craftech,"The Boston Globe put "Kerry's grades were on a "par" with George Bush's" part of Kerry's records on the FRONT PAGE." if you analzye the commentary, the Globe only compares the years 1 thru 3, not the 4th yr. The 4th yr for Bush was a good year grade wise, not for Kerry. Bush was able get a Masters degree later, Kerry grade point did not allow it.


Since government paper is like a slow death by dripping water, let see what paperwork concerning Kerry will surface in the next year or two. Especially if he squares off with Hillary, Kerry's friends in the pentagon may not be so helpful about his paperwork or the missing medical review of his injuries. The Dems have been known to eat their own.......... that why its so important for them to attack Bush....... at one time, election cycles where liking hunting seasons, or championships playoffs,...... today, its open season 24/7/365.

craftech,"The Boston Globe put "Kerry's grades were on a "par" with George Bush's" part of Kerry's records on the FRONT PAGE." if you analzye the commentary, the Globe only compares the years 1 thru 3, not the 4th yr. The 4th yr for Bush was a good year grade wise, not for Kerry. Bush was able get a Masters degree later, Kerry grade point did not allow it.
============
You totally missed the point.

John

PS: Kerry was a bad choice for them IMO. Since I knew what type of campaign our party would run, the least "smearable" was John Edwards if for nothing else that he wasn't in the Senate long enough to distort his voting record. In discussions BY REPUBLICANS on C-Span they acknowledged that Edwards was the choice we feared the most. Kerry was a stupid choice. His anti-war activities have haunted him throughout his entire political career.

John, maybe so, but there apparently is much more to the story. One blogger, who apparently knows his way around the military, says:

"...I have been yelling since last year that the Navy does not have Kerry's records, nor does DoD.

The Navy has always been Kerry's hide-out. The Navy is covered by the Privacy Laws. You're a lawyer, right? The SF 180 is generically addressed to the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis. These records are 30 to 40 years old. They are history! They do not stay at Navy Personnel Command forever.

It seems to me that all of Kerry's tortured rhetoric on this subject attests to the fact that he was having his records vetted, in spite of the public claim to openness. How to accomplish this? Tell the NPRC, on the SF 180, that the designated recipient of the records is to be a federal Agency (subject to the Privacy Laws) - the Navy!

Then, Kerry or his people get to vet the records at the Navy's offices, allow release of what they want by another required waiver separate from the SF 180, withhold what they don't want out there, and the Navy cannot comment on the process, their holdings - or their withholdings!

The trick is in whom he designated to receive the outflow from NPRC. Read the opening of Kranish's article again:"The records, which the Navy Personnel Command provided to the Globe..."

This is not rocket science, yet no one seems to understand what was done here. "

He continues:

"I want to give you another shot on this, just to be sure you understand. It is crystal clear obvious to me, yet very few people seem to get it...is it how I 'splain it?

The SF 180 is actually a request for "Report of Separation" and all such documents are in the sole custody of the National Personnel Records Center, in St. Louis - not the branch in which the veteran served (in this case the Navy). And the character of Kerry's "separation" (discharge) from the Navy is obviously the document(s) that are hot.

The SF 180 directs the National Personnel Records Center to release records, at the request of the documented veteran, and send them to whomever he designates (usually himself) - period. What is the Navy doing in the middle of this? The Navy must have been the designated recipient, on this specific SF 180 (not the Boston Globe, as Kranish explicitly admits). As a Federal entity, the Navy is then subject to Privacy Laws and any release by them had to be additionally waived by Kerry - or not. He could then easily not waive specific documents for release that he found damaging. What the Boston Globe got was the remainder of whatever the Navy received from NPRC, less what Kerry wished to withhold.

It may be that the Globe is unaware of this game; although I wrote about this at length last week to their reporter Joan Vennochi, who had written that Kerry's 180 was in the pipeline, in order to alert the Globe to what was afoot.

A real shell game."

Another response from John O'Neill, who headed up the "Swift Boat Veterans" group last year:

"...We called for Kerry to execute a form which would permit anyone to examine his full and unexpulgated military records at the Navy Department and the National Personnel Records Center. Instead he executed a form permitting his hometown paper to obtain the records currently at the Navy Department. The Navy Department previously indicated its records did not include various materials. This is hardly what we called for. If he did execute a complete release of all records we could then answer questions such as (1)Did he ever receive orders to Cambodia or file any report of such a mission (whether at Christmas or otherwise); (2) What was his discharge status between 1970 and 1978 (when he received a discharge) and was it affected by his meetings in 1970 and 1971 with the North Vietnamese? (3)why did he receive much later citations for medals purportedly signed by Secretary Lehman who said he did not know of them; (4) Are there Hostile Fire and Personnel Injured by Hostile Fire Reports for Kerry's Dec. 1968 Purple Heart (when the officer in charge of the boat Admiral Schacte, the treating Surgeon Louis Letson, and Kerry's Division Commander deny there was hostile fire causing a scratch) awarded three months later under unknown circumstances. "


