Kerry: Not so honorably discharged?

Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
http://www.nysun.com/article/3107

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?

NBC's release this March of some of the Nixon White House tapes about Mr. Kerry show a great deal of interest in Mr. Kerry by Nixon and his executive staff, including, perhaps most importantly, Nixon's special counsel, Charles Colson. In a meeting the day after Mr. Kerry's Senate testimony, April 23, 1971, Mr. Colson attacks Mr. Kerry as a "complete opportunist...We'll keep hitting him, Mr. President."

Mr. Colson was still on the case two months later, according to a memo he wrote on June 15,1971, that was brought to the surface by the Houston Chronicle. "Let's destroy this young demagogue before he becomes another Ralph Nader." Nixon had been a naval officer in World War II. Mr. Colson was a former Marine captain. Mr. Colson had been prodded to find "dirt" on Mr. Kerry, but reported that he couldn't find any.

The Nixon administration ran FBI surveillance on Mr. Kerry from September 1970 until August 1972. Finding grounds for an other than honorable discharge, however, for a leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, given his numerous activities while still a reserve officer of the Navy, was easier than finding "dirt."

For example, 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. Woodrow Wilson threw Eugene Debs, a former presidential candidate, in prison just for demonstrating for peace negotiations with Germany during World War I. No court overturned his imprisonment. He had to receive a pardon from President Harding.

Mr. Colson refused to answer any questions about his activities regarding Mr. Kerry during his time in the Nixon White House. The secretary of the Navy at the time during the Nixon presidency is the current chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner. A spokesman for the senator, John Ullyot, said, "Senator Warner has no recollection that would either confirm or challenge any representation that Senator Kerry received a less than honorable discharge."

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. Less than an hour after his inauguration on January 21, 1977, while still in the Capitol building, Mr. Carter signed Executive Order 4483 empowering it. By the time it became a directive from the Defense Department in March 1977 it had been expanded to include other offenders who may have had general, bad conduct, dishonorable discharges, and any other discharge or sentence with negative effect on military records. In those cases the directive outlined a procedure for appeal on a case by case basis before a board of officers. A satisfactory appeal would result in an improvement of discharge status or an honorable discharge.

Mr. Kerry has repeatedly refused to sign Standard Form 180, which would allow the release of all his military records. And some of his various spokesmen have claimed that all his records are already posted on his Web site. But the Washington Post already noted that the Naval Personnel Office admitted that they were still withholding about 100 pages of files.

If Mr. Kerry was the victim of a Nixon "enemies list" hit, one might have expected him to wear it like a badge of honor, like many others such as his friend Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers, CBS's Daniel Schorr, or the actor Paul Newman, who had made Mr. Colson's original list of 20 "enemies."

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.
Interesting. It sure would be nice if Kerry would release his records fully to refute this charge.
 

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,587
82
91
www.bing.com
if he had to get a panel of officers to give him an honorable discharge, it probably means he was going to get a medical discharge, which reads "Discharge Under Honorable Conditions", which just doesnt sound as sweet as "Honorable Discharge"

Maybe he got his wee wee chopped off and is too embarrassed to have anyone find out?
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
This is already debunked I can't believe the wacko's would even consider a Nixon smear to be credible,
the right wing hate-mill is making themselves look like fools once again with this one heh

The facts state that Kerry entered the inactive reserve for an indefinite period of time in 1972: http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Transfer_To_S...

Officers remain in such a status until they resign or get an administrative discharge, which is what happened here.
The STATUTE (then 10 USC 1163) says:
(a) An officer of a reserve component who has at least three years of service as a commissioned officer may not be separated from that component without his consent except under an approved recommendation of a board of officers convened by an authority designated by the Secretary concerned . . .

(c) A member of a reserve component who is separated therefrom for cause, except under subsection (b), is entitled to a discharge under honorable conditions
"Text of honorable discharge:

"This action is taken in accordance with the approved board of officers convened under the authority of reference (b) to examine the official records of officers of the naval reserve on inactive duty and DETERMINE WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE RETAINED ON THE ROLLS OF THE RESERVE COMPONENT OR SEPARATED FROM THE NAVAL SERVICE









BTW, Where is Bush's DD214? Where are his administrative reviews? Where are his evaluations. Where are his medal citations?
This crap really is getting old trying to discredit a highly decorated Vet when your guy was busy (first pane of comic)
 

AntiEverything

Senior member
Aug 5, 2004
939
0
0
The Vietnam service records of both candidates has been thoroughly beaten to death. I'm surprised anybody still cares.
 

