Food For Thought about JOHN KERRY'S Military Records!!!!!!!

[COZY Z COLE]

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 (18) 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.

 

The following is a list of potential "War Crimes" for which Lt. John Kerry could have been charged:

 

 

 

 

1. Attendance of many war rallies where the Vietcong flag was displayed while the U.S. flag was being desecrated, defiled and mocked, thereby giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

 

 

 

2 Presence in a meeting of Anti-War protesters voting on "assassinating members of the U.S. Senate."

 

 

 

3. Kerry lied under oath, when testifying against fellow soldiers and sailors and shipmates, saying that he saw them committing war crimes in Viet Nam.

 

 

 

4. Kerry professed on national TV to being a war criminal, condemning the military and his government.

 

 

 

5. Lt. Kerry met with the NVA and Vietcong communist leaders in Paris, in direct violation of the U.C.MJ. Article 104, Part. 904, and U.S. Code 18 SU.S.C 953.

 

 

 

He committed these violations while he was still a U.S. Naval Officer. He stands in violation of Article 3, Section 3, of the Constitution.

 

The Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, states, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elected President or Vice President, having 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."

More curious issues:

The John Kerry's campaign for president posted a sanitized military record on his Web site (http://www.johnkerry.com/) for critics to peruse.

 

 

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? This was NOT just a case of providing a new copy of a citation for the office to replace one that was lost (destroyed/thrown over a wall). This effort by Lehman & Kerry actually changed Kerry's official Navy record, sometime in the 80s," he continued.

 

"What other portions of his record did Kerry have Lehman sanitize or spiffy up? Evidently, Kerry did not think his original Silver Star made him look 'heroic' enough, so he provided 'suggested' words for a new certificate. This certainly calls Kerry's entire Navy record into question."

 

LARRY

[2126]

I have to agree that Mr. Kerry should be president..........just not in this country! Maybe he should move to Afganistan and try touting his BS to those people!!! What do you suppose the results would be? Granted, Mr. Bush is no peach, but at least he is a known entity! Sometimes, given a limited choice, you have to choose the lesser of two evils. At least Mr. Bush is not trying to take away are Constitutional rights, as are the likes of the Kerry, Kennedy, Schummer, Boxer, Fienstien crowd would like to do!!!

[Moridin]

I have to agree that Mr. Kerry should be president..........just not in this country! Maybe he should move to Afganistan and try touting his BS to those people!!! What do you suppose the results would be? Granted, Mr. Bush is no peach, but at least he is a known entity! Sometimes, given a limited choice, you have to choose the lesser of two evils. At least Mr. Bush is not trying to take away are Constitutional rights, as are the likes of the Kerry, Kennedy, Schummer, Boxer, Fienstien crowd would like to do!!!

 

Not taking away Constitutional right? That is a laughable statement i.e. Patriot Act and Patriot Act 2.

 

Mr. Bush is a known entity. One that started a war, in which more of our country's soldiers have died than anyone would have thought and they are still dying. We have yet to be told the truth as to why we attacked.

[JMortensen]

...One that started a war, in which more of our country's soldiers have died than anyone would have thought...

 

I don't think that there was ever an estimate of casualties given, but I do remember Bush saying that Iraq was going to be a long and bloody struggle. I was certainly expecting 1000s of dead soldiers. If you had asked before the war, I probably would have said 5,000 in the first year. Of course I also would have thought that it would take months to get to Baghdad.

 

Ask any commander in history if the losses have been acceptable for the gains made and I don't think you'll find a single naysayer. Maybe Colonel Piroth might not agree if he were here, but he'd probably have already blown himself up anyway so his theoretical opinion doesn't count in my book.

 

Kerry's war record shouldn't even be a factor in this race decades later, but it is because HE brought it up, repeatedly. I'm getting a little tired of the Vietnam and the Swiftboat thing, just as I did with the scrutinization of Bush's National Guard service. Maybe these guys should be focusing on what is happening NOW.

 

The one thing that really bugs me about Kerry with regards to military service is his holier-than-thou attitude. I don't know if any of you remembers the debates when he basically told Joe Lieberman that he wasn't entitled to an opinion on the war in Iraq because he'd never been to war. I hope that Bush picks up on that because you know Kerry will use it in a debate. What a perfect time for Bush to use it against him, possibly by pointing out to all the protestors that Kerry doesn't think that they should have a say, because they've never been to war. What a self-righteous prick.

[JMortensen]

Both sides need to stop trying to re-write history. Just to back up my statement about the projected casualties:

 

http://63.135.115.158/article.asp?ID=1098

 

Most experts agree that the proposed war would require a ground campaign of hundreds of thousands, making the likelihood of thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of U.S. casualties a possibility.

