Skip to comments.Mystery Surrounds Kerry's Navy Discharge
Posted on 10/13/2004 12:54:03 AM PDT by politicketEdited on 10/13/2004 1:07:27 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Mystery Surrounds Kerry's Navy Discharge
BY THOMAS LIPSCOMB - Special to the Sun
October 13, 2004
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?
Here it is.
I was hoping the same thing... I'm not willing to pay $65 to find out the answer to the question.
go to http://www.bugmenot.com
I posted it on the previous thread. Check my last postings. If this violates any agreements, feel free to edit.
>>>go to http://www.bugmenot.com
They got none - try to look up, and it goes straight to the 'add' screen...
Worked for me.
ping to article text for discussion
I'm scared to hell that this guy just might win. Wow.
Well, well, well, sKerry can run, but he can't hide.
I just don't think anyone will ask the questions that should be asked. The questions they'll ask will be "President Bush, were you involved in the release of this story?"
He had a 'other than honorable' discharge changed by Jimmy Carter??
We will see if this story gets the national attention that it would if it involved a Republican.
I am convinced that President Bush will receive more legitimate votes in the Electorial College and popularly. I am not convinced that the MASSIVE voter fraud that the Democrats are orchestrating, even worse than their usual, can be overcome.
Work and pray.
(By the way to Admin Mod, if there is any issue with the article posting above please convert it to an excerpt. I did not see any, but just in case. Thanks.)
Not really an October suprise, but a nice clean article detailing how lurch gamed the system leading to the probable case that he originally had a less than 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.
This sentence strikes me as...odd.
If, and that's a BIG IF, this story gets legs then it could prove to be worth at least 5% - 10% in the polls.
I have been to bugmenot.com about twenty times, and have yet to be offered a login and password that work.
type in http://www.nysun.com and it will give you different passwords than say www.nysun.com. The full article is arround here though.
Thanks for adding the excerpted header...
I would have bet money Carter was involved in this thing; looks like I'm right. No wonder he had the place of honor at the Democratic Convention.
Other than that, I don't see anything that will ring anyone's bells. We need a lot more than this for an October surprise.
I would hope that when a member of our armed forces chooses to consort with the enemy that he, too, might be called to account. Isn't that due some sort of review?
Why is Kerry exempt from penalty for his actions?
Sounds like a smoking gun that overshadows anything the Democrats have tried to throw against Bush's service record. It would also be quite instructive of why they tried so hard to tarnish Bush's record, when their candidate was a "genuine war hero". If Kerry had a BCD or DD, he'd have to be "toast" to a large part of the electorate during a time of war. They badly needed to innoculate Kerry against an "October surprise".
It's above the Bushie aristocratic sense of "fair play" for the Bush campaign to go after Kerry's service record on any basis (which makes charges by the left that Bush is behind the Swift Boat Vets all that more ludicrous). And, of course, not a single mainstream media organization, including Fox News with bring this up, or challege Kerry to sign his Form 180. If they had, we'd be long past the Vietnam war issue. This will be dismissed by the MSM as "all old news".
Of course Kerry's hiding his past. And, of course, his core 40% supporters know what he is, and they regard his pro-Communist treason during the Vietnam war as a real plus. Kerry is, in fact, the mainstream of the Democrat party, which today is just a bit to the political right of Lenin and Ho-Chi-Minh.
The fact that this is not blasting from a Drudge headline is about all you need to know about this story. It can't be news, because it'll never see the light of day beyond the New York Sun.
Looks to me that he was given a less than honorable and then when Jimmy Carter took office he was among the "lucky" people who had their dishonorables reversed. The last paragraph gives the biggest clue -- all his medals were reissued on one day in 1985. Since when someone received a dishonorable the medals are all revoked -- they had obviously been revoked and thanks to Jimmy reinstated.
Obviously, if he had nothing to hide, he would have signed the form 180. In my mind, a candidate for POTUS, that refuses to disclose his military record is unfit for said office. Were he a Republican, you can bet the farm that the national media would be hitting him very, very hard on this issue.
Drudge just missed it. Tomorrow AM is will be on his site, though maybe not the top headline.
That sounds about right--5-10. The thing is, the support for Kerry is SO shallow that it's not going to take a lot to take the drive out of certain voters who sorta kinda but don't really support him.
For the sake of argument let's say there is nothing to this--OK, then, why the heck doesn't Kerry release that information? Let's say he DOES release exculpatory information--why did he let this story get so far? If he had this data, why not get it out in the primaries--why keep it secret in the first place?
No one who COULD clear up such a story would let it sit out there, waiting for a time like this.
See also this thread, for pre-publication speculation and analysis:
Wow! Good analysis...
We'll have to see what Rush, Sean, and Drudge do with this. If it stays only where it's at, then I give it a life of one day (the weekend will kill it).
Sadly, I agree. Now, if someone somewhere has something solid to go onsay, if one of the Swiftvets can prove that Kerry was dishonorably dischargedthen we might be in business. However, this article has all the hallmarks of a reporter who's been chasing hard facts for months and finally given up and run with all he's got. There's no reason to believe this will scare out the proof the reporter failed to find over the summer.
Put it this way: If someone printed a story this flimsy regarding Bush, we'd fisk him to pieces and mock the bleeding remains. Which isn't to say I doubt this story at allin fact, one of the legitimate questions about Kerry's alleged contacts with the North Vietnamese has been, "If that's true why wasn't he court-martialed?" But our believing a story, and Sally Soccer-Mom believing it enough to change her vote, are two very, very different things.
first someone from the era needs to compare the docs to their discharge, that will show a lot...One thing I thought was odd was it went through New Orleans..must be a reason for that...
Rush is off today, I believe Roger H. is the fill in for today.
Sorry, Travis. You're dreaming. If he has a past DD or BCD, for one thing, it may not even be in the records. When the CIC gets involved, a Service Record can clean up quite nicely. The tell-tail signs may be there, i.e. the Board convened 10 years late, reissued medals, etc., but there may not be a single word explaining the actions of the board, or why the action was taken.
I have very little hope that Kerry will sign the 180, nor that anyone in the mainstream press will challenge him to do so. All it would take is one question in one debate.. just one, and it'll never happen. Even if 100 people WANTED to ask that question in the last debate, ABC's Gibson would never allow it. What on earth would cause Kerry to fall on his sword at this point?
This is a dead issue. The only thing, and I mean ONLY thing that would reopen it is if the officers on the convening board spoke up, and to be honest, if I were one of the Flag officers on it, I think I'd be duty bound to say nothing, unless the Dept of the Navy directed me to comment. We need their testimony, and some "smoking gun" documents from before the Service Jacket purge.
Is there any way to determine who was on this board?
Would this be something done by executive order?
Makes a lot more sense than the phoney Rather, 60-minutes story.
News always breaks when Rush takes a vacation (including 9/11).
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..."