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 Kerrys 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 its 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 Kerrys 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: Kerrys date of separation from Active Duty.
April 29, 1970: Kerry listed as Registrant who has completed service.
Thats it. Nothing else follows in Kerrys 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 its 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 cant draft someone that has served an active duty tour. Such Selective Service paperwork is totally irrelevant to John Kerrys 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 Kerrys 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: Kerrys 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.
Kerrys 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 Kerrys 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 Kerrys 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 Kerrys 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. Kerrys 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?
FYI
Yes, I want my commander-in-chief to be a guy that drags the muzzle of his weapon through the dirt. And his campaign is so proud of this image of imcompetence that they use it to show his "war hero" credentials.
Bump and Ping!
imcompetence = incompetence (damn fast typing)
That was just the re-enactment.
Maybe during the "real thing", he held it properly.
[I'm sure it was really hard to find good film directors in Vietnam]....:)
He's going to lose, he's a habitual liar and the more he and his handy crew of bullcrap stars stay in the open, the worse it's going to get for them.
Cheese.
How could any body vote for a pos like this.
Man we have been over and over this on another thread. When you are in an inactive status not under training order you are not subject to the UCMJ for your acts committed while in an inactive status.
*Bump and bookmark*
Thought you guys might like to see this one, though I doubt it'll be much of a surprise to any of you...
Unfortunately, Kaerry simply can not afford to let this record be seen. He must hide these documents because the remove any doubt at all about his fitness to serve. An objective observer WILL NEVER be allowed to see these records and report on them.
But, consider. It must be a terrible secret to decide that it is better to be called a cowardly traitor, thrown out of the Navy for dereliction of duty or some serious military violation than to reveal the truth.
What makes that photo even better is that it was filmed AS A REENACTMENT!!! So he's Hollywooding it for the camera in a safe area, while trying to make the world think he's calm under fire/in a war zone.
That frickin' REMF makes me want to hurl.
Your whole thesis is wrong. There is nothing especially jumbled about the documents on his website and they appear to be in order. At the time he was the leader of Vietnam Veterans against the War he was in an inactive status. 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.
Please give it up. This entire line of reasoning is WRONG and DANGEROUS, and you will be challendged and contradicted by every officer who has left service and retired.
I suspect you never served on active duty as an officer or you would not even begin to make the claims that you are making.
There is plenty to get Kerry on without having to invent stuff.
IANAL but I disagree.
My understanding is: As long as you remain in the Individual Ready Reserve, you are subject both to immediate recall and to the UCMJ. Only a transfer to the Standby Reserve or a discharge ends your being subject to the UCMJ. (I will try to find a link to the exact language on this point.)
In April of '71, at Dewey Cyn III, he had a gaggle of 'handlers', all brimming with communist propoganda. These were devoted commies, not veterans. We know xlinton went behind the iron curtain, where, assuredly, he was fully indoctonated. It had to be between March '70 and the beginning of '71 when skerry received his. Any record of his activities during this period?
Excellent research. One should never 'baffle' while standing in front of a fan.
You can make an @ss out of yourself while in civilian clothes.
Once you make an @ss out of yourself while wearing the uniform of the U.S. Armed Forces while still a commissioned officer, that changes things.
Where do you get this information from?
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.