« Today's NY Sun article on Kerry's discharge status | Main | Michael Moore is proud to have Osama bin Laden mimic "Fahrenheit 9/11" »

Monday, November 01, 2004

Former Navy Sec'y Middendorf delivers broad hints on Kerry's discharge

Art Moore at WorldNetDaily.com just put up a stunning article — not for what it says directly, but for what figuratively bounces off the page at anyone willing to read between the lines even just a little bit:

A former secretary of the Navy is urging Sen. John Kerry to open up his personnel files to resolve the question of whether the Democratic presidential nominee received a less-than-honorable discharge from the Navy.

William Middendorf, the Navy chief from 1974 to 1977, told WorldNetDaily today that Kerry, who began inactive reserve status in 1972, would have been issued a document three years later either for a reserve reaffiliation or a separation discharge.

An "honorable discharge" from 1978 appears on the Kerry campaign's website, but a Navy lawyer who served under Middendorf believes that document is a substitute for one that would have been issued in 1975.

However, no such document can be found among the records Kerry has made available.

"I should think it would be in his interest to open up the files, to clear up any misunderstanding," said Middendorf, who later served as ambassador to the Netherlands, European Union and Organization of American States.

Middendorf said he cannot comment specifically on any action taken on Kerry, because he is barred, under the 1974 Privacy Act, from discussing personnel matters.

However, he enthusiastically vouches for the character of Mark Sullivan, who formed the basis for a story today in the New York Sun by Thomas Lipscomb, the first to report discrepancies in Kerry's discharge record.

Sullivan, who served in the secretary of the Navy's office in the Judge Advocate General Corps Reserve between 1975 and 1977, says the "honorable discharge" on the Kerry website appears to be a Carter administration substitute for an original action expunged from Kerry's record, Lipscomb reported.

Asked by WorldNetDaily to address Sullivan's findings, Middendorf cited the Privacy Act.

"I shouldn't comment other than to say I respect Mark Sullivan as one of the finest Navy officers we had."

Friends and neighbors, I know that hard-core Kerry partisans will pooh-pooh this because of its source.  "Right-wing hacks," they'll fume, "hatchet jobs, quotes Corsi too (and he's a racist thug)," etc., etc.  I wish this had been on the front page of the WaPo, the NYT, and the LAT, and leading Dan Rather's and Tom Brokaw's nightly news broadcasts, a month ago.  It wasn't — and that in itself is an ugly story.

Yet these are direct quotes, on the record and with attribution, from someone of spotless record who demonstrably was in a position to have personal knowledge of whether John Kerry was attempting to get an originally less than fully honorable discharge upgraded.  Former Navy Secretary Middendorf just can't — because of the privacy laws that Sen. Kerry is hiding behind — simply come out and tell what he knows while Kerry continues to stonewall on signing Standard Form 180.

But this is a pretty broad hint.  In fact, it couldn't get any broader without breaking the law.

Can America take a hint?

Posted by Beldar at 05:06 PM in Politics (2006 & earlier), SwiftVets | Permalink


Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to Former Navy Sec'y Middendorf delivers broad hints on Kerry's discharge and sent a trackback ping are listed here:

» Lipscomb does it again from Media Lies

Tracked on Nov 1, 2004 8:45:49 PM

» More on the Kerry discharge cover-up from This isn’t writing, it’s typing.

Tracked on Nov 1, 2004 9:51:53 PM

» Kerry Discharge: Broad Hints from The Truth Laid Bear

Tracked on Nov 1, 2004 10:38:51 PM


(1) Chris made the following comment | Nov 1, 2004 5:24:24 PM | Permalink

Two questions:

1. Would Middendorf be protected under a whistleblower law?

2. What is the charge if he comes forward? If read elsewhere that it is just a misdemeanor with a max $5000 fine.

(2) Beldar made the following comment | Nov 1, 2004 5:27:33 PM | Permalink

Former Sec'y Middendorf isn't going to knowingly break the law, misdemeanor or not. As far as I'm aware, there's no whistleblower-type exception to the privacy laws.

