1 Well, I just read the articles. The problem is that no one thought of this sooner. He has a copy of his DD214 as do I but, the DoD would take forever to release his 214 even if he did sign the form 180.

2 I can't wait to hear about how it is, "fundamentally unfair for these charges to be brought forward at this late date." They will ignore that everyone on the net has been asking for Kerry to sign the standard form 180 forever just like he promised to Chris Matthews all those months ago. When history looks back I think the big problem for MSM is how did Kerry get away with not fully releasing his records during the campaign? (If this becomes a big story anyway)

3 I also just got word (can't stop laughing) that the Kerry Campaign (still laughing) is putting together another (oh, my gut is hurting) AWOL commercial together (hahahahahahahahaha). This thing is going to be a blowout!

4 What? Some more fabricated BS from the swiftvets? Isn't everyone kind of tired of the BS? KERRY went, Bush DIDN'T. Enough said.

5 Hey Rick Fabrication? Hardly! Your candidate is a fraud. Just because he spent four months in a war zone (and while there FALSIFIED his participation in combat) doesn't mean a damn thing. YES... we're all tired of the KERRY BS. And, we're tired of you liberals attempting to legitimize a candidate who qualifies for trial under the UCMJ. YOUR candidate has admitted his first Purple Heart was fraudulent. If not for the Swift Boat Veterans, YOUR candidate would have never admitted this. By the way, Kerry's own bio contradicts his "heroics". Read!! YOUR candidate has refused to sign a Standard Form 180. If the Swift Boat Vets were lying... Kerry's signature on a SF180 would sink their boat and he could let the world read about what a hero he is. A simple signature. THE PROBLEM with Kerry signing his SF180 - He's got to much to hide. You know it and we all know it. This is about CHARACTER. I encourage you to search for Kerry's positive character traits. Since the best place to start is deep in the bowels of the democrat party, grab a bright, reliable flashlight and dozens of extra batteries. You'll need them. It's going to be a L-O-N-G search. Watch your step down there, you may trip over Kennedy or Daschle. As long as you're passing through this consecrated ground, you probably should take a look at all their senatorial voting records. By the way - since you sound like a Clinton democrat... CLINTON FLED - ENOUGH SAID! Wake up! MJ Bee

6 This is off topic but I wanted to highlight this: "We are trying to break this absolutely true story nationwide, i.e., Fox News, C-Span, and hopefully the major networks. We are positive that John Kerry was one of those dishonorably dismissed from the Navy for collaborating with the Viet Cong after he was released from active duty but still in the Navy and for a totally unauthorized trip to Hanoi. He later got an "honorable" separation in 1978, some 12 years after joining the Navy, under President Carter's "Amnesty Program" for draft dodgers, deserters, and other malcontents who fled to Canada and Holland, among other places, to avoid military service to our country." http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1262686/posts

7 I'm no Kerry fan, but why NOW? Why not 6 mos. ago when it could've affected the election? Seems everyone's coming out of the woodwork, even Osama...to find something wrong with either candidate. I've heard it was a discharge, but not necessarily a "dishonorable" one. We'll see.

8 Rick- you're wrong. Bush served HONORABLY in the Texas ANG. Kerry served DISHONORABLY and would have served his country better if he hadn't gone to Vietnam. Don't wince when I criticize someone who "put their life on the line for our country." That's a bullsh%^t talking point. I did 12 months (not 4) in Iraq, and I'm into my 3rd month in Kuwait- I've seen a few John Kerry's in my time. How about our "heroic soldiers" who abused the prisoners in Iraq and took the photos for all the world to see? They served more than most people. Like Kerry, some of them performed an act of courage here and there. Should they be honored? Absolutely not!!! Their lame-brained sex games caused countless insurgents to take up arms against us and kill who-knows-how-many American soldiers. To make a blanket statement along the lines of "anyone who served should be honored" is just plain ignorant. There are bad apples in every bunch, and the sad truth is that there is a small minority of soldiers in every American war that did more to hurt the cause than to help. John Kerry is one of those bad apples. "Why" you ask? Well, it has nothing to do with the fact that he lied to get medals. As a leader/officer in wartime, one must ensure that soldiers know one thing above all else- that their leaders are looking out for them. The soldiers must believe that the ones in charge will devote every last breath, drop of blood, bead of sweat to ensure the soldiers' safety during the course of the mission. John Kerry did no such thing. He got 3 band-aid wounds, and promptly headed home. Remember- 3 Purple Hearts gave one the choice to leave- it was not obligatory. Let's also remember that Kerry went after those Purple Hearts like a man possesed. One commander refused to give him one, so he waited until he had a different commander and then asked again. What kind of message did that send to his sailors and all the other enlisted sailors in his unit? I'll tell you what message it sent- "officers look out for themselves." Officers will get rattled and say "OK good luck guys! I'm outta here!!" Apparently a handful (maybe 9 out of about 300?) of the sailors he served with have forgiven him. Understandable, given the fact that he delivered those troops a national cheering audience that was more than 30 years overdue (at the DNC). But I'll tell you who will NEVER forgive him for what he did- the officers who served with him. He complicated their efforts, he hurt their unit's morale, he put their lives in danger, and he quickly rubbed salt in their wounds by coming home and bashing the ones who were brave enough to stay behind and do their duty. He had an anti-war agenda before he even joined the Navy. He used his credibility as an officer to propagate outrageous theories that hurt the ones who were still held captive, and caused years of unfair bias and hard feelings toward thousands of brave and honorable vets after they returned home. He did all of this in order to win political fame and favor in the Democratic Party. It was his ticket to the big time, and he cashed it without a second thought. Reprehensible in every sense of the word. Say what you want about whether or not he deserved his medals- I could care less. As a leader in the US Military, he was an insult to our profession. He would have served his country much better by never having gone to Vietnam. Bush is no war hero- he doesn't claim to be. Kerry claims to be a war hero- when he's actually a cowardly opportunistic traitor. Kerry went Bush didn't? Sorry, it's a little more complicated than that...but thanks for trying.

