Kerry NOT honorably discharged?

[AuH2O]

This story is in the early stages (though it's been hinted at before). There are mounting indications something unusual happened with Kerry's discharge from the military- namely, that is was not honorable. There are 5 types of discharge; honorable, general (i.e. medical), and then 3 for bad behavior of one sort of another.

Kerry, as we all know, has refused to release his military records. There is no known reason why he would do so, though it was speculated information in his record would contradict some of his own accounts of his actions. It now appears possible Kerry is hiding something with regard to his exit from the service.

The problem is a lack of information, because DoD is hedging and Kerry is covering up. But, this could be a serious problem for Kerry if it emerges at the end of the campaign... i.e., this year's 'drunk driving' story.

[John Dibble]

Why anyone cares what these men did over thirty years ago is a mystery to me - they were both young and stupid, they are completely different people now, their acts then have little to no bearing on what they would do now. Why do people care so much about petty details from the past?

[J. J.]

First, I'm going to agree with John Dribble.

Neither Bush's DWI nor any alledged impropriety in Kerry's service should be important.

Like Bush's DWI, however, these records should have been released, especially if there was anything detrimental.  It was a mistake for Bush not to bring up his DWI arrest well prior to the election, and it would be a mistake for Kerry to hide anything negative, if there was anything.

Unless something official does come out, I'll take it that Kerry's service was honorable.

[MODU]

I just laugh at the double standard that is in place.

Media sues for Bush's NG records, but not Kerry's.
Bush family releases their tax records, yet we only see Kerry's and not his wifes records.

Are these things really important?  No, but if one side gets hammered for information, the opposite side should receive the same attention.

[shankbear]

Dibble, John...Kerry made the VietNam era an issue.  His whole friggin convention was a Nam rehash, reunion.  He brought it to the forefront.\

His miserable record since Nam is the real issue.  He has been paid a nice Senate salary for doing nothing.  I want my money back Mr. Kerry.  I paid your ass for nothing!!!!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Why anyone cares what these men did over thirty years ago is a mystery to me - they were both young and stupid, they are completely different people now, their acts then have little to no bearing on what they would do now. Why do people care so much about petty details from the past?

Name me one Fortune 500 company that would hire someone with a dishonorable discharge.

Having said that, I am very doubtful of this "story".

[John Dibble]

Why anyone cares what these men did over thirty years ago is a mystery to me - they were both young and stupid, they are completely different people now, their acts then have little to no bearing on what they would do now. Why do people care so much about petty details from the past?

Name me one Fortune 500 company that would hire someone with a dishonorable discharge.

Having said that, I am very doubtful of this "story".

I'm sure plenty would if that dishonorable discharge had happened three decades ago. This isn't something that happened a couple of years ago, as I said, this was when both candidates were young, stupid, and ignorant(and at the same time a know it all) - like most people their age(which is about my age too). What matters is what they are like now - Bush as I understand it used to be somewhat of a lazy party-animal, but now look at him, he conducts himself professionally and works hard and stands up for his beliefs(even if I disagree with his policies, I admire him as an individual).

You of all people should know that people can change their ways - isn't your religion all about repenting and forgiveness?

Let's reverse the situation, if Bush had served in Vietnam and received a dishonorable discharge thirty years ago, would you still vote for him

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I'm sure plenty would if that dishonorable discharge had happened three decades ago.

And you are just as surely wrong.

---

You of all people should know that people can change their ways - isn't your religion all about repenting and forgiveness?

Let's reverse the situation, if Bush had served in Vietnam and received a dishonorable discharge thirty years ago, would you still vote for him

It's not a matter of forgiveness, it's a matter of competence.  Certainly there are people just as qualified with better track records....I would NEVER place a former child molester in charge of other people's kids...Nor would I ever place someone in the role of commander-in-chief of the military whom the military itself found untrustworthy.

And if either Bush or Kerry had received a dishonorable discharge, their continued hiding of that fact from the public certainly disqualifies them.

1Cor 4:2 It is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful.

[John Dibble]

I'm sure plenty would if that dishonorable discharge had happened three decades ago.

And you are just as surely wrong.

Have proof that none of those companies have ever hired someone dishonorably discharged?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not a matter of forgiveness, it's a matter of competence.  Certainly there are people just as qualified with better track records....I would NEVER place a former child molester in charge of other people's kids...Nor would I ever place someone in the role of commander-in-chief of the military whom the military itself found untrustworthy.

And if either Bush or Kerry had received a dishonorable discharge, their continued hiding of that fact from the public certainly disqualifies them.

