Kerry under investigation for possible medal fraud

[Guest Cerebus]

Ok not really. But I'm waiting for the charges to roll in after this.

 

In a fresh blow to John Kerry's flagging presidential campaign, the Pentagon has ordered an official investigation into the awards of the Democratic senator's five Vietnam War decorations.

 

...

 

Last week, the Kerry campaign attempted to leave the Vietnam debate behind, as signs appeared that the controversy was damaging Mr Kerry's standing in the polls. But to the consternation of campaign strategists, the US navy has now agreed to a request by Judicial Watch, a bi-partisan lobby group, for a full inquiry. Judicial Watch is calling for the Navy to report before the elections, but Navy officials are so far refusing to give any timetable for the inquiry

 

...

 

Among other records to be examined is a citation of Mr Kerry for bravery that was apparently signed by the former Navy Secretary, John Lehman, and contributed to the award of his silver star. The glowing citation states: "By his brave actions, bold initiative and unwavering devotion to duty, Lt Kerry reflected great credit on himself." But Mr Lehman denies all knowledge of the commendation. "It's a total mystery to me," he said last week. "I never saw it, I never signed it and I never approved it." The inquiry will also investigate other reports and citations leading to the award of Mr Kerry's medals.

 

On Friday, Mr Lehman endorsed the investigation of Mr Kerry's awards, saying that the relevant navy records needed to be "thoroughly researched and the facts established". Mr Fitton said: "We hope this is the beginning of an actual investigation of the legitimacy of Sen Kerry's awards by the navy and the Pentagon."

 

In an angry statement from the Kerry campaign headquarters, Michael Meehan, Mr Kerry's senior adviser, condemned the navy probe as an expensive waste of the Pentagon's resources.

 

"The facts are clear," said Mr Meehan. "The navy awarded John Kerry the Silver Star, a Bronze Star with Combat V and three Purple Hearts. This is a waste of taxpayers' dollars and the Pentagon's time, especially during wartime."

 

The Silver Star thing is the most glaring part of it since the DD214 which summarizes Kerry's service lists a "Silver Star with a Combat V" an award which doesn't exist. (Silver Stars, unlike Bronze Stars, are only given for valor in combat making a Combat V redundant).

 

Two more things. One, Lehman had enough bipartisan credentials to be named on the 9/11 Commission Two,B.G. Burkett, a Vietnam vet who has exposed dozens of medal and service fraud including Captain Roger Edwards, said "I've run across several claims for Silver Stars with Combat Vs, but they were were all in fake records."

 

Would this have been exposed had Kerry not ran for pres? Most likely not. Would it have been exposed had Kerry not made Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign instead of, you know, issues going on now. Maybe.

 

But does it mean that we should ignore fraud involving his awards? I don't think so.

[Guest MikeSC]

As one man said --- giving a combat "V" (for "valor") with an award for heroism and bravery is just redundant.

 

ALSO, Judicial Watch is asking for an investigation into his medals.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

ALSO, Judicial Watch is asking for an investigation into his medals.

-=Mike

Oh, well that explains a whole hell of a lot, then.

[Guest MikeSC]

ALSO, Judicial Watch is asking for an investigation into his medals.

        -=Mike

Oh, well that explains a whole hell of a lot, then.

Oh, I forgot --- when they're going after Bush, they're a non-partisan, watchdog group.

 

When they're going after Kerry, they're partisan hacks.

-=Mike

[Guest Nanks]

It baffles me no end that it could matter in the slightest that someone running for President was involved in a war. What real benefit could that possibly present once he's in office?? Sadder still is I have no doubt that there are hundreds of Americans right now saying,

 

"I'm gonna vote for that John Kerry as President, he's a genuine war hero ya know. Yup, he has the physical ability to fire a gun. That's the kind of man this country needs running its economy."

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Oh, I forgot --- when they're going after Bush, they're a non-partisan, watchdog group.

Fault in your logic: I never said anything of the sort.

 

I think this is irrelevant to the issues at hand politically, and I think the Pentagon should start by investigating the Commanding Officer that suddently can't remember before they inspect Kerry.

