Kerry being investigated

[reznwerks]

[size=-1]Sep 2, 2004[/size][size=-1]Contact: Press Office
202-646-5172[/size]

PENTAGON INSPECTOR GENERAL CONTACTS SECRETARY OF THE NAVY ABOUT KERRY AWARDS

[size=+1]Reacts to Investigation Request by Judicial Watch[/size]

[size=+1][/size]
(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and abuse, announced today that the Inspector General (“IG”) of the Department of Defense has informed the Secretary of the Navy of Judicial Watch’s “formal complaint and request for investigation, determination and final disposition of the awards granted to Lieutenant (junior grade) John Forbes Kerry, U.S. Naval Reserve.”



The Defense Department IG cited Section 8(d) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, which states: “. . . the IG of the Department of Defense shall expeditiously report suspected or alleged violations of chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (Uniform Code of Military Justice), to the Secretary of the military department concerned or the Secretary of Defense.”



On August 18, 2004, Judicial Watch filed a complaint and request for investigation and final disposition of awards granted to Kerry with the Inspectors General of the Department of Defense and the Department of the Navy, as well as the Chief of Naval Operations and the Navy’s Board of Decorations and Medals. On Tuesday, August 31, 2004, Judicial Watch called upon Senator Kerry to remove the Silver Star citation from his political campaign Internet site pending a review of the granting of the award by the U.S. Navy. Senator Kerry’s political Internet site displays a document listing a “Silver Star with Combat ‘V.’” The Combat “V” device is never awarded with the nation’s third highest award for heroism. A U.S. Navy spokesperson has reportedly stated: “The Navy has never issued a ‘Combat V’ to anyone for a Silver Star.” Additionally, former Navy Secretary John Lehman was quoted with respect to the Silver Star citation as saying: “It is a total mystery to me. I never saw it. I never signed it. I never approved it. And the additional language it contains was not written by me.”



“We hope this is the beginning of an actual investigation of the legitimacy of Senator Kerry’s awards by the Navy and the Pentagon,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

 

[Starscream]

Hopefully they'll investigate all the medals Bush won in Viet Nam too.

 

[Voter]

So, so many people lied about Kerry's medals that it's dishonored every serviceman who ever had or will receive a medal...

And since we give medals to servicemen instead of paying them well, we probably need to fix that little faux pas.

Nice job Swift Boat Vets for "Truth" and Mr. Rove and all their close friends and alliances!

 

[Law of Loud]

This claim has already been discredited. There apparently was a clerical error in his DD214, as such mistakes are commonly made. His Silver Star's citation in fact shows that he did not recieve his Silver Star with a Combat "V", but only the Bronze Star was awarded with the Combat "V".

The statement of Silver Star with Combat "V" in his DD214 was a clerical error, and as such are prone to happening, it is ridiculous to claim that he does not deserve the award due to a clerical error. If a man fought courageously and decisively, to the extent that he is given a high award such as the Silver Star, he does not deserve it's removal due to a clerical error.

 

[reznwerks]

This claim has already been discredited. There apparently was a clerical error in his DD214, as such mistakes are commonly made. His Silver Star's citation in fact shows that he did not recieve his Silver Star with a Combat "V", but only the Bronze Star was awarded with the Combat "V".

The statement of Silver Star with Combat "V" in his DD214 was a clerical error, and as such are prone to happening, it is ridiculous to claim that he does not deserve the award due to a clerical error. If a man fought courageously and decisively, to the extent that he is given a high award such as the Silver Star, he does not deserve it's removal due to a clerical error.

==========================
"Fought courageously"? He joined the swiftboats because at the time the swiftboat assignment was a non combat duty. He recieved three purple hearts within 4 months of duty and saw not one day in the hospital. At least one purple heart was awarded due to shrapnel received from his own error and ammunition. One purple heart was denied up front from his commanding officer as Kerry only had sliver in his arm. Still intent on getting a purple heart he kept the shrapnel in his arm a full week until another commanding officer took over at which point he was granted one. It was common to dish out medals to improve moral due the unpopularity of the war. His medal for bravery was awarded when Kerry shot a youth in the back as he was running away. Remember their are over 200 men with similar citations calling Kerry to release his records. Kerry himself has the power end the questioning and it is questionable as to why he doesn't. Kerry also replayed his "heroics" by having someone else take video footage of him while he rehashed any combat scenes. This is sick in my opinion and smacks of oportunism. Kerry has had to back track on his claims of Christmas in Cambodia and being shot at by the Kmer Rhouge in 1968. I believe the term "seared in his mind" as to his being that accurate was his statement. The facts are that the Kmer Rhouge didn't his the field until 1972. Kerry wants to be a war hero and anti war hero at the same time. What Kerry did as an anti war activist when he came back this counrty is usually what gets people court martialed.

