Kerry's Puzzling Discharge

Ths Sun has a late-breaker speculating that Kerry received a less-than-honorable discharge which was later upgraded to Honorable status.

Lots of reaction at Memeorandum.

My thoughts are roughly unchanged from when we were teased about this story last Friday:

First, the MSM has turned a blind eye to Kerry's non-disclosure of his military records. Media bias? Sure. In other political news, the sun rises in the East, and it takes 270 Electoral votes to win the Presidency in the conventional manner. What else is new?

Secondly, if Karl Rove had wanted to make this an issue, he would have, using Cheney or an attack surrogate to point out that Bush's records were disclosed, but Kerry's were not. It did not happen.

So, why did Karl choose to end a fight with bullets still in his gun? Two possibilities occur - this issue may only poll well among the folks who already can't stand Kerry; for the rest of the country, Vietnam is ancient history. But what about Kerry's convention, you ask? Beats me.

But the other reason has more tin-foil cap appeal (which is why I like it). Surely, one might suspect, someone in the military has sneaked a peek at Kerry's file - the Navy just reviewed his medals a few months back. So perhaps someone waved Karl off, and told him there is nothing special to see.

Who knows the truth? If we elect John Kerry, Presidential historians will sort this out for your grandkids.

And if you are *really* having trouble getting worried about a Kerry victory, picture this: it is next summer, the effort in Iraq is going poorly, the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party is pleading with Kerry to do what they elected him to do, and Kerry's approval ratings are poised near the abyss. In this grim climate "Someone" (Hillary loyalist? Evil Rep? Desperate Anti-warrior?) decides to scuttle Kerry by revealing the truth about his less-than-honorable discharge. If you want to see a country divided, you will. Strike that. Almost the entire country will unite behind one question - how did we elect this guy? The divide will occur over what to do next. We will then operate for the next three years with, effectively, no President. Thank you, Iowa.

Yes, it would have been honorable for Kerry to put these questions to one side by disclosing his records as he promised. It would have been responsible for the press to raise these questions. But I am blaming Karl.

In the continuation, I excerpt from the Sun piece a headscratching tidbit from Harvard; also, Bill Keller of the Times would seem to approve of this particular late hit.

MORE: A round-up by the Bear. And, as of 3:00 PM, Matt Drudge has not picked this up. Apparently, Matt can resist anything, including temptation.

UPDATE: Color me skeptical. At Kerry's website, we find this letter titled "Transfer to Standby Reserve". It was written in March 1972, and the gist seems to be that Kerry had a choice to make upon the completion of his six year contractual stint later that year - (a) voluntarily sign up for the Ready Reserve; or (b) do nothing, and be transferred to the Standby Reserve (Inactive) for an indefinite term.

According to Kerry's (possibly ex post cosmetically enhanced) History of Service, he was, in fact, transferred to the Standby Reserve (Inactive) in 1972; this implies that, unsurprisingly, he did not re-up when given the opportunity.

The 1978 discharge might then simply have been the result of a customary Reduction in Force review where the rolls were swept of redundant personnel.

UPDATE 2: Beldar finds hints that the Sun story may have legs.

EXCERPTS:

From the Sun:

Certainly something was wrong as early as 1973 when Mr. Kerry was applying to law school.

Mr. Kerry has said, "I applied to Harvard, Boston University, and Boston College. I was extremely late. Only BC would entertain a late application."

It is hard to see why Mr. Kerry had to file an "extremely late" application since he lost the congressional race in Lowell, Mass., the first week of November 1972 and was basically doing nothing until he entered law school the following September of 1973.A member of the Harvard Law School admissions committee recalled that the real reason Mr. Kerry was not admitted was because the committee was concerned that because Mr. Kerry had received a less than honorable discharge they were not sure he could be admitted to any state bar.

Mr. Lipscomb found a source at Harvard? How? Where has this guy been through all Kerry's Senate races? And how about sources at BU and BC?

And from the Times, from the Business Section piece where they rationalize their Al QaQaa story:

Had the article not been ready until a day or two before the election, Mr. Keller said, the decision to publish would have been more difficult. "I can't say categorically you should not publish an article damaging to a candidate in the last days before an election,'' he said. "If you learned a day or two before the election that a candidate had lied about some essential qualification for the job - his health or criminal record - and there's no real doubt and you've given the candidate a chance to respond and the response doesn't cast doubt on the story, do you publish it? Yes. Voters certainly have a right to know that.''

The Sun piece does not pass the "no real doubt" test (and given the Form 180 problem, how would it?), but it certainly meets the other criteria.

Comments

[Jim]

Does anyone understand why Drudge hasn't picked up on the Sun story? Are his late-hit standards more exacting than those of the Times?

[TM]

Good point - that has been puzzling me all day.

[Ugh]

You can't blame Iowa. They nominated Gephardt in 1988 and the rest of the country went with a liberal from Massachusetts. This time they thought they'd just cut to the chase.

[Jim Glass]

"... if Karl Rove had wanted to make this an issue, he would have..."

