looks like the $hit is hittin 'the ye olde fan'

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/.../2/120951.shtml

Thursday, Sept. 2, 2004 12:08 a.m. EDT
Navy Challenging Kerry's Medals

The United States Navy is challenging the authenticity of Sen. John Kerry's Vietnam War medals, in a development that could prove to be the most damaging yet to the embattled Democrat's presidential campaign.

A Navy spokesman is calling Kerry's Silver Star citation with Combat V "incorrect" as it appears on his campaign Web site, explaining in an interview with Chicago Sun-Times reporter Thomas Lipscomb that the Navy has never issued a Combat V at any time for the Silver Star.

The Navy also is questioning the listing on Kerry’s Web site of four bronze campaign stars for his service in Vietnam. The official naval record credits Kerry with just two Vietnam campaigns.
"That is sufficient for the wearing of the Vietnam Service Medal for one campaign bearing one campaign star for the additional campaign — not four," reports Lipscomb in today's New York Sun.

Kerry's campaign has repeatedly cited the Navy as the ultimate authority on the candidate's war record, saying the Navy wouldn't have awarded him medals he didn't deserve.

But with the Navy now publicly challenging Kerry's decorations, that defense has been rendered inoperative.

Noting that Kerry has refused to authorize the release of his full military records, the legal watchdog group Judicial Watch called on Kerry this week to remove any questionable citations from his Web site pending a formal investigation by the Navy.

"It is to your best interest to have your record in good order," Gen. Thomas Wilkerson, the president of the U.S. Naval Institute, told Lipscomb. "If it is wrong, you are accountable. And if you use it to advance your career, it is even more important.”

This article has the tone of News Max or even Drudge. It is true that his silver star shouldn't have a "v" but that is only listed on the DD 214 and could be a clerical error. I know nothing about the stars for Vietnam tours but if I'm right about the source of this slimy piece, then it probably isn't anything substantive.

I posted the same thing here
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000458

I think its funny that when a publication is not coherent with our political affiliations it is "slimy." I admit I can be guilty of it too, I just think its funny.

Man I am having this argument twice See above link

I'm not attacking the source. I simply don't believe an outfit with such little cred without some other verification. To do otherwise would be to give meaning to something that is wholly not worthy of either the meaning nor of my attention. Sorry, dude.

Since the link doesn't work, I am left with some doubt as to the validity of the story. We'll see if it reaches the real media.

But there is at least some factual basis...you admit yourself the issue aboulout the combat V. Its just interesting how we, as human beings, naturally look for what we want to see. Even while you agree with the error, you are quick to dismiss it as a "clerical error" and move on to say its "slime," while someone from the opposite spectrum would ignore the fact that the source is questionable and point out the error as of great significance. I personally am pretty indifferent as to his medals' status as I think we would be better served by looking at our candidates performances in the past ten years rather than thirty years ago. The only reason I am pointing these things out is because it is an interesting facet of politics, and human psychology.

Flying fish, you are right on. It is a rare individual who can see both sides of an issue, or who can approach a contentious issue with an open mind. I'm not sure I pass that test all the time.

So what is your point about "an interesting facet of politics and human psychology" ? While it may be true that we as human beings look for what we want to see, we do so quite willfully, as on some level we "know" what is fair and what is true. But to go with what we really do know to be true requires us to surrender what we want to be true and almost nobody will do that, such is the pull of what we want. To do so takes real moral courage, the kind of which Bush's god was famous. The real argument in this case isn't really about the medals, but about who is telling the truth and that goes directly to your interest of looking at the candidates performance in the last 10 years. And on this point, I think it is clear that those disparaging Kerry's service are being disingenuous as all of the documentary evidence supports Kerry's version of events and the Swift Boat Veterans have been discredited on many levels. But more important is Bush's denial of having had anything to do with these folks and the "sliming" of Kerry for political reasons. It so fits the pattern of all the campaigns Bush has been in and all of the connections of the SBV with his Texas friends that it is one of the things that we all "know " to be true, Bush's responsibility for these attacks. And that gets to the issue that is most important to voters in this election in these particular times, who has more courage, both physical and moral. I think any honest observer knows what is true on that score, and if you think the answer is Bush, I suggest you be more honest with yourself, first.

------------------------------------------------------------

"From the mouths of two it must be true"
------------------------------------------------------------
Here's a re-posting of story I posted on another thread:
------------------------------------------------------------
Navy Probes Kerry Medal
Friday, September 03, 2004

NEW YORK — In what has been described by Navy officials as a routine process, the Pentagon's inspector general's office on Thursday referred to the secretary of the Navy a request to investigate medals won by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (search) during the Vietnam War.

Government watchdog group Judicial Watch (search) submitted the request for an investigation. Navy sources said the service will probe the medals, but added that most questions have arisen because of what appear to be errors in processing records.

