John Kerry – Less than Honorably Discharged?

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.

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?

As much as it pains me to say it, look at Nixon. There were a lot of people who thought it was just a "wild conspiracy charge" to say he covered-up Watergate -- but it was true. And every leftist media pundit out there was screaming that there was no way BJ would have an affair with an intern. . .

It is one thing to make allegations based on facts and another to come up with theories without any evidence and even contradicted by primary source material. Nixon was undone because the burglars were arrested, Deep Throat and the WP, Congressioinal investigations, and the WH tapes. The coverup was worse than the third rate crime. Clinton had a past history of womanizing so charges that he was having an affair with an intern were credible, not to mention the fact that Linda Tripp had it on tape and we had the blue dress. Of course, we also had the Gennifer Flowers tape, but that was ignored.

Based on his Reserve agreement, good question. I can only surmise that he either requested to stay in the Standby Reserves or the system worked in such a way that the officer had to request to be discharged otherwise he would remain in the Standby Reserve. In my case, I don't recall ever asking to stay in the Standby Reserve or to get out. This would be a good question to ask of BUPERS or whatever they call themselves today. It wouldn't even require a SF 180.

No need to ask the Navy.

The system does work so that, once your obligated service time is served, a commissioned officer has to specifically resign his commission in order to be discharged.

If, as in your particular case, you never ask "to stay in the Standby Reserve or to get out", you then serve "at the pleasure of the President" and then stay in the Reserves until the Navy sends you your Retirement Certificate or until some Navy Board decides that the Navy can get along without you.

It is true that Kerry could have "done nothing" and thereby stayed in the Reserves until 1978. However, Kerry's Navy history shows a very sharp "sea-lawyer" that knew every angle and gamed the system to request everything he could including a release from his combat tour after only 4 months.

Unlike you and I, Kerry demonstrated an anxiousness to get out of the service as soon as possible, even to the point of allegedly "requesting a disharge" early on 3 JAN 1970.

Hey, if you are going to engage in the activities John Kerry engaged in, it would be smart to resign your commission as soon as you legally could lest the Navy recall you to active duty for UCMJ investigation of prior active duty war crimes you admitted to.

Only his signing of his Form 180 will clear up this question.

Every other Presedential candidate, including Al Gore, signed his Form 180. There is no reason not to sign it if your record is clean.

As far as his being discharged from the Naval Reserves, I agree that this seems to be the only question remaining.

Well, actually, the late discharge is the elephant in the room that could be hiding all sorts of things.

Unless Kerry signs his Form 180 so that we know what actually happened, all sorts of scenarios are plausible.

Kerry could have gotten a Less Than Honorable Discharge, on time, that was later upgraded to an Honorable Discharge during the Carter Administration Amnesty Program.

Kerry could have been threatened with a Less Than Honorable Discharge until the Carter Administration Amnesty Program.

Kerry could have been under investigation for possible prosecution under the UCMJ for war crimes he claims to have committed while on active duty. (A crime committed on active duty can get an Inactive Reservist recalled to active duty for prosecution under the UCMJ.)

There is also the point what what may have been legal but would be political poison if the average American voter ever found out. Kerry, as I documented in the essay thread I wrote and posted, has B.S.'ed the news media into believing that he was "Honorably Discharged and then joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War".

Kerry Deceives News Media About His Navy Discharge on JohnKerry.com

Can you legally join an anti-war group when you are still a commissioned officer in the Reserves but not on active duty?

You sure can. It is perfectly legal.

Is it political poison because it would look pretty d@mn bad to the average American voter?

It sure is.

That is why Kerry has gone out of his was to B.S. the news media into believing that "he was Honorably Discharged and then joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War".

If that is the case, Kerry could have decided to stay in after completing his obligatory service because he viewed it as a plus for his political career. Remember this is a guy who took a movie camera to reenact his battles and lied and cheated his way to get medals. It was all part of his resume.

Unlike you and I, Kerry demonstrated an anxiousness to get out of the service as soon as possible, even to the point of allegedly "requesting a disharge" early on 3 JAN 1970.

