Documents Discovered, Shows Hanoi Directed Kerry

Damn!

For his part, Kerry claims he received an "Honorable Discharge" and that all his records have been released and are posted on his website, Kerry-04.com -- uh, make that JohnKerry.com. But Kerry has refused to say when he received an Honorable Discharge. Indeed, some of his military records are posted on his site -- but not all of them. Here, an experienced eye can read enough into what has been released by Kerry to develop a good profile of what hasn't been released.

It is our considered opinion, therefore, that John Kerry was separated from the military under a less than honorable discharge.

Among Kerry's released records is a 1977 cover letter from Jimmy Carter's Navy Secretary, W. Graham Claytor. What is revealing about this document is that it notes Kerry's original discharge was subject to review by a "board of officers" -- yet no such review should be necessary for an Honorable Discharge.

The review was conducted in accordance with "Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163," which pertains to grounds for involuntary separation from military service.

As many Vietnam veterans who served their nation with dignity and honor will recall, Jimmy Carter's first official act as president was the signing of Executive Order 4483 --less than an hour after his inauguration on 21 January 1977. EO 4483 provided general amnesty for draft evaders, war protesters and other offenders of that era. Its corresponding, and equally dubious, DoD directive took effect in March of 1977, expanding that amnesty to include separation from military service by other than honorable discharges. The DoD specified an appeal procedure whereby discharges could be reviewed on an individual basis to determine whether the status of a particular discharge could be revised.
 
dilloduck said:
Wouldn't those in the DNC in charge of vetting Kerry have known this all along?
Yes Dillo, they have been very quiet with this and as we all know, silent waters run deep.
 
dilloduck said:
Wouldn't those in the DNC in charge of vetting Kerry have known this all along?

Which is an even bigger reason for the DNC to keep this one very close to the vest. If true I wonder if it will get out in time to make a difference in the election?
 
Bonnie said:
Which is an even bigger reason for the DNC to keep this one very close to the vest. If true I wonder if it will get out in time to make a difference in the election?

Let's hope so. If it is discovered after a Kerry victory Edwards becomes President. I'm not entirely sure, but I think that would probably be worse.
 
drowe said:

Wow. I guess I should have been more specific in saying that I have not seen this story from any publication, media outlet, print, or website that I know does not lean to the right on every single story, like the top link you provided, newsmax, which is nothing but a mouthpiece for Republicans.
 
Palestinian Jew said:
Wow. I guess I should have been more specific in saying that I have not seen this story from any publication, media outlet, print, or website that I know does not lean to the right on every single story, like the top link you provided, newsmax, which is nothing but a mouthpiece for Republicans.

Nothing but a mouthpiece? They don't report the news? Then surely you won't mid grabbing a handful of their recent NEWS stories and proving them false and/or inaccurate.

Sure, they are a conservative website. Does that mean their stories should be discarded?

I don't believe they should be immediately discredited just because they are conservative. Newsmax is hardly a move-on type site.
 
Bonnie said:
Which is an even bigger reason for the DNC to keep this one very close to the vest. If true I wonder if it will get out in time to make a difference in the election?

Does it matter?-----should Kerry win would he be legally allowed to take the oath of office?
 
See here's the thing. You all are attacking Kerry for crap that happend 33 years ago. 33 years ago, George W. Bush was living off his father's money, snorting cocaine and dodging the draft. 33 years ago, I was not even alive. 33 years ago people thought the color television was high-tech. 33 years ago, Disco hadn't been invented yet. People change in 33 years. Both Kerry and Bush have grown up in 34 years. It is clear the right has nothing on Kerry from current times, so they have to focus on crap that went on 33 years ago. It's the same thing you tried to do to Bill and Hillary Clinton (remember White Water?). It didn't work then, it wont' work now.

Also, I'm curious. Where does it say that someone who is dishonorably discharged from the military can't run for President? The only Constitutional requirements for the office are natural born citizen at least 40 years old. And unless Kerry committed treason, served in the armed forces of a nation at war with the U.S., became a citizen of another country, or formally renounced it, he can't lose his citizenship.


acludem
 
acludem said:
33 years ago, George W. Bush was living off his father's money, snorting cocaine and dodging the draft

Are you going to return here after Bush wins the election next week? Your garbage posts are going to be more comical than they already are. Have you also vowed to leave the country if Bush gets elected?

Damn, I'm going to enjoy knowing that people who post retarded shit like this will be living with 4 more years of Bush!
 
acludem said:
See here's the thing. You all are attacking Kerry for crap that happend 33 years ago. 33 years ago, George W. Bush was living off his father's money, snorting cocaine and dodging the draft. 33 years ago, I was not even alive. 33 years ago people thought the color television was high-tech. 33 years ago, Disco hadn't been invented yet. People change in 33 years. Both Kerry and Bush have grown up in 34 years. It is clear the right has nothing on Kerry from current times, so they have to focus on crap that went on 33 years ago. It's the same thing you tried to do to Bill and Hillary Clinton (remember White Water?). It didn't work then, it wont' work now.

