Posted on 10/13/2004 12:54:03 AM PDT by politicket
Edited on 10/13/2004 1:07:27 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Excerpt:
Mystery Surrounds Kerry's Navy Discharge
BY THOMAS LIPSCOMB - Special to the Sun
October 13, 2004
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/3107
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.
The document is dated February 16, 1978. But Mr. Kerry's military commitment began with his six-year enlistment contract with the Navy on February 18, 1966. His commitment should have terminated in 1972. It is highly unlikely that either the man who at that time was a Vietnam Veterans Against the War leader, John Kerry, requested or the Navy accepted an additional six year reserve commitment. And the Claytor document indicates proceedings to reverse a less than honorable discharge that took place sometime prior to February 1978.
The most routine time for Mr. Kerry's discharge would have been at the end of his six-year obligation, in 1972. But how was it most likely to have come about?
This could get very interesting. I have a feeling that the MSM will ignore it though.
Somebody needs to respond to this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1243687/posts?page=36#36
BTTT
Same thing for GWB. There was some hotshot-in-his-own-mind writer (Village Voice's Perlstein, I think) who came around and answered Freepers' questions for an afternoon. I asked him point-blank what was the most undeniable lie that Bush made, VERBATIM.
He didn't come up with anything from Bush, only some lame EPA report.
Why is that I get such a sense of satisfaction that someone is letting the facts tell the story in a newspaper?
Facts are so much more interesting than fiction when it concerns news items of the day...
This makes no sense. Carter wasn't president in 1985 -- Reagan was.
btt!!!!!!
This sentence strikes me as...odd.
Lipscomb was lobbing one to the Kerry camp over the fat part of the "Nixon and Colson set me up" plate. Camp Kerry didn't swing. Yet when Kerry's FBI files were stolen from his biographer they were all over any connection to Nixon they could make. Democrats love to go after Nixon like Barry Bonds after a flat slider.
Isn't it interesting that the Kerry campaign's bat is still on its shoulder? This was very artful questioning by Tom Lipscomb.
I appreciate the info and it only points out that it is easy to get confused using these terms. Perhaps I should have not written what I did in upper case since it may have been seen as disrespective towards others service. I was trying to make a point about Dishonorable Discharges and Bad Conduct Discharges not applying to officers but only to enlisted. I guess I did not make my point clear.
I have faith Drudge will put it up and he'll probably have something to add. Will the Old Media ignore this till the election, you bet! The sooner we have a Republican make the charge, the better!
"This section refers to the grounds for involuntary separation from the service.
BUMP!
bttt
More comentary
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/1243670/posts?page=26
That was my feeling !
Couldn't we look at his tax returns for the years surrounding the medals reissue and determine if he magically started receiving benefits?
Thanks for the ping!
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.