Posted on 08/27/2004 8:57:21 AM PDT by NavVet
In the midst of the controversy between the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Kerry campaign representatives about Kerry's service in Vietnam, new questions have arisen. The Kerry campaign has repeatedly stated that the official naval records prove the truth of Kerry's assertions about his service. But the official records on Kerry's Web site only add to the confusion.
(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...
bump TO SUPPORT THE NEW SWIFT VETS AD AND GEORGE BUSH... http://swift2.he.net/~swift2/gardner2.mpg
... But according to a U.S. Navy spokesman, "Kerry's record is incorrect. The Navy has never issued a 'combat V' to anyone for a Silver Star."
... Kerry's Web site also lists two different citations for the Silver Star. ... But a third citation exists that appears to be the earliest. And it is not on the Kerry campaign Web site. It was issued by Vice Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, commander of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam. This citation lacks the language in the Hyland citation or that added by the Lehman version, but includes another 170 words in a detailed description of Kerry's attack on a Viet Cong ambush, his killing of an enemy soldier carrying a loaded rocket launcher, as well as military equipment captured and a body count of dead enemy.
... Kerry's Web site also carries a DD215 form revising his DD214, issued March 12, 2001, which adds four bronze campaign stars to his Vietnam service medal. The campaign stars are issued for participation in any of the 17 Department of Defense named campaigns that extended from 1962 to the cease-fire in 1973.
However, according to the Navy spokesman, Kerry should only have two campaign stars: one for "Counteroffensive, Phase VI," and one for "Tet69, Counteroffensive."
... Reporting by the Washington Post's Michael Dobbs points out that although the Kerry campaign insists that it has released Kerry's full military records, the Post was only able to get six pages of records under its Freedom of Information Act request out of the "at least a hundred pages" a Naval Personnel Office spokesman called the "full file."
Questions have been raised about President Bush's drill attendance in the reserves, but Bush received his honorable discharge on schedule. Kerry, who should have been discharged from the Navy about the same time -- July 1, 1972 -- wasn't given the discharge he has on his campaign Web site until July 13, 1978. What delayed the discharge for six years? This raises serious questions about Kerry's performance while in the reserves that are far more potentially damaging than those raised against Bush.
ping
In my view Kerry wants the discussion about his Vietnam record to continue, if he didn't he could stop it now.
His senate record is bleak at best, I did not find any bills he authored. Kerry claims to be so very concerned about the voters but has done nothing to back up the talk.
Duplicate:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1200880/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1200747/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1200746/posts
But useful news nonetheless.
The Swiftboat Veterans aren't going to back down, aren't going to go quietly into history til after Kerry is defeated.
They've been waiting for 35 years for payback. There is nothing that will stop them at this point.
And I don't blame them a bit for it. Tell the world the truth about this POS, repeat what he did to all the vets of Nam when he got a microphone in front of his face.
Reporting by the Washington Post's Michael Dobbs points out that although the Kerry campaign insists that it has released Kerry's full military records, the Post was only able to get six pages of records under its Freedom of Information Act request out of the "at least a hundred pages"Kerry is as much of a pathological liar as President Clinton was. Kerry lies automatically, whether the lies ultimately help him or not. It's his nature, like in the old fable of the scorpion and the frog
For me, the only remaining question is, "Will the American voters forgive Kerry's lies the same way they ignore Clinton's whoppers?"
When articles like this start appearing in the "neutral" press, Kerry is in deep do-do.
The multiple citations for the same award is not only extremely unusual, it is outright bizarre.
It is also suspicious and highly questionable. It makes me think that along with Kerry's shopping for medals activities, he also went shopping for citations.
Another day, a new batch of questions that Kerry won't answer.
The media has pounded Dick Cheney for not fully releasing info on his Energy Task Force meetings. Yet Kerry can refuse to fully release his service records and they bury that fact, while pretending in their editorials that Navy records back up Kerry - when, apparently, less than six percent of the records have been released.
What could that more than 100 pages contain? Questions have been raised about President Bush's drill attendance in the reserves, but Bush received his honorable discharge on schedule. Kerry, who should have been discharged from the Navy about the same time -- July 1, 1972 -- wasn't given the discharge he has on his campaign Web site until July 13, 1978. What delayed the discharge for six years? This raises serious questions about Kerry's performance while in the reserves that are far more potentially damaging than those raised against Bush.
This IMO is what Kerry is truly worried about - the Dems have spent four years attacking Bush's record in the reserves. It's fair game.
For the truth -- not the sKerry untruths!
Bumped for later reading
Isn't that something?
Kerry Voted to Refuse the award before he voted to accept it.
Kerry will never, EVER release his records, and the Drooling Lapdog Press will just wag its tail and lick his hand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.