Where is Kerry's Service Record?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

READ THE LAST PARAGRAPH…VERY IMPORTANT. MAKES YOU THINK.
Subject: Why Kerry won’t release his service records

THIS IS VERY POWERFUL STUFF.. READ IT ALL.. AND PASS IT ON…

Unlike McCain, Bush, and Gore… Kerry has adamantly refused to authorize the release of his military records. Most think it’s because of his phony battle medals. The probable real reason is below.

He was not granted an Honorable Discharge until March 2001, almost 30 years after his ostensible service term had ended! This is very much out of the ordinary, and highly suspect.

There are 5 classes of Discharge: Honorable, General, Other Than Honorable, Bad Conduct, and Dishonorable. My guess is that he was Discharged in the '70s, but not Honorably. He appealed this sometime while Clinton was doing trouser-tricks in the Oval Office. Political pressure was applied, and the Honorable Discharge was then granted.

His file is probably rife with reports of this, submissions and hearings on the appeal, reports of his “giving aid and comfort” to the enemy, along with protests that were filed with respect to his alleged valor under fire. Hopefully, this will blow up in his face before October 15th.

================

On 18 Feb. 1966, John Kerry signed a 6 year enlistment contract with the Navy (plus a 6-month extension during wartime).

On 18 Feb. 1966, John Kerry also signed an Officer Candidate contract for 6 years – 5 years of ACTIVE duty & ACTIVE Naval Reserves, and 1 year of inactive standby reserves (See items #4 & #5).

Because John Kerry was discharged from TOTAL ACTIVE DUTY of only 3 years and 18 days on 3 Jan. 1970, he was then required to attend 48 drills per year, and not more than 17 days active duty for training. Kerry was also subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Additionally, Kerry, as a commissioned officer, was prohibited from making adverse statements against his chain of command or statements against his country, especially during time of war. It is also interesting to note t! hat Kerry did not obtain an honorable discharge until Mar. 12, 2001 even though his service obligation should have ended July 1, 1972.

Lt. John Kerry’s letter of 21 Nov. 1969, asking for an early release from active US Navy duty falsely states “My current regular period of obligated service would be completed in December of this year.”

On Jan. 3, 1970, Lt. John Kerry was transferred to the Naval Reserve Manpower Center in Bainridge, Maryland.

Where are Kerry’s Performance Records for 2 years of obligated Ready Reserve, the 48 drills per year required and his 17 days of active duty per year training while Kerry was in the Ready Reserves? Have these records been released?

Has anyone ever talked to Kerry’s Commanding Officer at the Naval Reserve Center where Kerry drilled?

On 1 July 1972, Lt. John Kerry was transferred to Standby Reserve - Inactive. On 16 February 1978, Lt. John Kerry was discharged from US Naval Reserve.

Below are some of the crimes Lt. Kerry USNR committed as a Ready Reservist, while he was acting as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War:

  1. Lt. Kerry attended many rallies where the Vietcong flag was displayed while our flag was desecrated, defiled, and mocked, thereby giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

  2. Lt. Kerry was involved in a meeting that voted on assassinating members of the US Senate.

  3. Lt. Kerry lied under oath against fellow soldiers before the US Senate about crimes committed in Vietnam.

  4. Lt. Kerry professed to being a war criminal on national television, and condemned the military and the USA.

  5. Lt. Kerry met with NVA and Vietcong communist leaders in Paris, in direct violation of the UCMJ and the U.S. Constitution.

Lt. Kerry by his own words & actions violated the UCMJ and the U.S. Code while serving as a Navy officer. Lt. Kerry stands in violation of Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Lt. Kerry’s 1970 meeting with NVA Communists in Paris is in direct violation of the UCMJ’s Article 104 part 904, and U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. 953. That meeting, and Kerry’s subsequent support of the communists while leading mass protests against our military in the year that followed, also place him in direct violation of our Constitution’s Article 3, Section 3, which defines treason as “giving aid and comfort” to the enemy in time of warfare.

The Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, states, “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President … having previously taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

THIS IS VERY POWERFUL STUFF.. READ IT ALL.. AND PASS IT ON…

2

Dear OL,

Don’t be surprised if you don’t get any responses from the libs on this forum. There’s not much they can say when faced with such facts.

