Powered by TypePad

« Tougher Than He Thinks | Main | Now Who's A Bigger Jerk? »

June 05, 2006



I would've only voted for Kerry because he wasn't Bush, but in the end neither of them really seemed worth voting for. And that was two years ago. Does anybody really still care much about this stuff? Does anyone seriously think Kerry will try to run in 2008 after his last dismal effort?


Kerry's existential agony is that what he thinks the people want to hear keeps changing.


"Does anybody really still care much about this stuff? Does anyone seriously think Kerry will try to run in 2008 after his last dismal effort?"

Yeah tortoise... apparently Kerry does. He's the moron dragging this up again. And just wait a few hours, and you'll see a few of his apologist show up here and start moving the deck chairs on the Titanic, also known as the J.F.Kerry


Lipscomb does a good job of explaining why the slow children at the NYTimes need to be a bit more skeptical of Kerry.

I'm not sure why they'd get reinvested in this. Kerry is not going to be renominated. They'd be better off picking their showboat for 2008 and starting the hagiography for that candidate.

The problem that seems to elude the NYTimes and its fellow travelers on the left isn't the specifics of this or that Kerry award or claim of Audie Murphyesque combat exploits. The problem is he's a damn liar whatever the facts of his Vietnam service, and that's not going to go away because the lies are proven by Kerry's own words over time in records he cannot alter and that cannot be impeached.


Powerline has a post on this along with links to today's articles.

Yes, tortoise, now is the time to put these stories to bed. As of today, Kerry has absolutely NO chance of getting the democratic nomination for the presidential office but that is his goal. He's blaming the Swift Vets for his loss.


At least, the rationale for voting for Kerry won't be ABB this time (unless Jeb runs for it, of course).

I'm not sure why they'd get reinvested in this. Kerry is not going to be renominated. They'd be better off picking their showboat for 2008 and starting the hagiography for that candidate.

Preemptive strike against the VRWC blogs and activist groups in an election year with a side order of self-righteous "see what you can expect from these smear merchants in the '08 Presidential election?"

Beto Ochoa

Well the NYT never was prone to letting facts spoil a good story.
Jason Blair was too lazy. He could have gone to the places, interviewed the people and then wrote whatever sruck his fancy. After all, it was status quo. He just found a way to be more efficient about it.


Amazing how the voters of Massachusetts continue to vote for both Kerry and Kennedy.

Reading Lipbscomb's article reminded me of some of the posts made in the various threads. Makes me wonder if Zernicke spoke to some of out posters....and whether some of our posters are members of the "Patriot Project". Makes me wonder if Zernicke is one of the posters....


The same reason New Yorkers vote for Hillary . It's what dems do. Name is everything-qualifications have nothing to do with it. Lokk at Rhode Island and Patrick Kennedy. It's kind of frightening when you think about the criteria these voters use. I try not to think about it.


Saw this in American Spectator's comments:
(Along with other opinions... check it out)

I find Senator Kerry's actions against the Swift Boat veterans to be highly curious, considering most of the actual records concerning his service are still "because I said so, so trust me."

I served 21 and a half years on active duty as an NCO and then Chief Warrant Officer in the Army, and over the years processed a number of discharges for personnel. Most of them were honorable and automatic, but there were a few that were not or were required by law.

The Army lumps its discharges together under AR 635-200 for enlisted men, and there are a number of them for special cases. Chapter 5 is hardship due to family situation (normally Honorable); Chapters 9 and 10 deal with drug and alcohol abuse, and vary according to abuse and reason for discharge. Chapter 13 is for unsuitable for military service under honorable conditions -- some people just cannot adapt to military life. Chapter 14 covers being unsuitable for military service due to criminal activity -- this varies but usually comes with a civil felony conviction.

