Posted on 09/04/2004 11:06:03 AM PDT by Polybius
"If you cannot prove it with facts, baffle them with bullsh*t".
That is how John Kerry’s official web site is currently dealing with the news media in regards to the delicate subject of when John Kerry was “discharged” from the U.S. Navy.
Why does this matter?
Because John Kerry does not want the news media reporter or the civilian voter unfamiliar with military jargon to know that he was still a U.S. Naval officer at the time he was the leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
The effectiveness of such deliberate deceit by Kerry can be seen by the fact that even the Associated Press wrote it’s own timeline falsely stating:
The true fact is that John F. Kerry was not discharged from the U.S. Navy until February 16, 1978 during the Carter Administration.
In paid TV advertising, John Kerry invites voters and journalists to “Read the official Navy documents at JohnKerry.com”.
Upon arrival at the “John Kerry in Vietnam” section of the web site, the voter is guided by links to John Kerry's Vietnam Service Timeline
The Vietnam Service Timeline on JohnKerry.com starts out being almost anal-retentive about minor details. For example:
“January 3, 1967: Kerry reports for duty at the Naval Schools Command at Treasure Island (CA)-Takes 10 week Officer Damage Control Course.”
However, once the subject of Kerry’s discharge from Naval service crops up, the Vietnam Service Timeline becomes a collection of irrelevant non sequiturs deliberately designed to confuse and deceive the news media and the voter:
“January 1, 1970: Kerry promoted to (full) Lieutenant.
January 3, 1970: Kerry requests discharge.
March 1, 1970: Kerry’s date of separation from Active Duty.
April 29, 1970: Kerry listed as Registrant who has completed service.”
That’s it. Nothing else follows in Kerry’s Timeline.
The civilian journalist or voter who does not know the difference between a “discharge”, a “separation from active duty” or a “Registrant” is left with the false impression John Kerry was no longer in the U.S. Navy by the end of April 1970.
That is how even the Associated Press was fooled into falsely writing in it’s own Kerry timeline, ” January 1970: Kerry requests discharge. He is honorably discharged, and later joins Vietnam Veterans Against the War. “
The voter with prior military service, however, will see that John F. Kerry is “baffling with bullsh*t”.
The term “discharge” means that the servicemember has been stricken from the enlisted or officer ranks of his military service without any future military obligation in those ranks and is no longer subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice in regards to his future actions as they relate to his prior military status. Being “discharged” from the enlisted ranks means that you are no longer an enlisted servicemember in the Armed Forces. Being “discharged” from the officer ranks means that you are no longer a commissioned officer in the Armed Forces.
The term “separation from active duty”, however, simply means that the military servicemember has gone from an active duty status into reserve status. There is no such thing as an “honorable” or “dishonorable” release from active duty. Such terms are reserved for the final discharge. In a reserve status, Kerry would still have been a U.S. Naval officer subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The term “Registrant who has completed service” deals exclusively with Selective Service paperwork that would indicate that the Selective Service can’t draft someone that has served an active duty tour. Such Selective Service paperwork is totally irrelevant to John Kerry’s status as a U.S. Naval officer under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Kerry invites the voter and the news media to view his select collection of military documentation. However, to the civilian voter or news media reporter, John Kerry's Official Naval Records is a confusing jumble of relevant and irrelevant military paperwork.
For example, a close examination of the Record of Discharge document reveals that it is the document that discharged Kerry from the enlisted ranks of an Officer Candidate at U.S. Naval Officer Candidate School so that he could be commissioned as a U.S. Navy Ensign and “continued on active duty”.
The only document provided on Kerry’s web page close to the January 3, 1970 Timeline entry stating that “Kerry requests discharge” is a January 2, 1970 Release From Active Duty document which specifically informs Kerry that, “….your release from active duty does not terminate your status as a member of the U.S. Naval Reserve. “
John Kerry was not eligible for “discharge” on January 3, 1970 because Kerry still owed the U.S. Navy service in the Naval Reserves after his release from Active Duty status. If John Kerry actually “requested a discharge” from the Naval Reserves on January 3, 1970, he provides no documentation of such a request on the document list on his official web page.
If such a request for a “discharge” was actually made on January 3, 1970 and then obviously denied, John Kerry provides no documentation of the denial of his request on the document list on his official web page.
Assuming that John Kerry is telling the truth that he actually “requested discharge” on January 3, 1970, it is then clear that the Vietnam Service Timeline on Kerry's official web page should read as follows:
January 1, 1970: Kerry promoted to (full) Lieutenant.
January 2, 1970: Kerry's release from active duty is authorized. Kerry was informed that “….your release from active duty does not terminate your status as a member of the U.S. Naval Reserve.”