3

Chen and OL, here are two of the “facts” that you need to know:

  1. Everything you get in email is true. The internet is regulated, and if something isn’t true it won’t get through. Therefore if you got it in email it is a verified fact. Any lawyers on here feel free to use this line whenever appropriate: “If it wasn’t true, it wouldn’t have got through”.

  2. It’s important that you forward these email “facts” to everyone in your address book, and then post it on all of the internet forums that you can. That way everyone else will be exposed to these “facts” in a timely manner.

  3. Bonus fact: We’re all very interested in everything you find in your inbox. Please, post it for us all to read.

4

I don’t usually get on these discussions, but you are making some assumptions about the Naval Reserve that are simply incorrect. FYI, I was an officer in the Naval Reserve shortly after Mr. Kerry’s time on active duty. When I was released from active duty, I had no drill obligations whatsoever -_ only an obligation to show up if I was ever recalled to active duty. Participation in drills was entirely voluntary, and in order to be assigned to a drilling unit, I had to request such an assignment. My older brother, who was on active duty in the Navy at roughly the same time as Mr. Kerry, had exactly the same situation. The practice was that unless you wanted to affiliate with a drilling unit, you didn’t have to.

You are confusing a Reserve commission with a Reserve obligation. Any officer (with a very few exceptions in the ROTC program) who is not commissioned though the Naval Academy receives a Reserve commission – a regular commission means that the officer serves until his resignation is accepted; a reserve commission means that the officer serves (unless extended) for a specific period of time and agrees to remain on call for an additional period of time. That’s all.

Bottom line – you’re just plain wrong. Nice try, but your partisanship is showing.

Porkchop

5

First of all, why should I believe Porkchop, or any of you for that matter.

Secondly, why should I believe any of this crap?

Here’s why… http://kerry-04.org/patriot/record.php

6

This is retarded.

Our current president has never SEEN combat, unless you count CNN.

None the less, BUSH WENT AWOL. Come on.

So if you base your decision on service I’d choose a man who wasn’t too chickensh*t to actually go fight over another who stayed home in the guard and still ran away with his tail in between his legs.

7

[quote]squattin600 wrote:
This is retarded.

Our current president has never SEEN combat, unless you count CNN.

None the less, BUSH WENT AWOL. Come on.

So if you base your decision on service I’d choose a man who wasn’t too chickensh*t to actually go fight over another who stayed home in the guard and still ran away with his tail in between his legs.

[/quote]

Vote for the treasonous pig then. All your vote really stands for is braggin’ rights amongst your favorable crowd.

8

[quote]squattin600 wrote:
This is retarded.

Our current president has never SEEN combat, unless you count CNN.

None the less, BUSH WENT AWOL. Come on.

So if you base your decision on service I’d choose a man who wasn’t too chickensh*t to actually go fight over another who stayed home in the guard and still ran away with his tail in between his legs.

[/quote]

It’s amazing how hawkish the left gets once they finally get a candidate who actually served. He served a whopping 4 months - but he served.

How many POWs were tortured because of Bush’s anti-American slander?

Kerry’s a 60’s hippie who quit when the going got tough. Then he came home and lied about what happened over there.

Prove that Bush was AWOL - wait…you can’t because there’s no proof. Maybe you should create the proof you need. The left has been doing a lot of that lately

9

Just to clarify a little further. Reservists are not subject to the UCMJ for actions of any kind when they are not in drill status or ordered to drill status, i.e., in uniform, on base, performing military duties. Those of you who don’t like Kerry’s anti-war activities in the '60’s and '70’s are perfectly free to criticize them. However, since he was a civilian when he did it, it was perfectly legal to do so. Allegations that he violated the UCMJ are simply wrong.

Why should you believe me, Jackzeppelin? You don’t have to. However, if you choose not to, then perhaps you should do your own research into the law governing military reservists, instead of swallowing a misleadingly-named website’s propaganda. There are valid reasons to disagree with Kerry on issues, and everyone gets to decided whether to vote for him or not based on any criteria they choose. But you owe it to yourself and your fellow citizens to make that decision based on facts, not partisan smears.

