31 thoughts on “Missing Explosives: It’s the Incompetence Stupid”
Lame, lame, lame. It was gone before the troops were there. Even NBC got this one right, but you are too blind to see.
BTW when is Kerry going to admit his mistakes and tell everyone he got a Bad Conduct Discharge in the 70’s? When is he going to apologize to those of us he calle rapists and baby killers in the 70s?
It wouldn’t make any difference. You have already decided to believe whatever is negative about Bush and whatever is positive about Kerry. Go ahead and throw your little three year old tantrum becase not everyone is as gullible a you.
Kerry is a lying traitor not a hero at all. And as for you this is your story –> “Anger is my meat; I sup upon myself, And so shall starve with feeding.” William Shakespeare (1564?1616)
With the greatest of satisfaction,
Joe
Following up on that story from last night, military officials tell NBC News that on April 10, 2003, when the Second Brigade of the 101st Airborne entered the Al QaQaa weapons facility, south of Baghdad, that those troops were actually on their way to Baghdad, that they were not actively involved in the search for any weapons, including the high explosives, HMX and RDX. The troops did observe stock piles of conventional weapons but no HMX or RDX. And because the Al Qaqaa facility is so huge, it’s not clear that those troops from the 101st were actually anywhere near the bunkers that reportedly contained the HMX and RDX.
Amy Robach: Was there a search at all underway or was, did a search ensue for explosives once you got there during that 24-hour period?
Lai Ling Jew: No. There wasn’t a search. The mission that the brigade had was to get to Baghdad. That was more of a pit stop there for us. And, you know, the searching, I mean certainly some of the soldiers head off on their own, looked through the bunkers just to look at the vast amount of ordnance lying around. But as far as we could tell, there was no move to secure the weapons, nothing to keep looters away. But there was ? at that point the roads were shut off. So it would have been very difficult, I believe, for the looters to get there.
No sense in producing proof that would be burned ignored or poo-pooed by the likes of you. Kerry is an habitual liar. He arranged for the the liars who called us rapists and murderers. When he apologizes … never mind. That will never happen because he could never admit that he made a mistake. He can’t even admit that the only position he holds is the one he thinks will get him elected.
John Kerry is a hero of the VietNam War, but only to the North Viet Namese. They even have his picture posted in their museum of heroes. Ya gotta love a guy like that.
It is dangerous for a national candidate to say things that people might remember. ? Eugene McCarthy
Joe
I’ll leave you all to your little lies. You are just looking for lackies to back up your own limited thought processes. Feed on yourselves and I wish oyu a lot of luck on Tuesday. I won’t say what kind.
Uh, Joe, the only person lying so far is you. If you care to document anything you are making claims about it, it might turn into a productive argument. But until then, you are simply a court jester.
Liars just can’t escape their words, and your naive regurgitation of his lies don’t change it to the truth.
“UN ambassadors from several nations are disputing assertions by…John Kerry that he met for hours with all members of the UN Security Council just a week before voting in October 2002 to authorize the use of force in Iraq. An investigation by The Washington Times reveals that while the candidate did talk for an unspecified period to at least a few members of the panel, no such meeting, as described by Mr. Kerry on a number of occasions over the past year, ever occurred. At the second presidential debate…Mr. Kerry said he was more attuned to international concerns on Iraq than President Bush, citing his meeting with the entire Security Council. ‘This president hasn’t listened. I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week before we voted. I went to New York. I talked to all of them, to find out how serious they were about really holding Saddam Hussein accountable.’ … But of the five ambassadors on the Security Council in 2002 who were reached directly for comment, four said they had never met Mr. Kerry. The four also said that no one who worked for their countries’ UN missions had met with Mr. Kerry either. … When reached for comment last week, an official with the Kerry campaign stood by the candidate’s previous claims that he had met with the entire Security Council. … Asked whether the International body had any records of Mr. Kerry sitting down with thewhole council, a UN spokesman said that ‘our office does not have any record of this meeting.’ A U.S. official with intimate knowledge of the Security Council’s actions in fall of 2002 said that he was not aware of any meeting Mr. Kerry had with members of the panel. An official at the U.S. mission to the United Nations remarked:
‘We were as surprised as anyone when Kerry started talking about a meeting with the Security Council.’ … The revelation that Mr. Kerry never met with the entire UN Security Council could be problematic for the Massachusetts senator, as it clashes with one of his central foreign-policy campaign themes –honesty.” –The Washington Times
Have you figured out that Kerry is a miserable liar yet?
GERTZ // THURSDAY // WASH TIMES: Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein’s weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned. John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, ?almost certainly? removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad.
“Major media outlets have constructed this story to appear that the Bush administration is to blame, a week short of an election. It’s become fodder for the campaign, and in a close race like this, the story easily could sway voters,” said Clifford May, a syndicated columnist and president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a District-based nonprofit group that analyzes global terrorist threats.
Attempts to manipulate the U.S. election with strategically timed leaks goes beyond journalists, Mr. May said.
“What has to be investigated here is whether [IAEA Director-General] Mohamed ElBaradei has attempted to manipulate an American election, and whether certain components of the American media helped him by not exercising sufficient journalistic skepticism,” he said.
In an online column of the National Review yesterday, Mr. May wrote, “The Iraqi explosives story is a fraud.”
“The IAEA and its head, the anti-American Mohamed ElBaradei, leaked a false letter on this issue to the media to embarrass the Bush administration. The U.S. is trying to deny ElBaradei a second term, and we have been on his case for missing the Libyan nuclear-weapons program and for weakness on the Iranian nuclear-weapons program.”
