John Kerry's Dates Of Service - The Confusion Spreads

Now it is the paper of record that cannot get its facts quite straight, so let's be clear - Senator Kerry is not Irish, and he was an officer in the Naval Reserve during his anti-war days from 1970 to 1972.

[August UPDATE - The Kerry campaign has finally admitted the point made below, but no corrections have appeared anywhere.]

David Halbfinger of the NY Times gets a Saturday front pager, providing a long piece about Kerry's anti-war days with the Vietnam Veterans Against The War. Mr. Halbfinger covers many highlights, discussing the "Winter Soldier" event, Kerry's controversial medal-toss, Kerry's trip to Paris where he met with a member of the North Vietnamese delgation, and the VVAW meeting that discussed the assasination of several US Senators (with ensuing row-back by the Kerry people); we are quite interested to see whether the Kerry critics feel that Mr. Halbfinger covered these topics adequately.

However, our current obsession is the dates of Kerry's military service. As we noted in an earlier post, the Kerry campaign has been saying that:

Kerry volunteered for the United States Navy after college and served from 1966 through 1970 rising to the rank of Lieutenant, Junior Grade. Afterwards, Kerry continued his military service in the United States Naval Reserves from 1972 through 1978.

Not so, as his military records make clear - he was transferred to the Reserve (inactive status) in Jan 1970, and received an Honorable Discharge in 1978.

So why is the paper of record getting these basic facts wrong, in an otherwise exhaustive story:

A few months later [in 1970], Mr. Kerry, freshly out of the service, ran in an antiwar caucus in Concord, Mass., that was convened to pick a primary challenger to a hawkish incumbent congressman....

Two weeks later, he married Julia Thorne, and on a trip to Europe with his new bride, Mr. Kerry, the 26-year-old ex-lieutenant took a taxicab from Paris to a suburban villa. The son of a diplomat, Mr. Kerry had managed to arrange a private meeting with North Vietnamese and Vietcong emissaries to the peace talks.

Does it change the story to say that Mr. Kerry, while still in the Naval Reserve, ran in an anti-war caucus?
Does it change the story to say that Mr. Kerry, the 26 year old Navy Lieutenant, had arranged a private meeting with North Vietnamese and Vietcong emissaries to the peace talks?

Maybe not much. But one might hope that both the Kerry campaign and the "All the News" folks would be able to report accurately the basic facts of Kerry's military service.

And we wonder why this confusion persists - we seem to be back to "Kerry never said he was Irish" with this one.

UPDATE: Via the invaluable (and un-spellable) Memeorandum, we see that Capt. Ed is not satisified with the coverage of the Phoenix Project, but he does give the Times some credit for airing this.

SECOND UPDATE: Let's bring the LA TImes to task, since they appear to be victims of the same misinformation. From their Friday, April 23 story, third paragraph:

"Mr. Kerry, please move your microphone," Sen. Stuart Symington (D-Mo.) prodded the 27-year-old former Navy lieutenant during a climactic appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee [in April, 1971]. "You have a Silver Star, have you not?"

And further down in the story, they exhibit the same confusion as their NY counterparts:

By January 1970, Kerry had left the Navy to run as an antiwar congressional candidate in Boston. Outflanked by the sudden entry of peace activist the Rev. Robert Drinan, Kerry pulled out, canny enough to know his aspirations for office needed a base.

The war kept drawing him back. Newly married and on honeymoon in France, Kerry detoured from his vacation to meet with South and North Vietnamese delegates to the Paris peace talks. How a 26-year-old private citizen without a political track record connected with the negotiators is unclear.

Wrong twice - Kerry was a commissioned officer in the Naval Reserve (the same commission he held while in Vietnam, BTW - the difference was that he was no longer on active duty.)

BACK TO THE HEADWATERS: The intrepid Mickey Kaus takes us to the headwaters of the confusion. The Harvard Crimson famously interviewed John Kerry in February 1970, as he considered his first run for Congress. How many confused staffers could Kerry have had with him? How could the Crimson get this wrong, and why did Kerry let it stand uncorrected?

Now 26, he was honorably discharged from the Navy last month but has been laying the groundwork for the race ever since November.

We should add that Douglas Brinkley, in his "Tour of Duty" book, gets it wrong as well, stating that Kerry was honorably discharged on Jan 3, 1970 (see p. 338).

As best I can tell, the closest the Kery camp will be able to come to validating the claim will be this DD-214 and DD215. DD-214 shows an honorable discharge from Officer Candidate School in 1966, and a transfer to active status. It also shows a release from active duty and a transfer to Naval Reserves in Jan 1970. Maybe someone glancing at it quickly could get confused. However, checking these or others shed more light (computer crash coming, sorry):

Transfer to Standby Reserve
Release From Active Duty

Comments

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

According to his contract with the Navy, Kerry had a six year obligation:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/offcandagr.pdf

After three years of full time active duty, he was to serve two years Ready Reserve, drilling 48 times per year with another two week "summer camp" each year. Then it appears his sixth and final year would have been inactive reserve (standy) status.

He completed 3 years of active duty (maybe a few months more), but then he disappears for two years completely--and judging from the haircut he had while testifying before Congress, appearing on Meet the Press and Dick Cavett, and speaking at anti-war rallies, he wouldn't have been allowed on a naval base in uniform.

Instead of his contractual 3-2-1 years of service, he gave 3-0-6. Nine years rather than the six his contract called for. Very odd. But what else is new about JFK II.

[Bruce]

Does that mean Kerry deserted?

[John Moore (Useful Fools)]

I was the commenter who led you to the dates discrepancy. I am obviously a Vietnam Veteran who is against John Kerry, but I have a high regard for the truth and have been investigating for months.

There is some more information at here and here.