I’m both a Navy veteran and,for the past 23 years, a lawyer, so I know something about the UCMJ, but if you don’t want to believe me, that’s your choice. Look it up for yourself.

Porkchop

10

What’s the matter tme, can’t answer any of it.

Just answer this- what do think of a self professed war criminal running for president?

11

[quote]rainjack wrote:
It’s amazing how hawkish the left gets once they finally get a candidate who actually served. He served a whopping 4 months - but he served.[/quote]

Check your facts. 4 months was the length of Kerry’s second tour of duty… which he requested.

I dunno… how many?

[quote]Prove that Bush was AWOL - wait…you can’t because there’s no proof. Maybe you should create the proof you need. The left has been doing a lot of that lately
[/quote]

There’s no proof at all that George Bush earned enough points to merit an honorable discharge. Why not? Brecause like everything else in life, Bush got out based on his family pulling strings.

If you want to find out more about John Kerry’s war and post-war activities, check out the new documentary movie “GOING UPRIVER: The Long War of John Kerry”

It opened October 1st, and was directed by George Butler, who directed the movie “Pumping Iron”.

12

[quote]Lumpy wrote:
There’s no proof at all that George Bush earned enough points to merit an honorable discharge. Why not? Brecause like everything else in life, Bush got out based on his family pulling strings.
[/quote]

Yes there is - he owns a copy discharge papers stating that he was honorably discharged. It’s not a fake. It wasn’t created on MS Word.

Just closing your eyes and wishing real hard doesn’t make your left-wing wishes come true.

I saw the breakdown of the points he earned to fulfill his commission (It was on TV so I can’t give a link here). There was no AWOL. There was no stellar performance record, but that is a far cry from committing a crime.

13

Okay, if Bushes papers are good enough, then dammit so are Kerry’s. Can we get beyond bullshit claims about service records?

What a pile of horseshit.

There are important issues under discussion that deserve your attention. Wake up and pay attention instead of blindly accepting every moronic partisan propaganda item laid out for your consumption.

14

Ok kerry’s may be good but i’d still like to know why he got them in 2000 or whatever?

Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins

15

When you add up Bush’s points that are documented in his record, they fall short of the required amount for an honorable discharge.

George Bush got out of the National Guard exactly the same way he got in… by his family pulling strings.

16

Why does bush’s service record keep getting brought up when we are talking about Kerry’s to begin with. You cant disprove something by proving (and I use that term theoretically) or attempting to prove something different all together.

The fact that bush’s father might have put some political pressure on the guard to let his son move on to something else A) has no impact on John Kerry’s Character. B) is not proven and C) is far less horrific if it were proven than what John Kerry is accused of doing.

Hell no one seemed to mind that Clinton dodged the draft. Bush was even less of a draft dodger and at least he stayed in country and did something militry wise. But now you attempt to make the argument that bush is unfit for command because he “MAY” have gotten help in getting out of the gaurd early.

Lumpy please use your common sense when debating, stick to the topic at hand and don’t try to fabricate evidence, especially when it doesn’t pertain to the argument at hand.

Everybody knows and I think you have probably stated it yourself at least once. You can’t prove something/someone is right by proving that something/someone else is wrong.

Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins

17

[quote]Lumpy wrote:
When you add up Bush’s points that are documented in his record, they fall short of the required amount for an honorable discharge.

George Bush got out of the National Guard exactly the same way he got in… by his family pulling strings.[/quote]

Prove it, Lumpy. Prove Bush was AWOL and I’ll shut up. I’ll say it again just because you close your eyes and wish real hard does not make your lies anymore truthful.

vroom -
My beef with Kerry’s service is not to question whether he served, but what he did upon his return. He was culpable in the the torture of Americans with his left-wing anti-war BS.

That is an issue that is worthy of discussion - especially since the French-loving democratic candidate is trying to get voters to believe he gives shit about our national defense.

The only proof Kerry has of him being strong on defense is his empty promises. His post-military lies, and his abysmal Senate record, tell a very conflicting story of what he actually has done wrt defense.

18

[quote]My beef with Kerry’s service is not to question whether he served, but what he did upon his return. He was culpable in the the torture of Americans with his left-wing anti-war BS.

