Posted on 02/18/2005 3:32:05 AM PST by johnny7
The recent resignation of CNN's news director, Eason Jordan, after his outrageous remarks about our military at an international forum were reported on the Internet, is only the latest in a series of media scandals, of which Dan Rather's forged documents were just one. Media bias does not consist in having liberal or conservative opinions but in how you do your job -- or don't do it.
One document whose authenticity is not likely to be questioned by the mainstream media is the honorable discharge on Senator John Kerry's web site. Yet who in the major media has investigated why that honorable discharge is dated during the Carter administration, when Kerry's military service ended years earlier? This is the same media that spent months investigating George W. Bush's military record and, even after key allegations were revealed to be based on forgeries, continued publicizing rumors and innuendoes. They didn't stop even after the President signed Form 180, opening all his military records to the public. But who in the major media has asked why John Kerry would need to be issued an honorable discharge during the Carter administration, years after leaving the navy, unless his original discharge was less than honorable?
One of Jimmy Carter's first acts as President was to issue an order granting amnesties to draft dodgers who had fled the country during the Vietnam war and also allowing an upgrading of military discharges that had been less than honorable. There is more to this than simply a strange date on an honorable discharge. The covering memo refers to U.S. Code Title 10, sections 1162 and 1163. Anyone who bothers to read those sections will discover that they are about unusual circumstances for issuing discharges from the military services. Senator Kerry never signed Form 180 to make all his military records public, as President Bush had done -- and the media didn't press him to do so. Even after Kerry's widely publicized role as a war hero was challenged by numerous men who had served with him in Vietnam, the media remained totally uninterested in checking out his record.
This gross double standard is the real media scandal, even more than the forged documents, which were after all the responsibility of just one network and one program. Maybe there is a perfectly innocent explanation for Senator Kerry's late-dated honorable discharge during the Carter administration. But no explanation has been asked or given, even though there may also be a not so innocent explanation.
What is well known is that, during the Vietnam war, John Kerry went to Paris on his own and engaged in discussions or negotiations with representatives of the country with whom we were at war, even though he was still an officer in the naval reserve. That raises legal questions about unauthorized personal diplomacy which naval authorities may not have overlooked as generously as the media did, and which could have affected the kind of discharge that Kerry received. One of the few people in the media who has shown any interest at all in Kerry's military records has been Tim Russert of "Meet the Press." He asked Senator Kerry on April 18, 2004 if he would "make all your records public." Kerry indicated that his records were already public, that people "can come and see them" at his headquarters.
But recently, on January 30, 2005, when Tim Russert again raised that question and asked "Would you sign Form 180?" -- the form that Bush had signed to open all his military records -- Kerry started off on a tangent before Russert interrupted him to repeat that same question. This time Kerry said, "Yes, I will." He will? He had already done so last year, if you believe what he said then. But will the media call him on it if he doesn't follow through now? Don't bet on it. This is not about the past or ultimately even about Kerry or Bush. It is about the future of this country. A gullible public learning only what is filtered to them by a biased media is not a hopeful sign for the future of a democracy.
Some of the public have begun to wake up but more need to do so. Many in the media also need to wake up to what they are doing, or failing to do, when their politics taints their work.
There should be no statute or limitations for treason.
It will be interesting to see what happens to Kerry when he comes up for re-election. It is one I will watch.
IF he runs unopposed, I'll won't be surprised... IF he doesn't win by a landslide, I'll be floored!
Awesome logic. I'd love to know the truth one day.
The story must be done by a newspaper like the Globe,NYT or LA Times.
If it is done by anyone else it will be portrayed like a "RightWing Conspiracy" blahblahblah. You know the drill.
Because a reporter voted Republican in 1972, he is automatically a right wing idealog out to smear JF'nK
There is no statute of limitations on treason. If anyone could possibly be tried for treason, sKerry and Fonda should be among the first. HANG THE TRAITORS!
Absolutely not.
When his discharge was upgraded, he probably pursued getting the awards reinstated so he could hang them on the wall of his office.'
'gag a maggot' ping
see #33
Excellent speculation...
lying traitor ping
see#33
I agree. There's not a thing wrong with it that a name change wouldn't fix.
It protects the person from just about everything.
Kerry had a protector.....Kennedy.
Thanks for the ping.
Just when I thought it was safe to not think about this lying traitor and his druggie wife, you come along with something so logical that I had to bite.
If you, or anyone else, wants a signature for a petition to disarm this Kennedy-wannabe and his traitorous ideas, FReepmail me. I will be the first in line.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.