(3) Mr. K made the following comment | Nov 1, 2004 5:38:16 PM | Permalink

Lets just pray W means win, so we can all forget about John F'n Kerry. If he is defeated, it will in effect be verification for Viet Nam vets that they are noble patriots and not war criminals.

(4) Cassandra made the following comment | Nov 1, 2004 6:02:42 PM | Permalink

Can America take a hint?

Are you kidding me Beldar?

This is the same America that was told flat out that Bill Clinton lied to the UArk ROTC program to get a draft deferment, then sneered that he could never have served because he "loathed the military".

The same America that was warned that he had state troopers bringing women to him and that he had quite possibly raped Juanita Brodderick, yet somehow we were supposed to be blindsided by Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, and Monica Lewinsky?

If John Kerry is elected tomorrow, that tells me one thing.

It doesn't matter.

Anyone can run for office. With anything in their past.

Oh... excuse me.

Any Democrat.

(5) Dan made the following comment | Nov 1, 2004 6:10:02 PM | Permalink

While I would have liked to see this "story" break a week or two ago - frankly, I find this breaking at this time, all but below the radar, just plain bad judgement on the parties involved. All it will do is anger people already supporting Bush, like me btw, even more - without having any real impact on the election. If you aren't prepared to say something in a meaningful way and at a meaningul time, why say it at all. It isn't like Kerry's candidacy is "new." This release now causes me more anger at the messenger's than at Kerry. Where were these people when they might have made a difference? My only caveat would be if the wheels are greased to throw this into the limelight in some way tonight. I can't imagine that happening with a MSM unfriendly to the story, at best.

(6) Roofer made the following comment | Nov 1, 2004 6:13:11 PM | Permalink

Cassandra, I'm no fan of Slick Willie, though I'd vote for him six days a week and twice on Sunday in a head-to-head with Kerry. However, I believe that facts are important, and the fact is that Clinton never made the oft-quoted comment attributed to him that he loathed the military.

Here's one site among many that has the quote right:



Although you might infer from the letter that's one of those "fine people," Clinton never directly atributes such feelings to himself.

There's enough ammunition out there without having to make up your own.

(7) Boger made the following comment | Nov 1, 2004 6:20:43 PM | Permalink

In an earlier post to this forum I wondered out loud if one or both of the two ex JAG officers (Sullivan and Nelson) could, without being in violation of the Privacy Act, make a statement to the effect that based on their personal knowledge of these matters they strongly urged Senator Kerry to clear this matter up with the stroke of a pen. In fact Secretary Middendorf has come very close to what I had in mind. I also noted that his term as SECNAV was 1974 to 1977 (Kerry's honorable discharge was in 1978), and thus his knowledge might not be personal or direct. In any case, Secretary Middendorf is advising Mr. Kerry that it would be in his own best interests to resolve these questions. Should Kerry become President, that is certainly my feeling. I think Secretary Middendorf performed the added public service of vouching for Sullivan's character. That can only help but elevate, and sharpen the issues involved.

In terms of his addressing this matter, I personally take the Secretary's comments to reflect that he remains committed to the Navy and the welfare of our country. Thank you, sir.

(8) Beldar made the following comment | Nov 1, 2004 6:37:26 PM | Permalink

Boger, regarding the timing:

Former Navy Secretary Middendorf's term of office was 8 Apr 1974 to 20 Jan 1977. He would not therefore have been a part of the Carter-era amnesty program. He would, however, have been in a position to have personal knowledge of any pre-Carter efforts to have a less than fully honorable discharge upgraded during his term. He also would have had access to personnel documents that preceded his term and personal knowledge of their contents, even if not personally involved in the proceedings they reflected.