My own service record dates coincide closely with Kerry's (I joined 2 days later), actively served in the Naval Reserve for a while, and then was an inactive member of the Naval Reserve (like Kerry was and in the same years).

Key points:

Kerry was a sworn officer in the Navy continuously from 1966 through 1978.

He would have carried a military ID with an expiration date of 1972 (until he re-upped in '72). My links include a photo of my own ID card that I had when in the same status of Kerry.

He was not a member of the inactive reserves, but rather an inactive member of the regular reserve. There is a significant difference. I was in the second status, like him, and while in that status received a set of orders (needless to say, civilians don't get Navy orders), still had my ID (shown in one of those postings), and received the monthly naval aviation magazine as a naval aviation reservist until my honorable discharge in 1972.

The Times article covers up two things (unless it has changed since I last read it):

1) The wording describing the "investigation" in Detroit fails to state that this was the now discredited "Winter Soldier" investigation and by its wording, in fact tries to lend credence to that "investigation." In the copy I saved last night of the editorial, the words "Winter Soldier" do not appear.

It also never mentions that Jane Fonda was one of the organizers of that event, one of its chief funders, and the person who insisted it be held in Detroit. Her power with VVAW was such that the veterans, who wanted it to be in New York City, gave in to her demand. Her reason for having it in Detroit was "to be closer to the workers" - she was a rather dumb Marxist but knew that "the workers" were part of it.

2)The article, while mentioning the Senate testimony, fails to give an accurate portrayal. It leaves one with the impression that this testimony "legitimated" Vietnam Veterans (in fact, it created many negative stereotypes which hurt Vietnam Veterans to this day, and hurt our employability for years). It distorts the issue about Mrs. Binh's assurances, failing to mention that Kerry recommended immediate surrender under Mrs. Binh's terms. It does not mention that many, many lies in that speech including an implication that a large percentage of veterans committed atrocities and were psychologally damaged as a result (see the "monsters" paragraph).

See this for the annotated (by myself) testimony and also a link to a non-partisan (CSPAN) site's transcript of the testimony.

Another issue is that Kerry flew Walinski to various anti-war events (where Walinski spoke) while Kerry was an active duty of
ficer. I find this shocking.

Finally, to respond to the previous poster, Kerry's service is best described as:

1966 - Enlistment
1967-1970 - Active Duty
1970-1978 - Naval Reserve (including a short standby reserve service in 1972)

The only gap is in Kerry propaganda.

The primary source for details of the Winter Soldier "Investigation" is Stolen Valor, by Burkett and Whitley. This book is not a book about Kerry, and only a few pages address his actions, but they also give other references to the fact that the allegations in Winter Soldier could not be validated, many of those testifying were not Vietnam Veterans or could not possibly have witnessed what they testified to, and that some testifying were not the people they claimed to be - the real Veterans were contacted and never even knew they had "testified" - some had never been to Detroit in their lives.

Thank you for your work here.

[Tim]

I would edit Halbfinger differently:

A few months later [in 1970], Mr. Kerry, a Naval Reserve officer freshly off active duty, ran in an antiwar caucus in Concord, Mass., ...

Two weeks later, he married Julia Thorne, and on a trip to Europe with his new bride, Mr. Kerry, the 26-year-old Naval Reserve lieutenant and son of a diplomat, Mr. Kerry took a taxicab from Paris to a suburban villa and managed to arrange a private meeting with North Vietnamese and Vietcong emissaries to the peace talks.

[JeanneB]

I sent this email to the NY Times at 6:30 this morning, long before I'd read any of the above information.
_________________________________________
To the editors:

Writing of Mr. Kerry's growing interest in politics in 1969, Mr. Halbfinger writes:

"A few months later, Mr. Kerry, freshly out of the service, ran in an antiwar caucus in Concord, Mass...."

If Mr. Kerry was "freshly out of the service" in 1970, that agrees with various reports from his own campaign that show a gap in Kerry's military service from 1970 to 1972. However, other documents from the campaign website indicate that Kerry was in the Naval Reserves for that two-year period. He was not honorobly discharged until 1978. Was he or was he not "in the service" from 1970 to 1972? Some (but not all) of the military documents use the term "inactive" around the time in question. Does that explain the gap? What does "inactive" mean?

That two-year gap coincides with Mr. Kerry's antiwar activities. Does the campaign want to avoid charges that Kerry undertook the Paris talks and campaigned against an ongoing war at a time when he was serving in the military? There is no way to reconcile the various timelines issued by his campaign. Perhaps Mr. Halbfinger could clear this up.

XXXX

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

John Moore,

We're you an officer? Kerry's contract clearly calls for him to serve three years active duty--which he did. But it also calls for two years of Ready Reserve with drills every month and a 2 week "summer camp". Apparently the last year of his six year obligation was to be in standby reserve. His six years would be up in 1972, it seems.

Yet, he "re-ups" for another six years in 1972, but doesn't put in any time at all on a navy base, he is just on standby for six years? I've never heard of anyone else doing that. What am I missing?

[ordi]

Can someone help me out here. As shown and discussed above, it appears JF Kerry was actively involved in the anti-war movement while he was indeed still a memeber of our military. What does this mean in regards to military decorum? I don't think it rises to treason but it certainly seems he was unfaithful to the oath he took as a Naval Officer and apparently was still bound under as a military officer.

Most American's would look on this as breaking trust with that oath and look on it as less than honorable. Is this why Kerry and the media are trying to sweep this under the rug.

[Tim]

Kerry demonstrated against the war in uniform. He testified in front of the Senate in uniform. I'm not sure the revelation that he did so as an LT still in the Naval Reserve would be shocking to anyone.

In addition, the government was (painfully) aware of his activities and his military status. If they wanted to put a stop to vets recently seperated from active duty demonstrating against the war, and politically thought they could get away with it, they could have.

