| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 10/13/2004 7:39:23 PM PDT by Sidebar Moderator, reason:
Duplicate still in breaking http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1243544/posts |
Posted on 10/13/2004 5:26:34 AM PDT by LOC1
An official Navy document on Senator Kerry's campaign Web site listed as Mr. Kerry's "Honorable Discharge from the Reserves" opens a door on a well kept secret about his military service.
The document is a form cover letter in the name of the Carter administration's secretary of the Navy, W. Graham Claytor. It describes Mr. Kerry's discharge as being subsequent to the review of "a board of officers." This in it self is unusual. There is nothing about an ordinary honorable discharge action in the Navy that requires a review by a board of officers.
According to the secretary of the Navy's document, the "authority of reference" this board was using in considering Mr. Kerry's record was "Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163. "This section refers to the grounds for involuntary separation from the service. What was being reviewed, then, was Mr. Kerry's involuntary separation from the service. And it couldn't have been an honorable discharge, or there would have been no point in any review at all. The review was likely held to improve Mr. Kerry's status of discharge from a less than honorable discharge to an honorable discharge.
A Kerry campaign spokesman, David Wade, was asked whether Mr. Kerry had ever been a victim of an attempt to deny him an honorable discharge. There has been no response to that inquiry.
snip
Mr. Kerry has claimed that he lost his medal certificates and that is why he asked that they be reissued. But when a dishonorable discharge is issued, all pay benefits, and allowances, and all medals and honors are revoked as well. And five months after Mr. Kerry joined the U.S. Senate in 1985, on one single day, June 4, all of Mr. Kerry's medals were reissued.
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
I posted this on another board and the liberals went apopletic. I hope Rush and the others get hot on this story. The Dems pushed the NG story forever. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
There's another thread urging caution for the very reason you describe. I'm just a passenger on this issue. I'll wait for the judgement of the experts. There's certainly enough pajama clad researchers on FR to get to the bottom of it!
What is not speculation is:
Kerry's poltical opinion thru 1969 becomes incompatible
with Navy service.
Kerry requested separation from active duty in
late '69 / early '70, was released from active on 3-1-70.
Kerry's (reserve) obligation ended in 1972,
but he hangs around till 1978 ??
ex-Texan =
"Exceptional-Texan"?
;^)
I suppose it could be stated that an officer has
some 'open ended relationship' to the service, but it is
certanly not a 'compelled-lifetime' relationship.
Kerry had an ethical obligation to end his
sham 'service' in the Reserves by resigning, when
it was appropriate to do so.
On this subject, maybe the more threads the better. You might want to check out this thread for how the story developed. It is still active.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1243434/posts?page=326#326
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.