 

[Borealis]

This claim has already been discredited. There apparently was a clerical error in his DD214, as such mistakes are commonly made. His Silver Star's citation in fact shows that he did not recieve his Silver Star with a Combat "V", but only the Bronze Star was awarded with the Combat "V".

The statement of Silver Star with Combat "V" in his DD214 was a clerical error, and as such are prone to happening, it is ridiculous to claim that he does not deserve the award due to a clerical error. If a man fought courageously and decisively, to the extent that he is given a high award such as the Silver Star, he does not deserve it's removal due to a clerical error.

Which citation? There are three of them.

 

[Borealis]

Hopefully they'll investigate all the medals Bush won in Viet Nam too.

And your point is? No one's arguing that Bush got medals he didn't deserve. We know he didn't serve in Vietnam, and we also know that Kerry did. You're trying to build up a strawman, which I've noticed is a well-loved liberal tactic used to avoid the actual issue. Bush has nothing to do with this. Quit trying to bring him in as a dodge for Kerry.

 

[Voter]

And your point is? No one's arguing that Bush got medals he didn't deserve. We know he didn't serve in Vietnam, and we also know that Kerry did. You're trying to build up a strawman, which I've noticed is a well-loved liberal tactic used to avoid the actual issue. Bush has nothing to do with this. Quit trying to bring him in as a dodge for Kerry.

http://www.christian-forums.com/t786874

 

[Ampmonster]

Hopefully they'll investigate all the medals Bush won in Viet Nam too.

wow!

really i dont care about Kerrys service. the fact of the matter is, hes ultra liberal, even though he wont say it. his voting record proves it.

 

[Voter]

wow!

really i dont care about Kerrys service. the fact of the matter is, hes ultra liberal, even though he wont say it. his voting record proves it.

Not if you look at his entire voting record. He's been pretty well in the middle of the democrats for "liberalness" for the past 2 years, when his entire record was taken into account.

Now, if you just pull his environmental record? Very liberal, yep, uh huh. Of course, this is because (according to Ann Coulter) the conservative view of environment is "Take it, rape it." Most people who look beyond today, much less consider future generations realize that is a really stupid outlook.

But I do think it's awesome that you are considering something besides the Swift Boat smears in your estimation of Kerry.

 

[rahma]

His medal for bravery was awarded when Kerry shot a youth in the back as he was running away.

Or so some people claim. I've also heard people who were there that day say the man, a full grown man, was a sniper. Are you going to let a sniper get away to shoot you again the next day?

 

[Ampmonster]

i wish the same set of standards applied to the 3 week- nation wide investigation of Bush's Gaurd service.
do you all remember that story? it was headline news for three weeks. read that last sentance again.

now it never happened.
ill tell you, whether or not you think the media leans this way or that, it DOES have the attention span of a three year old

 

[SirKenin]

Will this Swift Boat smear never end? There are so many issues in which Kerry is a flip-flop and a fraud. It's easy to catch him in his own lies, having painted himself out to be something he isn't (such as Ampmonster pointed out)

Why focus on this one? It was 30 years ago. We all know how he behaved when he got back from Vietnam. That tells us what kind of person he is.. So maybe we can move on to the issues.. Like his views of abortion.. His views on national defence. His views on weapons systems.

 

[Borealis]

Will this Swift Boat smear never end? There are so many issues in which Kerry is a flip-flop and a fraud. It's easy to catch him in his own lies, having painted himself out to be something he isn't (such as Ampmonster pointed out)

Why focus on this one? It was 30 years ago. We all know how he behaved when he got back from Vietnam. That tells us what kind of person he is.. So maybe we can move on to the issues.. Like his views of abortion.. His views on national defence. His views on weapons systems.

Why focus on this one? Ask Senator Kerry; he's the one who has been painting the entire country with a huge sign that says 'I served in Vietnam, so vote for me.' If he hadn't started talking about it constantly, nobody else would be, either.

 

[SirKenin]

Why focus on this one? Ask Senator Kerry; he's the one who has been painting the entire country with a huge sign that says 'I served in Vietnam, so vote for me.' If he hadn't started talking about it constantly, nobody else would be, either.

I hear what you are saying. Do you think in the end it will really make a difference? In the end will the truth swing the vote? Somehow I have my doubts. Although the American public feeds off of other's misery (take the success of talk shows like Maury Pauvich and Jerry Springer as examples), I think in the end they are going to care about the issues that effect them. Abortion. National defence. The War on Terror. The economy. Poverty and taxes. There are so many prominent issues to be focusing on in this election that it makes the Swift Boat issue seem like small potatoes.