Chapter 10 is the most interesting one. If you commit a crime or break the bonds of good discipline, you may be considered for a General Court Martial. But, if no one is injured and you basically plead nolo contender, you may be offered a chapter 10. This discharge usually comes with a Bad Conduct Discharge but you do not stand trial and do not get placed in confinement. While in Berlin, we had a soldier do this -- he basically ruined the engine in his first sergeant's van and stripped the paint from his commander's brand new car. He took the chapter ten and thought he beat the system -- until he got back to the states and found he no longer had GI Bill privileges. One of the dirty little secrets with a BCD is you lose nearly all veterans' benefits and also all awards and decorations.

Looking over Senator Kerry's records, there are large holes in them between 1970 and 1978 -- the points where Mr. Kerry was released from active duty into the reserve and when he was awarded an Honorable Discharge from the USNR.

In a 2004 article in the New York Sun ("Mystery Surrounds Kerry's Navy Discharge," Thomas Lipscomb, Special to the Sun, October 13, 2004) the author notes the very curious use of Title 10, US Code, Sections 1162 and 1163 to cover a discharge awarded by board of officers. This is more than a bit odd, as normally discharges are automatic and covered by various military regulations. Mr. Kerry SHOULD have been discharged on February 17, 1972, pursuant to a normal six year period of service. He was also supposed to be providing training to other Naval Reserve personnel between 1970 and 1972. But as is well known, Mr. Kerry was cavorting around Washington with Jane Fonda and hobnobbing with North Vietnamese dignitaries at the time, wearing non-regulation length hair (even for the Zumwalt Navy) and a SP5's jacket.

Also, there is the matter of the certificates for his awards, all dated 1978 as well.

What I would like to see is the following:

1) Can Mr. Kerry produce the records that prove he was serving as a training officer to the USNR in Massachusetts between 1970-1972? He was quick to note that Mr. Bush's records were incomplete.

2) Can Mr. Kerry release his FULL records and ORIGINAL DD214 which should have been dated 17 February 1972 and prove his copies were lost?

3) The Navy has very similar BUPERS regulations to the US Army covering involuntary release of officers and enlisted men for malfeasance with a BCD. Can he prove he never got one of these? (The circumstantial evidence shows that he did, which is why he needed to get both a new Honorable Discharge and re-awarding of his medals which had been revoked under the terms of such a discharge.)

4) There was a lot of largesse under President Carter to provide amnesty and to correct less than honorable discharges of service personnel whose malfeasance took place during the Vietnam War and who otherwise did not have any criminal actions in their background. Did Mr. Kerry benefit from such largesse, which would have come from a board of officers convened under Title 10, USC, Section 1162 and 1163, to cover just such an incident? (It would seem that his apparent AWOL from the USNR duty in Massachusetts, combined with his service in Vietnam prior to his antiwar antics later on, would have been the leverage to swing such a decision by a board directed to find for most personnel who did get less than honorable discharges.)

The Navy is extremely closemouthed about "dirty laundry" and perhaps this is the reason that none of the officers from that board seem to have come forward. But I wish he would open the "closed" permanent file for scrutiny and not the highly massaged and edited records available on the Internet.
-- Cookie Sewell
CW2, US Army (Ret) (1968-1990)
(And I have seven DD214s, all of which list either Honorable Discharges, eligibility for retirement, immediate reenlistment, or discharge pending immediate appointment as a warrant officer.)



I for one would gladly welcome a John Kerry Presidental run in 2008.

Then I could eagerly anticipate all those goofy sports moments where Kerry mis-names famous stadiums, pitches a baseball like a little girl and having all sorts of silly photographs taken whilst trying to handle a football.

Or even yet another iteration of that silly scene where Kerry tries to pass himself off as the Great Goose Hunter.

Patrick R. Sullivan

Here's another good example of disingenuous methodology from Eric Rasmussen:

'The article contends that Droz took the wounded from the Coast Guard cutter Spencer to the LST Washtenaw County to be medevaced, leaving Kerry behind on the Spencer to send the report. However, Kerry was not thereā€”he was still back at the scene on the river with Thurlow. Note that Elliot was aboard the Washtenaw County. At least, he was there during the mission earlier in the day. [Brinkley, p. 310] Assuming the article is correct and Droz did bring the wounded to the LST to be medevaced, Elliot would have discussed the report with Droz at that point. Droz would have then returned to the Coast Guard cutter to gather the information he needed to finish the report.'