January 3, 1970: Kerry requests discharge. The request was denied.
March 1, 1970: Kerry’s date of separation from Active Duty.
April 29, 1970: Kerry listed as a Selective Service Registrant who is no longer subject to the military draft.
June 1970: While still a commissioned U.S. Naval officer in the U.S. Naval Reserves, Kerry joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
April 23, 1971: While still a commissioned U.S. Naval officer in the U.S. Naval Reserves, Kerry led members of VVAW in a protest during which they threw their medals and ribbons over a fence in front of the U.S. Capitol.
April 23, 1971: While still a commissioned U.S. Naval officer in the U.S. Naval Reserves, Kerry wore a U.S. military utility uniform with ribbons and while wearing long hair and for the purpose of political advocacy in violation of U.S. Navy military regulations at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. He then accused fellow Vietrnam veterans of war crimes “reminiscent of Genghis Kahn”.
February 16, 1978: Kerry discharged from U.S. Navy.
Kerry’s Timeline on his official web page, however, comes to an abrupt halt with the irrelevant entry:
"April 29, 1970: Kerry listed as Registrant who has completed service.”
Why does the Kerry Timeline have an irrelevant entry dealing with Kerry’s Selective Service status in April, 1970 in it at all let alone as the very last entry on his Timeline?
Why does a Timeline that includes such trivialities such as “January 3, 1967: Kerry reports for duty at the Naval Schools Command at Treasure Island (CA)-Takes 10 week Officer Damage Control Course” totally ignore Kerry’s actual discharge from the U.S. Navy on February 16, 1978 during the Carter Administration?
Why does Kerry inform the news media and the American voter that he “requested discharge” on January 3, 1970 but then fail to mention that he was not eligible for discharge at that date?
Why does Kerry fail to document that his alleged January 3, 1970 "request for discharge", if it is actually true that he ever made it, was denied?
Why does Kerry fail to mention in his Timeline that he was discharged on February 16, 1978?
Why?
To “baffle with bullsh*t”.
To deceive the news media, both foreign and domestic.
To deceive the American voter.
“Registrant who has completed service” was the last entry in Kerry’s Timeline in order to deliberately give the news media the false impression that John Kerry had “completed” his Naval career by April 29, 1970.
And, by golly, the deceit worked.
The Associated Press swallowed John F. Kerry’s lie hook, line and sinker:
The candidate who claims he will be “a President who will never lie to you” has no qualms whatsoever in lying by omission and lying by innuendo on his official web page.
What the Associated Press and the remainder of the mainstream media Kerry apologists should be asking John F. Kerry is:
“Mr. Kerry, why does the “Vietnam Service Timeline” on your official web page deliberately attempt to deceive the news media and the American voter about the fact that you were still a commissioned U.S. Naval officer in the U.S. Naval Reserves during the time period of your anti-war activism?”
“Mr. Kerry, you have said you would be a President who will never lie to us. Do you consider lies by omission and lies by innuendo to be actual lies or do you fall back on the position that it would all depend on what the meaning of the word ‘lie’ is?”
Good points. Back in April the Kerry website listed Kerry's military service as: 1966-70 Active Duty, and 1972-78 Reserves. Kerry recognizes that his activities with the VVAW while still a Reserve (albeit inactive) subject to recall represents a negative and raises more questions.
Yep. That is from the would-be President "who would never lie to us".
Also among the records is the damning statement that Kerry's medals were reinstated when he was finally discharged under Carter. If his medals were reinstated at that point, it means that when he originally left the service, they were taken away, declared null and void. The Navy doesn't do this without a reason, folks, and we all know why they did it. We just would like to see it down in black and white, thank you.
Thanks so much for the ping!
My contention is that the Navy discharged him in under than honorable circumstances. He would have lost his medals under this condition, right?
His medals were reissued. Why?
What are on the 100 pages he will not allow to be disclosed from his Navy record?
I agree that he was not recieve a courts martial, no way he could have kept that under wraps. But he could have recieved an admin discharge that would have grave implications for his campaign.
Oh. Thanks. Well, if that is true, and the Navy did try Kerry I would think that there would be much more than 100 pages to account for this. (Assuming of course that all record of this was not purged because of Jimmuh Carter's EO)
Which brings up the point: If some of the swiftees actually testified, why do they not just come out and say it in one of their comericals?
"I testified at the court martial of John Kerry" would be good enough. Are you sure it was a court martial, and not some other type of fact finding investigation regarding the war, in general?
Thanks for your reply. The 100 pages that he will not let the Navy release is what I am curious about.
yes sounds very familiar, and the sickening feeling feels familiar too. I remember that time in history, and cannot for the life of me grasp, HOW and WHY he is in the senate at all, nevermind running for President. He should be banned from both, I would like to know why he isn't!
