PDA

View Full Version : John Kerry's Military Records


BlackRain
08-24-2004, 03:44 PM
John Kerry's Military Records

Interesting story behind John Kerry's military history on the internet today.

Subject: Why Kerry won't allow his military records released


The Democrats have accused George Bush of being AWOL from his Reserve Unit in Alabama in 1972! They gave up when Bush authorized release of all his records. The AWOL charge turned out to be phony!

Bush received an "Honorable Discharge" for his National Guard service.

Now it turns out that archieved Naval Records disclose that JOHN KERRY did not receive his "Honorable Discharge" from the Navy, until March 12, 2001. His service obligation should have ended JULY 1, 1972 - About the time that Bush was ending his honorable Guard service in Alabama.

What is going on here? - Honorable Discharge in 2001? Had he received something else in prior years?

Based on records obtained FROM: Director AuthentiSeal / SEAL Authentication Team / A.L. "Steve" Nash, MAC Ret., UDT / SEAL - # 707 - He describes the following:

On Feb. 18, 1966 John Kerry signed a six year enlistment contract with the Navy - plus, 6 additional months extension during wartime.

On Feb. 18, 1966, John Kerry also signed an Officer Candidate contract for six years - 5 years of ACTIVE duty and ACTIVE Navy Reserves and one year of inactive standby reserves (#4 & #5)

Lt. John Kerry was subject to enforcement of any Uniform Code of Military Justice violation. Any commissioned officer was also prohibited from making adverse statements against his chain of command, or statements against his country, especially during a time of war.

It is puzzling that Kerry's military records do not show his honorable discharge from the service, until MARCH 12, 2001. Why was it issued then? Who made this request? Did it have any connection with a run for the presidency? Kerry should clarify this oddity.

Lt. John Kerry, in his letter of November 21, 1969 asked for an early release from active duty. He falsely claimed that his "regular period of obligated service would be completed in December of 1969".

This period of active duty would amount to about three years and ten months of his contractually required six years of total service. NOTE: This is less than George Bush's five years of National Guard service.

Lt. John F. Kerry was transferred to the Naval Reserve Manpower Center, Bainbridge, Maryland, on Jan. 3, 1970. Because John Kerry was discharged from TOTAL active duty of only three (3) years and eighteen days on Jan. 3, 1970, he was then required to attend 48 drills per year, and not more than 17 days active duty for training.

Where are Kerry's "Performance Records" for this two years of obligated Ready Reserve duty? He would have to meet for 48 Required Drills per year and 17 days of active duty per year.

How many Drills was he "AWOL"? Did he attend ANY reserve drills? Why won't Kerry release his service records? And prove the accuracy of his claims and what he wrote in his battle reports.

Lt. John Kerry was discharged from the naval Reserve on February 16, 1978.

But one sharp-eyed Washington Times reader, a former B-52 pilot and U.S. Air Force colonel, isn't buying Mr. Kerry's selective posting.

"I looked at that Web site and the first thing I looked at was Kerry's Silver Star citation. Guess what? It is for an action that took place in 1969, but it is signed by Secretary of the Navy John Lehman. Strangely, Lehman was secretary of the Navy from 1981 to 1987," he noted.

"How could Kerry have received a citation from an official that would not be in office for 12 years?

Don't believe it? Go to John Kerry's website and look at page two of the Silver Star Citation, guess who signed it? http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Silver_Star.pdf

John Lehman was Secretary of the Navy from 5 Feb 1981 - 10 Apr 1987. Source: http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq37-1.htm

2Sheds_Jackson
08-24-2004, 04:36 PM
This gets odder the deeper you look into it. Seems to have been some serious high level finagling done to get things to come out right. I guess if Kerry wanted to put all rumors & innuendo to rest, he could simply open his records as Bush has.

Wonder why he hasn't?

One also has to question the intelligence of a person who would put his wartime service at the very fore of his campaign, when there are so many questions surrounding it - so much in dispute. Why not simply use it as a line item in his bio the way Bush has - not make it the first thing people see at the convention.

