Buck,

I have read all of your posts on the subject of the candidates' military service.

I realize what it takes to reach flight status. When I state that Bush's assignment was "cushy" I am only referring to the fact that he remained state side and was never under fire. Ever.

IMHO, being "available for assignment" for 2 years, or 4 years, or 6 years, or whatever, does not come close to being shot at overseas for 4 months. I am not comparing the length of the candidates' service, how many days they actually spent on duty, I am simply pointing out that Kerry was overseas and under fire and Bush never was.

Beyond his achieving flight status, I am skeptical that Bush ever did much of anything that was required of him while he was in the Air Guard, again using his family's wealth and privilege to get special treatment. Further, I am skeptical that he actually earned or deserved his honorable discharge, but rather, I tend to suspect that his family and his wealth had a great deal to do with that. And I do not trust the accuracy of his military records for the same reason.

As for Kerry, I already told you that you raise some valid points, and that I am not impressed with him over this, based upon what you have posted regarding his purple hearts, abbreviated tour, and early discharge. Again, I am sure that his family and his wealth had a great deal to do with that, too. It was not until I read your posts that I began to look at it this way, so what you say has not completely fallen on deaf ears.

As for Kerry coming home and protesting the war, alot of people did that, vets and civilians alike. I was young then, but I remember the protests and the division over the war. I have not read or seen everything that Kerry said about the war and the vets, but I believe that whatever he said has largely been taken out of context and spun, and that while he criticized the government and the war, that he was not criticizing the men fighting the war. I believe he was pointing out the horrors of the war in his effort to speak out against it and convince the U.S. to get out of Vietnam, and that what he said was intended to demonstrate those horrors, not to indict his fellow veterans. And I also tend to believe that alot of what he said was true; there were horrible things happening in Vietnam, just as there are always horrible things that happen during any war.

As far as Kerry protesting the war after leaving the military, personally, I do not attach that in any way to his military service. That was a political statement, it was political activism, and has nothing to do with his military service or record, in my estimation. His military service is what he did while he was in the Navy, including the four months he spent in combat, overseas, under enemy fire. Once he got out of the Navy, however he got out of the Navy, for whatever reason he chose to leave the Navy, is a separate and distinct subject. Once he left the military he was entitled to have and express his opinions, just as any other citizen is. He chose to protest the war and to do whatever he could to convince the government to get out of Vietnam.

Throwing away his ribbons and such was done to make a statement. I can appreciate how you might look at that as disrespectful, from your point of view. Personally, if I had been Kerry, I don't think I would have done all of the things he did. I don't think he would do things the same way if he had it to do over. It was a very heated and tense time in this country, emotions ran high, he was young and passionate, and the protests back then were very dramatic. It needs to be viewed in context, IMHO.

I will not condemn him for acting on his convictions on the war. He was certainly not the only vet to do so. I don't think that makes him a poor politician, a poor legislator, or a poor candidate for President; nor do I believe that it taints or detracts from the time he did spend overseas, under fire, serving in the Armed Forces. This is just my opinion. You are certainly entitled to yours. And I am more than happy to agree to disagree with you.

Respectfully,

Jim

nu2salt,

I think you are being too nice.


Buck,

I agree with you, I pointed to the wrong document. Show me the right one. Prove your stories about Kerry's having to "to beg for an honorable discharge from President Carter under his amnesty program."

While you are doing your research, you might as well explain how is it that Bush is such an 'honorable' soldier.

Now lets summarize:

Kerry says: I served in Vietnam, which is well documented and witnessed, and therefore I received an HONORABLE DISCHARGE.

Bush says: I received an HONORABLE DISCHARGE, therefore I must have served, right?

Nobody can accuse W and Buck of being great students of LOGIC.

BR,

I will be brief and then I will go to bed.

When you (and I don't mean you alone) have nothing to say, just don't say it. :p

Good night to all.

Ya like that, eh "Slacker"? Then you'll love this!

The Libs always have plenty to say; it's just that none of it ever makes any sense!

See? Brevity truly IS the soul of wit!

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Honorable_Discharge_From_Reserve.pdf

This should be the document. It is dated 16 February 1978 and is signed by W. Graham Claytor the Secretary of the Navy under President Carter.
This is John Kerry's honorable discharge but he was discharged from the Navy before 1972 so the question becomes, "what kind of discharge did John Kerry get when he left the service prior to 1972". We don't know because this is one of the records John Kerry refuses to release by signing US Standard Form 180 which would allow the release of all of his military records but it certainly was not an honorable discharge because, if it was honorable, there would have been no need to apply and receive this honorable discharge in 1978.
So what happened? What happened is John Kerry got either a general discharge or a dishonorable discharge or something less than honorable which is not surprising because he essentially quit the Navy before his legal contract period was up. The window of opportunity for the redemption of John Kerry occurred when Jimmy Carter became president. President Carter's first act, on inauguration day, was to sign Executive Order 4483 which was a general amnesty for draft dodgers, war protestors, and those with less than honorable discharges, among other societal miscreants. The Executive Order outlined a procedure for an appeal, on a case by case basis, before a Board of Officers (which is referenced on the discharge document). A satisfactory appeal would result in an improvement of discharge status or an honorable discharge.
Also on the discharge document is the "Authority of Reference" which cites "Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163". These sections of the Code refer to the grounds for involuntary separation from the service. So it appears that Kerry either involuntarily separated from the service himself by resigning his commission prior to 1972 or was involuntarily separated from the service by the Navy for cause prior to 1972 and in either case the separation was "less than honorable". But again, these documents have not been released by Kerry so we are not sure precisely what kind of involuntary separation took place.
That is what the document tells me. Whats more important is that John Kerry and his campaign refuses to discuss the issue of discharge separation and refuses to release somewhere around 100 military documents. He portrays himself as a hero but does not want his past scrutinized. This is dishonest.