1
   

Could this be a nasty "October Surprise" for Kerry ...

 
 
Reply Wed 13 Oct, 2004 01:08 pm
... or just another of those partisan-conjecture-based "Stories that die"?

For months now, stuff-and-such of this nature has been floatin' around on the 'net and in email forwarding chains, but, unitill today, with this Lipscomb article, it hasn't gotten any media attention. The way these things go, it may or may not get legs. Will this just "Go Away", or will it grow and develop? I'll be interested to see whether The Kerry Campaign acknowledges the article or the questions it raises even with so much as a dismissive denial. I doubt they'll do so on their own ... I imagine right now they're hoping it will just "Go Away", and have absolutely no desire to call any attention to it whatsoever.

Quote:
Mystery Surrounds Kerry's Navy Discharge[/i]
BY THOMAS LIPSCOMB - Special to the Sun
October 13, 2004

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.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,142 • Replies: 21
No top replies

 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Oct, 2004 01:12 pm
It's going to die.

People are tired of hearing about the past. Talk about the future instead.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Oct, 2004 01:12 pm
This is pure speculation and conjecture. That is not to say this postulate is wrong, just that I for one would rather see facts before jumping to this conclusion about a military veteran, regardless of what I think of his politics and past service.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Oct, 2004 01:16 pm
It won't die as long as there are those who want to keep it alive. As it appears there are...
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Oct, 2004 01:18 pm
this is because bush has no record to run on but the miserable failure of his presidency and himself....

unfortunately this type of tactic can be succesful because of what the american people have become...
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Oct, 2004 01:18 pm
I don't know what it's about but Kerry remained in the ready reserves long after his 6 year commitment was over. If he was dishonorably discharged there should be a record of it. It's just more of the same.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Oct, 2004 01:19 pm
Timber, beat you to this:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=35989&highlight=
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Oct, 2004 01:27 pm
I really would like to know whether this story has any veracity. I think that if Kerry has nothing to hide, he would be happy to clear up this issue!
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Oct, 2004 01:46 pm
cjhsa wrote:
... beat you to this:

So you did, cjhsa ... I didn't notice your topic, sorry. Looks like you put that up while I out there lookin' to see if the story was gettin' any other attention yet. Doesn't seem to be so far, other than pickups by a few Conservative websites, forums, and blogs.

I really dunno where this is gonna go, or even if its gonna go anywhere. Its had quite a run out there in the blogosphere ... cropped up around the time it began to appear Kerry would get the Democratic nomination. It might result in more pressure for Kerry to sign a Form 180, if nothing else bringing focus to the impression he apparently would prefer not to. If it gets even that much traction, Kerry's response to requests for all his records could become a major issue. If he does sign the 180 and turn everything over to The Media, and there are no skeletons in that closet, it would be a big plus for him. On the otherhand, whether or not there are skeletons in there, leaving the closet locked likely will serve only to fuel growing conjecture and criticism, which cannot work to his benefit at all.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Oct, 2004 01:59 pm
You guys crack me up. Racing to post the latest attempt to smear Kerry, then disingenuously wondering what kind of shelf life it will have...
0 Replies
 
princesspupule
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Oct, 2004 02:08 pm
Who was in the white house in 1972? Nixon. What was he doing? Fighting a nation against a war. There are tapes from the white house during that period with evidence that Nixon feared Kerry could be a threat to him and his presidency.

Did you happen to read this article? http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061703.shtml

Quote:
The White House feared him like no other protester.

Colson, in a secret memo, revealed he had a mission to target Kerry: "Destroy the young demagogue before he becomes another Ralph Nader."

The effort by Nixon and his aides to undermine Kerry went much deeper than even Kerry realized. Yet it is this chapter in his life, as much as any other, that helped turn Kerry into a national political figure. By targeting Kerry, the Nixon White House boosted his stature in ways that still are having an impact.


Idea I'm thinking that Nixon befouled his record somehow, or at least had it tagged somehow. And later, under a different administration, Kerry wanted it rectified.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Oct, 2004 02:14 pm
Actually, there's nothing to it. The article itself says this is a discharge from the reserve, and it's titled Honorable Discharge. Yet the author decides that Kerry couldn't have been in the reserve. There's nothing unusual about this except the unwillingness of the author to investigate his hypothesis.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Oct, 2004 04:09 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Actually, there's nothing to it. The article itself says this is a discharge from the reserve, and it's titled Honorable Discharge. Yet the author decides that Kerry couldn't have been in the reserve. There's nothing unusual about this except the unwillingness of the author to investigate his hypothesis.



Dunno 'pout that, FreeDuck;
Lipscomb wrote:
... 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 ...


