SwiftVets.com

[fortdixlover]

Honorable vs. Dishonorable Conduct

http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2005/03/honorable-vs-dishonorable-conduct.html

excerpts:

We learned," Kerry continued, "that the mainstream media, over the course of the last year, did a pretty good job of discerning. But there's a subculture and a sub-media that talks and keeps things going for entertainment purposes rather than for the flow of information. And that has a profound impact and undermines what we call the mainstream media of the country. And so the decision-making ability of the American electorate has been profoundly impacted as a consequence of that. The question is, what are we going to do about it?"

Translation: We the people are too stupid to see through the lies and deceit of the evil sub-media, even though the brave and capable REAL media discerned the truth and tried to tell us how wonderful John Kerry was.

New Sisyphus points out the following salient points in his critique of Kerry's incredible comments [on the MSM]:

You may be surprised to hear that the MSM “did a pretty good job of discerning” over the last year, given that the New York Times, CBS and the BBC all had to fire lead personnel over the fact that they just damn well made stuff up out of whole cloth in service to an obviously partisan political agenda. But then, if you’re reading this, your part of a dangerous sub-culture, aren't you?

And what, Senator, are we going to do about these dangerous people that keep disagreeing with the MSM and have the nasty habit of not keeping their ill-informed, non-making-stuff-up mouths shut? Here we see the cold iron of the liberal’s tendency to want to shut their opponents up that lies behind the calm façade and the Birkenstocks.

Read both the O'Neill interview and the Kerry comments. Ask yourself which person--O'Neill or Kerry--calls for silencing free speech? Ask yourself, who wants to stop the flow of information? Ask yourself, who does not want to compete in a free market of ideas?

You watched the same campaign that I did in 2004. Did the Swift Boat Veteran's get a shot at defending their position in the mainstream media? Did John Kerry respond to their accusations. Has John Kerry to this day ever filled out the Form 180 for the complete release of all his Vietnam records, including his medical records (in spite of MULTIPLE promises that he would do so--even one recently on Meet the Press)?

Ask youself, why it was important that a document purporting to come from one person who commanded Lt.George Bush in the TANG (and who was conveniently deceased) during the Vietnam war was considered a "critical" news story; while the sworn affidavits of 274 living veterans, including ALL the superior officers of Lt.John Kerry, was not?

John Kerry thinks he is going to run for President in 2008. But I think the American public is on to his scam. As part of that dangerous "sub-culture" Kerry is so opposed to, I intend to frequently remind everyone of the con artist the Democrats nominated in 2004.

I am forever thankful this dishonorable, pitiful, self-obsessed human being did not become the President of the United States.

Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 6:53 AM
_________________
"Millions For Defense, Not One Cent For Tribute" - Thomas Jefferson on paying ransom to Muslim corsairs (pirates).

[Uisguex Jack]

Nice to see you fortdix.

I was thinking today as the judicial nominations sabotage continues in to the fifth year now how this element of the Democratic party wants every vote to count only as long as it is in their parochial favor.

If the vote is against them they will do anything possible, legal or not, to make sure the vote is not counted.

O’Neill says from the Dr Sannity link:

[DougReese]

[Navy_Navy_Navy]

Doug, do you have some definitive, authoritative answer as to how many sworn affidavits have been received by the leadership of Swift Vets? If so, please post your source.

All that we here on the board have are the statements made by various leaders of the group at press conferences or speeches or in Unfit for Command or in emails. This number naturally has changed over time as the group has grown.

I will say that there is a list of signers to the Swifts' efforts here:
http://horse.he.net/~swiftpow/article.php?story=20040629220813790

239 Swifts men signed the original letter to Kerry along with 30 other founders who did not work directly with Kerry in the Swifts. The list has not been updated for quite some time - there was a deluge of requests to sign the letter for which there simply was not time to get signed affidavits and ensure bona-fide credentials from each one.

And there is also an online petition (with over 11,000 signatures) here:
https://www.swiftvets.com/swift/petition.php and the petition mentions "some 275 men who served with you."

So, let's talk turkey - exactly what do the 11,000 signatures on the petition mean? What does it matter if one member of our board posts that a hundred signed affidavits while another says that 274 signed affidavits?

It seems pretty clear to me that the backlash against the poseur was far bigger than any of those numbers - big enough to make them nearly meaningless, except as an academic point in the discussion about why these Swifts could NOT get a fair break from the media, which abandoned all pretense to impartiality.

Even Democratic party leaders have conceded that Kerry's main support came from "Anybody But Busher's," not from any real zeal for the Democratic candidate.
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother

[coffee]

I may be wrong about this but I believe that the sworn affidavits were signed by those who appeared (spoke?) in the commercials/documentaries. I'm not sure about those who were quoted in "Unfit For Command".

Coffee

[Tom Poole]