Before John Kerry Runs Again, He Must Answer Some Questions

George C. Landrith

Since John Kerry conceded defeat in the 2004 presidential election, he has hinted that he may run again in 2008. If the junior Senator from Massachusetts expects America to take him seriously, he needs to honestly answer a few simple questions – questions he steadfastly refused to answer during the 2004 campaign. For example, was John Kerry dishonorably discharged from the Navy in 1972 as the best evidence now suggests?

Additionally, America has a right to know if the military reviewed Kerry’s treasonous meeting with the Viet Cong in Paris in 1972 to discuss terms for ending the war while he was still a member of the U.S. Armed Forces? Did Kerry’s false and perjurious testimony before the U.S. Senate in April 1971 play a role in his discharge? Did Kerry’s protesting of the war while wearing the uniform and while an officer in the U.S. Navy play a role in his discharge?

It is amazing that John Kerry ran for president without disclosing all the facts and that the media barely complained. The media’s friendly treatment of Kerry’s refusal to release all of his military records is its own scandal. More than 100 pages of Kerry’s military records remain undisclosed and hidden. Other candidates for the presidency, including George W. Bush, signed the Standard Form 180 and released 100% of their military records for public review. But John Kerry won’t. Why?

One of the released documents provides powerful evidence that John Kerry was not honorably discharged from the Navy in 1972 when his duty ended. A letter to Kerry from the Secretary of the Navy, dated February 16, 1978, states, “By direction of the President … you are hereby honorably discharged from the U.S. Naval Reserve effective [February 16, 1978]. Had Kerry been honorably discharged in 1972, there would have been no reason for this February 1978 letter.

The February 1978 letter goes on to state, “This action is taken in accordance with the approved recommendations of a board of officers convened under authority of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1163.” Had John Kerry been honorably discharged in 1972, there would have been no need to convene a board of officers and the President would not have needed to direct any review. The only reason to review Kerry’s discharge and the only reason to convene a board of officers was because Kerry was not honorably discharged in 1972.

Jimmy Carter’s first act as President, was to sign Executive Order 4483 less than one hour after his inauguration on January 21, 1977. While still in the Capitol, Carter signed the order granting general amnesty to draft evaders, war protesters and other related offenders of that era. In response to Carter’s order, the Pentagon created procedures by which less than honorable discharges could be reviewed on an individual basis to determine whether a revised honorable discharge could be awarded. Kerry’s February 1978 letter appears to be generated under this procedure. Thus, the best evidence is that John Kerry was not honorably discharged in 1972. Six years after being dishonorably discharged, and only after Jimmy Carter’s amnesty order, Kerry asked to have his discharge status reviewed under the new and more relaxed standards. Apparently, only then did Kerry obtain a revised honorable discharge.

Employers typically ask job applicants with military service if they were discharged honorably. Anything less than an honorable discharge generally disqualifies them from employment. When a man asks America to hire him as the chief executive and the Commander-in-Chief, shouldn’t we know whether he was honorably discharged at the conclusion of his service? Should we know if he required the aid of a general amnesty order six years later? If he wouldn’t be seriously considered for a low level managerial position at most fast food restaurants or large retail store chains, why should such a man be seriously considered for the nation’s highest office?

John Kerry can end the debate by releasing the remaining 100 some pages from his military records. Until he does, America should not take him seriously. It was, after all, John Kerry who made his military service the centerpiece of his campaign. Why shouldn’t Kerry tell the whole story?

###

Mr. Landrith is a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law, where he was Business Editor of the Virginia Journal of Law and Politics. He had a successful law practice in business and litigation. In 1994 and 1996, Mr. Landrith was a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Virginia's Fifth Congressional District. He served on the Albemarle County School Board. Mr. Landrith is an adjunct professor at the George Mason School of Law. He is recognized as an authority on constitutional law and jurisprudence, federalism, global warming, and property rights.

george@ff.org