Posted on 10/03/2004 1:27:55 PM PDT by wagglebee
OPINION -- What a young man did more than 30 years ago shouldn’t be a primary criteria in determining his qualifications to be President of the United States. George Bush has had almost four years now as Commander and Chief of the World’s largest military force and he should be judged on how well he has done. Yet John Kerry and the Democratic Left won’t give it up.
On almost a daily basis, Kerry says, "I served this country honorably as a young man in Vietnam [4 months/12 days] and I will serve this country honorably as Commander and Chief." Then the Left yells that George Bush got preferential treatment in getting into the National Guard and even failed to complete his Guard obligations. They have even forged documents to prove their point.
The facts are that George Bush served honorably in the National Guard obtaining service points far in excess of the 50 annual service points required to meet his obligation.
Records show that in 1968/69 he accumulated 253 points -- 340 in 1969/70, 137 in 1970/71, 112 in 1971/72, 56 in 1972/73 and 56 in 1973/74 -- points far in excess of the service agreed to and that required to meets his obligation and be Honorably Discharged.
George Bush has never made his National Guard service a qualification to lead this country, nor has he ever questioned the service of John Kerry.
While the Left and the mainstream media have never questioned the Vietnam era service of John Kerry, they seem to feel that the record of George Bush 30 years ago should be of concern to voters in November.
But what about John Kerry’s record?
We are told that he was a decorated veteran. We are also told that he was deeply involved in anti-war activities on his return from Vietnam in violation of his oath as an officer in the US Navy. Kerry has a long and well-documented history of providing "aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of war. By his own account of his actions and protests, he violated the UCMJ, the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Code while serving as a Navy officer. Further he met, on two occasions, with North Vietnamese negotiators in 1970 and 1971, while a Reserve Officer, willingly placing himself in violation of Article three, Section three of the U.S. Constitution, which defines treason as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare.
From here, the record of John Kerry becomes unclear and the mainstream press won’t demand that John Kerry sign a Department of Defense (DOD) form 180 that would release all of his military records.
Records released by Kerry's campaign are confusing. There are indications that he was Honorably Discharged on Jan. 3, 1970, Feb 16, 1978, July 13, 1978 and even lately Mar. 12, 2001.
Why the confusion on a relatively simple service event? Could it be that John Kerry received a less than honorable discharge in the early 70’s because of his anti-war activities? And then was pardoned for those activities when then President Jimmy Carter on January 21, 1978 (Proclamation 4483) granted a full, complete and unconditional pardon to all persons who may have committed any offense between August 4, 1964 and March 28, 1973 in violation of the Military Selective Service Act or any rule or regulation promulgated there under?
Did John Kerry request that his service be granted an Honorable Discharge and it was finally granted in 1978? Only a complete release of his military records will show what actually happened during this period. And to date, John Kerry has refused to sign the necessary DOD form 180 which would allow for this release.
If the Democratic Party, the mainstream press, and the Bush critics are going to demand -- as they do on almost a daily basis -- that George Bush release all of his records, shouldn’t they do the same for John Kerry?
On what basis do you make such allegations? This is nonsense. Wild conspiracy charges and fantastic stories don't help those of us who want to nail Kerry with facts.
Hey there Tonk,
About The Lehman Silver Star document, Wouldn't Kerry's Official Record record why Lehman had to sign one or note that Lehmen did sign one?
Every time I recieved an medal or an award of even an attiboy my SRB had it noted in it.
On what basis do you make such allegations? This is nonsense. Wild conspiracy charges and fantastic stories don't help those of us who want to nail Kerry with facts......kabar
The only difference between Tacis' post and my Post 46 to you is that I stated that such a chain of events was "very plausible " and Tacis has turned it into a declarative statement.
While I agree that it is not proved until it is proved, the theory is certainly not "nonsense" or "wild conspiracy" or "fantastic".
The basis for my Post 46 still stands:
**************
Polybius Post 46:
See my Post 39 and my Post 19.
The question is, "Why did Kerry get an Honorable Discharge in 1978, during the Carter Administration?
