Posted on 09/04/2004 11:06:03 AM PDT by Polybius
"If you cannot prove it with facts, baffle them with bullsh*t".
That is how John Kerry’s official web site is currently dealing with the news media in regards to the delicate subject of when John Kerry was “discharged” from the U.S. Navy.
Why does this matter?
Because John Kerry does not want the news media reporter or the civilian voter unfamiliar with military jargon to know that he was still a U.S. Naval officer at the time he was the leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
The effectiveness of such deliberate deceit by Kerry can be seen by the fact that even the Associated Press wrote it’s own timeline falsely stating:
The true fact is that John F. Kerry was not discharged from the U.S. Navy until February 16, 1978 during the Carter Administration.
In paid TV advertising, John Kerry invites voters and journalists to “Read the official Navy documents at JohnKerry.com”.
Upon arrival at the “John Kerry in Vietnam” section of the web site, the voter is guided by links to John Kerry's Vietnam Service Timeline
The Vietnam Service Timeline on JohnKerry.com starts out being almost anal-retentive about minor details. For example:
“January 3, 1967: Kerry reports for duty at the Naval Schools Command at Treasure Island (CA)-Takes 10 week Officer Damage Control Course.”
However, once the subject of Kerry’s discharge from Naval service crops up, the Vietnam Service Timeline becomes a collection of irrelevant non sequiturs deliberately designed to confuse and deceive the news media and the voter:
“January 1, 1970: Kerry promoted to (full) Lieutenant.
January 3, 1970: Kerry requests discharge.
March 1, 1970: Kerry’s date of separation from Active Duty.
April 29, 1970: Kerry listed as Registrant who has completed service.”
That’s it. Nothing else follows in Kerry’s Timeline.
The civilian journalist or voter who does not know the difference between a “discharge”, a “separation from active duty” or a “Registrant” is left with the false impression John Kerry was no longer in the U.S. Navy by the end of April 1970.
That is how even the Associated Press was fooled into falsely writing in it’s own Kerry timeline, ” January 1970: Kerry requests discharge. He is honorably discharged, and later joins Vietnam Veterans Against the War. “
The voter with prior military service, however, will see that John F. Kerry is “baffling with bullsh*t”.
The term “discharge” means that the servicemember has been stricken from the enlisted or officer ranks of his military service without any future military obligation in those ranks and is no longer subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice in regards to his future actions as they relate to his prior military status. Being “discharged” from the enlisted ranks means that you are no longer an enlisted servicemember in the Armed Forces. Being “discharged” from the officer ranks means that you are no longer a commissioned officer in the Armed Forces.
The term “separation from active duty”, however, simply means that the military servicemember has gone from an active duty status into reserve status. There is no such thing as an “honorable” or “dishonorable” release from active duty. Such terms are reserved for the final discharge. In a reserve status, Kerry would still have been a U.S. Naval officer subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The term “Registrant who has completed service” deals exclusively with Selective Service paperwork that would indicate that the Selective Service can’t draft someone that has served an active duty tour. Such Selective Service paperwork is totally irrelevant to John Kerry’s status as a U.S. Naval officer under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Kerry invites the voter and the news media to view his select collection of military documentation. However, to the civilian voter or news media reporter, John Kerry's Official Naval Records is a confusing jumble of relevant and irrelevant military paperwork.
For example, a close examination of the Record of Discharge document reveals that it is the document that discharged Kerry from the enlisted ranks of an Officer Candidate at U.S. Naval Officer Candidate School so that he could be commissioned as a U.S. Navy Ensign and “continued on active duty”.
The only document provided on Kerry’s web page close to the January 3, 1970 Timeline entry stating that “Kerry requests discharge” is a January 2, 1970 Release From Active Duty document which specifically informs Kerry that, “….your release from active duty does not terminate your status as a member of the U.S. Naval Reserve. “
John Kerry was not eligible for “discharge” on January 3, 1970 because Kerry still owed the U.S. Navy service in the Naval Reserves after his release from Active Duty status. If John Kerry actually “requested a discharge” from the Naval Reserves on January 3, 1970, he provides no documentation of such a request on the document list on his official web page.