Also, I'm curious. Where does it say that someone who is dishonorably discharged from the military can't run for President? The only Constitutional requirements for the office are natural born citizen at least 40 years old. And unless Kerry committed treason, served in the armed forces of a nation at war with the U.S., became a citizen of another country, or formally renounced it, he can't lose his citizenship.


acludem

Even if we conceded that Bush was doing all these things 33 years ago. (I have my doubts) You dont seem to understand what these documents supposedly show. If these documents are facts then Kerry did commit treason. And i think that is alittle more serious than living off dad;s money or snorting crack.
 
Zhukov said:
Really? How interesting.

Is there anything between a dishonorable and an honorable discharge? Is there a plain old 'discharge'?

There is a General Discharge. It's usually reserved for things like being discharged early due to injury or illness or people who don't break laws and such but break the rules. An example might be someone that can't meet the weight requirements.

As far as not being able to run for President, I don't know if that's the case or not. I do know, depending on the situation, some liberties can be taken away.
 
If Kerry does have a dishonorable discharge (pardoned or not!) it raises a whole bunch of questions, not the least of which is were his acts regarding the North Vietnamese and his post Vietnam activism treasonous?

How incongruous would it be to have a person with a dishonorable discharge as Commander in Chief? If you thought the military hated Clinton, just wai until they try that on for size! I cannot imagine the military trying to cope with that situation.

Also, if the documents are real (and I say IF), then there is the whole issue of the legitimacy of a Kerry presidency. Can a pardoned criminal be eligible for the Presidency?

Talk about a can of worms!
 
CSM said:
If Kerry does have a dishonorable discharge (pardoned or not!) it raises a whole bunch of questions, not the least of which is were his acts regarding the North Vietnamese and his post Vietnam activism treasonous?

How incongruous would it be to have a person with a dishonorable discharge as Commander in Chief? If you thought the military hated Clinton, just wai until they try that on for size! I cannot imagine the military trying to cope with that situation.

Also, if the documents are real (and I say IF), then there is the whole issue of the legitimacy of a Kerry presidency. Can a pardoned criminal be eligible for the Presidency?

Talk about a can of worms!



I've looked high and low and can't find it, but didn't someone start a thread recently titled, "Mystery surrounds Kerry discharge"? Hell, yeah - I KNOW they did, because we were all making wisecracks and one-liners in it.

Anyway, I seem to remember that, in the link, it was stated that no one who has been dishonorably discharged can even as much as hold public office! This would endanger even Kerry's senate seat, wouldn't it?
 
Not absolutely sure about the running for office thing. The fact is that once Carter fixed up Kerry's record for him, he probably is eligible. The fact that his discharge had to be reviewed by a board of officers ans that at the request of the President of the United States indicates that his discharge from the Naval Reserve was less than honorable. Honorable discharges dont have to be reviewed by anyone.

Just so ya know, Kerry's discharge was reviewed after Carter passed (by executive order) amnesty for drafter dodgers and war protesters.
 
Right. Exquisite timing, eh? Funny how a man who signed up for a six-year hitch in 1966 doesn't show a formal discharge until 12 years later - exactly the time when Carter was handing out get-out-of-jail-free cards. The fact that Kerry could stop all this by signing Form 180 - but doesn't - tells me that whatever is in that military record must be pretty damning. This would be the story of the year for any journalist interested in actually ferreting out news....instead, PBS was busy running a hatchet piece on Rumsfeld last night. Nothing wrong here.

Thanks for the info, CSM.
 
acludem said:
See here's the thing. You all are attacking Kerry for crap that happend 33 years ago. 33 years ago, George W. Bush was living off his father's money, snorting cocaine and dodging the draft. 33 years ago, I was not even alive. 33 years ago people thought the color television was high-tech. 33 years ago, Disco hadn't been invented yet. People change in 33 years. Both Kerry and Bush have grown up in 34 years. It is clear the right has nothing on Kerry from current times, so they have to focus on crap that went on 33 years ago. It's the same thing you tried to do to Bill and Hillary Clinton (remember White Water?). It didn't work then, it wont' work now.

Also, I'm curious. Where does it say that someone who is dishonorably discharged from the military can't run for President? The only Constitutional requirements for the office are natural born citizen at least 40 years old. And unless Kerry committed treason, served in the armed forces of a nation at war with the U.S., became a citizen of another country, or formally renounced it, he can't lose his citizenship.


acludem

Here's the thing Dem.

You guys (democrats) nearly wet your pants with all the excitement of Bush allegedly being AWOL and claimed he wasn't fit for the presidency. But he was still honorably discharged.

Now when Kerry’s discharge comes into question your response is,
"Where does it say that someone who is dishonorably discharged from the military can't run for President".

Do you guys actually not notice your hypocrisy?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top