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
3
81
Originally posted by: AntiEverything
The Vietnam service records of both candidates has been thoroughly beaten to death. I'm surprised anybody still cares.

Actually, they haven't since Kerry refuses to release his records while Bush has released everything.

And if you guys want to start quoting statues, how about the one that defines treason? I heard there is something in there about meeting with the enemy.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: DT4K
Originally posted by: AntiEverything
The Vietnam service records of both candidates has been thoroughly beaten to death. I'm surprised anybody still cares.

Actually, they haven't since Kerry refuses to release his records while Bush has released everything.

And if you guys want to start quoting statues, how about the one that defines treason? I heard there is something in there about meeting with the enemy.
You mean like Rumsfield meeting with Sadam?
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Originally posted by: Train
if he had to get a panel of officers to give him an honorable discharge, it probably means he was going to get a medical discharge, which reads "Discharge Under Honorable Conditions", which just doesnt sound as sweet as "Honorable Discharge"

Maybe he got his wee wee chopped off and is too embarrassed to have anyone find out?

This is incorrect - a medical discharge is honorable. A General discharge is what's known as "Under Honorable Conditions," and is frequently given to people who are involuntarily separated. Most involuntary separations are for misconduct, but there are a host of other potential explanations - a commissioned officer can actually receive a General discharge for some things that require an Honorable for an enlisted member, such as mental disorders.

This paragraph of the article is completely farcical IMO:

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.

A commissioned officer cannot receive a Dishonorable Discharge - that is reserved solely for enlisted members. The officer's equivalent, a Dismissal, is, like a DD, only given in the context of a General Court-Martial, a felony-level criminal trial. I think it's safe to assume we would know if Sen Kerry had been convicted of a crime - it would be a matter of public record.

I won't speculate as to the other conclusions reached and implied by this article, because I don't have the facts. I will point out, though, that the article misstates the situations in which a board of officers might consider a discharge, and it is possible (though I am not advancing this proposition) that a board of officers gave him an honorable discharge, in the context of an administrative discharge proceeding.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Originally posted by: DT4K

And if you guys want to start quoting statues, how about the one that defines treason? I heard there is something in there about meeting with the enemy.

Ask and ye shall receive:

18 USC § 2381:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States

 

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,587
82
91
www.bing.com
like I said, "it probably means..."

I was guessing, and humourously at that. Lord knows I wouldn't try spreading any disinformation on the subject with a Jag officer lurking around ;)
 

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
3
81
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: DT4K
Originally posted by: AntiEverything
The Vietnam service records of both candidates has been thoroughly beaten to death. I'm surprised anybody still cares.

Actually, they haven't since Kerry refuses to release his records while Bush has released everything.

And if you guys want to start quoting statues, how about the one that defines treason? I heard there is something in there about meeting with the enemy.
You mean like Rumsfield meeting with Sadam?
:roll:

Come on Red, surely you can make a better comparison than that.
There's a big difference between leaders negotiating with another head of state and an officer meeting with and being an advocate for the enemy.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Once again, why is this still an issue? Neither candidate's service/nonservice in Vietnam makes them presidential nor more suited to be president, at least IMO.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
WTF? WHERE IS BUSHES RECORDS THEN? all I can find is a few memos. I mean cmon you don't LOSE your DD214.

Kerry's Records that ARE released to say they are not is a LIE here they are:
DD214 http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/DD214.pdf
Military Service Awards
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/j.../militaryrecords_1.pdf
Acceptance of Discharge Naval Reserve
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/j...arge_Naval_Reserve.pdf
Research Sheet F4-15
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/j...search_Sheet_F4-15.pdf
Service Record
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/j...ice/Service_Record.pdf
CRY BUSH Silver Star
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/j...ervice/Silver_Star.pdf
Thrice Wounded Reassignment
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/j...unded_Reassignment.pdf
Vietnam Service Medal (The one you get for BEING THERE)
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/j...tnam_Service_Medal.pdf

Prove me otherwise or stfu about Kerry's record as a hero who spoke up for what he thought was wrong.
Bushies have small dixx0rz military-record complex
Kerry is a silver star hero Bush is a chikenshit cokehead
SHOW US THE DD214 or stop p1ssing on the Vets.
 

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
3
81
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: DT4K

And if you guys want to start quoting statues, how about the one that defines treason? I heard there is something in there about meeting with the enemy.