His obligated service contract made him eligible for an Honorable Discharge years earlier.
A very plausible answer is that 1978 was the year when a Less Than Honorable Discharge was upgraded to an Honorable Discharge as a result of the Carter Amnesty Program.
On January 3, 1970, Kerry allegedly "requested a discharge". Why, after his obligated service was completed years before 1978, would Kerry not have jumped at the chance to get that Honorable Discharge as soon as he possibly could?
**************
I have yet to hear a single explanation as to why a man such as John F. Kerry, who allegedly requested a discharge on 3 JAN 1970 and whose obligated service contract would have made him eligible for a discharge many years prior to 1978, would have waited until the Cater Administration to finalize his Honorable Discharge.
I realize that Officers may choose not to resign their commissions. For patriotic reasons, I never resigned my commission and kept myself vulnerable to recall until I was sent my Retirement Certificate. However, John F. Kerry's post-Vietnam record does not suggest he passed up his chance for Honorable Discharge for such reasons.
Kerry did not request a discharge on 3 JAN 1970. He requested and was granted a release from active duty on that date. Kerry was commissioned on Dec 16, 1966. He spent more than three years on active duty as a commissioned officer. He remained in the inactive reserves until July 1972. He was then transferred into the Standby Reserves and was subsequently honorably discharged on Feb 16, 1978.
Kerry's progression through the Reserve system is similar to mine. I resigned my regular commission as a naval officer in 1972 after almost eight years of active duty. I was transferred into the Standby Reserves and received my honorable discharge on Feb 16, 1978, the same date as Kerry. A naval board meets at least annually and decides who remains in the Standby Reserve. In my case, I didn't need to take any action to either stay in the Standby Reserves or be discharged.
Although I was not personally affected, in 1971/72, officers were being RIF'd involuntarily as the Vietnam drawdown was going strong. I had a four year obligation and was extended involuntarily in 1969 for at least another year. Two years later the Navy was asking officers to leave. The bottom line is that there is no evidence or reason to believe that Kerry's honorable discharge from the USN in 1978 was linked to a pardon by Carter.
Personally, I believe Kerry went through the standard Naval Reserve system. The Reserve officers I served with had a three year active duty obligation and three additional years in the Reserves (ready or inactive). I am surprised that Kerry had to request to be released early in 1970 unless the Navy was extending reserve officers as well as regular officers.
Not if his 'honorable' was an upgrade enabled by a pardon, unless he signs the SF180.
Well, kabar, you are going to have to take that particular point up with John F. Kerry himself because Kerry claims in his own Official Kerry-Edwards Web Site that he did, indeed, request a discharge on 3 JAN 1970.
Kerry's progression through the Reserve system is similar to mine. I resigned my regular commission as a naval officer in 1972 after almost eight years of active duty. I was transferred into the Standby Reserves and received my honorable discharge on Feb 16, 1978, the same date as Kerry. A naval board meets at least annually and decides who remains in the Standby Reserve. In my case, I didn't need to take any action to either stay in the Standby Reserves or be discharged.
If you had a Regular commission, your obligated service may have been different from Kerry's USNR obligated service. If you had no remaining obligated service, you stayed in the Inactive Reserves out of your own free will.
I never resigned my USNR commission. I told the Navy I was not interested in retirement points but that I would stay in the Reserves as a Medical Corps officer and subject to recall if the Navy ever needed me again. As a result, 20 years after my commissioning, the Navy sent me a pretty Certificate of Retirement, suitable for framing, but reminded me that I was not getting any retirement money out of the deal.
I had a four year obligation and was extended involuntarily in 1969 for at least another year. Two years later the Navy was asking officers to leave.
Exactly.
You and I and Kerry had no obligated service 5, 6, 7 or 8 years after we left active duty.
You and I stuck around in the Reserves because we wanted to.
Kerry by his own admission on his own campaign web page requested a discharge on 3 JAN 1970.
The question still remains as to why a man that was so gung ho to get his discharge on 3 JAN 1970 and who hated the military so much stayed in the Reserves until 1978, long after his obligated service had been served.
