[typoon]

http://www.nysun.com/article/3107

An official Navy document on Senator Kerry's campaign Web site listed as Mr. Kerry's "Honorable Discharge from the Reserves" opens a door on a well kept secret about his military service.

The document is a form cover letter in the name of the Carter administration's secretary of the Navy, W. Graham Claytor. It describes Mr. Kerry's discharge as being subsequent to the review of "a board of officers." This in it self is unusual. There is nothing about an ordinary honorable discharge action in the Navy that requires a review by a board of officers.

According to the secretary of the Navy's document, the "authority of reference" this board was using in considering Mr. Kerry's record was "Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163. "This section refers to the grounds for involuntary separation from the service. What was being reviewed, then, was Mr. Kerry's involuntary separation from the service. And it couldn't have been an honorable discharge, or there would have been no point in any review at all. The review was likely held to improve Mr. Kerry's status of discharge from a less than honorable discharge to an honorable discharge.

A Kerry campaign spokesman, David Wade, was asked whether Mr. Kerry had ever been a victim of an attempt to deny him an honorable discharge. There has been no response to that inquiry.

The document is dated February 16, 1978. But Mr. Kerry's military commitment began with his six-year enlistment contract with the Navy on February 18, 1966. His commitment should have terminated in 1972. It is highly unlikely that either the man who at that time was a Vietnam Veterans Against the War leader, John Kerry, requested or the Navy accepted an additional six year reserve commitment. And the Claytor document indicates proceedings to reverse a less than honorable discharge that took place sometime prior to February 1978.

The most routine time for Mr. Kerry's discharge would have been at the end of his six-year obligation, in 1972. But how was it most likely to have come about?

NBC's release this March of some of the Nixon White House tapes about Mr. Kerry show a great deal of interest in Mr. Kerry by Nixon and his executive staff, including, perhaps most importantly, Nixon's special counsel, Charles Colson. In a meeting the day after Mr. Kerry's Senate testimony, April 23, 1971, Mr. Colson attacks Mr. Kerry as a "complete opportunist...We'll keep hitting him, Mr. President."

Mr. Colson was still on the case two months later, according to a memo he wrote on June 15,1971, that was brought to the surface by the Houston Chronicle. "Let's destroy this young demagogue before he becomes another Ralph Nader." Nixon had been a naval officer in World War II. Mr. Colson was a former Marine captain. Mr. Colson had been prodded to find "dirt" on Mr. Kerry, but reported that he couldn't find any.

The Nixon administration ran FBI surveillance on Mr. Kerry from September 1970 until August 1972. Finding grounds for an other than honorable discharge, however, for a leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, given his numerous activities while still a reserve officer of the Navy, was easier than finding "dirt."

For example, while America was still at war, Mr. Kerry had met with the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong delegation to the Paris Peace talks in May 1970 and then held a demonstration in July 1971 in Washington to try to get Congress to accept the enemy's seven point peace proposal without a single change. Woodrow Wilson threw Eugene Debs, a former presidential candidate, in prison just for demonstrating for peace negotiations with Germany during World War I. No court overturned his imprisonment. He had to receive a pardon from President Harding.

Mr. Colson refused to answer any questions about his activities regarding Mr. Kerry during his time in the Nixon White House. The secretary of the Navy at the time during the Nixon presidency is the current chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner. A spokesman for the senator, John Ullyot, said, "Senator Warner has no recollection that would either confirm or challenge any representation that Senator Kerry received a less than honorable discharge."

The "board of officers" review reported in the Claytor document is even more extraordinary because it came about "by direction of the President." No normal honorable discharge requires the direction of the president. The president at that time was James Carter. This adds another twist to the story of Mr. Kerry's hidden military records.

Mr. Carter's first act as president was a general amnesty for draft dodgers and other war protesters. Less than an hour after his inauguration on January 21, 1977, while still in the Capitol building, Mr. Carter signed Executive Order 4483 empowering it. By the time it became a directive from the Defense Department in March 1977 it had been expanded to include other offenders who may have had general, bad conduct, dishonorable discharges, and any other discharge or sentence with negative effect on military records. In those cases the directive outlined a procedure for appeal on a case by case basis before a board of officers. A satisfactory appeal would result in an improvement of discharge status or an honorable discharge.

Mr. Kerry has repeatedly refused to sign Standard Form 180, which would allow the release of all his military records. And some of his various spokesmen have claimed that all his records are already posted on his Web site. But the Washington Post already noted that the Naval Personnel Office admitted that they were still withholding about 100 pages of files.