Now, Lipscomb's statement, " ... And the Claytor document indicates proceedings to reverse a less than honorable discharge that took place sometime prior to February 1978. " is mere partisan conjecture, yes; the question of the circumstances and nature of Kerry's discharge are not directly referenced in the available documenation. The facts of the dates, however, 1972 as would be the routine discharge date vs the actual documented 1978 discharge are at the very least puzzling. The skepticism directed toward Bush's National Guard service is if anything less founded than would be skepticism of Kerry's rationale for not signing the Form 180 and putting the matter to rest. There very well may be a perfectly plausible, entirely legitimate reason for the apparent 6 year discrepancy. I wonder what it might be.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Oct, 2004 04:23 pm
It's a good thing this campaign ends in a few weeks. If it went on longer, I can only imagine the kind of investigations we might start seeing:

"New Evidence Show Kerry Never Set Foot in Vietnam: Spent War Years in Montreal, Dating Rich Widows"
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Oct, 2004 05:18 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Now, Lipscomb's statement, " ... And the Claytor document indicates proceedings to reverse a less than honorable discharge that took place sometime prior to February 1978. " is mere partisan conjecture, yes; the question of the circumstances and nature of Kerry's discharge are not directly referenced in the available documenation. The facts of the dates, however, 1972 as would be the routine discharge date vs the actual documented 1978 discharge are at the very least puzzling. The skepticism directed toward Bush's National Guard service is if anything less founded than would be skepticism of Kerry's rationale for not signing the Form 180 and putting the matter to rest. There very well may be a perfectly plausible, entirely legitimate reason for the apparent 6 year discrepancy. I wonder what it might be.


Actually, it's all conjecture. The documents clearly state he's being discharged from the reserve. He can't be discharged from the reserve if he was never in the reserve. His active duty discharge is dated 1972. His service record says he's transferred to the inactive standby ready reserve in 1972. I recall reading elsewhere that Kerry was in the reserve for 6 years. Also, keep in mind that the military budget was being cut during the Carter administration. It would make sense to discharge as many unneeded reservists as possible. There's just nothing to see here.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Oct, 2004 06:00 pm
Plausible, FreeDuck. In fact, I suspect something of the sort indeed is the case. It remains, however, absent valid corroborative documentation, as much conjecture as the all rest.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Oct, 2004 10:04 pm
If Kerry signed form 180 like President Bush did when questions arose surrounding his National Guard service, a lot of these questions might be cleared up. The MSM won't ask him why he hasn't yet signed it.....hmmmm.

What is curious to me is that there was that much FBI surveillance on Kerry during the period he was engaged with VVAW, when he met with the Viet Cong in Paris and was at that meeting where the assassination of 6 Senators ws discussed.

The VVAW was a group with known criminal elements and the FBI were all over them.

Something else.....Kerry 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.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/DD214.pdf
Kerry's original DD 214

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/DD-215_Correction.pdf
Amended DD 214

(The amended DD 214, dated Mar 12, 2001, gives an amended discharge date of Mar 01, 1970. It also curiously says "delete Vietnam service medal and add Vietnam service medal with 4 bronze stars. Now he was 4 bronze stars?)


Now why would he request an amendment to his personnel file in 2001. That is the question that needs to be answered.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Oct, 2004 10:34 pm
Quote:
"New Evidence Show Kerry Never Set Foot in Vietnam: Spent War Years in Montreal, Dating Rich Widows"


Careful, D'artagnan, don't give these poor, misguided neocons any more suggestions. It just gets too embarrassing when they attempt to propogate this kind of tripe.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Oct, 2004 12:33 am
JustWonders, that's some good barkin', but ain't squirrel, possum, coon, nor bear up that tree.

The Vietnam Service Medal indicates merely that the wearer meets at least one of the following qualifications:

(1) Have been attached to or regularly served for 1 or more days with an organization participating in or directly supporting military operations.

(2) Have been attached to or regularly served for 1 or more days aboard a Naval vessel directly supporting military operations.

(3) Actually have participated as a crewmember in one or more aerial flights into airspace above Vietnam and contiguous waters directly supporting military operations.

(4) Have served on temporary duty for 30 consecutive days or 60 nonconsecutive days in Vietnam or contiguous areas, except that time limit may be waived for personnel participating in actual combat operations. Participating in actual combat operations would entail active participation in an exchange of fire with hostile forces.

The "Bronze Stars" referenced are "Campaign Stars", and have nothing to do with the Bronze Star Medal; they merely indicate that the Vietnam Service Medal-entitled service member was in the warzone during the period of a major operation, or "Campaign", regardless of any role that service member may or may not have had in the execution of that operation. There are a total of 17 campaign stars authorized for the Vietnam Service Medal. Personnel are authorized one bronze campaign star for each qualifying campaign with a silver star worn in lieu of five bronze stars. A combination of silver and bronze devices as appropriate to one's service are authorized, with a silver device or devices to be displayed on the right, or shirt-placket, side of the medal's ribbon, and any bronze device or devices as appropriate arrayed to the left of silver device or devices if any.

Between Kerry's two warzone tours, his Gridley service and his Swiftboat service, he is entitled to 4 campaign stars, denoting the 4 campaigns undertaken during the relevant time periods, whether or not he himself or any unit to which he was attatched had any direct involvement in those campaigns.

Additionally, it is wholly unremarkable that a deviceless medal would be deleted and be replaced with an appropriately deviced medal; that is how that is done.


.
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Oct, 2004 01:35 am
I have to actually agree with my liberal brothers and sisters here. The issue of both candidate's military service has been beat into the ground at this point.

Both campaigns have finally moved on to more important issues then what happened in either guy's military service 30 years ago.

Last election, the only 'October Surprise' came when the Dems released info on Bush being arrested for DUI years earlier. I don't expect either campaign to have anything similar up their sleeves this year; with the closeness of this race, I think both sides have shot their wad, so to speak....
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Could this be a nasty "October Surprise" for Kerry ...
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 09:16:06