Nice speculation, but why is the paper of a cult leader you definition of truth? So far you fucked up on the NBC story, you fucked up on what Kerry actually said in Congressional hearings in the 1970s and you fucked up on the Discharge issue.
One might also assume you are a bigot and a radical ideolog since you don’t listen to anything that remotely defines your dishonest candidate as, well, dishonest.
I don?t hate Kerry, I just totally distrust a man who lies as much as he does and who betrayed his country and his comrades in arms like he did. I don?t hate any of you, I just pity your lack of intellectual honesty. You on the other hand have an obvious hate for George Bush and anyone who would stand with him. Let me offer you this little tidbit, just because I think all people are worth salvaging. Joe
?Always remember, others may hate you. Those who hate you don’t win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself.? Richard Nixon
Oh, and just for your information (I would say amusement, but then you have no sense of humor) I am voting for John Kerry, just before I vote against him.
Here is a quote from Kerry – some of the things you say he never said about us, but of course you wouldn’t know because you won’t look beyond what you are told by the machine. You have no idea how much he harmed the vets and MIAs back then. He has never apologized. He doesn’t need to since he has other liars to deny he ever called us murderers rapists and torturers.
Wake up, hate mongers. Kerry is is a liar. When you support him and say that he didn’t call us murderers and rapist, you lie too.
I am waiting for his apology. Until then I will work against him for the traitor he is.
Warmest regards,
Joe
“I remember spending Christmas Day of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border. I have that memory which is seared — seared — in me. … American military personnel in Vietnam] personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, [blew] up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to…the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing
power of this country. … There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed….”
War Criminal John F(ibber) Kerry
Brokaw said to Kerry:
“Someone has analyzed the President’s military aptitude tests and yours and concluded that he has a higher IQ than you do.” Kerry replied, “That’s great. More power. I don’t know how they’ve done it, because my record is not public. So I don’t know where you’re getting that from.”
Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson writes this week, “The only 180 John Kerry hasn’t accomplished in his litany of flip-flops throughout his campaign is Standard Form 180, the paperwork necessary for the complete release of his military records from the Department of Defense repository.”
GI Joe’s reposting of “Jet Jock” Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson’s “The only 180 John Kerry hasn’t accomplished in his litany of flip-flops throughout his campaign is Standard Form 180, the paperwork necessary for the complete release of his military records from the Department of Defense repository.” refers you to an article which has serious flaws. There is NOTHING WRONG with the KERRY DISCHARGE .. spread this widely .. I did thorough research of documents on Kerry site and asked Navy for the BUPERSMAN referenced on the discharge cover letter. Patterson is just flat out wrong, but he is a jet jock and I am a contracts expert .. he flies planes and I buy them. I also meticulously analyze documents to determine their significance and meaning. Here is the true story.
That portion of Patterson’s article that discusses the nature of Lieutenant John Forbes Kerry’s discharge from the United States Naval Reserve Inactive Status List on 16 February 1978 is completely without merit. Patterson did not carefully research the documents on the Kerry website nor understand their significance and did not request an easily obtainable copy of the applicable 1978 Bureau of Personnel Manual (BUPERSMAN) cited in reference (c) of the Secretary of the Navy’s letter accompanying the Honorable Discharge Certificate. Patterson has added little but speculation to the orginal speculation in Thomas Lipscomb’s New York Sun article of 13 October. The following paragraph from “What is John Kerry Hiding” is completely wrong:
With what we do know, Kerry’s paperwork doesn’t pass the smell test. The few records so far released by his campaign identify FOUR “honorable” discharge dates (every other military member I know, myself included, received one). Kerry’s released documentation notes discharges of January 3, 1970, February 16, 1978, July 13, 1978, and, most peculiarly, March 12, 2001. He has as many discharge dates as months he spent in Vietnam. In my twenty years in the Air Force and through the thousands of people I came to know and serve with, I have never heard of anyone in the military having more than one DD 214 with one discharge date. Kerry, according to his own campaign, has at least four.
DD214 is not a discharge .. for Reserve Officers, it is release from active duty. Kerry was released from active duty on 3 Jan 1970
16 February 1978 is the only date on which Lieutenant Kerry was discharged .. he was discharged from his service in the Standby Reserve-Inactive (USNR-S2) pursuant to a new policy which determined that all officers who had three or more years service in the Standby Reserve-Inactive would be screened for discharge by a Board of Officers. If you look closely, the cover letter is a form letter, which indicates that the same identical letter went to hundreds, perhaps thousands of reserve officers when the Navy found that maintaining the records on so many officers was no longer worth while!
13 July 1978 is the date that the Discharge, prepared on 16 February 1978, the effective date of discharge, was forwarded on to Lieutenant Kerry from Naval Reserve Personnel Center, New Orleans. In the six months between this date and the 16 February effective date of discharge, the documents had been routinely sent from New Orleans to the Secretary of the Navy in Washington, DC, signed and returned to New Orleans. This lengthy transmittal period along with the use of form letters for both documents shows that Lieutenant Kerry was one of many (hundreds, thousands) of officers discharged from the Inactive Status List at this time.
12 March 2001 is the date for a DD Form 215 correcting items in Block 24 of the original DD 214 issued when Lieutenant Kerry was released from active duty. This has no bearing on the date of discharge which remains 16 February 1978.
More detailed discussion follows in the rebuttal to the Lipscomb article below and additional comments on the DD 214 and DD 215.
Thomas Lipscomb falsely has claimed in his widely circulated article
Mystery Surrounds Kerry’s Navy Discharge
BY THOMAS LIPSCOMB – Special to the Sun
October 13, 2004
that there is something wrong with the discharge of Lieutenant John Forbes Kerry from the US Naval Reserve.