Error 1. Kerry went to the Coast Guard Cutter, leaving his PCF #94 behind, to be treated for his 'wounds'. He wasn't 'still back at the scene on the river'.

Error 2. Rasmussen is relying on Tour of Duty to place Elliott on the LST at the time of the wounded being medevacced. But, ToD is filled with errors over this mission. And, it only places Elliott on the LST 'earlier in the day' anyway.

Error 3. Actually, not an error, but an invention out of whole cloth: '...Elliot would have discussed the report with Droz at that point.'

This is the famous 'if...then' logical fallacy. The same one used to such comic effect to put Kerry in Cambodia. 'If Kerry went into Cambodia, then he went into Cambodia.' Right, but he didn't.

Similarly, if Droz discussed the report with Elliott, then he discussed the report with him. But, there's NO EVIDENCE he did.

Wishing it doesn't make it so in either case.


If Kerry was honorably discharged and had some pension fund established why was he crying poor-mouth and living with friends in his pre-Teraysuh days?


Thanks Cookie. And that is the crux of the matter isn't it? If Kerry has nothing to hide, then why not just release his records. Anything else says he is trying to hide something. This isn't hard to understand.


Kaus:Dead Man Running:


Kaus: Dead Man Running"
This about sums it up for me regarding Lurch.

Other Tom

I've said it ad nauseum, but I'll say it again: If the man went into Cambodia, who was with him? Where are they now? All of his surviving crewmen are well-known, and have made many public statements. What do they have to say about Cambodia? So far as I am aware, they have said absolutely nothing. Who were the SEALs? What do they say? Who was the "CIA guy?" The silence is deafening...

Cecil Turner

The circumstantial evidence shows that he did, which is why he needed to get both a new Honorable Discharge . . .

I looked that over a while back, and remain unconvinced. It's possible there was something hokey there, but the available evidence doesn't show it. Further, I'd be very leery of challenging the character of someone's discharge without proof, and the burden is certainly on those making the charge.

Bruce Hayden


That is the problem though - the only person who really has this information has repeatedly promised to release it, and hasn't. As you probably know, James Taranto, of the WSJ Best of the Web, made a big joke out of this, as did others, counting the days since he last promised to release the information. And then he really promised, etc.

Without him releasing the information in his military files, we are left with a lot of questions, that such a promised release would clear up, notably as has been mentioned above, why the four year late Honorable Discharge? Why reissue the medals?

I am like I think a lot of those here who are curious about these things, and just as curious why he has repeatedly broken his word to release the stuff. So, you really shouldn't be surprised that everyone thinks the worst of Mr. Kerry here - because either there is something very explosive in his military records, or he was a fool not to release the records two years ago, and an even bigger fool not to do so like he promised right after the election.


Kerry is a fool two times over and people will not elect a fool for president.


I think it altogether reasonable to assume that someone who can clear the record with material uniquely within his possession and who has publicly promised repeatedly to release that information but does not has something he's hiding.

Carol Herman

Kerry not only has to sweep the Swift Vets away, he also has to convince the world he married his current wife because he loves her so; and he's not a gigolo.

Sometimes, there are no roads out of the situation a person finds themselves in.

And, just for fun, I'd like to add a factoid that showed up yesterday, while I was reading Lubet's advice book to lawyers. Adeli Stevenson was a character witness for Alger Hiss. In 1948 his decided he was going to sue Whittaker Chambers. He thought as the Patrician he was, with all of his really cool political connections; he's smear Chambers by accusing Chambers of maligning him. Did you know Hiss lost his case, anyway? Takes a brilliant lawyer on a well done cross. In this case? Hiss' expert pscyhiatrist stepped in it.

So while Kerry plucks at his media friends for more coverage, ya gotta remember we not only escaped the bullet in 2004. Ike was liked a hell of a lot more than the egghead.

