Unlike McCain, Bush, and Gore, while Kerry has adamantly refused to
authorize the release of his military records. Most think it's because of
his phony battle medals. I think the real reason is below. He was not
granted an Honorable Discharge until March 2001, almost 30 years after his
ostensible service term had ended! This is very much out of the ordinary,
and highly suspect.

There are 5 classes of Discharge: Honorable, General, Other Than
Honorable, Bad Conduct, and Dishonorable. My guess is that he was Discharged
in the '70s, but not Honorably. He appealed this sometime while Clinton was
doing trouser-tricks in the Oval Office. Political pressure was applied, and
the Honorable Discharge was then granted. His file is probably rife with
reports of this, submissions and hearings on the appeal, reports of his
"giving aid and comfort" to the enemy, along with protests that were filed
with respect to his alleged valor under fire.

This will blow up in his face before October 15th.

On 18 Feb. 1966 John Kerry signed a 6 year enlistment contract with the Navy
(plus a 6-month extension during wartime).

On 18 Feb. 1966 John Kerry also signed an Officer Candidate contract for 6
years -- 5 years of ACTIVE duty &ACTIVE Naval Reserves, and 1 year of
inactive standby reserves (See items #4 & #5).

Because John Kerry was discharged from TOTAL ACTIVE DUTY of only 3 years and
18 days on 3 Jan. 1970, he was then required to attend 48 drills per year,
and not more than 17 days active duty for training.

Kerry was also subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Additionally, Kerry, as a commissioned officer, was prohibited from making
adverse statements against his chain of command or statements against his
country, especially during time of war. It is also interesting to note that
Kerry did not obtain an honorable discharge until Mar. 12, 2001 even though
his service obligation should have ended July 1, 1972.

Lt. John Kerry's letter of 21 Nov. 1969 asking for an early release from
active US Navy duty falsely states "My current regular period of obligated
service would be completed in December of this year."

On Jan. 3, 1970 Lt. John Kerry was transferred to the Naval Reserve
Manpower Center in Bainbridge, Maryland.

Where are Kerry's Performance Records for 2 years of obligated Ready
Reserve, the 48 drills per year required and his 17 days of active duty per
year training while Kerry was in the Ready Reserves? Have these records been
released?

Has anyone ever talked to Kerry's Commanding Officer at the Naval Reserve
Center where Kerry drilled?

On 1 July 1972 Lt. John Kerry was transferred to Standby Reserve -Inactive.

On 16 February 1978 Lt. John Kerry was discharged from US Naval Reserve.

Below are some of the crimes Lt. Kerry USNR committed as a Ready Reservist,
while he was acting as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War:

1. Lt. Kerry attended many rallies where the Vietcong flag was displayed
while our flag was desecrated, defiled, and mocked, thereby giving aid and
comfort to the enemy.

2. Lt. Kerry was involved in a meeting that voted on assassinating members
of the US Senate.

3. Lt. Kerry lied under oath against fellow soldiers before the US Senate
about crimes committed in Vietnam.

4. Lt. Kerry professed to being a war criminal on national television, and
condemned the military and the USA.

5. Lt. Kerry met with NVA and Vietcong communist leaders in Paris, in direct
violation of the UCMJ and the U.S. Constitution.

Lt. Kerry by his own words & actions violated the UCMJ and the U.S. Code
while serving as a Navy officer. Lt. Kerry stands in violation of Article 3,
Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Lt. Kerry's 1970 meeting with NVA
Communists in Paris is in direct violation of the UCMJ's Article 104 part
904, and U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. 953. That meeting, and Kerry's subsequent
support of the communists while leading mass protests against our military
in the year that followed, also place him in direct violation of our
Constitution! 's Article 3, Section 3, which defines treason as "giving aid
and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare. The Constitution's Fourteenth
Amendment, Section 3, states, "No person
shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President
and Vice-President ... having previously taken an oath to support the
Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or
rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

I'm almost glad I stopped by to see if things have improved . . .

So you USanians have a choice between someone who might have lied about his
record in an unpopular war, and someone who lied about the reasons he
started an unpopular war . . . .

Hmm - what a conundrum . . . .

"New Geoff" m.gjb SPHERICAL wrote in message
...
I'm almost glad I stopped by to see if things have improved . . .

So you USanians have a choice between someone who might have lied about
his
record in an unpopular war, and someone who lied about the reasons he
started an unpopular war . . . .

Hmm - what a conundrum . . . .


Not really, since what you stated isn't true. There is no evidence that any
lies were told by Bush, only that he was given bad intel.