Lieutenant John Forbes Kerry was discharged from the United States Naval Reserve Standby Inactive (USNR-S2) on 16 February 1978 pursuant to a new Navy policy that mandated review of the records of officers who had been assigned to the Standby Reserve Inactive for three or more years. This policy was established in 1977 and Lieutenant Kerry was among those discharged from the Naval Reserve pursuant to the recommendation of the first Board of Officers convened under this policy. Lieutenant Kerry was assigned to the Inactive Ready Reserve when released from extended active duty on 3 January 1970 and subsequently to the Standby Reserve-Inactive on 1 July 1972. He had thus been assigned to the Standby Reserve-Inactive for more than three years when the policy was established in 1977.
Pertinent documents that support this conclusion are as follows:
Significant documents from Kerry Campaign website, each of which is clearly an official US Navy Record document ..
24 May 1986 Request for documentation of Naval Service
Lists following significant dates:
18 Feb 1966 Enlisted as an OCSA (E-2) – USNR Inactive
19 Aug 1966 Commenced active duty as an OCIU2 (E-5)
16 Dec 1966 Honorably Discharged as OCIU2 to accept commission in the United States Naval Reserve
16 Dec 1966 Accepted Commission, Ensign, United States Naval Reserve, continued active duty
16 Jun 1968 Date of Rank as Lieutenant (Junior Grade) (O-2), United States Naval Reserve
01 Jan 1970 Date of Rank as Lieutenant (O-3), United States Naval Reserve
03 Jan 1970 Released from Active Duty, Transferred to the Naval Reserve (inactive)
01 Jul 1972 Transferred to the Standby Reserve (inactive)
16 Feb 1978 Honorably Discharged from the United States Naval Reserve as a Lieutenant (O-3)
Detached 1600, 2 January 1970 … upon the expiration of which at 2400, 3 January 1970, you will regard yourself released from all active duty and transferred to inactive duty in the US Naval Reserve
4. A review of your service record indicates that your membership in the ready reserve will soon expire. In view of this, you are strongly encouraged to complete enclosure (1) and return it via the command maintaining your service record. This should be done prior to 1 April or 1 October, whichever occurs first after the date of this correspondence.
5. b. If you do not submit enclosure (1) at this time, your transfer to the Standby Reserve-Inactive (USNR-S2) will become effective on 1 April or 1 October of this fiscal year.
The effective date of transfer to the Standby Reserve-Inactive as indicated in reference (a) is hereby modified to read 1 July 1972 vice 1 April 1972.
Bureau of Naval Personnel Manual (BUPERSMAN)
3830300 SEPARATION OF NAVAL RESERVE OFFICERS ON INACTIVE DUTY
1. Subject to the provisions of 10 USC, all commissioned officers in the Naval Reserve hold appointment during the pleasure of the President and such appointments are for an indefinite term (10 U.S.C. 593(b)). The Secretary of the Navy, by virtue of his authority to act for the President in such matters, establishes such criteria for the termination of an officer’s status as are deemed necessary for the maintenance of a sound officer corps. Discharge of officers of the Naval Reserve will be accomplished by the Commanding Officer, Naval Reserve Personnel Center.
2. Naval Reserve officers who have completed their period of minimum required (obligated) service on active duty, if any, and whose total active and inactive commissioned service is six or more years may submit their resignations to the Secretary of the Navy, via the Commanding Officer, Naval Reserve Personnel Center (Code 25), New Orleans, LA 70149 and normally expect favorable action thereon. Officers who do not meet the requirements of this subparagraph are considered to be “obligated”.
6. An officer who has at least three years commissioned service may not be separated without his consent except under an approved recommendation of a board of officers convened by an authority designated by the Secretary of the Navy, unless separated pursuant to the approved sentence of a general court-martial or in time of war by order of the President, or unless separated by reason of failure of selection as provided herein, or unless dropped from the rolls under the authority contained in 10 USC 1163(b). The Naval Reserve Officer Mobilization Disposition Board, convened by the Secretary of the Navy, is empowered to consider the records of officers who fall into the following categories and shall make recommendations to the Secretary of the Navy as to the retention or discharge of these officers. Officers who are recommended for discharge and who are eligible for retirement (either with or without pay) will normally be afforded an opportunity to request retirement prior to final action in such cases.
a. On the Inactive Status List (Standby Reserve Inactive) for a period of three years. (Lieutenant Kerry was assigned to the Standby Reserve-Inactive on 1 July 1972, but this provision was not added to the BUPERSMAN until changed in 1978, thus the first screening of the Standby Reserve-Inactive would have been in 1978
Detractors further point to the Officer Candidate Agreement and say that Lieutenant Kerry had to be assigned to a drilling reserve unit. They are wrong. The MSTSLANT orders releasing Kerry from extended active duty assigned Kerry to the Inactive Ready Reserve. Inactive Ready Reserve service is the normal way for fulfilling the “ready reserve” portion of the commitment. Service in the Selected Ready Reserve in a Category A or B (drilling unit or mobilization augmentee) billet is not required. Being available to go to war when the balloon goes up is all that is required.
Detractors also have floated that Lieutenant Kerry was not really discharged until 2001 and somehow attribute that to Bill Clinton, even though when the document the DD Form 215 was prepared in March 2001 George W Bush was President of the United States. The DD215 is not a discharge; it corrected the DD214 that Kerry received upon his release from active duty in January 1970. It added the entitlement to a couple of ribbons and service stars to the Vietnam Service Medal.