Good country. Large enough that well lots of people vote we get a Data Mining experience. The factions level out; and ordinary common sense prevails.

And, Kerry was DISHONERABLY DISCHARGED from the Navy before Carter corrected the recordes. Dishonerable discharged before getting "honorable" paper doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Carry on.

Other Tom

I hope someone can refresh all of our recollections on the matter of Kerry's release of his records. I seem to recall that he did, indeed, sign a Form 180, but that he did so with conditions attached such that there were some records not covered by the release. Anybody care to go back and resurface all this stuff?

Bruce Hayden

I am not sure that it was a dishonorable discharge. My impression is that instead of all the levels of discharge there are for enlisted personal, officers are either honorably discharged, or just discharged. But that doesn't mean that his initial discharge was honorable, because there is no indication that it was.

Of course, Mr. Kerry could clean up this ambiguity fairly easily by releasing his military records, as he has repeatedly promised he would do.

Other Tom

Technically, the Navy calls it "separation" for officers, not "discharge." On the Form DD 214 ("Report of Separation from Active Duty"), there is a box for "Character of Service." One entry--the typical one--is simply "honorable." I don't know what the other possibilities are, and I also don't know whether Kerry's DD 214 is among the papers that have been made public. I also seem to recall that there was an issue as to whether a subsequent DD 214 was issued after he entered the Senate, and it superseded whatever had been in the recrods before that.


Other Tom: Regarding your question about Kerry's release of his entire record: he released what he claimed to be the whole record, but only to two reporters who are sympathetic to him. So effectively no release. And I believe that some have said that the "complete" release still lacked some documents.

Bruce Hayden

Other Tom,

Thanks for the clarification.


Kerry meets with LA left-wing bloggers


This is John F " I served you know" Kerry,the politician,a stripper has more modesty,if his 180 bolstered his reputation,he would be handing copies to everyone he met.

Carol Herman

The way I heard it; "SIGNED, BUT NOT TURNED IN."

On par with saying "the check is in the mail," but you have no intention of sticking it into the envelope.

It's possible Kerry is happy enough to see his name in print? He's mentally ill.

And, the MSM keeps trying to grab stories that sell. I'm guessing, with all of their numbers going down, that this is like adding chrome to an Edsel?


"And, the MSM keeps trying to grab stories that sell. I'm guessing, with all of their numbers going down, that this is like adding chrome to an Edsel?"

How about Flopping Ace's writeup?

The Graves Made by Saddam


The troubling thing I found about Kerry's buddy, jim rasmussen(no relation to the other Rasmussen?) was that when he first appearred to support Kerry, Pacific NW?, he said Kerry had pulled him out of the water, with his bleeding arm.

Rasmussen later, sitting with Brinkley, is 'asked' by Brinkley, if JFK was hurt when pulling him out of the water, and Rassmussen then stated no.

It was like watching two guys trying to get the story straight, with Brinkley chiding the fanatical Rassmussen.


Many readers thought it was a spoof.


No good purpose can be served by dragging this all up again unless it forces Kerry to release all records in his 180. Otherwise it's deja vu all over again. What specific reporters have the records and how can we shake them down to get them.?

Patrick R. Sullivan

'Kerry's most ardent defenders will want to argue that "CROSSED BOARDER BEFORE CAPTURE" can only mean that Kerry crossed the border.'

Let them so argue, because it isn't Kerry's story that he had to go into Cambodia (hot pursuit and legal under int'l law) before capturing a VC tax collector.

His story as of January 2005 is that he delivered arms to the Khmer Rouge on the coast of Cambodia. Which at least isn't geographically impossible. And we know he didn't mind consorting with communists.


He's just fuddleheaded. Probably the Khmer Rouge were in northeast Cambodia, not near the coast, and not so readily available to Swift Boats. And they weren't active at that time, and could hardly be counted as allies, anytime. Then, again, neither were the Vietnamese in Paris.

