Thomas Lipscomb works himself into a cut and paste frenzy with his latest screechfest over at Huffington Post:
Why "Running on the Record" is Harder Than You Think
Lipscomb long ago lost any semblance of credibility he might ever - in the far far past - have had. Now, too lazy to even make up new lies, he simply cuts and pastes old lies that have been debunked for years. You’d think he’d read some of those sarcastic comments at the old pieces he links to.
Where to start on such a breathtakingly dishonest display? Well, how about some of the more obvious lies?
1. Kerry’s medal citations.
You’d think by now Lipscomb had actually read the October 2004 Navy inspector general memos, you know, the ones that explained why Kerry had multiple citations:
. . .[I]t is apparent that duplicate citations issued under then-Secretary Lehman's and others' signatures in June 1985 were in response to a request from Senator Kerry or his office. . . . [T]here is considerable correspondence indicating efforts over the years to chase down various citations, etc. The citations under Secretary Lehman's name appear to have been signed by a machine, which would explain why he now doesn't recall any involvement.
(As to the two earlier versions of the Silver Star citation, the memos state that the first was the "COMUSNAVFOR Vietnam version, signed by VADM Zumwalt" and the second version was the "official version, signed by the delegated award authority, ADM Hyland, CINCPACFLT.")
----
Why, even Washington Times reporter Rowan Scarborough thought enough to just call up the Navy and ask:
Navy officials say that there is no evidence that Mr. Kerry's Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts were ever rescinded and that there is no evidence of misconduct in his records.
He did receive new medal citations in the mid-1980s. Officials say the Navy receives scores, and perhaps hundreds, of such requests each year from veterans who want a second copy or have lost the originals.
The citations are simply put through a machine that implants the signature of the current Navy secretary. John Lehman's signature, via a machine, appears on Mr. Kerry's new citation for his Silver Star.
----
You can read more here.
2. The "V for Valor" uhm, "mystery."
Yes, to this day, Lipscomb is STILL trying to whip up some faux outrage over a CLERICAL ERROR on Kerry’s DD214. Not the "certificate" - the actual Silver Star citation says no such thing. The DD214, not put forth by the Kerry campaign for anything except to show his release from active duty. Does this tell you something about his case?
You can link to this and the other military docs here.
3. Kerry’s discharge.
Lipscomb cuts and pastes (what, is he paid by the word or something?) from his old lies and innuendos about Kerry’s supposed "disciplinary record" and supposed need to have his less-than-honorable discharge fixed up.
You see, Lipscomb can’t be bothered to actually read the discharge papers themselves, which have been public since 2004, or the statutes and regulations which they cite. If he had, he’d know that there are no discrepancies whatsoever. According to those regulations (BUPERSMAN 3830300 (1) (register here to access)) and related statutes, Naval reserve officers serve for an indefinite term. Thus, Kerry was not discharged when his active duty time was up, but transferred to the Ready Reserve, and when that obligation was fulfilled in 1972, transferred to the Standby Reserve- Inactive. No obligation to drill or report, or do anything but keep your address current. Thus, no records for that period.
Even the Navy confirmed that last part way back in 2004.
Anyway, Lipscomb should know, having once published the bad information put out by two former JAGs, that the regulations (BUPERSMAN 3830300 (6a)) also provided that a reserve officer who’d been on Standby Reserve - Inactive status for at least three years - or even one who showed too little interest to keep in touch (6e) - could be separated upon the review and approval of a board of officers. This was far from unusual, according to Rowan Scarborough:
Navy documents show that in 1978, he received an "honorable discharge certificate" after a board of officers convened and reviewed his record.
Navy officials say today that the board was standard operating procedure at that time for all reservists and does not indicate Mr. Kerry did anything wrong.
After service just short of four years on active duty, Mr. Kerry transferred to the Ready Reserve and then in 1972 to the standby Reserve. He was not required to attend drills under those two designations, says a Navy official who asked not to be named.
Another hint: If it was a board convened to review and upgrade an other-than-honorable discharge, Kerry's discharge letter would have referenced 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1553 (virtually unchanged since the '50s), not the regs and statutes authorizing a board of officers "to examine the official records of officers of the Naval Reserve on inactive duty and determine whether they should be retained on the rolls of the Reserve Component or separated from the naval service." *
You can read more about the applicable regs and statutes at my diary here.
Why, even one of the JAGs that Lipscomb once so proudly quoted conceded that the length of time between Kerry’s transfer to the Inactive reserve and his final discharge was likely "the result of an administrative foul-up" (New York Sun, June 10, 2005).
But ya have to give him credit for originality on this one: Kerry asked the Secretary of the Navy to help him to "expunge the disciplinary action the Navy had taken against him for what the Navy regarded as treasonous activities" so he could get into law school. See my comment below on the obvious lie about talking to Warner, Middendorf, or any other former secretary. But let’s consider:
Kerry is assigned to the inactive Ready Reserve upon release from active duty effective January 3, 1970. He is offered the opportunity to extend this Ready Reserve commitment on March 1, 1972 (wow, sounds like they liked him!) and when that offer is not accepted, he is automatically transferred to the Standby Reserve-Inactive on July 1, 1972. Right on schedule.