 

Republicans tried to cut short the 9/11 Comission's work because they thought if it continued into early summer that it would mess with the election. For some reason, the 9/11 Comission could have influenced the election negatively yet it's A-OK to launch a public investigation into one of the candidates in the final stretch because somebody else said "Oh, hey, I don't remember" regarding an event that happened over a quarter of a century ago.

[Guest MikeSC]

Oh, I forgot --- when they're going after Bush, they're a non-partisan, watchdog group.

Fault in your logic: I never said anything of the sort.

 

I think this is irrelevant to the issues at hand politically, and I think the Pentagon should start by investigating the Commanding Officer that suddently can't remember before they inspect Kerry.

 

One little problem: Navy officials have stated that the ONLY times they've ever seen a combat V with a silver star --- it was in a faked account. There is no commanding officer who "doesn't remember" because, according to the Navy, they've NEVER given Silver Stars with combat V's ever.

Republicans tried to cut short the 9/11 Comission's work because they thought if it continued into early summer that it would mess with the election.

Republicans felt it'd likely end up a political witchhunt --- which Bob Kerrey did all he could do to make the case.

For some reason, the 9/11 Comission could have influenced the election negatively yet it's A-OK to launch a public investigation into one of the candidates in the final stretch because somebody else said "Oh, hey, I don't remember" regarding an event that happened over a quarter of a century ago.

No, they're saying the award, at no point in history, has EVER been awarded and if Kerry claims to have won it --- it warrants investigation.

 

Keep in mind, Kerry's constant harping ON his record (which, it should be noted, he RESUMED the evening of Bush's RNC speech) led to all of this.

 

And, lo and behold, ANOTHER thing those "lying" and "widely discredited" SBVT might well have been 100% correct about.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Keep in mind, Kerry's constant harping ON his record (which, it should be noted, he RESUMED the evening of Bush's RNC speech) led to all of this.

No, it didn't. Judicial Watch baited it on until the Navy had to investigate. That would have happened if Kerry did or didn't talk about his service extensively. These aren't a bunch of old guys who previously supported Kerry who said that now that he's running for office they feel it's important to share another view that drastically contradicts their comments over 25 years. At least that I could vaguely buy.

 

This is an attack squad. This is a bunch of people working for the purpose of putting headlines into newspapers to make people distrust Kerry.

[snuffbox 0]

Pretty sad.

[Guest GreatOne]

This is an attack squad.

And WHO was it that brought Vietnam to the forefront in the first place?

[Guest SP-1]

It baffles me no end that it could matter in the slightest that someone running for President was involved in a war. What real benefit could that possibly present once he's in office?? Sadder still is I have no doubt that there are hundreds of Americans right now saying,

 

"I'm gonna vote for that John Kerry as President, he's a genuine war hero ya know. Yup, he has the physical ability to fire a gun. That's the kind of man this country needs running its economy."

To be fair, we're a country at war. We're a country with alot of countries that dislike us. To me, this is one of the things Bush lacks is a solid wartime record. (And by that, I don't mean his National Guard time, I mean I want a man in there who has logged some flight time in enemy airspace or something.)

 

That kind of experience would be very, very valuable when it comes to big decisions. If another 9/11 happens -- and I pray it doesn't -- someone with that kind of experience and knowledge could make much different decisions than our present leadership has. Not always better. But different.

[Guest MikeSC]

Keep in mind, Kerry's constant harping ON his record (which, it should be noted, he RESUMED the evening of Bush's RNC speech) led to all of this.

No, it didn't.

 

The hell it didn't. His constant harping on his record led to his critics bringing forth evidence that his record was not CLOSE to what he claimed.

 

THAT, eventually, led to actual scrutiny. And like LOTS of records from the Vietnam era, it won't hold up to serious scrutiny.

Judicial Watch baited it on until the Navy had to investigate.

At what point was Judicial Watch WRONG to ask for an investigation?

 

A man wins an award that, by everybody they asked, has NEVER been awarded. That is a legitimate question.

That would have happened if Kerry did or didn't talk about his service extensively.

Kerry doesn't run on his record and SBVT don't work effectively at all. Without commenting on his record, NOBODY would have seriously looked at it.

 

Kerry brought it on himself. He might well kill his entire career based on this insanely shitty campaign.

This is an attack squad. This is a bunch of people working for the purpose of putting headlines into newspapers to make people distrust Kerry.

Sorry, Judicial Watch a) has every reason to ASK for an investigation (and get one, mind you) and b) they are a completely non-partisan group. The NY Times has said so --- and they're the "paper of record", right?

That kind of experience would be very, very valuable when it comes to big decisions. If another 9/11 happens -- and I pray it doesn't -- someone with that kind of experience and knowledge could make much different decisions than our present leadership has. Not always better. But different.

4 months of experience in combat is not exactly a solid basis for an assumption of different actions --- especially when viewed against his startlingly lacking Senatorial record.

-=Mike

[Guest SP-1]

I wasn't talking about Kerry, Mike. I was talking about a Presidential candidate with wartime military history. Any Presidential candidate with that under his belt.

[Guest MikeSC]

I wasn't talking about Kerry, Mike. I was talking about a Presidential candidate with wartime military history. Any Presidential candidate with that under his belt.

Even that doesn't prove much. If you're not a high-ranking general, you don't have experience leading large groups. And you certainly wouldn't have much in terms of tactical experience to fall back on in a situation where military force might be needed.

 

Anything less than a general and their war record is of little benefit.

-=Mike

[Guest Cerebus]

Being a decorated and BADLY wounded vet didn't help McCain or Dole. Then again they weren't running in our current 9/12 world.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

b) they are a completely non-partisan group.

I guess you missed their hounding of Clinton.

[Justice 0]

b) they are a completely non-partisan group.

I guess you missed their hounding of Clinton.

And the same one that hounded Cheney to release the documents surrounding his special Energy Task force, remember?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

And the same one that hounded Cheney to release the documents surrounding his special Energy Task force, remember?

This wouldn't be the same one that sued State Farm now, would it?

[Guest MikeSC]

b) they are a completely non-partisan group.

I guess you missed their hounding of Clinton.

And the same one that hounded Cheney to release the documents surrounding his special Energy Task force, remember?

Yup. Which made them a non-partisan watchdog group in the eyes of the NY Times and mainstream press. Thus, I refer to them as such.

 

Klayman is a creepy asshole (he sued his mom, for God's sake), but he has shown a desire to go after both sides.

-=Mike

[Guest SP-1]

I wasn't talking about Kerry, Mike.  I was talking about a Presidential candidate with wartime military history.  Any Presidential candidate with that under his belt.

Even that doesn't prove much. If you're not a high-ranking general, you don't have experience leading large groups. And you certainly wouldn't have much in terms of tactical experience to fall back on in a situation where military force might be needed.

 

Anything less than a general and their war record is of little benefit.

-=Mike

I disagree. Simply because you have stars on your shoulders doesn't mean you have any real experience. I want the guy who led a squad. The boys in the middle who the generals tell to move the troops know that situation better than anyone. They know what the guys in the trenches are going through, AND they know how to deal with mass numbers of men.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Is there a good abbrieviation for "Larry Klayman Sues Everybody"?

[Guest MikeSC]

I wasn't talking about Kerry, Mike.  I was talking about a Presidential candidate with wartime military history.  Any Presidential candidate with that under his belt.

Even that doesn't prove much. If you're not a high-ranking general, you don't have experience leading large groups. And you certainly wouldn't have much in terms of tactical experience to fall back on in a situation where military force might be needed.

 

Anything less than a general and their war record is of little benefit.

-=Mike

I disagree. Simply because you have stars on your shoulders doesn't mean you have any real experience.

Having stars on your soldiers usualyl means you have led troops in battle, which at least indicates some ability to lead. Senators, by nature, don't lead much of anybody.

I want the guy who led a squad.  The boys in the middle who the generals tell to move the troops know that situation better than anyone.  They know what the guys in the trenches are going through, AND they know how to deal with mass numbers of men.

No, they know how to follow orders --- which is wonderful and all.

 

But it's not the same thing as leadership, something Kerry has yet to demonstrate.

-=Mike

[Guest SP-1]

I wasn't talking about Kerry, Mike.  I was talking about a Presidential candidate with wartime military history.  Any Presidential candidate with that under his belt.

Even that doesn't prove much. If you're not a high-ranking general, you don't have experience leading large groups. And you certainly wouldn't have much in terms of tactical experience to fall back on in a situation where military force might be needed.