Yes, that's the dog that seems to have had its vocal chords removed. (Could Karl be so sinister that he's actually a Kerry operative?)

"... why did Karl choose to end a fight with bullets still in his gun? Two possibilities occur - this issue may only poll well among the folks who already can't stand Kerry; for the rest of the country, Vietnam is ancient history."

I don't buy that.

Firstly, as Lipscomb pointed out when this issue first came up, *if* Kerry actually got a dishonorable from Nixon way back, then he could have honestly worn it as a badge of honor like a lot of other liberal Dems have, and *then* it would be a Vietnam-is-an-ancient-issue thing.

But if Kerry has been overtly lying about the state of his military records for the past year (as per the Hardball/Brokaw quotes I noted before) to cover up a dishonorable, then the issue is not VietNam long ago. The issue is that we have a guy lying today to cover up his military record to become Commander in Chief in time of war -- and that has got to be a current issue with a lot of people, I would believe.

Secondly, even if somehow it would not be an issue with swing voters in the mid-west, the gross hypocrisy it would expose in the Dems' rabid scrutiny and bashing (and forging) of Bush's reserve records would surely big a big motivator to Bush's base -- go to any blog-monitoring/ranking site and you'll see it's already a top subject on the right-side blogs now.

Revenge!! Motivating the base is important too. Weakness in the base is what cost Bush the popular vote last time.

"... the other reason is more sinister (which is why I like it)... someone in the military has sneaked a peek at Kerry's file [and] waved Karl off, told him there is nothing special to see in the files."

Well, this assumes Lipscomb's Harvard Law School source is flat wrong in saying outright that Kerry was rejected for having a dishonorable discharge.

But even if that is so, if Karl is *really* sinister, so much the better! With so little time left this could've been a November 1 surprise that Kerry wouldn't have time to refute -- like Kerry's friends at CBS tried to do with the 3 to 400 missing-or-not tons of weapons of mass destruction that Saddam didn't have.

They could have made the issue that: Kerry really and truly has lied about releasing all his military records, transcripts and Navy statements prove it ... *why* has he lied? *what* is he covering up? well, we don't know ... but knowledgeable people have said it is consistent with **covering up** a dishonorable discharge (which at least one source at Harvard says he had) ... or it is *something else*, maybe even worse! ... so what's Kerry going to do in the next 24 hours to explain his contradictory statements and prove otherwise??

I admit I just don't understand why Rove & Co. haven't made this an issue one way or another, even indirectly -- especially after Bush's much less relevant record was so savaged. At least to give a last-minute motivational rush to the base. Could it hurt??

Something is missing from the picture. Karl is getting paid off by Soros, or he is a much more weeny campaign manager than his reputation, or some other factor is missing to make everything add up.

Or maybe Karl's calculated that Bush is going to lose and is already setting up Kerry's impeachment.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

It is curious that the Republicans won't use this. I suspect it's to keep McCain on the Reservation. He and Kerry have become buddies, and Bush might be worried about angering McCain.

However, I don't think Kerry actually got a dishonorable discharge. I think he got NO discharge in 1972, and was afraid to ask the Navy for one at that time. Unlike George W. Bush who submitted a letter asking for his in October 1973. But by 1978 everything had changed--and, with the help of Teddy Kennedy, Kerry quietly got it.

[Aubrey]

The title to this piece is hilarious.

The Bush campaign has given Kerry a complete pass on both his military history and his anti-war career. It’s easy to see why Bush must “honor Kerry’s service.” I’m sure they choke on that, but to do otherwise would blow back on Bush’s service. But it’s hard to see why they won’t use Kerry’s anti-war activities, after all, John McCain said it was fair game. It must not poll very well at all.

The swift boat vets have done a good job of pointing out the hardship Kerry helped bring on veterans and their families, but they don’t care about polls. The genocide and mass displacement in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos that followed America’s withdrawal in 1975 must not work as a political issue. Since a possible outcome of this election is a withdrawal from the Middle East, it seems like Kerry’s history would be an important indicator of what his decision would be and the attention he would pay to the consequences.

[martin]

Don't be so dense. If the Repubs really are not firing a perfectly good shot at Kerry-it can only mean both campaigns have reached an "understanding." e.g if you don't produce irrefutable proof of my dishonorable discharge I won't produce irrefutable proof that you caused an abortion/snorted coke/appeared in a gay porn wearing a Wile E. Coyote mask or whatever.

[Aubrey]

I am always envious of the rich fantasy life the left enjoys so much. So many conspiracies, so little time.

[Cecil Turner]

For all the reading between the lines folks are doing, I still don't see it. There's nothing inherently unbelievable about the 1978 memo, nor is it fantastic that it could have taken that long to finally discharge Kerry. Trot out those unnamed sources and then maybe.

As to why the Republicans want no part of it, I can just see an attack ad followed by an indignant Kerry signing a Form 180 to show off his legitimate discharge. And I bet Karl Rove can see it, too. At that point, little discrepancies in Purple Heart recommendations would be totally irrelevant.