Ask and ye shall receive:

18 USC § 2381:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States

Can anyone explain to me why Kerry's meeting with the North Vietnamese doesn't fall under this definition?
Wouldn't his actions qualify as adhering to the enemies and giving them aid and comfort?
It's a serious question, I honestly don't know the details and why it would or wouldn't be considered treason.
 

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,587
82
91
www.bing.com
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Once again, why is this still an issue? Neither candidate's service/nonservice in Vietnam makes them presidential nor more suited to be president, at least IMO.
cuz were bored. Something happened, people stopped posting about an hour ago, the threads are barely moving. Whered everyone go?

 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
If you have no issues to discuss, you can alsways fall back shrimpboat vet smear attacks. Grats to the right.

Maybe you guys can make a new thread on how Kerry "looks" French?
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Originally posted by: DT4K

Can anyone explain to me why Kerry's meeting with the North Vietnamese doesn't fall under this definition?
Wouldn't his actions qualify as adhering to the enemies and giving them aid and comfort?
It's a serious question, I honestly don't know the details and why it would or wouldn't be considered treason.

These meetings are not even close to treason. If that were the case, every treaty negotiation would be a treasonous act.

If, by way of illustration, Sen Kerry had sat down with Ho Chi Minh and told him the locations of American troop concentrations, provided keys to encrypted communications, and thrown in some advice on how to win the hearts and minds of US GIs, that would be treasonous. This is not at all the case, however.

At the end of the day, a jury would be called upon to decide whether this was treason, but I honestly can't imagine any reasonable juror saying that meeting with representatives of the enemy was treasonous.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Once again, why is this still an issue? Neither candidate's service/nonservice in Vietnam makes them presidential nor more suited to be president, at least IMO.
No, it really doesn't. However, if a potential president had a less than honorable discharge I think the public has a right to know. All Kerry need do is release his records. That will answer the lingering questions and then, case closed. His reluctance to sign his name on a simple form can easily cause people to be suspicious as to whether he's hiding anything.

I guarantee you that if Bush did the same thing there's be a long thread about it with some of the very same people claiming Kerry's lack of disclosure to be a non-issue would be asking the same questions I am.

Hey, wait a sec...

 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

No, it really doesn't. However, if a potential president had a less than honorable discharge I think the public has a right to know.

The thing is, he WAS honorably discharged, per his DD214. This article raises a lot of shadowy conjecture about Sen Kerry's service, but it seems to be nothing but nasty innuendo, and contains a number of factual/legal misstatements in support of its shaky case.
 

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
3
81
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: DT4K

Can anyone explain to me why Kerry's meeting with the North Vietnamese doesn't fall under this definition?
Wouldn't his actions qualify as adhering to the enemies and giving them aid and comfort?
It's a serious question, I honestly don't know the details and why it would or wouldn't be considered treason.

These meetings are not even close to treason. If that were the case, every treaty negotiation would be a treasonous act.

If, by way of illustration, Sen Kerry had sat down with Ho Chi Minh and told him the locations of American troop concentrations, provided keys to encrypted communications, and thrown in some advice on how to win the hearts and minds of US GIs, that would be treasonous. This is not at all the case, however.

At the end of the day, a jury would be called upon to decide whether this was treason, but I honestly can't imagine any reasonable juror saying that meeting with representatives of the enemy was treasonous.

Was Kerry officially authorized to negotiate with the enemy on behalf of the United States?
It seems that this would be substantially different than the case of treaty talks. I didn't think Kerry was considered to be a representative for our country at the time.
 
Sep 29, 2004
18,656
68
91
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
http://www.nysun.com/article/3107

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?

NBC's release this March of some of the Nixon White House tapes about Mr. Kerry show a great deal of interest in Mr. Kerry by Nixon and his executive staff, including, perhaps most importantly, Nixon's special counsel, Charles Colson. In a meeting the day after Mr. Kerry's Senate testimony, April 23, 1971, Mr. Colson attacks Mr. Kerry as a "complete opportunist...We'll keep hitting him, Mr. President."

Mr. Colson was still on the case two months later, according to a memo he wrote on June 15,1971, that was brought to the surface by the Houston Chronicle. "Let's destroy this young demagogue before he becomes another Ralph Nader." Nixon had been a naval officer in World War II. Mr. Colson was a former Marine captain. Mr. Colson had been prodded to find "dirt" on Mr. Kerry, but reported that he couldn't find any.

The Nixon administration ran FBI surveillance on Mr. Kerry from September 1970 until August 1972. Finding grounds for an other than honorable discharge, however, for a leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, given his numerous activities while still a reserve officer of the Navy, was easier than finding "dirt."

