I know of one veteran who was totally unswayed by Kerry's speech to the American Legion yesterday. A blistering rebuke by Ralph Peters, retired Army officer:Vets for Sale? September 2, 2004 -- YESTERDAY, in front of the American Legion's Na tional Convention, John Kerry made his most disgraceful speech since he lied about atrocities to Congress three decades ago. By making promises he doesn't mean and can't keep, he tried to buy the votes of American veterans. Had he offered each vet a $5 bill and a shot of whisky for their support, his performance could not have been shabbier. Before getting to a few examples of his breathtaking cynicism, let's put two crucial questions to the junior senator from Massachusetts: First question: Sen. Kerry, will you admit that you lied to Congress and the American people when you stated that our troops routinely committed atrocities, and that rape, torture and murder were sanctioned by our military chain of command? Second question: Will you apologize to our Vietnam-era veterans for the lies you told? This means a direct, no-waffling, public apology. Will you tell our vets, the living and the dead, that you're sorry? Of course not. John Kerry wants to have it both ways. But he isn't going to get the military vote. Perhaps the best line making its way around veterans' Web sites these days is: "A Kerry defeat would be the welcome-home parade we never had." Kerry's so shameless that he once again tried to associate himself with John McCain, a true American hero, in his remarks. He almost made it sound as if they'd been in a North Vietnamese prison together. But Kerry's brother-in-arms isn't Sen. McCain. It's the naval hero of Chappaquiddick. Kerry's speech to the veterans was condescending in other ways, too. It assumed that vets are so stupid they can't do basic math. Kerry claimed he'd reduce the deficit, while expanding the military and buying every weapons system in sight, increasing veterans' benefits, bringing health care to all Americans and, of course, creating millions of new jobs that pay phenomenally well. Would you mind explaining how, senator? Specific promises Kerry made were outright nonsense. He claimed he'd double the size of our special operations forces. Sounds great. But to do so would rob regular line units of critically needed, experienced NCOs and officers, fatally compromise the high standards of our special operators and take at least a decade — unless he means to ruin special ops entirely. And Kerry's going to increase our ground forces by 40,000 troops. Good idea. But he's not going to send them to Iraq, you understand. Having it both ways again. Kerry said we should never go to war without a plan to win the peace. Agreed. But where was he 18 months ago, when such a criticism could have made a difference? Back then, he was voting for the war. Before he opposed it. Before supporting it again. Now he's against it again. Although he supports our troops, of course. Does Kerry have no shame at all? No spine, whatsoever? Is it possible to be nothing but a bundle of pure ambition, with no shred of ethics? Is Kerry so hungry for office that he'll change any position to buy a vote? If President Bush shocks the Republican Convention tonight by coming out in favor of gay marriage, Kerry will immediately back a constitutional amendment to outlaw it. Even on their worst day — and they've had some bad ones — the Bushies actually believe in a few things. Kerry's the guy who, at the beginning of August, stated that we need to withdraw troops from Germany and South Korea. Then, as soon as President Bush announced a plan to do so, Kerry thundered against the idea. Confronted with his own remarks — made only two weeks earlier — he claimed that, well, yes, he thought we should withdraw troops, only not the way the president proposed to do it. The guy is an eel in a vat of olive oil. Yesterday, John Kerry tried to pander to America's heroes, conveniently forgetting that he'd trashed them for political gain, then shortchanged them throughout his Senate career. Suddenly, Kerry was the man who had fought for benefits for his fellow Vietnam vets, the man who felt their pain (Kerry makes Bill Clinton look like a paragon of integrity). The only veterans' benefit young John Kerry fought for was the right of vets to be spit upon in public. Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer and a regular Post contributor.
