The Naval Officer as Anti-War Protestor: A Closer Look at Kerry’s Naval Reserve Service
Democrats — By Joe Carter on April 27, 2004 at 1:11 pm One of the most basic tenets of military strategy is never give up the high ground. For the past few months, John Kerry has followed that strategy and maintained the moral high ground by refusing to get sucked into the ridiculous controversy over President Bush’s service in the National Guard. But, for some inexplicable reason, he has changed his approach:
Then Kerry turned the issue against the president, saying for the first time that Bush was far more vulnerable on matters of Vietnam-era choices because of questions about whether he completed his service in the Texas Air National Guard. ”He owes America an explanation about whether or not he showed up for duty in the National Guard. Prove it,” Kerry told NBC.
Big mistake. By continuing to make the Vietnam-era issue relevant, Kerry has made himself fair game for further scrutiny. It won’t be long before someone in the media (Hugh Hewitt, perhaps?) starts looking closer and asking questions about his time in the Naval Reserve.
Many people seem to be under the impression that Kerry’s military obligation ended when he was released from active duty. But on his DD-214 it shows that he was released from active duty and transferred to the Ready Reserve on 3 Jan 1970 with his terminal date from the reserves as 17 Feb 1972 (he was later transferred to the Standby Reserve – Inactive on 1 July 1972). According to the Officer Candidate Agreement that he signed, Kerry was obligated to serve in the Ready Reserve for five years before being transferred to the Standby Reserve. His service record does reflect that once he left active duty that he was assigned to the Naval Reserve in an inactive status. As his paperwork states, release from active duty did not terminate his status as a member of the U.S. Naval Reserve and he was subject to involuntary recall to active duty. He was also required to report any changes in health or address to the nearest NR command.
It should also be noted that, as the SecNav Instruction on Administrative Separation of Officers (para 6) makes clear, release from active duty does not affect an individual’s status as a commissioned officer.
So what does this mean? While it is unclear whether Kerry was obligated to continue in a drill status (from what I can tell I would say he wasn’t) it is clear that he was still considered a commissioned officer during the period of his anti-war activities (1969-1972). On April 23, 1971, the John Kerry who threw his medals away was not a civilian but an officer in the Naval Reserve.
If Kerry really wants to press the matter he might be able to show that Bush missed a few drill weekends with the National Guard. By dredging up this issue, though, he opens himself up to the criticism that, while still under obligated service as a commissioned officer in the Navy, he participated in conduct that brought discredit upon the Naval service. Throwing away your medals (and then lying about it) is shameful conduct for a former veteran. But such actions by an officer is utterly disgraceful.
(Hat tip: Kausfiles and JustOneMinute)
Tweet This
Digg This
Save to delicious
Stumble itAdditional comments powered by BackType
32 Comments
Joe, did you happen to catch the Salon piece on Bush’s records today? There’s a link on Talking Points Memo.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4839405
Check out link above relating to Bushie’s and fellow Republican’s cutting of medical benefits for veterans.
Isn’t it ironic? The benefits are cut to pay for a stupid war that produces thousands of veterans desperately in need of benefits.
When did he lie about throwing away the medals? He threw away his, as well as some that disabled vets (in wheelchairs) gave him to throw away. He’s said so. Where’s the lie?
He’s waffled between throwing away ‘medals’ and ‘ribbons, not medals’. He’s waffled between throwing away his and NOT throwing away his.
Sure, as long as you only look at what he’s said that you want to see, then he hasn’t lied. But when you look at EVERYTHING he’s said, he’s lied so much, even HE may not know what the truth is any more.
He’s also changed his story SEVERAL times about how many ‘items’ he threw over the wall.
Frankie:
What does that have to do with Kerry’s protest record? (that was the topic of the post, in case you don’t get the question)
David said
“He’s waffled between throwing away ‘medals’ and ‘ribbons, not medals’.”
Hey David, check out this site. Since you have all the facts, please tell us which medals or ribbons Kerry did or did not throw.
http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/ribbons/MarineCorps1.html
“He’s waffled between throwing away his and NOT throwing away his.”
David, that’s a lie. Show us the quotes you are referring to.
“He’s also changed his story SEVERAL times about how many ‘items’ he threw over the wall.”
David, you’re a big boy. Please show us the several quotes which show that Kerry has “changed his story about how many ‘items’ he threw over the wall.
Also David, please let us know what any difference any of this makes in light of the fact that Your Personal Hero and Savior, George Bush, spent his time in the miltary playing all-day pool volleball with “ambitious secretaries.” I wonder why Superpresident has not attacked Senator Kerry for his lies about his medals?
I’m really really curious to see just how well you can recite the RNC Talking Points. I’m betting not very well. Surprise me.