1Cor 4:2 It is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful.
[/quote]

First off, this isn't something like pedophilia, which is a psychological disease you can't get rid of. We're talking about a change of character here - a person becoming something better than they were before. Can someone who has made mistakes in the past not redeem themselves? Can a lazy oaf not become a diligent worker? Can a criminal not become a model citizen? Of course they can - do you trust them just because they say they've changed? Of course not, nor did I insinuate that we should. But through actions a person who has made past mistakes(which both Bush and Kerry have likely made) can prove themselves trustworthy, with sufficient time - if thirty years isn't enough, your standards are probably a bit too high. Whether Bush was where he was supposed to be or whether Kerry really earned his medals is pointless information for the reasons I've already stated(young, stupid, ect.), and because I know what kind of people they are right now, and that's what matters to me - who they are right now. You are correct that they should be honest about it when they are asked about the subject, but I am saying that the subject itself is not important enough to need asking.

"Wizard's Fifth Rule: Mind what people do, not only what they say, for deeds will betray a lie." - Terry Goodkind

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Have proof that none of those companies have ever hired someone dishonorably discharged?

I have recruited and placed contractors at over a dozen Fortune 500 companies and they all reject dishonorably discharged vets.  They are considered a "security risk".

---

First off, this isn't something like pedophilia, which is a psychological
disease you can't get rid of.

Even I do NOT believe it is a permanent condition; but my point was that you don't place other people at risk in the pursuit of "forgiveness".  Forgiving someone and given someone responsibilities are two different things. 

I have forgiven those I have fired, even though I haven't hired them back.  I place responsibility in the hands of the competent, not the forgiven.

---

We're talking about a change of character here - a person becoming something better than they were before.

Are we not talking about two politicians?!

[John Dibble]

We're talking about a change of character here - a person becoming something better than they were before.

Are we not talking about two politicians?!

Ron Paul is a politician - I think he has good character. And are you saying Bush has bad character? I think he has pretty good character. Not perfect by any means, but he's human and I don't expect perfection. On the other hand I don't like Kerry's character - I think he's sneaky, dishonest, and too much of a whore for votes. Being a politician doesn't make one have or lack character.

As far as forgiveness goes, I think we're talking about two different types of forgiveness - my version is probably different than yours, so you may not be getting my meaning, I wasn't thinking in your terms I was thinking in mine. My forgiveness has to be earned - if you don't feel guilt for your crimes, stop performing them, and try to make up for them somehow then you aren't worth forgiving for them. I imagine you forgive a murderer regardless of whether he feels sorry or not(correct me if I'm wrong). So, if I've forgiven someone it's because they've proven to me they've changed, and can be trusted. Seriously - can we not trust Bush to be repsonsible just because he might not have been a responsible person in the past?

[TomC]

You guys are making stuff up now, just like your boss and Cheney. LIES. ZERO CREDIBILITY. DESPERATION!

A man serves honorably on the front lines, comes home to tell the truth so that we can save lives in the future (GOP must only be pro-life when they're telling a woman how to live her life, but men- kill all you want just don't tell), serves the people of his state for twenty years, and is badmouthed and maligned by a man who would be a second rate business man if it weren't for his Daddy.

You denegrate service to one's country by refusing to acknowledge that a veteran might not agree with you on every political issue. "Only GOP veterans have honor." is the essence of your traitorous message.

Here are Kerry's records- been there for months:

www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/military_records.html

[No more McShame]

That's not his entire record and you know it!  The part on his webpage is only what he wants you to see!

[TomC]

That's not his entire record and you know it!  The part on his webpage is only what he wants you to see!

Yes, but it clearly shows Kerry's discharge was honorable.

[J. J.]

You guys are making stuff up now, just like your boss and Cheney. LIES. ZERO CREDIBILITY. DESPERATION!

A man serves honorably on the front lines, comes home to tell the truth so that we can save lives in the future (GOP must only be pro-life when they're telling a woman how to live her life, but men- kill all you want just don't tell), serves the people of his state for twenty years, and is badmouthed and maligned by a man who would be a second rate business man if it weren't for his Daddy.

You denegrate service to one's country by refusing to acknowledge that a veteran might not agree with you on every political issue. "Only GOP veterans have honor." is the essence of your traitorous message.

Here are Kerry's records- been there for months:

www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/military_records.html

Ah, there might be a problem.  It's dated 1978.  My father's WWII discharge was issued when he left, but he wasn't an officer.  I have a friend that is a vet from the period.  I'll check to see if this was SOP; it might be.

[TomC]

You guys are making stuff up now, just like your boss and Cheney. LIES. ZERO CREDIBILITY. DESPERATION!

