Tom wrote:
Kerry doesn't have the balls to take them to court. He knows he will
lose if he does. He has all the time in the world to take them to
court after he looses the election. If he thinks he will win he'll
need the money after Teresa kicks him in the ass. I doubt that he
will find another sugarmommy, because all the rich ones will be wise
to him.


"Cereus-validus." wrote in message
. com...

Even if Kerry does take the lying *******s to court, it will take
month before it goes to trial. That is long after the election. The
lying cowards are well aware of that and are taking advantage of
it. Kerry's war record is still far better than that awol coward
Dubya.



If Kerry sues the SwiftBoatVets, or anyone else for that matter,
regarding his Vietnam war service, his military records will be
subpoenaed and everyone will see his discharge papers from the early
70's, not just the version that was reviewed and reissued in 1978 by
order of President Carter. I suspect he *really* wants to keep those
original papers buried.

Kerry never should have made his military service the centerpiece of his
campaign, because that makes it an issue for close scrutiny. If he had
kept his mouth shut about it, everyone already knew his military service
(on the surface anyway) was better than Bush and Chaney. I doubt his
service record stands up to close scrutiny.

Best regards,
Bob

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 13:27:20 -0500, zxcvbob opined:



If Kerry sues the SwiftBoatVets, or anyone else for that matter,
regarding his Vietnam war service, his military records will be
subpoenaed and everyone will see his discharge papers from the early
70's, not just the version that was reviewed and reissued in 1978 by
order of President Carter. I suspect he *really* wants to keep those
original papers buried.

Kerry never should have made his military service the centerpiece of his
campaign, because that makes it an issue for close scrutiny. If he had
kept his mouth shut about it, everyone already knew his military service
(on the surface anyway) was better than Bush and Chaney. I doubt his
service record stands up to close scrutiny.

Best regards,
Bob

Based on what?





Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html

escapee wrote:
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 13:27:20 -0500, zxcvbob opined:



If Kerry sues the SwiftBoatVets, or anyone else for that matter,
regarding his Vietnam war service, his military records will be
subpoenaed and everyone will see his discharge papers from the early
70's, not just the version that was reviewed and reissued in 1978 by
order of President Carter. I suspect he *really* wants to keep those
original papers buried.

Kerry never should have made his military service the centerpiece of his
campaign, because that makes it an issue for close scrutiny. If he had
kept his mouth shut about it, everyone already knew his military service
(on the surface anyway) was better than Bush and Chaney. I doubt his
service record stands up to close scrutiny.

Best regards,
Bob


Based on what?


A few months ago, an old college buddy of mine who is a retired Air
Force officer was badmouthing Kerry for protesting the Vietnam War. I
told him that whatever else I thought of Kerry, I believed he had earned
the right to protest the war. (that kind of ****ed him off) Recently,
he sent me a bunch of information that suggests that Kerry may have
originally received a dishonorable discharge. I've looked up some of
the info myself, and I think the dishonorable discharge thing is
plausible but the evidence is *very* stretchy. However I do believe it
presents a strong case that he did not receive an honorable discharge:

From JohnKerry.com, his separation from Active Duty was on March 1,
1970. http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_..._timeline.html

Now notice the date [Feb 16, 1978] on this document:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilse...om_Reserve.pdf

This was right after President Carter granted amnesty to "draft dodgers"
(a little background info that doesn't directly affect this case but
sets the atmosphere.)

Now the phrases "by direction of the President" [Carter] and "board
officers convened under authority of reference to examine the official
records...", and "Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163".

Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163 refers to the grounds for
involuntary separation from the service. What was being reviewed, then,
was Mr. Kerry's involuntary separation from the service. If his
original separation had been an honorable discharge, there would have
been no need for a review. The review was likely held to improve Mr.
Kerry's status of discharge from a less than honorable discharge to an
honorable discharge.

We'll never know unless Kerry sues the SBV's for libel (and they
subpoena the records), because Kerry will not release his full military
records.