Oh, and please let me know when the Minister of Propaganda Karen Hughes’ 17 year old son intends to enlist in the military.
Excatly what was about my post that makes you ASUME I’m some sort of apologist for Bush? RNC talking points? You’re projecting.
And don’t change the subject. You haven’t answered my original question.
What about anything that I said indicates that I have any idea or even care WHICH ‘medals’ he threw away? When was WHICH ones he threw away ever an issue? So far you are a sorry excuse for a debater.
You Bush haters sure are quick to throw that ‘lie’ word around. Something Freudian, perhaps? I’m not here to do your homework for you. If you would spend more time reading and listening instead of being a troll, you would know already of what I’m speaking.
Go back under your bridge.
GOP tries to lambast Kerry for not producing a record within 24 hours. That record, as read even by GopNews, aka FoxNews, says that Kerry has a glowing review by all he served with–except for two officer reviews where he scored “average.” The GOP response? They want to know why it took him an extra day to post the information. Nevermind that the GOP has never substantiated Bush’s service in Alabama. Nevermind that the GOP still won’t release why Bush was grounded after the Guard spent millions of dollars training him. Nevermind that neither Cheney nor Rumsfield served in any capacity. Let’s also not forget that Cheney thought he had other “more important things to do.” Now you are going to nitpick if Kerry threw out hard earned ribbons versus medals? You are going to try and forget the trauma that these soldiers from Vietnam were feeling at the time and why they would protest so vehemently?
David, you are an ignorant RNC tool. I hope they pay you well.
You said (like the good freeper you are):
“He’s waffled between throwing away ‘medals’ and ‘ribbons, not medals’.”
My point was (and is) that your (adopted and recited) claim regarding Kerry’s ‘waffling’ is bogus. Kerry tossed a few of his ribbons (a symbolic gesture). Ribbons are medals. Some medals, however, are not ribbons (e.g., like the kind made of metal). Kerry did not throw metal medals. What’s so hard to understand about that, David. Bear in mind this is only possible explanation for Kerry’s outrageous waffling on this issue.
As far as I can tell, Kerry (1) volunteered for combat and served bravely in Vietnam but came back disillusioned about the war (like a lot of great soldiers did) and (2) subsequently spoke about the war in negative terms and (3) expressed grave doubts about whether the war was at all honorable and (4) felt compelled to express his views about the war in a vivid symbolic way.
And now I am hearing that Kerry should somehow be “banned” from mentioning that he actually did VOLUNTARILY GO TO COMBAT FOR THE UNITED STATES and FOUGHT BRAVELY WHILE HE WAS THERE? That is just absurd.
THe only thing that is more absurd is that Kerry is questioned at all about his service to the United States by a President who CHOSE NOT TO FIGHT for his country and who, according to all of the readily available documents, was a MAJOR FLAKE even in his non-combat role. But wait! The President is not questioning Kerry. No, in fact, the Chimperor would not DARE to utter such vile lies himself. Rather he gets his mouthpiece Karen Hughes and his hand-holder, Dick Cheney, to do his dirty work for him. What a brave brave Chimp.
When do you suppose the 17 year old son of the Chimp’s mouthpiece, Karen Hughes, is going to enlist so he can go fight for “freedom” in Iraq? Do you expect that to happen anytime soon? I don’t. Do you suppose Karen will encourage him to go and fight in Iraq? I don’t. Why doesn’t someone at Fox News ask her about this?
David, you’re barely ok with that double “s” version of bused, since buss means “to kiss,in an unrestrained and exuberant manner,” and that’s probably not quite what you meant to convey. On the other hand, maybe it was – in which case, ignore.
Dear Frank,
The “chimp’s” going to win re-election. Easily.
Which is all that matters, right? Winning at all costs? So what’s your problem?
Frank:
OK, since you can’t seem to get a clue unless you are beaten with it, I’m not a republican. I’m a libertarian. I’ve got no more patience for unapologetic RNC supporters than I do for people who spew forth the putrescent garbage of the left defending Kerry. Perhaps if you were not so blind in your hatred for Bush or if you could take your lips off of McAuliff’s rear, you might see how you appear to people who do think for themselves.
I’ve got quite a few issues with the Bush admin over ACTUAL issues, as opposed to all the meaningless drivel that the left tries to drum up.
IF you would get your head out of your posterior for just a few seconds, you could discover for yourself that Bush’s service record has been dealt with and is a non-issue. IF you think Kerry’s war and protest record are not such an issue, why do the vast majority of veterans despise him? Do you think he’s going to get a single vote from the Vietnamese community in this country? Not likely.
Bob:
Actually, ‘bussed’ is a perfectly legitimate spelling.
See:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bus
or here:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=bussed&x=16&y=28
Of course, Frank busses McAuliff’s behind regularly, in the alternative definition you provided.
thanks!