A man serves honorably on the front lines, comes home to tell the truth so that we can save lives in the future (GOP must only be pro-life when they're telling a woman how to live her life, but men- kill all you want just don't tell), serves the people of his state for twenty years, and is badmouthed and maligned by a man who would be a second rate business man if it weren't for his Daddy.

You denegrate service to one's country by refusing to acknowledge that a veteran might not agree with you on every political issue. "Only GOP veterans have honor." is the essence of your traitorous message.

Here are Kerry's records- been there for months:

www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/military_records.html

Ah, there might be a problem.  It's dated 1978.  My father's WWII discharge was issued when he left, but he wasn't an officer.  I have a friend that is a vet from the period.  I'll check to see if this was SOP; it might be.

Is your implication that these are forgeries?? Are you suggesting that Kerry has forged military documents on his website and that you, J.J., are bringing this to the surface??

Puhlease!

If there were any chance Kerry had forged military documents on his campaign website, we would know. We would be hearing about it for sure. Don't you think???

If he hadn't received an honorable discharge, don't you think Bush himself would bring it up?

Partisanship is expected, but this forum is much better than a place for BS like this. Attack Kerry's liberal record, fine, but to lie about his military record (as "Goldwater" did above), that's pretty shameful.

[YRABNNRM]

Why anyone cares what these men did over thirty years ago is a mystery to me - they were both young and stupid, they are completely different people now, their acts then have little to no bearing on what they would do now. Why do people care so much about petty details from the past?

Exactly my thoughts!

[J. J.]

You guys are making stuff up now, just like your boss and Cheney. LIES. ZERO CREDIBILITY. DESPERATION!

A man serves honorably on the front lines, comes home to tell the truth so that we can save lives in the future (GOP must only be pro-life when they're telling a woman how to live her life, but men- kill all you want just don't tell), serves the people of his state for twenty years, and is badmouthed and maligned by a man who would be a second rate business man if it weren't for his Daddy.

You denegrate service to one's country by refusing to acknowledge that a veteran might not agree with you on every political issue. "Only GOP veterans have honor." is the essence of your traitorous message.

Here are Kerry's records- been there for months:

www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/military_records.html

Ah, there might be a problem.  It's dated 1978.  My father's WWII discharge was issued when he left, but he wasn't an officer.  I have a friend that is a vet from the period.  I'll check to see if this was SOP; it might be.

Is your implication that these are forgeries?? Are you suggesting that Kerry has forged military documents on his website and that you, J.J., are bringing this to the surface??

Puhlease!

First, nobody but you suggested any forgery.  I neither suspected it or inferred it.  My question was the date, 1978.  Why would their be a gap, as Kerry left service in 1970 or 71?  Now, that question is based on what the documents say, not on anything previously posted.

Second, I have sooooo concerned about Kerry's military service, that I had not checked up on it until TCash101 posted the web site.  The only person here who has "brought anything to the surface" is TCash101.

I think that the reason why the discharge was 7-8 years after the fact, is a legitimate question.  It does not imply anything, except that it is a bit unusual; I indicated that it might be SOP, or standard operating procedure.

I did talk to a friend of mine that did serve in the Vietnam era, and went on to become an officer; his wife is a former unit clerk who handled personel records, though not from that period.  He thought that the form sounded like Kerry stayed in the Navy Reserve after discharge from active duty and this was his resignation from the Reserve.  There is nothing improper and nothing sinister in it.

Now, since this issue has been raised, and TCash101 brought the link to the document forward, it does seem reasonable to ask questions about it.  Likewise Kerry made a strong point of his service during the campaign, so it does seem to be fair to ask questions about it. 

[TomC]

You guys are making stuff up now, just like your boss and Cheney. LIES. ZERO CREDIBILITY. DESPERATION!

A man serves honorably on the front lines, comes home to tell the truth so that we can save lives in the future (GOP must only be pro-life when they're telling a woman how to live her life, but men- kill all you want just don't tell), serves the people of his state for twenty years, and is badmouthed and maligned by a man who would be a second rate business man if it weren't for his Daddy.

You denegrate service to one's country by refusing to acknowledge that a veteran might not agree with you on every political issue. "Only GOP veterans have honor." is the essence of your traitorous message.

Here are Kerry's records- been there for months:

www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/military_records.html

Ah, there might be a problem.  It's dated 1978.  My father's WWII discharge was issued when he left, but he wasn't an officer.  I have a friend that is a vet from the period.  I'll check to see if this was SOP; it might be.

Is your implication that these are forgeries?? Are you suggesting that Kerry has forged military documents on his website and that you, J.J., are bringing this to the surface??

Puhlease!