For example, 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. Woodrow Wilson threw Eugene Debs, a former presidential candidate, in prison just for demonstrating for peace negotiations with Germany during World War I. No court overturned his imprisonment. He had to receive a pardon from President Harding.

Mr. Colson refused to answer any questions about his activities regarding Mr. Kerry during his time in the Nixon White House. The secretary of the Navy at the time during the Nixon presidency is the current chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner. A spokesman for the senator, John Ullyot, said, "Senator Warner has no recollection that would either confirm or challenge any representation that Senator Kerry received a less than honorable discharge."

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. Less than an hour after his inauguration on January 21, 1977, while still in the Capitol building, Mr. Carter signed Executive Order 4483 empowering it. By the time it became a directive from the Defense Department in March 1977 it had been expanded to include other offenders who may have had general, bad conduct, dishonorable discharges, and any other discharge or sentence with negative effect on military records. In those cases the directive outlined a procedure for appeal on a case by case basis before a board of officers. A satisfactory appeal would result in an improvement of discharge status or an honorable discharge.

Mr. Kerry has repeatedly refused to sign Standard Form 180, which would allow the release of all his military records. And some of his various spokesmen have claimed that all his records are already posted on his Web site. But the Washington Post already noted that the Naval Personnel Office admitted that they were still withholding about 100 pages of files.

If Mr. Kerry was the victim of a Nixon "enemies list" hit, one might have expected him to wear it like a badge of honor, like many others such as his friend Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers, CBS's Daniel Schorr, or the actor Paul Newman, who had made Mr. Colson's original list of 20 "enemies."

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.
Interesting. It sure would be nice if Kerry would release his records fully to refute this charge.

I think Kerry has been ignoring this topic as it's truely pointless. Just hype created by the Bush campaign that does nothing more than highlight Bushes past alocholism and drug use.

F BUSH!
 

Stifko

Diamond Member
Dec 8, 1999
4,799
2
81
Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004I think Kerry has been ignoring this topic as it's truely pointless. Just hype created by the Bush campaign that does nothing more than highlight Bushes past alocholism and drug use.

F BUSH!

Yeah its just another smoke screen of BS, not unlike those "Swift Boat Vets for Truth" ads.

Did Bush okay the release of his military records ? At least Kerry served his country and was not excused becasue of his elite and well connected father's influence.

 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Originally posted by: DT4K

Was Kerry officially authorized to negotiate with the enemy on behalf of the United States?
It seems that this would be substantially different than the case of treaty talks. I didn't think Kerry was considered to be a representative for our country at the time.

As far as I know not one credible source has ever claimed Sen Kerry "negotiated" with anyone in Paris, on behalf of the United States or for any other purpose, and indeed his campaign has specifically denied it. I believe the only person maintaining that this happened is "Unfit for Command" author Jerome Corsi, who is nuttier than squirrel poop, and who even the Swift Boat Vets had to jettison after his publically anti-Catholic, anti-Arab views came to light.
 

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
3
81
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: DT4K

Was Kerry officially authorized to negotiate with the enemy on behalf of the United States?
It seems that this would be substantially different than the case of treaty talks. I didn't think Kerry was considered to be a representative for our country at the time.

As far as I know not one credible source has ever claimed Sen Kerry "negotiated" with anyone in Paris, on behalf of the United States or for any other purpose, and indeed his campaign has specifically denied it. I believe the only person maintaining that this happened is "Unfit for Command" author Jerome Corsi, who is nuttier than squirrel poop, and who even the Swift Boat Vets had to jettison after his publically anti-Catholic, anti-Arab views came to light.

ok, thanks.
 

arsbanned

Banned
Dec 12, 2003
4,853
0
0
Originally posted by: Train
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Once again, why is this still an issue? Neither candidate's service/nonservice in Vietnam makes them presidential nor more suited to be president, at least IMO.
cuz were bored. Something happened, people stopped posting about an hour ago, the threads are barely moving. Whered everyone go?

There's this thing? It's called work? You might have heard of it.

Regarding this retarded thread: Taste like whatever is simply employing the favorite Republican method for getting elected: Spread lies about your opponent, then appear magnanimous later by denying you ever believed it, while continuing to propagate the lie behind the scenes.
Bush did the same thing to John McCain. Speaking of which, I've lost all respect for McCain, after the bitch-slapping Bush gave him, he's still playing lap dog. Disgusting.