"Further, one has to wonder why ABC News will not address the serious questions as to why John Kerry only received an honorable discharge through the act of then President Carter seven years after his discharge"
Seven years after his **release from active duty and transfer to the standby reserves**, not his "discharge," if the documents linked above are authentic. Sorry, but there's no 'there' there.
There are plenty of things of which Kerry is guilty
to bear down on. I wish people would drop this red herring.
It reminds me of when the Lewinsky thing was used to distract attention from Beelzebubba's real crimes.
Also, what documentation is there that Carter intervened personally on Kerry's behalf? (Not that I'd put it past the doddering old idiot.)
"and had to have all of his military citations reissued, on the same day,"
Admin stuff tends to get done in batches. Nature of the beast. Again, a "reissue" is only worthy of note if:
1. We want to say that the reason he needed them reissued was that he disrespectfully threw them away, which is not a crime; or
2. He improperly had one or more citations rewritten to make himself look better, which would be a crime.
"And, finally, why has Nightline found it of no interest"
Because they are a pack of despicable left-wing sleazebucket liars.
You are wrong because the time period for a rewrite would not normally allow it to be done so many years after the fact and Kerry can not explain why it was necessary to have two separate re-writes.
You obviously don't understand the pain that Kerry's treachery has caused the Vietnam Veterans. Kerry is the one who continuously brings up the issue and the veterans have a right, an obligation to denounce Kerry's candidacy for Commander in Chief. How can someone who had their top secret classification stripped be Commander in Chief, someone who admittedly consorted with the enemy in a time of war?