I am curious whether/why Kerry has tried to hide the fact he was in the Reserves from 1970-1972 (cover up being worse than the crime?). I am also curious how/why he stayed in the Standby Reserves from 1972-1978. Is that something he requested?

[Buddy Larsen]

Dear Just/Minute: Okay, good catch, there's something fast-and-loose about the Kerrysphere. But at least he isn't Georrrrge Double-You Boshhh, who we all know would also tell all sorts of lies if he wasn't such a dummy that he don't even know how to do it.

[arthur]

You right, Buddy. And if you think Kerry's not hiding something, listen to his nervous account of the meeting with Madame Bihn:

"It's not a big deal. People were dropping in. It was a regular sort of deal."

Then a paragraph later:

Kerry recalls "testing what I thought the lay of the land was" in the meeting. "Not that you take their word for their word, but because you sort of put the pieces of the puzzle together."

Finally, asked whether he thought his presence might be used for propaganda, Kerry says:

"I was trying to be careful about what was real and what wasn't real. I wanted to really probe. I wanted to look them in the eyes, and say, `Well, what happens if this happens? And what does this mean?'"

Yeeooooow!

[Old Fogie]

I'm ex-mil, if you were to protest against a war that your government supports, it's considered a treasonable act.

So why is Kerry allowed to hold any political office after committing a felony, let alone run for Prez!

There is no time limit on a felony committed while on military duty, lets string him up quick before he writes his own pardon and has his Frat buddy sign it (him and GeeDub attended Yale at the same time and were in the same secret frat together (Skull & Bones).

And GeeDub, send him to Florida to live with his brother, Texas is too good for him!

Let's elect Trump, he'll get them slots into MD!

[WillieStyle]

Nothing to see here. Carry on folks

Hey cleetus, I hear Kerry's one of them there metrosexuals. Y'all heard he's from gaymarriagetaxachussettes, right?

[John Moore (Useful Fools)]

Patrick Sullivan

No, I was not an officer - I decided not to do that because I wanted to get back to college sooner after my service. My contract had similar requirements as his except I was to have 2 years of active duty. In total, I had a 6 year requirement with all but 1 year in the regular reserve, and 1 in the standby reserve. I was able to get out of the regular reserve obligation to attend drills after a while because of I was working at two jobs and going to college, but later was ordered to go back to drills and was only excused then because of my Vietnam Veteran status (today I seriously regret having ever left the reserves). I presume the same option of not drilling was available to Kerry.

But like Kerry, I was still a member of the reserves. I even got orders at one point, not something a civilian is normally exposed to, and my ID card is on my web site showing an expiration date in 1972, as Kerry's most certainly must have.

Kerry, as a sworn officer, is ineligible to even be a senator according to section III of the Fourteenth Amendment, if one interprets his activities as aiding the enemy (the requirements in that amendment are slightly less than the treason requirements in the constitution. They also apply if one has ever been a sworn officer).

I haven't had the time to read all of the documents on his site - I haven't looked into the 1972-1978 time period, because my main interest was in 1970-1972 during which his actions, in my opinion, bordered on treason and were certainly inexcusable, anti-American, and full of horrible lying accusations which were made under oath, in public and became part of the public's view of the war and of those of us who participated in it.

As far as Kerry demonstrating in uniform, I don't know if he wore a regulation uniform, as opposed to just fatigues with his ribbons stuck on them. I didn't see his LT bars in the picture and his hair was too long for regulation univorm wear. I suspect he was in violation of uniform regulations, but the political climate at the time, plus his powerful protectors, would have protected him. After all, they could not even muster the political capital to try Jane Fonda for treason, which would have been a slam dunk based on the Tokyo Rose precedent.

I am not sure of the details of Navy fatigue uniforms because we didn't wear fatigues, we wore either dungarees or flight suits, neither of which had ribbons on them. I don't think people normaly wore ribbons on fatigues either - a battle uniform is not a place to wear ribbons - so I think Kerry was wearing an invalid uniform for effect - he could have shown up in a suit but it wouldn't have had the powerful propaganda effect.

Others who were protesting in the same getup were not all still in the military, and frankly, lots of folks who had never been in the military wore fatigues, even when not at demos - it became "radical chic." They were all over my university campus.

Kerry's explanation of his meeting with the North Vietnamese sounds like very convenient BS to me, especially in light of his other activites, especially Winter Soldier (which was fraudulent) and his Senate testimony, which was way beyond fraudulent.

When you consider that his senate testimony, almost all the salient bits of which were not in the New York Times story, was straight North Vietnamese propaganda, and recommended accepting their terms, and even conveyed their promises of safe conduct out of the country and to start negotiation about POWs when a date was set to leave, it is clear that Kerry was acting as an agent of the enemy, and he probably knew it at the time when you consider that:

1)He recommended immediate unconditional surrender (not in those words) on their terms

2) without a guarantee to get the POWs back other than their word to start negotiating (this was at a time when they had been negotiating for a long time and never changed their position).

3)He recommended that the United States pay reparations to the Vietnamese

4) he confessed to participating in war crimes

5) he never mentioned the many crimes of the enemy, including their high level policy of using atrocities (terrorism) throughout rural South Vietnam for many years,

6)The speech, partially or completely ghost-written by Walinski, cleverly implies an equivalence between violating the laws of war (which can include some pretty silly stuff) and atrocities. Kerry claims that ausing .50 caliber machine guns against people was a war crime, which I have verified to be false.

7) The speech claims that atrocities were not only routine, but that they were approved at a high level, which is a lie.

8) The speech tries to establish that this was a racist war, by using the terms, in verbal quotes, "oriental human beings" and stating that we used weapons against them that we would never use against Europeans (which was not true).