Detractors have claimed that Kerry should have been discharged on the DD214 prepared by MSTSLANT in January 1970. Most of them equate the DD214 with being a discharge. It is for enlisted personnel, but it is not for officers. For officers, it is the release from active duty. They continue to serve as reserve component officers until they have fulfilled their inactive duty reserve commitment and then are only discharged if they choose to resign their commission or if they are screened out, as Kerry was, from the inactive list. There is no reason to retain an officer who is not required to participate and is not participating.
Much has been made about Lieutenant Kerry’s discharge being as the result of the approved recommendation of a board of officers. That is because the governing law, Federal statute, 10 U.S.C. 1163 requires that An officer of a reserve component who has at least three years of service as a commissioned officer may not be separated from that component without his consent except under an approved recommendation of a board of officers convened by an authority designated by the Secretary concerned.
The discharge letter prepared for the Secretary of Navy’s signature, accompanying the actual Certificate of Honorable Discharge, cites three references
a. 10 U.S.C. 1162 – a) Subject to the other provisions of this title, reserve commissioned officers may be discharged at the pleasure of the President. Other Reserves may be discharged under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned
b. 10 U.S.C. 1163 (cited above)
c. BUPERSMAN 3830300 SEPARATION OF NAVAL RESERVE OFFICERS ON INACTIVE DUTY (cited above)
The following addresses one other document on Kerry’s website which is confusing and has led to faulty conclusions:
The DD 215 Correction to DD Form 214 Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty has a typographical error
SEPARATION DATE ON DD FORM 214 BEING CORRECTED ___________ ( a fill-in)
This identifies the previous DD Form 214 prepared when Lieutenant Kerry was released from extended active duty on 3 January 1970 and should have been completed as 01-03-70, but the clerk preparing the document mistakenly wrote this 03-01-70. If they had caught it, the clerk would most likely have used pen and ink to correct the error because it is so minor.
The correction is to Item 24 of the original DD Form 214 and adds the entitlement to
Presidential Unit Citation Ribbon
Navy Unit Citation Ribbon
Republic of Vietnam MUC Gallantry Cross Medal Color with Palm
Republic of Vietnam MUC Civil Action Medal Color with Palm
Deletes the Vietnam Service Medal
Adds the Vietnam Service Medal with 4 Bronze Stars
It does not change the date of the basic document, only mistakenly cites that date as being March 1, instead of January 3, 1970.
Take another look at this form and at the DD Form 214. Note the title Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. Release or Discharge. Two different purposes. Officers are released and enlisted personnel are discharged. Those who mistakenly think that this DD 215 changes Lieutenant Kerry’s discharge date are wrong because it is not Lieutenant Kerry’s discharge. It is Lieutenant Kerry’s release from active duty.
The other issue is what were Lieutenant Kerry’s obligations to the Navy in 1970-71? Was Mr Kerry, civilian in some way precluded by or subject to the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) during this period? Lieutenant Kerry was a member of the Inactive Ready Reserve from the date that he was released from active duty on 3 January 1970 until he was transferred to the Standby Reserve-Inactive on 1 July 1972. Mr Kerry was not subject to the UCMJ because Lieutenant Kerry was only subject to the UCMJ when he was on inactive or active reserve duty. Mr Kerry did not participate in the VVAW activities or meet with the Vietnamese representatives in Paris while on inactive or active reserve duty. Lieutenant Kerry’s sole obligation to the Navy during this time was to answer the mail and stay in touch with the Navy. He was subject to involuntary recall to active duty in the event of war or national emergency proclaimed by the President as a member of the Inactive Ready Reserve and he was only subject to such involuntary recall if Congress declared war as a member of the Standby Reserve- Inactive.
Did Mr Kerry’s prominent participation in anti-war activities adversely effect Lieutenant Kerry’s relationship with the Navy? Apparently not. On 27 March 1972, Lieutenant Kerry was asked to extend his ready reserve commitment and even upgrade his participation to the Category A or B level where he would have drawn pay and allowances for participating in inactive and active duty reserve activities.
4. A review of your service record indicates that your membership in the ready reserve will soon expire. In view of this, you are strongly encouraged to complete enclosure (1)
Lame, lame, lame. It was gone before the troops were there. Even NBC got this one right, but you are too blind to see.
BTW when is Kerry going to admit his mistakes and tell everyone he got a Bad Conduct Discharge in the 70’s? When is he going to apologize to those of us he calle rapists and baby killers in the 70s?
Kerry – no way. Ain’t Fonda Kerry.
Joe
Yes, you are lame, and apparently can’t read or watch NBC for the actual story:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/
before making an ass of yourself, you might bother to read the story. They didn’t check for the explosives.
—Conduct Discharge in the 70’s
Really, did he get one? Or was it orchestrated by Nixon?
—When is he going to apologize to those of us he calle rapists and baby killers in the 70s?
Except he didn’t do that did he? He said others reported seeing or doing those things.
Fucking lying sack of garbage who show up in comments need to get their facts at least close to be believable.
Or CNN for that matter.
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/26/iraq.explosives/
I love posting here so I can see your MANLY refutation (also called tripe in the real world).
Joe
Read the timestamps you ass. CNN is working off an earlier NBC story that the later NBC story corrected.
It wouldn’t make any difference. You have already decided to believe whatever is negative about Bush and whatever is positive about Kerry. Go ahead and throw your little three year old tantrum becase not everyone is as gullible a you.
Kerry is a lying traitor not a hero at all. And as for you this is your story –> “Anger is my meat; I sup upon myself, And so shall starve with feeding.” William Shakespeare (1564?1616)
With the greatest of satisfaction,
Joe
So you have no evidence and you can’t support what you claim. thanks for playing and don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
A three year old tantrum would be whining that it must be right, not demonstrating the actual stories.
