| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Polaris
Rear Admiral
Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 626
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:46 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Me#1You#10,
I believe that the SBVT did to (had to) expect something exactly of this nature. On that I agree. But they are smart people....they surely know that rapid response is essential. They certainly proved that within mere hours of the initial ad release, lawsuit threats, and Boston Globe "retraction".
The WaPo story broke almost 8 hours ago. IMHO that is too long for a response. I am getting worried.
_________________
-Polaris
Truth is Beauty |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:49 pm Post subject: Re: Where Is our Rapid Response? |
|
|
| lolajl wrote: | Yes, exactly. Couple weeks ago I read a blog post from a lawyer who was involved in a trial case where O'Neill was the witness for the other side. The lawyer knew well enough not to go toe to toe to him because he would simply get demolnished. I came across the link on Instapundit. Unfortunately, I din't bookmark it.
|
I believe you're refering to this. Actually, Beldar's observations on O'Neill did not focus so much upon his legal acumen as it did on John O'Neill's stellar character. It's well worth a trip back to either refresh your recollection or to be introduced to John O'Neill's noteworthy professional standing in the legal community. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dcrhere
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Posts: 42
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
There isn't time for that. Document production in litigation takes months. The various motions Kerry could file to procrastinate could go on endlessly. No sort of litigation will resolve the issues for either side, because there is not time. |
My point is that he who dictates the dialog here wins. Yes, filing the lawsuit would take time, ANNOUNCING the intention to file takes five minutes - and it gets the ink. Simply ANNOUNCE that the lawsuit is being prepared and that all Kerry has to do is sign the Form 180 kicks the ball right back at Kerry - right at his head.
Then Kerry's refusal to release the records becomes the issue.
The Swifties need to do something outrageous and ballsy to topspin this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lolajl
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Posts: 136
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Polaris wrote: | | The WaPo story broke almost 8 hours ago. IMHO that is too long for a response. I am getting worried. |
Oh, you're definitely right about this. I think it was set up so that the story would break in the early morning, while everyone was sleeping. There's got to be a SWIFT response before the nightly news run. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sevry
Commander
Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Posts: 326
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Polaris wrote: | | The WaPo story broke almost 8 hours ago. IMHO that is too long for a response. I am getting worried. |
It can't be true. You can't have three or four guys insist that there was no return fire, at all, and have it show up uncontested in one or more citations for that day, not awarded Kerry or those now supporting him. It can't be both.
Far too much credibility is being given to the Wash Post. This is not a paper to be trusted in an election year when they are promoting one candidate, and denigrating the other. They probably got it wrong, maybe intentionally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Polaris
Rear Admiral
Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 626
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sevry wrote: | | Polaris wrote: | | The WaPo story broke almost 8 hours ago. IMHO that is too long for a response. I am getting worried. |
It can't be true. You can't have three or four guys insist that there was no return fire, at all, and have it show up uncontested in one or more citations for that day, not awarded Kerry or those now supporting him. It can't be both. |
Right and the simple explaination is that the swiftvets are lying. That's what makes this so damaging. The Washington Post has "paper" proving that we are liars. I don't believe it for a moment, but it IS very damaging.
| Quote: |
Far too much credibility is being given to the Wash Post. This is not a paper to be trusted in an election year when they are promoting one candidate, and denigrating the other. They probably got it wrong, maybe intentionally. |
But the military record itself seems to be highly credible. That's the problem.
_________________
-Polaris
Truth is Beauty |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sevry
Commander
Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Posts: 326
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Polaris wrote: | | The Washington Post has "paper" proving that we are liars. |
So it's the left's own version of McCarthyism, as they used to describe it - a guy (not Sandy Burger) with an envelope visible in his inner pocket but who won't show you what's inside?
| Quote: | | But the military record itself seems to be highly credible. That's the problem. |
What military record? Are they showing a facsimile on their website?