If you read the whole speech and are familiar with the facts of Vietnam you will be shocked. If you are not familiar, I would recommend you read my annotated (fisked) version of it (which also includes a link to the CSPAN transcript so you can tell I'm not making stuff up). It is here. I also have some of it on video disk (PVR) and all of the audio. Frankly it makes me sick to actually listen to it or watch it.

Any way you look at this information, it is clear that Kerry was trying to hide his service status from 1970-1972 during this campaign:

He got the Boston Globe to publish that he received an honorable discharge in 1970. He didn't correct that as far as I know.

His campaign literature had a gap in his service from 1970-1972, for which there is no logical reason other than a cover-up.

His veterans page mentions no service at all after 1970, probably because veterans would have questioned the gap (as we did).

Now the dates are gone entirely from the main biography, but they still leaked out in a press release a few days ago (I guess not everyone in the campaign got the word to of which truth to use :-).

The biography on the page for Veterans still shows no service after 1970.

---------

In summary, let me comment that I and a group of veterans who visit my site have been waiting for a long time for the release of his service records, because we were pretty sure, based on our own experiences, that he was in the service during 1970-1972. Thus when the records came out, I jumped on them as soon as possible and found the discrepancy.

Also let me comment that this is the first time I know of that a creature who this badly betrayed his country has run for President.

In my opinion, there can be no excuse to vote for this dishonorable man. Since his behavior in 1971 shows him to be an opportunist with a complete disregard for the truth, for the fate of veterans that he smeared (who as a result had trouble getting jobs), and for the damage he did to his country, listening today to his various policy positions is a waste of time because there is no reason to believe anything he says.

His organizatoon has already told a number of lies about Bush, not normal political hyperbole, but outrageous lies like "deserter" and "AWOL" - all of which were proven false and were pretty obviously trumped up to anyone who had served in the military during that period.

[wondering]

I don't know much about the military but I noticed something that I have not seen mentioned elssewhere. In the 1969 listing of medals awarded to members of Coastal Division 11 John Kerry is listed as receiving the Silver Star and 3 Purple Hearts. so this is either a paper work problem or the bronze star was awarded much later than the third purple heart which were for the same action. Is this normal?

[arthur in N.O.]

Dear Wondering:

I have a problem with that too. Kerry’s Bronze Star citation (see campaign Web site) is signed by John Lehman, a Kerry contemporary didn’t become Secretary of the Navy until 1981! The text also looks like it’s been word-processed, not typewritten as it would have been in the late 1960s. Can any ex-servicemen shed some light on this? Thanks.

[Stan King]

As an Army Pilot flying over 250 mission during those years in question I can say it is highly irregular that he would be awarded a Bronze Star (earned in the 60's)during the time John Lehman was Navy Sec in the 1980's. It appears that Kerry was what we called at the time a "Medal Hound" and pursed his medals with vigor. He found out that after he had put himself in for the medal it was lost in the shuffle. It also may have been disapproved and years later when Kerry was influential...he got it awarded. It is pretty obvious his first purple heart happened that way.....no one else on his boat remembered getting shot at....and he claims to have had a shrapnel wound which his CO said looked like a fingernail scratch as he reportedly nagged him for the medal. Remember Kerry was the only Officer on those boats and no enlisted man was privy to what Kerry was self promoting to his CO. It is obvious to me that Kerry has been, and is still, a phony self serving vile entity that is no "Brother" of mine. Speaking of self promotion visit www.realheroesvoices.com and see what many Veterans think of Kerry....hint most are not fonda kerry.

[Gregg]

Hey Old Foggie,

"So why is Kerry allowed to hold any political office after committing a felony, let alone run for Prez!"

That is too funny. How many felonies did Pres. G.W. Bush commit, again?

-Gregg

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

John Kerry, this morning on GMA, trapped by Charlie Gibson (of all people) about his different stories about throwing away his medals in 1971, lashed out at "a President [who[ can't even answer whether or not he showed up for duty in the National Guard."

And when, Gibson didn't allow him to get away with changing the subject, Kerry repeated the discredited canard: "a President who can't even show or prove that he showed up for duty in the National Guard."

Well, the President in fact HAS proved he did, with pay records and with the testimony of THREE former Alabama ANG personnel--two officers and one enlisted man--who remember him being on the base. The question on the table has to be, can Kerry "show or prove" he met his contractual obligation to put in two years of Ready Reserve drills, as Bush has done?

Anyone remember Tom Eagleton?

[Allan Geary]

You couldn't fault the man on his war service (yes he went to vietnam and he fought bravely as his active war reords show), so you delve into petty petty partisan behaviour to create a situation out of his subsequent inactive duty and disparage the man's record.

How cheap and petty certain people can be. A man voluntarily went to a war that a lot of his peers avoided through various means, fought bravely with a record to show fot it.

Another man got connected with a safe home based duty as a national guardsman with no great threat of actual active warfare.

Both men come from the same means (Bush and Kerry are privileged) but one proudly went to die for his country.

Whatever his anti-war stance may have been, Kerry put his service in first then registered his opposition. A lot of vets came back badly damaged from that war and I don't fault the one who came back determined to end the

Geez, you couldn't come up with something better than timing issues concerning Kerry's dates of service? Stop bearing false witness.

[Allan Geary]

You couldn't fault the man on his war service (yes he went to vietnam and he fought bravely as his active war reords show), so you delve into petty petty partisan behaviour to create a situation out of his subsequent inactive duty and disparage the man's record.

How cheap and petty certain people can be. A man voluntarily went to a war that a lot of his peers avoided through various means, fought bravely with a record to show fot it.

Another man got connected with a safe home based duty as a national guardsman with no great threat of actual active warfare.

Both men come from the same means (Bush and Kerry are privileged) but one proudly went to die for his country.