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

So I think that one can reasonably conclude that it's likely that Kerry is being less than candid here. My own perspective is that he got in trouble with the Navy for his antiwar comments and actions back in the old days, and they did something (like maybe withholding an Honorable Discharge) that he has been eager to hide all these years. Frankly, I think he would have won the presidency if he had tried a little less "nuance."

John, maybe so, but there apparently is much more to the story. One blogger, who apparently knows his way around the military, says:
========
Point him out.
========
Another response from John O'Neill, who headed up the "Swift Boat Veterans" group last year:

===========
The Republican funded Switboat vets got free publicity from the media and additional funding as a result of that media favor. Most of what that group said has been discredited.
Moreover, Corsi (columnist for Worldnet Daily) who co-authored the book is hardly a pillar of credibility. His comments August 10, 2004, interviews with the Associated Press and radio host Sean Hannity, classifying his comments (which included calling Pope John Paul II "senile"; asking if Senator "HELLary" Clinton is "a lesbo or anything"; and calling Muslims "RAGHEADS" and "Boy-Bumpers") as "silly," saying he "thought they were jokes," and complaining that they were taken "completely out of context." Still, on the August 10, 2004, edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country, Corsi's co-author, co-founder of the anti-Kerry group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (now Swift Vets and POWs for Truth) John E. O'Neill, distanced himself from Corsi, claiming that "the co-author of my book, who is simply an editor and not really any sort of co-author -- there are stories in circulation about his e-mails where he made stupid statements in his e-mails." O'Neill's assertion that Corsi was "simply an editor and not really any sort of co-author" is not the truth according to the description on the publisher's website. Even right wing blog sites like CNS didn't go along with that lie. O'Neill went on all the media stations and distanced himself from Corsi with this lie and none of the media people such as Wolf Blitzer of CNN. etc challenged him on the lie.
======
On February 13, shortly after Bush's appearance on Meet the Press, the White House produced over 300 pages of military documents in an attempt to put the matter to rest. But according to a February 14 Boston Globe article, those documents "add virtually no new information about Bush's stint in the Texas Air National Guard."
The subsequent disclosure of Bush's records has been erratic. On July 8, the Defense Department's Office of Freedom of Information and Security Review announced that the payroll records the White House had claimed would confirm Bush's service had been inadvertently destroyed. Then, on July 23, the Pentagon announced that those records had been found at the Federal Records Center in Denver but that they "offered no new evidence to dispel charges by Democrats that he (Bush) was absent without leave" [Reuters, 7/24/04].
In an above post I outlined the evidence to the contrary, but all of it became a dead issue and will remain so because the media siezed the opportunity to divert attention away from all of it when the CBS mistake was made. But you are right, the media won't stop the assault on Kerry's record for ANY reason.
==============


Frankly, I think he would have won the presidency if he had tried a little less "nuance."
=======
I predicted that he would lose when he got the nomination. The media would never allow it. He was too easy a target for a smear campaign.

John

Given the nature of the Congress, it will take a traditionalist Republican to straighten out the mess in this country. My hopes are on John McCain. This time I don't think they will be able to smear him with disgraceful lies as easily as the Bush people did in the 2000 primaries. He also falls within today's requirements to win (ie: enough money to buy the position).

Crafttech, you make many claims and statements of a political nature, which are directly attacking republicans or Bush. You defend left for their cause against republicans, yet claim to be republican. Yet, you seem to forget the smearing the dems did to Bush about being anti-black.

Your comments reminds me of a book I read last fall, written by powerful dem. member about how to reverse republican movement in the media. This book was just again promoted by Howard Dean at a Dem fund raiser. The book pushes the idea of pretending to a republican and getting on to talk shows, news interviews, fund raisers and claim that the republicans are failing to be good citizens by supporting the current ideals. The book states," feel free to lie or make false claims against all republicans and what maybe a republican belief" and "destory them from within" theme. My favorate line was "if you can not debate the facts or are losing in a public debate, shift the subject quickly, to one of a personal nature and attack them directly".