It brings into question the ability of this man to manage something bigger, with more at stake, with more secrets to cover up etc. (i.e. the office of President). If he can't even avoid shooting himself in the foot rather dramatically at this level, one can only imagine the competence he'd demonstrate in office.

Hot Lips
08-24-2004, 05:16 PM
According to a 05/24/86 letter from the Department of the Navy on John Kerry's website in response to his written request for Naval History (http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Request_For_History_of_Service.pdf)records -- he was Honorably Discharged from the Navy (http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Record_of_Discharge.pdf) 12/15/66 and later Honorably Discharged from the Navy Reserves (http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Honorable_Discharge_From_Reserve.pdf)02/16/78. Both discharge documents are also on his website.

BlackRain
08-24-2004, 05:32 PM
According to a 05/24/86 letter from the Department of the Navy on John Kerry's website in response to his written request for Naval History (http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Request_For_History_of_Service.pdf)records -- he was Honorably Discharged from the Navy (http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Record_of_Discharge.pdf) 12/15/66 and later Honorably Discharged from the Navy Reserves (http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Honorable_Discharge_From_Reserve.pdf)02/16/78. Both discharge documents are also on his website.

Dude, did you even read what you posted?

The discharge in 1966 is for his enlistment and reason is that he accepted a commision in the US Navy Reserve in 1966. His enlistment was originally supposed to expire in 1972!

What we are discussing is the matter of his US Navy Honorable Discharge -- not his enlistment discharge nor his reserve discharge.

Hot Lips
08-24-2004, 05:39 PM
I'm still learning and trying to make sense of all the accussations - so please forgive me. I read someplace that GW couldn't have ever been AWOL because he got an Honorable Discharge. Kerry was discharged honorably from two of his assignments... but you are saying there is a third in the middle that is in question?

As for the Silver Star Citaction (http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Silver_Star.pdf)is is signed by John Hyland, Admiral USN.

California Joe
08-24-2004, 05:45 PM
All I know is you just called someone named "Hot Lips" "dude". Makes me question your powers of observation. But so far your reading comprehension is about that of a third grader so what should we expect.

moughoun
08-24-2004, 05:52 PM
All I know is you just called someone named "Hot Lips" "dude". Makes me question your powers of observation. But so far your reading comprehension is about that of a third grader so what should we expect.

What is it with people on this forum being unable to bloody read :cantbeli:

California Joe
08-24-2004, 06:09 PM
It's a mystery to me. I mean for chrissakes we have our very own English teacher and everything.

Siddar
08-24-2004, 06:36 PM
If story is anywhere close to being true Kerrys going to be in deep**** for makeing the press look like fools over Bushes national guard service.

rofl

Hot Lips
08-24-2004, 06:40 PM
I'm still not clear on that honorable discharge issue above.

I did find out that the original citation signed by Zumwalt (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/jksilverstar.pdf)is available.

The Citation on Kerry's site signed by Hyland and a third by Lehman have revised text to include less unneccessary detail, more about the actions of the rest of the team, just summarizes Kerry's actions. It's a more concise and less puffed up version of the original. Still deserves the award though from what I can see, and what I've read from others including Bush.

The original citation was not destroyed and is still available. Revisions must be allowed or folks in those positions would not have signed them.

2Sheds_Jackson
08-24-2004, 07:12 PM
I'm still not clear on that honorable discharge issue above.

I did find out that the original citation signed by Zumwalt (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/jksilverstar.pdf)is available.

The Citation on Kerry's site signed by Hyland and a third by Lehman have revised text to include less unneccessary detail, more about the actions of the rest of the team, just summarizes Kerry's actions. It's a more concise and less puffed up version of the original. Still deserves the award though from what I can see, and what I've read from others including Bush.

The original citation was not destroyed and is still available. Revisions must be allowed or folks in those positions would not have signed them.

It's a massive cluster. Why is a later official changing the wording on his citations? Nobody has revisited anything that I got. They hand you a piece of paper, and a medal, and you stick it on your wall (or throw it at the White House, as the case may be). Nobody has updated my discharge paperwork, or rewritten my awards/decs for me. Has anybody here had this done?...maybe it's common practice..I dunno.

