chuckbrown 0 #1 October 14, 2004 Interesting article in the New York Sun which speculates that when John Kerry was originally discharged from the Navy he didn't receive an honorable discharge; probably as the result of meeting with the North Vietnamese in Paris while he was still in the Navy. The article opines that Kerry didn't actually receive an honorable discharge until the Carter Administration when a panel of Navy officers changed his discharge to honorable. I guess this is why he won't release his full records. It also would explain why his medals were reissued by Reagan's Secretary of the Navy John Lehman; the medals would have been revoked by a less than honorable discharge. But who cares what happened 30 years ago. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tf15 0 #2 October 14, 2004 QuoteInteresting article in the New York Sun which speculates that when John Kerry was originally discharged from the Navy he didn't receive an honorable discharge; probably as the result of meeting with the North Vietnamese in Paris while he was still in the Navy. The article opines that Kerry didn't actually receive an honorable discharge until the Carter Administration when a panel of Navy officers changed his discharge to honorable. I guess this is why he won't release his full records. It also would explain why his medals were reissued by Reagan's Secretary of the Navy John Lehman; the medals would have been revoked by a less than honorable discharge. But who cares what happened 30 years ago. I see that it goes from speculation in line 1 of your post, to proven fact by the end. That's ingenious. Three times is enemy action Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #3 October 14, 2004 So, then why is his discharge dated 1978 instead of 1972? -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #4 October 14, 2004 There are many types of discharge and a number of things troubling with Kerry's later re-issue of his papers. The most troubling thing about this is that Kerry has not released his records and the same people who insisted Bush should release his, and celebrate lawsuits for a more thorough DoD search for Bush's records, have nothing at all to say about Kerry keeping his secret. The same people using forged documents to criticize Bush won't even ask for Kerry to sign the release of his records. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markd_nscr986 0 #5 October 14, 2004 Hey...you think we could get Dan Rather to do the exclusive "out" on this?Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 15 #6 October 14, 2004 Accourding to his DD214 his charactor of service was honorable: http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/DD214.pdf Here is a copy of his Discharge from the Reserve in 1976 that says its honorable: http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Honorable_Discharge_From_Reserve.pdfYesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #7 October 14, 2004 When was he in Paris? Was it when he was in the Reserves? -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 15 #8 October 14, 2004 I'm not up on the timeline that well and honestly just pulled the stuff from his site. But if he was discharged from the reserves in '76 I imagine he was in inactive duty but still in the reserves when he was there. I heard he was transfered to the reserves in either 69 or 70 then to inactive reserve in 72.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #9 October 14, 2004 The problem with those records that I've heard is that apparently they were reissued after he entered congress. When you are dishonorably discharged they take your medals away. If you get a subsequent honorable they reissue the medals with the discharge and Kerry had his discharge papers and medals reissued after he joined congress. Releasing his military records would of course answer this question, but distributing documents we already know were reissued after he became a congressman doesn't resolve anything. It's just more stonewalling. It's exactly the kind release designed to snow the issue and confuse most people who aren't paying attention. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AirCav 0 #10 October 16, 2004 The fact that a commisioned officer in the armed forces, whether on active duty or in the reserves, who meets with the enemy during an ongoing conflict, should be court martialed and tried as a traitor. This would be the case in any war in any country.GW685,D3888,C5052,SCS843 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #11 October 16, 2004 Quote When was he in Paris? Was it when he was in the Reserves? IIRC, it was in 1970. May have been 1971, but it was either of those two years. Dunno if he had been moved to Reserves when he met with them. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #12 October 16, 2004 (WARNING! HARD RIGHT WEBSITE AHEAD!!!!!) Did Kerry Break the Law? He may have... "Kerry met with representatives from "both delegations" of the Vietnamese peace process in Paris in 1970, according to Kerry's own testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971. But Kerry's meetings with the Vietnamese delegations were in direct violation of laws which forbade private citizens from negotiating with foreign powers, according to researcher and author Jerry Corsi, who began studying the anti-war movement in the early 1970s." Additional: "Kerry "went to Paris on a private trip, where he had one brief meeting with Madam Binh and others. In an effort to find facts, he learned that status of the peace talks from their point of view and about any progress in resolving the conflict, particularly as it related to the fate of the POWs," Meehan added. Kerry was reportedly on his honeymoon with his first wife Julia Thorne when he met with the communist delegations. "[Kerry spokesman] Meehan made it sound like they were just there on a honeymoon and they got a meeting with Madam Binh, but not every American honeymooner got to meet with Madam Binh. Unless you had a political objective and they identified you as somebody as sympathetic, you were not going to get invited to a meeting with Madam Binh," Corsi said." That says it more succinctly than I can. Did he meet with them only once? Well, maybe not. CNSNews says this. "Newly released FBI files reveal that presumed Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry attended a second meeting with North Vietnamese communists in Paris in the early 1970s. Kerry has previously admitted to meeting only once with the North Vietnamese delegations in 1970. According to the FBI files, Kerry met with representatives from the North Vietnamese government in Paris in 1971 in an effort to secure the release of captured American prisoners of war. Kerry has previously acknowledged meeting "both delegations" of Vietnamese communists in Paris in 1970, but has said nothing of the 1971 meeting." Thusexplaining my confusion as to the dates.... Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #13 October 16, 2004 Didn't Henry Kissinger meet with them too? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #14 October 16, 2004 QuoteDidn't Henry Kissinger meet with them too? Yes, several times. In Paris as well as Hanoi. Kissinger did it under the authority of President Nixon. That's not how Kerry did it. He, as a Naval reservist, did not have governmental authority to meet with, negotiate with, or transact dealings with, the North Vietnamese. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #15 October 17, 2004 QuoteQuoteDidn't Henry Kissinger meet with them too? Yes, several times. In Paris as well as Hanoi. Kissinger did it under the authority of President Nixon. That's not how Kerry did it. He, as a Naval reservist, did not have governmental authority to meet with, negotiate with, or transact dealings with, the North Vietnamese. Ciels- Michele Oh yes, Nixon. The HONORABLE Richard Nixon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #16 October 17, 2004 QuoteOh yes, Nixon. The HONORABLE Richard Nixon. Honorable or not, if the government sends you to negotiate, you can't be accused of treason. If you do it on your own, in the middle of a war, with no official sanction, ostensibly on his honeymoon, I think the circumstances are rather different. Don't get me wrong, Nixon was a dick. But still, he was the President at the time, and Kissinger was working on behalf of the administration, while Kerry was not. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #17 October 17, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteDidn't Henry Kissinger meet with them too? Yes, several times. In Paris as well as Hanoi. Kissinger did it under the authority of President Nixon. That's not how Kerry did it. He, as a Naval reservist, did not have governmental authority to meet with, negotiate with, or transact dealings with, the North Vietnamese. Ciels- Michele Oh yes, Nixon. The HONORABLE Richard Nixon. Ahh, I see... Nothing to say about the difference between having official government authority to meet with foreign powers and just up and deciding to do it on your own as a freelancer... so instead you'll just obfuscate by bringing Nixon's character into it. Regardless, he was president, and it was under his authority that Kissinger met with the enemy. Not so with John Kerry, whose visit was outside the law, and quite possibly treasonous. Next time you don't have a a valid argument, don't make such an obvious and pitiful attempt to distract from the pith of the matter. Who gives a shit that it was "the honorable Richard Nixon"? We all know he was a scumbag. I spit on his memory. But the fact that he was president makes all the difference in the world when it comes to his envoy's visit to Paris and John Kerry's little jaunt. You just tried to muddy that up or make us forget about it with your pointless comment about Nixon. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #18 October 17, 2004 Let's not forget about Carter going - on his own - to N. Korea to negotiate. Clinton was rightly furious, but was unwilling to slap him down as an ex-pres of his own party. Carter should have been prosecuted for that.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #19 October 17, 2004 QuoteCarter should have been prosecuted for that. I guess you would say the same for Jesse Jackson meeting with Milosevic regarding prisoners-of-war? If John Kerry was meeting with the North Vietnamese in order to discuss the return of POW's, then I say good for him. All those arch-conservatives with POW/MIA stickers on their cars seem to forget that the point is to bring people home. If I ever become a POW and a fellow servicemember was doing what he could to secure my release, I would thank him. All this talk about Kerry's war record confuses me. At least he showed up. Bush avoided the war like the fucking plague. Flame away. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