True, it just goes to show that Kerry is a fraud, so I'm amused, but there are so many other ways to prove that point in issues that are of national interest, that this one just doesn't seem to cut the mustard. Ya know what I mean? What do you think?

 

[Law of Loud]

True, it just goes to show that Kerry is a fraud, so I'm amused, but there are so many other ways to prove that point in issues that are of national interest, that this one just doesn't seem to cut the mustard. Ya know what I mean? What do you think?

DrFeelGood, I am really getting sick of you calling Kerry "a fraud" without backing it up with anything but general statements. Let's elaborate on your smearing techniques. That should make you feel better.

Definition of Fraud

1. A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
2. A piece of trickery; a trick.
3. One that defrauds; a cheat.
4. One who assumes a false pose; an impostor.

So, I now ask you which of these is your definition of John Kerry. Let's go over what statements I can find of yours, and see if any fit the definition of "fraud".

Abortion
John Kerry's stance on abortion has repeatedly been favoring choice, and he has not attempted to decieve the public about this. There is nothing "fraudulent" about his position, as he is a politically a supporter of abortion rights (or at least not an opponent of them), and he has not claimed that he will oppose abortion rights. There is nothing "fraudulent" about his position.

National Defense
John Kerry's stance on national defense has been a fairly intelligent one. Many Republicans are quick to cite a long list of votes in which he "slashed national defense". For information on this list, and a complete rebuttal of the entire list, I cite you to this thread. I recognize that John Kerry did support parts of this list that is often presented, but many of the votes often cited are against the entire defense budget (implying you want an alternative budget), or in more cases than not, the closing of production on weaponry with which we have excessive surpluses following the Cold War (various military weapons systems), or weapons systems that have become obsolete (such as the Seawolf-class Submarine).

A while back, Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss (February 21st) told reporters that John Kerry had "a 32-year history of voting to cut defense programs and cut defense systems." This is a flat-out lie, considering John Kerry has only been in Congress for just under 20 years.

Republicans also often claim votes against mainstream weaponry such as the M-1 Abrams tank, and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Unfortunately, they cannot provide any specific votes to back up these claims, instead citing votes against defense budgets. This hardly means that he opposed those specific weapons, and there are a million reasons for opposing a defense budget. None of them makes one weak on defense either.

For your knowledge, Kerry himself admitted that many of the positions he had taken when first running for the Senate were "ill-advised, and I think some of them are stupid in the context of the world we find ourselves in right now and the things that I've learned since then." (June 2003) "I mean you learn as you go in life." Kerry also said that his subsequent voting record since that time has been "pretty responsible".

Zell Miller also made a statement during his speech that "Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations," and in fact, John Kerry has made no such statement or implication. NY governor George Pataki made a claim that Kerry would "just wait for the next attack". In fact, what John Kerry actually said during his own acceptance speech was that, "I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security." Zell Miller and George Pataki couldn't be farther from the truth in their outrageous claims.

Many of the votes that actually did take place against the various weapons systems were actually supported by such notable Republican figures such as George H.W. Bush, Richard Cheney, and John McCain.

George H.W. Bush actually stated the following in his State of the Union address:

Two years ago, I began planning cuts in military spending that reflected the changes of the new era. But now, this year, with imperial communism gone, that process can be accelerated. Tonight I can tell you of dramatic changes in our strategic nuclear force. These are actions we are taking on our own because they are the right thing to do. After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B - 2 bombers. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles.

This weekend I will meet at Camp David with Boris Yeltsin of the Russian Federation. I've informed President Yeltsin that if the Commonwealth, the former Soviet Union, will eliminate all land-based multiple-warhead ballistic missiles, I will do the following: We will eliminate all Peacekeeper missiles. We will reduce the number of warheads on Minuteman missiles to one and reduce the number of warheads on our sea-based missiles by about one-third. And we will convert a substantial portion of our strategic bombers to primarily conventional use. President Yeltsin's early response has been very positive, and I expect our talks at Camp David to be fruitful.

I want you to know that for half a century, American Presidents have longed to make such decisions and say such words. But even in the midst of celebration, we must keep caution as a friend. For the world is still a dangerous place. Only the dead have seen the end of conflict. And though yesterday's challenges are behind us, tomorrow's are being born.

The Secretary of Defense recommended these cuts after consultation with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And I make them with confidence. But do not misunderstand me. The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next 5 years. By 1997, we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office. These cuts are deep, and you must know my resolve: This deep, and no deeper. To do less would be insensible to progress, but to do more would be ignorant of history. We must not go back to the days of "the hollow army." We cannot repeat the mistakes made twice in this century when armistice was followed by recklessness and defense was purged as if the world were permanently safe.

