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 that status have any bearing on his meetings with the NVA and VC in Paris?
No. He was not subject to the UCMJ. If he violated the laws of the united states he would have been subject to prosecution in civil courts, just not military one's. His actions might have affected his fitness to retain his commission and his fitness to hold a security clearance, had those issues ever come up.
The point is that after release to inactive duty his assosciation with the U.S. military was a file sitting in a file cabinet of officers subject to recall if authorized by the Congress and so ordered by the President. But that is the beginning and end of it.
Seriously, folks. If the above is true, it should be mandatory that facts like this are publicly available on nominees for President.
If the above is true, basically no one is aware of it. This should not happen to any country whose citizens can read and write.
I don't care what party someone belongs to; a dishonorable discharge, even if later pardoned, should be part of a candidate's resume.
I hope this is backed up by some document somewhere.
On his military timeline on his website, it only lists 2 purple hearts.
Whats up with that now?
He was not on active duty and that is all the difference in the world.
As I find it impossible that Kerry could have or would have kept the fact of such a court martial supressed for all time, I have to conclude that this is nothing but slander. Unless someone produces some hard evidence I would drop it.
Because 1972 was still not an acceptable time to be court martialed in the eyes of the public.
Kerry would have forever his record of his court martial public since 1972, and instead, he keeps quiet.
The Navy keeps quiet to avoid making him a martyr.
Kerry keeps quiet to avoid being branded a traitor since 1972.
I think the guess fits the story quite right.
Are you saying that a reserve officer can wear his uniform in public and not be subject to violations of the UCMJ? Many of his anti war activities were in uniform including his metals. That's interesting learn something every day. Thanks
Again I aks, 'Was the shrapnel in his butt made in America of China?'
Pardons Granted to Evaders of Vietnam War (1977): Carter grants full pardons to the Americans who fled to Canada to avoid being drafted for the Vietnam War."
http://userpages.umbc.edu/~cgehrm1/pres_site/presidents/jc.html
and
"Mr. Carter invoked his powers as commander in chief and ordered that the "bad paper" military discharges of hundreds of thousands of deserters, malcontents and nonperformers be mandatorily upgraded, so long as they met one of six easily attained criteria."
http://www.jameswebb.com/Articles/wallstreetjrnl/carterinsult.htm
bump
I read nothing in the statute that suggests that there is jurisdiction under the UCMJ. Now, the unauthorized wearing of a uniform would certainly be prosecutable under civilian statutes regarding impersonating federal officials, etc. etc., since an officer may only wear a uniform in the line of duty (which is a rather vaguely defined term).
Let me also be clear - I am not trying to provide legal advice as to what folks should go out an do. This conduct is certainly despicable. I am not aware of any other reserve officers who have done this, and I would suggest that anyone contemplating it go and talk to a JAG officer first. Normally, an officer maintains an active drilling association with the Reserves on a voluntary basis. He drills, accumulates points towards retirement, gets paid for his time, and has a good time with his buddies, etc., and so minimally, for a voluntary drilling reservist, such actions would likely result in dismissal from drilling status - and thereby forefeture of any hope of completing 20 years good service to receive retirement.
I did.
It seems that Kerry's web page even got you mixing up terms such as "discharge" and "realease from active duty". :-)
"January 3, 1970 Kerry requested discharge from active duty."
IMO, problems with decorations, falsification of records whether occurring during his active service or afterwords could place Kerry in jeopardy and subject to investigation under the UCMJ.
Maybe the Navy washed their hands of Kerry, maybe that '78 surcharge was General and forever to remain unseen. Maybe Kerry will produce another document that suits his claims. After all, Kerry was pretty handy with a typewriter and 8mm camera in '69; he's probably a pretty decent high tec forger and counterfeiter now.
Thanks for the clarifications!!!! FRegards.
Active Duty
Active Reserve (either in a Reserve or National Guard unit or the Individual Ready Reserve-IRR)
Standby Reserve
As I understand it, the service obligation of all citizens in those days was eight years. Most officers served 2-3 years active duty, 2-4 years Active reserve, and the balance (usually 2 years) in the Standby reserve.
Kerry would have been in the Navy equivalent of the Active Reserve for 1-2 years following his active service, since he had an in initial contract to spend five years on active duty (from which he was released early).
As I recall, active reserve officers are subject to drilling and reserve obligations annually (which can be waived, but you have to ask), standby reservists are not.
By the late '70s, when the big post-Vietnam RIFs were happening, it was common to let people out of active duty early, and even to ignore their active reserve obligations. But in the early '70s, with Vietnam still hot, reserve officers were expected to get into units or drill personally.
Kerry's situation seems a bit strange to me, but as I said I wasn't Navy.
I found this interesting story in my local small town newspaper about Kerry and his current views on Viet Nam.
http://www.dailytimes.com/story.lasso?wcd=11917
Kerry was in the IRR and had no drilling obligation (you have no drilling obligation in the IRR). It is normal not to have a drillign obligation if you have served on active duty for the prescribed period of time. Since Kerry received no training obligation (pay for college or advanced courses) he would have incurred no such obligations. Acitive reserve simply means you are subject to immediate call-up (i.e. your bags are packed and you are ready to go on 24 hr notice) in a national emergency.
well your opinion doesn't count. The law counts and eh is in jeopardy under the UCMJ for his actions afterwords. Furthermore, the statute of limitations passed long long long ago for Kerry's active duty service. He might be in jeopardy for having his records revised after investigation, but that is about it.
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.