OT Stolen from Rec.Backcountry

Dave LaCourse wrote:

Most vets I know share my views. It isn';t so much what he did in
Nam, but
what he did when he returned. None of that was honorable. He threw
away his
medals and then lied about his brothers who were still fighting in
Nam. And
all for what -- political recognition.

Amazing the company we keep, Most folks I know in NC and Florida voted
differently then where their state ended up.

No "IF about it, Wayne. His own men have said there was no enemy
contact when
he got his first scratch. None. NO enemy contact. He fired a
grenade
launcher and it exploded near enough to him for him to pick up a very
small
pice of its shrapnel. Even the treating doctor said it was US
shrapnel. And,
you get rice removed from your ass only because you threw a grenade
into the
rice pile and didn't get away quick enough.

Treating doctor said no such thing according to documentation. The
citations are there in plain sight. Or are you saying the military
lied? Like that never happens eh?

His campaign strategy was based on lies from day one.

Oh he based it on security, and invasions of sovereign nations based on
faulty intelligence? You don't have to answer that.

Apples and oranges. Self inflicted wounds do not count. I believe
friendly
fire wounds would because you are engaging the enemy and mistakes are
made. It
is not the fact that he received self inflicted wounds
(unintentionally), but
the fact that he tried to take advantage of it. It says much about
his
character.

I just wanted to hear what you thought on it. Background more than
anything else. Been reading the Washington Post take on that former
football player's death in Afghanistan?

You have no business assaulting his character based on the garbage
you've posted and then claiming character. At least Tim posted a
rational explanation for his reasons, not that he had to, you alluded
to something with the post war protests, fine and dandy reasons. But
you need to quit believing all this bull**** Dave unless you are
prepared to state that the US Military lied in it's documentation of
Kerry's record. Everything written thus far contradicts everything
you've posted.

More than 100 pages of Kerry's military records have never been
released. He
refused to have them released. On the one item that he did release,
his
discharge, the date is stamped long after he got out, and states he
got a
discharge after a "review by a board of officers". Uh, it don't work
that way.
A board of officers has nothing to do with your discharge, and it is
dated at
the time of your discharge, not two years later.

I find it very hard to believe that if in the unreleased documents,
there was somethign which contradicted everything else released,
someone would have got their hands on it and leaked it to someone.
Especially in this presidential election.

As if I needed proof of your rapid hatred and spewing of misinformation
on this issue, you just gave it. Of the released records you speak of,
there is a 1966 enlistment contract for a six year committment. A 1970
letter requesting early release from active duty to run for public
office. A 1970 letter releasing him from active duty to run for public
office and transferring him to the active reserves for the remainder of
his committment. A 1972 Letter discharging him from the active reserves
and moving him to inactive reserve and a 1978 letter discharging him
from the inactive reserve.

Without going back and re-reading, I think you have his 1972 discharge
letter and the 1970 correspondence confused. Now i have no knowledge
nor looked to see if he did any active reserve duties in that 2 year
period but the paper trail is in order.

Unlike Tim, RW, and Kenny, I like apologies on ROFF. Show some honor
and admit your hatred.

Dave LaCourse wrote:

Most vets I know share my views. It isn';t so much what he did in
Nam, but
what he did when he returned. None of that was honorable. He threw
away his
medals and then lied about his brothers who were still fighting in
Nam. And
all for what -- political recognition.

Amazing the company we keep, Most folks I know in NC and Florida voted
differently then where their state ended up.

No "IF about it, Wayne. His own men have said there was no enemy
contact when
he got his first scratch. None. NO enemy contact. He fired a
grenade
launcher and it exploded near enough to him for him to pick up a very
small
pice of its shrapnel. Even the treating doctor said it was US
shrapnel. And,
you get rice removed from your ass only because you threw a grenade
into the
rice pile and didn't get away quick enough.

Treating doctor said no such thing according to documentation. The
citations are there in plain sight. Or are you saying the military
lied? Like that never happens eh?

His campaign strategy was based on lies from day one.

Oh he based it on security, and invasions of sovereign nations based on
faulty intelligence? You don't have to answer that.

Apples and oranges. Self inflicted wounds do not count. I believe
friendly
fire wounds would because you are engaging the enemy and mistakes are
made. It
is not the fact that he received self inflicted wounds
(unintentionally), but
the fact that he tried to take advantage of it. It says much about
his
character.

