Kerry citation a 'total mystery' to ex-Navy chief (John Lehman)

Sun Times ^ | August 28, 2004 | Thomas Lipscomb

[Grampa Dave]

Kerry citation a 'total mystery' to ex-Navy chief

August 28, 2004

BY THOMAS LIPSCOMB

Former Navy Secretary John Lehman has no idea where a Silver Star citation displayed on Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's campaign Web site came from, he said Friday. The citation appears over Lehman's signature.

"It is a total mystery to me. I never saw it. I never signed it. I never approved it. And the additional language it contains was not written by me," he said.

The additional language varied from the two previous citations, signed first by Adm. Elmo Zumwalt and then Adm. John Hyland, which themselves differ. The new material added in the Lehman citation reads in part: "By his brave actions, bold initiative, and unwavering devotion to duty, Lieutenant (jg) Kerry reflected great credit upon himself...."

Asked how the citation could have been executed over his signature without his knowledge, Lehman said: "I have no idea. I can only imagine they were signed by an autopen." The autopen is a device often used in the routine execution of executive documents in government.

Kerry senior adviser Michael Meehan could not be reached for comment on Kerry's records.

Thomas Lipscomb is chairman of the Center for the Digital Future in New York

[Terabitten]

Nope, hadn't seen that one. In fact,that's the first time I've ever heard anything about anyone actually throwing citations back across the fence.

Throwing away the citations puts things into an ENTIRELY different light, IMHO. Thanks!

[Terabitten]

Thanks, Cboldt. I appreciate it!

[mewzilla]

So does this mean Lehman wouldn't have signed it anyway? Okay, color me confused. Did Jean give himself this citation, or was it fraudulently signed off on?

[Milligan]

Courtesy Zipper's Fakes & Frauds
Very often autographs are not authentically signed by the individual in question. "Fakes" come in several forms:

Autopen
A mechanical device that "signs" flat objects such as photos, cards, letters, etc. A writing instrument is inserted into the mechanical armature and the device "signs" a name using a preprogrammed pattern (matrix) that simulates the person's real signature. Almost any type of pen can be used by an Autopen. (Note: Autopen is capitalized because it's the brand name of the device.) Good Autopens can be difficult to detect, but there are some tell-tale signs that an Autopen has been used.

"Shaky" signatures - A signature that appears unnaturally "shaky." This happens when the Autopen armature vibrates as it signs. Here is an example of a shaky Autopen. The vibration appears most prominently on the "W", "R" and "G."


Exact matches - Autopen signatures match each other exactly. This does not occur with real signatures. Sign your name a million times and no two signatures will be EXACTLY the same. If two signatures match exactly they are Autopen signatures. Of course you need 2 samples of the signature to conduct this test. Publications like Pen & Quill, Autograph Collector and Autograph Times frequently publish known Autopen patterns. Buy and save these magazines for reference. There are also many online sources where you can see Autopen patterns. If you're checking out scans on someone's web page and their signature matches yours, guess what? You both have Autopen signatures. Importantly, size of the signature and pen type don't matter. George Bush typically sends Autopenned photos -- some signed with a fine point marker, others signed with a thicker Sharpie. At first glance they may appear to be different signatures, but they match exactly. It's just a different type of pen that was used in the Autopen machine. Also, be aware that some celebrities -- most notably Nolan Ryan -- use several different Autopen patterns.

Lines are all same thickness - An Autopen holds the writing instrument at a 90 degree angle from the writing surface. This means that, in an Autopen signature, the lines are all the same thickness. When signing, a real hand holds the pen at a 50 - 70 degree angle to the paper. This makes some of the lines in the signature slightly thicker than others. This phenomena can be seen most visibly when a thick tipped pen is used and there are loops in the signature.

Abrupt starts and stops - When a human hand writes, there are often "drag" or "lift" marks left where the pen was raised from the paper. This can often be seen best at the end of a signature where the last letter "tails" off. With an Autopen, this doesn't happen. An Autopen lowers and raises from the surface straight up or down at a 90 degree angle. This means Autopen signatures often start and end abruptly leaving a dot of ink where the pen lowers and raises. The George Bush Autopen signature is a good example. Note how the signature is absolutely uniform in thickness throughout, and how the signature starts and ends abruptly with a dot. (You can also see the "shaky" "B.")

http://www.spectrumsportscollectibles.com/en-us/pg_9.html

[txrangerette]

I don't like McCain, CFR or W's
dalliance with them. I do see it
for what it is - tactics. But he
must not go where McCain went &
call these wronged heroes what
McCain did. I don't think he has.
But he needs to understand what
is driving this issue. The guts
of it, I agree.

[Timeout]

Did Jean give himself this citation, or was it fraudulently signed off on?

First, he WAS awarded a Silver Star (with citation)---without going into the merits. The qustion is why there are 3 versions and especially why the last was issued in Lehman's term.