I wrote and posted this thread conserning the B.S. on Kerry's Official Web Site concerning John Kerry's Vietnam Service Timeline:
Kerry Deceives News Media About His Navy Discharge on JohnKerry.com
I got just two questions....
Why does a former Naval Officer call themselves "kabar"?
And are you a good troll or a bad troll?
Kerry's webiste is wrong in terms of the terminology. Kerry requested a release from active duty per his memo of 21 November 1969. He requested early release to "become a candidate for Congress." Also included in the letter was the fact that previously Kerry had "voluntarily extended my active duty until August 1970" and that "My current regular period of obligated service would be completed in December of this year." That explains why he spent more than three years on active duty (Dec 16, 1966 to Jan 3, 1970) and needed to request an early release.
What I found interesting on Kerry's website is the next entry: March 1, 1970 Kerry’s date of separation from Active Duty This does not square with Kerry's release from active duty orders dated Jan 2, 1970 and the 24 May 1986 letter from the Navy giving a chronology of Kerry's serivce. I have no idea why his website is listing March 1, 1970. Odd. Of course, the website also lists: April 29, 1970 Kerry listed as Registrant who has completed service. They try to fudge that Kerry was still in the reserves subject to recall. Why? Because he was engaged with the VVAW in antiwar activities.
Is that a trick question? LOL. I am neither. Kabar means news in Bahasa Indonesian.
99.99999% of all military Vets here know that a kabar is The Famous Marine Corps Fighting knife.
And never would choose it because it means "news" in Bahasa Indonesian.
I am a good troll and you aren't.
Having served as a naval officer back in the 70's, I have a slightly different take.
I don't believe Kerry ever officially had a "Less Than Honorable" discharge, but he could have been quietly under investigation by a Navy board of inquiry for his anti-war activities, with the threat of such a discharge hanging over his head. Especially after the POWs came home in '73, I could see a board investigating Kerry (especially his activities' effects on POW treatment) dragging on for years. It took a fair amount of time to fully debrief the POWs. In addition, there could have been a very interesting behind-the-scenes' tug-of-war going on between folks in Nixon/Ford administrations and Kerry's powerful Senate backers, who were grooming Kerry for higher office. With the Pentagon and Navy Department in the middle...and Kerry keeping a relatively low profile. When Carter took office in 1977, the board was probably directed to close up shop and drop the case. Kerry's February 1978 discharge resulted from this. Carter's amnesty program provided an additional convenient smoke screen.
I wouldn't be surprise is there were some documents in Kerry's service record concerning the board - the reason why Kerry won't sign the 180. Knowing how navy boards operate, there is interesting and potentially very damaging information contained in the board's proceedings. Certainly not stuff a presidential candidate wants released a couple of weeks before an election.
Exactly.
Why did this man who, according to his own Official web site, requested a discharge on 3 JAN 1970 and who believed that the U.S. military conducted itself like the hoards of Genghis Khan, stick around as a U.S. Naval Reserve officer until 1978?.......Six years after his obligated service time had been completed.
You would have thought that he would have grabbed that Honorable Discharge the minute it was offered to him.......Unless it was not offered to him until the Carter Administration's Amnesty Program in 1978.
The simple questions are why was he not discharged until 1978, and why were his trip to Paris and activities with VVAW, which ostensibly occurred while he was a USNR Officer, not considered to be violations of the UCMJ?
That's a tricky issue.
Naval Reservists are not subject to the UCMJ unless the alleged offenses were committed during active duty for training or if the Reservist has been recalled to active duty for violations previously committed while on active duty.
Mr. Kerry was not on active duty during his Vietnam Veterans Against the War activities or during his trips to Paris. However, Kerry accused himself of war crimes during Congressional hearings.
When did he commit the alleged war crimes? During his Vietnam tour of duty........while he was on active duty.
Oooops.
I wouldn't be surprise is there were some documents in Kerry's service record concerning the board - the reason why Kerry won't sign the 180.
That is also a very plausible scenario.