Whatever his anti-war stance may have been, Kerry put his service in first then registered his opposition. A lot of vets came back badly damaged from that war and I don't fault the one who came back determined to end a war we shouldn't have been fighting in the first place.

Geez, you couldn't come up with something better than timing issues concerning Kerry's dates of service? Stop bearing false witness.

[Paul Zrimsek]

While I'm not nearly as interested in this issue as a lot of these guys seem to be, I always thought that one of the requirements for something being "false witness" is that it be, you know, false. I don't recall any Commandment saying "Thou shalt not bear I-don't-care-if-it's-true witness."

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

"you delve into petty petty partisan behaviour to create a situation out of his subsequent inactive duty and disparage the man's record."

Excuse me, it is Kerry who is "into petty petty partisan behaviour" with his lie about Bush not being able to show he attended the required drills. Fine, "bring it on"...the proof that you [Kerry] showed up for your drills in 1970-71.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

I stand corrected. Kerry didn't refer to Bush's supposed failure to fulfill his ANG duty, twice. He brought it up THREE times in the GMA interview.

[Allan Geary]

While Busu was busy dodging his drills, Kerry was fighting with other brave men on the war front.

Again, he voluntarily signed up for the war front (he could have dodged) for which he has a commendable record plus schrapnel in his body to show for it. I think that time in the war front more than makes up for timing issues on his inactive status DRILL duty.

But of course you can't compare Bush's draft dodging service to Kerry's active miltitary service, so in effect you are lowering the standards bar for Bush by comparing DRILL duty.

That's the problem with this administration and their staunch supporters, keep on lowering the performance level and keep on lowering the expectations level for Bush. I stopped getting fooled by them 2 years ago (yes I voted for Bush jnr. and I voted for his dad Bush snr.)

Why don't you compare Kerry's active Nam service to Bush's guard duty? First do that and then you can claim some credibility to raise Kerry's drill timing issues.

Make yourself and your debate credible my friend.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

"But of course you can't compare Bush's draft dodging service to Kerry's active miltitary service, so in effect you are lowering the standards bar for Bush by comparing DRILL duty."

Again, it is Kerry who is making a big deal out of Bush's Ready Reserve obligations, not I. Since, Kerry wants to talk about it, fine. Bush has documentary AND personal testimony from his colleagues, that he did in fact meet his Ready Reserve obligations.

Kerry not only doesn't have any such evidence, from the look of his haircut in 1970-71, he pretty obviously dodged his contractual obligation to drill 48 times per year with a naval reserve unit. If you want to talk about Kerry's military service you can't limit it to the four months he spent in combat. You have to take it whole, warts and all.

If you're intellectually honest, that is.

[jcrue]

Allen,

I am not sure you are aware that JFKerry tried his damnedest to avoid service in Vietnam applying for a deference allowing him to study in Paris.

He tried and failed that is.

Don't try to tell a group of veterans (myself included) that JFKerry was at the recruiting center the second he became available to his country.

He tried to dodge the duty and he failed. What does that say about him then?

Besides, sitting out the Vietnam war didn't seem to bother anyone during the last two elections. At least on his side of the aisle, that is.

[D.R. Zinn]

Clinton dodged the draft. Kerry tried and failed, served, at least not DIShonorably, and then came home.

BUT THEN, while still an officer in the US Naval Reserve, he went to Paris and met with the North Vietnamese.

There is no matter of opinion on this, no question - this is TREASON (n 1: a crime that undermines the offender's government - Wordnet, a dictionary published by Princetone University).

I have pretty much given up conspiracy theorism in the interest of having a life, but it does raise an interesting question, does it not? (Unless, as is entirely possible, he was sent there in some covert capacity to negotiate on the side, but I find this extremely doubtful, since why would he even release news of the meeting were this the case?)

DZ

[TM]

Just to try the other side of that, the Nixon people were watching him - if it was treason, why didn't they say so?

[Allan]

Jcrue

Where is your evidence that Kerry tried to dodge? Forgive me but if you can't provide it, don't state such as fact or it can be assumed that you are bold facedly lying, not just to this board but also to yourself.

Meanwhile, check out excerpts from Bush and Kerry's sign up forms: http://www.jordansplace.net/politics/html/bushkerry_nam.html

If you're going to attack Kerry on public policy and other issues I am all for that. But to impugn the record of a man who served voluntarily and was highly commended by his peers and superiors, that is low down shameful behaviour.

Are you an honest man Jcrue? I don't care about party politics, as long as you're an honest man, I respect that, but a lying propagandist has no real credibility amongst real men.

Show me real proof to the contrary (and doctored up photo's don't count).

p.s.

I hope this site is not promoting the use of spyware because someone snuck spyware to my hard drive the same day I started posting on this board.

I am not accusing this site of malicious behaviour, but if indeed the spyware came from here just let me know that my comments aren't welcome and I will stop posting here.

[Joe Gambino]

Dear Friends:

This is my first post here and I must congratulate you for your intense work and research. Your dialougue is noteworthy in that there's nothing political and civil in tone.

I'm concerned about the two-year gap between his separation and assignment in the reserve. I feel certain there is no gap. When he was released from active duty, he had to be put on reserve status, probably 24 hours after separation. Why would his supporters get nervous about the period 1970 and 1972?

First, if I'm correct, this guy was subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice continuously from the day of his enlistment up to his discharge in 1978 (Art. 2 UCMJ). Ask yourself: what was he doing from 1970 thru 1973 with the VVAW? All of his speeches (except the hearings) and ravings were blatant violations of artice 134 of the the UCMJ!

Except for you, not many people have made the connection between Kerry.’s reserve time and his anti-war activities. I think therein lies his embarrassment and vulnerability..

I would appreciate it very much if you can give me feedback to my post and enlighten my nimble mind.