Then, sometime between July, 1972 (long after he'd quit VVAW) and February, 1973 (law school application deadlines), the Navy recalls Kerry into active duty and "disciplines" him, and rather than discharge him, returns him to the Standby Reserve- Inactive. But hold on a minute, reservists are only subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice while they're on inactive-duty training. Kerry had no training requirements as a reservist...and even if he did, he sure wasn't visiting the Paris peace talks or going to demonstrations while on training. Oops.
Okay, aside from the literal impossibility of Kerry being hauled into a military proceeding, consider that all this would be happening while he is a candidate for Congress. Kerry, despite being a high-profile anti-war activist not shy of publicity, chooses NOT to exploit this headline-making, sympathy-building controversy. Moreover, not a single other member of VVAW had been so "disciplined." Oh yes, and the FBI, in its hundreds of pages of observations about Kerry, has not a word to say about any rumblings from the Navy. Neither does the White House, which was desperate to hurt him, dug through his Navy records, and said so on tape. In fact Chuck Colson says that try as they would they never found anything on him ... and that would include Navy "discipline." But hey, what would he know?
Golly, leave it to Lipscomb to come up with those uhm, amazing scenarios!!!!
*By the way, Lipscomb even admitted once that Kerry's discharge letter is identical to letters given to officers discharged through a reduction- in- force action. Just can't keep his stories straight, can he?
4. Lipscomb’s top-secret anonymous sources.
When Lipscomb can’t prove a claim by showing documentation or providing a reliable on-record quote, he simply makes up anonymous sources:
A former Secretary of the Navy supposedly tells him - in contravention of law and ethical constraints - that Kerry wanted him to expunge his "disciplinary records." Interesting he didn't mention this in 2004, huh?
Anyhoo, aside from the fact that the documents prove conclusively that Kerry did NOT have such a record, Lipscomb has admitted that John Warner, Secretary of the Navy from 1972 to 1974, "has no recollection that would either confirm or challenge any representation that Senator Kerry received a less than honorable discharge"; William Middendorf, who was secretary from 1974 to 1977, has also stated that he has no independent knowledge of Kerry’s personnel records.
Of course Middendorf (a conservative Republican) was not Secretary of the Navy until June 1974, nor was he even undersecretary until September 1973, when Kerry was already in law school, so he couldn't have been the one Kerry approached. Hmmm, well maybe he meant Kerry hit up a former secretary. Let's consider the other possible candidates.
Okay, of all the men who served as Secretary of the Navy prior to 1973, only three are still alive:
Two of them (Paul Fay and Charles F. Baird) weren't even confirmed secretaries, having served 26 days and 61 days, respectively, as acting secretaries under Kennedy and Johnson. Not likely to have much clout, much less in a Nixon administration. And not likely to be badmouthing Kerry to a hack like Lipscomb.
The third (Paul Ignatius), who also served under Johnson, is the father of a liberal Washington Post columnist (David Ignatius) and is himself the former President of the Washington Post. What do you think the chances are of him giving such a scoop to a fifth-tier wingnut like Lipscomb?
Of course there's always the outside chance that Lipscomb interviewed the only other former secretary who was still alive in 2004 (Paul Nitze), a 97-year-old former Johnson appointee confined to a nursing home. But oops, he was actually on his deathbed ... dying just a few days after Lipscomb wrote his October 2004 article about Kerry's discharge. Lipscomb just forgot to include this dynamite piece of information Mr. Nitze whispered to him, and kept on forgetting for the next 3 1/2 years!
So,the chances of Lipscomb lying through his teeth on this one are what, about 100%?
-------------------
A member of the Harvard Law School admissions board - also in violation of ethical constraints - supposedly informs Lipscomb that Kerry wasn’t admitted because of his less-than-honorable discharge.
This despite the undisputed fact that Harvard did not grant full consideration to late applications such as Kerry’s - and his was late by months. At least two biographers have documented that after his 1972 loss, faced with a campaign debt, a mortgage, and a baby on the way, he worked as a regional coordinator for the CARE foundation; after making a final decision not to try for another run in 1974, he applied to law school in the summer of 1973 (Tour of Duty, p. 424; John Kerry, the Complete Biography by the Boston Globe Reporters Who Know Him Best, pp. 163-164).
No, Lipscomb would like you to believe that contrary to ALL known facts, Kerry, immediately after losing the November 1972 election, decided to go to law school, studied for, took, and got his scores from the LSAT, obtained all his transcripts and letters of recommendation, and applied to HLS by February 1, 1973. (Either that, or Harvard simply decided just this once and just for him to break its hard and fast rule for no apparent reason after all the slots are filled...and give full consideration to a months-late application. It could happen!)