Of course neither candidate will be getting my vote, since I'll be voting
Libertarian.

In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Unlike McCain, Bush, and Gore, while Kerry has adamantly refused to
authorize the release of his military records. Most think it's because of
his phony battle medals. I think the real reason is below. He was not
granted an Honorable Discharge until March 2001, almost 30 years after his
ostensible service term had ended! This is very much out of the ordinary,
and highly suspect.

Which category would "PTI 961" indicate?

http://www.glcq.com/pti_961.htm

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Unlike McCain, Bush, and Gore, while Kerry has adamantly refused to
authorize the release of his military records. Most think it's because of
his phony battle medals. I think the real reason is below. He was not
granted an Honorable Discharge until March 2001, almost 30 years after
his
ostensible service term had ended! This is very much out of the ordinary,
and highly suspect.

Which category would "PTI 961" indicate?

http://www.glcq.com/pti_961.htm

When you find out let us know.

In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Unlike McCain, Bush, and Gore, while Kerry has adamantly refused to
authorize the release of his military records. Most think it's because of
his phony battle medals. I think the real reason is below. He was not
granted an Honorable Discharge until March 2001, almost 30 years after
his
ostensible service term had ended! This is very much out of the ordinary,
and highly suspect.

Which category would "PTI 961" indicate?

http://www.glcq.com/pti_961.htm

When you find out let us know.

Unfit to serve.

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Unlike McCain, Bush, and Gore, while Kerry has adamantly refused to
authorize the release of his military records. Most think it's because
of
his phony battle medals. I think the real reason is below. He was not
granted an Honorable Discharge until March 2001, almost 30 years after
his
ostensible service term had ended! This is very much out of the
ordinary,
and highly suspect.

Which category would "PTI 961" indicate?

http://www.glcq.com/pti_961.htm

When you find out let us know.

Unfit to serve.

Wrong.

"PTI" stands for "Personnel Transaction Identifier", a code which
"identifies the controlled personnel management action being accomplished
the personnel data system."!--[if !supportFootnotes]--[2]!--[endif]--
And although the particular meaning of "PTI 961" remains unknown, all "900"
series PTIs mean that someone is no longer considered part of "Air Force
strength."!--[if !supportFootnotes]--[3]

Even if it were true that it meant unfit for serve, that doesn't mean it's
necessarily because of something awful. It could mean something as simple
as a medical profile.

Michael McKelvy wrote:

Unlike McCain, Bush, and Gore, while Kerry has adamantly refused to
authorize the release of his military records. Most think it's because of
his phony battle medals. I think the real reason is below. He was not
granted an Honorable Discharge until March 2001, almost 30 years after his
ostensible service term had ended! This is very much out of the ordinary,
and highly suspect.

There are 5 classes of Discharge: Honorable, General, Other Than
Honorable, Bad Conduct, and Dishonorable. My guess is that he was Discharged
in the '70s, but not Honorably. He appealed this sometime while Clinton was
doing trouser-tricks in the Oval Office. Political pressure was applied, and
the Honorable Discharge was then granted. His file is probably rife with
reports of this, submissions and hearings on the appeal, reports of his
"giving aid and comfort" to the enemy, along with protests that were filed
with respect to his alleged valor under fire.

More likely it was a general discharge. NOthing special. HE massaged
a few people to get it upped a bit.

Nothing abnormal. Afterall, why are Secret Service personel guarding
the Saudi Embassy since Bush came into power? Lots of crap goes on
throughout all levels of our government.

Michael McKelvy wrote:


Even if it were true that it meant unfit for serve, that doesn't mean it's
necessarily because of something awful. It could mean something as simple
as a medical profile.

Or not showing up for a medical exam.

They guy is a rich arrogant neo-con with delusions that he's on some
sort of holy mission from God. I don't understand how any rational
person can support this sort of person being in power.

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
ink.net...


Michael McKelvy wrote:


Even if it were true that it meant unfit for serve, that doesn't mean
it's necessarily because of something awful. It could mean something as
simple as a medical profile.

Or not showing up for a medical exam.

They guy is a rich arrogant neo-con with delusions that he's on some
sort of holy mission from God. I don't understand how any rational
person can support this sort of person being in power.

Because Kerry is worse, in a different kind of way.

Michael McKelvy wrote:

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
ink.net...


Michael McKelvy wrote:



Even if it were true that it meant unfit for serve, that doesn't mean
it's necessarily because of something awful. It could mean something as
simple as a medical profile.

Or not showing up for a medical exam.