Sen. Kerry graduated from Boston College Law School at the end of the spring 1976 term and took the bar exam that summer; he passed and was sworn in on December 29, 1976. I have no personal experience with or knowledge of the Massachusetts bar, but if (as I very strongly suspect) it is like that of Texas and most other states, Sen. Kerry would have had to apply sometime in late 1975 or early 1976 for permission to take the summer 1976 bar; and his application would almost certainly have had to disclose his then-existing military discharge status. Someone expecting to take the summer 1976 bar therefore might well have been expected to attempt to upgrade a less-than-perfect discharge status during roughly the middle of former Navy Secretary Middendorf's term.

Proceedings on Sen. Kerry's application to take the bar, like his application itself, would be treated as confidential by the Massachusetts Board of Bar Examiners. However, by the mid- and early 1970s, a less than fully honorable discharge based on antiwar activism — particularly from someone who'd actually served in combat (and won medals for that service) — might well not have been a decisive impediment to the Board of Bar Examiners' determination of the candidate's fitness. In other words, one cannot presume from the fact that Sen. Kerry was allowed to take the summer 1976 bar exam that he already had a perfect discharge status as of that date.

(9) American Daughter made the following comment | Nov 1, 2004 7:34:52 PM | Permalink

Full text of letters by Adm. Carey, Navy JAG Donald L. Nelson, Col. Lively, Pershing room-mate Schlossburg, Navy JAG Sullivan's notes, and both Lipscomb articles posted at both



(10) Ric Locke made the following comment | Nov 1, 2004 7:52:46 PM | Permalink

Can America take a hint?


It would appear that the answer is "no."

Ric Locke

(11) Screaming Eagle made the following comment | Nov 1, 2004 8:04:15 PM | Permalink

MSM will not be able to ignore this story forever. The military has it own code of conduct and it never forgets. Hero's are never forgotton and tratiors are for ever despised. The leaks have already started and cannot be stopped. Refusal to answer questions yes or no, will only make things worse for Kerry. His staff will not lie for him because they will be accused of being complicent as the story finds legs. Its CYA time. I think this is a very clever move, leaking the story before the election. If he wins there is three months before he is sworn in as CIC. By then this story will be huge! Commander's with more weight will be commenting. More things will be remembered and brought forward. His political allies will run for cover and it may expose those who supported this fraud. Very bad for the left and could take out their power base. For sure it will take years to rebuild the left. Kerry will find his place in history as a traitor and fallout will get a lot more. If not elected the story will be America has escaped a tratior's plot. This is huge and I hope everything moves slow and we do not return to the civil unrest of the 70's. I love my country and would rather see this handled by legal means. The left was defeated by the ideas and courage of Regan and Newt but they are not going to go quietly.

(12) perfectsense made the following comment | Nov 1, 2004 8:45:07 PM | Permalink

Very interesting stuff, but way to late. As far as getting into the bar, Teddy could fix that with one phone call.

(13) Mike G in San Diego made the following comment | Nov 1, 2004 9:09:29 PM | Permalink

Speaking of Bill Clinton ...

Remember Clinton's misuse of the FBI in trashing the reputations of the White House Travel Office staff? Remember the "politics of personal destruction" to harm his perceived enemies, including the strategic leak of Linda Tripp's personnel file? Remember all of the other little ethical lapses of that delightful administration?

If Clinton -- or someone with similar ethics -- were in the White House right now with John Kerry challenging him for election, can anyone seriously doubt that sometine in the last three months some "patriotic whistleblower" would have broken the confidentiality of Kerry's military records "for the good of the nation"?

(14) Bill made the following comment | Nov 1, 2004 9:44:38 PM | Permalink

Trust me, this will not go away when Hanoi John loses tomorrow. The SBVT will not let this rest until justice is served - the truth will be known.

Too many Vets are looking for a restoration of honor that was stolen by a traitor. They deserve it.

(15) Kent made the following comment | Nov 1, 2004 9:49:54 PM | Permalink

I was shopping in Espanola today (strong Democratic country in the swing state of New Mexico) and saw a campaign sign for Kerry:


It isn't influenza that is responsible for the bouts of nausea I have been experiencing lately.

(16) HA made the following comment | Nov 1, 2004 10:06:40 PM | Permalink


However, by the mid- and early 1970s, a less than fully honorable discharge based on antiwar activism — particularly from someone who'd actually served in combat (and won medals for that service) — might well not have been a decisive impediment to the Board of Bar Examiners' determination of the candidate's fitness. In other words, one cannot presume from the fact that Sen. Kerry was allowed to take the summer 1976 bar exam that he already had a perfect discharge status as of that date.

Given the Kerry is the son of a diplomat and a friend of the Kennedy's, it seems quite likely that Kerry's political connections could have influenced how folks viewed his fitness.

(17) Assistant Village Idiot made the following comment | Nov 1, 2004 10:14:12 PM | Permalink

I probably read too many Chip Hilton stories and watched too many 50's adventure movies as a boy, and thus falsely expect that justice will eventually be served. But I do believe that. And I further believe that the more effort is put into falsely propping something up, the greater the fall when the collapse comes.

For a man with two sons from Romania, I guess that's a pretty stupid thing to think. Yes, Ceasescu and a thousand other evil men fell in Eastern Europe when communism collapsed. But a million good men died before that day came, and never lived to see it.

Y'all may want to check out Belmont Club today.

(18) Kalle (kafir forever) made the following comment | Nov 1, 2004 10:37:18 PM | Permalink

It's obvious that Kerry is hiding something in his military records. It's equally obvious that the Old Media are helping him.

So what? seriously. What consequences will either suffer? almost half of this country seems to reject the virtues of honesty and integrity. Fix that, and you won't have another North Vietnamese Candidate running for President -- no matter what corrupt media stars may promote or ignore.

(19) Robert L. Williams made the following comment | Nov 1, 2004 11:02:14 PM | Permalink

I Pray that someone with the means has the balls to continue this quest into the type discharge that Kerry received first. There's no doubt that someone got a board to review his records and pass on a H. discharge.
I served 4 years in the AF during the Korean War, flying into Korea with the 6th Troop Carrier Sq. and to think Kerry could live in the White House tears at my soul!!
This should have been on the table months ago, it may be to late now, but someone must try to get the word out to the Nation.

(20) HH made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 12:11:13 AM | Permalink

So if Kerry wins and this bears out in more detail after his election or even his inauguration, he goes into office on having lied about his military service in a major way... of course, with the power of the presidency it will be a lot easier for him to keep this quiet.

(21) SemiPundit made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 12:17:44 AM | Permalink

Is this Kerry's black baby?

Folks, the campaign is over. Go and vote tomorrow so we can move on to the next phase--the effort to impeach President Kerry, which should begin around the end of January.

(22) Lee Shore made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 12:34:40 AM | Permalink

Bill -- It's far to late now, just five hours from when the polls open. It was too late any time after say, Friday, because the MSM would have had to have their feet held to the fire before writing about it.

BUT: This is important enough so that Middendorf should have fallen on the sword of the privacy act and revealed what he knew about Kerry's discharge(s). He'd have had GOP lawyers taking numbers and lining up to help defend him -- maybe you too :-)

We can also suspect that Reagan's Secy of the Navy John Lehman would have known why Kerry's medals were reissued in 1985 (a DD causes all medals to be withdrawn).

If Kerry received a Duck Dinner for his activities when he returned from Vietnam, particularly his two visits (one secret) to talk with the two communist delegations in Paris (and I argue he should have) ya gotta admire his balls for forging on for years with such a time bomb ticking away in some filing cabinet somewhere. Not even Bill Clinton would have had such brass.

Now the question arises of why, if he had received a dishonorable, did he not yell his head off at the time and go weeping to Congress? Easy -- he was already into his political career, running for Congress (and losing). A dishonorable would have killed him politically even in MA (and he was running in a blue-collar district).

And I'll argue that a DD emerging a week or two ago would have killed his presidential candidacy dead. Red state, blue state, makes no nevermind. Civilians might not exactly understand a dishonorable discharge, but it sounds terrible and would have turned them off in droves. He simply would not have been able to spin his way out of it.


(23) Boger made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 12:53:38 AM | Permalink


Reading information at another blog site it is now my understanding that more probably than not JAG Officers Sullivan and Nelson, may not have direct personal knowledge of Kerry's discharge, by that I mean have themselves seen documents reflecting an other than honorable discharge. Rather, that is their conclusion based on their expert knowledge of the times and applicable law. Whatever.

For me this kicked up when I read on BeldarBlog "Rumor Mill Buzzing" last Friday. The nub, as I recall, was that the Chief had broken the code so to speak, reference was made to a former SECNAV who had confirmed the other than honorable discharge, standby for more, a meeting on the Capitol steps on Sunday, etc. Well, again reading at another website, I am given to understand that the former SECNAV is John Warner (not for example Middendorf). So it is kind of interesting to me that the former SECNAV and the two retired JAG Officers are separate 'sources' where I had been assuming there was a single source. Whatever. I seem to remember Senator Warner being asked on camera about his knowledge of Kerry's service record several weeks ago. He claimed no knowledge, but I thought at the time there was the briefest of hitches, he was a little uncomfortable with the question, etc. If Warner is in fact the basis of the Chief's actions, then I am most curious why he has not at least done what Secretary Middendorf has done, publicly chime in that Senator Kerry should release all of his records. For that matter, I would have expected John McCain, even without benefit of any credible information on his part, to have publicly called for Kerry to become 100% transparent on his military record. Just as an academic matter, I would be curious to know if McCain believes that a candidate for President with an other than honorable discharge in his record MUST disclose it, no matter the circumstances?

Then there is the rather pithy comment by a blogger on Beldar who announced that Kerry would sign the Form 180 after November 3. I was nonplused by that idea. And the reason for that would be....? Hard to imagine the writer is part of the Kerry brain trust, so probably just a brain toot. Whatever.

The following I am a little hazy on. Has to do with Mr. O'Neill's appearance on Nightline a week or two back. At the time I thought he held up a book to the camera opened to a page with a photograph of a picture of Kerry in Vietnam's War Memorial. I could be all wet on this detail, but I know O'Neill said that Kerry was viewed as a War Hero in Vietnam--theirs. This ain't a whatever. An American President, a war hero......... I can't even say it.

God help us all tomorrow. As we say around here, the Queen is out of quiet!

(24) Lee Shore made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 1:15:38 AM | Permalink

Boger (November 2, 2004 12:53 AM),

If the SECNAV in question was my fellow Virginian John Warner then that explains a lot. A sitting senator (especially this one) is not going to risk political capital on something like this, especially when the Wash Post and NY Times would spank him editorially for doing it. We don't need no steenkin' Profiles in Courage in the United State Senate.

Looks like NavyChief put his money on the wrong horse. And then someone got to him and forced him to back down.

Time for bed; early up tomorrow to vote -- ALL of us. GO BUSH!


(25) Claire made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 1:20:12 AM | Permalink


I think I saw O'Neill's appearance on Nightline, and I believe the book he held up was his "Unfit for Command". In it, there is a photo that shows a picture of Kerry meeting with NVN representatives. The caption was visible in the photo. Since then, the photo in the museum has been taken down (a photo on Swift Vets site shows it) and now it has been remounted in a different area that is NOT dedicated to those 'heroes' who helped the North Vietnamese Communists win the war with America.

(26) Beldar made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 3:11:53 AM | Permalink

SemiPundit, if you were not a frequent and civil commenter, and if I didn't recognize this as an allusion to alleged campaign dirty tricks supposedly played by someone opposing Sen. McCain during the 2000 Republican primaries, I'd have deleted your comment and possibly blocked your IP.

I hope that you didn't intend to accuse everyone who's concerned about Sen. Kerry's military record's mysteries of something akin to overt racism. Please keep things civil, my friend from the left.

(27) M. Simon made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 6:27:04 AM | Permalink


You forget one thing. Many of us in the middle just wanted to like Ole Bill. I was a Libertarian at the time and never voted for him but I found him likeable and not altogether wrong.