Following up on that story from last night, military officials tell NBC News that on April 10, 2003, when the Second Brigade of the 101st Airborne entered the Al QaQaa weapons facility, south of Baghdad, that those troops were actually on their way to Baghdad, that they were not actively involved in the search for any weapons, including the high explosives, HMX and RDX. The troops did observe stock piles of conventional weapons but no HMX or RDX. And because the Al Qaqaa facility is so huge, it’s not clear that those troops from the 101st were actually anywhere near the bunkers that reportedly contained the HMX and RDX.
Amy Robach: Was there a search at all underway or was, did a search ensue for explosives once you got there during that 24-hour period?
Lai Ling Jew: No. There wasn’t a search. The mission that the brigade had was to get to Baghdad. That was more of a pit stop there for us. And, you know, the searching, I mean certainly some of the soldiers head off on their own, looked through the bunkers just to look at the vast amount of ordnance lying around. But as far as we could tell, there was no move to secure the weapons, nothing to keep looters away. But there was ? at that point the roads were shut off. So it would have been very difficult, I believe, for the looters to get there.
No sense in producing proof that would be burned ignored or poo-pooed by the likes of you. Kerry is an habitual liar. He arranged for the the liars who called us rapists and murderers. When he apologizes … never mind. That will never happen because he could never admit that he made a mistake. He can’t even admit that the only position he holds is the one he thinks will get him elected.
John Kerry is a hero of the VietNam War, but only to the North Viet Namese. They even have his picture posted in their museum of heroes. Ya gotta love a guy like that.
Ain’t Fonda Kerry
Joe
BTW what is your military background, boy scout?
GI Joe, were you in Vietnam?
Anyone who think the US didn’t committ war crimes during Vietnam(My Lai? Tiger Force?) deserves to be lumped in with holocaust deniers.
It is dangerous for a national candidate to say things that people might remember. ? Eugene McCarthy
Joe
I’ll leave you all to your little lies. You are just looking for lackies to back up your own limited thought processes. Feed on yourselves and I wish oyu a lot of luck on Tuesday. I won’t say what kind.
Uh, Joe, the only person lying so far is you. If you care to document anything you are making claims about it, it might turn into a productive argument. But until then, you are simply a court jester.
Liars just can’t escape their words, and your naive regurgitation of his lies don’t change it to the truth.
“UN ambassadors from several nations are disputing assertions by…John Kerry that he met for hours with all members of the UN Security Council just a week before voting in October 2002 to authorize the use of force in Iraq. An investigation by The Washington Times reveals that while the candidate did talk for an unspecified period to at least a few members of the panel, no such meeting, as described by Mr. Kerry on a number of occasions over the past year, ever occurred. At the second presidential debate…Mr. Kerry said he was more attuned to international concerns on Iraq than President Bush, citing his meeting with the entire Security Council. ‘This president hasn’t listened. I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week before we voted. I went to New York. I talked to all of them, to find out how serious they were about really holding Saddam Hussein accountable.’ … But of the five ambassadors on the Security Council in 2002 who were reached directly for comment, four said they had never met Mr. Kerry. The four also said that no one who worked for their countries’ UN missions had met with Mr. Kerry either. … When reached for comment last week, an official with the Kerry campaign stood by the candidate’s previous claims that he had met with the entire Security Council. … Asked whether the International body had any records of Mr. Kerry sitting down with thewhole council, a UN spokesman said that ‘our office does not have any record of this meeting.’ A U.S. official with intimate knowledge of the Security Council’s actions in fall of 2002 said that he was not aware of any meeting Mr. Kerry had with members of the panel. An official at the U.S. mission to the United Nations remarked:
‘We were as surprised as anyone when Kerry started talking about a meeting with the Security Council.’ … The revelation that Mr. Kerry never met with the entire UN Security Council could be problematic for the Massachusetts senator, as it clashes with one of his central foreign-policy campaign themes –honesty.” –The Washington Times
Hey Douchebag–you haven’t supported anything you said above–once you do that we can move on.
Cheers.
Have you figured out that Kerry is a miserable liar yet?
GERTZ // THURSDAY // WASH TIMES: Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein’s weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned. John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, ?almost certainly? removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad.
Didn’t you have a problem with sourcing Drudge before?
Cheers!
Kerry is a lying worm IMHO. You won’t accept any evidence that contradicts what you want to believe, but I’ll keep showing it to you just in case.
Joe
9yrs 2 mo 6 days USN
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041027-123351-4664r.htm
“Major media outlets have constructed this story to appear that the Bush administration is to blame, a week short of an election. It’s become fodder for the campaign, and in a close race like this, the story easily could sway voters,” said Clifford May, a syndicated columnist and president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a District-based nonprofit group that analyzes global terrorist threats.
Attempts to manipulate the U.S. election with strategically timed leaks goes beyond journalists, Mr. May said.
“What has to be investigated here is whether [IAEA Director-General] Mohamed ElBaradei has attempted to manipulate an American election, and whether certain components of the American media helped him by not exercising sufficient journalistic skepticism,” he said.
In an online column of the National Review yesterday, Mr. May wrote, “The Iraqi explosives story is a fraud.”
“The IAEA and its head, the anti-American Mohamed ElBaradei, leaked a false letter on this issue to the media to embarrass the Bush administration. The U.S. is trying to deny ElBaradei a second term, and we have been on his case for missing the Libyan nuclear-weapons program and for weakness on the Iranian nuclear-weapons program.”
Nice speculation, but why is the paper of a cult leader you definition of truth? So far you fucked up on the NBC story, you fucked up on what Kerry actually said in Congressional hearings in the 1970s and you fucked up on the Discharge issue.
