Posted on 06/20/2005 8:24:53 PM PDT by hipaatwo
Via the Freedom of Information Act, a reader obtained copies of the Form 180s that were recently signed by John Kerry to permit, at long last, the release of his military records. I believe there may be a story about this in the New York Sun tomorrow, and no doubt more commentary will be forthcoming over the next few days. Here are the three documents that Kerry signed; on their face, I don't see anything wrong with them, but then, I'm no expert in military personnel records. We look forward to our readers' comments.
Go to the link..there are 3 pages.
Yes, this is odd. I would expect that he would refer to himself as "President Kerry".
ping
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010797.php
June 21, 2005
Mixed up, take 2
Josh Gerstein of the New York Sun and freelancer Thomas Lipscomb are the only two reporters who have undertaken to resolve the mystery of John Kerry's SF-180. Earlier this month we noted their stories on the subject in "Mixed-up." Having received copies of the three Kerry SF-180 forms (posted below) pursuant to a FOIA request, Gerstein returns to the subject today in "Kerry grants three reporters broad access to Navy records." Gerstein quotes John O'Neill, who no longer raises any question about the manner in which the forms were filled out:
One of Mr. Kerry's most steadfast critics, Houston attorney John O'Neill, said yesterday that the latest information from the Navy did not address the issue of whether Mr. Kerry's record might have been purged. "The real question was, was other material in there and was anything expunged?" Mr. O'Neill said.
In this article Gerstein does not return to the question he had addressed earlier regarding the location of Kerry's complete military records. In his earlier article, he quoted a Navy spokesman asserting that the released documents constituted "the whole record." What does the National Personnel Records Center say? We don't know. Gerstein concludes his article on this note:
Mr. Kerry first promised to make public his full Navy record more than a year ago. Mr. Kerry signed the waivers for the wire service [Glen Johnson of the AP] and the Globe on May 20. The form for the Times was signed June 6.
A spokesman for Mr. Kerry rebuffed a request from the Sun for access to the service and medical files released to the other three news organizations.
When the Globe's Michael Kranish reported on Kerry's records earlier this month, I noted that Kerry was either the world's worst politician or that something was missing from his records. I believe that observation still applies.
Posted by Scott at 05:57 AM
Bump
How convenient that his "complete disclosure" is only to liberal reporters who can be counted on to whitewash any stains.
As usual, Kerry lies again.
.
Le Voila
.
To me this proves Kerry still has intent to run for President. Why else woudl he sign the 180 now?
bump
BINGO, if he got anything less that honorable he would not be retired from military service.
Folks, here is a suggestion. Someone with access to a Form 180 get one and fill out ALL of the information that the American Public needs to know to verify if JFK is telling the truth.
Fill out EVERY POSSIBLE block of information very carefully and clearly. Then post it on the internet and tell Senator Kerry that all he has to do is sign, in blue ink, a copy of the request.
In fact, some of you enterprising Freepers can probably fill out a 180 showing EXACTLY what we are wanting from Kerry.
Bump/ping!
From your first link in post #72.
Swift Boat Veteran For Truth John O'Neill Comments on Kerry's 180 'Release'
blogsforbush.com ^ | 6/7/05 | Matt
Posted on 06/08/2005 12:42:35 AM CDT by bitt
UPDATE III: I asked Swift Boat Veteran For Truth John O'Neill for a comment, he tells me:
'We called for Kerry to execute a form which would permit anyone to examine his full and unexpulgated military records at the Navy Department and the National Personnel Records Center.
Instead he executed a form permitting his hometown paper to obtain the records currently at the Navy Department. The Navy Department previously indicated its records did not include various materials.
This is hardly what we called for. If he did execute a complete release of all records we could then answer questions such as (1)Did he ever receive orders to Cambodia or file any report of such a mission (whether at Christmas or otherwise); (2) What was his discharge status between 1970 and 1978 (when he received a discharge) and was it affected by his meetings in 1970 and 1971 with the North Vietnamese? (3)why did he receive much later citations for medals purportedly signed by Secretary Lehman who said he did not know of them; (4) Are there Hostile Fire and Personnel Injured by Hostile Fire Reports for Kerry's Dec. 1968 Purple Heart (when the officer in charge of the boat Admiral Schacte, the treating Surgeon Louis Letson, and Kerry's Division Commander deny there was hostile fire causing a scratch) awarded three months later under unknown circumstances. '
That's not completely clear. He didn't list his reserve service, but he did request the Report of Separation for "all years".
Using a Form 180 is like using an ATM for your bank accounts. It can be tailored to to give out as much or as little as you choose.
When you use an ATM card, you choose where you want the cash to come from (Checking Account or Savings Account) and then how much ($50, $100, $200, etc.)
Likewise, the Form 180 gives you choices:
1. What branch or branches of service? (Some vets have served in more than one branch of service.)
2. For your branch of service, do you want your Active Duty time, your Reserve duty time or both?
3. For the choices you made, which time period would you want released? All years? Only 1969? Only 1967 and 1969 but not 1968? Only 21 June 1969?
So, as you can see, you can have hundreds of ways of tailoring the information.
Kerry specified:
1. Navy records.
2. Active duty period only.
3. All years.
The "Separation" in this case would be "Separation from Active Duty" which means you go from Active Duty status to Ready Reserve status for the number of years specified in your service contract.
If Kerry was given a Dishonorable Discharge (as a result of his activities in Vietnam Veterans Against the War while serving his Ready Reserve years) that was later upgraded as a result of the Jimmy Carter Amnesty Program, we would never know from this Form 180 request because it specifically prohibited the release the records of his non-active duty time.
I suspect that 1) the records request was intentionally done so that the result would be incomplete and 2) the records were released only to people who wouldn't know (or care) that was the case.
The cover-up does not even have to be a deliberate whitewash by the reporter. The cover-up can be successful solely because of the total ignorance of a liberal reporter in regards to anything military.
Kerry is using this reporter and the Boston Globe as "Useful Idiots".
See my Post 157. For someone with military experience, it is easy to see that Kerry has not released all of his records. However, this reporter and the Boston Globe would not know the difference between IRR and CVN.
Therefore, Kerry has the cover of having the Useful Idiots at the Boston Globe claiming that the matter is closed because Kerry "released all his records".
In fact, Kerry has released only his active duty records but not those of his time in Ready Reserve status at the time he was active in Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Any Dishonorable Discharge and any upgrade as a result of the Carter Amnesty Program would have been during his non-active duty service in the Ready Reserve.
If and when Kerry gets caught in the lie, he then can claim that any misunderstanding was the fault of the Boston Globe.
He is just as slick as Slick Willy.
Totally agree. See my Post 159.
Well, now that we have solved the case, when is the Liberal Media going to notice?
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.