They guy is a rich arrogant neo-con with delusions that he's on some
sort of holy mission from God. I don't understand how any rational
person can support this sort of person being in power.


Because Kerry is worse, in a different kind of way.

Given that Kerry will no longer be making law(!) AND that
he has a Republican controlled House and Senate against
every move he might try to make, you are really daft if
you believe that this is a "worse" option. I see it as
a double-win compared to Bush's sneak it under the table
tactics.

Kerry should have eviscerated Bush in the last debate,
btw, about how there's a fine line between being resolute
and being fanatical. But he's trying keep from attacking
Bush as much as possible, trying to let Bush make the first
dirty moves.

Me? I'd have pounded Bush relentlessly. "I'd like to give up
my three minutes at this time to get a proper non-soundbite
response from him. He clearly didn't answer the question that
was just posed to him. I can see it from the confused look
on her face. She asked you to name three specific mistakes
that you had made and how you dealt with them, and not how
you would react to a potential mistake in the future.

Name three mistakes, Mr. President."

I can only have imagined Bush's face at that moment. But
nobody pushes him into a corner. Sigh.

Or

"I find it troubling that you let that slide, (referring to
the moderator). He spat another sound-bite at the American
Public instead of answering the question properly. Ask
him a real question that he can't wiggle his way out of."

That Bush stumbled several times and Kerry didn't follow up
like this is quite amazing, actually. That's one thing
Perot did when he was running - ask tough questions and get
in your face. Nobody seems willing or able to do so with
Bush, which is sad, since he's really quite unable to defend
himself once you get past his canned speech and catch-phrases,
provided you question him fast enough and don't let up.

I can't honestly think of supporting a candidate that can't
actually do anything more than regurgitate mantras and
catch-phrases and soundbites in a political debate.

Imagine if the following had taken place when talking about
Health Care.
"Mr. President, I frankly find your sound-bites to be
apallingly simplistic. I've been working on a healthcare
plan for the last(period of time more than a year) and in
fact I brought a copy with me. (pulls out an inch thick
proposal and tumps it down on the podium so that the
front of it is visible over the leading edge) It's all
here, in black and white. I challenge you to come up with
a comparable proposal my next week. If you've been working
on it as you claim, you should merely have to print out a
copy and bring it with you..."

You see, it's when I imagine scenarios like this, where Bush
is asked tough questions, that I see how shallow his act is.
True, this didn't happen, but you and I know the virtual meltdown
and blank stare that would have resulted. That Kerry didn't
go after him and get him to the point where he out-talked and
out-maneuvered this simpleton to the point of practically
babbling responses or asking for a time-out is amazing.

We all know Kerry could have, though, which brings us to a
very troubling question: Do we really want such a simpleton
who goes with his inflexible ideology and little else in
charge? Someone who couldn't really answer tough questions
with facts and examples? A President who honestly thinks
that "going it alone" is better than "doing the same thing
with our friends in addition"?

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
ink.net...


Michael McKelvy wrote:

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
ink.net...


Michael McKelvy wrote:



Even if it were true that it meant unfit for serve, that doesn't mean
it's necessarily because of something awful. It could mean something as
simple as a medical profile.

Or not showing up for a medical exam.

They guy is a rich arrogant neo-con with delusions that he's on some
sort of holy mission from God. I don't understand how any rational
person can support this sort of person being in power.


Because Kerry is worse, in a different kind of way.

Given that Kerry will no longer be making law(!) AND that
he has a Republican controlled House and Senate against
every move he might try to make, you are really daft if
you believe that this is a "worse" option.

I worry about the Supreme Cout Justices he might appoint.
Suppose he replaces Greenspan.

I see it as
a double-win compared to Bush's sneak it under the table
tactics.

Kerry should have eviscerated Bush in the last debate,
btw, about how there's a fine line between being resolute
and being fanatical. But he's trying keep from attacking
Bush as much as possible, trying to let Bush make the first
dirty moves.


You're smoking crack, if you believe he's trying to keep from attacking.

Me? I'd have pounded Bush relentlessly. "I'd like to give up
my three minutes at this time to get a proper non-soundbite
response from him. He clearly didn't answer the question that
was just posed to him. I can see it from the confused look
on her face. She asked you to name three specific mistakes
that you had made and how you dealt with them, and not how
you would react to a potential mistake in the future.

Name three mistakes, Mr. President."


The only reason the question was asked was to try and get a sound bite for
the Dems, no way he should have answered it.

Here's the link to the actual report:

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pr...w_9_29_04.html

Worth a look.