The REAL reason John Kerry Won't Release His Complete Military Records?

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by G_MAN113, Oct 13, 2004.

  1. G_MAN113

    G_MAN113 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,386
    Likes Received:
    19
    Not when they're officers in the USNR, they don't.



    We don't know that they didn't. That's why we need to see those 94 pages of documents the Navy Dept. is withholding...you know, the ones Kerry won't authorize to be released?
     
  2. tirk

    tirk im the lyrical jessie james

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    47,369
    Likes Received:
    21,536
    A Ho Chi Minh City museum that honors Vietnam war protesters features a photograph of Sen. John Kerry being greeted by the general secretary of the Communist Party, Comrade Do Muoi.
     
  3. tirk

    tirk im the lyrical jessie james

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    47,369
    Likes Received:
    21,536
    John Kerry's secret meeting with the enemy
    Posted: October 8, 2004
    1:00 a.m. Eastern

    By Jerome R. Corsi

    On Sept. 21, 2004, the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth introduced a TV ad titled, "Friends," with the message that "John Kerry Secretly Met Enemy Leaders" during the Vietnam War, in 1970, while he was yet in the Naval Reserves.

    The Kerry immediate response team jumped into action, charging rather characteristically that the Swift Vets were lying. John Kerry, his surrogates maintained, did not meet "secretly" with Vietnamese communist negotiators to the Paris Peace talks – he openly told Sen. Fulbright's committee in April 1971 that he had traveled to Paris and met with "both sides" to the Paris Peace talks.

    Since he told the Fulbright Committee about his meeting, it could not be "secret," the spokespersons for the campaign maintained. Besides, since he met with "both sides," implying that one of the sides had to be ours, how could the trip have been anything else other than a fact-finding trip? Besides, many anti-war radicals were in Paris in 1970 and 1971 meeting with the Vietnamese communists, why wouldn't John Kerry have done the same?

    Dissecting "Kerry-speak" takes some doing. First, the meeting was secret. Only in March of this year, did Michael Meehan, one of Kerry's top spokespersons, finally admit to the Boston Globe that Kerry did actually meet with Madame Binh, the top Viet Cong negotiator to the Paris Peace talks. Even today, we do not know how Kerry arranged the meeting, where it was held, how long it lasted, or what precisely Kerry and Madame Binh discussed. These details remain hidden.

    All we know for sure is that on July 22, 1971, John Kerry held a press conference in Washington, D.C., where – surrounded by POW families – he called upon President Nixon to accept Madame Binh's peace proposal, a peace proposal that called for the United States to set a date for military withdrawal and pay reparations – in effect, to surrender – all this to induce the Vietnamese communists to set a date for the release of our POWs.

    Madame Nguyen Thi Binh is not someone familiar to most Americans today. Yet, in 1970, she was virtually the "Dragon Lady" of the Viet Cong. Madame Binh was a close associate of Ho Chi Minh. She was a teacher who achieved distinction in North Vietnam for her time in the captivity of the French during the war before the French withdrew and we arrived to take up the fight.

    Madame Binh was beautiful and highly intelligent. Just before John Kerry came on the scene, Ho Chi Minh had dispatched one of his closest associates, Lo Duc Tho, to Paris in order to perfect the 7-point peace plan Madame Binh would advance. Lo Duc Tho was one of the original founders of the Communist Party of Indochina and one of the North Vietnamese communist's chief strategists.

    Lo Duc Tho and Madame Binh crafted a clever plan designed to undermine the formal peace negotiations being undertaken on behalf of the United States government by Richard Nixon's appointed team of negotiators headed by Henry Kissinger. The point of Madame Binh's 7-point peace proposal was that the only barrier to our getting our POWs back was our own unwillingness to set a date for withdrawal. The Vietnamese communists wanted the world to perceive that the only unreasonable party in this conflict was the USA, not the Vietnamese communists. In other words, we ourselves in our refusal to set a date to end the war were the sole reason our POWs were not coming home.

    When John Kerry appeared on the scene, a handsome and decorated war veteran turned anti-war activist, he was the perfect candidate to carry the communist message back to the United States. Judged by the outcome, Kerry's trip to Paris no simple "fact-finding mission." The evidence is that Kerry – while still in the Naval Reserves – inserted himself into a complex negotiation with the result that he advanced the communist side to the detriment of our official negotiating position.

    The historical record is that when he returned home he held a public press conference to endorse Madame Binh's proposal. From Paris where Kerry received the communist message, to Washington, D.C., where he mouthed that message, Kerry became Lo Duc Tho and Madame Binh's surrogate spokesperson.

