Good stuff, but it will be hard to explain it to the sheeple...
On Air Force Officer Effectiveness Reports of that era, the highest overall rating was a "9". I think the adjective that went with it was "Outstanding".
Due to rating inflation, getting an "8" (Excellent) was the Kiss of Death.
Ping
This analysis is exactly on the mark. In reading the article and noting the described marks, the subject of these fitreps was definitely highly unlikely to have had a long military career (not that he sought one). It is common in the Navy, and I assume other services, to glowingly damn the ordinary officer performer with faint praise, as opposed to noting a really stellar performance with key (code) remarks. Thus to the casual observer, everyone looks really swell--only the codebreakers (ie NAVPERS) and senior leadership are aware of the actual tenor of the report.
That these reports have been released suggests to me that the Kerry camp may not have realized the negative tenor that they impart. Hopefully, (dream on) the media will insist that all reports be released (fat chance) a la the incessant demands for all the Presidents Guard records.
My proud vanity post:
This just got published (very surprisingly) in the grossly misnamed Springfield (MA) Sunday Republican in response to an unsigned editorial on 7/18/04 attempting to revive the President's National Guard record debacle.
Kerry's military records
I read with some dismay your editorial resurrection of the old National Guard service story about President Bush ("Questions rightly linger about Bush's service," July 18).
Would that such attention was paid to Sen. John F. Kerry's military record. Where are the missing military medical records of Kerry's, that the Boston Globe and others have been unable to obtain? The circumstances surrounding the award of some of the medals you refer to are a topic of hot debate in some quarters. Clearly, some questions still rightly linger about Kerry's service as well.
Unlike Bush, where a handful of people have hazy recollections (at best) of his service, there are literally hundreds of Kerry's contemporaries comprising both the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and the Vietnam Veterans for Truth that remember Kerry's military service all too well, and receive no attention from The Republican. These qualified and experienced individuals (including Kerry's immediate commanders) have firmly and publicly stated that Kerry's record, both during Vietnam and after, renders him, in their opinion, unfit to serve as commander in chief.
And the questions continue long after his military service, right to this day. Where is the reporting on Teresa Heinz-Kerry's finances, and how they are buoying Kerry's run for the presidency? Where is the outrage about Kerry's lack of participation in nearly all of his Senate responsibilities since his candidacy took off?
But no, The Republican sees fit to remind us that the president, who did a virtual document dump of his service record to the press, should continue to be questioned by an arguably hostile press about his 30-plus-year- old National Guard service.
For the record, Brig. Gen. William R. Turnipseed (ret.) has since said that the press and "Bush-haters" have constantly misrepresented what he said to make Bush look bad. Perhaps The Republican could take the time to actually interview Turnipseed. As for witnesses, at least two have come forward: Retired Lt. Col. John "Bill" Calhoun told The Associated Press he saw Bush on the post on at least six occasions, and Joe LeFevers, another member of the Alabama squadron where Bush pulled Guard drills, remembers seeing him. Apparently, only the people that didn't see him have credibility with The Republican.
The editorial staff is right, the press should ask for the pertinent records. But they should ask for all of the pertinent records of BOTH candidates.
SpinyNorman
"Sentator Kerry, you say that you honorably served your country in Vietnam and that your service illustrated leadership. I have one, 10-part question:"
1. How do old medals on an empty suit lead this nation? I have yet to see inanimate object take leadership roles. This sums up your military and public service.
2. What does leaving your buddies behind after serving 4 months show about your character to be a "proven leader"? Does the same "3-scratch rule" apply to War on Terror?
3. How is it that you were only able to find two of your "band of brothers" (useful idiots) out of many that you served with to stump for your campaign? Ever heard of Swiftboat Vets Against Kerry?
4. How did you manage to appear in uniform at protests while still in the Navy and not be court-martialed?
5. How can you fly the flag of the enemy in protest against war and expect to be able to pick up the banner again that you just pi$$ed on?
6. Why did you meet with the enemy in Paris when not serving in the U.S. Goverment?
7. Have you ever accepted (or declined) the endorsement of the Communist party?
8. Although you served on committees responsible to citizens on POW/MIA issue, you declined to pursue any results that would locate the POW's or their remiains?
9. How is it that you have not put forth any legislation on veterans issues?
10. Why is it that you would question the President's service when you did everything possible to avoid service (with band-aid wounds) that you volunteered for?
That about sums it up for me on military service. Next, Mr. Absentee Senator, shall we delve into "public service" record? Or we could discuss the Clintonites who serve the campaign and resort to stealing documents to cover up for their "proven leader"?
Unfit for duty....unfit to be a senator, and most certainly unfit to be Commander-In-Chief and President.
I hope they've gotten this to O'Reilly, Rush and Hannity. MSM won't be reporting it.
Thanks. That's very interesting.
bump
Bump for later read.
bump again
Bump