9 Thanx, 2Slick, finally a voice from someone who was THERE. May God bless and protect you...seems He already has. I hope Kerry gets thrown out of the race...is that possible??? Too late, I guess.

10 3 cheers for 2slick. After Bush is re-elected maybe we can do more to help you wonderful guys. Kerry's still helping our countries enemies. You hit the nail on the head. Political gain and whoever you hurt doesn't count. Another thing. Bush did try. Bush tried to get over there. Kerry tried to get back here.

11 From media matters: Swift Boat Vets edited its website to conceal contradiction MMFA spotted Three days after Media Matters for America first reported that the website of anti-Kerry group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth contradicted the account of the group's star witness -- retired Rear Admiral William L. Schachte Jr., who claims he was the commander on the December 2, 1968, mission for which the U.S. Navy awarded Senator John Kerry his first Purple Heart -- Swift Boat Veterans for Truth altered its website's account of the incident to make it consistent with Schachte's version of events. According to Schachte, Kerry did not deserve the award because the "skimmer" he supposedly commanded that night did not receive enemy fire, and Kerry's wound was the result of Kerry's own improper use of an M-79 grenade launcher. The original version of the account on the Swift Boat Vets website begins: The action that led to John Kerry's first Purple Heart occurred on December 2, 1968, during the month that he was undergoing training with Coastal Division 14 at Cam Ranh Bay. While waiting to receive his own Swift boat command, Kerry volunteered for a nighttime patrol mission commanding a small, foam-filled "skimmer" craft with two enlisted men. As MMFA explained, this description matches Kerry's own account, as well as the account of Patrick Runyon and William Zaladonis, two enlisted men who insist that: (1) Schachte was not on the skimmer; (2) that Kerry was in command; and (3) that Runyon and Zaladonis were the only other people besides Kerry on the small craft. The new, altered version of the Swift Boat Vets account reads: The action that led to John Kerry's first Purple Heart occurred on December 2, 1968, during the month that he was undergoing training with Coastal Division 14 at Cam Ranh Bay. While waiting to receive his own Swift boat command, Kerry volunteered for a nighttime patrol mission on a small, foam-filled "skimmer" craft under the command of Lt. William Schachte. The two officers were accompanied by an enlisted man who operated the outboard motor. The Web page's footer reads: "Last Updated Monday, August 30 2004 @ 09:09 PM PDT." -- three days after MMFA's item appeared. In addition to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's own website, MMFA has noted that other evidence substantially undermines Schachte and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's attack on Kerry's first Purple Heart. MMFA has extensively documented and refuted Swift Boat Vets' attacks on Kerry in the media.

