Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Navy Says Kerry's Service Awards OK'd

by RB2D2 / September 17, 2004 2:36 PM PDT

"Our examination found that existing documentation regarding the Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart medals indicates the awards approval process was properly followed," Route wrote in the memo sent Friday to Navy Secretary Gordon England.

"In particular, the senior officers who awarded the medals were properly delegated authority to do so. In addition, we found that they correctly followed the procedures in place at the time for approving these awards."


Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Navy Says Kerry's Service Awards OK'd
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Navy Says Kerry's Service Awards OK'd
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
The first comon sense ....
by Del McMullen / September 17, 2004 2:49 PM PDT

...I've seen in a long time.

Vice Adm. R.A. Route, the Navy inspector general, conducted the review of Kerry's Vietnam-ear military service awards at the request of Judicial Watch, a public interest group. The group has also asked for the release of additional records documenting the Democratic presidential candidate's military service.

``Conducting any additional review regarding events that took place over 30 years ago would not be productive,'' he wrote. ``The passage of time would make reconstruction of the facts and circumstances unreliable, and would not allow the information gathered to be considered in the context of the time in which the events took place. .........."

Doesn't this last paragraph above, "Conducting any additional review......" make sense to you.

I does to me, and particularly in light of the recent court order directing the Department of Defense to produce all of G W Bush's records.

Wonder if this decision by the US Navy will be challenged in court. Wouldn't surprise me.

I think the "children" on both sides of the issues in these cases should be made to stand in a corner until the campaign is over.

Collapse -
Re: Kerry's Awards OK'd -- another good smear ruined...
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / September 18, 2004 2:18 AM PDT

... by ugly fact. Thanks for the link, Rosalie.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Do you mean the Bush administration refused to
by Kiddpeat / September 18, 2004 3:13 AM PDT

further investigate Kerry's decorations? Where's the Bush conspiracy?

Collapse -
Didn't even attempt to read it did you.
by Edward ODaniel / September 18, 2004 3:50 AM PDT

If you had you would have noted that Judicial Watch's formal request for investigation was denied, NOT that Kerry's records were in order.

Unless a Casualty Report for the initial 2 Dec, 68 purple heart can be produced (and Kerry's commander stated that he had not submitted one based on reports of NO ENEMY ACTION) then it is fraudulent and if it is then in accordance with regulation NONE of the rest should ever have been awarded. The appropriate SECNAV 1650 1g has been cited.

The request for a formal investigation into his treating with the enemy while holding a naval commission was not investigated.

All this says is that he has determined that he doesn't want to do a full investigation. The Secretary of the Navy must decide and it will not be surprising if a negative decision does not result in a legal challenge to have the Navy abide by the provisions of SECNAV 1650 1g.

NOTHING in the article indicates more than a cursory investigation of a small portion of the paperwork and didn't include everything in the formal request.

Still not too late for Kerry to release ALL his records as he stated repeatedly that he would do before he decided to renig on his word. His word is essentially meaningless.

Collapse -
As usual, Dave overlooks ...
by J. Vega / September 18, 2004 4:16 AM PDT

As usual, Dave tries to brush the akward questions for Kerry by screaming "Smear!".
Did you notice the part of the story that said, "Judicial Watch had requested in August that the Navy open an investigation of the matter, but Route said in an internal memo obtained by The Associated Press that he saw no reason for a full-scale probe."
Dave, the question is not whether the proper proceedures were followed when Kerry put himself in for those Purple hearts, unusual as that may be, the question was and still remains, "Were any of those wounds self inflicted.?". Kerry's own diary seems to raise that question. The Navy rules did not change suddenly. Self inflicted wounds, or wounds from a non-combat injury do not rate a Purple Heart.
Dave, again read the words that I quoted, a full "probe" didn't happen, just some opinion on following proceedures. The questions remain and they are not questions about having followed proper proceedure. They are questions asking was what was done legal under the existing rules.
Sorry Dave, that "brush-off" with the accusation of "Smear" won't work. Why won't Kerry allow the release of ALL of his service records?

Collapse -
Ok, so what is your point?
by Brian S. / September 18, 2004 2:20 AM PDT
Collapse -
Re: Ok, so what is your point?
by C1ay / September 18, 2004 2:24 AM PDT
Many voters still await Kerry's release of ALL of his military records.

And the article even states that the remaining records were requested. I wonder what high horse these people are riding that keep questioning the records behind Bush and yet they say nothing or even defend the fact that some of Kerry's records haven't been released. I think they are hypocrites of the highest order. What do you think DK?

Collapse -
My understanding is that Bush has authorized the
by Kiddpeat / September 18, 2004 3:17 AM PDT

release of his records. This is the basis behind the judge's decision directing the DOD to look for all records.

Kerry has not authorized the same release. Therefore, the DOD cannot release his records.

Collapse -
Not only did Bush sign the release but...
by Edward ODaniel / September 18, 2004 4:45 AM PDT
Collapse -
Yes, I know that.
by C1ay / September 18, 2004 6:30 AM PDT

My point is to question those which keep wanting to make some big deal out of the fact that they think there are still records of Bush's missing even though he has authorized their release and yet they say nothing about Kerry not releasing his records. These hypocrites should shut their mouth or call for Kerry to authorize the same release of his records that Bush authorized.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) I thoroughly agree.
by Kiddpeat / September 18, 2004 8:55 AM PDT
In reply to: Yes, I know that.
Popular Forums
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

Does BMW or Volvo do it best?

Pint-size luxury and funky style

Shopping for a new car this weekend? See how the BMW X2 stacks up against the Volvo XC40 in our side-by-side comparison.