Kerry received five medals during his four months in combat in Vietnam. Judicial Watch asked the Pentagon to investigate Kerry's receipt of the Silver Star with a "Combat V" designation (search), which stands for valor under fire.

Kerry's campaign Web site includes military records listing the Combat V citation. Navy procedures show that the Silver Star cannot carry a Combat V designation because part of the reason the medal is awarded is for valor under fire — the added designation would be redundant. The findings of the probe, therefore, will not change the record of Kerry's Vietnam service.

In a letter to Judicial Watch, the inspector general's office said: "Concerning our allegations of violations of Uniform Code of Military Justice (search), we have the responsibility to ... 'report suspected or alleged violations.' We have informed the secretary of the Navy of the allegations."


Kerry campaign adviser Michael Meehan released a statement to FOX News that criticized the attention being paid to the request.

"The facts are clear, the Navy awarded John Kerry the Silver Star, a Bronze Star with a Combat V and three Purple Hearts. It is waste of taxpayer's dollars and the Pentagon's time, especially during wartime, to investigate a 35-year-old Navy clerical error," the statement reads.

The Navy has said that it's the responsibility of all personnel to correct errors in official records.

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."

Judicial Watch representatives said the group also wants an investigation into Kerry's third citation for the same Silver Star. In 1986, Kerry received the third citation after requesting a copy of his original citations. This one carried the signature and some additional words of praise under the signature of then-Navy Secretary John Lehman (search).

In a statement to FOX News, Lehman, who served on the Sept. 11 commission that investigated pre-2001 terror attack intelligence failings, said he had no idea why Kerry received a third citation under his signature, and that Navy records should be "thoroughly researched and the facts established."

Meanwhile, in an exclusive interview with FOX News, former President George H.W. Bush said questions raised about Kerry's protests against the Vietnam War were legitimate, and he saw nothing wrong with airing a TV ad assailing Kerry's anti-war testimony by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (search), a loosely regulated, independent political action group known as a 527.

"My view is the advertisement showing Senator Kerry as a young veteran coming back and using his own words to describe atrocities committed by his own soldiers, sailors, marines or whatever it is, is devastating," Bush said.

Bush 41 also said Kerry owes the nation and Vietnam veterans an apology.

"I think it is not enough to say, well, I made a youthful indiscretion, and I think Senator Kerry ought to apologize."

FOX News' Major Garrett contributed to this report

This sounds like the definition of a "clerical error" to me !! concerning the rest of this Fox "Fair and Balanced" news article, I would just remind people of the uproar over the bogus charges against Sandy Berger and the final outcome of that story, so fully reported on Faux News...

LT,

Missed the most important point. I know it's hard to fathom for the do what I say not what I do libs but try anyhow.

"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."

I didn't miss anything, here. I shouldn't need to point out the difference between failing to catch a simple clerical error and intentional misrepresentation. There is absolutely no evidence, other than the cheap insinuation in the Faux article, as to Kerry intentionally misleading anyone. On the contrary, the Navy's own attitude toward this is exactly right and consistent with my own. This is a very good example of why Fox has zero cred as a real news org and is, in fact recognized to be a mouth piece of the RNC. This is why studies have shown that those who get their news exclusively from Fox have a greater tendency to believe that WMD's have been found in Iraq and Iraq's links to Al-Qaeda have been proven when infact, no such evidence has been found.

Does it not become intentional if you do not correct it. I made a cash deposit at my bank once of $15,000 and the teller gave me a reciept for a $150,000.00 I did not look at it. A week later my wife checks our balance and it is $150k too high. If I had not reported it or spent the money I would have been guilty of theft. A clerical error that could have put me in jail for doing nothing.

oh, please. you are assuming that this issue is seen as being as important by others as you seem to think it is. If you look at the attitude taken by the Navy, they called it a routine process initiated only because there was a complaint filed. If the story had said that the complaint was first lodged with Kerry and it was ignored, that would be evidence of intention. There really are more important issues in this election, you know.

LT,

Kerry (after 'Unfit for Command' was published)
has changed his version of the purported reason he deserved two of his Purple Hearts--He now acknowledges that the 'enemy fire/schapnel' that is required to get a Purple Heart (that he origanally reported) was really

1.) from a grenade HE (self- inflicted) threw into a supply of rice (rice schapnel) and from

2.)a grenade HE (self-inflicted) threw to close to his own boat.

He also wore his formal Medals while in combat fatigues while at the Fullbright Senate hearing--Another example of, "wrongly wearing the medals" that he accused someone else of doing and said it was a, "severe error in judgement"

That's why the following words are so damning--there also his (Kerry's) own:
------------------------------------------------------------
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."--KERRY

LT,

Kerry could drop a deuce on the stage in the middle of the debates and the libs would defend it as freedom of expression and call it comedy. If GW did it it would be a ecological hazard and a soon to be superfund site.

This is trivial and I am done with this