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?
This could be interesting.
um.....hmmm
Good question.
What a shame that it won't be answered.
Or even make difference if it were answered.
Forget everything except the DD 214. That is the official release from service record. It will have on it the nature of the discharge, whether honorable or something less than that.
On a thread similar to this one about 2 weeks ago, I was told that Kerry's DD 214 has been released and that it is honorable.
It won't even be asked.....
"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."
How I wish W could take Skerry for a flight in a F-102. I can here Kerry now - Mama Mama, don't let him do it.
I doubt what Rove has up his sleeve has anything to do with Vietnam. And I'm glad; I want something totally new and shocking.
>>On a thread similar to this one about 2 weeks ago, I was told that Kerry's DD 214 has been released and that it is honorable.<<
I'm in a flame war with my lib SIL. Do you have a reference for this?
She claims Bush never released all his records and Kerry did. Of course, standing in the middle of a McDonalds Playland I had no references.
SKerry could borrow some Depends from his buddy Larry King.
If he was originally discharged under less than honorable circumstances, and later exonerated by President Carter's order, would he have multiple DD214s, or would there be only one, that would be updated to reflect an honorable discharge?
In 2001
"SKerry could borrow some Depends from his buddy Larry King."
......or release a yellow vapor :)
Good piece! Now the tide is turning.
Yep. Records released by the Kerry campaign are confusing and the confusion is very deliberate.
Kerry was NOT Honorably Discharged in January, 1970 but his campaign has deceived the news media to believe that he was.
Kerry Deceives News Media About His Navy Discharge on JohnKerry.com
John Kerry was honorably Discharged twice:
First Honorable Discharge: When he graduated from Officer Candidate School and was Honorably Discharged from Officer Cadet status (E-5 equivalent) in order to be commissioned as an officer. That is standard operating procedure.
Second Honorable Discharge: 16 February 78 when he was Honorably Discharged from the U.S. Naval Reserve during the Carter Administration.
The 3 January 1970 date is just a "baffle them with bulls#t" date where Kerry allegedly "requests" discharge. As you can see in the FR thread I wrote and posted, this was part of the Kerry campaign's effort to B.S. the news media into believing that he was "Honorably Discharged" in 1970.
Why?
He wanted the news media to belive he was Honorably Discharged BEFORE he joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War. The truth is that he was still was a commissioned officer in the US Naval Reserve during his activities with the Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
The 2001 date is merely a DD-215 "correction" of his service record where he "corrected" the number of campaign stars on his Vietnam Service Medal from two to four. Later, a Navy spokesman said that he was only entitled to two stars. The "Combat V" on the Silver Star was never "corrected" on the 2001 DD-215.
The question is, "Why was Kerry not Honorably Discharged until the Carter Administration?
His period of obligated service would have been completed long before 1978 and Kerry is not the kind of guy that would have stayed in the Navy Reserves of his own free will for patriotic reasons.
The refusal to release his full military records may have something to do with the late 1978 Honorable Discharge date.
Dubya has released all of his service records and has charged the Pentagon to release any that were previously undisclosed, if any.
Kerry has selectively disclosed his DD 214 (Honerable Discharge) and some fitness reports that are none too outstanding. He, Kerry, has yet to sign the form 180 which would put ALL of his service record in the public domain.
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.