1. Slander
2. Dumb. Listen to the tapes of Noxon going off on Kerry. Is they ANY chance he would not have found out and brought it up if Kerry had such a blemish on his record? NO.
3. Counterproductive. There are plenty of things to knock Kerry for that can be documented. Wasting time and bandwidth on Kerry was court martialed/ Kerry was got a bad conduct discharge fantasies doesn't just use up resources better put to good uses, it gives Kerry's supporters in the MSM the chance to dismiss ALL charges against Kerry as unfounded, because some people are making clearly unfounded charges.
So? It is a pressure point. And documents like this can leak: Kerry had his own copy. Who knows who else saw it, or has a copy?
Anybody doing actual research on this should shut up, because it's
1. Nasty unless proven,
2. Useless unless documented, and
3. Counterproductive unless both proven and documented.
Premature spec makes us like the "Bush lied- and kids died!" crowd.
Just an example of stupid and easily refutable statements:
We know Kerry was issued a DD 214 in March 1970 even though his military obligation wasn’t supposed to end until March, 1972, a total of about 6 years (there is an issue of whether his agreed upon total obligation was 6 or 6.5 years). It may be they “turned him loose.” We also know that Kerry received a discharge in March, 1978 but have not seen any associated DD 214.
A DD-214 is issued whenever a service member significantly changes status. Hence, when Kerry finished OCS, he received a DD-214 releasing him from his enlisted service to accept a commission. When he left active duty, he received another DD-214, and when he completed his service obligation altogether, he would have received yet another DD-214.
Somewhere in my own files I have three similar DD-214s: when I was released from the enlisted reserve to accept a reserve commission, when I completed my two years on active duty, and when I completed my entire service obligation. What's so hard for people to understand about multiple DD-214s?
Does your line of thinking also apply to the Bush was AWOL charges? Because it sure doesn't seem to apply for the MSM. Bush has released all his records, and still there is the BIG CONSPIRACY.
Lets compare track records of just one thing. Both major candidates for POTUS both served in the military during the same era, for comparible periods of time. Has either one released their military records? If so WHICH ONE? That is the man who HAS PROVED his forthrightness to the country.
As POTUS one of the most important qualities to have is trust. Some people will be partisan no matter what the proof. These are shameful people not worthy of this country. But who has proved his trust worthiness by releasing his records, while another hides behind his.
You are correct that there are many other issues to go after Kerry. But none of them are as important. KERRY IS THE ONE who has made an issue of his service. Kerry is the one who conspired with the VC. Kerry is the one who testified to the Senate, of the memories of Cambodia SEARED, SEARED into his memory. Either evrything he talks about is real, and happened, for which he is a hero. Or he is a little man trying to prop himself up as larger than life because he has a low self esteem. THAT IS NOT THE TYPE OF MAN WHO SHOULD BE IN CHARGE OF THE MOST POWERFUL MILITARY, ECONOMY, AND INFLUENTIAL COUNTRY OF THE WORLD.
Make no mistake. This is not a small matter. In the big picture, if he IS NOT what he claims to be, then this is the MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE. It affects our national security, and our national sovereignty. Economics and domestic and foreign issues are small potatoes to this one issue. In fact they all hinge on national security and sovereignty.
Rant off
Actually, in this instance, it would be libel (slander is verbal, libel written), if Kerry were not a public figure. The fact that he is means that he is subject to such charges without legal recourse. That is why Ted Kennedy can get on the floor of the Senate and accuse the President of going to war for oil. If the court-martial charge is true, then both slander and libel are wrong. And any attempted defense would be predicated on Kerry releasing his military records... something he has refused to do.
2. Dumb. Listen to the tapes of Noxon going off on Kerry. Is they ANY chance he would not have found out and brought it up if Kerry had such a blemish on his record? NO.
Yes. Plenty of chances. There are many facts about Kerry's service and actions after the war that were not known at the time. Why didn't Nixon bring up the phony Purple Hearts, or the Winter Soldier liars, or Kerry meeting with the Viet Cong, or... the list goes on and on.
3. Counterproductive. There are plenty of things to knock Kerry for that can be documented. Wasting time and bandwidth on Kerry was court martialed/ Kerry was got a bad conduct discharge fantasies doesn't just use up resources better put to good uses, it gives Kerry's supporters in the MSM the chance to dismiss ALL charges against Kerry as unfounded, because some people are making clearly unfounded charges.
I seem to remember the same arguments about the Swift Vets, and they single-handedly blew Kerry's "Reporting for Duty" BS out of the water. There is a compelling reason to ask Kerry how a 6 year service takes 10 years to complete. What happened to those missing four years. Did he re-enlist after going before the Senate and calling the US Military the Army of Ghengis Khan? Or does he have another reason. Perhaps a court-martial that was then covered by Carter's amnesty, letting Kerry re-apply for a discharge. It is a legitimate question given the issues involved. Can a CIC have a court-martial in his background? It would help explain why Kerry won't make his records public. The electorate deserves an answer, and as long as Kerry refuses to release all of his records, he has only himself to blame.