Apit,
I don't know what to tell you. Not everyone always votes in the end by party, but I do love the primaries. I don't like what has happened to our party. Even Eisenhower's son left the party (which is not the answer). You probably aren't old enough to know the difference or see what has happened. I just told you who I think should be the next president if he gets the nomination. "Defend left" is a statement that excludes the existance of the "moderates" of which I am one. Many on the right do not acknowledge their existance despite the fact that they make up the vast majority of Americans. Disagree with the Bush administration means that you are automatically a "Dem" and a "Lib" or a "Leftist". It's a really narrow minded view of differing opinion.

Regards,

John

PS: Whoever wrote that book is an idiot if you are quoting it's premise correctly. To think that that would work given the nature of today's media is a joke.

craftech,

fast response..... if you are a lawyer, I would want you on my team.

craftech,

fast response..... if you are a lawyer, I would want you on my team.
===========
OK,
I am retired Apit. Let's quit videography and open up a law firm. How about Vegas Associates?

John

Simple cross referencing will lead to the big fish. A small lead, The New York times had a story about the book and the dem party. I have an on going bet with my wife and a retired US Senator that I can resist naming the author and the book. I have been able to do this for five months, seven more and I win.

How about Vegas Associates in the Big D.C. , but we work out of the islands?

John,

You do make a good point that point that Clinton lied and how that applies to the standard I set out. However, I am not aware of any point where Clinton lied about his Healtcare plan or economic policies. Perhaps this is not an accurate or important disctinction. But I agree with you, next time Clintion tells us he is faithful to his wife, we need to verify that.

I do believe Republicans lied in the run up to war and like craftech, I do make a distintction between Republicans, in general, and the PNAC crowd who want an explicit American Empire, I hope I have made that clear in my posts. The reason I did use the word lying is, if they were arguing in good faith, they would admit when their evidence was wrong. They would explain why when they looked at the evidence they always, always took the most damning interpretation. They have not. When they were shown to be wrong, they changed their arguments for the war or claimed they were mislead by the CIA.

Before the War they talked with absolute certainty about Saddam not just developing WMD, but possessing tons of WMD. When they inspections started and didn't find this, they tried to convince people that the weapons inspectors were useless, the inspectors were "blind mice" and had them investigated. (Reportedly they were very upset when they could find nothing to smear Hans Blix and Mohammed El-Baradi with.) However when we got to Iraq, we found the same thing they did. No WMD. Hans Blix and Mohammed El-Baradi were right. We went before the world and said here is why we believe that Saddam has WMD. Some of our charges didn't even withstand 24 hours of scrutiny. They fell apart. When Powell was talking about dangerous sites at the UN, they were sights that Hans Blix had already been to and they were empty. That is, by March 2003 we knew that a lot of our evidence on WMD was shaky, but we would not extend the inspections period and chose what should have been our very last resort, invasion.

Canada did not join our coalition. They asked to see the WMD evidence. They were told President Bush will make a presentation to you. Canada said we don't need that, just show us the evidence, if it's there, we are on board. We never showed them the evidence.

The CIA has gone back and revaluated it stance on Iraq's nuclear program. Here is the official position.
• Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.
• Although Saddam clearly assigned a high value to the nuclear progress and talent that had been developed up to the 1991 war, the program ended and the intellectual capital decayed in the succeeding years.

When the WMD argument no longer stood up as a good reason to go to war, Bush simply changed reasons. Tons of WMD became in Bush's words "dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities". Now it's about liberating the Iraqi people or spreading democracy or some other reason that the American people would not have accepted in 2002 when they were told Iraq was a direct threat. In the many instances where Bush was wrong, has he admitted this? Has he apologized to those who held differing views and got smeared for it? This is why I believe the decption was deliberate. Also when you examine the evidence, it's dishonest to say there is no doubt about the intelligence says. Lots of the intelligence was pointing the other way. This is why dozens of recently retired intelligence officials came foward before the war and said something was fishy and they are overstated what we know.

John, yes I know that Saddam would have liked to have nukes, but the whole point of sanctions and inspections was that HE COULDN"T DEVELOP them. The Sanctions worked. Saddam had dormant programs that No one credible was suggesting the only two options we had were:
A invade Iraq
B we remove all UN sanctions, stop watching him and stop the no-fly zones and let Saddam go on his merry way
It was not about trusting Saddam Hussein. It was about what is the wisest decision for the United States to make at this point. If Bush in 2003 had decided not to invade, if he had told Iraq the only way they could avoid the invasion was to allow permanent, intrusive weapons inspections, Bush would have scored a huge coup. Iraq would be less of a security threat to the US than it is right now and the next time we went before the World and said Iran is a threat, we have to do something, we would have some credibility.

"My hopes are on John McCain. This time I don't think they will be able to smear him with disgraceful lies as easily as the Bush people did in the 2000 primaries."

