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?”
I completely agree.
"Registrant who has completed service"
That is a NEW term to me - 12 years active duty but I never heard of the term "registrant" in this manner.
No one?
How about the Associated Press, all the newspapers that carry the Associated Press and all the civilian readers who read those newspapers:
We all agree that once you are "honorably discharged" that you are no longer a member of the Naval reserve or a U.S. Naval officer. Agreed?
"(Kerry) is honorably discharged, and later joins Vietnam Veterans Against the War" is a blatant lie, is it not?
I knew that Kerry was in the Navy Reserve after 1970 just as anyone with past military service would have known that. Unfortunately, the vast majority of American voters and news media journalists have no military experience whatsoever and that is who Kerry wants to fool.
The question is how could professional Associated Press journalists research Kerry's biography and come up with:
The answer is by reading the deliberately deceitful Timeline in John F. Kerry's official web page.
After reviewing your references, I must clarify my statement to state that John Kerry would not have been subject to the UCMJ unless he was recalled to active duty for actions committed in prior active duty or in active duty for training.
Whether or not wearing the uniform below constitutes "wearing the uniform of the U.S. Armed Forces" would be a question that JAG Corps officers can argue about.
What is perfectly clear, however, is that, for whatever reasons he may have, John Kerry wants to give the false impression in his official web page Timeline that he was "discharged" in April, 1970.
What is perfectly clear, however, is that John Kerry's web page succeeded in fooling the Associated Press, the other news media that quoted the Associated Press and all the millions of civilian American voters who rely upon the news media for their information into believing that he was "discharged" in April, 1970.
You may think that the date of Kerry's discharge does not matter.
Fine.
Be that as it may, it is clear that John F. Kerry thinks it matters very much and he has done everything he can in his Timeline to give the false impression to the civilian American voter that he was "discharged" in April 1970 and that his Naval carrer was "completed" at that time prior to his anti-war activities.
Why such deceit over something you believe does not matter?
As John F. Kerry.
Means someone who registered for the draft, because he was / is required to, but has satisfied the requirement to serve by serving either through the draft or voluntarily.
That is a NEW term to me - 12 years active duty but I never heard of the term "registrant" in this manner.
That's what you get when you mix military terminology with Selective Service terminology.
It is clear that Kerry wants to use the Selective Service terminolgy "Registrant who has completed service" in order to fool the news media journalists and American voters without prior miliatary experience into believing that he "completed" his military career on that date.
Hey, it worked! You don't have to get up too early in the morning to fool the Associated Press. (At least not when it furthers the Democrat agenda.):
He was not on active duty and that is all the difference in the world......AndyJackson
What that means is that, since he was not on active duty, the UCMJ cannot hold that against him.
However, it would be very politically embarrassing to Kerry and the American voter can most certainly choose to hold that against him come Election Day.
That is why John Kerry has gone to such lengths to give the false impression to the news media and to the American voter that he was "discharged" in April, 1970.
That's the part that threw me being from the EM class. We had a 6 year obligation to be served in as active, active reserve ( serving weekends ), or inactive reserve ( no meetings ). I was assuming that officers had same requirements. His records shows him asking for reassignment to standby reserves in 1972 so I figured that this was a move from active reserves to inactive reserves. I guess where went wrong here is the "voluntary drill status" not offered to us low life's. :)
"If you cannot prove it with facts, baffle them with bullsh*t".
You gotta be a Navy vet.
bear11, your trail may be contained in the following which is a restatement of a reply I sent to tinamina in regard to a thread I started: "John Forbes Kerry - The $64,000 question for 1971 (Vanity)"
Ted Kennedy – no? The Kennedy’s are only minor players. I thought by emphasizing John Kerry’s middle name “Forbes” the most likely conduit for connections would become crystallized. John Forbes Kerry’s mother, Rosemary, was originally raised in France and was the daughter of James Grant Forbes. The Forbes family is a big time tie-in to all the “old money “. Also, since James Grant Forbes was born in Shanghai, China and a member of the Forbes family who amassed part of its fortune during the Opium Wars it is quite likely that ties throughout Indochina existed during the 1960’s (and through to the present). I would encourage all Freepers to do research on the Forbes Family for reference. One good source to start with is wikipedia.com.
However, it is also possible that since John Forbes Kerry grew up in Paris where his father, Richard John Kerry, was a U.S. Foreign Service Officer he had gained contacts through his father. As Vietnam had been a French Colony it is likely that French / Vietnamese connections existed.
The Forbes Family connection though is the most likely. Even with French / Vietnamese connections through his father it would only be through the Forbes name and contacts that a twenty-seven year old Navy Lieutenant would be negotiating with the enemy without repercussions.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 45 > Sec. 953.
Sec. 953. - Private correspondence with foreign governments Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
Although it is suspect the dots connect to the communists (after all his public philosophy before and after Vietnam shows consistency with communist philosophy), its also likely that Vietnam needed to be stopped for family business reasons.
Thanks for the link in Post 71.
You have to wonder how come it takes Internet posters instead of the mainstream media to expose such "Airbrushing of John Kerry's Military Service".
Did you notice the following quote in your link?:
"Confusion about Kerry's status after Jan 1970 is common. Recently, the NY Times and the LA Times got it wrong; the Boston Globe had it wrong a year ago, and the Harvard Crimson was confused (or misled) back in February 1970. Douglas Brinkley, author of "Tour of Duty" also gets it wrong, telling us that Kerry was honorably discharged in 1970."
Kerry even managed to deceive his own official biographer Douglas Brinkley, author of "Tour of Duty".
The pounding of the nails in Kerry's coffin is deafening.
Holy Moley! That coming out would be the MOAB of all MOAB's. Wouldn't you think the RATs would do anything to avoid it? Like giving Kerry the hook real quick?
My worry is that the majority of American voters only hear what the Mainstream Media wants them to hear.
Now, in this particular case:
Is the Mainstream Media really that incompetent in it's research or do they willing pass on Kerry's deceits with a wink and a nod?
Infominer:
Great info. I appreciate the reply.
When you look at the current leadership in the democratic party and research their ties to the communist party, it gets really scary.
Al Gore - Armand Hammer is his godfather I believe. Gore's daughter is married to one of Jacob Schiff's grandchild or great grandchild. Coincidence?
Hillary - Where do I start?
Kerry - just his China ties alone are worth investigating.
Great find.
Why not create a thread from this?
Brinkley's book was sloppy in many ways. I wonder how much was done by his gofers.
Nope, Andy Jackson is right.
"Many of his anti war activities were in uniform"
Looks to me like he was wearing bits and pieces of uniform. I wouldn't call his appearance "in uniform."
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.