[O.C. - Old Cracker]

O'Neill's not hiding a thing. A number of American POWs have talked about having Kerry's Senate testimony shoved in their face during their imprisonment in North Vietnam by their monkey captors.

Please explain this statement of yours:

Boy do I hope I have to eat the words I've typed here, discouraging freepers from running with the John Kerry 'bad paper' rumors.

[Mike Fieschko]

Please explain this statement of yours:

Boy do I hope I have to eat the words I've typed here, discouraging freepers from running with the John Kerry 'bad paper' rumors.

Sure. The rumors of Kerry's bad paper have been coming up here for months. (Use search: 'Kerry discharge'.)

Many freepers have contributed to the discussion. Thousands of posts.

My thoughts have been that it's unlikely that Kerry ever got a less-than-honorable discharge/separation (bad paper), and I've expressed that thought many times.

No one has put forth anything but speculation that his discharge/separation was not honorable, no documents, no statements from those present during the events. The blowback potential is enormous and so far, Kerry's skated on what he's released. If the story starts to gain traction (the story that he got bad paper), and Kerry is holding some document(s) in reserve which disprove the story, the credibility earned by the SBVT or others is destroyed, and Kerry comes across as a victim.

I don't think I'm reaching when I read between the lines of John O'Neil's statement to infer he's aware of something which establishes that there is a legitimate question whether Kerry got a less-than-honorable. O'Neil didn't say 'Release your records' or 'Sign the 180', he raised the possibility that there's another DD214 (separation/discharge record) out there that's relevant to evaluating the character of Kerry's military service.

So, if this document comes out, I will have been proved wrong. That's why I remarked about eating my words.