|
SwiftVets.com Service to Country
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
SBD Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2004 Posts: 1022
|
Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 12:53 am Post subject: Video Clip of John Kerry on Meet the Press January 30, 2005 |
|
|
Video Clip of John Kerry on Meet the Press January 30, 2005.
I created a Windows Media format clip of John Kerry once again saying he will sign Form 180 on the January 30, 2005 Meet The Press. It can be viewed at the SwiftBoatArchives.com website so everyone can see and hear Kerry once again say he will sign Form 180 while all the liar Democrats continue to claim Kerry released all his records and signed Form 180.
SBD
Last edited by SBD on Wed Feb 02, 2005 7:54 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Me#1You#10 Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004 Posts: 6503
|
Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for archiving that SBD. One thing I'd like to be clear on however. As I listen to/read Kerry's statement, I see no quid pro quo requirement that other un-named "challengers?" also sign form 180. "I'd LIKE to see" is not equivalent to "they must ALSO produce" but Russert seems to be straining to characterize it as a quid pro quo. Anyone else see it that way? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
SBD Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2004 Posts: 1022
|
Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 1:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
He ambushed Kerry but failed to get the 180 signed on National TV. If you are going to go through the effort of having the actual form 180 in your hands, then the logical step would have been to have him sign it. Instead, he let Kerry once again manipulate the situation by saying the Swift Boat Veterans need to do the same.
What bothers me more is how Kerry went about his request for the Swift Boat Veterans to release their recored. He clearly gave the impression he knew something about a Swift Boat Veteran(s) that they would not want to be released. Isn't this called "Abuse of Power", using your position as a Senator to find out information about someone and invading their privacy. How does he know anything about a Swift Boat Veteran who has not signed a form 180. In order to make such a claim, we might infur that he is guilty of invasion if privacy and abuse of his power as well. Once a criminal, always a criminal!!
SBD |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kate Admin
Joined: 14 May 2004 Posts: 1891 Location: Upstate, New York
|
Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 1:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well there's another little bit of fibbing in that clip....
his medical records were released? they weren't on his website, only a letter from his personal Doc,
who only wrote a summary of what he ( or someone) felt were pertinent points.
btw SBD, really great video...amazingly clear _________________ .
one of..... We The People |
|
Back to top |
|
|
SBD Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2004 Posts: 1022
|
Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 1:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
kate wrote: |
btw SBD, really great video...amazingly clear |
I recorded it digitally in Windows Media Center 2005
SBD |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Beatrice1000 Resource Specialist
Joined: 10 Aug 2004 Posts: 1179 Location: Minneapolis, MN
|
Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 3:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
SBD wrote: | kate wrote: |
btw SBD, really great video...amazingly clear |
I recorded it digitally in Windows Media Center 2005 |
SBD: Well done -- THANKS! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
shawa CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004 Posts: 2004
|
Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 5:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
You got it, SBD!!
"And I'd call on those who have challenged me, let's see their records. I want to
see the records of each of those people who have put up a challenge,
because some of them have some serious questions in them,
and it hasn't been appropriate..."
When I heard him say that I thought how the H@@L does he know
what's in their records?
The other thing that really p****d me was why Russert presses
him NOW about signing the 180. Why wasn't he pressing him
BEFORE THE ELECTION!!! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
SBD Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2004 Posts: 1022
|
Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
If Kerry sees it fit to request that the Swift Boat Veterans sign Form 180, then I request that Kerry's Band of Traitors also sign Form 180 especially Rev Alston. I doubt Kerry would want to go there!!
SBD |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Uisguex Jack Rear Admiral
Joined: 26 Jul 2004 Posts: 613
|
Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SBD, all I can say is WOW, great bit of archiving. Thank you very much.
SBD wrote:
Quote: | He clearly gave the impression he knew something about a Swift Boat Veteran(s) that they would not want to be released. Isn't this called "Abuse of Power", using your position as a Senator to find out information about someone and invading their privacy. How does he know anything about a Swift Boat Veteran who has not signed a form 180. In order to make such a claim, we might infer that he is guilty of invasion if privacy and abuse of his power as well. |
Well SBD this is a abuse of power but I believe a more appropriate word and one of profound legal ramifications is EXTORTION
Two definitions from Webster’s:
Main Entry: ex·tort
Pronunciation: ik-'stort
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Latin extortus, past participle of extorquEre to wrench out, extort, from ex- + torquEre to twist -- more at TORTURE
: to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power : WRING; also : to gain especially by ingenuity or compelling argument
synonym see EDUCE
- ex·tort·er noun
- ex·tor·tive /-'stor-tiv/ adjective
ex·tor·tion
Pronunciation: ik-'stor-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the act or practice of extorting especially money or other property; especially : the offense committed by an official engaging in such practice
2 : something extorted; especially : a gross overcharge
- ex·tor·tion·er /-sh(&-)n&r/ noun
- ex·tor·tion·ist /-sh(&-)nist/ noun
First off to make such assertions with out backing them up with facts, say for instance like a book called 'Unfit For Command'. This is continued character assassination..... what Kerry likes to call a 'smear campaign full of lies'. Clearly his scholarship in these disciplines far out reaches my own.
This may be a factor of being Boston Irish and Confidant to the Kennedy’s but that is no excuse.
Russert dropped the ball big time by not inquiring why Kerry's detractors personal history were in any way pertinent to John Kerry running for president on a fabricated and fraudulent foundation of he as some sort of respected and honorable 'war hero' reporting for duty.
This argument of Kerry's makes as much sense as Ted Kennedy attacking the family of Mary Jo Kopechne as evidence that he wasn't responsible for his actions when he murdered her.
I don't think the fact of whether or not Mary Jo Kopechne ever stole a lollipop makes her any less a victim of murder and someone should be held accountable for it.
Damn lightweight, two bit, pretty boy, sociopath, gigolo. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Schadow Vice Admiral
Joined: 30 Sep 2004 Posts: 936 Location: Huntsville, Alabama
|
Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thomas Sowell observes in his usual competent prose:
Quote: | "Senator John Kerry loudly proclaimed on 'Meet the Press' that the Iraqi election represented President Bush's 'last chance' to 'get it right.' Nothing is easier than to demand more from somebody else -- even when you yourself have been an obstacle to achieving what has already been achieved.
"Senator Kerry has a long record as a defeatist and obstructionist. Back in 1971, he said, 'we cannot fight communism all over the world' -- adding in the same arrogant tone he uses today, 'I think we should have learned that lesson by now.'" |
Repeating for emphasis, "Nothing is easier than to demand more from somebody else -- even when you yourself have been an obstacle to achieving what has already been achieved."
Sowell's complete article can be seen here:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050201.shtml
Schadow _________________ Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tom Poole Vice Admiral
Joined: 07 Aug 2004 Posts: 914 Location: America
|
Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Beatrice1000 said Pat Sajak wrote: | ...Mr. Kerry, you are a jerk... |
Great find Beatrice1000. Did you know Mr. Sajak is pictured in B.G. Burkett's book, Stolen Valor? Yep, he's alongside Col. Guion S. Bluford, Jr., America's first black astronaut in space, Dennis Franz, three-time emmy winner on NYPD Blue, and Gen. Daniel "Chappie" James, Jr., the first black officer to achieve four-star rank. All of these guys are Veterans of the Vietnam conflict. _________________ '58 Airedale HMR(L)-261 VMO-2 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kimberly PO2
Joined: 03 Sep 2004 Posts: 377
|
Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
d19thdoc wrote: | I just read the transcript of the MTP carefully and get this:
Quote: | SEN. KERRY: I'd be happy to put the records out. We put all the records out that I had been sent by the military. Then at the last moment, they sent some more stuff, which had some things that weren't even relevant to the record. So when we get--I'm going to sit down with them and make sure that they are clear and I am clear as to what is in the record and what isn't in the record (emphasis mine) and we'll put it out. I have no problem with that. |
I have been told that the record of his "Other Than Honorable" discharge was not only "corrected" but that the records pertaining to that bad discharge and the paperwork used to change it were, in fact, probably destroyed.
I think this verbal ballet/bullcrap passage quoted is in reference to this. He seems to be saying that he will exercise some kind of oversight as to exactly what is released, a kind of editing for relevance. He wants to be sure that there is no trace of what is "not in the record" and no chance of that being released - otherwise, why this odd and very twisted circumlocution? What he is saying is that he - personally - wants to be sure that things "not in the record" are not accidentally released!!! He is, essentially, referring to two different kinds of documents - those that are in the record" and those that "aren't in the record."
What is implied here is that he wants to be sure that what is released is what is supposed to be in the record, as opposed to what is not supposed to be in the record.
Think about it. |
I agree. The sentence begins with "So when we get....." and I believe if he were to continue with that thought, speaking the truth, it would have read "So when we get my records 'scrubbed', then I we'll put it out." But instead of saying 'scrubbed', he does as you said and begins a very odd and very twisted circumlocution.
If he hasn't done it yet, he is scrambling to do it. The only evidence we have if he signs will be any comparisons that can be made to obvious changes in records that have already been released.
Now that Kerry has admitted to 'knowing' what is in the military records specifically of O'Neill and Hoffman, I am curious that this issue is not receiving as much or more attention than the coverage given the Form 180 by the bloggers and the like. Is there any way Kerry could have knowledge without having gone into their files, illegally? If it were me, I'd be all over this! Saying that the Swifties records are not an issue because they were not running for POTUS is no longer the only argument....how Kerry got access to records (if he did) needs to be addressed. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DougReese Former Member
Joined: 22 May 2004 Posts: 396
|
Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kimberly wrote: | Now that Kerry has admitted to 'knowing' what is in the military records specifically of O'Neill and Hoffman, I am curious that this issue is not receiving as much or more attention than the coverage given the Form 180 by the bloggers and the like. Is there any way Kerry could have knowledge without having gone into their files, illegally? If it were me, I'd be all over this! Saying that the Swifties records are not an issue because they were not running for POTUS is no longer the only argument....how Kerry got access to records (if he did) needs to be addressed. |
I must have missed something (it wouldn't be the first time), but where is it Kerry admitted to knowing what is in, specifically, O'Neill's and Hoffman's records? I never saw a mention of names.
And as for how could Kerry have knowledge of what is in someone's records . . . . I'd say he doesn't, at least not with any certainty. When you serve with someone, you could be aware of any problems they may have had during the time you served with them -- either through rumor, or personal, direct knowledge. That's not at all unusual -- it doesn't mean you have access to their personel records.
Doug |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Uisguex Jack Rear Admiral
Joined: 26 Jul 2004 Posts: 613
|
Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 1:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Doug I think the bigger question, the real question is how are the records of any of the Swifities relevant and cogent to anything?
How is this not extortion?
We all know who the two folks were running for president.
Bush's records..... Military and Driving were clearly considered very
relevant in the 2000 election and again in the 05 election. Personally I think the driving records are more pertinent.
As you witnessed, Kerry presented himself to the nation and the world as a whole as a hallowed veteran during the Democratic Convention. As we all know, all too painfully ‘Reporting For Duty' (insert woosey salute here).
To hold ones self up on a pedestal so precariously while the vast majority of his immediate Peer group of the Swift Boat command and fellow sailors who served with and alongside him.... Clearly let him know far in advance they vociferously objected to such a ludicrous assertion where they, his fellow sailors would naturally be the foundation for any such claim.... well this was very foolish and does make his military record in its un edited form very pertinent
Still George Bush's Military record is very pertinent.... so much so that Dan Rather made a very innocent mistake while passionately pursuing the 'truth' over the five years they researched whether or not you could characterize bush as a coddled bimbo with a cocaine problem. I don't recall Bush making a big deal of his not being a coddled bimbo with a cocaine problem and a happenstance war hero....... ever.
Any way Rather Kind of screwed that one up, did he not?
My long winded question remains: how is Kerry’s asinine game of 'chicken' over military records with the very same set of Veterans he told the world held him in great respect... (while the vast majority of them felt quite the opposite) How is this not Extortion?
Then what about all the lawsuits threatened by the Kerry Campaign if any broadcaster were to reveal the nature of any of this while said broadcasters exercised their rights to freedom of the press and to freedom of speech.
As a matter of precision if Kerry does not have absolute first hand knowledge of the 'Bust' he refers to he has no business mentioning it al all.
In the great big world of Gossip I don't believe too much that I don't have direct personal knowledge of. So either Kerry's seen his fellow soldiers personal records, or he was present when this 'bust' took place and somehow remained above the fray throughout.
Last edited by Uisguex Jack on Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:43 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kimberly PO2
Joined: 03 Sep 2004 Posts: 377
|
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 10:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
DougReese wrote: | kimberly wrote: | Now that Kerry has admitted to 'knowing' what is in the military records specifically of O'Neill and Hoffman, I am curious that this issue is not receiving as much or more attention than the coverage given the Form 180 by the bloggers and the like. Is there any way Kerry could have knowledge without having gone into their files, illegally? If it were me, I'd be all over this! Saying that the Swifties records are not an issue because they were not running for POTUS is no longer the only argument....how Kerry got access to records (if he did) needs to be addressed. |
I must have missed something (it wouldn't be the first time), but where is it Kerry admitted to knowing what is in, specifically, O'Neill's and Hoffman's records? I never saw a mention of names.
And as for how could Kerry have knowledge of what is in someone's records . . . . I'd say he doesn't, at least not with any certainty. When you serve with someone, you could be aware of any problems they may have had during the time you served with them -- either through rumor, or personal, direct knowledge. That's not at all unusual -- it doesn't mean you have access to their personel records.
Doug |
Doug,
From the Boston Globe article:
The furor over military credentials hasn't ended with the campaign. Kerry pledged to sign Form 180, releasing all of his military records, but challenged his critics, including Bush, to do the same.
''I want them to sign it, I want [swift boat veterans] John O'Neill, Roy Hoffmann, and what's their names, the guys on the other boat," Kerry said. ''I want their records out there. They have made specific allegations about my record, I know things about their records, I want them out there. I'm willing to sign it, to put all my records out there. I'm willing to sign it, but I want them to sign it, too."
Kerry later confirmed that his decision to sign the form is not conditional on any others signing, but he expressed lingering bitterness over double standards on military service. "
Kimberly |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|