Thanx.
Overlord

[don hartje]

i served one year in vietnam. i too was upset with john kerry & vietnam vets against the war. i still am. i am also furious that george w. bush & lloyd bentsen's son used family influence to avoid active military svc which could have placed them in harm's way. the same goes for dick cheney. when are you guys going to address this? i don't want to label your group, but i am curious-are you republicans??? i hope you are not hypocrites??? GOD will judge.

[chris johnson]

it is funny to me that those who so staunchly support a "war veteran" this time around did not do so in the '92 and '96 elections. That to me is hypocritical and less than consistent, since it was the "economy stupid" in '92, where is that mantra now with the economy clearly headed in the right direction? Hmmm...?

[Ed Wilson]

Much of this information I had not read before and I would imagine the reason is that Kerry was far removed from my life. But, now, it's a different story. Just how can this info be delivered to mainstream Americans? The NY Times, etc. would not print a word of it! And certainly Michael Moore would spit on it!

It is out there because I have just read it. We must tell friends about it - I will.

[andreas]

Can someone help me out here. As shown and discussed above, it appears JF Kerry was actively involved in the anti-war movement while he was indeed still a memeber of our military. What does this mean in regards to military decorum? I don't think it rises to treason but it certainly seems he was unfaithful to the oath he took as a Naval Officer and apparently was still bound under as a military officer.

[Zizka]

We're all agreed that this election is between the war hero and the deserter. To you, Kerry is the deserter and Bush is the war hero. To us, it's the other way around.

Y'all oughta get to work on the Bush War Hero part a little bit though.

[John]

Good post. But it should be noted that Bush is still a total nincompoop.

[joe]

What was Kerry's draft lottey number prior to his enlistment in the Navy?

What was Bush's draft lottery number prior to his joining the national guard?

Thanks for the help

[Randal]

John Kerry rides his "high horse" in a very phony fashion. He portrays such an air of moral indignation against Bush, but the reality is often far from what he speaks. For instance the way he has played his military career in that he:

trumped up his military activity to get medals - Eye-witness reports about the incident resulting in his Silver Star indicate he left his boat in violation of Navy regulations against an officer abandoning his ship and crew. A rocket was fired at his boat and fire was returned with twin 0.50 calibar machine guns. Some report that the Viet Cong assailant was wounded when he ducked behind a grass hootch. The twin 50's tore that hootch up, then Kerry sprang from the boat ran behind the hootch and shot the wounded or dead VC. If wounded, he commited a war crime. If dead, he grand-standed, then came out waving the launcher. Hardly, medal worthy, certainly NOT Silver Star. But Kerry came from wealth and privilege. As a Senator he had that Silver Star commendation re-written three times by progressively higher ranking officers in order to appear more heroic. He received three Purple Hearts in as many months for flesh wounds, and only spent four months in Viet Nam. While enlisted men exercised that three Purple Heart return privilege, officers rarely did. Yet Kerry badgered his commanding officer for his Hearts and his ticket home.
acted like & said he threw them away accusing brothers-in-arms of committing atrocious war crimes & admitting his own - As the leader of the radical Viet Nam Veterans Against the War he lead many vets in protest by throwing their medals at the White House because of their accusations of war atrocities they and other soldiers committed to get the medals. He has flip-flopped, denied and re-fried this story so many times until Charles Gibson pinned him down on ABC News where he undeniably stated he never said he threw his medals away. Gibson played video footage of a previous TV interview where Kerry stated that he threw nine or more medals in addition to his ribbons. A back-peddaling Kerry tried to explain that away saying he used "medals" to refer to his ribbons, that he actually kept his medals because he left them at home and had to use someone else's. Today those medals hang "proudly" on his Senate office wall.
then try to run on his "distinguished" military career. He gets up on his high-horse putting Bush's military service in the Air National Guard down. How distinguished do you see Kerry's military career as being? What does it say about his character and integrity? This is only one aspect of a pattern of living.
Kerry has the most liberal voting record on Capital Hill by almost every index known. This includes consistently voting down weapons programs, military development and readiness. Yet he runs on his "distinguished" military career (4 months in Viet Nam) as qualifying him over Bush for Commander-in-Chief. It is a wonder why the military overwhelmingly support Bush's presidency! Kerry also consistently voted down spending on intelligence, and was a Clinton ally in dismantling both the military and intelligence under the Clinton administration. Furthermore, liberal agendas made it necessary to place a "wall" between foreign and domestic intelligence investigations where wire-tapping is involved. Yet Kerry assaults Bush's "failure" to prevent 9/11. The type of intelligence needed to piece together the data coming in to warn of 9/11 was either voted down or compartmentalized by liberal hamstringing of our intelligence. Kerry, Clinton, et al, did that, not Bush. Kerry voted to send our troops to Iraq, consistent with the expressed intentions of the Clinton administration, then voted against the funding to equip those troops.

Kerry claims to be a man of the people and that Bush is "out of touch with the working person". Kerry's family fortune is estimated at $525 million. He and his wife, heiress to the Heinz fortune, own five mansions worth about $32 million, a fleet of limos, and - yes - SUV's, as well as a 42 foot yacht. He blasts Bush as being the puppet of the rich and wants to tax the wealthy. But what Kerry means are the "high income" people making $70,000/year (a husband & wife making $35,000 each!) and above - NOT the wealthy property owners with mega-millions in holdings. He doesn't know what it is like to actually work for a living.

Kerry blasts Bush on environmental issues, like passing laws about SUV's. If you think that is hypocritical, how much energy do you think it takes to heat and cool those five mansions? And what about his private jets, yacht, etc.? Everyone else should conserve, not the privileged aristocrats.