Best regards,
Bob

"zxcvbob" wrote in message
...
escapee wrote:
... However I do believe it
presents a strong case that he did not receive an honorable discharge:

From JohnKerry.com, his separation from Active Duty was on March 1, 1970.
http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_..._timeline.html

Now notice the date [Feb 16, 1978] on this document:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilse...om_Reserve.pdf

This was right after President Carter granted amnesty to "draft dodgers"
(a little background info that doesn't directly affect this case but sets
the atmosphere.)

Now the phrases "by direction of the President" [Carter] and "board
officers convened under authority of reference to examine the official
records...", and "Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163".

Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163 refers to the grounds for
involuntary separation from the service. What was being reviewed, then,
was Mr. Kerry's involuntary separation from the service. If his original
separation had been an honorable discharge, there would have been no need
for a review. The review was likely held to improve Mr. Kerry's status of
discharge from a less than honorable discharge to an honorable discharge.


You are just wrong.

Kerry was released from active duty and transferred to the Navel Reserve
(inactive status) in 1970. In 1972 he was transferred to the Standby Reserve
(inactive) and in 1978 was honorably discharged from the Naval Reserve.
Check it out:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilse...of_Service.pdf

Karen

Anonny Moose wrote:
"zxcvbob" wrote in message
...

escapee wrote:

.. However I do believe it

presents a strong case that he did not receive an honorable discharge:

From JohnKerry.com, his separation from Active Duty was on March 1, 1970.
http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_..._timeline.html

Now notice the date [Feb 16, 1978] on this document:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilse...om_Reserve.pdf

This was right after President Carter granted amnesty to "draft dodgers"
(a little background info that doesn't directly affect this case but sets
the atmosphere.)

Now the phrases "by direction of the President" [Carter] and "board
officers convened under authority of reference to examine the official
records...", and "Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163".

Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163 refers to the grounds for
involuntary separation from the service. What was being reviewed, then,
was Mr. Kerry's involuntary separation from the service. If his original
separation had been an honorable discharge, there would have been no need
for a review. The review was likely held to improve Mr. Kerry's status of
discharge from a less than honorable discharge to an honorable discharge.



You are just wrong.

Kerry was released from active duty and transferred to the Navel Reserve
(inactive status) in 1970. In 1972 he was transferred to the Standby Reserve
(inactive) and in 1978 was honorably discharged from the Naval Reserve.
Check it out:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilse...of_Service.pdf

Karen




Thanks. I'll forward this to my Air Force buddy and see what he says.
I still think the "board of officers" thing is weird, because a board
review shouldn't be necessary for a routine discharge -- but I don't
know what kind of legal b.s. are perhaps always on these forms.

Best regards,
Bob

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 19:38:52 -0500, zxcvbob opined:

escapee wrote:
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 13:27:20 -0500, zxcvbob opined:



If Kerry sues the SwiftBoatVets, or anyone else for that matter,
regarding his Vietnam war service, his military records will be
subpoenaed and everyone will see his discharge papers from the early
70's, not just the version that was reviewed and reissued in 1978 by
order of President Carter. I suspect he *really* wants to keep those
original papers buried.

Kerry never should have made his military service the centerpiece of his
campaign, because that makes it an issue for close scrutiny. If he had
kept his mouth shut about it, everyone already knew his military service
(on the surface anyway) was better than Bush and Chaney. I doubt his
service record stands up to close scrutiny.

Best regards,
Bob


Based on what?


A few months ago, an old college buddy of mine who is a retired Air
Force officer was badmouthing Kerry for protesting the Vietnam War. I
told him that whatever else I thought of Kerry, I believed he had earned
the right to protest the war. (that kind of ****ed him off) Recently,
he sent me a bunch of information that suggests that Kerry may have
originally received a dishonorable discharge. I've looked up some of
the info myself, and I think the dishonorable discharge thing is
plausible but the evidence is *very* stretchy. However I do believe it
presents a strong case that he did not receive an honorable discharge:

From JohnKerry.com, his separation from Active Duty was on March 1,
1970. http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_..._timeline.html

Now notice the date [Feb 16, 1978] on this document:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilse...om_Reserve.pdf

This was right after President Carter granted amnesty to "draft dodgers"
(a little background info that doesn't directly affect this case but
sets the atmosphere.)