One might think you are a fuck up.
One might also assume you are a bigot and a radical ideolog since you don’t listen to anything that remotely defines your dishonest candidate as, well, dishonest.
That’s too bad fo ryou.
Joe
I don?t hate Kerry, I just totally distrust a man who lies as much as he does and who betrayed his country and his comrades in arms like he did. I don?t hate any of you, I just pity your lack of intellectual honesty. You on the other hand have an obvious hate for George Bush and anyone who would stand with him. Let me offer you this little tidbit, just because I think all people are worth salvaging. Joe
?Always remember, others may hate you. Those who hate you don’t win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself.? Richard Nixon
Oh, and just for your information (I would say amusement, but then you have no sense of humor) I am voting for John Kerry, just before I vote against him.
Joe
I think you already made that “joke”, troll.
ahhhhhhhh, a new mindless robot is heard from.
Joe
Do you have any substantive arguments to make now that all of yours have been refuted?
No, clearly it doesn’t. And at this point, it really is reduced to mindless trolling. I shouldn’t have fed it, and I apologize.
Here is a quote from Kerry – some of the things you say he never said about us, but of course you wouldn’t know because you won’t look beyond what you are told by the machine. You have no idea how much he harmed the vets and MIAs back then. He has never apologized. He doesn’t need to since he has other liars to deny he ever called us murderers rapists and torturers.
Wake up, hate mongers. Kerry is is a liar. When you support him and say that he didn’t call us murderers and rapist, you lie too.
I am waiting for his apology. Until then I will work against him for the traitor he is.
Warmest regards,
Joe
“I remember spending Christmas Day of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border. I have that memory which is seared — seared — in me. … American military personnel in Vietnam] personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, [blew] up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to…the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing
power of this country. … There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed….”
War Criminal John F(ibber) Kerry
Brokaw said to Kerry:
“Someone has analyzed the President’s military aptitude tests and yours and concluded that he has a higher IQ than you do.” Kerry replied, “That’s great. More power. I don’t know how they’ve done it, because my record is not public. So I don’t know where you’re getting that from.”
Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson writes this week, “The only 180 John Kerry hasn’t accomplished in his litany of flip-flops throughout his campaign is Standard Form 180, the paperwork necessary for the complete release of his military records from the Department of Defense repository.”
With concern for your security,
Joe
We’re waiting for you to address your first three assertions. Before moving on please do so.
Cheers Douchebag.
I am waiting for you to address my assertions, but then I don’t really expect that you can so don’t look for me to move on.
Ain’t Fonda Kerry
Don’t vote for John F(ibber) Kerry unitl he signs his 180 (the form not his thousands of positions)
Joe
Douchebag. You’re gone, but by the way–your assertions were addressed and then you tried to change the subject.
The weapons were left to be looted.
Cheers and Goodbye.
GI Joe’s reposting of “Jet Jock” Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson’s “The only 180 John Kerry hasn’t accomplished in his litany of flip-flops throughout his campaign is Standard Form 180, the paperwork necessary for the complete release of his military records from the Department of Defense repository.” refers you to an article which has serious flaws. There is NOTHING WRONG with the KERRY DISCHARGE .. spread this widely .. I did thorough research of documents on Kerry site and asked Navy for the BUPERSMAN referenced on the discharge cover letter. Patterson is just flat out wrong, but he is a jet jock and I am a contracts expert .. he flies planes and I buy them. I also meticulously analyze documents to determine their significance and meaning. Here is the true story.
That portion of Patterson’s article that discusses the nature of Lieutenant John Forbes Kerry’s discharge from the United States Naval Reserve Inactive Status List on 16 February 1978 is completely without merit. Patterson did not carefully research the documents on the Kerry website nor understand their significance and did not request an easily obtainable copy of the applicable 1978 Bureau of Personnel Manual (BUPERSMAN) cited in reference (c) of the Secretary of the Navy’s letter accompanying the Honorable Discharge Certificate. Patterson has added little but speculation to the orginal speculation in Thomas Lipscomb’s New York Sun article of 13 October. The following paragraph from “What is John Kerry Hiding” is completely wrong:
With what we do know, Kerry’s paperwork doesn’t pass the smell test. The few records so far released by his campaign identify FOUR “honorable” discharge dates (every other military member I know, myself included, received one). Kerry’s released documentation notes discharges of January 3, 1970, February 16, 1978, July 13, 1978, and, most peculiarly, March 12, 2001. He has as many discharge dates as months he spent in Vietnam. In my twenty years in the Air Force and through the thousands of people I came to know and serve with, I have never heard of anyone in the military having more than one DD 214 with one discharge date. Kerry, according to his own campaign, has at least four.
DD214 is not a discharge .. for Reserve Officers, it is release from active duty. Kerry was released from active duty on 3 Jan 1970
16 February 1978 is the only date on which Lieutenant Kerry was discharged .. he was discharged from his service in the Standby Reserve-Inactive (USNR-S2) pursuant to a new policy which determined that all officers who had three or more years service in the Standby Reserve-Inactive would be screened for discharge by a Board of Officers. If you look closely, the cover letter is a form letter, which indicates that the same identical letter went to hundreds, perhaps thousands of reserve officers when the Navy found that maintaining the records on so many officers was no longer worth while!
13 July 1978 is the date that the Discharge, prepared on 16 February 1978, the effective date of discharge, was forwarded on to Lieutenant Kerry from Naval Reserve Personnel Center, New Orleans. In the six months between this date and the 16 February effective date of discharge, the documents had been routinely sent from New Orleans to the Secretary of the Navy in Washington, DC, signed and returned to New Orleans. This lengthy transmittal period along with the use of form letters for both documents shows that Lieutenant Kerry was one of many (hundreds, thousands) of officers discharged from the Inactive Status List at this time.