 

http://www.consciouschoice.com/issues/cc1511/invadingiraq1511.html

 

Will the deaths number in the hundreds, as was the case in Desert Storm and as would be again if Saddam collapsed like a cheap umbrella? Or will they be closer to the 10,000 to 50,000 some experts have predicted?

 

http://www.survivalforum.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=894

 

Looks like the pentagon was closest, not stating an actual number but preparing for 10 times the number of casualties we've suffered to date.

Pentagon officials say the center is part of worst-case preparations for a ground assault on Baghdad, and they don't expect American casualties to actually run as high as 9,000.

 

http://www.war-times.org/issues/7art6.html

 

This is estimated civilian casualties:

A U.S.-led attack on Iraq will result in between 48,000 and 260,000 deaths during the first three months of combat, according to a new study by medical and public health experts.

[blueovalz]

Oh oh , here we go again . What we really need is a forum called "Political Rhetoric."

[johnc]

What we really need is a forum called "Political Rhetoric."

 

And limit it to one thread per election year...

[JMortensen]

And limit it to one thread per election year...

 

What's that saying about pots and kettles...

[johnc]

I hoping no one would notice

[Guest Phil1934]

Too late. I noticed. Well, Laura Bush will introduce W as a "warrior" at the RNC tonight. I hope you like the way he's been doing because re-election almost certainly guarantees an attack against Iran. I think N. Korea is safe for now and they already have nuclear capabilities. Most upper management job interviews require a standard psych test to make sure you don't have some unresolved issues. Too bad this one doesn't. W, if it makes any difference, I don't care where you were 30 years ago. And when you say one thread per year, is that a calendar year or election year? Those last three years, you know.

[tannji]

Not to jump onboard any bandwagon, real or imagined.... but as much as I may have wished for a different management and direction in the Iraqi conflict.... When was the last time you heard any Serious sword rattling or bear-baiting coming from Korea?? They were cock-wooping it up before we decided to remove Saddam, telling everyone just how bloody of a nose they would give the "American Agressors" should we get too pushy in demanding human rights reform and nuclear inspection. Iran, on the other hand, seems to be watching our headlines a little too closely, and betting on a political save from within the USA to protect them from any retribution for their support of terrorism or developement of nuclear WMD. Immediately after our invasion of Iraq, Iran temporarily took a mildly conciliatory stance towards our concerns and requests.... but their gamble on American naivete and short memory seems to be paying off, and will in spades if Kerry has anything to do with it.

[Brad-ManQ45]

Mr. Bush is a known entity. One that started a war, in which more of our country's soldiers have died than anyone would have thought and they are still dying. We have yet to be told the truth as to why we attacked.

 

It has already been established why we attacked.

 

We had reason to believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

Saddam was a butcher and blatant supporter of terrorism - both in and out of country.

 

With major caches of high tech weapons/delivery systems already being found I have no doubt that there is more.

 

If you honestly believe that the world would be better off w/Saddam in charge of Iraq, you have a serious mental deficiency.

 

If you want to blame Bush for the decision he made based on the intelligence received, then start spreading the blame on a few other presidents who cut back funding for intelligence - both Democrat and Republican.

 

Kerry is a known quantity also - of low quality - he has managed to shirk his duties and resonsibilites in both military and political venues. Not only that, he shows a remarkable lack of insight into economic realities - which can be said of most Democrats.

 

His voting record is pitiful, whenever he DID show up for them.

 

Bush on the other hand inherited an economy which had already started its' downturn before he even got in office (thank you Democrats), and had to react to 9/11 in the manner he deemed most appropriate to information presented to him.

 

He certainly didn't bury his head in the sand or try to cop out - he took action to protect the citizens of this nation knowing that there would be all kinds of recriminations - yet made the hard decisins anyway.

 

I can't see Kerry doing this...nothing available so far has shown me that he has either the character, mettle or acumen to be President.

[strotter]

Isn't the OP's post taken from http://www.catiiimusicpublishing.com/?

 

C'mon dude, if you have opinions, make 'em your own.

[Guest Phil1934]

"We had reason to believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

Saddam was a butcher and blatant supporter of terrorism - both in and out of country."

I don't recall Powell telling the U.N we wanted to invade because Saddam was brutal or supporting terrorism, only that he had WMD. Several months of hinting a terrorist link by Bush and Cheney led to 60% of the US actually thinking Saddam was involved in 9/11. Only when Cheney actually said there was a link did Bush correct him. I guess we'll never know the story as he was happy to talk, not testify, to the 9/11 commission, and only if Cheney was present. He might as well have worn a sign that said "I intend to lie."