Speculation is:

1)Vanity: He wanted the more adulatory language and the SecNavy's signature for the frames on his walls.

2) He really did throw his medals away in 1971, lied about it, then needed replacements.

3) The language in the original citation (Zumwalt version) was longer and very specific about the action that day. If Kerry had exaggerated his role in reports to Zumwalt, he may have wanted the language "toned down" (Hyland version) to be less specific---and less traceable. But that doesn't account for why he'd need the Lehman version.

Clear as mud, huh?

[mewzilla]

Thanks! But if Lehman didn't sign it and it wasn't supposed to be autopenned, what the heck happened?

Just another reason to despise Jean. Trying to keep track of his pathological loony lying is making my BRAIN HURT!

[Doohickey]

They Navy uses stars for multiple awards. For ribbons and some lower medals (like the Good Conduct) it's a bronze star (or silver for five awards). For other medals it's a gold star (or silver, signifying five awards).

[mewzilla]

Just give me 43, whose moral compass always points true, and with whom what you see is what you get.

[Timeout]

We don't know what happened. We've been looking at this for 5 months, still don't have an answer.

This thread's length indicates how many are interested that the media has finally started looking, too.

[Robert A Cook PE]

But! ....

Ya don't need a "new" SecNAV signature on a "new" citation (with different, more complimentary language!) to get "new" ribbons or medals, reagardless of what reason you lost them/threw them over the White House fence.

[txrangerette]

The "V" the other post mentioned
not belonging with a Silver Star,
is a seperate issue from whether Lehman signed the 3rd Citation.

B/c, no "V" appears on the 3 SS
Citations(nor should it; "V" does
not go with a SS). Kerry's website
mistakenly LISTS such an award in
his line-up of claimed awards tho.

The wording of the 3rd Citation,
supposedly over Lehman's name, is
changed to puff up Kerry's deeds,
from what the 1 & 2 versions say.

This was meant to be an identical
copy to replace a "lost" one, but
it isn't. Lehman says he did take
part in a replacement(copy) for
Kerry, but he knows NOTHING of
this changed, puffed-up wording

[txrangerette]

No, you don't need one. But you
might want one for some odd reason
hmmmmm????

[cyncooper]

none deny that the landing had been calculated the night before.

Remember a week ago when Chicago Tribune editor William Rood's column was revealed and we had to endure 24 hours of "Vet/Journalist supports Kerry" crap? Close analysis showed Rood supported the Swift Vets, not Kerry. One aspect I was not aware was in the book, too, was Rood said that Kerry had devised this plan the day before. Now you're showing us that was the Swift Vets' story. Another showing that Rood did not dispute the Swift Vets' account, but rather buttressed it.

My, I'm not surprised, just disgusted that the "journalists" wetting themselves over Rood didn't think to page through "Unfit" and compare.

[cyncooper]

To be clear: Close analysis revealed Rood supported the what the Swift Vets were saying although he took the position that he was coming out in defense of Kerry.

Almost everything he has said has been shown to buttress the SV documentation and testimony.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

I think the point is....Kerry had an obsession with continually burnishing these award languages....to suit his political goals. There seems to be a pattern!!

Ol Kerry. Always thinking ahead. Never thought he'd be caught. No JFK mythology lies ahead for his legacy -- only the disgrace of being exposed as a shameless liar and fraud.

I am not a Vietnam veteran myself, but I believe I can still share their joy when final justice is heaped cold on Kerry's plate November 2nd.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

(i just can't believe this crazy dumba$$ lost America the war in Vietnam, altered the course of history, and caused the death of millions!)

Put Kerry's portrait right next to Carter's in history's Hall of Shame.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

["There seems to be a pattern!!"]

I AGREE..... OBSESSION is the word.

Kerry: Another warped, narcissitic, godless personality, juts like Clinton. The Dims seem to have en inexaustable supply of them.

[ActiveDutyUSMC]

After going over Kerry's three Purple Hearts listed on his website, I noticed another discrepancy that I haven't seen mentioned before. According to the citations the first Purple Heart was awarded for actions occurring on 2 Dec 68, the second was awarded for actions on 13 Mar 69, and the third was awarded for actions on 20 Feb 69. The second and third are out of sequence.

Now this may have been an administrative error by the person preparing and signing (all three citations were signed on the same date: 12 Aug 69), but it speaks to the fact that these records probably don't mean much to Kerry. If they did, he would have taken the time to correct the certificates to have the proper dates reflected. After all, he (or someone on his behalf) did take the time to have multiple citations corrected/reissued/embellished/...whatever for some of his other awards.

For me the bottom line is this: when taken individually all these discrepancies may seem trivial to some, but in aggregate, they paint a picture of someone who doesn't care about his military service and is conveniently using it for personal gain. Thankfully, I know many of the people I serve with see through this sham and are voting for President Bush.



Swift Boat Vets: Vietnam War Heroes
John Kerry: Vietnamese War Hero
...The difference is clear

[KQQL]

@