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.

You must still be having bad acid flashbacks. You are confusing Kerry with
Jane Fonda and that is truly deranged, you Boozehound.


"StanB" wrote in message
...

"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 19:36:20 -0400, "StanB"
wrote:


"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.


Stanley you ignorant fuk, that booze is addling what little brain
mass you seem to have left.....

This is America, we can and DO speak out against poor government
policies like the war in Viet Nam,

Have you served? (besides in a boy scout troop)

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

"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority
of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any
correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or
agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign
government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or
controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United
States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three
years, or both."

Kerry met in 1970, by his own admission, with delegations from the North
Vietnamese communist government and discussed how the Vietnam War should be
stopped.

"IntarsiaCo" wrote in message
...
"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without
authority
of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any
correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer
or
agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any
foreign
government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes
or
controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the
United
States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three
years, or both."

Kerry met in 1970, by his own admission, with delegations from the North
Vietnamese communist government and discussed how the Vietnam War should
be
stopped.

Looked at the tags clothing lately? Vietnam's becoming a happy little
capitalist country, regardless of their government. It probably could've
gotten there about 30 years faster without our so-called "help". Since
capitalism is what we WANT to see as a worldwide system (supposedly), Kerry
may have done us a favor, if his efforts in any way sped things up.

In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"IntarsiaCo" wrote in message
...
"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without
authority
of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any
correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer
or
agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any
foreign
government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes
or
controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the
United
States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three
years, or both."

Kerry met in 1970, by his own admission, with delegations from the North
Vietnamese communist government and discussed how the Vietnam War should
be
stopped.

Looked at the tags clothing lately? Vietnam's becoming a happy little
capitalist country, regardless of their government. It probably could've
gotten there about 30 years faster without our so-called "help". Since
capitalism is what we WANT to see as a worldwide system (supposedly), Kerry
may have done us a favor, if his efforts in any way sped things up.

Intarsia has always had trouble with the truth & Kerry never met with any
Vietnamese delegation in 1970. In 1970 he met with the delegates of the
Vietnam Veterans Against the War, & gave testimony before Congress
repeating some of the eye-witness testimony about atrocities committed by
our Vets as a commonplace, the more decent of whom felt guilt & sadness
for being placed in that position. This testimony is on the record & is
very condemning of the war, as it should have been. But far-right loons,
including some vets who apparently lost their humanity & so have never
felt the requisit guilt & sorrow, have "spun" the testimony to make Kerry
out to be a traitor for having the moral integrity, as a decorated
vetaran, to stand up against injustice. For people with absolutely no
moral integrity it is easy to twist that around & heap lie up on lie,
including that he colluded with communists. The justification for this
amazing lie is that the Vietnam Vets Against the War were or are
themselves a "communist delegation."

These vets were among the greatest of my generation's true patriots, who
both fought the Vietnamese as they were told was necessary, & spoke out
afterward about the undeniable & horrific injusticies & introcities they
saw first-hand. Kerry listened to them; he retold some of their stories;
his own integrity was in sync with that of other brave men. But to very,
very, very bad people, they were always "commies," the name tossed at
anyone in those days who was capable of decency, in emulation of McCarthy.
That they'd still be doing it these decades later shows only that there is
still unrepentent evil afoot -- & evil loves Bush.

The same people who have gathered around liar & propogandist John O'Neill
whose dirty deeds have been repeatedly "outed" as the lies & falsehoods
they inevitably are, but the hope is that by telling these whoppers enough
people will be stupid enough to believe it that some harm will be done
(against all of American).

Besides the assinine assumption that war heros who dislike war are all
communists & to speak to them is to conspire with communists, the other
"basis" for the lie is Kerry's presence at a peace conference in Paris in
1971 (Intarsia says 1970 but that's when he met with antiwar Veterans;
Intarsia like all liars can't keep the lies straight). The truth is that
Kerry as a leading antiwar activist at the time attended a peace
conference attended also by Nguyen Thi Binh from Vietnam. There were no
meetings with Nguyen Thi Binh let alone negotiations, but being in the
same city for the same conference is all it takes for John O'Neill to
start a new round of fabulous lying.

These exact same wackies also claim that Kerry orchestrated in 1995 a
cover-up of the American Prisoners of War still held prisoner in Vietnam
today, obtaining the proof under the guise of heading a Missing in Action
Task Force, then destroying that evidence when it was discovered vets are
still alive. Bushite far-right Republicans haven't tried to take much
advantage of that one yet because even they know it'd make Kerry's
attackers sound like the nutsacks they are.

As Machievelli recommended, find the most unassailable trait of your
opponent & assail that -- for Kerry that means assailing his honesty &
heroism. I would listen to these lies only as a means to assess who is so
morally reprehensible as to be disregarded as even human. Our choice this
year is between a war hero who knows war is a bad thing, or lying
propogandists who want as many wars as possible without regard for how
many Americans & other nationals are killed, so long as Bush's corporate
buddies, safe in their corporate headquarters, can rake in profits,
indebting even our grea-tgrandchildren to today's corporate greed.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com

On 25 Oct 2004 17:01:02 GMT, (IntarsiaCo) wrote:

"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority
of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any
correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or
agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign
government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or
controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United
States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three
years, or both."

Kerry met in 1970, by his own admission, with delegations from the North
Vietnamese communist government and discussed how the Vietnam War should be
stopped.


Christ not reds under the bed! As an American we had a right to speak
out against our government and it's murdering policies in Vietnam. Try
visiting the Vietnam veterans against the War web pages and see that
we as brothers in the struggle agree with Kerry. He did the right
thing instead of burying his head in the sand and letting his
experiences in Vietnam haugnt him like many vets have!