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?
Interesting article on skerry's military records!!!
I would add to it –
The recommendations for the Silver Star (with “V”!!), Bronze Star and three Purple hearts.
The complete medical records for the wounds (if any) inflicted by the enemy.
>>Been there, quit that!<<
LOLOL!!!
"the only reasonable conclusion is that he is hiding something."
Skerry met with the enemy in Paris, threw his VN awards over the fence, called our troops Ghengis Ghan type, humiliated the US Marines on Iwo Jima and on and on.
Hanoi Kerry : Is this one of your October Suprises?
Tick, Tick, Tick PING!
"..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..."
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?
bumping
"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."
Tonk - it's part of the Skerry stench.
Why doesn't any reporter ask him this when they interview him? Why didn't Diane Sawyer, Katie Couric. WHY?
"Correction:
It's Jenjis Khan!"
Thank you :)
Diane Sawyer?! Katie Couric?!
That's the funniest damn thing I've heard all day!
Thanks for the ping!
Sounds just like what the Bush folks are saying about their man's ANG service. Difference is they've released his records and been subject to falsified documents by Kerry supporters. Yet your kind continue to demand proof without actually presenting your own proof. Tell your man to sign the release and to stop throwing around charges of lying until he's willing to meet the same burden of proof he demands of others.
If sKerry signed form 180 today, he would make a huge show of it. And then his underlings would see to it that the "wheels of bureacracy" ground to a halt and the records would conveniently be unavailable until after the election.
Er....as LATE as MARCH 12, 2001??????? Sounds like someone was concerned about making sure his record of service was wiped real clean before a presidential run....SICK!
I find that more than interesting, I find it completely WEIRD.
I do NOT WANT a man who was dishonorably DISCHARGED EVER being our commander in chief. EVER! That would be TERRIBLE for our TROOPS! And it gives kerry a MAJOR REASON to hate the military....which his VOTING RECORD in the SENATE denotes.
Perhaps danny rather would be interested in doing an in depth looksee at this? < /sarcasm >
Seriously-this needs some major investigation~
Probably true.
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.