[Jay]

Don't be so dense. If the Repubs really are not firing a perfectly good shot at Kerry-it can only mean both campaigns have reached an "understanding." e.g if you don't produce irrefutable proof of my dishonorable discharge I won't produce irrefutable proof that you caused an abortion/snorted coke/appeared in a gay porn wearing a Wile E. Coyote mask or whatever

Thank You Martin..

It is because of people like you that I am voting for Bush.Take your bile and "shove it" ..Teresa Kerry says so..

[Sharpshooter]

"As to why the Republicans want no part of it, I can just see an attack ad followed by an indignant Kerry signing a Form 180 to show off his legitimate discharge."

Must be fun looking through rose colored glasses, huh?

Let me give you a clue, fella: If your case was right, he'd have done it LONG ago.

(Found on another page)

Freudian Projection
The following is a collection of definitions of projection from orthodox psychology texts. In this system the distinct mechanism of projecting own unconscious or undesirable characteristics onto an opponent is called Freudian Projection.

"A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits."

"The externalisation of internal unconscious wishes, desires or emotions on to other people. So, for example, someone who feels subconsciously that they have a powerful latent homosexual drive may not acknowledge this consciously, but it may show in their readiness to suspect others of being homosexual."

"Attributing one's own undesirabe traits to other people or agencies, e.g., an aggressive man accuses other people of being hostile."

"The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having himself. Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest. The would-be adulterer accuses his wife of infidelity."

"People attribute their own undesirable traits onto others. An individual who unconsciously recognises his or her aggressive tendencies may then see other people acting in an excessively aggressive way."

"Projection is the opposite defence mechanism to identification. We project our own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blame them for having thoughts that we really have."

[Geek, Esq.]

The entire backbone of their argument is that Kerry would have been discharged after three years. But that grossly distorts the Navy regs: after three years the Navy would have screened his records and considered him for discharge. That would have been done under the aegis of a board convened pursuant to 10 usc 1163. How long did the machinery of the Pentagon bureaucracy take to process such matters? I can easily believe that it took three years.

The bottom line is that this isn't a swing voter issue--virtually 100% of the people demanding that he open his records are going to vote for Bush anyways. There is no upside, as things stand right now, for Kerry to allow access to his documents.

Thank god election day is tomorrow. To be certain, after tomorrow we will have heard the last of either Kerry's 180 form or Bush's TANG documents. Good riddance.

[The Sanity Inspector]

http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_11_01.html#008323>Color Jeff Jarvis unimpressed.

[antimedia]

Here's a novel thought. The Swiftvets are actually telling the truth, and it is they who have pushed this story along. Karl Rove has nothing to do with it. Yes, I know it's difficult to believe there are any honest men left in this world, but if you had served in the military you would know it's true. They just don't tend to speak up much.

As for Bush having no taste for attacking Kerry's military record because of his own Guard record - that's one of the sillier things I've ever heard. Bush's Guard record is unassailable, despite the pathetic attempts of the left to prove otherwise.

[Dave C.]

"And if you are *really* having trouble getting worried about a Kerry victory, picture this: it is next summer, the effort in Iraq is going poorly, the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party is pleading with Kerry to do what they elected him to do, and Kerry's approval ratings are poised near the abyss."

This is what truly frightens me about the possibility of a Kerry victory. He will cut and run in Iraq, allowing it to descend into civil war and a hangout for terrorists. Much of the Middle East will become more destabilized than it already is. The US will still be a target for terrorists. And the media will spin the failure in Iraq as Bush's fault, with Kerry smugly saying "I told you so--the wrong war at the wrong time." The EU, China, Russia, the UN all will go along with this assessment, and they will all pat themselves on the back and go back to the corruption and impotence they are so well known for as the terrorists gain sympathy and encouragement.

Kerry will cut and run the first opportunity he has. We will all suffer the consequences.

[sym]

gross title, tom. and I think a lot of you are misreading martin's perfectly reasonable point something awful (for instance, Martin probably doesn't actually believe Bush is a gay porn star). though i do find his point naive, as it doesn't seem like refraining from scurrilous attacks is a specialty of these campaigns.

[Cecil Turner]

"Let me give you a clue, fella: If your case was right, he'd have done it LONG ago."

Oh, so you KNOW the reason Kerry hasn't signed a 180 is the discharge? If so, you ought to be able to prove it. While you're at it, explain that 1978 discharge paperwork, and why it says "effective this date."

"People attribute their own undesirable traits onto others"

Thanks for the long-distance psychoanalysis.

[Forbes]

I don't think it matters if Kerry got a something other than an honorable discharge--that was then upgraded by Jimmy Carter's pardon of Vietnam era shenanigans.

If that were the case, it merely reflects his activities of meeting with the VC in Paris--it confirms what we know, it doesn't add anything new.

And I think Bush and Rove were just as happy to let the Swiftvets vent their spleen, and stay away from the subject matter.

There's a lot of psycho-analysis and reading between the lines going on here. Occam's Razor suggests there's not much there, there.