20 Comments

1. David Thomson:

John Kerry is not a victim. His own supporters have made this into a legitimate issue. Something, though, is very strange. Why didnít Kerry brag about allegedly being targeted by the Nixon administration? Isnít this a badge of honor in his neck of the woods? It perhaps would not be prudent for President Bushís campaign to demand that Kerry release all of his military records. No, thatís our job. We should turn this into an issue of importance.

Oct 13, 2004 - 9:01 am 2. ForNow:

Kerry should sign Form 180, heís hiding something, probably various things. But somebody at Captainís Quarters said that it would have been difficult for Kerry to have become a prosecutor in Massachusetts if he had a bad military discharge.

Oct 13, 2004 - 9:40 am 3. ForNow:

ERROR, it wasnít at Captainís Quarters, it was at PoliPundit.com. Sorry about that.

Oct 13, 2004 - 9:41 am 4. Lola:

Well, if you’ve got Teddy “Chappaquiddick” Kennedy in your corner, anything can happen.

Oct 13, 2004 - 9:51 am 5. Rick Ballard:

ForNow,

I read the comments at Polipundit and I would be swayed by them if I thought that pols in the Kennedy machine in MA would have paid attention to a DD214. Never forget that Kerry had already been vetted by the MA swim champion and in MA you really can be found with a dead woman, if not in your bed at least in your car, and still be elected. Sedition would have been no bar to the bar in those days.

Kerry can shut this down immediately by simply signing the 180. He won’t, because his military file undoubted contains a reliable record of his seditious meetings with Madame Binh and promotion of the Viet Cong conditions for surrender. He wanted to surrender then and he wants to surrender now. He’s no flip flopper when it comes to supporting the aims of our enemies.

Oct 13, 2004 - 9:56 am 6. Jamie Irons:

Somewhat OT to Roger

Roger,

Do you want to talk about sheer intellectual muscle?

You are a god!

//Gene Wilder as Young Dr. Frankenstein in cell with Peter Boyle as “The Monster”

(Scroll way down to list (5) of bloggers with “sheer intellectual muscle.”)

Jamie Irons

Oct 13, 2004 - 10:10 am 7. ForNow:

Without a doubt the undisclosed files contain damaging info of some kind. Iíd really like it to include info about his meetings with the North Vietnamese delegation in Paris.

The American Spectator said some weeks back that major news organizations had completed some damaging investigations involving those meetings & Kerryís Paris activities, as well as financial irregularities in his current Presidential campaign. If true, theyíre still holding back. Earlier, I figured they were holding back until some opposite-direction damage had been done to Bush by Mapesí & Ratherís crapola. Now they donít have even a bad excuse to hold back.

Oct 13, 2004 - 10:10 am 8. gb_in_ga:

ForNow & Rick Ballard:

I agree with y’all about the Form 180 thing. If he really wanted to shut this down right now, he’d sign it. By refusing to sign it, he implies that there is something there he doesn’t want us to see. If he has nothing to hide, he has nothing to fear by airing it out. Hence, something incriminating is there. Since he won’t air it out in the open, we have no rational choice but to assume the worst.

Oct 13, 2004 - 10:24 am 9. Pat Curley:

The thing that convinces me there’s something to this story is the 1978 discharge date, which makes no sense otherwise. What, after leading an anti-military group for a year or so, Kerry re-upped? And the Navy accepted him? I don’t buy that at all.

Oct 13, 2004 - 10:35 am 10. David Thomson:

ìHence, something incriminating is there. Since he won’t air it out in the open, we have no rational choice but to assume the worst.î

Thatís a very fair conclusion. Nothing else makes any sense.

ìHe (Kerry) wanted to surrender then and he wants to surrender now.î

John Kerry subscribes to the blow back theory. If someone is angry at the United States—then we probably are guilty of harming them. They are just responding to us in a justified manner. According to this viewpoint, fighting the terrorists is of secondary value. A dialogue will be more beneficial. If only we ceased supporting Ariel Sharon, Osama and his buddies would like us better. Itís supposedly the fault of the Israelis.

Oct 13, 2004 - 10:44 am 11. Silicon valley Jim:

I hope things turn out well for you at the eye doctor.

As for the Senator, I’m withholding judgment. This could be something trivial, or it could be something very big. I’m hoping for the latter, but, since I’m not a network news anchor, I’m waiting until all the evidence is in.

