Author Topic: looks like kerry was a disaster as an o (Read 523 times)

Lizking · « **Reply #15 on:** August 06, 2004, 03:05:14 PM »

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTION 2004
Vet denies retraction
of Kerry war criticism
Boston Globe story saying he backed off 'extremely inaccurate', 'highly misleading'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 6, 2004
2:16 p.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

A Vietnam veteran who appears in a television ad critical of Sen. John Kerry says a Boston Globe article asserting he retracted his criticism of the presidential candidate's war service is "extremely inaccurate" and "highly misleading."

In a statement, Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth says "Captain Elliott reaffirms his affidavit in support of that advertisement, and he reaffirms his request that the ad be played."

The Globe story by Michael Kranish said Elliott, in an interview yesterday, backed off one of the key contentions of a book to be released next week by the veterans group, "Unfit for Command."

Elliott, according to Kranish, said he had made a "terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star.

But the veterans group says the article is "particularly surprising given page 102 of Mr. Kranish's own book quoting John Kerry as acknowledging that he killed a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong soldier whom he was afraid would turn around."

Kranish, who is covering the Kerry campaign, wrote the foreword to the official Kerry-Edwards campaign book and is listed as the lead author, the Drudge Report noted today.

Kranish declined to speak on the record with WorldNetDaily but said he would forward a statement from the Globe.

anonymous · « **Reply #16 on:** August 06, 2004, 03:08:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Really what is he saying?

PDF pg 19 block 20 is not all that flattering as well.

rpm0 cant read. it deals with kerrys ss. he signed affidavit but if you actually read report i wouldnt take it as co saying he lied. its super lefty version of "lied". like bush going on intel and numerous opinion of other nations leaders and when that wasnt spot on bush "lied".

Horn · « **Reply #17 on:** August 06, 2004, 03:25:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
So, when you look at Kerry's reports and see blocks that are NOT all the way to the left, you are basically looking at the "kiss of death" when it goes to the promotion board. Same with his written comments; they lack the necessary "zing" to get promoted.

From the ones I looked at, you're looking at average FitReps.

Agreed. Again, however, that would only have import if the officer was on track to stay in the Navy as a career. Kerry wasn't. His service appears to be a box to be checked on his way up the recognition ladder and insofar as it goes, he did an admirable job at it--even his CO Elliot--who now is condemning him-- gave Kerry a favorable report w/ an outstanding narrative.

I'm just disagreeing that the "disaster" assessment is even close to accurate and I wonder why it is characterized as such.

...and Lizerd the "higher up" theory generally only works (in FITREPs) with the guy one step up from one's immediate boss in my experience.

h

Lizking · « **Reply #18 on:** August 06, 2004, 03:27:49 PM »

I agree with that Horn, but when the young officer is the pet of JFK (the REAL JFK), then it will follow him all the way.

Horn · « **Reply #19 on:** August 06, 2004, 04:01:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lizking
I agree with that Horn, but when the young officer is the pet of JFK (the REAL JFK), then it will follow him all the way.

No question--and tho I had not heard that (he was a bud of JFK)--someone would be keeping and eye on him--my specific point was that while the "eye" might help with favorable postings and transfers, the FITREPs are more day to day docs and not as much subject to outside influence (like outside his immediate command).

h

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #20 on:** August 06, 2004, 04:03:21 PM »

Por que?
-SW

Staga · « **Reply #21 on:** August 06, 2004, 04:16:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by anonymous
is anyone same at thirty compared to twenty?

(Link

Anonymous using double standards ? Oh well...

anonymous · « **Reply #22 on:** August 06, 2004, 04:25:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Staga
(Link

Anonymous using double standards ? Oh well...

your comment shows you have no concept of the responsibilites involved in combat leadership. you manage to sound clever tho.

SunTracker · « **Reply #23 on:** August 06, 2004, 04:37:21 PM »

seawulf quit posting while drunk or high.

rabbidrabbit · « **Reply #24 on:** August 06, 2004, 04:45:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Por que?
-SW

how about shortening that sig hero?

Toad · « **Reply #25 on:** August 06, 2004, 07:01:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Horn
Again, however, that would only have import if the officer was on track to stay in the Navy as a career. Kerry wasn't.
h

Disagree. He's using his "leadership" in the USN to support his viability to run the country.

Upon examination, his FitReps are hardly the "fastburner, walks on water at temperatures above 32F" type. So I think it shows you how the Navy valued his "leadership skills". They were not marking him for "high command" in those FitReps.

Now, you can say he wasn't really trying because he had no intention of a career. Well, wasn't really trying at a job you volunteered to do to the best of your ability says something too. I don't view that favorably either.

Overall though, my perception of the military issue is that it's overblown. They both served honorably IMO. Neither can justify his capability for the Presidency based on their military careers IMO.

You want to make the case your military career makes you "the man" for the Oval Office? Rack up a career like Ike's. I listen then. These two are a couple of Junior Officers for pity's sake.

wklink · « **Reply #26 on:** August 06, 2004, 07:33:15 PM »

I have experience in these kinds of evaluations as well. The Army Officer Evaluation system is similar although it has changed somewhat since the 60's.

Some things are telling. I am assuming the Navy works on the 'What is not said principle' like the Army does.

His Fitness Report from March to July of 68.

It says recommended for promotion. In the Army there are basically four ways to say things. Promote Now, Promote ahead of Peers, Promote, and Do not promote. There are some variations on this but in general these things run in decending order. A promote comment, seen in that report, is a somewhat telling statement saying that although the officer isn't bad, he didn't do anything particularly outstanding to warrent promotion ahead of his peers. It could also mean that personally he didn't get along with his CO.

His second combat evaluation is telling. This is a very positive evaluation. Whether you like the guy or not (and I don't) this evaluation shows a high speed officer IMHO. I have written a couple of OERs and have had about a dozen in my career and I can't think of one better than this.

Lizking · « **Reply #27 on:** August 06, 2004, 07:39:39 PM »

I think easymo has it right. He planned his whole run at the presidency around his peace activism. And he had it won, up until September 12, 2001. Faced with the only alternative, he was forced to use it, and it is biting him in the ass.

Regardless, he served, as did Bush, and that is all that should have ever been said about it.