12 I did a posting on Kerry's records that he has released and are on his website, the DD214. Blocks IÂ’m not all that fond of all these questions surrounding Kerry service. Each time a question is asked it seems to only uncover more questions and more mysteries. I seriously wonder why Kerry will not release his full records and let us see his ORIGINAL DD-214. This document will put to rest any questions about what medals he had at the time of his discharge and the status of his discharge, but most importantly, it will reveal his REC code. The Re-Enlistment Classification code is how the military defines wither or not you can re-up. A 1 in the best and is like saying they hate to see you go, a 4 is saying they canÂ’t get rid of you fast enough. IÂ’d like to know if this prospective CinC would have been eligible to even go back into the Navy. Later I followed up with this: Kerry HAS released a DD-214, but a few interesting facts. Block 15 of the form is the Re-enlistment Code, his blank. I'm not sure how that ever happens, it is supposed to be filled in and is one of the most important blocks on the form. Second note is that Block 13a states the character of service and discharge type, his is Honarable and 13b reads see notes below. When you read the notes it states: "No Discharge Cirtificate issued at this time" What the hell does that mean? He got out of the Navy without getting a discharge? Could some PN out there please explaine that to me?

13 MMFA is a liberal Kerry supporting organization that could not be trusted any more than the PLO. Using them to support facts is pretty dumb. MMFA wasn't there. The Swiftvets were. The fact that Kerry the traitor needs to defend his orginal other than honorable discharge is proof enough. We all know is orginal discharge classification was upgraded during the Carter amesty program. WHERE IS THE RE-ENLISTMENT CLASSIFICATION ON HIS DD-214??????????? He's a dog trying to hide his dis-service to this country until after the election. The same goes for those trying to help him hide it.

14 Hey all, Thanks, but I think you guys are doing a great job for us already. Just keep our guy in the White House, and everything will work out fine. I was just surfing BeldarBlog, and I crafted a letter to Kerry. I really like it, and I was thinking I should put it up on my own site. Although my fiance would kill me for the profanity. But this is one of those cases where strong verbage is absolutely required. Here it is (with spelling corrections and minor edits): Dear Senator Kerry, Thank you for your interest in becoming our next Commander in Chief. I can see that your military experience, combined with your long and storied political career, has made you extremely "fit for command." For instance, you used to be just some young kid who accused your fellow officers and sailors of beheading people and/or castrating them- without offering a shred of evidence to back it up. Now, you merely accuse the soldiers you wish to lead of being grossly incompetent for failing to plan post-hostility operations in Iraq (funny I worked on such a plan, and I thought it was a decent one), failing to capture bin Laden when we had him surrounded (wow, you must be really smart, because nobody else seems to have this information), and most recently- failing to guard your mysterious explosives. And now you even back up your accusations with evidence- reliable sources like the NY Times and even CBS!!! You have certainly come a long way, and you obviously know what it takes to motivate us soldiers to rally around your cause. Hey, in case you win, should I start learning to speak french? I hear those frenchies will be coming to the Middle East in droves once you're elected. They're gonna love it over here- just about every bit of weaponry and ammo that we find over here has french writing on it! And, trust me, we're gonna LOVE working for you. Given the manner in which you aggressively spit in our faces these past few months (especially this past week) and the way you skewered my "Ghengis Kahn" father who served only two years in Vietnam (as opposed to 4 whole months), you can count on me and the rest of my military brethren for PLENTY of support once you take office. Look forward to working with you, Sir- CPT 2Slick, Army Aviator P.S. I was at OBJ Dogwood with the 101st in April of 2003. Sorry we failed to guard your "forged" explosives. Asshole. What say you? Should I send it to him?

15 When it comes down to it. Should a soldier get a purple heart for stubbing his toe in the barracks? How bad could Kerry's (probably self inflicted wounds have been)? Three in three months without a stay in the hospital. It is known that he was able to go from place to place attempting to circumvent the system to receive purple hearts. What a phoney! His is a slab in the face to all service men now and in the past.

