Useful Fools: More on the Kerry Cover-Up

« Kerry Cover-up. | Main | Pat Tillman - Afghanistan Ceremony »

April 23, 2004

More on the Kerry Cover-Up

As revealed here, John Kerry has tried to cover that while a sworn officer in the Navy Reserve he participated in VVAW anti-war activities and made his notorious speech to the U.S. Senate.

Until the release of his records, Kerry's biography showed his military service as:

1966-1970 Navy
1972-1978 Naval Reserve

This leaves a gap of 2 years not showing any service during his anti-war activities.

He also convinced the Boston Globe that he received an Honorable Discharge from the Navy in 1970, which had it been true would have meant he was no longer a military officer.

All of this is an obvious cover-up of his actual service. It should have read:

1966-1970 Navy
1970-1978 Navy Reserve

Not only was Kerry a sworn officer in the Naval Reserve throughout his activities, he was an Active Duty officer while he flew an anti-war operative around to give speeches.

Since his records were published, showing his history to be false, some of his biographies on the internet have been quietly changed (as discussed in the referenced article).

From the Boston Globe article:

By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff, 6/17/2003
[...]
John Kerry flew Walinsky around New York to deliver speeches against the war. Kerry did not wear his uniform and did not speak at the events, but the experience helped convince him that he wanted to become a public leader of the antiwar movement. On Jan. 3, 1970, Kerry requested that his superior, Rear Admiral Walter F. Schlech, Jr., grant him an early discharge so that he could run for Congress on an antiwar platform.

"I just said to the admiral: `I've got to get out. I've got to go do what I came back here to do, which is, end this thing,'" Kerry recalled, referring to the war. The request was approved, and Kerry was honorably discharged, which he said shaved six months from his commitment.

[Note: I was in the same status as John Kerry at the same time. See here for my own information including my ID card in addition to more on kerry
]

[Note that JustOneMinute, alerted by Useful Fools, has been also following this issue in detail.]

Posted by John Moore at April 23, 2004 07:15 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.tinyvital.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/782

Comments

John, Do you think the reason Kerry was allowed to get away with his anti-war activities while still in the Naval Reserve was his connections? I've seen the pictures of Kerry on the Kennedy yacht etc. But his first wife was Julia Stimson Thorne. Apparently Secretary of War Stimson (during WWII) was her grandfather. His best friends were Julia's brother David Thorne and Richard Pershing, who was killed in Viet Nam but whose father or grandfather was General Pershing. He honeymooned with Julia in Jamaica at the Pershing home there.
What tales could Julia tell us I wonder?

Posted by: Christina at April 23, 2004 11:17 PM

Christina

No, I don't know how he got away with it. He was not in a drill status, but he was still a sworn officer of the Navy. His actions clearly are those unbecoming an officer.

I don't know the legalities, but the state of mind of the public was such that is was probably politically impossible to prosecute him without hurting the war effort even more.

In any case, he is the most disreputable person ever to run for President in the United States.

Posted by: John Moore (Useful Fools) at April 23, 2004 11:21 PM

I think John is correct. Kerry certainly was aware of his vulnerability as an inactive officer, and had planned for the martyrdom and eventual exoneration that prosecution would have provided for him. Kerry is disreputable and more, but he is also clever, if not terribly bright, and he has the facile confidence of his class. The political will to prosecute him wasn't there by 1971, and he had a legion of northeastern supporters who could have made the Chicago Seven (or Eight, depending upon your memory) Trial look tame by comparison. He might have even wished for this. The Left never gives up its "dead", so to speak, not Alger Hiss or The Rosenbergs, or John Kerry, who is cut from the same cloth.

The 60's were crazy in many ways, and Kerry was just another political freak who had his day. He must have believed that this period of his life would become an advantage in his run for the White House. He probably still does. Did I hear recently that before giving a speech in New Orleans, he said that Louisiana reminded him of the Mekong Delta? Is that a joke or did it actually happen? I know Louisiana pretty well; if you close your eyes the dampness and humidity might remind you of lots of damp and humid places. But comparing it to The Mekong is the invention of a very disturbed mind.

Posted by: Rhod at April 25, 2004 12:51 PM

April 28, 2004 the AP article "Tension behind Vietnam hasn't gone away" gave info about what Bush, Cheney and Kerry did during the Vietnam war. It states that there is no record of Bush reporting for duty in Alabama but that "Bush says he did particiipate." It also says Kerry was discharged in January 1970! What a joke! I also find it interesting that John Kerry spent his time after Vietnam trying to get National Guard soldiers not to report, yet goes crazy when his party claims Bush didn't show up. How can he criticize Bush with his crazy claims when after all, even if the lies of the Democrats were truths, Bush would merely have done what Kerry advocated, so how could Kerry criticize! After all how many misguided soldiers didn't report because of Kerry? How many POW's suffered worse or died because of Kerry's words? Did the 2 idiots who deserted the military recently to go to Canada (remember they joined by choice, and were already soldiers, and didn't flee to avoid a draft) and are being hailed as heros by the left wing Canadian media do it because of Kerry's words? I think he has a lot to answer for, and it all comes out to anti-American, and downright treasonous.

Posted by: TN Bob at April 30, 2004 07:32 PM

In the same AP article,"Tension behind Vietnam hasn't gone away",it also quotes Kerry as saying "I THINK I earned them" when referring to his medals. Seems to me he would be very certain. And he wonders why most of America doesn't seem real sure about them. Seems his statement would have been,"I KNOW I earned them." Maybe I am just nitpicking with words, but sometimes they reveal things that people didn't mean to let out.

