Kerry's military records

[rockytop]

Could this be the basis for the "October Surprise" we have heard
> about. SHADOW
> Kerry's Military Record
>
> 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. I think the 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.
>
> 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 that 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."
>
> A. L. "Steve" Nash, MAC Ret, UDT/SEAL Authentication Team -Director
> AuthentiSEAL Phone 707 438 0120 "The only service where All
> investigators are US Navy SEALs" [ _http://www.authentiseal.org/_
> (http://www.authentiseal.org/) ]

[etothepii]

I just can't believe there are people in this country who would have this man be our commander in chief.

[Coastie]

Interesting even if somewhat mis-stated. All enlistments of the period, to my knowledge, were for a period of eight years, not 6 plus 6 months due to the war. An enlistment in the reserve was typically for a total of 8 years with as much as 2 of those years on active duty although that varied a bit from one service to another. An enlistment as a regular was typically for a 4 year period with an additional period of 4 years inactive reserve. Since he applied for, and was accepted into an officer program, then the rules may have changed. Since I was an enlisted puke myself, I really cannot comment on the contracts for officers.
It will be interesting to find out just what his original discharge said if anybody can locate it.

[rockytop]

Coastie, I was an Air force officer from 1972 to 1978 and my commitment on active duty was for 6 years, which I gave them to the exact day. I then had a 2 year inactive reserve status but I joined the Air Guard so it didn't make any difference about the reserve part for me. Like you said, I think it varies.

The main deal is that Kerry has some crimes to pay for and not getting elected President would be a good start. It would be even better if the state of Mass. got the big picture and kicked him out as senator and then I'm sure Mrs. Heinz would eject the Kerry part of name also.

[LBR]

Evidently the rules only apply selectively. I still can't get over the fact that a draft dodger was even allowed to run for President. Shouldn't have been allowed to even run for dogcatcher. I'd be all for a constitutional amendment that required any candidate for a higher elected office, especially one that has any say or control over the armed forces, have served honorably in the military--all files open for review. That would have cut out a huge amount of crap in this election, and would have prevented a huge pile of crap from running in another.

Chad

[strut]

Well lets look at it this way, kerry's life long dream was to become president someday, Right now he could do one simple thing and prove all of his rivalries wrong and out to be liars and sew this election up hands down, All he has to do is make his records public, that would really turn his numbers around and he would win by a landslide, IF, IF HE IS TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT HIS SERVICE, IF NOT IT WOULD RUIN HIM, WHICH DO YOU THINK IS KEEPING HIM FROM SIGNING THE FORM TO RELEASE HIS RECORDS?

[BT]

LBR i would not support such a addmendment.
There should be no requriment to have serived as military personal to be a pollitision.

Now if you do dicide to servive to be eligible for election you should have to abide by the same rules as every boady else.


But buddy this is the real world there have always been and allways will be exceptions for the few. its just the way it is.

[bob d]

i support an amendment requiring everyone learn how to spell

[BenGarrett]

ORIGINAL: bob d

i support an amendment requiring everyone learn how to spell

You took the words right out of my mouth. . .

[LBR]

I can respect that BT, but here's my reasoning. I feel that anyone with the power to control our military should have some basic understanding of what it's all about. I especially don't think that someone refused to serve our country in a time of need or served dishonorably should have the ability to control or have any kind of say in the lives of our troops. To me it's like having someone who has never hunted (never served) or an anti-hunter (draft dodger) in charge of game regulations.

Chad