Kerry is among the privileged elite. Not all wealthy are like Kerry, however. Kerry has an aristocratic air believing such laws and issues apply to the common person, not royalty like him, you see. From his perspective he is not lying, being inconsistent, or hypocritical at all. Kerry sees the world through his own narcisisstic ambtion. Us peons are too ignorant to understand such things. If you don't agree with that thinking, and don't want this type high-horse, honesty-bending kind of guy in the White House, pass this onto all your friends.

CAN YOU BELIEVE THESE PEOPLE?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
`
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
`
Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
`
He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
`
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with >the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998
`
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
`
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building
weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline
Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
`
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of an ilicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
`
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
`
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
`
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible >to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
`
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA),
Sept. 27, 2002
`
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We
are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
`
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. >Kerry >(D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
`
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
`
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 >years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10,2002
`
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
`
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
`
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
`
SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED--THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY! Send this to everybody you know..The networks won't do it. Its up to us to get the word out...

[Gerrard]

To find a fair and well-documented biography of John F. Kerry, and discover who this Presidential candidate really is, go to this Wikipedia Encyclopedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry

You will find that:

Kerry came from German-speaking Jews, but the family concealed its background upon migrating to the United States, and raised the Kerry children as Catholics. Kerry professes to be a Catholic but is divorced and pro-abortion, positions from which his Diocese has distanced themselves. Kerry has a family history of flip-flopping and appearing to be something other than he is.
John Kerry's maternal grandfather, James Grant Forbes, was born in then American occupied Shanghai, China, where the Forbes family of China and Boston accumulated a fortune in the opium and China trade.
Kerry was born in France before migrating to the US. During his summers there, he became good friends with his first cousin Brice Lalonde, a future Socialist and Green Party leader in France who ran for president of France in 1981. This cousin influenced Kerry's anti-war protests after Kerry's early departure from Viet Nam.
He went to a Swiss boarding school at age 11 while his family lived in Berlin. While his father was stationed at the U.S. Embassy in Oslo, Norway, Kerry was sent to Massachusetts to attend boarding school. He was raised in such fancy schools away from his parents.
After an application for a twelve month deferment to study in Paris was denied, Kerry joined the United States Navy thinking it would be away from combat. This is the same John Kerry that criticizes Bush & Cheney for not going to war as he did! Initially, Kerry had hoped to keep a relatively safe distance from most of the fighting by obtaining an assignment as commander of a Swift Boat.
From December 2, 1968 to February 28, 1969 Kerry received 3 purple hearts and his ticket home for flesh wounds that hardly kept him out of service. He spent a total of 4 months in Viet Nam.
Due to questions regarding the nature of his wounds, the Kerry Campaign released his military records. These show second citations for a Silver Star and a Bronze Star were issued by John F. Lehman, who was Secretary of the Navy eleven years after Kerry's service. His story indicates he left his Swift Boat (a violation of Navy regulations), chasing a wounded Viet Cong who dashed behind a grass hut that was shot to pirces by twin 0.50 caliber machine guns. Reportedly, Kerry emptied his gun into this wounded VC (a war crime, if true), or into the dead body of the VC (a sham). At best this was not medal worthy, especially not a Silver Star - unless your family has political ties. At worst, this might be one of the atrocities young Kerry admitted to as a leader of VVAW.

Within a week of his receiving his third purple heart, Kerry requested reassignment to the U.S. He was entitled to an early departure from Vietnam, subject to approval by the Bureau of Naval Personnel, according to then current regulations which said those who are wounded "three times, regardless of the nature of the wound or treatment required ... " This was usually not exercised by officers.

Kerry spoke before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee. He informed the committee about the Vietnam Veterans Against the War's Winter Soldier Investigation, an event which took place from January 31 to February 2, 1971 in Detroit, Michigan. Kerry testified that he heard several veterans admit to, and he himself, committing war atrocities. Several of these testimonies were later proven false and that several of the men were not even veterans. From November 12 to 15, 1971, a VVAW meeting was held in Kansas City, Missouri, in which a member proposed that they escalate their tactics and assassinate pro-war politicians. Over the years, Kerry said that he did not remember attending the meeting in Kansas City, stating that he retired from the organization at the St. Louis meeting in July 1971. However, there are conflicting accounts, including newspaper articles, FBI reports, and witnesses who have different recollections.

The following day, April 23, Kerry and other veterans threw medals and ribbons over a fence at the U.S. Capitol building to protest the war. This became a controversy when it was discovered that he has his service medals on display, suggesting that what he threw were not his own medals. Kerry later said that he “threw some medals back that belonged to some folks who asked me to throw them back for them." He had clearly lied on ABC News saying he threw his medals and ribbons, and recently Chatles Gibson, GMA Anchor, nailed him on that lie on national TV.

Today, the combined net worth of the Kerry-Heinz fortune is reported to be between $199 million and $839 million, making Kerry the wealthiest U.S. senator. Kerry is wealthy in his own name, and is the beneficiary of at least four trusts inherited from Forbes family members, including his mother, who died in 2002. Both families have strong European ties and financial interests.

What this encyclopedia doesn't tell you is that Kerry:

Has secret support, which he admits but will not divulge, from European governments.
Has the most liberal voting record of any Senator by several indices.
Has flip-flopped on issues so that his positions are unintelligible.
Has consistently voted against funding the military and intelligence agencies, and pushed for intelligence fragmentation that made predicting and preventing 9/11 impossible.
Made the following statements about Iraq:
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl
Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Yet, Kerry now criticizes President Bush on going to war in Iraq and for suspecting Sadam had weapons of mass destruction as if Kerry never made the above statements.

Do we want this man who is so clearly influenced by Europeans as our Commander-in-Chief, especially at such a time as this?