If Mr. Kerry was the victim of a Nixon "enemies list" hit, one might have expected him to wear it like a badge of honor, like many others such as his friend Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers, CBS's Daniel Schorr, or the actor Paul Newman, who had made Mr. Colson's original list of 20 "enemies."

There are a number of categories of discharges besides honorable. There are general discharges, medical discharges, bad conduct discharges, as well as other than honorable and dishonorable discharges. There is one odd coincidence that gives some weight to the possibility that Mr. Kerry was dishonorably discharged. Mr. Kerry has claimed that he lost his medal certificates and that is why he asked that they be reissued. But when a dishonorable discharge is issued, all pay benefits, and allowances, and all medals and honors are revoked as well. And five months after Mr. Kerry joined the U.S. Senate in 1985, on one single day, June 4, all of Mr. Kerry's medals were reissued.

Interesting read.

[Buckaroo]

Very interesting.

[Spliffdaddy]

maybe that's the reason Kerry has refused to release his military records to the public.

[Buckaroo]

I wonder why this thread isn't getting any discussion? I hope that they force Kerry to confess that his seperation was a dishonarable discharge.

[PacHead]

Kerry is the one patting himself on the back, boasting about his wartime service and him being a hero.

Let's see those records Kerryboy.

[kido]

Something else that came out recently was ABCNews did a show on Nightline were they actually went to the village that was attacked on the day John Kerry performed actions for his silver star. They interviewed the Vietnamese people who witnessed the events of that day, including some who were fighting with the VC against the Americans. The overall claim was that though none of the villagers witnessed an American killing a VC with a B-40 rocket launcher, they did verify that there was one soldier there with that weapon who was killed and he was a fully trained VC, not a teenager in a loin cloth as John Kerry's biographer had stated.

Here is what I find interesting. The villagers claim that there was only one rocket launcher in the area on that day and John Kerry's citation and after action reports both state that a rocket was fired at his boat that missed causing him to beach the craft immediately 10 feet from a VC with a rocket launcher. The VC stood up and ran away, supposedly to reach a safe distance so that he could fire at the beached boat and kill everyone. He was hit in the leg and John Kerry pursued him behind a hooch and killed him returning with the rocket launcher with a round in the chamber.

What I would like to know is when did the VC have time to reload? He was immediately engaged after he fired his first rocket and the B-40 (RPG-2) is not a rapid fire weapon. The round must be prepared, armed, and lined up with the firing pin of the launcher before it can be used again. Also, the position of the launcher is given away when you shoot because the round sets off a loud noise, a bright flash, and leaves a trail of smoke from the launcher. John Kerry may have dispatched the man that fired on his boat, but I don't believe the enemy soldier would have had time to ready another shot.

kido

[Atomic Rooster]

Just wondering.

Did Bush even learn how to fly? Did he get his wings?

I heard he scored one point over the lowest you could score and still be accepted.

?¿?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by kido:
Something else that came out recently was ABCNews did a show on Nightline were they actually went to the village that was attacked on the day John Kerry performed actions for his silver star. They interviewed the Vietnamese people who witnessed the events of that day, including some who were fighting with the VC against the Americans. The overall claim was that though none of the villagers witnessed an American killing a VC with a B-40 rocket launcher, they did verify that there was one soldier there with that weapon who was killed and he was a fully trained VC, not a teenager in a loin cloth as John Kerry's biographer had stated.

I saw that broadcast as well. The villagers also confirmed that there was a firefight that day involving some 20 VietCong who had specifically been sent to target the swift boats. So there goes another one of the Swift Boat group's phony claims, not that we needed to go to Vietnam to see through them.

The villagers also revealed that someone had been there a few weeks earlier with a videocamera saying that Kerry hadn't earned his medal. Apparently the villagers weren't able to help him substantiate this and he left.

They then had John O'Neal on to respond. He pretty much behaved like a 6-year old whose candy had been taken away. The essence of his argument was that because the villagers live in a Communist country, they would naturally support Kerry's version of events, even though (save one) they had never even heard of Kerry and their own people had been killed by Kerry and the other Americans. A really sound argument, that one.

An interesting tidbit: one woman said that they never did find the VC weapons cache, which was buried under her garden and according to her remains there to this day.

John Kerry may have dispatched the man that fired on his boat, but I don't believe the enemy soldier would have had time to ready another shot.

