AM