First, nobody but you suggested any forgery.  I neither suspected it or inferred it.  My question was the date, 1978.  Why would their be a gap, as Kerry left service in 1970 or 71?  Now, that question is based on what the documents say, not on anything previously posted.

Second, I have sooooo concerned about Kerry's military service, that I had not checked up on it until TCash101 posted the web site.  The only person here who has "brought anything to the surface" is TCash101.

I think that the reason why the discharge was 7-8 years after the fact, is a legitimate question.  It does not imply anything, except that it is a bit unusual; I indicated that it might be SOP, or standard operating procedure.

I did talk to a friend of mine that did serve in the Vietnam era, and went on to become an officer; his wife is a former unit clerk who handled personel records, though not from that period.  He thought that the form sounded like Kerry stayed in the Navy Reserve after discharge from active duty and this was his resignation from the Reserve.  There is nothing improper and nothing sinister in it.

Now, since this issue has been raised, and TCash101 brought the link to the document forward, it does seem reasonable to ask questions about it.  Likewise Kerry made a strong point of his service during the campaign, so it does seem to be fair to ask questions about it. 

Alright, sorry, but "There might be a problem" seemed code for "This is not accurate." As if the Bush campaign would've missed it, missed any incorrect detail.

This Swift Boat/Didn't get an honorable discharge ticks me off. This new "alletgation" above is just desperate, sick lies. And easily disproved.

[Alcon]

I don't think this will end up being anything, but this is pretty much what I've been hearing from the parties:

Democrat: "Kerry's Vietnam service was excellent!" (x5)
Republicans: "No, it wasn't."
Democrat: "You shouldn't insult such excellent service."
Republicans: "It wasn't excellent."
Democrats: "Who cares what happened 30 years ago?"
Republicans: "You brought it up. Kerry's service was questionable." (x5)

If people really wanted it to end, they'd just stop talking about it. They don't.

[J. J.]

Alright, sorry, but "There might be a problem" seemed code for "This is not accurate." As if the Bush campaign would've missed it, missed any incorrect detail.

This Swift Boat/Didn't get an honorable discharge ticks me off. This new "alletgation" above is just desperate, sick lies. And easily disproved.

No problem, but if you've read any of my posts, I do not talk in code.  :-)  I am partisan, but I do try to be fair as well; that's why I have the blue icon up there.

One point that could be troubling is that Kerry has not authorized the release of all his records; I get to that in a second.

I was wondering, because of the gap, if perhaps there was a delay, that his discharge was "upgraded."  Sometimes someone will be discharged under less than honorable conditions, but can then apply to have that changed; I've known someone who did that.  According to my friends, this almost never happens with officers, only enlisted personel.  Kerry was an officer, so this is unlikely

Because Kerry did not release all of his records, I thought that there might have been an incident that the Navy might have been investigating or a medical problem.  No, this is unlikely, and there is a reasonable explanation which does not indicate any such problem.  It looks like he went into the Reserve.

One reason that Kerry has refused to release this information might have been a covert operation that he was involved in, and that he wishes to keep secret, as a point of honor.  He mentioned, for example, that on Christmas of 1968, he was at the Cambodian boarder.  Now Nixon's, "secret" Cambodian invasion hadn't started yet; Johnson was still in office.  Everyone has taken this as an exaggeration.  Kerry might have been there, on a covert mission.

The reason for this might be entirely honorable.

[James46]

Everyone is missing the point here.  A lot of veterans from the Viet Nam era are still in a lot of pain about that time.  Kerry opened old wounds that will not go away.  His testimony before Congress was pretty far from the truth.  We of the generation who wore the uniform are re-energized.  Zell Miller was not over the edge.  He told it like it is.  Kerry blew the election when he made his war record an issue.  Even if he gets elected, he will be miserable failure. 

[J. J.]

Everyone is missing the point here.  A lot of veterans from the Viet Nam era are still in a lot of pain about that time.  Kerry opened old wounds that will not go away.  His testimony before Congress was pretty far from the truth.  We of the generation who wore the uniform are re-energized.  Zell Miller was not over the edge.  He told it like it is.  Kerry blew the election when he made his war record an issue.  Even if he gets elected, he will be miserable failure. 

Okay, even in my 20s, I wouldn't have said it.  Should we, however, consider this anything more than a statement of an embittered young man, who had been traumatized, uttered 33 years ago? 

(And yes, I'm defending Kerry.)

[James46]

Again, Kerry will lose the election because of this strategy.  EVERY vet I have talked to ( and I live in the Toledo area--ground zero) despises Kerry for what he did.  THEY served 365, not 70!  There are even yard signs expressing the Viet Vets' anger!  Kerry is in big trouble despite a decent showing in the debates.