Posted on 11/06/2007 6:38:16 PM PST by Phil Harmonic
Unfortunately "Occam's Razor" doesn't support your contention that the DD214 in question was the product of a Carter amnesty reissuance. Let's be damn careful here.
By the way, in poking around the net, I stumbled onto an exchange on this subject that you might find to be of interest...
"Did Sen John Kerry receive an Honorable Discharge from the Navy?"
Occam's razor points in that direction (IMO), as does the discussion in the link that you provided. The guy was hiding *something*, and I'm convinced that it was something more than the poor grades that he pretended it was all about when he released data to two friendly reporters.
As you can see, it's a looooong discussion, and it's very hard for me to delve back into all of that again, as I spent several months mulling over that stuff back before (and after) the election. I find it painful and unpleasant to delve into the realm of digging up dirt on a retired servicemember, even Kerry. Unless he makes more noise about running I'll leave it all lie where it's at.
But if he rears his ugly head again I'll be once again sending my money to the Swift Boat Veterans and POW's for Truth, that is, if they have the desire to yet again get themselves slandered for honor and duty.
Well to be reasonable, I don't recall that he did any such thing in 2004 and there's nothing in the article to suggest that he's doing that now.
The direct quote was that they were putting together a "documented portfolio" about SBVT claims which the paper apparently decided to describe as a "dossier" on SBVT. A dossier is a collection of documents about a subject or person, and there's nothing here that says they're collecting documents about individuals. People should just be careful in reading things into this.
“Well to be reasonable, I don’t recall that he did any such thing in 2004 and there’s nothing in the article to suggest that he’s doing that now.”
The only problem is, that, in this matter, Kerry and his mentions are not reasonable, and you are wrong.
Why would the article, written to explain away Kerry’s problems with his Vietnam-era record mention any nefarious activities conducted on his behalf.
But in fact, one of the men the article does mention, Mr. French, did in fact have his personal background (not his Swiftvet experience) looked into by Kerry’s investigators. Out of the many different Swiftvets who openly supported the authors of Unfit for Command, why was Mr. French (and so few others, made an example of, in the media and otherwise, by Kerry’s hit teams? Because, long before in his past, Mr. French made an official statement concerning his marriage and that statement was in error. The Democrat operatives who had looked for this “dirt” “exposed” Mr. French for that error, based on that exposure used it to portray that he must otherwise be a liar, on other issues as well, and sought, and succeeded in having the government official French worked under to fire French - for something that had no basis or impact on his job.
Out of the hundreds of Swiftvets who openly and officially and publicly spoke out in support of the authors of Unfit for Command, Mr. French became the Kerry teams poster child for the Swiftvets, because they had dug up some dirt on him.
In addition, when the publisher for Unfit for Command announced the release of the book, lawyers working for Kerry wrote a letter to the publisher threatening them with a lawsuit if they released the book. That threat was ignored. Still, as the release date neared, Kerry’s lawyers contacted Amazon, Borders and Barnes and Noble and warned them they could get tied up in any legal issue Kerry had with the publisher. Fortunately, those threats were ignored as well.
The point? The point is that Kerry is a sleezebag and tried everything he could to intimidate the authors, the publisher, the booksellers and any individual Swiftvets that he could. Those efforts included looking for personal issues that the Swiftvet members could be exposed for. Mr. French was their most successful target in that regard.
Sorry for taking so long to respond, but I just saw your post.
I don’t think that’s accurate about Al French. According to all accounts, it was French’s admission that he didn’t have firsthand knowledge of what he had sworn to in his affidavit that made news.
And it was a professional rival - another Republican - who turned him in to his boss, not for saying something in “error” about his marriage, but for lying about an affair with a coworker in violation of office rules.
http://wweek.com/story.php?story=5471
He wasn’t fired, but suspended during the investigation. Last I heard he still had his job.
“U.S. Sen. John Kerry’s comments on Monday regarding a possible future bid for the presidency,”
Who’s Jon Carry? Never heard of him...
"MADE news" is even more apropos than I think you know. "Manufactured" is probably more accurate. It was nonsense.
That Al French was somehow compelled to "admit" to not having firsthand knowledge is an absurd reporter's mis-characterization of Mr. French's comment and probably based upon either a deliberate or ignorant MIS-QUOTE of Mr. French's original affidavit (which stands unamended) disseminated by KGW-News and others on the net. Here is what KGW-News reported on Aug 23, 2004...(highlights mine)
Before recording the ad, French did indeed sign an affidavit that said: "I am able to swear, as I do hereby swear, that all facts and statements contained in this affidavit are true and correct and within my personal knowledge and belief."Here is the ACTUAL text of Mr. French's affidavit...
"I am able to swear, as I do hereby swear, that all facts and statements contained in this affidavit are true and correct and within my personal knowledge or belief."
Sorry, all I know is that when questioned about the matter, he said he didn’t have firsthand knowledge of what he had sworn to. I assume it was part of an otherwise published or televised interview.
I see that the TV report mis-characterized the wording, but to be fair he did swear “that all facts and statements contained in this affidavit are true and correct.”
It just doesn’t seem like a real bright move by a lawyer of all people.
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.