Looks like Kerry is about to be investigated by the Secretary of the Navy on at least one of his medals. Hopefully the truth is about to come out on this guy. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40272 Kerry medal complaint reaches Navy secretary Probe request comes as ex-chief Lehman calls Silver Star citation 'complete mystery' -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: September 2, 2004 1:25 p.m. Eastern By Art Moore © 2004 WorldNetDaily.com The Department of Defense says it has informed Secretary of the Navy Gordon R. England of a formal request to investigate alleged military code violations in Sen. John Kerry's Silver Star award. The request was made by the public interest group Judicial Watch after news reports revealed Kerry's campaign website displays a document listing a "Silver Star with combat 'V'" even though the combat "V" device is never given with the nation's third highest award for heroism. Also, there are three citations for the award, with the third, issued more than a decade after the event, bearing the signature of former Navy Secretary John Lehman. Lehman, however, says he had nothing to do with the citation. "It is a total mystery to me," he told the Chicago Sun-Times. "I never saw it. I never signed it. I never approved it. And the additional language it contains was not written by me." Jerome Corsi, author of "Unfit for Command," the New York Times No. 1 best-seller by Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, told WorldNetDaily he considers the Judicial Watch complaint "an important and serious investigation." "We believe the secretary of the Navy will validate the charges we've made in 'Unfit for Command,'" he said. In its letter to Judicial Watch, the inspector general of the Defense Department cited Section 8(d) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, which states "the IG of the Department of Defense shall expeditiously report suspected or alleged violations of chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (Uniform Code of Military Justice), to the Secretary of the military department concerned or the Secretary of Defense." Judicial Watch filed the complaint Aug. 18 and then, Aug. 31, called on Kerry to remove the Silver Star citation from his campaign website pending a review of the U.S. Navy's granting of the award. "We hope that this is the beginning of the actual investigation into the legitimacy of Kerry's awards," Chris Farrell, Judicial Watch's director of investigations and research, told WND. "Any investigation that finally uncovers the facts and lays out the ground-level truth of the story behind these medals is good for the American public," he said. "We just need the unvarnished truth to come out." Gary Comerford, spokesman for the Defense Department's inspector general, told WND the inspector general has simply processed the complaint. "We get a lot of complaints," he said. "When they come in, we look at each one and forward it to where the information is." But Farrell, a former Army officer, says he sees the speed of the response as an indication that the investigation has a chance to go forward. "My experience has been that normally there is a tendency with a large military bureaucracy for these things to languish or for there to not be a tremendous sense of urgency," he said. He noted that in the course of Judicial Watch's many investigations, requests often have taken years to generate a response. "The fact that they are reacting in a relatively quick way, we find very encouraging," he said. Navy spokesman Lt. Ohene Gyapong told WND he could not comment immediately and would call back later.
No, what the story said is that a request to investigate has been received from some watchdog group. The DOD only promises to process the request. "We get a lot of complaints," he said. "When they come in, we look at each one and forward it to where the information is." I actually hope they do investigate it and make it public. Navy records from the time are quite complete and specific. Hearsay mudslinging from people who weren't even there, during a political campaign three decades later will have no bearing on the matter. Records documenting George Bush's loss of flight status and glaring year-long absence from the National Guard during wartime are conveniently missing.
This is what seems a little fishy to me. Maybe the guy forgot; I'm sure he signed a lot of papers he didn't really read. Even so, why would he deny it? Plus it was more than 10 years after the fact. Even you have to admit all this doesn't add up. Also, there are three citations for the award, with the third, issued more than a decade after the event, bearing the signature of former Navy Secretary John Lehman. Lehman, however, says he had nothing to do with the citation. "It is a total mystery to me," he told the Chicago Sun-Times. "I never saw it. I never signed it. I never approved it. And the additional language it contains was not written by me."
Nice Quotes by John Kerry A bit prophetic, I would say. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131319,00.html In 1996, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jeremy Boorda committed suicide when he learned that a reporter was about to disclose he had wrongly worn two Combat V pins on a Bronze Star, a medal that does not denote valor under fire. At the time, Kerry told the Boston Herald that wrongly wearing the medals is a severe error in judgment. "Is it wrong? Yes, it is very wrong. Sufficient to question his leadership position? The answer is yes," he is quoted as saying. Kerry also spoke to the Boston Globe about the matter. "If you wind up being less than what you're pretending to be, there is a major confrontation with value, self-esteem and your sense of how others view you."
