 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
sevry
Commander
Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Posts: 326
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:20 am Post subject: Allegations revisited |
 |
|
There were a number of things that have been proposed by Kerry partisans, than I hadn't seen, previously, until I looked at their work on wikipedia.
And I wonder what the replies are to these, and who might correct the wiki article on the Swift Vets?
1) The SBVT statements were accompanied by sworn affidavits, although one affiant, Al French, later admitted he had no firsthand knowledge of what he had sworn to.
2) The ABC television show Nightline traveled to Vietnam and interviewed Vietnamese . . but their account is substantially the same as that . . . by the American witnesses (with respect to enemy fire), including the only SBVT member who was actually present that day, Larry Clayton Lee.
3) Jerome Corsi has claimed that a picture of Kerry's 1993 visit to Vietnam hangs in the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City . . . and John O'Neill has stated that Kerry "is in the North Vietnamese war museum as a hero".
Josh Gerstein of the New York Sun stated in this regard:
"While the museum clearly honors opponents of the war from America and other countries, it is not clear that the photo of Mr. Kerry is part of that tribute."
4) the webpage Mr. Corsi and another anti-Kerry veteran originally published on the Kerry museum photo contained the picture of Robert McNamara's 1995 meeting with General Giap, who was misidentified as Mao Tse Tung.
5) On May 20, 2005, Kerry did sign the SF-180 form permitting release of his service records and medical records to reporters from the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, and the Associated Press [79]; he refused a request by the New York Sun for access to the records.[80]. The Boston Globe and Los Angeles Times reported that the records largely duplicated what Kerry had released during the campaign.
6) " '[Kerry] earned his medals, he did what he was supposed to do in Vietnam,' said retired Coast Guard Captain Adrian Lonsdale, who was in the chain of command above Kerry and oversaw various operations dealing with Navy swift boats of the type Kerry commanded. 'But I was very disappointed in his statements after he got out of the Navy.' "
In other words, it would appear the wikipedia article could stand some clarification and correction.
WIKI LINK |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sevry
Commander
Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Posts: 326
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:52 am Post subject: Re: Allegations revisited |
|
|
| sevry wrote: |
Josh Gerstein of the New York Sun stated in this regard:
. . .
5) On May 20, 2005, Kerry did sign the SF-180 form permitting release of his service records and medical records to reporters from the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, and the Associated Press [79]; he refused a request by the New York Sun for access to the records.[80]. The Boston Globe and Los Angeles Times reported that the records largely duplicated what Kerry had released during the campaign.
|
I guess I could begin answering this, myself, after looking over some articles, here. It might be ironic to mention that the NY Sun was REFUSED access to Kerry's supposedly complete record, according to the same WIKI article on the Swift Vets which is in question.
Apparently section 2.2 of the SF-180 requires one to specify which documents must be released. And then the document must be sent to the proper archive. Why the government doesn't simply reroute to the proper archive, otherwise, I don't know, if it was mis-sent.
Kerry has not released the SF-180 which he signed. No one can know what he authorized for certain newspapers - except the Sun - or if the archive to which he sent the document would have had all the required documents that he requested; or if not, would have then taken it upon themselves to retrieve what was requested from another archive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 12:52 pm Post subject: Re: Allegations revisited |
|
|
| sevry wrote: |
Kerry has not released the SF-180 which he signed. No one can know what he authorized for certain newspapers - except the Sun - or if the archive to which he sent the document would have had all the required documents that he requested; or if not, would have then taken it upon themselves to retrieve what was requested from another archive. |
Sevry, I don't believe your statement is factual. While it might be true that Kerry, himself, didn't release the forms (I believe it was through an FOIA request), Powerline Blog was first to publish what appear to be photocopies of the 3 SF 180 forms. I'll get you a link when I can.
As to your other points, most (if not all) are opinions and interpretations of facts and can be spun to bolster either argument. I have no doubt as to which version currently resides in "Wikipedia".
As to Wikipedia itself, I wouldn't bother. You will quickly find that any attempt to lend some balance to that article will be met by a band of zealots dedicated to maintaining the hit piece nature of that article.
However, if you're determined to give it a try, I would strongly urge you to read the 6 or 7 archived "discussion" topics to get a feeling for what you will inevitably face. You must be prepared for a level of dedication and commitment of time that few can muster. Even if you are successful in a few of your edits, you must then "stand guard" on the article to see that your contribution isn't "offed" at some future date...and it WILL be "offed".
Nor is your work done with just the SVPT article. In a rather blatant attempt to purge the article of information that might "impeach" John Kerry and and lend credibility to the SVPT declarations, a second article was created (John Kerry Military Controversy?) to which a host of anti-Kerry information is conveniently shunted.
Most importantly, unless you are TOTALLY versed in the Wikipedia process and culture, they (the Wikipedia Anti-SVPT collective) will eat your lunch with procedural hurdles that can quickly dissuade even the most dogged attempts to "NPOV" that article.