Posted by: TN Bob at April 30, 2004 07:46 PM

Hello, I just wanted to say you have a very informative site which really made me think, thanks very much! Have a nice Day!!

Play For Online Casinos at Online Casino Sources

Posted by: Play For Online Casinos at Online Casino Sources at June 1, 2004 12:47 PM

If you find yourself a soldier in an immoral war, doesn't your conscience dictate that you protest it? While I greatly appreciate the many sacrifices Veterans have made for a country over the years, I also appreciate when they come back from a war and say that it is wrong. I wish that more Natzi soldiers had protested. I am not comparing our actions to Germany's, but when something is immoral or even misguided, isn't it the duty of soldier to speak out?

If George Bush didn't report to duty, as a protest to the war, than he should be commended, and he should make his stance clear.

I have never been to war, and I realize it takes a certain mind-set to be able and willing to risk ones life for ones country. However, I would feel much better knowing the Commander and Chief of the military is one who knows the brutal price of war, and will be very careful before subjecting our soldiers to it. I don't want a "movie cowboy" sending our troops off to war, with tag lines like "bring it on". The death of young people is something too terrible to be contemplated, I don't ever want anyone to "bring it on"

Posted by: Muriel at July 7, 2004 07:38 AM

Well, Kerry certainly became an expert on warfare in his four months, didn't he. Obviously in that time he learned the deep strategy of the war and why it must be wrong - after all, Lieutenants are part of high level strategy.

The fact is that John Kerry protested the war with lies. He met with the enemy beforehand, and his organization coordinated its propaganda with the communists.

I do not want a president who built his career on lies about his fellow veterans (myself included). I do not want as a president a man who left early, so that someone else had to replace him in danger. I don't want one whose entire chain of command, most who also faught in that war, condemns him as unqualified to be Commander in Chief. I don't want one whose picture hangs in a communist museum honoring those who helped them win. I don't want one whose slander against his country and Vietnam Veterans is still being used in the propaganda of a dictatorship.

Since you call Bush a "movie cowboy," you have obviously been imbibing the leftist lies. The movie cowboy was Ronald Reagan. George Bush knows of the cost of being ready for war. His unit lost people. My best friend was killed doing what Bush did, and that is a cost I bear to this day - and a person whose name you demean when you demean Bush's service.

As to "bring it on" - why are you hung up on that phrase? You have yet to make a single substantive comment against Bush. Just name calling.

I would hope your thinking could go beyond mere slogans. And I would hope you would study the man you would have as leader - a man whose own comrades found wanting (over 200 signed the letter proclaiming him unfit - see here for what his fellow SWIFT boat sailors think of him).

If you are truly interested in your candidate, as opposed to just being what Lenin called a "Useful Idiot," you will check out this. Many of the charges there are easily substantiated. Then again, maybe you are happy with the man who, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, suggested that a US surrender (which he recommended) would require us to protect only 3,000 Vietnamese from the communists. Instead, over a million of risked their lives on rickety boats to escape, tens of thousands were executed outright, and hundreds of thousands were send to re-educationi camps where many died, safely out of sight, and Cambodia (with US support prohibited) fell to Pol Pot, killing millions more.

If you want to vote for the man who helped cause all of that slaughter, that's on your conscience. But we (Vietnam Vets for the Truth) have many members who had more time in the war than Kerry, and who did not find it wrong, and who did not get out after minor wounds, and who today want to clear their names from the mud that Kerry splattered across it.

So go ahead, vote for a liar, a man who (according to his own VVAW comrades) used the VVAW to climb to political power. An opportunist who will say anything for power, including the propaganda of our enemy.

I'll take a "Hollywood Cowboy" over a lying war hero any day of the week. Just remember, Benedict Arnold was a war hero too.

Posted by: John Moore (Useful Fools) at July 7, 2004 09:34 AM

Since the statute of limitations on murder has not run out, as far as I know, why hasn't John Kerry been brought up on murder charges for his war crimes as admitted by him during his confession before Congress?

Posted by: David Christopher at July 7, 2004 11:20 AM

Thank you for a very insightful site. I hope that the information that you have reaches as many voters as possible before the elections of 2004. It is inconceivable to expect military men and women to call John Kerry "commander in chief." He is a disgrace to the United States and to Americans,and will bring dishonor to our country if elected. I'll be rooting for all the Viet Vets at the rally in Sept.

Posted by: Maria at July 25, 2004 02:18 AM

It is amazing to me that Kerry names all these crimes that were being committed. He was in command of a boat, he was also an officer. Officers are supposed to think aren't they? Is the reason he made claims like this that he was personally responsible for rape, cutting ears, heads and murder? Does anybody know? If he committed these crimes he should be in prison not the oval office, shouldn't he?

Posted by: Barry at July 30, 2004 01:42 AM

Yes, if he was involved he was required to report it at the time. If he was responsible, either directly or by negligence, he should have been courts martialed.

Posted by: John Moore (Useful Fools) at July 30, 2004 02:15 AM

I have followed close Kerry's life, achievements and shortcomings and I have to say maybe he has had mistakes.. who among us has had none? If any of us were running for president and our past life was to be exposed to the public in every detail... would every single of our actions and words fit to our current speech? I am voting for him, all my family, neighbors and most people at my work is voting for him too. He's a man of convictions. Just one more think...talking about lies....what is then our current president? A proud defensor of the true? come'on... I dont think so.

Posted by: Marcela Lozano at August 1, 2004 12:32 PM