Another article regarding Dick Cheney stated the following regarding many of the defense budget cuts that Dick Cheney supported.

Cautious cuts: A-12, V22, F14D, Seawolf, 500,000 troops
[While secretary of defense in the early 1990s], Cheney presented defense budgets that cut spending, but cautiously. He thought Gorbachev’s successor might be even more hostile to the West than those before him. ‘’Cheney is not a fan of negotiated arms control,’’ [former national security adviser Brent] Scowcroft said.

Still, by 1991, Cheney eventually agreed to arms control proposals. Cheney killed a number of major weapons systems, most notably the Navy’s A-12 Stealth fighter-which, at $30-$60 billion, was the biggest program ever terminated by a defense secretary. He also tried to kill the V22 vertical take-off aircraft, the F14D fighter jet, and the Seawolf submarine. But Congress restored them to the budget. Cheney also moved to cut the armed forces by a half-million troops, and to shut down more than 40 military bases that, as a result, would no longer be needed. He also held the B-2 Stealth bomber program to 20 planes, when the Air Force wanted at least four times that number.

Source: Michael Kranish and Fred Kaplan, Boston Globe. P. A14 Jul 27, 2000

John Kerry has been honest about his defense voting record, admitting to the fact that his initial race for the senate was misguided, but he has learned since then. His voting record is in fact nothing like the ones that the Republican smear machine has invented for him, and there isn't any fact to support a vast amount of their claims. A good number of their other votes were against weapons systems that were obsolete or no longer needed for a variety of reasons following the conclusion of the Cold War.

Perhaps Dick Cheney should be considered a "fraud" for such blatant deception to the general public. This actually constitutes the definition of a "fraud", and I hope you will realize that and not just make a little, childish, snide remark.

<WILL BE CONTINUED IN A LATER POST>

This post is probably well over the character limit, but I'll see shortly enough. I know I don't have enough room to finish these statements, but hopefully I'm not quite over the character limit yet.

 

[Borealis]

I don't have time to go through the whole thing in two minutes, so I'll just point out one error you made. Or rather, that Kerry made.

Zell Miller also made a statement during his speech that "Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations," and in fact, John Kerry has made no such statement or implication. NY governor George Pataki made a claim that Kerry would "just wait for the next attack". In fact, what John Kerry actually said during his own acceptance speech was that, "I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security." Zell Miller and George Pataki couldn't be farther from the truth in their outrageous claims.

In other words, John Kerry is going to wait for another 9/11, or perhaps something like what we just witnessed in Russia, or a 3/11 Spanish-style train bombing...

America has been attacked; do you really want a repeat of that? Bush wants to prevent these attacks from happening; Kerry has stated, on the record and very clearly, that he's going to RESPOND to attacks, not prevent them.

 

[Law of Loud]

""I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security."

John Kerry stated that "Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response". We did this in the case of Afghanistan, and there has been no link proven between Iraq and Al Qaeda that is based on information more circumstantial than that which was used to suggest a connection between Bush and the SwiftVets. But you did see John Kerry authorize the use of force in Iraq. He did not agree with the reasons we gave for the war, or the fact that we went to war so prematurely, but he did give the President the authorization that was need for the Iraq war. The attack has already happened, and Kerry has defended our country.

But, Zell Miller blatantly lied to the nation. When he said that John Kerry would ask Paris if we can defend ourselves, he was lying.

John Kerry said, "I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security." According to Zell Miller, this must mean he wants Paris to tell us what to do. In fact, Kerry VERY CLEARLY stated that he would never allow a body such as the UN to veto us over our national security, and if they did so, he would continue in the efforts that he felt best served our security.

It is a time to act intelligently, not impulsively.

 

[MichaelFJF]

Hopefully they'll investigate all the medals Bush won in Viet Nam too.

...and this has exactly what to do with Kerry being investigated? M

 

[Voter]

I don't have time to go through the whole thing in two minutes, so I'll just point out one error you made. Or rather, that Kerry made.



In other words, John Kerry is going to wait for another 9/11, or perhaps something like what we just witnessed in Russia, or a 3/11 Spanish-style train bombing...

America has been attacked; do you really want a repeat of that? Bush wants to prevent these attacks from happening; Kerry has stated, on the record and very clearly, that he's going to RESPOND to attacks, not prevent them.

Here's the beauty.

Kerry is intelligent.

He won't wait for a 9/11 incident to act.

He'll actually READ the PDB, and comprehend it.

That could make a world of difference.