Posted on 10/13/2004 9:48:00 AM PDT by MindBender26
Kerry Lost Security Clearance!
Just spoke with reporter friend in DC. She is talking with former USN ONI types who worked on DOD/USN investigation that resulted in total loss of Kerry’s Navy security clearance.
Kerry had been granted a Top Secret by the Navy on October 11, 1967 based on a routine background investigation by Office of Naval Intelligence. A top secret clearance was required for his work at that time.
Obtaining and holding a security clearance of any level, especially TS or above, requires certain terms, obligations, commitments and conditions from the holder. One of the most important is the holder of the clearance must promptly and fully any contacts with any foreign officials, agents, etc.
Lieutenant Kerry left active duty with the Navy on January 3, 1970, but he still carried those obligations as a commissioned officer of the Naval Reserve. Without telling anyone and without receiving permission from superiors,FBI or counter-intelligence officers, he traveled to Paris in the summer of 1970. He claimed the purpose of his trip was a honeymoon with his first wife, Julia Thorne, but there was another hidden purpose.
Numerous North Vietnamese and Viet Cong intelligence agents and officials were in Paris, having arrived a year earlier for the “Peace Talks.” While in Paris, Kerry met with agents on a number of occasions and had extensive discussions with them about U.S. plans, procedures and how to get the U.S. to essentially surrender in Vietnam.
These clandestine meetings were never reported to the Navy.
Almost a year later, in April 1091, speaking as the leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against The War, Lieutenant Kerry told a Senate hearing about his meetings with enemy agents. Senior DOD officials wanted to prosecute him as a Naval Reserve officer for violating a number of laws and regulations, but this was vetoed by the Nixon White House. They didn’t want to give the anti-war crowd any additional PR ammunition.
However, the Navy immediately pulled Kerry’s security clearance. He became a Naval Reserve officer who was known not to be trusted. He kept his commission, but lost all access to any classified information. In the words of one of the now-retired agents, “Lieutenant Kerry wasn’t cleared to know what time it was!”
The bottom line is, Kerry was on the Intelligence Committee of the Senate after the Paris fiasco and another trip to support the Moscow-backed Sandinistas in Nicaragua.
Today, he couldn’t get a security clearance to pull KP duty, but he wants to be Commander in Chief of all our military in the War on Terrorism!
What else is he hiding?
Yes, I received a regular commission, the same as the USNA grads. The program lasted some time. Admiral James L. Holloway (Ret.), former Chief of Naval Personnel and "Father" of the Scholarship NROTC Program, started the program in 1946 to supplement the output from the USNA. I was enrolled in the program from 1961-65 and it continued long after I left. There were 52 units at various schools, which participated in the Program. You took a national test and then were interviewed. It was a competitive program. I am surprised you were not aware of it.
I don't recall ever accepting a reserve commission, but I won't rule it out given my rush to complete the paperworkd and get out to meet the deadline for entering the FS. I never attended a reserve meeting or joined a unit.
Kerry is hiding a bunch of things. For starters, we have not seen the documentation supporting his first PH, which had no casualty and after action reports; we have no nomination forms for his Silver and Bronze Star medals, particularly how the Silver Star was not vetted properly and awarded just two days after the event occurred; and we don't have the 1985 replacement citation/certificate/medal request, which would probably show that Kerry did indeed throw away his medals in 1971 despite his denials today.
I suspect that Kerry may be hiding FBI, ONI, or NIS reports concerning his antiwar activities while still a member of the reserves subject to recall. Kerry has intentionally tried to create the impression that he was no longer a member of the reserves during the period 1970-72. If you go to his website and the timeline of his service, you will see that it incorrectly lists Kerry's discharge in January 1970 and that he was listed as a Registrant in April 1970. No mention is made of his transfer into the Inactive Reserves in 1970, his transfer into the Standby Reserves in July 1972, or HD in 1978. In April of this year, Kerry's service was listed on his website as Active Duty--1966-1970 and Reserves 1972-78. There was a gap, which raised questions on many FR threads. It is now obvious why this was done given his antiwar activities with the VVAW.
