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?”
Would giving aid and comfort to the enemy constitute a crime that would affect one's inactive reserve status? Admittedly, Kerry was never tried with the crime of treason, but he was arrested (we have pictures) while participating in antiwar activities.
As a former naval officer, I just checked my records. I had a regular commission. Although I resigned my commission in November 1972 after almost 8 years on active duty, I didn't receive my Honorable Discharge until 1978, which just so happened to be on the same date as Kerry's February 16, 1978 honorable discharge date. It makes me think that there was some blanket discharge of personnel from the Standby Reserves.
Well, it quite possibly makes you unfit for duty. It is a crime under civil law. There might have been an issue that he was no longer fit for active call-up and so somehow had violated a reserve obligation. That would have been a bit of a stretch at the time.
Nice melodramatic strawman rant you wrote there, Andy.
What on Earth does it have to do with the particular point that Vn_survivor_67-68 brought up?
Look at my Post 64: I wrote, "After reviewing your references, I must clarify my statement to state that John Kerry would not have been subject to the UCMJ unless he was recalled to active duty for actions committed in prior active duty or in active duty for training.".
I even posted to Vn_survivor_67-68 in Post 110 " Andy is correct on the point that Kerry was not subject to the UCMJ unless he was on active duty at the time or if he had been recalled to active duty for violations committed during prior active duty."
Vn_survivor_67-68 then posts back to us to point out that, in Congressional testimony, John F. Kerry, while a member of the U.S. Naval Reserves, had accused himself of war crimes that he had committed while on active duty".
Hmmmmmm.....Come to think of it, he most certainly did.
Come to think of it, that satisfies the the issues of jurisdiction under the UCMJ as established in Article 2 - Persons subject to this chapter..............................(2) A member of a reserve component may not be ordered to active duty under paragraph (1) except with respect to an offense committed while the member was .............. (A) on active duty.............
So, Vn_survivor_67-68 points out to both of us that John Kerry could have been liable to recall to active duty for prosecution of those alleged war crimes.
Your first response was that you cannot prosecute someone if "everyone knows" that accusations are false. Ummmmmm......How, exactly, does everybody "know" that? Crystal balls? Ouija boards? So, Kobe Bryant could not have been prosecuted because "everyone knew" his accuser was lying? Is the flip side to that that Kobe should be locked up without trial because "everyone knew" that he was guilty?
Whether the Navy took that course or not, the fact is that Kerry could have been called back for prosecution of alleged war crimes he claims that he had committed. What were they? Kerry had a reputation for being trigger-happy. They could have been indiscriminate fire into civilian areas or unauthorized burning of a Vietnamese village,.....who knows what.
Instead of addressing Vn_survivor_67-68 particular point, that Kerry confessed to of war crimes committed while on active duty you now wrap yourself in melodramatic strawman rants about "THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS" and "dictatorship under martial law".
As I have already posted, more than once, the point of this thread is that Kerry is deliberately deceiving the news media and the American voter and even his own biographer in regards to the fact that he was still a U.S. Naval officer at the time of his anti-war activities.
Although you are absolutely correct that that is perfectly legal, it is also apparent that John Kerry believes that that information is political poison. Therefore he engages in deceit to hide the truth from the American voter.
Kerry's theoretical exposure to liability under the UCMJ under certain limited circumstances and certain specific times during his time in the Naval Reserves are interesting historical tidbits but it is not, as you previously posted "the thesis" of this thread.
This may be the applicable law that Kerry may have violated in his Paris meetings.
Title 18 USC Section 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures ofthe United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply,himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agentsthereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
Which is a civil statute, and if kerry was in fact in violation he would have been subject to prosecution by the DOJ in Federal Court. I think that the statute of limitations will have passed by now.
bump... Wonder why 'the press' doesn't know this? We have wondered about this for many, many weeks, if not months.
A. The Associated Press, the New York Times, the L.A. Times and the Boston Globe are too incompetent to do the basic research that an Internet poster can do in his spare time.
B. The Associated Press, the New York Times, the L.A. Times and the Boston Globe know the truth but won't report it because the truth would hurt Kerry's campaign.
Those are the two possibilities.
You decide.
If you know anybody in the press, e-mail them the thread link.
bump for truth and for later. . .
Eminently useful analysis of Kerry site's posted cotton-candy military "credentials," that have as little reality as Kerry's after-action reports in Vietnam.
Roger that!
"Inactive duty reserve personnel are not subject to the UCMJ for their civilian acts, nor do they give up right of free speach, right of dissent, etc."
You are, I believe, absolutely correct so long as the person is acting as a civilian, I wonder though, whether the fact that Kerry was wearing fatigues in these anti-American acts affects his status. I am ex-Navy but not an expert on the UCMJ, do you have any knowledge of how the wearing of a uniform affects his liability? I am not even sure what he was wearing, it certainly was not recognizable to me as a US Navy uniform.
Ahem.... speaking of forgeries...
Not making any accusations or anything but all this chatter about fonts and forgeries made me curious and I took a peek at Kerry's DD214.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/DD214.pdf
Notice the different M's in FITZSIMONS and COMMISSION.... the different L's in COLORADO and NAVAL... the different C's in COLORADO and COLLEGE, etc....
All the darker text is in one font (typical older mono-spaced font), and the lighter text is all in a different font (a proportionally-spaced font you'd find in a word-processing program).
Two fonts in a document supposedly "typed" 30 years ago.
Curious... very curious...
You are most correct. I've been analyzing the font differences in Photoshop under high magification and enhanced contrast all night.
"Excuse me, Mr. Kerry, but could you put your feet together? I only have one nail left..."
Ahem.... speaking of forgeries...
Not making any accusations or anything but all this chatter about fonts and forgeries made me curious and I took a peek at Kerry's DD214.
Well, for that question, we need to call in the Freeper who started it all...........Buckhead! :-)
BTTT !!
There is a simple explanation for the different fonts and spacings. The stock form DD 214 does not even specify the branch of service. Much of the form can be printed in advance and in bulk, to avoid unnecessary typing.
The light text, with proportional spacing and a different typeface, is boilerplate text which applies to all OCS graduates being discharged to become Ensigns. It was PROFESSIONALLY PRINTED with typesetting equipment at a print shop. Note the absence of any typos in the light text.
The dark text, with monospacing and a typewriter typeface (Pica?) is specific to the individual. It would probably have been typed by an SK2 or SK3, then signed by an officer.
First time user. Don't know if I am replying to the correct message.
Didn't the article fail to mention that while Kerry was a Naval Reserve Officer, he also went to Paris and met with the enemy?
bmp
Welcome to FreeRepublic.
Didn't the article fail to mention that while Kerry was a Naval Reserve Officer, he also went to Paris and met with the enemy?
Well, it's wasn't exactly an "article". I wrote it.
Yes, I did neglect to put that in there.
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.