Like I said...what do you base this on? It would appear to me he was
honorably
discharged. I know if it was a fact that he was not, we'd have heard
about it
ad nauseam by now.
They are not basing it on anything other than trying to fabricate something
bad to say about a democrat war hero. They aught to be ashamed of
themselves.
Anyway you look at it, Kerry's war record is far superior to nonexistent one
of that awol inept dopehead Dubya.
There is no contest at all.
"escapee" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 19:38:52 -0500, zxcvbob opined:
escapee wrote:
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 13:27:20 -0500, zxcvbob
opined:
If Kerry sues the SwiftBoatVets, or anyone else for that matter,
regarding his Vietnam war service, his military records will be
subpoenaed and everyone will see his discharge papers from the early
70's, not just the version that was reviewed and reissued in 1978 by
order of President Carter. I suspect he *really* wants to keep those
original papers buried.
Kerry never should have made his military service the centerpiece of
his
campaign, because that makes it an issue for close scrutiny. If he had
kept his mouth shut about it, everyone already knew his military
service
(on the surface anyway) was better than Bush and Chaney. I doubt his
service record stands up to close scrutiny.
Best regards,
Bob
Based on what?
A few months ago, an old college buddy of mine who is a retired Air
Force officer was badmouthing Kerry for protesting the Vietnam War. I
told him that whatever else I thought of Kerry, I believed he had earned
the right to protest the war. (that kind of ****ed him off) Recently,
he sent me a bunch of information that suggests that Kerry may have
originally received a dishonorable discharge. I've looked up some of
the info myself, and I think the dishonorable discharge thing is
plausible but the evidence is *very* stretchy. However I do believe it
presents a strong case that he did not receive an honorable discharge:
From JohnKerry.com, his separation from Active Duty was on March 1,
1970. http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_..._timeline.html
Now notice the date [Feb 16, 1978] on this document:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilse...e_From_Reserve.
pdf
This was right after President Carter granted amnesty to "draft dodgers"
(a little background info that doesn't directly affect this case but
sets the atmosphere.)
Now the phrases "by direction of the President" [Carter] and "board
officers convened under authority of reference to examine the official
records...", and "Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163".
Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163 refers to the grounds for
involuntary separation from the service. What was being reviewed, then,
was Mr. Kerry's involuntary separation from the service. If his
original separation had been an honorable discharge, there would have
been no need for a review. The review was likely held to improve Mr.
Kerry's status of discharge from a less than honorable discharge to an
honorable discharge.
We'll never know unless Kerry sues the SBV's for libel (and they
subpoena the records), because Kerry will not release his full military
records.
Best regards,
Bob
Like I said...what do you base this on? It would appear to me he was
honorably
discharged. I know if it was a fact that he was not, we'd have heard
about it
ad nauseam by now.
Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html