I think that's right for sure. I always liked McCain for his street fighting smarts and ability to cut through the political morass to get things done. He even had some resemblance to, <gasp!>, a real human being.

And McCain, after being tortured for years in Vietnamese prison camps, would never accept what we have done at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. Nothing beats personal experience when it comes to seeing right from wrong.

Kerry was a milquetoast "nice guy" and not right for this country at this time. It's pretty sad the the dems couldn't come up with anybody better than that, and now there's absolutely nobody home. Howard Dean still gives me the creeps every time I see his face, makes me think of the Regional Sales Manager in Thelma & Louise.

Cleaning up our senate and congress is not going to be easy.

My suggestion is that we pass a new law that says that since pot smoking is illegal, immoral and fattening, any congress critter or senate sitter who ever smoked the stuff has to leave immediately. That should clear out pretty close to 100%, and we can start from scratch with new people (and hope that it takes at least a few years before the new ones become as corrupt as the old ones).

Apit, you gotta be kidding me. Iran-Contra is actually a terrible sound bite.

The reason it was called Iran-Contra is the two were related because Oliver North and NSC were in charge of both operations. They were taking profits from sales of missile to Iran and shipping them to the Contras. North's testimony led directly to Iran and to the Contras. It wasn't made up by the Dem congress or liberal media.

So Lawrence Walsh used a new law passed by the Dem congress? Isn't there an easier way of saying that, like it was illegal? Or did the Constitution get ammended to say the laws passed when Congress is under a Democratic majority don't count or perhaps they don't apply to Republicans?

Lawrence Walsh was a lifelong Republican and all his cases were not overturned by high courts. The ones dealing with defendants who were given immunity in other cases were.

The Boland amendment was not ruled unconstitutional in any court.

So somehow weapons purchased by the Shah during the Carter years were still en route to the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1986?

Caspar Weinberger always had the worst luck, didn't he?

"Iraq would be less of a security threat to the US than it is right now and the next time we went before the World and said Iran is a threat, we have to do something, we would have some credibility."

...and we would also have had some money left to provide real security in the U.S.

A recent GAO report stated that airport security was no better today than before 9/11. Huh? For all that money spent on TSA and all the aggravation?

I remember after 9/11, LAX officials said the airport was now carefully secured, and passengers and crew went through metal detectors 100%, etc., etc.

Los Angeles Times went to check the real story. What did they find?

The visible front of the airport, where passengers and crew entered, had better security than before, although you could still bring just about anything through the metal detectors, and any suitcases that weren't red and screamed "FAA SECURITY INSPECTION" whistled right through (you're excused if you think I'm joking about the red suitcase, but this was specifically mentioned in the official reports later).

The less visible back entrance for ground personnel had a guard letting people through with their vans, trucks and large-trunked sedans, no inspection of what anybody brought in.

The guard checked for employee ID, but his instructions said that since it was so common for employees to forget their badges at home, it was OK to let them through anyway, as long as not more than 5% drove in without their badges. These were the employees who drove straight up to the planes to load baggage and cargo, and those who boarded the planes to clean them.

If any of them had wanted to bring in say 800 lbs. of C-4 explosives, they could have done this without even a fake badge, and they would have had unchallenged access to any plane on the tarmac.

Later it was found that many of the security checkers and security guards were illegal immigrants.

Today, our lame-duck Mayor Hahn is still pushing for a new pre-boarding check-in center far away from the airport (near the 405 freeway). This would be a new building where 20,000 passengers would be together before going through security. Imagine that one bad guy walks in and drops a timed "nuclear Blackberry" (the latest, a Blackberry-sized nuclear device) in a wastebasket and just leaves on a convenient flight.

Heck, it wouldn't have to be even that fancy. Just a combination of some commonly available chemicals, in a modest size suitcase or in a briefcase under a bar stool, would be enough to kill all 20,000 within minutes.

This project should get the Darwin Award of the Century.

If it should come to fruition, I for one wlll certainly only fly out of one of the many other airports in the Los Angeles area.

So....after all this banter, has anybody changed their opinion because of something that was said here? Or is everyone still showing off thier Peacock feathers.

Would seem a good point, but it's probably too early to tell.

Most people need time to reflect before changing their minds, if they are indeed going to do that.

Of course, some just stay on course even if they can see the iceberg straight ahead...

:O|

BusterKeaton, "The Boland amendment was not ruled unconstitutional in any court."
Well, US Supreme Court seems to differ with your view. Boland amendment clearly violated the separation of powers setup in the constitution. The Boland amendment is used as an example in most constititional law classes of congress trying to go around the separation of powers setup in the constitution.

