Where There is this Much Smoke…

October 16, 2004

The New York Sun’s Thomas Lipscomb has been doing great work investigating the many mysteries in John Kerry’s Naval Records. In this story he looks into the “Mystery [that] Surrounds Kerry’s Navy Discharge.” Lipscomb zeros in on an official Navy document on Kerry’s campaign Web site: “Honorable Discharge from the Reserves.” Lipscomb says:

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.

In addition, says Lipscomb, Kerry’s campaign has not responded to the question “Has Kerry ever been a victim of an attempt to deny him an honorable discharge.” The article continues:

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.

There’s more in the article for those who haven’t yet come across this story. But the Old Media continue to ignore this controversy and cover up for Kerry. When I first heard about this one I thought it was just too outlandish to be true. But once again, there has been silence and stonewalling from the Kerry camp. I think he knows he doesn’t dare go on the record and deny this allegation because it would give people who know an excuse to annihilate him.

Given what we have learned about John Kerry’s character, I have to believe that in this case, where is this much smoke there has to be some fire. Something smells very badly here and I just wonder if it will see the light of day before the election. I can’t help but believe this all has to do with Kerry’s arguably-treasonous behavior in meeting with the North Vietnamese in Paris without any authority, one of the many acts that “earned” Kerry a place of honor and distinction in the halls of communist North Vietnam.