[Gary l. Poe]

Just because someone serves in the military or combat dosent mean their capable of being commander in chief does it timothy mcveigh

[Paul Jackson]

I grew up with a real hero, Medal of Honor winner Col. George Bud Day and I am appalled with the John Kerry findings. It appears to me that he may be a loyal communist and someone needs to check his contributions, as I believe that some of his money is coming from a foreign country. How could the Democrats select someone like Kerry to run for the highest office in America and in the world for that matter.

Paul Jackson
Sioux City, Iowa

[Della Reiman]

President Nixon was anxious to escalate the war in Vietnam at the time of Kerry's Winter Soldier hearing in Congress in protest of the war. Don't you think Nixon would have explored every possible way to declare Kerry undeserving of his medals and expose him as a fraud if he could do so?

[Della Reiman]

President Nixon was anxious to escalate the war in Vietnam at the time of Kerry's Winter Soldier hearing in Congress in protest of the war. Don't you think Nixon would have explored every possible way to declare Kerry undeserving of his medals and expose him as a fraud if he could do so?

[Robert stout]

What are the odds that Kerry was assigned to infiltrate the anti-war movement for 2 years by a U.S.intelligence agency?He would not be the only Lt. assigned to infiltrate the VVAW,only the most successful.

[Phantom]

Any person who meets with "enemy" representatives lacking proper diplomatic credentials and assignment is committing treason.

Officer, enlisted or civilian.

The Constitution of the United States specifically prohibits any one who having previously taken the oath of officer of the United States from holding any elected office if they have committed rebellious acts or treason.

There is no requirement for current service during commission, there is no requirement for a conviction, there is no availability of a Presidential pardon as the removal of bar to service under the ammendment requires a TWO-THIRDS majority vote of representatives.

Also, Kerry admitted to his personal violation of the Geneva Convention (intentional murder of civilians to include a baby, and buring a village), and the US is "unilaterally" defying (and in breech of) the Geneva Convention until he is tried for these actions.

Commission of a war crime is also officially an "act of rebellion", further re-enforcing Kerry's Constitutional bar to service.

The fact that Massachusetts elected him Senator does not abrogate the bar to service. It is still required to be removed by a two-thirds majority vote, which has not occurred. Massachusetts can foist whatever fraud they wish upon themselves, but that does not premit the DNC to foist the same fraud upon the nation as a whole.

Since the US is "unilaterally" in violation of the Geneva Convention until Mr. Kerry's war trial is conviened, and since he has admitted his war crimes (barring him from public office) and admitted to meeting with the enemy (also barring him from public office) the "election oversight committee" should have no choice but to find that the people of the US have been denied a proper choice to vote for eligible candidates and therefore, Kerry should be replaced on the ballot. But, it is unlikely that this would happen, isn't it?

There is no statute of limitations on war crimes or murder. There is no proper remedy to a Constitutional bar to public service other than a two-thirds majority vote.

[robert stout]

Phantom---If Kerry committed teason,how do YOU explain the lack of prosecution during the Nixon administration???Kerry was a minor war criminal along with thousands of other Vietnam veterans...Do you want them ALL prosecuted???Dissent and protest is not an act of rebellion,but interfering with due process of law is unconstitutional and hampering a free election is rebellion!!!

[Phantom]

robert stout--The administration had many problems of it's own, and Kerry had powerful family and friends to protect him. It is disingenuous of you to imply I stated anything about "Dissent and protest" being rebellion, I did not.

By offering an ineligible candidate for public office the DNC has acted in an unconstitutional manner. By allowing it to happen the Republicans on the other side of the fence have done the same. The People have been DENIED the right to vote on their choice of ELIGIBLE candidates. Foisting an ineligible candidate on the People is offering anything but a FREE ELECTION.

[Roger Helbig]

Ref: Did Navy Lt. Kerry violate The UCMJ? August 23rd, 2004
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3778

In this article, it indicates that
March 1, 1970 Kerry's date of separation from Active Duty

That means that Mr John Kerry was a civilian from this date forth unless recalled from his inactive Naval Reserve Status .. he was never recalled. He never, according to the timelines submitted by Steve Gilbert in this article, was a member of the Ready Reserve and never had a requirement to perform monthly unit training assemblies, nor annual active duty. His obligation under the selective service was completed per the article's timeline

Selective Service Status .. April 29, 1970 Kerry listed as Registrant who has completed service

Mr Kerry was free to travel to Paris and meet with the North Vietnamese delegation .. he was NOT subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice since he did not represent, nor give the appearance of representing the United States Navy or the United States of America and met with these delegates as a concerned private citizen.

[Greg F]

"That means that Mr John Kerry was a civilian from this date forth unless recalled from his inactive Naval Reserve Status .. "

Kerry was active Naval Reserve until 1972. (You will notice that the documents have been removed from Kerry's site, I recall looking at them myself).

[biggerbrother1]

We seen it first in 2000, and we’re experience it again this year. If the suspense is killing you, You can find out why your candidate can’t seem to poll ahead of the leading contender, and why the courts are likely to pick our presidents for some time to come. Check it out here

http://home.comcast.net/~hollyfisher/TheBushKerryDraw.html

[Tom]

Do some of you people honestly believe what you are saying?

Convenient, Kerry's own CO signs for the Silver Star then changes his mind when pressured by politicians???????????

The only thing I don't understand is why Edward Kennedy has not been blamed for anything, you folks are slipping.

This entire site is a bunch of Rush Dimbulb Hooey

[Charlie]

Being originally from Mass., I've met both these "heroes".

I personally believe Ted should take John night-riding over a bridge down Cape Cod.

[Charlie]

Being originally from Mass., I've met both these "heroes".

I personally believe Ted should take John night-riding over a bridge down Cape Cod.

[buy last chaos gold]

If you buy last chaos gold, you will like it.

[mabinogi gold]

When you have mabinogi gold, you can get more!