 

"With major caches of high tech weapons/delivery systems already being found I have no doubt that there is more."

The definition of WMD is mass. The occasional spent warhead is not a major cache.

 

"Bush on the other hand inherited an economy which had already started its' downturn before he even got in office (thank you Democrats)."

A recession is defined as three quarters of economic downturn. There was one in the Clinton administration. It's been 4 years. How long will W blame his shortcomings on the previous administration? Anyone can be a good captain when the sea is calm.

[Pop N Wood]

Isn't the OP's post taken from http://www.catiiimusicpublishing.com/?

 

C'mon dude' date=' if you have opinions, make 'em your own.[/quote']

 

Doh.

 

Harsh.

 

 

There is something I don't understand. Why does everyone keep talking about Kerry as though he is against the Iraq war? Kerry himself said he would have supported the Iraq invasion even if he had been told before hand there were no WMD's. Bob Kerry was on Good Morning America just this morning reiterating John Kerry's support of the invasion of Iraq. To my knowledge, Kerry has gone on the record saying the thing he would have done different is to "involve our allies". (Or as George W puts it, seek permission.)

 

So why are all the anti war people supporting Kerry? How would things have been different with him in place?

 

Maybe we need to revisit Mike Kelly's thread on the Fence Sitter and our two party system.

[Guest Aaron]

Anyone can be a good captain when the sea is calm.

 

That sounds like what Bill Clinton did.

[Moridin]

Mr. Bush is a known entity. One that started a war, in which more of our country's soldiers have died than anyone would have thought and they are still dying. We have yet to be told the truth as to why we attacked.

 

It has already been established why we attacked.

 

We had reason to believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

Saddam was a butcher and blatant supporter of terrorism - both in and out of country.

 

With major caches of high tech weapons/delivery systems already being found I have no doubt that there is more.

 

If you honestly believe that the world would be better off w/Saddam in charge of Iraq, you have a serious mental deficiency.

 

If you want to blame Bush for the decision he made based on the intelligence received, then start spreading the blame on a few other presidents who cut back funding for intelligence - both Democrat and Republican.

 

Kerry is a known quantity also - of low quality - he has managed to shirk his duties and resonsibilites in both military and political venues. Not only that, he shows a remarkable lack of insight into economic realities - which can be said of most Democrats.

 

His voting record is pitiful, whenever he DID show up for them.

 

Bush on the other hand inherited an economy which had already started its' downturn before he even got in office (thank you Democrats), and had to react to 9/11 in the manner he deemed most appropriate to information presented to him.

 

He certainly didn't bury his head in the sand or try to cop out - he took action to protect the citizens of this nation knowing that there would be all kinds of recriminations - yet made the hard decisins anyway.

 

I can't see Kerry doing this...nothing available so far has shown me that he has either the character, mettle or acumen to be President.

 

Sorry guys, I like to fan the fire a little bit. Just look at all the links jmortensen posted. Good way to learn.

 

Anyway, we were told we were going to war with Iraq for WMD's, right? That's fine. Now...I have yet to see any evidence, hard evidence, that anything of mass destruction (other than Saddam) has been in that country for years. Maybe that's just my own lack of knowledge, but I haven't read or seen anything. Unfortunately, what really bites my in the rear is that the Bush administration tried to tie 9/11 and Iraq together. A committee put together of all Republicans was made to find whether the 9/11 (Al Qaida sp?) Iraq grouping was truthful. That committee went in front of congress saying there was no such truth to any of it. I remember many people jumping on the bandwagon that Iraq was shipping weapons off to all these different terrorists groups, especially Al Qaeda. In reality, Saddam and Osama have been bitter enemies for years according to what I've read.

 

It is very sad when it comes to the point that dumb or dumber will be elected as the President of the United States of America. This two party system is getting to be very old and I'm hoping there were be such an uproar about Iraq, Kerry, Bush, etc... that upcoming voters will push to change it. I say no more apathy, change the system 3rd party candidates can run and win. No more you need to be a millionaire to run our country. That's not right.

[Kevin Shasteen]

 

Kevin,

(Yea,Still an Inliner)

[johnc]

No more you need to be a millionaire to run our country. That's not right.

 

With John Kerry we would have our first billionaire president.

[SportZ2]

Everyone should be happy we're kicking some a$$ around the world (instead of dropping some bombs on a few dirt mounds and calling it a day). We could be Russia and look what's happening to them. Fight them over there instead of over here. You won't be singing the praises of negotiation when a bomb explodes near you. Haven't you noticed that North Korea and Iran have quited down since we went into Iraq. They realise that the US will no longer sit back and negotiate.

 

Kerry can't make a decision on how to run his campaign. How do you expect him to make the right decisions for us.