Now the phrases "by direction of the President" [Carter] and "board
officers convened under authority of reference to examine the official
records...", and "Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163".

Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163 refers to the grounds for
involuntary separation from the service. What was being reviewed, then,
was Mr. Kerry's involuntary separation from the service. If his
original separation had been an honorable discharge, there would have
been no need for a review. The review was likely held to improve Mr.
Kerry's status of discharge from a less than honorable discharge to an
honorable discharge.

We'll never know unless Kerry sues the SBV's for libel (and they
subpoena the records), because Kerry will not release his full military
records.

Best regards,
Bob

Like I said...what do you base this on? It would appear to me he was honorably
discharged. I know if it was a fact that he was not, we'd have heard about it
ad nauseam by now.





Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html

Like I said...what do you base this on? It would appear to me he was
honorably
discharged. I know if it was a fact that he was not, we'd have heard
about it
ad nauseam by now.

They are not basing it on anything other than trying to fabricate something
bad to say about a democrat war hero. They aught to be ashamed of
themselves.

Anyway you look at it, Kerry's war record is far superior to nonexistent one
of that awol inept dopehead Dubya.

There is no contest at all.


"escapee" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 19:38:52 -0500, zxcvbob opined:

escapee wrote:
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 13:27:20 -0500, zxcvbob
opined:



If Kerry sues the SwiftBoatVets, or anyone else for that matter,
regarding his Vietnam war service, his military records will be
subpoenaed and everyone will see his discharge papers from the early
70's, not just the version that was reviewed and reissued in 1978 by
order of President Carter. I suspect he *really* wants to keep those
original papers buried.

Kerry never should have made his military service the centerpiece of
his
campaign, because that makes it an issue for close scrutiny. If he had
kept his mouth shut about it, everyone already knew his military
service
(on the surface anyway) was better than Bush and Chaney. I doubt his
service record stands up to close scrutiny.

Best regards,
Bob


Based on what?


A few months ago, an old college buddy of mine who is a retired Air
Force officer was badmouthing Kerry for protesting the Vietnam War. I
told him that whatever else I thought of Kerry, I believed he had earned
the right to protest the war. (that kind of ****ed him off) Recently,
he sent me a bunch of information that suggests that Kerry may have
originally received a dishonorable discharge. I've looked up some of
the info myself, and I think the dishonorable discharge thing is
plausible but the evidence is *very* stretchy. However I do believe it
presents a strong case that he did not receive an honorable discharge:

From JohnKerry.com, his separation from Active Duty was on March 1,
1970. http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_..._timeline.html

Now notice the date [Feb 16, 1978] on this document:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilse...e_From_Reserve.
pdf

This was right after President Carter granted amnesty to "draft dodgers"
(a little background info that doesn't directly affect this case but
sets the atmosphere.)

Now the phrases "by direction of the President" [Carter] and "board
officers convened under authority of reference to examine the official
records...", and "Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163".

Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163 refers to the grounds for
involuntary separation from the service. What was being reviewed, then,
was Mr. Kerry's involuntary separation from the service. If his
original separation had been an honorable discharge, there would have
been no need for a review. The review was likely held to improve Mr.
Kerry's status of discharge from a less than honorable discharge to an
honorable discharge.

We'll never know unless Kerry sues the SBV's for libel (and they
subpoena the records), because Kerry will not release his full military
records.

Best regards,
Bob

Like I said...what do you base this on? It would appear to me he was
honorably
discharged. I know if it was a fact that he was not, we'd have heard
about it
ad nauseam by now.





Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html

"Cereus-validus." wrote in message
...

Anyway you look at it, Kerry's war record is far superior to nonexistent
one
of that awol inept dopehead Dubya.