Good Info....hey dsc take a look at post 623
Is this Rove's October surprise?
Wow, Cool. What movie is that from?
1) She needs to determine whether Kerry was cleared for Top Secret or Top Secret/SCI; "straight" TS gets you access to war plans and similar-type documents; TS/SCI gets you access to our most sensitive intelligence information. As far as I know, Kerry never performed any intel-related duties (at least for our side); I'd be surprised if he was ever in a TS/SCI billet. Loss of a TS clearance is bad enough; loss of a TS/SCI clearance would be an even bigger story. And that would raise an obvious question: how did someone stripped of his clearance gain access to codeword information as a U.S. Senator--what wheels had to be greased to make that happen?
2) In my experience (I didn't enter the spook world until the mid-80s) the initial investigation for a TS/SCI clearance is done by either the FBI or the Defense Investigative Service--not the military service. The military branch grants the clearance and administers the billet/personnel actions, but only after the background check has been completed. "ONI investigation," even in 1967, sounds a little fishy.
3) Document, document, document. If Kerry did lose his clearance, there ought to be a paper trail a mile long. Your friend clearly can't afford a Dan Rather moment at this juncture. I hope she gets copies of all relevant documents and has them thoroughly authenticated.
4) Finally, I can predict the Kerry camp's "spin" on this one. It's a fake (first defense), followed by, "it happened after he left active duty, and only because the Navy was PO ed because of his Congressional testimony--who cares. The obvious retort ought to be in the paper trail I referred to. It is exceedingly rare for a military service to pull a clearance after the member has left active duty. If Kerry lost his clearance, the Navy had very compelling reasons to pull it. One final thought: I've heard that Kerry's medals were "reinstated" (?) shortly after he was elected to the Senate. I spent 20 years on active duty and I've never heard of that happening. Even when Kerry threw his medals at the Pentagon, they were still on his records. Was Kerry's "loss" of medals related to his reported discharge problems and lost security clearance? Again, there are some smoking guns in the security clearance file and Kerry's personnel records.
WE have everything every piece of paper, every thankeful letter ever written, and we can pull it up ourselves, we have them ,and we will until we die,I dont understand why skarry cant produce all of his in a yearly order .
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, "America Fails the 'Global Test' "
If you haven't already joined the anti-CFR effort, please click here.
"An honorable discharge in '78 would not have necessitated a board of review, either."
The letter from New Orleans indicates that it was not a special board of review convened to consider something about Kerry, but just one of the routine boards that periodically review the list of officers.
Congress mandates end strength. The Navy can't just allow that list of Standby Reserve (now IRR) officers to expand without limit. They have to keep discharging people off of it. Being the Navy, they instinctively convene a board to decide who to discharge. It's completely routine, I assure you.
I have been told that it is not routine and that there was a set time that one was expected to be on stand by. There are just more questions than answers regarding John Kerry's service and disservice to his country. The less than honorable discharge is the only logical explanation of the medal rewrites, that were done as a routine matter without the knowledge of the Secretary of the Navy whose name appears on the signature line.
ROFL, or does he?
Clinton had to have Top Secret Security Clearance or he could not have been elected President, pure and simple...might want to check that out with Government.
>Clinton had to have Top Secret Security Clearance or he could not have been elected President, pure and simple...might want to check that out with Government.
Sorry, but totally incorrect. The only requirements to be President are outlined in the Constitution. 35+, natural born citizen, resident for 7 years, I beleive, not resident of same state as VP.
"I have been told that it is not routine"
Based on my experience, which in all modesty is rather extensive, I believe that to be erroneous.
"and that there was a set time that one was expected to be on stand by."
I think here again we have a confusion of terminology. There is a service committment, active and Ready Reserve, which is a set period. However, an officer can be maintained on the Standby Reserve rolls indefinitely, unless he formally requests to resign his commission and his resignation is accepted.
