stuckincincy Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 I've come across that term, with nothing substantial, in connection with Kerry. What I've heard is that he had some obligations either before or after his active duty, and that those requirements were not met or any records are not available. Has anyone else heard anything? And before anybody starts flaming, this is just a question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berg Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Ready Reservists do not regularly participate or "drill", but are still subject to callup. Selected Reservists are those that do participate regularly in drills. Berg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 I've come across that term, with nothing substantial, in connection with Kerry. What I've heard is that he had some obligations either before or after his active duty, and that those requirements were not met or any records are not available. Has anyone else heard anything? And before anybody starts flaming, this is just a question. 8116[/snapback] Haven't heard anything... but then, I don't wallow in the far-right blogs. Perhaps someone who does can point us to a source. Where'd you hear it, Cincy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Oh here it is. From www.crushkerry.com. Imagine dat. It contains such gems as In fact, his hairdo in the 1970-72 period would not meet Navy standards Tell me honestly, do you really think that if all this were true, Colson and O'Neill wouldn't have tried to use it in some fashion when they were working to smear Kerry in 1971? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted August 26, 2004 Author Share Posted August 26, 2004 Ready Reservists do not regularly participate or "drill", but are still subject to callup. Selected Reservists are those that do participate regularly in drills. Berg 8120[/snapback] Thanks, Berg. Appreciate the info. I did a search, but didn't quite get that distinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Oh here it is. From www.crushkerry.com. Imagine dat. It contains such gems as Tell me honestly, do you really think that if all this were true, Colson and O'Neill wouldn't have tried to use it in some fashion when they were working to smear Kerry in 1971? 8134[/snapback] Did they even read the documents they cite? Looks like then navy specifically says Kerry fulfilled all his obligations, both active duty and reserve. What a friggin' brain-dead blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griswold Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Everyone who joins the military has an "initial military obilgation" or IMO. Most IMOs today are eight years. Kerry's IMO was six years. The six years was not a Kerry privilege, is was the norm for the era. During the IMO, you can be active duty, drilling as a Reserve or a non-drilling Reserve. During your IMO, you are subject to military jurisdiction... even if you are a non-drilling Reservist. Generally speaking, people within their IMO fall in one of the following categories: a. Active Duty b. Select Reserve section of the Ready Reserve (someone required to drill) c. Individual Ready Reserve section of the Ready Reserve (someone not required to drill) Kerry shifted from Active Duty to the Ready Reserve in Jan 1970. I don't know if he was SELRES or IRR. Given the publicity of President Bush's drilling records, wouldn't it be interesting to find out if Kerry had an obligation to drill... and didn't. He transferred from the Ready Reserve to the Standby Reserve in 1972. A common cited problem with Kerry were that his post-Viet Nam activities 1970-1972 were against the law for a Ready Reserve sworn officer to be engaged in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Everyone who joins the military has an "initial military obilgation" or IMO. Most IMOs today are eight years. Kerry's IMO was six years. The six years was not a Kerry privilege, is was the norm for the era. During the IMO, you can be active duty, drilling as a Reserve or a non-drilling Reserve. During your IMO, you are subject to military jurisdiction... even if you are a non-drilling Reservist. Generally speaking, people within their IMO fall in one of the following categories: a. Active Duty b. Select Reserve section of the Ready Reserve (someone required to drill) c. Individual Ready Reserve section of the Ready Reserve (someone not required to drill) Kerry shifted from Active Duty to the Ready Reserve in Jan 1970. I don't know if he was SELRES or IRR. Given the publicity of President Bush's drilling records, wouldn't it be interesting to find out if Kerry had an obligation to drill... and didn't. He transferred from the Ready Reserve to the Standby Reserve in 1972. A common cited problem with Kerry were that his post-Viet Nam activities 1970-1972 were against the law for a Ready Reserve sworn officer to be engaged in. 8228[/snapback] Excellent point in the last sentence. I received a memo today reminding everyone of just what they can and can not do, under the law, in terms of politics this election season. actually, very restrictive. Mr. Kerrycould have been prosecuted for his activities, but knew well that the DoD was not going to make him into a martyr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Mr. Kerrycould have been prosecuted for his activities, but knew well that the DoD was not going to make him into a martyr. 8255[/snapback] You know this for a fact, then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griswold Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 You know this for a fact, then? 8301[/snapback] Here's my viewpoint on post-war activities for both Bush/Kerry: I have allot experience in Reserve programs... I know that the programs were sloppily administered in 70's, so unless a smoking gun appears that says either one screwed the pooch with drill participation or conduct... what either one did as a Reservist in the 70's is just noise. Bush: Heck, it's hard to tell who drilled last weekend, not to mention 30 years ago! Kerry: I wouldn't doubt if the Naval Reserve Center gave a signal that they wouldn't raise a stink over his drill attendence or illegal anti-war actions. Bush drill attendence... Kerry anti-war behavior... not a reliable indicator of character due to context issues. Noise. The Active Duty War conduct of Kerry is another matter. This was semi-important to me before the DNC. Post-DNC, because Kerry campaign has made his service a showcase issue, I have to pay more attention. I have to be concerned because they put this center stage with that cheesy salute & speech, but I also have to pay attention because the Kerry campaign is not offering anything else to think about. All we voters have is Cambodia and Medals to think about until Kerry changes that. It's a problem of his own creation. Why did they put the war center stage? I think this was a tactical error. ...and don't blame the Swifties. There are ten times as many 527's pointed against Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 You know this for a fact, then? 8301[/snapback] Yes. Not Kerry, personally, just the rules. S'ok, that will never make a soundbite, as I've already stated this would have made him a political martyr at the time. Not a good move given the times. But being under the cloth and being political are widely separated, and for good reason. Not political, honest response. If you "belong" to the military, you are prohibited from taking sides in many circumstances. Unless you are a total idiot, you know why. Vote how you want, but it is expressly illegal to voice a view under uniform. I'm sorry, throwing your medals over the fence qualifies. One is considered on duty, as the country is at war, but doing things "detrimental to good order and discipline." Like I said, whatever. I understand and have met honor. He's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 Some interesting reading here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 Some interesting reading here. 8934[/snapback] Don't know if it's accurate or not, but that link strikes me as the most honest thing on the subject I've heard yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts