More Weight to the "Vote Early So Ya Can't Back Out" Theory
it's October and it's raining surprises... I'm also wondering if the KerryKrew might wish everyone's vote were already safely cast when this comes out...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. [Point #2]...The "board of officers" review reported in the Claytor document is even more extraordinary because it came about "by direction of the President." No normal honorable discharge requires the direction of the president. The president at that time was James Carter. This adds another twist to the story of Mr. Kerry's hidden military records. Mr. Carter's first act as president was a general amnesty for draft dodgers and other war protesters.
The article goes on to postulate that it was the malign attention of the Nixon administration that may have caused Kerry to have become "a victim of an attempt to deny him an honorable discharge." It describes Charles Colso working to "find dirt" on Kerry so that Nixon could discredit him, and claims that Colson "reported that he couldn't find any ." Odd as it may sound to the NYSun, it seems to me that this is "dirt."
while America was still at war, Mr. Kerry had met with the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong delegation to the Paris Peace talks in May 1970 and then held a demonstration in July 1971 in Washington to try to get Congress to accept the enemy's seven point peace proposal without a single change.
Isn't there a little something in, say..., the Constitution that prohibits that sort of sortie?
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.
Vote Early, Vote Often, just ignore my entire past and everything I have done or haven't done and Vote for me, puhleeezeee *sob*
Well, I don’t think that violates the Constitution per se (though you could make an argument towards treason, I doubt it would be successful. After all, if it would be treasonous for a private citizen to negotiate peace because it somehow “aided and comforted” the enemy, wouldn’t negotiations by the President and his delegates, or by Congress also offer the same “aid and comfort”, if the negotiations were concurrent?)... but it would appear to violate U.S. code 18 U.S.C. 953.
Posted by on 10/14/04 at 10:58 AM
Next entry: Debate Questions Arise
Previous entry: Voting for DhimmoCraps