I just wanted to hear what you thought on it. Background more than
anything else. Been reading the Washington Post take on that former
football player's death in Afghanistan?

You have no business assaulting his character based on the garbage
you've posted and then claiming character. At least Tim posted a
rational explanation for his reasons, not that he had to, you alluded
to something with the post war protests, fine and dandy reasons. But
you need to quit believing all this bull**** Dave unless you are
prepared to state that the US Military lied in it's documentation of
Kerry's record. Everything written thus far contradicts everything
you've posted.

More than 100 pages of Kerry's military records have never been
released. He
refused to have them released. On the one item that he did release,
his
discharge, the date is stamped long after he got out, and states he
got a
discharge after a "review by a board of officers". Uh, it don't work
that way.
A board of officers has nothing to do with your discharge, and it is
dated at
the time of your discharge, not two years later.

I find it very hard to believe that if in the unreleased documents,
there was somethign which contradicted everything else released,
someone would have got their hands on it and leaked it to someone.
Especially in this presidential election.

As if I needed proof of your rapid hatred and spewing of misinformation
on this issue, you just gave it. Of the released records you speak of,
there is a 1966 enlistment contract for a six year committment. A 1970
letter requesting early release from active duty to run for public
office. A 1970 letter releasing him from active duty to run for public
office and transferring him to the active reserves for the remainder of
his committment. A 1972 Letter discharging him from the active reserves
and moving him to inactive reserve and a 1978 letter discharging him
from the inactive reserve.

Without going back and re-reading, I think you have his 1972 discharge
letter and the 1970 correspondence confused. Now i have no knowledge
nor looked to see if he did any active reserve duties in that 2 year
period but the paper trail is in order.

Unlike Tim, RW, and Kenny, I like apologies on ROFF. Show some honor
and admit your hatred.

Wayne Knight wrote:
snip
Unlike Tim, RW, and Kenny, I like apologies on ROFF. Show some honor
and admit your hatred.

What's to like about apologies on roff ? Hell, if there's
anything emptier than a liquor bottle at the end of a 'Clave
it's a roff "apology."

--
Ken Fortenberry

Wayne Knight writes:

Unlike Tim, RW, and Kenny, I like apologies on ROFF. Show some honor
and admit your hatred

I admit to hating Kerry's *actions* both on the field and off the field after
he returned home. I owe no one an apology, however. Kerry is no better than
George Gehrke claiming he flew F-86 Sabres over the Yaloo River in 1954, the
year he graduated from highschool, and a year after the war ended. Can you
explain why his discharge has the words "board of officers"? No one I know in
the military now or in the past knows what that is about, *except* the
possibility of his discharge being changed. That is the only possible reason
for the "board of officers".

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

What's to like about apologies on roff ? Hell, if there's
anything emptier than a liquor bottle at the end of a 'Clave
it's a roff "apology."

An empty liquor bottle at the end of a clave could mean a successful
clave. Sharing and killing a bottle of liquor amongst fishing
companions can be just as satisfying and concillatory as being able to
admit one is mistaken on something.

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

What's to like about apologies on roff ? Hell, if there's
anything emptier than a liquor bottle at the end of a 'Clave
it's a roff "apology."

An empty liquor bottle at the end of a clave could mean a successful
clave. Sharing and killing a bottle of liquor amongst fishing
companions can be just as satisfying and concillatory as being able to
admit one is mistaken on something.

Dave LaCourse wrote:

I owe no one an apology, however.

You spread misinformation to prove your point of view. Since the
official transcript differs from your view, one of them is lies. Either
your military is wrong in this care or you are.

Kerry is no better than
George Gehrke claiming he flew F-86 Sabres over the Yaloo River in
1954, the
year he graduated from highschool, and a year after the war ended.

Now Dave, we've already established that the official military record
differs from your assertions. We all know that the now departed George
was wrong but just a clarification, there was a "police action" in
Korea, not a "war" and it did not end, there was/is a truce in place.

Can you
explain why his discharge has the words "board of officers"? No one
I know in
the military now or in the past knows what that is about, *except*
the
possibility of his discharge being changed. That is the only
possible reason
for the "board of officers".

It looks to my civilian untrained eye as a standard form letter for
those discharged from the reserves at that time. Maybe Mr. Epps can
offer insight? Paragraph 2 refers to the board of officers as a
reference for establishing if an officer should be retained in the
reserves. Given the 1970 letter, the history post return from Vietnam
and the political office I see nothing sinister. If you mean it was
changed to honorable from dis-honorable or vice-versa, there's nothing
to suggest you're
barking up the right tree.