I suspect that Kerry did not want to give him that opportunity.

[itai195]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Kerry is the one patting himself on the back, boasting about his wartime service and him being a hero.

How do you feel about the Mary Cheney issue?

Anyway, here I was being silly and thinking this 'issue' had run its course and been put to rest.

[bbales]

Originally posted by kido:
Something else that came out recently was ABCNews did a show on Nightline were they actually went to the village that was attacked on the day John Kerry performed actions for his silver star. They interviewed the Vietnamese people who witnessed the events of that day, including some who were fighting with the VC against the Americans. The overall claim was that though none of the villagers witnessed an American killing a VC with a B-40 rocket launcher, they did verify that there was one soldier there with that weapon who was killed and he was a fully trained VC, not a teenager in a loin cloth as John Kerry's biographer had stated.

Here is what I find interesting. The villagers claim that there was only one rocket launcher in the area on that day and John Kerry's citation and after action reports both state that a rocket was fired at his boat that missed causing him to beach the craft immediately 10 feet from a VC with a rocket launcher. The VC stood up and ran away, supposedly to reach a safe distance so that he could fire at the beached boat and kill everyone. He was hit in the leg and John Kerry pursued him behind a hooch and killed him returning with the rocket launcher with a round in the chamber.

What I would like to know is when did the VC have time to reload? He was immediately engaged after he fired his first rocket and the B-40 (RPG-2) is not a rapid fire weapon. The round must be prepared, armed, and lined up with the firing pin of the launcher before it can be used again. Also, the position of the launcher is given away when you shoot because the round sets off a loud noise, a bright flash, and leaves a trail of smoke from the launcher. John Kerry may have dispatched the man that fired on his boat, but I don't believe the enemy soldier would have had time to ready another shot.

kido

I saw the Nightline report. It supported all claims that Kerry acted honorably, that he was under enemy fire, that the enemy combatant that those who seek to denigrate Kerry's service describe as a "teen-ager in a loin cloth" was in his 20s and dressed in clothing. John O'Neil came off as a complete nutball. I am AMAZED that the traditional press has not made more of this report totally vindicating John Kerry. and I am also AMAZED that John Kerry -- who went to Vietnam -- is somehow seen as a slacker while the real slacker is seen as some kind of hero, even though he shirked his military duty.

[Wiskedjak]

All that's really been proven here is that Kerry's military record is just as questionable as Bush's and that politicians, whether Republican or Democrat, can be deceptive.

[Capt Shane]

Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
Just wondering.

Did Bush even learn how to fly? Did he get his wings?

I heard he scored one point over the lowest you could score and still be accepted.

?¿?

If you know anything about military tests you would know one point is alot... it is not like the difference between a 69 and 70 percent, i scored a 114 on my asvab on the officer section (not the percentile) and the min to be an officer is a 110 you would think since i was 4 points above i was dumb till you under stood at 109 is in the lower 50th percentile and a 114 is in the 80th which is about (rounding down) 34 percent of the population that took the test, IE i am in the top 80 percent of the population that took the test... assuming there is a normal standard deveation, and i only scored 4 points higher, alot of different sub tests make up this total it is a COMPOSITE score, you should educate yourself before making blind statements such as that... plus can you fly a fighter jet, i bet not...


I believe Kerry serverd honorably and anyone who questions this themselves need to think what they would do in a war such as Vietnam. Anyone who went over there and saw combat deserves your respect for thier own personal courage at a min, I am pro-bush but respect Kerry and all who served in that and any war.

[kido]

Originally posted by bbales:
I saw the Nightline report. It supported all claims that Kerry acted honorably, that he was under enemy fire, that the enemy combatant that those who seek to denigrate Kerry's service describe as a "teen-ager in a loin cloth" was in his 20s and dressed in clothing. John O'Neil came off as a complete nutball. I am AMAZED that the traditional press has not made more of this report totally vindicating John Kerry. and I am also AMAZED that John Kerry -- who went to Vietnam -- is somehow seen as a slacker while the real slacker is seen as some kind of hero, even though he shirked his military duty.

The description of the "teenager in a loincloth" came from Douglas Brinkley in his biography of John Kerry called Tour of Duty. This description was attributed to Fred Short, one of the members of John Kerry's boat that day, so the inaccurate description is from a Kerry supporter, not a swift boat vet.