;-)
As a former Naval officer, what I find most offensive about Kerry’s behavior is that he, in his own words “gave his medals back” and now has decided to claim them as his own again. He needs to make a choice – either admit his actions in the 70s were misguided, or stop claiming his medals. In other words, be an adult, take a stand, and stop trying to have it both ways.
Of course, the only argument that I will see in reply will talk about Bush, and not address the main issue.
David asked
“why do the vast majority of veterans despise [Kerry]?”
David, where did you get this data? I think you are making stuff up again.
Libertarians like you are just Republican’s who don’t want to be held accountable for the simpleton they put in office.
You’re no libertarian, David. You’re a schmuck. My friend Sam Edward Konkin was a REAL libertarian and believe me he would find you at least as annoying as I do. Unfortunately he passed away recently. Jeff Riggenbach wrote a great obit at:
http://www.rationalreview.com/guest/030904.shtml
Check it out, David. It might inspire you. It inspired me.
“Do you think he’s going to get a single vote from the Vietnamese community in this country? Not likely.”
You’re so full of crap David. I’ll tell my Vietnamese-American friends all about your “theory.” They’ll get a good laugh. Of course, they’ll all laugh in perfect unison, right, because they all think exactly alike.
“I’ve got no more patience for unapologetic RNC supporters than I do for people who spew forth the putrescent garbage of the left defending Kerry. ”
Then why do you consistently spout RNC rhetoric and leap to Bushie’s defense like a raving lunatic? As I said, David, you’re no libertarian. You’re just a wingnut. A real libertarian would NEVER defend Bush against a legitimate attack “just because.” That’s ridiculous. You make me laugh.
Well . . . if the Democrats knew they could count on veteran support, why did they dispatch lawyers to Florida during 2000 to throw out as many military absentee ballots as possible?
Kerry will almost certainly, overwhelmingly lose the veterans’ and active duty miliary votes, just like every Dem candidate has.
David – Some of my best friends are Vietnamese (you know, relatives of the very few who that fled South Vietnam after its conquest) and I have anecdotal evidence that some of them may vote for Kerry. Wow, did I ever refute you, man!
Kerry’s actions toward his medals (appearing to throw them away, yet keeping them for when he needed them later) was a profoundly conservative act. If he had really chucked his medals over the fence, he would have (in his mind) thrown away his chances with many voters. But instead, he saved his medals, saved them like coupons — saved them like green stamps (remember those?) that he could redeem when he needed some votes for higher office. And what is a synonym for “to save”? Conserve. Therefore, Kerry is a conservative. He’s way too conservative for me.
Finkie:
You are making a fool of yourself. My wife IS Vietnamese. Her whole family fled that country shortly after the war was over.
You want to play? Let’s play! I’ll bet you whatever you would like, I know far more of the Vietnamese community in this country than you.
He could possibly get a few V votes, but they would only be the brainwashed few who haven’t paid attention to Kerry’s actions after leaving Vietnam.
You can say or think(sic) whatever you like about me being a libertarian. That does not make it true. Yes, I was a republican, but that party left me long before GWB was elected.
I’ll GLADLY accept the title of schmuck from the likes of you. You apparently don’t even know what a legitimate attack IS. FYI – I only leap to defend Bush against people like you when they bring their blind hatred out in the open. You want to debate ISSUES in a reasonable manner? Fine. You want to act like a troll? That’s fine too. Expect to get treated like one. It’s kind of fun!
Gosh, golly, gee….thanks so much for clearing up the air about what a ‘real’ libertarian is. I was so confused. I did not realize until you told me, that you where the one who defines ‘real’ libertarianism. Whew! I’m so glad you cleared that up for me. Loser.
Libertarianism is about ideas, not about whether or not I have fun troll bashing.
David said
“why do the vast majority of veterans despise [Kerry]?”
David, still waiting for support for this statement. Also I’d like to see some evidence that even a majority of Vietnamese-Americans hate Kerry and would never vote for him (your statement went a bit further than that, but I’ll cut you some slack because you’re a lightweight).
Thus far you’ve shown that you are unable to back up your statements with facts.
“but [Vietnamese who vote for Kerry] would only be the brainwashed few who haven’t paid attention to Kerry’s actions after leaving Vietnam.”
Huh? Brainwashed by whom?
“FYI – I only leap to defend Bush against people like you when they bring their blind hatred out in the open.”
That’s what I don’t understand. First of all, your radar for “blind hatred” is terribly out of adjustment. I can see fine. If you look carefully at my posts, I tend to cite facts to support my view and I tend not to smear large groups of people based on stereotypes, as you do.
