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?”
Well I only have my own experience to go by. Not wearing your uniform properly, as in mixing civilian clothing and your uniform clothing was call for an article 15. But that was on active duty and the same went with active reserve from what I was told. But A.J. tells me that officers had or have a deferent set of rules because they apparently have to volunteer for (active reserve) weekend warriors other wise they are on something called standby reserves.
This of course even deepens the mystery of what kind of duty was Kerry on from 1970 to 1972 if he asked to be transferred to standby reserves in 1972?
Reservists not on active duty, and not performing inactive duty training, are not subject to the UCMJ, except for a very limited set of "offenses". Basically failure to report for a call up, failure to keep the service informed of ones address and other contact information, stuff like that. Reservists are not subject to the same restraints, legally that is, as active duty members, again except when actually performing duty.
That doesn't make Kerry's actions in 1970 and 71 any less treasonous nor any less illegal. Negotiating with foreign powers without government sanction is illegal for everyone, even Jesse Jackson.
I made that correction in Post #64.
Currently, it is not fear of the UCMJ that motivates Kerry to try to deceive the news media and voters into believing he was "discharged" prior to his anti-war activities.
It is fear of what voters will think once they know that he was still a U.S. Naval officer during that time period.
The first part is correct. IRR status makes one subject to immediate recall. Standby by reservist can be recalled as well, but it's more difficult, and may require express Congressional permission. The second part is incorrect. Reservists, whether Selected, Inactive Status, or Standby are not subject to the UCMJ. The exception being Selected reservists actually performing duty, either temporary active duty, or inactive duty training. Guardsmen are not subject to the UCMJ when performing strictly state duties. However the states have similar laws to cover them in that case.
Theres is a section of th UCMJ itself which indicates who it is applicable to.
UCM 801.2 (Note that's an Air Force site)
Just so there is no confusion, the "Fleet Marine Reserve and the Naval Fleet Reserve are the retired lists of those services. There is one significant exception. Anyone who obtains their discharge fraudulently can be tried under the UCMJ.
All that means is that, for whatever reason (probably political advantage) he did not resign his commission until '78. In '72 he was transferred to the standby reserve, which is what they do to inactive status reservists whose military service obligation has been fulfilled. Been there done that. Finally got transferred to the Retired Reserve. With a nice certificute which now hangs on my office wall. (That and a buck might get you a cup of coffee. No pay, no BX)
It was an act of treason, I agree (giving aide and comfort to the enemies of the United States), but his status as Naval Reserve officer at the time make it no more so. The same holds for his statements before Congress.
Thanks. Got it. My mistake.
Like shooting fish in a barrel. With a 12 gauge.
Actually Unit Reservists, plus individual mobilization agumentees (IMAs) are part of the Selected Reserve, (aka "drilling reservists". IRR is composed of people not in the selected reserve, but having a military obligation. Different status.
The term "active" in conjuciton with "reservist" is somewhat confusing. Most junior officers, other than Academy graduates, hold reserve commissions, even while serving on Extended Active Duty. That is more true today than then, when the top graduates of ROTC and OCS/OTS were often offered "Regular" commissions. Now most officer "go regular" when they are Captains/LTs. (O-3).
"Active Reservists" is the term often applied to the Selected Reserve, who may serve on Temporary Active Duty or Active Duty for Training, and who also perform "Inactive Duty Training". The latter is the "weekend" of "Weekend Warrior", although it need not be on the weekend, nor even on a military base or as part of a formal reserve/guard unit. The two weeks that most reservists serve each year is "Active Duty for Training". Pilots (and others) often put in way more than the 4 "drills" of 4 hours each that are required of Unit Reservists. (IMAs may do the 4 IDTs/month or only 2/month depending on their status, but most do only 2. (average, the actual rules for when they can be taken are ... complicated)
then why does it explain 12 years of service when he only owed 6?
OK, I was working from admittedly rusty memory.
I don't know what to think.
Bump.
An April 1970 entry for "Kerry released from Active Duty" would have sufficed if Kerry wanted to keep a low profile about everything that happened after that.
Other than to deceive, what purpose do the other two entries serve?
The additions of the irrelevant but highly suggestive "Kerry requests discharge" ( in 1970 when he is not eligible for it ) and "Kerry listed as Registrant who has completed service" ( his Selective Service standing in April 1970 ) indicates a deliberate attempt to deceive the news media into believing that he was "discharged" from the Navy prior to his anti-war activity.
The "President who will never lie to us" obviously does not consider lying by omission and lying by innuendo as actually "lying".
The "President who will never lie to us" has made it perfectly clear that, for whatever political reasons he may have, he does not trust the American voter, the American news media and even his own biographer with the truth about his own Naval career.
Did you see the link in Post 71?
When even Kerry's official biographer falls for the lie and actually publishes the lie in a hardback book, you now you are dealing with potential future President that considers lying to be an art form.
1 - EXCELLENT!
Few know this, especially ignorant liberals who have never been officers in the military. The DD-214 for an officer is not a 'discharge', but a 'release from active duty', and transfer into the 'inactive reserves'. The discharge, which for Reserve Officers comes many years later, is the actual 'release from military obligation' for officers. It looks like a medal award - not a DOD form.
I don't know about the Navy officer commitment back then, but Air Force officers had to enlist in the Reserves for 20 years. We had to spend 4 years active duty, and 2 years active reserve, and 14 nore years inactive reserves. And then, only then, after 20 years was served, did you get a 'discharge'.
This 'discharge ' is missing from Kerry's posted records.
Why? IMO, because it would show undoubtedly that he was still an officer in the Navy at the time of his peace marches, his senate testimony accusing his 'band of brothers' of WAR CRIMES, and his secret negotiations with the North Vietnamese in Paris. ALL WHILE STILL AN OFFICER IN THE NAVY.
1 - "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”."
Officers to be, enlist in the military as enlisted men. While in Officer Training, they are given the temporary rank of OT (Officer Trainee), and a pay grade of E-5. When they graduate from Officers training, they are given a real Discharge from the military enlisted ranks, then re-enlisted as a 'commissioned officer'. (Perhaps this is the source of Kerry's 'two tours' verbage.) If an officer candidate does not graduate from Officers Training, (flunks out), he is transferred immediately back to his enlisted status, and busted in rank, to E-1, and starts fulfilling his original enlisted obligation requirement. (This hammer assures that officers to be don't go in for a lark, and screw around, flunk and still complete their 'obligation'.
In my case, my enlisted discharge was not given until I had been an officer for 4 months, then it was backdated.
Meant to ping you to # 51
Meant to ping you to # 51
I have to conclude that this is nothing but slander. Unless someone produces some hard evidence I would drop it.
Amen. There is NO WAY that Kerry could keep it quiet. You are saying that he was recalled to active duty, court martialed and what? Acquitted? He would have yelled to high heaven about being persecuted for speaking out. Convicted? It would have been on the top of the page of every newspaper in the country.
Who was the convening authority? Who was the military judge? What officers were on the Court Martial? Who was the prosecutor? Who was his defense counsel? What was the verdict? Was it confirmed by the convening authority? Did Kerry appeal? If he had been court martialed there would be answers to all of these questions because the UCMJ doesn't provide for a Star Chamber to try and convict people in secret. There aren't answers to any of these questions because it didn't happen. We need to take a page from the Swift Vets and (1) research, (2) confirm, (3) document, (4) only then accuse.
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.