BTW, Kerry's later citations for the silver star mentioned attacking a numerically superior force; however, the villigers confirm that there were 20 VC in the area that day. The FEB 28 1969 MTSR from the incident says there were 3 swift boats (94, 23, and 43) involved each loaded with 30 south vietnamese soldiers who were landed near the village to recon the area. So you had at least 90 friendly soldiers plus the firepower of 3 swift boats going against the numerically superior group of 20 local VC armed with AK-47s and 1 rocket launcher. Not one friendly soldier was killed or injured in this engagement. Also, this report was written by Lt. Kerry himself.

If you believe Kerry's first citation for the silver star, he received it for dispatching the lone VC with the rocket launcher with a round in the chamber. This citation mentioned that the VC soldier was fleeing, was wounded in the leg, and was dispatched by Kerry out of sight of his boat crew. This detail was removed from later citations Kerry requested from the Navy. It is also interesting to note that this incident was the single most highly decorated mission of any navy ship during the entire Vietnam war, with Kerry receiving the Silver Star, 2 other boat crew were given Bronze Stars, and 5 others were given meritorious service awards, all vouched for by Lt. Kerry. Again, no injuries, and only a broken window on the PCF 43, and one dead VC who had shot a rocket at them and reloaded while under fire. They didn't even find the weapons cache, if you put faith in what the villigers claim.


kido

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I saw that broadcast as well. The villagers also confirmed that there was a firefight that day involving some 20 VietCong who had specifically been sent to target the swift boats. So there goes another one of the Swift Boat group's phony claims, not that we needed to go to Vietnam to see through them.

The incident in which no one else other than Kerry reported being shot at, was the Bronze star incident, not this one-the Silver Star. Two completely different things.

The Swift Boat Vets have actually backed Kerry up that he didn't commit a war crime during the Silver Star incident (this one) for shooting an enemy in the back- their argument is simply that the action didn't merit Kerry being awarded a Silver Star, and that Kerry fudged certain details -perhaps to get the medal- about a greater number of enemy than was actually encountered.

[zigzag]

kido and CH: Points taken. The problem as I see it is that, on balance, the Swift Boat group has demonstrated far less credibility overall than their skeptics. Therefore, unless and until they're better prepared to substantiate their arguments, I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the record.

I think the Swift Boat group has scored some points, for example on the Christmas in Cambodia thing (although I think it's turned out to be a rather minor point). The problem is that they overshot the mark and tried to discredit virtually everything that Kerry has said or done. In doing so, they've not only contradicted the record and credible eyewitnesses, but they've contradicted themselves and discredited the Navy itself. If they had been more selective in their targets, I'd be more inclined to listen to them. As it is, they come off as less interested in the truth than in smearing Kerry for the sake of it. After watching John O'Neal the other night, I've concluded that he's a bit of a crackpot, which I didn't believe previously.

In other words, I wouldn't put it past Kerry to gild the lily, but the SB group has demonstrated even less credibility IMO.

EDIT: And, to be fair, I realize that the same could be said of some of the critics of Bush's record.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
All that's really been proven here is that Kerry's military record is just as questionable as Bush's and that politicians, whether Republican or Democrat, can be deceptive.

No. No no no no no. There's no comparison between Kerry's and Bush's military records. Kerry is a bona fide war hero. This is what the Republicans rely on - a kind of relativism that says "well they're all the same." Attack Kerry's record so the experiences of the two during that period are called a wash. They're not. And the Bush campaign is relying on distortion and deception to a much greater degree than the Kerry campaign. It's not equal. That's what they want us to think. That what the "fair and balanced" approach wants us to say. Don't be objective, just report that "they both engage in distortions."

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by BRussell:
No. No no no no no. There's no comparison between Kerry's and Bush's military records. Kerry is a bona fide war hero. This is what the Republicans rely on - a kind of relativism that says "well they're all the same." Attack Kerry's record so the experiences of the two during that period are called a wash. They're not. And the Bush campaign is relying on distortion and deception to a much greater degree than the Kerry campaign. It's not equal. That's what they want us to think. That what the "fair and balanced" approach wants us to say. Don't be objective, just report that "they both engage in distortions."

Then why hasn't Kerry released his war record?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Then why hasn't Kerry released his war record?

As far as I know, he's publicly released everything except for some medical records that he allowed reporters to look at but not take, and some of his own personal diaries that he has a deal with his biographer to have exclusive access to them to write the book.