The Swift Boat entry in Wikipedia stands as a monument to the inherent weakness of "open-source" editing to agenda-based predation.
Good Luck whatever you decide.
P.S. As I anticipate that a few forum members might choose to address some points you've raised, I'm moving this topic to "Resources and Research" where it can reside as an ongoing discussion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sevry
Commander
Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Posts: 326
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 3:11 pm Post subject: Re: Allegations revisited |
|
|
| Me#1You#10 wrote: |
Sevry, I don't believe your statement is factual. While it might be true that Kerry, himself, didn't release the forms (I believe it was through an FOIA request), Powerline Blog was first to publish what appear to be photocopies of the 3 SF 180 forms. I'll get you a link when I can.
|
That's good to know. One of the messages on this board suggested that he may not have filled in what documents were needed, and may have even mailed it to the wrong address, necessarily ignoring the complete instruction on the back of the sheet/form.
| Me#1You#10 wrote: |
However, if you're determined to give it a try, I would strongly urge you to read the 6 or 7 archived "discussion" topics to get a feeling for what you will inevitably face. You must be prepared for a level of dedication and commitment of time that few can muster. Even if you are successful in a few of your edits, you must then "stand guard" on the article to see that your contribution isn't "offed" at some future date...and it WILL be "offed".
Nor is your work done with just the SVPT article. In a rather blatant attempt to purge the article of information that might "impeach" John Kerry and and lend credibility to the SVPT declarations, a second article was created (John Kerry Military Controversy?) to which a host of anti-Kerry information is conveniently shunted.
Most importantly, unless you are TOTALLY versed in the Wikipedia process and culture, they (the Wikipedia Anti-SVPT collective) will eat your lunch with procedural hurdles that can quickly dissuade even the most dogged attempts to "NPOV" that article.
The Swift Boat entry in Wikipedia stands as a monument to the inherent weakness of "open-source" editing to agenda-based predation.
|
Just your saying this, as clearly as this, is worthwhile and important. And this I didn't know, either. I might say, as Radner once did - never mind.
You've had experience, then, as probably have others, attempting to correct the wikipedia entries. And these were 'reverted', refused by the 'moderator', time and again?
I can see why it would seem that people would stop trying, with the system rigged against any reasonably fair presentation. They state at their site that controversies are equally presented. But it all depends on who is 'moderating' that article, I suppose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wing Wiper
Rear Admiral
Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Posts: 664
Location: Oregon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sevry
Commander
Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Posts: 326
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 1:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks. There are three copies because he sent these specifically and only to three individuals - Steve Braun of Maryland, who nonethelesss worked for the Los Angeles Times; Glenn Johnson of Associated Press; Michael Kranish, one of Kerry's biographers, of the Boston Globe.
The key line in section 2 reads, in each:
"A single one time copy of the complete military service record and medical record of John F. Kerry", written in someone's difficult to read, tight, closed longhand cursive.
There's no indication if it was sent to the address coded #14 on the back of each form, which is where Kerry's complete records conceivably would still be stored? But powerline quoted some anonymous NY Sun article to the effect that address #10 would have had the same info as #14, in any case [LINK].
I also wondered about this wording, "single one time copy". Is that important? The same powerline entry says that John O'neill is now satisfied with the wording he saw on these three SF-180s. But did O'Neill say "single one time copy" on his SF-180? I haven't found a link to his, by the way.
Others apparently suggested that the wording, overall, in general, excluded any release of records concerning his time afterward, as a politico and spokeman for the anti-war movement, but while still in the reserves.
I suppose sending these to at least one corrupted source in Kranish is suspicious. I don't have the bio of Glenn Johnson or Braun. But it might be interesting to find those, as well. Denying access to the NY Sun is also suspicious, as is the reluctance to make them public, in the first place, which apparently was the question when Kerry announced that he would sign and mail the form (people didn't realize it would be three, because Kerry specifically was going to limit release to these three, presumeably trusted and loyal, operatives).
Did John O'Neill say why he was "satisfied" with these SF-180s? Does he believe all questions concerning Kerry's discharge, even multiple medal citations, to have been answered? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kate
Admin
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 1891
Location: Upstate, New York
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 1:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
sevry,
polipundit has John O'Neill's 180
http://polipundit.com/images/O'Neill_Form_180.gif
after John saw skerry's 180s, he was quoted here http://www.nysun.com/article/15790
By JOSH GERSTEIN - Staff Reporter of the Sun
June 21, 2005
| Quote: | | One of Mr. Kerry's most steadfast critics, Houston attorney John O'Neill, said yesterday that the latest information from the Navy did not address the issue of whether Mr. Kerry's record might have been purged. "The real question was, was other material in there and was anything expunged?" Mr. O'Neill said. |
_________________
.
one of..... We The People |
|
| 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
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