    Nor did the "both sides" include the United States delegation to the Paris Peace talks. There is no historical evidence that would support a Kerry contention that he met with anyone else other than the Viet Cong, officially known as the Provisional Revolutionary Government, of whom Madame Binh was the foreign minister, and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, the official name of North Vietnam's communist government, of which Lo Duc Tho was a member. There were two Vietnamese communist parties to the Paris Peace talks – these are the "both sides" with whom Kerry met.

    When John Kerry in his street-theater military fatigues sat before Sen. Fulbright's Foreign Relations Committee, he was there to deliver the enemy's message. America, so Kerry maintained, was fighting an immoral war. We were a colonial power inserting ourselves on the wrong side of a civil war, in support of a puppet regime not supported by the people of Vietnam. The American military, so Kerry argued, were committing atrocities on a daily basis, atrocities which were approved up and down the entire chain of command – the army of Ghengis Khan.

    Kerry's 1971 message to the U.S. Senate was communist propaganda, pure and simple. Yet even today, in 2004, while running for president, Kerry refuses to apologize to his fellow veterans. Instead, he and his campaign supporters still seize upon every story of a war crime in Vietnam in a desperate attempt to prove that atrocities were not isolated illegal acts, but everyday occurrences, a natural outcome of officially sanctioned rules of engagement.

    The Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth expect to be called "liars" by John Kerry, even when they run a TV ad that tells the truth. Why should today be any different than 33 years ago?

    http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1238780/posts
     
  4. marcmc99

    marcmc99 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    1,923
    Likes Received:
    31
  5. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    1. Travel to Russia was never prohibited during the cold war. Many people went for tourism or for study. It is mindless to suggest this was in any way treason. We were NOT actually at war with Russia. That is why it was called the cold war. Buy a history book. Look it up.

    2. Purple Hearts have always been awarded generously for minor wounds as well as major wounds. It worked that way for everybody, not just Kerry.

    3. The man won a Silver Star and a Bronze Star for gallantry in combat in Vietnam. And you call this treason. You don't understand the word. Buy a dictionary, pal.

    Just a distraction from the military shortcomings of George Bush.
     
  6. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    You are misinformed. Cite a source that prohibits reserve officers from traveling and speaking to foreigners.
     
  7. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Speculation and allegations unsupported by evidence.
     
  8. tirk

    tirk im the lyrical jessie james

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    47,369
    Likes Received:
    21,536
    that's weak red. on both accounts. you'd have some credibility if not trying to push the big mic conspiracy yet claim bubba wasnt impeached or commited a felony but when it deals with Kerry you like to overlook it all.

    pretty typical I guess.


    you're obviously the one misinformed or simply delusional.
     
  9. TigerFan23

    TigerFan23 USMC Tiger

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    213
    Actually, you could argue that his actions violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which ALL members of the military must abide by. Specifically, one could say he violated both Article 100: Subordinate Compelling Surrender and Article 104: Aiding the enemy.

    In a sense, Kerry meeting with North Vietnamese officials and urging President Nixon to accept a Peace Treaty could be violations of these two articles. This occurred roughly 8 years before his discharge from the United States Navy. This could perhaps be the very reason why people are speculating that he had a discharge other than honorable and was quite possibly court-martialed for his actions.

    I'm not making any accusations here whatsoever, mind you, but rather providing information that could support this new theory about Kerry's discharge from the Navy.
     
  10. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Alright! A forthright reply, and perhaps a valid observation.

    Article 100 is describing mutiny which I don't see as applicable here. But Article 104 may be at question and you have a point. Why has the article been edited? I see it has a clause 2 but no clause 1.

    I'm no expert on Kerrys activities. I defend his military service here because I think it is dishonest and dishonorable to slime a combat veteran because you don't like his politics. I've never defended or paid much attention to Kerry's anti-war activities other than to say a Vietnam War veteran has first-hand knowledge and has earned the right to speak his mind, more so than any of the rest of us.

    So, I don't know these answers, maybe you can help with some documentation:
    1. Does his activities as a citizen, when not on active or reserve duty fall under UCMJ jurisdiction?
    1. Was Kerry actually operating "(2) without proper authority" if he was not on active duty?
    3. Missing clause (1) states: "aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things". Does gathering information about POWs constitute any of this?
    4. Can any of his activities in Paris be proven to be "aiding the enemy"?
    5. If the government never prosecuted him at the time, why should any of an alleged completed investigation (and its insufficent evidence) be dredged up to besmirch a candidate in a presidential election?

    I'm not an expert on military law, but UCMJ Article 2 seems to indicate that reservists are subject to UCMJ only when they are on active duty, in which case the entire speculation that Kerry was ever subject to discharge is false.

    ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER
    (a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:

    (1) Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it.

    (2) Cadets, aviation cadets, and midshipman.

    (3) Members of a reserve component while on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal Service.
     

Share This Page