See - this is why I have questions about this - why on earth would all this need to be done if there was nothing fishy going on?

In my experience within government, people tend to simply "do" what they want...and only answer for it when their actions are discovered. Higher-ups tend to follow the "it's easier to apologize than ask for permission" school of thought. If fact, I do a lot of that myself :P

So it would not surprise me if somebody exerted some pressure to clean up what was a messy past. Having not released his full records, we will never know.

Like they say -it's never the crime that gets you in trouble...it's the cover up.

Moledet
08-24-2004, 07:21 PM
He is a politician for almost 20 years, yet they only talk about his military career, why is that?

Hot Lips
08-24-2004, 07:30 PM
But nothing has been covered up. All three citations are available for you to read online.

I would imagine they only revise them upon request. Or maybe the original couldn't be located at a later time of a request for a copy and so a replacement was issued. I see no conspiracy in the action.

The write up on the citation is not what determines if the award was justified or not. Those decisions are made based on other supporting documents and testimonies. The citation is just a summary of events.

BlackRain
08-24-2004, 07:48 PM
He is a politician for almost 20 years, yet they only talk about his military career, why is that?

That is a great question.

There is nothing in his political career that he can boast about. There are no major pieces of legislation that he crafted that became law or helped the average American.

Official records show Kerry not present for at least 76% of Senate Intelligence Committee's public hearings held during his eight years on the panel, and possibly 78% (the record of one hearing is ambiguous).

Kerry is listed as present at only 11 of the 49 public meetings of the committee while he was a member, from 1993 through January, 2001, when Kerry left the committee.

From 1993-1998 the Select Intelligence Committee held more than 329 meetings, hearings and markups. The Kerry campaign refuses to release Kerry's attendance records at the private meetings.

fokket
08-24-2004, 07:49 PM
He is a politician for almost 20 years, yet they only talk about his military career, why is that?

Sounds like you've never been to his website.

Hot Lips
08-24-2004, 07:58 PM
What's with the attendance issue? I work for executives that often skip meetings and read the transcripts/minutes later and communicate with key personnel outside of meetings. They attend key meetings only, but follow through on all that is expected of them and/or make their feelings on issue discussed in meetings known. Granted it takes a responsible person to do this and keep on top of things, but it can be done.

What significant things occurred in the meetings in question that he dropped the ball on? That is what I would find more interresting then an attendance percentage.

BlackRain
08-24-2004, 07:58 PM
Among the most notable of those that John Kerry missed is the June 8, 2000, hearing on the report of the National Commission on Terrorism, which warned about the terrorist threat faced by the United States and recommended numerous steps to address that threat.

In 1994, the year following the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, Kerry missed every committee hearing, including a hearing on the report of the Joint Security Commission.

John Kerry rarely bothers to attend Senate meetings and is famous for missing votes.

Don't believe it? Check his voting records, note the "Not Voting" tag:

http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/cgi-bin/membervotes.cgi?&lang=&member=MAJR&site=congressmerge&address=&city=&state=&zipcode=&plusfour=&fullvotes=1

Hot Lips
08-24-2004, 08:13 PM
Thanks. I was using this site. http://www.vote-smart.org/

Bush's previous voting records are not available on either that I can find. Do you have a link to them?

Hot Lips
08-24-2004, 08:17 PM
Nevermind. I found this is anyone is interrested...

http://www.ontheissues.org/George_W__Bush.htm

http://www.ontheissues.org/John_Kerry.htm

BlackRain
08-24-2004, 08:21 PM
Thanks. I was using this site. http://www.vote-smart.org/

Bush's previous voting records are not available on either that I can find. Do you have a link to them?

George Bush was never a member of the Senate or Congress and will not have a "voting" record. He was the Govenor of Texas.

Hot Lips
08-24-2004, 08:28 PM
Thanks. Like I said --- still learning. It's too bad - it would be more interresting to be able to compare apples to apples. I can't go on the number of votes - but whether the votes made counted or the votes missed were important - or rather important to me. Many things are voted on that I later hear were a waste of time.