And the most amazing thing about this mysterious HLS admissions person: he was willing to risk his reputation and breach all rules of ethics to tell Lipscomb about Kerry’s supposed military record problems, but didn’t mention the most obvious reason of all for not admitting Kerry - his lousy grades !!! I mean geeze, this would have been a bombshell scoop for Lipscomb, since nobody else knew this fact. Why didn’t this so-called source know this?
It's Lipscomb's little embellishments on his lies that really do him in. He insists that this mystery man thought Kerry was otherwise "clearly qualified" for admission. Really, the Harvard admissions board thought a C-average student was "clearly qualified"?
--------------------------------
Oh, and let’s not overlook his newest anonymous sources - people who were supposedly at the American Spectator dinner and supposedly heard Pickens say something nobody else overheard him say. When in fact one of the bloggers who reported otherwise later confirmed that those were his actual words. And I guess he didn’t read Kerry’s first letter to Pickens, you know, the one where he mentioned talking to people who were actually there.
Come to think of it, how come NOBODY'S come forward to back up Pickens' version?
Come to think of it, why do all these highly-qualified sources - a former Navy secretary, a Harvard admissions committee member, eyewitnesses to Pickens' statments - choose to tell an obscure fifth-tier talent like Lipscomb these bombshell revelations? Why not the New York Times or the Washington Post, or heck, even the Washington Times?
And since Lipscomb couldn't have known who was on the 1973 admissions board, nor which former secretary might know anything, that means they would have to seek him out ... on the outside chance he might write about Kerry's discharge some day. How lucky is this guy that they find HIM to be the only one worthy of their confidence?!
5. Lying for Pickens.
Lispcomb really has no shame on this one. Of course Pickens’ actual challenge wasn’t restricted to SBVT ads, and neither one of the blogs that reported it has ever changed their story. As I said above, one of the bloggers separately confirmed it when asked on another blog. And of course, as Kerry mentioned, others who were there said the same thing.
And doncha just love how he weasles in Pickens’ little Calvinball play of changing the terms: "Kerry would have to authorize the release of records that could establish that disproof [sic]]." Well no, he said Kerry would have to provide ALL his records, including any from 1972-78, his journals, and his films, regardless of their relevance to the uhm, "disproof." Since when do you get to establish ahead of time what the proof will be? Either somebody proves something or they don’t. But we know that Pickens’ is a sleazeboater at heart, so honesty and reason don’t count.
I wonder if I took him up on his offer, would I have to provide Kerry's records and journals and films? Why?
Of course one of the reasons that Pickens backtracked is that he knows that the ads are mostly vague accusations ("Kerry lied!") and based on opinion. Interstingly, one of the only ads that claims to offer facts is the most easily disproven. See my diary here.
But how about this display of Lipscomb logic:
"Doesn't that in effect mean he is confirming that they can't be disproved? "
Well, doesn’t Pickens’ limiting his offer only to the ads in effect mean that everything else they said can be disproved?
6. Miscellaneous lies:
The bet was between Pickens and Kerry. False on its face. Pickens made the offer publicly, to "anyone."
----
Kerry said the "Patriot Project" was formed just to prove the SBVT lies. That’s a lie:
In February 2005, Mr. Kerry's supporters formed their own group, the Patriot Project, to defend veterans who take unpopular positions, particularly against the Iraq war. One of their first tasks was to visit newspaper editorial boards in defense of Representative John P. Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat and veteran whose military record has been attacked by Republicans and conservative blogs since he called for pulling the troops out of Iraq.
The group has sent a letter to Mr. Schachte calling for a meeting with him, Mr. Kerry and two former veterans who maintain — as they did publicly during the campaign — that they were the only other people on the skimmer with Mr. Kerry and that he was wounded in a hail of enemy fire.
NY Times
By the way, Schachte never responded to that letter. So much for the Patriot Project "never expos[ing] a single lie."
----------------
"By August 2004, the firestorm of accusations by hundreds of officers and men who had served in Vietnam with Kerry in the same Market Time command, calling themselves the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, hit."
Demonstrably false. Most weren't even there at the same time or place as Kerry, much less served with him.
SBVT membership
Crew Directory
-----
Kerry promised to sign the Form 180 "but he succeeded in delaying the release until after the election."
Idiot. He told that to Tim Russert in January 2005, which incidently, was AFTER the election, and signed the forms just a few months later.
----
Kerry got three competing news organizations to "conspire" to "hide" his records after he released them.
No mention of releasing his records to Douglas Brinkley; and by the way, Kerry exercised NO editorial control over what Brinkley wrote.
As to the three news organizations, yeah, they were so intent on "hiding" Kerry’s records they published unflattering stories about his college grades.
I'll bet he's also convinced that the media is "conspiring" to "hide" the fact that Elvis is alive and working down at the 7-11.
This is how desperate Lipscomb is. God, what a despicably sick man.
-----------------
Well, at least he’s not still claiming to be a Pulitzer "nominee."
Feel free to add anything you see.
------------
*