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?
The very fact that John Warner was secretary of the navy and he won't comment is pretty telling. Warner is a Republican. I'll bet Bush knows and doesn't want to make it an issue. If you notice it's really difficult for him to badmouth someone... unless he gets really angry.
I wonder if the moderator at DU is pulling this news item if it has been posted there. They troll here for breaking news and am somewhat surprised not to see a thread on this.
Makes sense and, of course, Jimmy would have condoned his visits with America's enemy during a war.
I have not believed this story from day one, but now I do. This is VERY incriminating evidence. If this story gets picked up by other media it is HUGE. The best part is this story is not making outlandish claims, but simply asking very relevant questions!
Yep... Carter is anti-American to the core... and 9/11 is as much his fault as anyone in the past 25 years.
The only way this gets answered is if in tonight's debate the person asking the questions asks Kerry if he ever had a less than honorable discharge.
Being this is on domestic issues, fat chance.
I would have loved to see it brought up in the first debate. It BELONGED in the first debate and Kerry had the "Democrats" commentator to keep him out of trouble... Even, though, the President had an opportunity when he was trashing him on Iraq and didn't seize the day.
"There are a number of categories of discharges besides honorable. There are general discharges, medical discharges, bad conduct discharges, as well as other than honorable and dishonorable discharges. There is one odd coincidence that gives some weight to the possibility that Mr. Kerry was dishonorably discharged. 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."
Could it be that Kerry NEVER had any medals and "throwing them over the fence" was just a cover for not having them in his possession in the first place?
When questioned about them, Kerry stammered, "medals, ribbons, ribbons, medals..."
Perhaps that's why the Swifties highlighted his stuttering in their ad.
Like Faye Dunaway in "Chinatown" -- "She's my Sister...Daughter...Sister...Daughter..."
It is a big IF indeed, but if it gets legs this will hurt him more than 5 to 10 percent. I think he would lose even Mass. It's not only about having a bad discharge while claiming he is some kind of war hero, it's about the coverup and having a Commander in Chief who had a bad discharge.
It's good politics to keep Bush above this mess. That's what Vice Presidents and Chiefs of Staff are for.
I'm not quite sure about this since I never served in the military, but can't you go buy your medals and ribbons back except for the medal of honor? If so, he could have thrown his medals away and bought new ones.
Kerry's war record is off limits for the Bush Adm. It is just not something he will go into. The MSM will not touch it - so, it is up to others to investigate.
Are we in a country where only the president or the MSM can determine what news we see?
What about the bloggers, FR, talk shows and other writers out there? Are they too insignificant to be able to talk about things they wish?
You bet you can.
And now you can buy all the medals you want through Ebay and such.
Never happen. Massachusetts voters are still proud that they didn't vote for Nixon, they'd vote for Kerry just to spite Bush, who is hated, hated, hated here.
I've been thinking about this story for almost an hour now, and I think the media will try to keep it quite because you're right, it would be DEVASTATING. Because it's not about just another issue that's been chewed over ala Bush's Guard service.
The 2000 DUI story was something that hurt, BUT it did'nt hurt as much as it might have because it was not part of a pattern--Bush did something he was ashamed of and he tried to keep it quiet, as many people would.
But this is like the last link in a chain the Swift Vets have been building for a long time.
I don't think the story has legs. But it will get around on the net. Without it being a major national story, though, I don't see much happening with it.
But it has the potential. And the reason is Kerry's own pushing of his record in Vietnam.
Only via in his service jacket, unless the convening Flag officers have their own records, and release them. (I have copies of all official corresponds I signed, including evaluations, Fitness Reports, and MAST proceedings. Some officers keep nothing, as was the apparent case of Bush's National Guard C.O.. I honestly never met anyone of the sort of character as the Barnett guy who obviously forged documents in an attempt to impune Bush's record and integrity.)
This information is priviledged, and the officers (regardless of their political pursuasion) will do their duty and keep it that way, unless Kerry signs the Form 180.
Would this be something done by executive order?
Yes. The board was apparently convened by Executive Order. The President's order would probably dictate the terms of the Board, i.e. if Carter's general amnesty did not cover Kerry, he most certainly would have written rules for the Board to follow that would have favored Kerry's case. Much as the JAG guys (i.e. lawyers) say "Don't ask a question if you do not already know the answer", President Carter would not have ordered the board convened unless he was certain of the result.
By the way, speaking as a ex-Senior Navy Officer, a board covened by Executive order is simply unheard of. The Secretary of the Navy might order boards for numerious reasons (i.e. to correct errors, right "wrongs" to a POW's record during captivity, etc.). The President gets directly involved, over the head of his appointed cabinet head, when there's a matter of urgent national security, or political patronage involved.
Figure it out.
SFS
Bush better wise up.He has to play hard,this guy will do anything to win.Bush better realize it's for the good of our nation!
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.