John Kerry--Less than Honorably Discharged?
by Michael Ashbury
Monday, September 20, 2004
What a young man did more than 30 years ago shouldn't be a primary guide in determining his qualifications to be president of the United States. George Bush has had almost four years now as commander in chief of the world's largest military force and he should be judged on how well he has done.
Yet John Kerry and the Democratic left won't give it up. On almost a daily basis, he says that he served this country honorably as a young man in Vietnam (4 months/12 days) and I will serve this country honorably as commander in chief. Then the leftists yell that George Bush got preferential treatment in getting into the National Guard and even failed to complete his guard obligations--even forging documents to prove their point.
The facts are that George Bush served honorably in the National Guard obtaining service points far in excess of the 50 annual service points required to meet his obligation. Records show that in 1968/69 he accumulated 253 points, 340 in 1969/70, 137 in 1970/71, 112 in 1971/72, 56 in 1972/73 and 56 in 1973/74. Points far in excess of the service agreed to and that were required to meets his obligation and be honorably discharged. George Bush has never made his National Guard service a qualification to lead this country, nor has he ever questioned the service of John Kerry.
While the leftists and the mainstream media have never questioned the Vietnam era service of John Kerry, they seem to feel that the record of George Bush 30 years ago should be of concern to voters in November.
But what about John Kerry’s record? We are told that he was a decorated veteran. We are also told that he was deeply involved in anti-war activities on his return from Vietnam in violation of his oath as an officer in the U.S. Navy. Kerry has a long and well-documented history of providing ''aid and comfort'' to the enemy in time of war. By his own account of his actions and protests, he violated the UCMJ, the Geneva Conventions, and the U.S. Code while serving as a naval officer. Further. he met on two occasions with North Vietnamese negotiators in 1970 and 1971, while a reserve officer, and willingly placed himself in violation of Article three, Section three of the U.S. Constitution, which defines treason as ''giving aid and comfort'' to the enemy in time of warfare.
From here the record of John Kerry becomes unclear and the mainstream press won't demand that John Kerry sign a Department of Defense (DOD) form 180 that would release all of his military records. Records already released by his campaign are confusing. There are indications that he was honorably discharged on January 970, February1978, July 13, 1978,and even lately on March , 2001. Why the confusion on a relatively simple service event.
Could it be that John Kerry received a less than honorable discharge in the early 70's because of his anti-war activities, and then was pardoned for those activities when then President Jimmy Carter on January 21, 1978 ( Proclamation 4483) granted a full, complete, and unconditional pardon to all persons who may have committed any offense between August 4, 1964 and March 28, 1973 in violation of the Military Selective Service Act or any rule or regulation promulgated there under?
Did John Kerry request that his service be granted an honorable discharge and it was finally granted in 1978? Only a complete release of his military records will show what actually happened during this period. And to date John Kerry has refused to sign the necessary DOD form 180 which would allow this release. If the Democratic Party, the mainstream press, and the Bush critics are going to demand--as they do on almost a daily basis--that George Bush release all of his records, shouldn't they do the same for John Kerry? |