He tried to warn us of Osama and Republicans prefered playing wag the dick instead of attending to the nations business. And then Monica - what a help to the Jewish men of this nation. All the men probably. The competition don't you know. And then the Starr Report where despite sexual harassment laws men could talk about BJs at work again - for a while. :-)

Any way 9/11 wasn't just a Democrat show.

Kerry is just an ugly candidate. Clinton's policies without his charm.

(28) M. Simon made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 6:38:54 AM | Permalink


Wrong campaign.

It was the campaign against Thomas Jefferson. IIRC.

(29) M. Simon made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 6:41:41 AM | Permalink

BTW I did not find the remark racist at all.

But I'm a pretty non-PC guy.

Shouldn't we be tolerant of the non-PC left?

Especially when they are talking history?

(30) SemiPundit made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 9:04:45 AM | Permalink

It had not occurred to me that making a remark about racially tainted campaign tactics in South Carolina against Mr. McCain would be construed as itself racist. Thank you for your admonition, however; it shows where you stand.

It must be recalled also that Mr. McCain was attacked during the primaries with allegations that he had cooperated with the enemy during his captivity. He even confronted Mr. Bush about the matter, as we all know.

I can't help but be skeptical of information like that under discussion here that somehow only finds its way to the public at the last minute before the election.

(31) Beldar made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 9:27:26 AM | Permalink

SemiPundit wrote,

He [Sen. McCain] even confronted Mr. Bush about the matter, as we all know.

Yes, and Dubya promptly disassociated himself from those allegations in a televised debate moderated by Larry King, and unambiguously reaffirmed his admiration and respect for Sen. McCain's service. Sen. Kerry should have likewise disassociated himself from the equally repugnant elements among his own supporters (e.g., Michael Moore) — but conspicuously has not.

And I did not suggest, SemiPundit, that your comparison indicated racism on your part, but rather that it might be construed as a comparison of those now questioning Sen. Kerry's military record to the reprehensible individuals who tried to appeal to racist sentiments of potential Republican primary voters in South Carolina in 2000. You and I and George Bush all agree, I think, that those folks' efforts were reprehensible. I hope that you and I also can agree that having concerns about Sen. Kerry's fitness for office based on whether he originally had a less than fully honorable discharge is not comparable to having concerns about Sen. McCain's fitness for office based on whether he had a "black baby."

As for timing: Certainly one is entitled to be cynical of late-breaking allegations based on their timing. In this particular instance, with respect to Middendorf's hint on Sen. Kerry's discharge record, though, if there was some intent to withhold the implied allegation until a strategic moment, it was badly bungled. I doubt that two percent of the voting public has heard of Middendorf or his comments yesterday.

If the implied allegation is true, then the huge, incredible irony, of course, is that Sen. Kerry's stonewall will have been facilitated by the reverance of men like Middendorf (and everyone else who knows of or has access to Kerry's hidden military records) for all of America's laws, including (in this instance) the privacy laws that have been used as a shield by a scoundrel.

If the implied allegation is untrue, and there's any damage to Sen. Kerry from it, he must himself bear the blame for that, based on his refusal to authorize the release of his complete military records long, long ago.

Whether deserved or not, however, I don't think there will be any measureable damage to Sen. Kerry's prospects today either from the latest Lipscomb article or Mr. Middledorf's broad hints. Particularly if Sen. Kerry wins, however, I expect this issue to continue to brew between now and his inaugeration. And frankly, it ought to be pressed to a conclusion — one way or the other — even if Sen. Kerry loses, in part because it would reflect on his continued fitness even as a senator, but more importantly for what hindsight lessons it would teach about the bulk of the mainstream media's stupor during the 2004 presidential campaign.

(32) Cap'n DOC made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 9:48:51 AM | Permalink

Beldar, - Given the large number of Veterans who have decided (such as myself) to no longer remain silent about Senator Kerry, I don't think that this is going away - win or lose. I have my own reasons based strictly on my moral code for opposing the man, and those fall outside the reasons I felt it important to speak up about what he did and continues to do to our military.