 

Anything less than a general and their war record is of little benefit.

-=Mike

I disagree. Simply because you have stars on your shoulders doesn't mean you have any real experience.

Having stars on your soldiers usualyl means you have led troops in battle, which at least indicates some ability to lead. Senators, by nature, don't lead much of anybody.

I want the guy who led a squad.  The boys in the middle who the generals tell to move the troops know that situation better than anyone.  They know what the guys in the trenches are going through, AND they know how to deal with mass numbers of men.

No, they know how to follow orders --- which is wonderful and all.

 

But it's not the same thing as leadership, something Kerry has yet to demonstrate.

-=Mike

That's almost condescending to field leaders, Mike. Blanket orders don't cover everything that happens out there. If those guys didn't lead out there, they'd be completely slaughtered. Field leadership takes quick tactical reflexes and instinct.

[snuffbox 0]

I wasn't talking about Kerry, Mike.  I was talking about a Presidential candidate with wartime military history.  Any Presidential candidate with that under his belt.

Even that doesn't prove much. If you're not a high-ranking general, you don't have experience leading large groups. And you certainly wouldn't have much in terms of tactical experience to fall back on in a situation where military force might be needed.

 

Anything less than a general and their war record is of little benefit.

-=Mike

I disagree. Simply because you have stars on your shoulders doesn't mean you have any real experience.

Having stars on your soldiers usualyl means you have led troops in battle, which at least indicates some ability to lead. Senators, by nature, don't lead much of anybody.

I want the guy who led a squad.  The boys in the middle who the generals tell to move the troops know that situation better than anyone.  They know what the guys in the trenches are going through, AND they know how to deal with mass numbers of men.

No, they know how to follow orders --- which is wonderful and all.

 

But it's not the same thing as leadership, something Kerry has yet to demonstrate.

-=Mike

That's almost condescending to field leaders, Mike. Blanket orders don't cover everything that happens out there. If those guys didn't lead out there, they'd be completely slaughtered. Field leadership takes quick tactical reflexes and instinct.

Mike knows...he recently retired after putting in his 20 years service.

[Guest MikeSC]

That's almost condescending to field leaders, Mike. Blanket orders don't cover everything that happens out there. If those guys didn't lead out there, they'd be completely slaughtered. Field leadership takes quick tactical reflexes and instinct.

We could go into what the OTHER leaders in Vietnam said about Kerry's leadership. 17 of his 23 commanders don't have much use for him as a leader.

Mike knows...he recently retired after putting in his 20 years service.

I'll say it --- I'll take the swifties' word over Kerry's.

-=Mike

[Guest SP-1]

You do realize I'm not supporting Kerry, right?

 

Or are you so polarized right now that it didn't register?

[Guest MikeSC]

You do realize I'm not supporting Kerry, right?

 

Or are you so polarized right now that it didn't register?

I don't care who you're voting for. Totally don't.

 

However, military service is horribly overrated for a Presidential candidate.

 

You mentioned that field commanders have good experience leading troops. So be it. Kerry's FELLOW leaders felt that he was a crap leader at the very best.

-=Mike

[Guest SP-1]

Kerry is one man. A man can be a crappy leader.

 

But not all men are crappy leaders. The good ones deserve to have it be an integral part of their leadership "package", so to speak.

 

Military leadership isn't as super important as other things. Men who have never had military experience can command troops extremely well, depending on the man and the mind and the heart. But it's still a pretty good experience point.

[Guest MikeSC]

Kerry is one man. A man can be a crappy leader.

 

But not all men are crappy leaders. The good ones deserve to have it be an integral part of their leadership "package", so to speak.

 

Military leadership isn't as super important as other things. Men who have never had military experience can command troops extremely well, depending on the man and the mind and the heart. But it's still a pretty good experience point.

I will state that our best war Presidents have had virtually no personal military experience. Lincoln's experience was, by his own admission, minimal. FDR had none that I'm aware of. Reagan was unable to serve due to, I believe, poor eyesight.

 

A great military commander is not needed to lead.

-=Mike

[Guest SP-1]

That's what I just said.

 

But downplaying the value of the experience doesn't work.