Just show me the data to support your statements above, David, and then you can begin to rebuild your reputation as a “thinking” libertarian (if indeed you ever had such a reputation, which I highly doubt). As your Fearless Leader infamously said to the enemy in Baghdad while he stood safely on the other side of the ocean, “Bring it on.”
Frankie said:
“Libertarians like you are just Republican’s who don’t want to be held accountable for the simpleton they put in office.”
Where’s your support for this broad brush? You have some scientific study that only you are aware of?
“A real libertarian would NEVER defend Bush against a legitimate attack “just because.” ”
Where’s your data to support this? I think you’re making stuff up again. Where’s your FACTS?
So far, you’re just another leftist blowhard who attacks because you don’t like what you hear.
don’t confuse ‘unable’ with ‘unwilling to waste my time on someone who wouldn’t be convinced anyway.’
OK, Frankie, I’ve looked carefully at your posts going back for a while.
Your version of ‘cie’ing facts is to post links to irrelevant stories.
Not only that, but it seems your are one of the rabid Bush hating lefties who love to call him ‘chimp’.
You are nothing more than a small minded troll. Crawl back under your bridge.
David said
“why do the vast majority of veterans despise [Kerry]?”
Focus David. Just prove that you aren’t a liar. I apologize for painting libertarians like you with a broad brush (although that’s why I said “like you” — a very specific breed, tho’ not a particularly rare one).
And don’t forget, I’d also like to see some evidence that even a majority of Vietnamese-Americans hate Kerry and would never vote for him (your statement went a bit further than that, but I’ll cut you some slack because you’re a lightweight).
My “data” to support to my comments about Libertarians is to provide you with an example of how a genuine Libertarian thinks, a Libertarian who practiced what he preached, not some guy who gave a crap about defending a President whose mind goes blank when he drops his script.
But your assertions are rather different from mine David and a different sort of evidence is required. Let’s see it. Unless you don’t have it. Unless you never saw it. Unless you pulled that statement, e.g., re the vast majority of Veterans despising Kerry out of your butt (which is what I suspect).
Prove me wrong. I dare you.
Frankie:
blah, blah, blah
you go back and provide real ‘facts’ in all your other posts and then you can ask me again.
you talk about your ‘data’ but you haven’t produced anything.
you can believe whatever you want. you will anyway. since you’ve gotten far enough to find a blog to post your drivel to, you must know how to use Google. I feel no need to do YOUR homework for you.
David – I guess my post went over your head – it was aimed at Frankie Lee’s silly “I’ve got Vietnamese friends” argument, not you.
finkie:
Opps! My bad.
Oops! Can’t type today!
“David – I guess my post went over your head – it was aimed at Frankie Lee’s silly “I’ve got Vietnamese friends” argument, not you. ”
Finkie, just to refresh your memory: David asked “Do you think he’s going to get a single vote from the Vietnamese community in this country? Not likely.”
My response was that I KNOW he’s going to get votes from the Vietnamese community because I know Vietnamese-Americans that would vote for ANYBODY except for George Bush.
There’s nothing silly about my “argument.” David’s statement, like many of his statements, was a dumb exageration that he can not back up with any facts. And when I say he can’t, I mean it’s IMPOSSIBLE to back such statements up.
So why make them when it’s so easy to say that “Most Vietnamese-American political groups support George Bush” ?
David does this more than others. It’s called SMEARING and it’s just plain dishonest. Statements like “The Left has not principles …” or “Bush is not a flip-flopper like Kerry” are nothing more than inane sloganeering. I’m not saying that I never do this but I try my damndest not to and when someone calls me on it, I am not so proud that I can’t ADMIT that I exagerated or I was careless. I’m not going to resort to calling someone a troll just because they show me where a point I made was based on bad facts or none at all.
Either David can attenuate his rhetoric or do a Google search to find support for his statements. Neither would be too difficult (especially in this instance). Or he can choose to flame out people who question his statements. It’s up to him. And you.
If everyone will quit paying attention to David and to James, maybe they will just go away and get their attention elsewhere.
As someone who stood in the lottery for the Vietnam war but didn’t serve — although I was a finalist in the Navy Scholarship competition, and my father was a lifelong member of the US Air Force — I remember how the country was split on the war. At least Kerry served, and realizing afterward how corrupt that war was, may have had remorse. With maturity, we may rethink our rash actions of youth; but no one in the Bush Administration — Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz — is in any position to criticize Kerry’s service record. So, David: shut up.
Duncan – The issue raised is WHETHER Kerry’s service record, including the Naval Reserve time, should be criticized. you don’t mean to suggest that every one who has not seen active service is precluded from raising any question about a politician’s conduct in the military, do you?
Kerry’s House of Ketchup #10
Kerry speaks. Sen. Kerry’s bad luck continues. He tried to critique President Bush’s education policies only to be upstaged…