Somebody knows what happened.

They won't remain silent forever.

(33) Screaming Eagle made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 10:01:08 AM | Permalink

My thoughts exactly Belter except that Kerry is just the pawn and we want the whole movement. The inter workings of the movement will be exposed if Kerry is toppled.

(34) Carlos V made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 11:08:55 AM | Permalink

The story of this election, regardless of who wins (Bush will), is the failure of the main stream media to fairly cover the campaign, and the exposure of that failure by the blogosphere. Has the MSM always been so deceitful in its coverage, or has it reached new lows with this hotly contested and highly polarizing election? I tend to think it has probably always been covertly partisan, still seeks to be covertly partisan, but its cover has been exposed. Has it gotten worse? It seems that it has, but that may be just the emotion of the moment, for it seems each presidential campaign I think the country is more divided and more partisan than ever before. Is that impression true? If it is true, how long can that partisan spiral stretch before it exceeds the forces which restrain? The frothy left fringe may seek to find an answer to that question, but will the MSM follow along and further that effort?

Going into this campaign, I would never have guessed that the radical left would succeed in leading the Demo-sheeps to a campaign theme guaranteed to willingly undermine the war effort in Iraq. It was one thing for the left to undermine a war whose underlying theme was a fight against communism, because they were fighting for their own cause, or at least a cause with which they sympathized at the time. But in 2003 and 2004 to overtly choose a theme that helps the Islamofascist terrorists is almost unbelievable, and is topped only by the fact that the MSM has helped.

If the election turns out the way I think it will, a Bush win both in the popular vote and the electoral college, then there needs to be follow-up on the MSM bias story. Having been so clearly exposed, and having so clearly failed in its covert mission, may prove to be embarrassing enough to actually shake the MSM foundation. Historically, Americans have held the press in high regard, and the freedom of the press has long been one of our most treasured. Perhaps the embarrassment of exposure will reveal in the MSM a hidden pride and desire to live up to the treasured status they seem to be trying to toss away.

(35) Knot4JFnK made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 12:54:10 PM | Permalink

Let me make it clear that I’m not a member of the SBVT, but mostly a lurker and member of their forum. I’ve watched a number of ongoing investigations at their site and want to comment on the timing.

The story of kerry’s LTH discharge was first published on Oct 13, but wasn’t enough to get any major coverage – or further investigation by the MSM (surprise). Unlike cBS, I saw the rush by Navy Chief and others to find evidence so the truth would be obvious. I don’t know what went on behind the scenes, but while they were not able to get irrefutable proof, they did get enough that it only takes a little “reading between the lines”. The timing of this additional evidence is unfortunate, but it wasn’t for lack of trying.


I have to conclude that the timing was a function of how this investigation has progressed, and now that the right questions are being asked, more evidence and witnesses will come out. Both the financial and human resources of the SBVT are limited, but they have done a world of good for all of us.

(36) Tom McCarthy made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 2:18:32 PM | Permalink

Well, it's just a little friggin' late now, ain't it!

Why wasn't conservative media SCREAMING for Kerry to release his documents?

As one who worked in the Navy's discharge review process and can read between the lines, I've been certain for some time that Kerry received an OTH, later upgraded under Carter's blanket amnesty to honorable.

Where has been the outrage?

(37) tom scott made the following comment | Nov 2, 2004 2:48:21 PM | Permalink

I thought the most striking sentence in your post was this:
I wish this had been on the front page of the WaPo, the NYT, and the LAT, and leading Dan Rather's and Tom Brokaw's nightly news broadcasts, a month ago. It wasn't — and that in itself is an ugly story.
With the high quality of your readers I would like to have seen some commentary on that. How it could be handled after the election and pressure brought to bear on some the the MSM.
About Semipundits comment. I immediately thought it referred to the stories about Bill Clinton's secret black baby. LINK That was reinforced by his reference to impeachment.
Nice post. I'll be back to see if some of your readers expound on your thoughts about the real ugly story.

The comments to this entry are closed.