It explains the late 1978 discharge during the Carter Administration and also explains why Kerry has no intention of signing his Form 180.
But, the "Less Than Honorable Discharge Theory" is also plausible so you can take the Good Cop role and I will take the Bad Cop role. ;-)
I responded to that question in post #110. Basically, the website is wrong. The subject of Kerry's letter of 21 November is "Early Release from Active Duty; request for."
If you had a Regular commission, your obligated service may have been different from Kerry's USNR obligated service. If you had no remaining obligated service, you stayed in the Inactive Reserves out of your own free will.
I didn't make any election to stay in the Inactive Reserves. I was transferred into the Standby Reserves and did nothing to get out or stay in. I received my Honorable Discharge a little less than 6 years later. Perhaps the decision as to who should stay and who should be discharged is based on skills. As a Medical Officer, I can see why they would want to keep you around more than me.
The question still remains as to why a man that was so gung ho to get his discharge on 3 JAN 1970 and who hated the military so much stayed in the Reserves until 1978, long after his obligated service had been served.
If my experience is any guide, Kerry did not choose to stay in the Standby Reserves. It was just part of the normal progression through the Reserve process. Kerry was obligated to serve three years active and three years in the inactive Reserves. On July 1, 1972 he was transferred automatically from the Inactive Reserves into the Standby Reserves (inactive).
My beef with Kerry's reserve status has more to do with what he was doing in the antiwar movement while still in the reserves subject to recall. Initially, Kerry listed his military service as 1966-1970 Active Duty and 1972-78 Reserves. He conveniently left a gap for 1971, which doesn't require any imagination to understand why.
Kerry's website now lists: "April 29, 1970 Kerry listed as Registrant who has completed service." All this means is that he was no longer eligible for the draft. They try to create the impression that Kerry completed his military service. He did not. I think these areas are more fruitful to explore than making up stories that Kerry received a dishonorable discharge and then Cater pardoned him.
According to The UCMJ that Kerry lied about finishing his obligated service is an offence.
883. ART. 83. FRAUDULENT ENLISTMENT, APPOINTMENT, OR SEPARATION
Any person who--
(1) procures his own enlistment or appointment in the armed forces by knowingly false representation or deliberate concealment as to his qualifications for the enlistment or appointment and receives pay or allowances thereunder; or
(2) procures his own separation from the armed forces by knowingly false representation or deliberate concealment as to his eligibility for that separation;
Clearly according to the records he has allowed on his website he was not eligible for separation having only served three years, eight months, and 18 days out of the six years and six months he was supposed to have served.
And if he was released early for whatever reasons, where is the order from the Department of the Navy releasing him from his obligation?
Someone else mentioned the knife business to me some time ago. I served nearly eight years as a naval officer (1965-72) and never knew about the Kabar knife until FR. I even served two years on the USS Iwo Jima with a Marine batallion aboard and never heard about the kabar knife. I must be that .000001%.
I studied Indonesian and lived in Jakarta for two years after I left the military. One of the standard greetings in Indonesia is Apakabar? or What's up or new?
As I documented in the essay I wrote and posted, Kerry's website is not simply "wrong". Kerry's web site is filled to the gills with Bravo Sierra purposely worded in such a manner as to deceive the news media.
Kerry Deceives News Media About His Navy Discharge on JohnKerry.com
But, the fact still remains that Kerry's web site has gone on the record as claiming that,January 3, 1970: Kerry requests discharge.
This, as I documented in my FR essay, resulted in the Associated Press and several other major news organizations claiming:
” January 1970: Kerry requests discharge. He is honorably discharged, and later joins Vietnam Veterans Against the War. “
That fact also remains that Kerry's obligated service obligation would have been completed sometime around 1972.
Unless he voluntarily stayed in the Naval Reserve until 1978 (highly unlikely) the two remaining explanations were that Kerry was either, as Strzelec theorized, threatened with a Less Than Honorable Discharge pending investigation or that he was actually given one.
During the Cater Administration that was then all swept under the rug.
Kerry is now refusing to sign the Form 180 in order to keep it under the rug.
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.