Kennedy mob money perhaps?
exactly right, and he also had to have his medals reissued in 79-8. Only time they are reissued is if they were revoked due to court martial.
,Something happened between 1970 and 1972 the Kerry does not want known, hence no Form 180 and gap they try to camouflage.
Kerry was under surveillance from FBI AND Nixon Whitehouse (Nixon taped conversation with Colson).
Prosecute and make a martyr or "stain" and neutralize??
WWND - What would Nixon do?? Do the math!
Kerry doesn't need any Kennedy mob money. Since before his VVAW days he has been funded and backed by International Communists.
Do you notice how it doesn't say "honorably discharged" from Active duty? The Washington Post had a side-by-side comparison of dates and what the candidates were doing at the time. They also listed Kerry as being discharged from Active Duty but not listing the type of discharge. Pres. Bush is listed as "honorably discharged" from Active Duty. This story was in yesterday's Washington Post.
Actually, the use of the word "discharge" is part of the "baffle-em-with-B.S." strategy that the Kerry web page uses.
If you have any remaining Reserve obligation on your contract, as Kerry did, you are "RELEASED from active duty".
As I noted in my essay, " 'discharge' means that the servicemember has been stricken from the enlisted or officer ranks of his military service without any future military obligation in those ranks ".
Kerry's Timeline states:
"January 3, 1970: Kerry requests discharge"
Kerry had Reserve obligated service time left in his contract until 16 December 1972.
Kerry was not, I repeat, NOT, eligible for "discharge" in January 1970.
Kerry provides no copy of this alleged 3 January 1970 "request for discharge".
Who knows what he actually requested.
Maybe the 3 January 1970 entry is a total fabrication.
The bottom line, however, is that, by throwing the word "discharge" in his Timeline in January 1970, Kerry is baffling even so-called "professional" news organization such as the Washington Post with B.S.
In turn, The Washington Post then feeds false information to it's readers.
Do you have a link to the Washington Post story?
Board Review of discharges dated 1984-(also apparently changed by 1981 court decision)long read..there also was a Clemency discharge brought about by Pres Ford 1974 (deserters)..pertinent part(bottom of post) deals with reserve civilian misconduct..also mentions separation and discharge for officers..Board decisions are available in the Pentagon Reading room but names and other identifying info are redacted so I don't know how one could find it..
http://usmilitary.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://neds.nebt.daps.mil/Directives/5420174c.pdf
9.2 Propriety of the Discharge
a. A discharge shall be deemed to be proper unless, in the course of
discharge review, it is determined that:
(1) There exists an error of fact, law, procedure, or discretion
associated with the discharge at the time of issuance; and that the rights of
the applicant were prejudiced thereby (such error shall constitute prejudicial
error if there is substantial doubt that the discharge would have remained the
same if the error had not been made); or
(2) A change in policy by the military service of which the
applicant was a member, made expressly retroactive to the type of discharge
under consideration, requires a change in the discharge.
b. When a record associated with the discharge at the time of issuance
involves a matter in which the primary responsibility for corrective action
rests with another organization (for example, another Board, agency, or
court), the NDRB will recognize an error only to the extent that the error has
been corrected by the organization with primary responsibility for correcting
the record.
L
c. The primary function of the NDRB is to exercise its discretion on
issues of equity by reviewing the individual merits of each application on a
case-by-case basis. Prior decisions in which the NDRB exercised its
discretion to change a discharge based on issues of equity (including the
Enclosure (1)
9-1
factors cited in such decisions or the weight given to factors in such
decisions) do not bind the NDRB in its review of subsequent cases because no
two cases present the same issues of equity.
d. The following applies to applicants who received less than fully
honorable administrative discharges because of their civilian misconduct while
in an inactive duty status in a reserve component and who were discharged or
had their discharge reviewed on or after April 20, 1971: the NDRB shall
either re characterize the discharge to Honorable without any additional
proceedings or additional proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with
the Court’s Order of December 3, 1981, in Wood v. Secretary of Defense to
determine whether proper grounds exist for the issuance of a less than
honorable discharge, taking into account that:
(1) An other than honorable (formerly undesirable) discharge for an
inactive duty reservist can only be based upon civilian misconduct found to
have affected directly the performance of military duties;
(2) A general discharge for an inactive duty reservist can only be
based upon civilian misconduct found to have had an adverse impact on the
overall effectiveness of the military, including military morale and efficiency
I am writing up a thread to spread the word.
Detailed analysis of Kerry discharge now online at
http://www.vetsforbush.net/kerry-oth-discharge.pdf
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.