Except for the wrong or misleading terminology on his websties's timeline, what basis do you have for his "requesting a discharge early on 3 Jan 1970?" We have his November memo requesting early release from active duty and his actual orders dated 3 Jan 1970 releasing him from active duty and assigning him to the inactive reserves.

I agree Kerry should sign a SF 180. There are plenty of questions that need answering. Presuming he has something to hide, he will stonewall and not release them. With less than a month to go, the likelihood of that happening is nil. The media and the RNC have not made it an issue. Thank God for the SBVFT. Unfortunately, Rathergate eclipsed and diverted the focus on Kerry's military service.

Except for the wrong or misleading terminology on his websties's timeline, what basis do you have for his "requesting a discharge early on 3 Jan 1970?"

Has Kerry become such a brazen liar that we can no longer believe his plain English?

If you read his Timeline, everything for 1970 is a materpiece of word parsing specifically designed to B.S. the news media into reporting that Kerry was "Honorably Discharged and then later joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War."

Look at the last entery:

"April 29, 1970: Kerry listed as Registrant who has completed service"

As I noted in the essay I posted as a thread, this uses irrelevant Selective Service information to give the false impression that Kerry was "Honorably Discharged and then later joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War."

If Kerry is ever confronted with the B.S., he can then claim that everything in that Timeline is absolutely true.

That is the difference between "lying" and "word parsing".

Kerry states in plain English he "requested discharge" early on 3 JAN 1970.

There is no reason for us to assume he did not have the gall to ask for an early discharge just as he had the gall to ask for a termination of his combat tour after only 4 months.

Kerry said that he requested an early discharge on 3 JAN 1970. He says that in plain English on the web site he, during the presidential debate, asked Americans to visit.

It is not our responsibility to prove that Kerry "misspoke" or was "mistaken".

It is Kerry's responsibility to prove that he did not flat out lie to America.

Has Kerry become such a brazen liar that we can no longer believe his plain English?

It is obvious to us that Kerry is lying on his website. He has already changed and revised it several times over the past few months. The point is that we also have primary source documents to prove that he is lying and misrepresenting the facts. It is up to the media and the RNC to bring these issues up to Kerry and the public. I share your frustration. We have pundits saying that all of the SBVFT charges have been refuted, when the fact is that none of them have.

We are dealing with a partisan MSM. How do you effectively challenge Kerry on these issues? Kerry went into hiding for over a month after Unfit for Command came out. Now that he has poked his head out of his hole a few times, no one has asked him about XMAS Eve in Cambodia, his first PH, or his antiwar activities such as meeting with the Vietnamese Communists in Paris, which Kerry apologists describe as "meeting with both sides" giving the imression he met with the South Vietnamese when in fact he met with the North Vietnamese and the NLF (Viet Cong). Or attending a VVAW meeting in KC, at which assassination of USG officials was discussed.

It is not our responsibility to prove that Kerry "misspoke" or was "mistaken". It is Kerry's responsibility to prove that he did not flat out lie to America.

How do you propose to get Kerry to prove that he did not lie? He has to be challenged and confronted. I am really disappointed that the RNC has shied away from going after Kerry's military record and antiwar activities. They are initimidated by Kerry's status as a war hero. Bush stated in the debate that he admired Kerry for his military service.

The point is that we also have primary source documents to prove that he is lying and misrepresenting the facts. It is up to the media and the RNC to bring these issues up to Kerry and the public. I share your frustration. ......We are dealing with a partisan MSM. How do you effectively challenge Kerry on these issues? ......He has to be challenged and confronted. I am really disappointed that the RNC has shied away from going after Kerry's military record and antiwar activities.

In spite of all the "Pajama People" hoopla over the CBS fraud case, the fact remains that the average American voters are pathetically informed and most of them do get their news from the MSM which is pathetically biased.

If we did have a news media as eager to examine Kerry's record as it is eager to sabotage Bush, FreeRepublic would be a gold mine of information for them as we spend hours doing the investigations that they should be doing themselves.

For this election, I believe that the most effective thing I have done is to send a contribution to the Swift Vets.

As for the research we carry out and then post on FreeRepublic, all we can hope for is that someone with a greater audience than we have sees it and then runs with 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.