If such a request for a “discharge” was actually made on January 3, 1970 and then obviously denied, John Kerry provides no documentation of the denial of his request on the document list on his official web page.
Assuming that John Kerry is telling the truth that he actually “requested discharge” on January 3, 1970, it is then clear that the Vietnam Service Timeline on Kerry's official web page should read as follows:
January 1, 1970: Kerry promoted to (full) Lieutenant.
January 2, 1970: Kerry's release from active duty is authorized. Kerry was informed that “….your release from active duty does not terminate your status as a member of the U.S. Naval Reserve.”
January 3, 1970: Kerry requests discharge. The request was denied.
March 1, 1970: Kerry’s date of separation from Active Duty.
April 29, 1970: Kerry listed as a Selective Service Registrant who is no longer subject to the military draft.
June 1970: While still a commissioned U.S. Naval officer in the U.S. Naval Reserves, Kerry joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
April 23, 1971: While still a commissioned U.S. Naval officer in the U.S. Naval Reserves, Kerry led members of VVAW in a protest during which they threw their medals and ribbons over a fence in front of the U.S. Capitol.
April 23, 1971: While still a commissioned U.S. Naval officer in the U.S. Naval Reserves, Kerry wore a U.S. military utility uniform with ribbons and while wearing long hair and for the purpose of political advocacy in violation of U.S. Navy military regulations at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. He then accused fellow Vietrnam veterans of war crimes “reminiscent of Genghis Kahn”.
February 16, 1978: Kerry discharged from U.S. Navy.
Kerry’s Timeline on his official web page, however, comes to an abrupt halt with the irrelevant entry:
"April 29, 1970: Kerry listed as Registrant who has completed service.”
Why does the Kerry Timeline have an irrelevant entry dealing with Kerry’s Selective Service status in April, 1970 in it at all let alone as the very last entry on his Timeline?
Why does a Timeline that includes such trivialities such as “January 3, 1967: Kerry reports for duty at the Naval Schools Command at Treasure Island (CA)-Takes 10 week Officer Damage Control Course” totally ignore Kerry’s actual discharge from the U.S. Navy on February 16, 1978 during the Carter Administration?
Why does Kerry inform the news media and the American voter that he “requested discharge” on January 3, 1970 but then fail to mention that he was not eligible for discharge at that date?
Why does Kerry fail to document that his alleged January 3, 1970 "request for discharge", if it is actually true that he ever made it, was denied?
Why does Kerry fail to mention in his Timeline that he was discharged on February 16, 1978?
Why?
To “baffle with bullsh*t”.
To deceive the news media, both foreign and domestic.
To deceive the American voter.
“Registrant who has completed service” was the last entry in Kerry’s Timeline in order to deliberately give the news media the false impression that John Kerry had “completed” his Naval career by April 29, 1970.
And, by golly, the deceit worked.
The Associated Press swallowed John F. Kerry’s lie hook, line and sinker:
The candidate who claims he will be “a President who will never lie to you” has no qualms whatsoever in lying by omission and lying by innuendo on his official web page.
What the Associated Press and the remainder of the mainstream media Kerry apologists should be asking John F. Kerry is:
“Mr. Kerry, why does the “Vietnam Service Timeline” on your official web page deliberately attempt to deceive the news media and the American voter about the fact that you were still a commissioned U.S. Naval officer in the U.S. Naval Reserves during the time period of your anti-war activism?”
“Mr. Kerry, you have said you would be a President who will never lie to us. Do you consider lies by omission and lies by innuendo to be actual lies or do you fall back on the position that it would all depend on what the meaning of the word ‘lie’ is?”
When and how did he do this in an official uniform of the US Armed Forces.
I wouldn't know about that since the S.O.B. has not signed his Form 180.
Is this the skeleton in his closet that he wants to hide from the American voter?
You are subject to recall in conditions of national emergency under circumstances authorized under law. You become subject to the UCMJ when you are on active duty order or under inactive duty for training orders, but you are not subject to the UCMJ for your civilian off-duty actions. I am stating this from my professional knowledge and experience as a retired Captain, USNR. I spent a lot of years on these issues.
Something that Kerry forgot to read before he signed it.