16 Liberal, me? I wear that title as a badge of honor. I hope that everyone who feels that there is nothing wrong with having compassion for my fellow man and caring about the future of those who have less than I am fortunate to have feel proud that that they are liberal. Most of the problems in this world stem from greed and religious crackpots who try to force their beliefs on others. George Bush fits into both categories. As the matter fact most (not all, of course)Republicans fit into both categories. When I was young inexperienced and uneducated, I fell for their lines of BS. I even voted for Richard Nixon! I have been many places in America and the world as well. I have seen the suffering of people at home and abroad. What I hear from the republicans is how much we do to make the world a better place. How we spend so much on foreign aid, etc. The facts are that we don't do much at all. We send in American troops to protect the wealth of the few rich, in essence to make sure they stay rich. We force our way of life on those who do not want it. That's called democracy by Republicans. The fact is that it started with the Native Americans and has continued since then. For those of you who are from an Anglo-Saxon heritage, there is nothing wrong with that, those who have been trampled see it the other way. The wealthy see globalization as a great thing. They can have better control of people and their minds if they create a global institution that the people can't fight against. The Bush Dynasty and other wealthy families like the Saudi Royals see the benefit of a "War on Terror." They can use the military power of the world to contain not just terrorist but the peoples of the world as well. Think about it, the Patriot Act is aimed at doing precisely that. It disables some of your rights. It is no mistake that they called it the "Patriot Act." In a time of national grief after the 9-11 attacks they strategically passed this group of laws. Who could possibly stand up against something called the Patriot Act? A smart move on their part. Then without legal process they lock people up for indeterminate periods. Calling them enemy combatants. They were not given trials to convict them of a crime and they certainly were not innocent until proven guilty. This is the standard of the Bush Administration. They approved policies that allowed for the humiliation of these non-convicted prisoners. That is the standard of the Bush administration. What makes any of you think that they would not do the same to any of you? The Republican masses out there probably think that doing these things is OK. The end justifies the means. That's the same way the German people looked at things when the Nazi's took over Europe. I am NOT saying that all Republicans are Nazi's. I am saying that those who blindly follow are usually lead down the wrong path. History has proven that time after time. What qualifies George W. Bush as a Leader? A stolen election? His highly questionable Air National Guard duty? His highly recognized ability as an orator and strategic thinker? He fails in all areas of policy, Foreign and Domestic and fiscal. The only thing that GW has going for him is his family's power and wealth. If it wasn't for that, GW would have been a collossal failure. He has proven that time and time again in private life. Daddy has bought his way out of trouble on more than one occasion. You say he's a changed man? I agree. He has learned that if you tell the sheep that you are a man of God then they will believe you. As for the swiftvets claims about John Kerry, I have seen nothing they have produced thus far that I believe. They have been connected to the Republican Party. I would doubt the Republicans would support or finance the truth about their opposition. I can see why you Republicans out there who support the Non-winner would be in support of anyone who says John Kerry was anything less than honorable. Of course those who feel that we won the Viet Nam war are going to be happy to see something bad said about the guy who went before Congress and told the truth about what was going on in Viet Nam. Does anyone really doubt that there were not atrocities in Viet Nam? The blindly led few who disagree with the facts like Mi Lai and other documented atrocities, of course call anyone who says the truth a Commie Liberal. Anyone who disagrees with them about anything is a Commie Liberal! So much for freedom of speech. All of you people who want to label people need to pull your nose out of Bush's A_ _ and get some oxygen to your brain. I am not saying that John Kerry is the best person for the job of president. He has his faults as well. I am saying that George Bush is NOT even close to being the best man for the job. We have seen what he has going for him and it isn't much at all. He falls short on many of the leadership skills required to do the job. In short he doesn't have a clue as to what he is doing. I am a strong LIBERAL and proud of it. You better believe that there are plenty of us out here. We see what Bush is doing and will continue to fight in support of anyone who is trying to stop his destruction of our freedoms in order to stay in power. They are a potent force but so are we liberals. You can make liberalism sound like a disease but the fact is that without us the world be a police state. Hmmm. Is Bush moving us more in that direction? No doubt about it! God help us if he re-elected.

17 Greyrooster You are probably right to the extent that Purple hearts were awarded to many soldiers in Viet nam for even the most trivial injuries. The fact is that many soldiers joked about it. I probably would have injected a little less bragging about a purple heart if I was Kerry. That doesn't make him a phoney, that makes him a politician. George Bush doesn't have any right to brag about his "military service" either. Who cares about what happened 30+ years ago anyway? What is happening today and tomorrow? That is what is important. The 60's and 70's were a time of great national turmoil. You couldn't get 5 people to agree on anything. There were too many issues, just as there are today.

18 Notice the bitching by the liberals and have nots. The republicans are to blame for everything wrong in this country, oh, yea now the world too. Yet the spokepersons of the liberals always seek wealth. Hanoi Jane marries Ted Turner. Kerry marries Heinz. Fine honorable people they seek out. Clinton the self absorbed jerk who couldn't keep it in his pants while representing the nation that allowed him to leave the gutter and become president. Did he serve his country? The Rev. Ha, ha, Ha, Jesse Jackson. Who spend money collected to help impoverished blacks on a expensive house for his lover. Did he serve his country? Kerry, who called his brothers in harms way baby killers and coerced with the enemy. A man who openly solicited medals thru the back door. A traitor to all Vietnam vets. He didn't serve? Ask a vet. Ted Kennedy. I still want to know the truth about Mary Jo. Did he serve his country? Bush, not perfect by long shot. Its easy to shoot someone in the drivers seat when you're sitting in back of the bus. But someone has to stick his neck out and drive or you go nowhere. PERHAPS IF THE LIBERALS EVER HAD THE BRAINS TO FOLLOW A DESCENT PERSON PEOPLE WOULD LISTEN TO THEM.