Not that the CIA was particularly discriminating.

Patrick R. Sullivan

'jim rasmussen(no relation to the other Rasmussen?)'

It's Jim Rassmann and Eric Rasmussen.


Equally deluded.


It is a fair distance from the South China sea to the Gulf of Thailand.Kerry was there for a mere four months.



Obviously means that Kerry (?) annoyed the lodger,or person getting on the boat, before either, or both of them,was/were captured.


It seems Kerry is grasping at straws. He now claims his researcher found the spot report on the 3-13-69 action and it listed a Lt. Gibson. If Kerry had all his records on his site in 2004(as he claims) why didn't he have the report by Lt. gibson. It was the reports on his own award(bronze star). Was kerry so stupid that he couldn't locate this information in 2004? Why does he have a team of researchers pulling Navy records. He has his own and that is all that is needed. He should get the DEATH PENALTY for being a Traitor while a member of the USNR which he can't document.


Appreciate the spelling insight.

While Rassmann can be found expansively on the web, he ceases to register on News searches on google and yahoo.

Was he a real person?


I'm skipping to the bottom to announce that this morning I was due in Nantucket Court at 9:00 for trial, and passed John Kerry heading to the airport. One of us felt an obligation to be on time for work, which explains why I didn't turn around and follow him to ask him some questions.


Just dang, Jane..Iknow your questions would be more probing than Tim Russert's ever could be!!

Larry (USAF ret)

"...why didn't he have the report by Lt. gibson." Posted by: THE DUDE | June 05, 2006 at 06:01 PM

Dude, the USAF calls the writeup a "recommendation for decoration". I've written several dozen of them for comrades in arms. They're always forwarded to approving authority with a draft citation. Of the decorations I have, none were accompanied by the recommendation. A factual recommendation would contain large chunks of operational (after-action) reports, which, while maybe not classified, may contain sensitive info and are not commonly published. Op reps are not included in personnel records and Kerry has no authority to release op reps.

Also, I'd like to know what's the statute of limitations for treason?


Well Tim Russert has a home on Nantucket and I've been desparately trying to get invited for cocktails - or at least have a small encounter at the Atlantic Cafe. Too busy this trip, but keep hope alive.


There is not a chance on this planet that John Kerry will be tried for treason, and frankly I don't think that is wise. He should simply be unelected and forgotten - which sadly looks about as unlikely.


Trying Kerry for treason, especially after the extreme left wingers wanting to impeach Bush and Cheney, and indicting Rove, would certainly polarize this country even more.

By the same token, as long as northeastern states remain very liberal, then they will continue to vote for Kerry.

And that's an unfortunate thing.

richard mcenroe

"By the same token, as long as northeastern states remain very liberal, then they will continue to vote for Kerry."

Maybe when they find out the Canadian Muslims intended to load three tons of ammonium nitrate on the Martha's Vineyard ferry...


You can email President Bush, Congressional Leaders and Rush Limbaugh from my eclectic homepage... Check it out here......


Maybe when they find out the Canadian Muslims intended to load three tons of ammonium nitrate on the Martha's Vineyard ferry...

They wouldn't believe it. They would decide it is a Halliburton plot and for good measure fly out on their private jets for a week or so to their alternative palaces.

Doug Reese

"While Rassmann can be found expansively on the web, he ceases to register on News searches on google and yahoo.

Was he a real person?"

Absolutely. He and his Nungs were on two Swifts that day, and we three Army advisors and local RF/PFs were on the other two Swifts.

One Swift didn't make the trip up the Dong Cung Canal due to mechanical problems.

We were dropped off at our village after the morning's activities (firefight with VC, one Nung KIA, rice destroyed by you-know-who, etc), and then those four Swifts were joined by the fifth, which had been waiting in the river near our village, all fixed-up.

They headed out to the gulf, and moments later they hit a mine, Rassmann was thrown into the river, etc.

Jim is a retired sheriff, a lifelong republican, and he lives in Oregon.

Doug Reese

The comments to this entry are closed.