Hanoi John is a fraud and a pothead.

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 15:18:30 GMT, "Cereus-validus."
opined:

They are not basing it on anything other than trying to fabricate something
bad to say about a democrat war hero. They aught to be ashamed of
themselves.

Anyway you look at it, Kerry's war record is far superior to nonexistent one
of that awol inept dopehead Dubya.

There is no contest at all.


One of the problems is that, many people listen to Rush and regardless what Rush
says, they take it as truth. Rush can pull it right out of his ass ("Franken")
and people think it's truth. Never mind actually checking the facts.

I hope you're right and I hope people vote for Kerry not only by a small margin,
but a complete landslide.





Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html

"zxcvbob" wrote in message
...


Kerry never should have made his military service the centerpiece of his
campaign, because that makes it an issue for close scrutiny.

He had to make it an issue because there are quite a few dummies who think
it's relevant. Unfortunately, Kerry needs to stoop low in his attempt to
steal some of Bush's supporters, and perhaps some of the knuckleheads who
are still undecided. If throwing large chunks of raw meat is what it takes,
he'll do it.

It is a sad fact that no person running for president solely on intelligence and
logic has a chance in hell of winning. I am surprised he hasnt taken to mangling
english and tossing a little stupidity into his speeches so he can pick up a few of
those who would never think of voting for anybody smarter than they think they are.
If throwing large chunks of bloody raw meat is what it takes, he should do it.
Ingrid

"Doug Kanter" wrote:
He had to make it an issue because there are quite a few dummies who think
it's relevant. Unfortunately, Kerry needs to stoop low in his attempt to
steal some of Bush's supporters, and perhaps some of the knuckleheads who
are still undecided. If throwing large chunks of raw meat is what it takes,
he'll do it.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

Probably because of the way that news is transmitted in this country, the
vast majority of people don't realize that Kerry's emphasis on his Vietnam
experience in the Democratic convention was not the event that triggered the
reaction of the Swift Boat Liars in the ads that followed it in early
August.. That group actually began meeting and planning the moment Kerry won
the primary season, way back in March and April, and the book that John
O'Neill wrote was already being printed. In fact, Kerry probably felt that
he needed to set up a Vietnam background as a strength to contradict the
bullcrap that was already being staged to hit the fan in the late summer. I
get angry when I see major pundits proclaiming that Kerry set himself up to
be attacked by making his Vietnam experiences a part of the Convention -
when the attacks were already being made prior to the convention.
wrote in message
...
It is a sad fact that no person running for president solely on
intelligence and
logic has a chance in hell of winning. I am surprised he hasnt taken to
mangling
english and tossing a little stupidity into his speeches so he can pick up
a few of
those who would never think of voting for anybody smarter than they think
they are.
If throwing large chunks of bloody raw meat is what it takes, he should do
it.
Ingrid

"Doug Kanter" wrote:
He had to make it an issue because there are quite a few dummies who
think
it's relevant. Unfortunately, Kerry needs to stoop low in his attempt to
steal some of Bush's supporters, and perhaps some of the knuckleheads who
are still undecided. If throwing large chunks of raw meat is what it
takes,
he'll do it.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

according to quite a few sources the swift boat liars started after Kerry back when
he testified during Nixons adm. they been dogging him ever since.
Ingrid

"gregpresley" wrote:
Probably because of the way that news is transmitted in this country, the
vast majority of people don't realize that Kerry's emphasis on his Vietnam
experience in the Democratic convention was not the event that triggered the
reaction of the Swift Boat Liars in the ads that followed it in early
August.. That group actually began meeting and planning the moment Kerry won
the primary season, way back in March and April, and the book that John
O'Neill wrote was already being printed. In fact, Kerry probably felt that
he needed to set up a Vietnam background as a strength to contradict the
bullcrap that was already being staged to hit the fan in the late summer. I
get angry when I see major pundits proclaiming that Kerry set himself up to
be attacked by making his Vietnam experiences a part of the Convention -
when the attacks were already being made prior to the convention.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.