Lets see, its OK if
1. congress voilates the constitutional separation of powers if its for a dem cause,
2. its ok to use a known "bad" law to charge people to get media coverage for a dem cause,
3. its ok to be a bad lawyer, by violating known immunity agreements and charge people, knowning you will not win but want that media coverage, for a dem cause,
4. Its ok to rewrite history, there was no "weapons in trans" problem from Carter's term that created the NSC actions.

"So somehow weapons purchased by the Shah during the Carter years were still en route to the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1986?" If you would check the UN records from 1980-1988, you would find that Iran make many claims about the weapons systems, and claims about the money frozen in some EU & US banks. Iran even tried suing in the world court. As stated before, not every Nato or EU government agreed with Carter's orders. A few EU countries used the "weapons in trans" as a "talking points" with the new Iran government, the new Iran government was not too response to this approach until the Iraq Iran war started to exhaust their weapon supplies. Iranians thought the Russians would supply them with new arms for letting them have access to the US weapon systems, but was shock to discover that the Russians was actively suppling the Iraqs while saying that they really supported Iran. The Iranians decided that maybe the EU countries could be worked with..... etc.... This lead to Iran buying F-4 tires from Israel......etc....

Reagan could have declassify the Carter executive orders concerning Iran and the known EU and Russia talks with Iran about the weapon systems, but Reagan did not want to embarrass allies for a small internal issue to save face.
Bush could release a lot documents and executive orders by Clinton that would make Carter look good, but Bush does not want to make the US look like a "for sale" government.( Clinton's famous coffee breaks, rent a whitehouse bed.... I'll meet with any contributor.... need a presidential pardon.... lets make a deal....)

Craftech:

The quote about Kerry and the possible manipulation of military records came from www.powerlineblog.com, a very popular and influential blog. Sorry for the delay in response; it's hard to have a career and read all these interesting Vegas comments at the same time!

this has been a OT with no in your face arguments. the Sony users show real class. this OT was a little too long, but nice.

Apit, I think your statement that "the US Supreme Court seems to differ with your view [that it was not ruled unconstitutional]. Boland amendment clearly violated the separation of powers setup in the constitution" is misleading.

As a law student (with Lexis/Nexis and Westlaw in hand), the SCOTUS has NOT ruled on this matter (thus no basis for your statement above that the court has a position), and indeed the last time that SCOTUS addressed anything remotely similar was during the Civil War.

With respect to your closing paragraph regarding Bush being reticent to release documents making the US government appear to be "for sale" (yet only calling Clinton out for it), I'd love to hear your explanation of the energy summit meetings held out of public purview (and to this day tightly protected) in the earliest days of W's administration. The participants and agenda of those talks remain secret. What isn't a secret is that energy prices have risen (even without the 9/11 factor), and efforts to promote conservation of energy have all but evaporated. Now THAT'S what I call "government for sale!"

Bob.

apit,
If you could show me the actual Supreme Court case, I'd be much obliglied.

I don't care if it's a dem cause or a dose cause, they knew they violating the law when they did. That's why there was so much document shredding and lying to Congress.

Let's keep this argument factual, if we could. Here is Lawrence Walsh's Report from the Federation of American Scientists website.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/
The Underlying Facts section makes clear that the arms shipments to Iran involved missiles and missile parts. Tow and Hawk,missiles were sent to Iran. Iran also requested Phoenix, Sidewinder and Harpoon missiles. There were three shipments from Israel to Iran beginning in 1985 and five shipments from the US to Iran in 1986.
The initial internal investigation was done by Attorney General Ed Meese who then recommended a special prosecutor be appointed. The Underlying Facts section concludes this way "November 25, 1986, Meese disclosed the diversion to the full Cabinet and Congressional leaders. At noon, President Reagan and Meese announced at a nationally televised press conference that proceeds from the Iran arms sales had been diverted to support the contras, and that Poindexter had resigned and North had been reassigned to the U.S. Marines. "

Lawrence Walsh was a lifelong Republican who served on the staff of Republican Presidential Candidate Thomas Dewey when he was DA and then governor of NY. Walsh was appointed as a federal judge by Eisenhower.

Bob, as I was typing you made my point exactly about the Boland amendment. It's constitutionality was never addressed in the Supreme Court. Or, I believe, in any court.

Also you reminded me of a point I forgot to make about Presidential Papers.

Bush Clamping Down On Presidential Papers Bush is not in favor of releasing Presidential Papers. In November 2001 Bush made it much harder to release presidential papers. Note the that previously Presidential Papers were released after 12 years. Now do the math.