Oct 13, 2004 - 11:03 am 12. WichitaBoy:

What does the war hero have to fear? Release the records! Demand that Kerry sign Form 180.

Oct 13, 2004 - 11:43 am 13. gb_in_ga:

WichitaBoy:

I’d say that the demands have already been made, and he’s heard them and chosen not to act. That, IMHO, is an implied plea of “GUILTY”! This isn’t a court of law, but the court of public opinion, so the 5th amendment doesn’t apply, and I don’t have to presume innocence. I’m not holding my breath waiting on an actual reply from him, since I do believe that we already have it.

Especially when he could so easily put this whole matter to bed by JUST SIGNING THE FORM!

Oct 13, 2004 - 12:10 pm 14. Jim in Texas:

“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.”

I’m certainly not a Kerry fan but this is just wrong, factually and morally.

1. Officers don’t receive Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) or a Dishonorable Discharge (DD)

2. The equivalent for an officer convicted by courts-martial would be Dismissal which would be interpreted as a Dishonorable Discharge or a felony conviction

IAW the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Dishonorable Discharges can only be “issued” as a result of conviction by General Courts-Martial.

Both Special Courts-Martial and General Courts-Martials can hand out Bad Conduct Discharges. Only General Courts-Martials and Special Courts-Martial s can hand out punitive discharges

General Courts-Martials are serious business and convened for serious crimes such as murder and rape.

Convictions by courts-martials are almost never overturned and certainly aren’t overturned by a “board of officers.”

Results of Courts-martials are also public record; if he’d been tried the transcript of the trial would be available to the public regardless of his desire to withhold it.

Kerry might have received a “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions” discharge (UOTHC) and later applied for a discharge certificate upgrade through the US Navy?s Board of Military Records Review.

The records of those hearings would not have been releasable without Kerry?s permission.

I personally think someone in the Clinton camp is playing the press like a maestro

Oct 13, 2004 - 12:31 pm 15. Blue State Conservative:

Has Bush signed a Form 180? I know he has released documents.

In any event, I think Kerry opened himself up for this given how he made his military service central to his campaign. Also, his surrogates (either with or without his knowledge) made a big deal about “Bush AWOL”.

Oct 13, 2004 - 1:22 pm 16. Jim in Texas:

I recall a press report Bush signed a SF 180 in Feb this year after the furor over Bush’s records began, but I don’t have time to Goggle it for confirmation

Oct 13, 2004 - 1:39 pm 17. jerry:

When I read this story I was extremely skeptical. At the time of Kerry’s service your commitment was a combination 6 years active duty/drilling or Individual Ready Reserve and 6 years retained on the inactive reserve list. Since Kerry had served in Vietnam he was exempt from the drilling/IR Reserve commitment. However he still had a total of 12 years Active/active reserve/inactive reserve commitment. He received his release from obligation at the right time.

Let’s not get carried away into Michael Moore land because we can’t stand the guy.

Oct 13, 2004 - 1:50 pm 18. Terrye:

Kerry should release the records and be done with it.

Jerry, you know a lot more about this than I do but I know a lot of guys who were in the service at the time and the only ones that did 12 years were career and spent a great deal of that time on a base somewhere. I just ask Gale and he got his discharge from the US army when his original time was fulfilled. They let him know they could call him back if and when they felt like it for the next 6 years but they gave him a discharge then and there. So I don’t know.

I don’t know if there is anythng to this or not but I would say it bears as much scrutiny as the whole assinine AWOL nonsense.

Oct 13, 2004 - 2:27 pm 19. jerry:

Terrye:

People commonly view there seperation from active duty as a “discharge.” It is actually a release from active duty and a transfer either to the ready reserve force or the inactive reserve. When you reached the 12 year point you got released from any form of a military commitment. In the Navy when you left active duty you received your orders from the Chief of Naval Personnel that read released from active duty and transferred to the [in my case] individual ready reserve. At the 6 year point you a received a notification from the Chief of Naval Personnel that you have been transferred to the inactive reserve list; and at 12 years comes the notice that you have been released from the Naval Reserve. Unless you have been drilling it is all a matter of proforma action.

Oct 13, 2004 - 3:16 pm 20. Mark Poling:

Quite a bit off-topic, but I hope no one misses this:

Kerry’s Diplomatic Skills Demonstrated

Oh, I really hope this weasel doesn’t get elected.

(Actually, I apologize for that last remark. Weasels are honorable animals with vital roles in their habitats.)

Oct 13, 2004 - 4:41 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: