Skip to comments.Kerry's Dishonorable Discharge, Part III
Posted on 10/31/2004 5:55:53 PM PST by ConservativeVoice
OK, it seems Dishonorable Discharge is probably not the right title. Kerry could only have received one of those if he was court-martialed and convicted, which would be part of the public record. However, he most likely received a less-than-honorable discharge.
Earl Lively, a 30+ year veteran of the military makes a convincing case here. You may remember that Colonel Lively was the Director of Operations at Texas Air National Gaurd Headquarters when Bush served.
His contention, as was mine in an earlier post, is that the Navy is "stonewalling" the release of documentation that would incriminate Kerry to cover up its own institutional complicity in protecting him under Carter.
The Navy doesn't want to admit it succumbed to political pressure to restore honors stripped from a discredited turncoat. In hiding the truth, the Navy Department dishonors even the lowest-ranking sailor who ever swabbed a deck. One of his key points is the confusion, compunded by Kerry's own disingenuous explanations, surrounding the reissue of his medal certificates. This just does not ring true.
Senator Kerry has said that his medal certificates were reissued because he lost them (and his dog ate his homework, I suppose). Rewards are certified in one's permanent personnel record jacket. If you lose a medal, you can get a replacement medal if your records show the award. The only way awards would have to be reissued is if they were rescinded and deleted from your records. And this narrows the possibilities down to a dishonorable discharge or an undesirable discharge.It will a tragedy if we allow this man to be elected.
I'm sorta thinking that the White House is leaning on the
SBVFT to lay off this because the WH is using the whole
stinking pile of Kerry records to prevent Kerry and the
DNC from doing something really damaging.
Anyone who cares about Kerry's true record, has more than
enough info already to determine that he's a fraud who
has been selling out this country since 1971, if not earlier.
you mean, they are afraid a late revelation would back-fire?
Because we have seen that nothing seems to stick to THIS guy, yet...
Assume that I don't know anything about military discharges (which I don't).
Can someone explain the basic ones are?
> they are afraid a late revelation would back-fire?
Possibly, particularly if it was the Ford admin that
got Kerry off the hook (a speculation on the SBVFT forum).
But I don't think back-fire is the concern. Something
else is afoot here.
Why I wouldn't be concerned about back-fire:
At this point, are there any pro-Kerry people who both
grasp what an OTH means, and would be swayed by it?
Maybe, particularly if it's emphasized that this is proof
that Kerry is lying about having released "all his records".
"Ummm, err, ah ... I didn't have a copy of that."
> Something else is afoot here.
To continue wild speculation ...
If it's revealed that Kerry has an OTH, he might actually
have to step down from the candidacy, and that might
improve the Dems chances, since "a candidate to be named
later" wouldn't have all Kerry's negs.
welcome. cruise around here for some other posts about sKerry and they'll fill you in.
would not Edwards move to the top - and they only have 2 days...
If Kerry steps down ...
> would not Edwards move to the top - and they only have 2 days...
Frankly, I don't know.
What WOULD happen, however, is that the Swifties and
the POWs would stand down, because they aren't necessarily
pro-Bush, just anti-Kerry.
Kerry needs to stay right where he is, on the ballot.
RE: "cruise around here for some other posts about sKerry and they'll fill you in."