You can read it yourself if you've not read it at
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilse...om_Reserve.pdf

Regardless as to your accusation of funny stuff on discharges two years
after the fact, the paper trail is there. Requested and got approval to
end active duty in 1970 with reserve transfer. discharged honorably
from the reserves in 1972. And discharged from the inactive reserves in
1978. Another bull**** attack on Mr. Kerry's service record shot down.
Sheesh Dave, your side won, get over it.

Dave LaCourse wrote:

I owe no one an apology, however.

You spread misinformation to prove your point of view. Since the
official transcript differs from your view, one of them is lies. Either
your military is wrong in this care or you are.

Kerry is no better than
George Gehrke claiming he flew F-86 Sabres over the Yaloo River in
1954, the
year he graduated from highschool, and a year after the war ended.

Now Dave, we've already established that the official military record
differs from your assertions. We all know that the now departed George
was wrong but just a clarification, there was a "police action" in
Korea, not a "war" and it did not end, there was/is a truce in place.

Can you
explain why his discharge has the words "board of officers"? No one
I know in
the military now or in the past knows what that is about, *except*
the
possibility of his discharge being changed. That is the only
possible reason
for the "board of officers".

It looks to my civilian untrained eye as a standard form letter for
those discharged from the reserves at that time. Maybe Mr. Epps can
offer insight? Paragraph 2 refers to the board of officers as a
reference for establishing if an officer should be retained in the
reserves. Given the 1970 letter, the history post return from Vietnam
and the political office I see nothing sinister. If you mean it was
changed to honorable from dis-honorable or vice-versa, there's nothing
to suggest you're
barking up the right tree.

You can read it yourself if you've not read it at
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilse...om_Reserve.pdf

Regardless as to your accusation of funny stuff on discharges two years
after the fact, the paper trail is there. Requested and got approval to
end active duty in 1970 with reserve transfer. discharged honorably
from the reserves in 1972. And discharged from the inactive reserves in
1978. Another bull**** attack on Mr. Kerry's service record shot down.
Sheesh Dave, your side won, get over it.

Dave LaCourse wrote:

I owe no one an apology, however.

You spread misinformation to prove your point of view. Since the
official transcript differs from your view, one of them is lies. Either
your military is wrong in this care or you are.

Kerry is no better than
George Gehrke claiming he flew F-86 Sabres over the Yaloo River in
1954, the
year he graduated from highschool, and a year after the war ended.

Now Dave, we've already established that the official military record
differs from your assertions. We all know that the now departed George
was wrong but just a clarification, there was a "police action" in
Korea, not a "war" and it did not end, there was/is a truce in place.

Can you
explain why his discharge has the words "board of officers"? No one
I know in
the military now or in the past knows what that is about, *except*
the
possibility of his discharge being changed. That is the only
possible reason
for the "board of officers".

It looks to my civilian untrained eye as a standard form letter for
those discharged from the reserves at that time. Maybe Mr. Epps can
offer insight? Paragraph 2 refers to the board of officers as a
reference for establishing if an officer should be retained in the
reserves. Given the 1970 letter, the history post return from Vietnam
and the political office I see nothing sinister. If you mean it was
changed to honorable from dis-honorable or vice-versa, there's nothing
to suggest you're
barking up the right tree.

You can read it yourself if you've not read it at
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilse...om_Reserve.pdf

Regardless as to your accusation of funny stuff on discharges two years
after the fact, the paper trail is there. Requested and got approval to
end active duty in 1970 with reserve transfer. discharged honorably
from the reserves in 1972. And discharged from the inactive reserves in
1978. Another bull**** attack on Mr. Kerry's service record shot down.
Sheesh Dave, your side won, get over it.

Tim J. wrote:
Richie can speak for himself, but Tim is on Tim's side. ;-) I'm
tired
of all the vitriol from either/both sides of the political aisle, and
probably just worn down from a pretty intense political year. \
[snip]
But, hey, if it makes you happy then carry on.

I thought I typed a response to you on this but not showing up on the
google server. Sheesh I try and use a reasoned post of a postive
example to a like minded voter and you shoot my fat ass off. See if I
do that again.
BTW, picked up a new set of fly tying tools yesterday

Wayne