That is an issue that is worthy of discussion - especially since the French-loving democratic candidate is trying to get voters to believe he gives shit about our national defense.

…

His post-military lies…[/quote]

Hmm, I certainly don’t have issue with you deciding you don’t like what Kerry did upon his return from the war, but I think your characterization of it is far from accepted as fact.

Your belief is that atrocities were not committed in Vietnam? Wow, strange, considering that there are tons of people who have admitted or stated that they have actually happened.

On a different note, do you really think treatment of captives would have been any different no matter what was said or not said in America? The treatment would have been just the same even if the topic was different.

I think you are letting your feelings cloud your judgement. I’m not trying to defend Kerry or even say he did the right thing, but your conclusions about “lying” seem a bit farfetched.

It is also very sad that you’ve bought into the “evil allies” bullshit. It turns out that the “evil allies” were right when they claimed the US was rushing to war. The US was wounded and bent on revenge after 9/11. Bush appeased the national bloodlust by finding some wars to fight.

That other countries choose not to participate does not stop them from being your allies.

19

[quote]vroom wrote:
Hmm, I certainly don’t have issue with you deciding you don’t like what Kerry did upon his return from the war, but I think your characterization of it is far from accepted as fact.[/quote]

I believe the swift-vets. I believe the recantation of at least one of Kerry’s interview-ees who said that he never committed the atrocities credited to him. Besides, your list of accepted sources is so very narrow, there is probably very little I believe in that you would consider as ‘accepted fact’.

I’ve never said they didn’t occur - Vietnam was a war, atrocities happen in all wars. Kerry said it was systematic, implying that everyone who served killed at least one baby, and a widow, or two. That’s what I have a problem with.

It is my opinion that in a time of war, especially with an enemy that proved to to treat their POW’s with such savage brutality, any justification you give them for their actions make it far worse on those in captivity. I will say this - Kerry, Fonda, and the whole Ho-Chi-Min fan club did nothing to help our POW’s.

Listen to Kerry’s committee hearing from 1971. Then find a vet, and ask him if he systematically slaughtered innocent vietnamese. My feelings may very well cloud my judgement, but when his false accusations hit this close to home, I think it is justifiable, if not expected - at least where I come from.

I’m assuming that you’re referring to my French comment. The French were on the take from Sadaam which, in my opinion destroys any credibility they might have wrt the Iraq situation. They are central figures in the oil-for-food scandal. Maybe the US rushed to war in the eyes of the French. But are the French really the ones we should be looking to as an example proper defense tactics?
If Kerry wants to crawl six feet up the French’s ass to satisfy them, he does so at his own peril.

But I could be wrong.

20

Yeah, but systematic does not mean that everyone there did so. It means that it was practices by the military command structure. It was known about and not stopped. It’s similar to claiming that officers or higher knew about or encouraged Abu Graib but did nothing about it because it served a purpose.

Now, I won’t argue with your opinion about whether or not he should have talked about this during the war. It is possible to feel that government misbehavior must be brought to light as the public has a right to know just as it is possible to believe that such action could be detrimental to serving troops. I won’t claim either is viewpoint is truly wrong.

I think this a gross mischaracterization. Kerry wants to get more effort out of more allies. In order to do that he would have to treat them with respect. I don’t think Kerry would have any thoughts about doing anything other than that. Given the climate in the US these days I seriously doubt he would ever be able to do anything radical.

Also, you have to realize, if the majority of the population wants to share the burden of the war with allies, then if he is elected Kerry would be doing the right thing if here were in fact to try and get this to happen by working with allies.

I know the US is mighty and powerful with respect to money and military matters. Nevertheless, the world is a lot better of a place when you develop friendships and have people watching your back for you. Don’t let stubborn pride get in the way of that. The fact the French didn’t back a war based on suspect intelligence does not make them an enemy.

Your government is quick to demonize anyone or anything that isn’t “with them”. This is extremely disruptive and extremely unwise. You don’t have to take the polarized stance in order to take appropriate steps to protect your population from future attacks. Honestly, isn’t that what this is mostly supposed to be about?

Finally, I have to say, when Kerry wins and has his own administration, I’m going to be criticizing him as well. Will I then be branded a republican instead of a liberal all of a sudden?