12 March 2001 is the date for a DD Form 215 correcting items in Block 24 of the original DD 214 issued when Lieutenant Kerry was released from active duty. This has no bearing on the date of discharge which remains 16 February 1978.
More detailed discussion follows in the rebuttal to the Lipscomb article below and additional comments on the DD 214 and DD 215.
Thomas Lipscomb falsely has claimed in his widely circulated article
Mystery Surrounds Kerry’s Navy Discharge
BY THOMAS LIPSCOMB – Special to the Sun
October 13, 2004
that there is something wrong with the discharge of Lieutenant John Forbes Kerry from the US Naval Reserve.
Lieutenant John Forbes Kerry was discharged from the United States Naval Reserve Standby Inactive (USNR-S2) on 16 February 1978 pursuant to a new Navy policy that mandated review of the records of officers who had been assigned to the Standby Reserve Inactive for three or more years. This policy was established in 1977 and Lieutenant Kerry was among those discharged from the Naval Reserve pursuant to the recommendation of the first Board of Officers convened under this policy. Lieutenant Kerry was assigned to the Inactive Ready Reserve when released from extended active duty on 3 January 1970 and subsequently to the Standby Reserve-Inactive on 1 July 1972. He had thus been assigned to the Standby Reserve-Inactive for more than three years when the policy was established in 1977.
Pertinent documents that support this conclusion are as follows:
Significant documents from Kerry Campaign website, each of which is clearly an official US Navy Record document ..
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Request_For_History_of_Service.pdf
24 May 1986 Request for documentation of Naval Service
Lists following significant dates:
18 Feb 1966 Enlisted as an OCSA (E-2) – USNR Inactive
19 Aug 1966 Commenced active duty as an OCIU2 (E-5)
16 Dec 1966 Honorably Discharged as OCIU2 to accept commission in the United States Naval Reserve
16 Dec 1966 Accepted Commission, Ensign, United States Naval Reserve, continued active duty
16 Jun 1968 Date of Rank as Lieutenant (Junior Grade) (O-2), United States Naval Reserve
01 Jan 1970 Date of Rank as Lieutenant (O-3), United States Naval Reserve
03 Jan 1970 Released from Active Duty, Transferred to the Naval Reserve (inactive)
01 Jul 1972 Transferred to the Standby Reserve (inactive)
16 Feb 1978 Honorably Discharged from the United States Naval Reserve as a Lieutenant (O-3)
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Release_From_Active_Duty.pdf
Detached 1600, 2 January 1970 … upon the expiration of which at 2400, 3 January 1970, you will regard yourself released from all active duty and transferred to inactive duty in the US Naval Reserve
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Qualifications_Questionnaire.pdf
ANNUAL QUALIFICATIONS QUESTIONNAIRE INACTIVE DUTY RESERVE OFFICER – 16 Oct 1971
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Transfer_To_Standby_Reserve.pdf
4. A review of your service record indicates that your membership in the ready reserve will soon expire. In view of this, you are strongly encouraged to complete enclosure (1) and return it via the command maintaining your service record. This should be done prior to 1 April or 1 October, whichever occurs first after the date of this correspondence.
5. b. If you do not submit enclosure (1) at this time, your transfer to the Standby Reserve-Inactive (USNR-S2) will become effective on 1 April or 1 October of this fiscal year.
The effective date of transfer to the Standby Reserve-Inactive as indicated in reference (a) is hereby modified to read 1 July 1972 vice 1 April 1972.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Honorable_Discharge_From_Reserve.pdf
Prepared February 16, 1978 (effective date of discharge)
The Navy Department at this time expresses its appreciation of your past services and trusts that you will continue your interest in the naval service.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Acceptance_of_Discharge_Naval_Reserve.pdf
July 13, 1978
The Commanding Officer, Naval Reserve Personnel Center, desires to add this expression of appreciation to that of the Secretary of the Navy and offers his best wishes for success in your future endeavors.
Bureau of Naval Personnel Manual (BUPERSMAN)
3830300 SEPARATION OF NAVAL RESERVE OFFICERS ON INACTIVE DUTY
1. Subject to the provisions of 10 USC, all commissioned officers in the Naval Reserve hold appointment during the pleasure of the President and such appointments are for an indefinite term (10 U.S.C. 593(b)). The Secretary of the Navy, by virtue of his authority to act for the President in such matters, establishes such criteria for the termination of an officer’s status as are deemed necessary for the maintenance of a sound officer corps. Discharge of officers of the Naval Reserve will be accomplished by the Commanding Officer, Naval Reserve Personnel Center.
2. Naval Reserve officers who have completed their period of minimum required (obligated) service on active duty, if any, and whose total active and inactive commissioned service is six or more years may submit their resignations to the Secretary of the Navy, via the Commanding Officer, Naval Reserve Personnel Center (Code 25), New Orleans, LA 70149 and normally expect favorable action thereon. Officers who do not meet the requirements of this subparagraph are considered to be “obligated”.