"There are just more questions than answers regarding John Kerry's service and disservice to his country."
Yes, and it's starting to nauseate me to be arguing Enswine Band-Aid's case. However, I think this particular issue is just a distraction to deflect attention from real issues.
"The less than honorable discharge is the only logical explanation of the medal rewrites"
I'm sorry to seem contrary, but the two issues are not connected. A later administrative discharge has no effect on earlier awards of medals.
"that were done as a routine matter without the knowledge of the Secretary of the Navy whose name appears on the signature line."
**Reissuing** of citations and medals is a routine matter that would not normally be brought to the Secretary's attention. Lots of people lose their medals and ask for replacements.
As I'm sure you know, most of the certificates issued bear facsimile signatures rather than actual.
For instance, when I retired, I got one of those certificates of appreciation for being a cold warrior that Klintstone issued. When I closed my eyes and held my hand an inch over the signature, though, I didn't feel the emanations of pure evil that I would have if Beelzebubba had actually touched it, so I knew it was a facsimile sig.
No way the president is going to personally sign thousands of certificates. Or SECNAV, either.
**REWRITING** a citation, however, is definitely not routine, but still might not be brought before the Sec. Having a citation rewritten to make the awardee look better is exactly the kind of skullduggery I was talking about when I opined that a senator could get unfavorable material out of his service record.
I suspect that he did that, but it's simply a different issue from the type of discharge he received.
Kerry was not asking for replacement medals, he was asking for a rewrite of the commendation with different wording, leaving out the fact that he shot a wounded, retreating teenager in the back.
"Kerry was not asking for replacement medals, he was asking for a rewrite of the commendation with different wording, leaving out the fact that he shot a wounded, retreating teenager in the back."
Yeah, now that's skullduggery. Nothing to do with his discharge, but it's improper all by itself.
"Further, one has to wonder why ABC News will not address the serious questions as to why John Kerry only received an honorable discharge through the act of then President Carter, seven years after his discharge, and had to have all of his military citations reissued, on the same day, when he became a United States Senator in 1985. And, finally, why has Nightline found it of no interest to permit any POWs to come on their program to explain why they believe John Kerry betrayed their nation, caused them to be incarcerated for an additional two years and caused them tremendous additional hardship and suffering."
John O'Neill
"Further, one has to wonder why ABC News will not address the serious questions as to why John Kerry only received an honorable discharge through the act of then President Carter seven years after his discharge"
Seven years after his **release from active duty and transfer to the standby reserves**, not his "discharge," if the documents linked above are authentic. Sorry, but there's no 'there' there.
There are plenty of things of which Kerry is guilty
to bear down on. I wish people would drop this red herring.
It reminds me of when the Lewinsky thing was used to distract attention from Beelzebubba's real crimes.
Also, what documentation is there that Carter intervened personally on Kerry's behalf? (Not that I'd put it past the doddering old idiot.)
"and had to have all of his military citations reissued, on the same day,"
Admin stuff tends to get done in batches. Nature of the beast. Again, a "reissue" is only worthy of note if:
1. We want to say that the reason he needed them reissued was that he disrespectfully threw them away, which is not a crime; or
2. He improperly had one or more citations rewritten to make himself look better, which would be a crime.
"And, finally, why has Nightline found it of no interest"
Because they are a pack of despicable left-wing sleazebucket liars.
You are wrong because the time period for a rewrite would not normally allow it to be done so many years after the fact and Kerry can not explain why it was necessary to have two separate re-writes.
You obviously don't understand the pain that Kerry's treachery has caused the Vietnam Veterans. Kerry is the one who continuously brings up the issue and the veterans have a right, an obligation to denounce Kerry's candidacy for Commander in Chief. How can someone who had their top secret classification stripped be Commander in Chief, someone who admittedly consorted with the enemy in a time of war?
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.