19 RICK: Who cares about the past? The best indicator of a person's future behavior is his past behavior. Psychology 101. Didn't learn much in that boring class, but I did learn that.

20 RICK: I believe you miss the point. George Bush isn't bragging about his military service. Kerry is (WAS) ha, ha. He seems to be avoiding the issue now. Hell! get real! everyone knows most of the rich boys tried to avoid military service. The most used was college deferment if they could stay in school long enough. I went to Marine Corps(hurrah!)boot camp with RICKY NELSON, THE EVERLY BROTHERS AND JOE DIMAGGIO'S SON. Why were they serving their country? Because they were on the 6 & 6 program. If you served 6 mos active duty, you then got 6 years inactive and avoided the draft. Only rich boys that wanted to go to Nam were those that aspired to political office. But remember, the poor boys went to Canada. So who was worse? We had Canadians joining the Marine Corps because they would become naturalized citizens after serving their tour. Then we had all the Vietnamize wanting to come here. In the sixty's everyone had an angle. Mine was to get my ass home as soon as I honorably could. Kerry neglected the honorably part.

21 MJ BEE were you there? How do you know facts? I have heard the story of John Kerry's heroism from people who were there. Are you basing your argument on what you have heard from people who have an axe to grind? Maybe those who disagreed with JK on the testimony he made before Congress in argument against the VN war? Thirty-five years after the war it is easy to come out against the people who spoke up against it, especially soldiers. In those days most of America was against the war. I was young but I remember it well. Today people who want to believe that the war was right will say what they will and that is their prerogative. The fact is that 54,000+ Americans died fighting a war that left us with a question. What was it all for? The South Vietnamese weren't very interested in the political situation and most of them didn't have a clue as to what democracy even meant. They wanted to be left alone to grow their rice and live their lives the way they have for centuries. Many people who had political aspirations went to Vietnam to get a medal. If anyone believes that a medal or three medals makes a man, then they are fools. (With all due respect to those who honorably earned their medals) I could not care less how many medals a person has from a war thirty+ years ago. What are their qualities of leadership? That is what is important to me. What are they able to bring to the table today? Having said the above, I can only say that George Bush doesn't bring any leadership qualities to the table. He can't brag about much from his first term. He was able to convince the American people that putting troops in Iraq was the way we should go. That is it. He can't brag about anything else. The record budget surplus turned to record deficits, skyrocketing healthcare costs, loss of American stature in the world, complete failure of diplomacy, we got Saddam and that was good, but what about the real enemy? Where is Usama bin Laden? Where is the missing 380 tons of explosives? Maybe they went to Syria? Maybe al Zarqawi is using them to kill Americans in Iraq Maybe Syria is our next target. How many American soldiers will die there? Vote Bush and you can find out. Can Kerry do better? I sure don't know. What I do know is that he could hardly do worse than George Bush has done. Kerry at least will have the option of trying to get a real coalition together. Something that is out of the question for the undiplomatic Bushies. One of the strongest attributes of the Bush administration is Colin Powell. He has been very obviously ignored. I don't see him continuing in the next term if, God forbid, there is a next term. Bush has listened to Rumsfeld and Cheney and that is the reason we find ourselves in this mess. The problem with Bush is that he doesn't have a clue so he depends on the likes of Cheney and Rumsfeld. That is bad for all of us because we know their motives are not those of the average American's. MJ Bee you sound pretty intelligent but I think that you are like GW Bush, you listen to too many of the wrong people. People with agendas that are not very convincing to those of us who are skeptical and not easily satisfied by half truths and even outright lies. I question what any Bush supporter has to say thse days because when the President boldly lies and leads us into a war that shouldn't be, then the people who blindly followed him will also listen to even more lies. They want to believe that they were right when the truth is staring them in the eyes. No one wants to admit they were fooled. It is obvious to me that the People around Bush will do and say anything to stay in power. They will make every effort to discount JK's military and Congressional records because they can't run their own record. I will admit that Kerry doesn't have much to brag about either. So now the question... Do you go with a known loser (Bush) or an unknown possible loser (Kerry)? You will vote how you will, that is fine with me. I only ask that you consider what is going to happen after the upcoming (and probably corrupt) election is over. My guess is that the US is headed for tough times regardless of who is elected. Polls give Bush more credit in the area of handling the war on terror and Iraq. I say that our future is dependent on more than the war on terror and what happens in Iraq. It is going to take a person who has exceptional diplomatic abilities not a "cowboy" who doesn't even know what the word means.

22 Ok waited long enuf...WHERE'S this something BIG that's supposed to have happened at this rally yesterday?????????