Frankly, if it showed that on the citations, I don't know what I'd say. Because you have to imagine Thurlow would have either read, or had it read to him, when he was awarded the medal. This idea that they received no hostile fire has been stated by four witnesses, correct? not counting those associated with Kerry, or Kerry himself, obviously. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Polaris
Rear Admiral
Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 626
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sevry,
I agree with you. I strongly suspect some documents may have been tampered with. However, that is not how it will play to John Q. Public.
_________________
-Polaris
Truth is Beauty |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jack white
Seaman
Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Posts: 179
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Polaris:
<<I agree with you. I strongly suspect some documents may have been tampered with. However, that is not how it will play to John Q. Public.
>>
Polaris is right. Remember, the average American hasn't heard a word about most of the proof.
A press release needs to be issued, and fast, for the next news cycle. Further, take a page of the opposition's slimy playbook and insert in that press release not only a response regarding Thurlow but statements Kerry has made admitting he wasn't in Christmas in Cambodia.
And fax those damned things out now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sevry
Commander
Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Posts: 326
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Polaris wrote: | Sevry,
I agree with you. I strongly suspect some documents may have been tampered with. However, that is not how it will play to John Q. Public. |
I guess. And I guess I agree that, at some point, they'll have to correct the matter. But I don't see that their testimonies have changed. They may have to issue a press release sometime today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lolajl
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Posts: 136
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sevry wrote: | | I guess. And I guess I agree that, at some point, they'll have to correct the matter. But I don't see that their testimonies have changed. They may have to issue a press release sometime today. |
Not may, "must". Or arrange to appear on the nightly news and other news shows to counter in person. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
leeinwv
PO3
Joined: 22 Jul 2004
Posts: 268
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | I am sorry to question O'Neill and the other swiftvets, but this is one time where we can't act in deliberation. In this one case we need to act as a political campaign and COUNTER-ATTACK NOW!
I note that the Bush campaign has already counter-attacked w/r/t to his connection (and quite properly). If we are to get the TRUTH out, we need to rapidly respond RIGHT NOW!
Come on...where are you? I hate to sound impatient, but I know just how damaging continued silence is. We literally don't have time to deliberate on this one!
_________________
-Polaris |
I am sure the swiftvets were expecting this so let them handle it in their own time and way. Their ad is working. Let kerry rattle on and get hysterical
He looks like the nut he is |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stealthy
Lieutenant
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 237
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I bet the new ad will have him drooling. 
_________________
American Conservative |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BC
PO3
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
Posts: 288
Location: Oklahoma City
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Some of the response to this is just what they want. They want to shake everyone. Just keep doing what we have been doing all along, keep pointing out all of Kerry’s lies and keep showing the truth.
All of the things that have been coming from the liberal left is showing me that they are the ones getting shaky, so let’s not let them do the same to us. 
_________________
Remember United Flight 93, "Are you guys ready? Let's roll."
Duty Honor Country |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cazador
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Posts: 113
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello,
The media are not your friends.
If not done already, I would ask each of the Swift Vets if they have any glaring red flags in their past that need to be addreessed in a forthright manner and fast. Do not pull a clinton and deny it. Simply say it was a mistake and that you are not the focus here. John Kerry is since he is running for President.
Second, if the story is wrong, talking points need to be sent out pronto. Silence is not good here. To think otherwise in this day of instant communications is simply foolish.
There is no need to panic. Just get your side out there. One good thing is that the main stream media may just have to get the "other side's response" meaning the Swifties. That is a good thing.
However, that response had better be good and consistent.
By the way, if the medal was not awarded correctly then all who were awarded them should give them up -- Kerry included.
One other point. FOIA disclosures are limited. I would ask for the documentation to see if the paper is lying. Then, someone at the Records office had better explain why these records were released without permission if it was against the law.
I've checked the site for the records office. Their policies are clearly stated under their Privacy notice.
Cazador |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