6. An officer who has at least three years commissioned service may not be separated without his consent except under an approved recommendation of a board of officers convened by an authority designated by the Secretary of the Navy, unless separated pursuant to the approved sentence of a general court-martial or in time of war by order of the President, or unless separated by reason of failure of selection as provided herein, or unless dropped from the rolls under the authority contained in 10 USC 1163(b). The Naval Reserve Officer Mobilization Disposition Board, convened by the Secretary of the Navy, is empowered to consider the records of officers who fall into the following categories and shall make recommendations to the Secretary of the Navy as to the retention or discharge of these officers. Officers who are recommended for discharge and who are eligible for retirement (either with or without pay) will normally be afforded an opportunity to request retirement prior to final action in such cases.
a. On the Inactive Status List (Standby Reserve Inactive) for a period of three years. (Lieutenant Kerry was assigned to the Standby Reserve-Inactive on 1 July 1972, but this provision was not added to the BUPERSMAN until changed in 1978, thus the first screening of the Standby Reserve-Inactive would have been in 1978
Detractors further point to the Officer Candidate Agreement and say that Lieutenant Kerry had to be assigned to a drilling reserve unit. They are wrong. The MSTSLANT orders releasing Kerry from extended active duty assigned Kerry to the Inactive Ready Reserve. Inactive Ready Reserve service is the normal way for fulfilling the “ready reserve” portion of the commitment. Service in the Selected Ready Reserve in a Category A or B (drilling unit or mobilization augmentee) billet is not required. Being available to go to war when the balloon goes up is all that is required.
Detractors also have floated that Lieutenant Kerry was not really discharged until 2001 and somehow attribute that to Bill Clinton, even though when the document the DD Form 215 was prepared in March 2001 George W Bush was President of the United States. The DD215 is not a discharge; it corrected the DD214 that Kerry received upon his release from active duty in January 1970. It added the entitlement to a couple of ribbons and service stars to the Vietnam Service Medal.
Detractors have claimed that Kerry should have been discharged on the DD214 prepared by MSTSLANT in January 1970. Most of them equate the DD214 with being a discharge. It is for enlisted personnel, but it is not for officers. For officers, it is the release from active duty. They continue to serve as reserve component officers until they have fulfilled their inactive duty reserve commitment and then are only discharged if they choose to resign their commission or if they are screened out, as Kerry was, from the inactive list. There is no reason to retain an officer who is not required to participate and is not participating.
Much has been made about Lieutenant Kerry’s discharge being as the result of the approved recommendation of a board of officers. That is because the governing law, Federal statute, 10 U.S.C. 1163 requires that An officer of a reserve component who has at least three years of service as a commissioned officer may not be separated from that component without his consent except under an approved recommendation of a board of officers convened by an authority designated by the Secretary concerned.
The discharge letter prepared for the Secretary of Navy’s signature, accompanying the actual Certificate of Honorable Discharge, cites three references
a. 10 U.S.C. 1162 – a) Subject to the other provisions of this title, reserve commissioned officers may be discharged at the pleasure of the President. Other Reserves may be discharged under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned
b. 10 U.S.C. 1163 (cited above)
c. BUPERSMAN 3830300 SEPARATION OF NAVAL RESERVE OFFICERS ON INACTIVE DUTY (cited above)
The following addresses one other document on Kerry’s website which is confusing and has led to faulty conclusions:
The DD 215 Correction to DD Form 214 Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty has a typographical error
SEPARATION DATE ON DD FORM 214 BEING CORRECTED ___________ ( a fill-in)
This identifies the previous DD Form 214 prepared when Lieutenant Kerry was released from extended active duty on 3 January 1970 and should have been completed as 01-03-70, but the clerk preparing the document mistakenly wrote this 03-01-70. If they had caught it, the clerk would most likely have used pen and ink to correct the error because it is so minor.
The correction is to Item 24 of the original DD Form 214 and adds the entitlement to
Presidential Unit Citation Ribbon
Navy Unit Citation Ribbon
Republic of Vietnam MUC Gallantry Cross Medal Color with Palm
Republic of Vietnam MUC Civil Action Medal Color with Palm
Deletes the Vietnam Service Medal
Adds the Vietnam Service Medal with 4 Bronze Stars
It does not change the date of the basic document, only mistakenly cites that date as being March 1, instead of January 3, 1970.
Take another look at this form and at the DD Form 214. Note the title Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. Release or Discharge. Two different purposes. Officers are released and enlisted personnel are discharged. Those who mistakenly think that this DD 215 changes Lieutenant Kerry’s discharge date are wrong because it is not Lieutenant Kerry’s discharge. It is Lieutenant Kerry’s release from active duty.
The other issue is what were Lieutenant Kerry’s obligations to the Navy in 1970-71? Was Mr Kerry, civilian in some way precluded by or subject to the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) during this period? Lieutenant Kerry was a member of the Inactive Ready Reserve from the date that he was released from active duty on 3 January 1970 until he was transferred to the Standby Reserve-Inactive on 1 July 1972. Mr Kerry was not subject to the UCMJ because Lieutenant Kerry was only subject to the UCMJ when he was on inactive or active reserve duty. Mr Kerry did not participate in the VVAW activities or meet with the Vietnamese representatives in Paris while on inactive or active reserve duty. Lieutenant Kerry’s sole obligation to the Navy during this time was to answer the mail and stay in touch with the Navy. He was subject to involuntary recall to active duty in the event of war or national emergency proclaimed by the President as a member of the Inactive Ready Reserve and he was only subject to such involuntary recall if Congress declared war as a member of the Standby Reserve- Inactive.
Did Mr Kerry’s prominent participation in anti-war activities adversely effect Lieutenant Kerry’s relationship with the Navy? Apparently not. On 27 March 1972, Lieutenant Kerry was asked to extend his ready reserve commitment and even upgrade his participation to the Category A or B level where he would have drawn pay and allowances for participating in inactive and active duty reserve activities.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Transfer_To_Standby_Reserve.pdf
4. A review of your service record indicates that your membership in the ready reserve will soon expire. In view of this, you are strongly encouraged to complete enclosure (1)