[kido]

Originally posted by BRussell:
No. No no no no no. There's no comparison between Kerry's and Bush's military records. Kerry is a bona fide war hero. This is what the Republicans rely on - a kind of relativism that says "well they're all the same." Attack Kerry's record so the experiences of the two during that period are called a wash. They're not. And the Bush campaign is relying on distortion and deception to a much greater degree than the Kerry campaign. It's not equal. That's what they want us to think. That what the "fair and balanced" approach wants us to say. Don't be objective, just report that "they both engage in distortions."

If Senator Kerry's military record was impeachable, then you'd have only a couple of crazy bloggers spouting off consipiracy theories. What you have is dozens of soldiers who knew and worked with Lt. Kerry, and hundreds more who were affected by his after war activities that are saying "No way should he be Commander in Chief". Even if it is a Republican ploy, it is a good one because they have had to expend almost no effort to find veterans and POWs who don't think Senator Kerry should be President.

Also, distortions and deceptions run on Senator Kerry's side as well. Did you know that Rev. Alston, who spoke so passionately at the DNC on Senator Kerry's behalf and is a baptist minister, served at most one week with Lt. Kerry as his commander, and possibly not at all. He was wounded in combat (shot in the arm and head) before Lt. Kerry took command of PCF 94 and it is not clear he ever returned to combat status. If he did, he was only witness to the bronze star incident which is contested by the SwiftVets and Kerry's own story. Rev. Alston claimed he saw Lt. Kerry "shot and bleeding" while saving a soldier from the river, even though Kerry himself says he was never shot. One report had a mine injuring Lt. Kerry and blowing the soldier into the river, but the record shows only PCF 3 was hit directly by a mine and PCF 94 actually towed it back to base. PCF 94 had no damage and the only wounded came from PCF 3 and Lt. Kerry himself. Not even the soldier blown into the water was injured.

You may think these details are unimportant, and you can say that you'd rather have a man who saw combat rather than one who didn't to be President, but then again you won't be taking orders from President Kerry. Currently, the men and women in uniform are supporting President Bush by more than a 2 to 1 margin. The military brass are also largely in support of President Bush and his policies, and many including Gen. Tommy Franks, have said he has done a superb job as CIC. You may argue that Senator Kerry's combat experience would make him a better CIC, but there are many people, bona fide war heroes themselves, who are entitled to disagree.

kido

[icruise]

Originally posted by kido:
If Senator Kerry's military record was impeachable,

I think you mean unimpeachable.

What you have is dozens of soldiers who knew and worked with Lt. Kerry, and hundreds more who were affected by his after war activities that are saying "No way should he be Commander in Chief".

I'd be interested to hear from these "dozens of soldiers who knew and worked with Lt. Kerry" who think he isn't fit to serve as president. As I understand it, the people who actually worked with him and knew him pretty much all support him.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by kido:
If Senator Kerry's military record was impeachable, then you'd have only a couple of crazy bloggers spouting off consipiracy theories. What you have is dozens of soldiers who knew and worked with Lt. Kerry, and hundreds more who were affected by his after war activities that are saying "No way should he be Commander in Chief". Even if it is a Republican ploy, it is a good one because they have had to expend almost no effort to find veterans and POWs who don't think Senator Kerry should be President.

But his war record and his anti-war activities are two different things. I have no problem with those who disagree with his anti-war activities. The problem with the SB people is that they engaged in a wholesale discrediting of everything he ever said and did, relying on the testimony of people who didn't even serve with him. It wasn't a credible approach, and was transparently political.

Also, distortions and deceptions run on Senator Kerry's side as well. . . .

Of course - this is big league politics. But with respect to the actual events, let's also remember that we're talking about combat situations over 30 years ago. You wouldn't have gotten consistent accounts on the same day, much less 30 years later.

You may think these details are unimportant, and you can say that you'd rather have a man who saw combat rather than one who didn't to be President, but then again you won't be taking orders from President Kerry. Currently, the men and women in uniform are supporting President Bush by more than a 2 to 1 margin. The military brass are also largely in support of President Bush and his policies, and many including Gen. Tommy Franks, have said he has done a superb job as CIC. You may argue that Senator Kerry's combat experience would make him a better CIC, but there are many people, bona fide war heroes themselves, who are entitled to disagree.

Of course they're entitled to disagree. Besides, the military has always been relatively conservative. At the same time, I've never seen so many respected military leaders and diplomats take public stands against a sitting CIC.

[Buckaroo]

I realize that it is over, but I would still like to see his dishonarable discharge. It would be nice to vindicate the Vets.