Specifically it provides:
(3) Members of a reserve component while on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal service.
Kerry was a member of the individual ready reserve but was never on inactive-duty training.
And your point in posting that is?
BTTT
Very nice piece of research on your part.
Thank you for sharing it, and thank you
for the ping.
Definately deserving of a BTTT and a
*bookmark*. ;o)
My thesis is that he wants to create the false impression that he was "discharged" in April 1970. He succeeded.
What is deliberately deceitful by ommission an innuendo is his Timeline. Why does he not want the media to know that he was still a commissioned Naval officer?
Please give it up. This entire line of reasoning is WRONG and DANGEROUS, and you will be challendged and contradicted by every officer who has left service and retired.
What line of reasoning is that?
That he tries to hide the fact that he was still a commissioned officer?
I suspect you never served on active duty as an officer or you would not even begin to make the claims that you are making.
As a matter of fact, I am "Commander, Medical Corps, USNR (retired)"
I have spoken in front of TV cameras about controversial topics and I was specifically instructed by the U.S. Navy not to wear my Navy uniform when I did so.
Even if you are on Inactive Reserve status, once you trade your civilian clothes for your military uniform you are representing the U.S. Armed Forces and you have crossed a line.
you are the only other person than I who thinks this is a possibility!
To have made his courts martial public would have made Kerry a MARTYR, and for Kerry to make it public, would have disqualified him from entering public politics in the 70's.
Why isn't anyone asking who was behind the grooming of Kerry as a young man? Are they the same individuals who could have covered up and forged documents on his behalf.
Sorry, but after seeing Kerry on the campaign trail, he isn't smart enough to have come this far on his own. Few are.
Obviously Teddy Kennedy and the Kennedy handlers are involved.
Is there any info. that connects the dots to the communists that shows he is a mole?
Complete the sentence - "was still a commissioned officer in the united states naval reserve in inactive status."
I am aware of no one - perhaps besides yourself - who was ever under any impression that Kerry was not in the Naval Reserve after 1970. Since every line officer knows that his commission is for a minimum 6 year term combined active and reserve, anyone line officer who could add would know this.
The response by any line officer anyway would have been a big SO WHAT? In fact, even Tommy Franks said pretty much SO WHAT? and that he had a right in inactive status to criticize a war he disagreed with.
You can take Kerry to task for misrepresenting his active duty record and you can take him to task for his actions subsequent to release from active duty regarding protesting the war, but HE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE UCMJ. Period.
The jurisdiciton under the UCMJ says nothing about every time you put on a uniform - if that is what he did. It is very very clear.
At what point would Kerry have no longer been a commissioned officer? Am I right in presuming that he would have remained a commissioned officer until his discharge in 1978?
Would that status have any bearing on his meetings with the NVA and VC in Paris?
Let me ask a really simple question - if the court martial happened, and if making it public would have been to Kerry's benefit at the time, then WHY DIDN'T KERRY HIMSELF MAKE THE FACT OF THE COURT MARTIAL PUBLIC?
Official Navy records above show that Kerry was transferred from active duty to the Naval Reserve on January 3, 1970. He was put on standby reserve on 1 July 1972. He was finally discharged from the Navy on February 16, 1978.
Excellent. But missing on your corrected timeline is that he was still a member of the Armed Forces when he went to confer with the enemy in Paris.
John Kerry: A Navy Dove Runs for Congress
Kerry is a pilot, and on October 14 and 15 he flew Ted Kennedy's advisor Adam Walinsky by private plane throughout the State of New York so that Walinsky could give speeches against the Vietnam War. But Kerry was smart enough not to put down "Moratorium" on the Navy signout sheet for that Tuesday and Wednesday.
These demonstrations were organized by the Vietnam Moratorium Committee, identified in FBI documents as a front for the Socialist Workers Party, an organization designated by the Attorney General under Executive Order 10450, which is the E.O. invoked here:
Department of Defense DIRECTIVE: SUBJECT: Wearing of the Uniform
[SNIP]
POLICY
Did you see the pics of the Swiftee stickers on my vehicles?
Swiftee window sticker thread - get yours! Freep mail for details.
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.
