stuckincincy Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 That's ok with me. My question is, when will Kerry also sign the Form 180 and allow all his military records to be available for public review? If Kerry is all his supporters say he is, why has this not been done? Is there something to hide? Is Kerry being less than honest? Are you comfortable as a supporter of Kerry with this - honestly? Shouldn't CBS be asking this very question? I swear, either Democratic stratagists are stone drunk with hubris or are just plain stupid. Air it out beforehand and let it fade from memory. Three days before election day, the Republican 527 equivalents of moveon.org may well hammer Kerry on this...
Mickey Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 That's ok with me. My question is, when will Kerry also sign the Form 180 and allow all his military records to be available for public review? If Kerry is all his suporrters say he is, why has this not been done? Is there something to hide? Is Kerry being less than honest? Are you comfortable as a supporter of Kerry with this - honestly? Shouldn't CBS be asking this very question? I swear, either Democratic stratigists are stone drunk with hubris or are just plain stupid. Air it out beforehand and let it fade from memory. Three days before election day, the Republican 527 equivalents of moveon.org may well hammer Kerry on this... 35033[/snapback] These were not "released", they were pried loose at the end of a lawsuit, a FOIL request. Has anybody done a FOIL for Kerry's records, I imagine they have. I also imagine Sandra Bullock in a bikini, emerging from my pool, her supple thighs glistening in the..... but I digress.
DC Tom Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 I also imagine Sandra Bullock in a bikini, emerging from my pool, her supple thighs glistening in the...35048[/snapback] Hey! Get your own !@#$ing daydream! Leave mine alone!
DC Tom Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 My question is, when will Kerry also sign the Form 180 and allow all his military records to be available for public review?35033[/snapback] Ummm...how about WHEN IT BLOODY !@#$ING MATTERS????? Can't we just let this "Where were you thirty years ago?" issue GO already? And yes, Kerry, this means you too. No one cares about the shrapnel in you leg...
VABills Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 Hey! Get your own !@#$ing daydream! Leave mine alone! 35055[/snapback] I envisioned you having a ResesaAnnie dream. Kind of like the opening scene in "Evolution".
Mickey Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 Ummm...how about WHEN IT BLOODY !@#$ING MATTERS????? Can't we just let this "Where were you thirty years ago?" issue GO already? And yes, Kerry, this means you too. No one cares about the shrapnel in you leg... 35056[/snapback] Actually, that form is to allow others to get your records or to get them for yourself. Bush apparently didn't sign a release that let everyone get them, he signed the form to get them for himself and then he released what he wanted. Kerry released all his records. Both basically got the records and released what they wanted claiming to have released everything of any value. It is not even clear as to whether the President signed the form: "At the White House, press secretary Scott McClellan said he couldn't say specifically whether Mr. Bush signed Standard Form 180, but the president did request and release his own military records in February." (Washington Times 8/18/04). Much ado about nothing. Now leave Sandra to me, I happen to know she is a big time liberal Hollywood elite.
PastaJoe Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 If Kerry follows Bush's example, then he'll release them when he's running for reelection in 4 years after he's compelled to by a court order.
IUBillsFan Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 If Kerry follows Bush's example, then he'll release them when he's running for reelection in 4 years after he's compelled to by a court order. 35089[/snapback] THIS DOESN'T MATTER BUT...Bush hasn't made his record in the guard an issue most people realize he got special treatment Bush has said Kerry served more Honorably(sp?). Kerry has made Vietnam his issue yet according to the Navy he still has records that have not been released. Why the dems keep pushing this is beyond me it is NOT helping them.
BRH Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 But didn't you know? All the records were released. They were all released in 2000. And then they were all released again in February. And then they were all released again in July. And then they were all released again a couple weeks ago. Now they're going to release all the records AGAIN!
stuckincincy Posted September 17, 2004 Author Posted September 17, 2004 These were not "released", they were pried loose at the end of a lawsuit, a FOIL request. Has anybody done a FOIL for Kerry's records, I imagine they have. I also imagine Sandra Bullock in a bikini, emerging from my pool, her supple thighs glistening in the..... but I digress. 35048[/snapback] Unless Kerry signs the release, FOI requests cannot proceed. You know that You are missing my point, Mickey. The Kerry campaign has decided that they, for their own reasons refuse to expose them to even the possibility of them being "pried". I certainly understand that the spin is that Bush et al is resisting and therefore allegations of stonewalling are being put forth. But Kerry et al chooses to not even allow it to be a potential topic of adjudication. "We don't want to allow for a discovery process", so to speak. I would not be proud of that. So the question remains, Why not? The Kerry campaign has managed to get a certain stink about them. CBS trying to massage seemingly forged memos on their behalf. The calling of everything Republican ignorant, stupid, the neverending condensation and belittlement directed at least half of the electorate. That is not a way to win the Presidency... And your own words, introducing a statement about "supple thighs" is many miles off any issue at hand and is indicitave of the malaise that the once-important liberal viewpoint has fallen into. It is that very type of self-important sneer constantly issued by the left and one of the reasons that the Dem's lose legislatures and governorships nationwide. Surprising as it may seem, it doesn't play well in Peoria. Look at Texas...after controlling the legislature and calling the shots for a 100 years, the Dem's run away to other states like children with diaper rash because they didn't rule the roost for a few years out of a hundred. How infantile, and they have likely assured that they won't be calling the shots anytime soon. Sad.
BuffaloBorn1960 Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 Kerry released all his records. 35068[/snapback] He Did? When? Where? Maybe you thought he released them as he did when he released those metals? I kind of enjoy Kerry's continued focus on the Vietnam era... the more he does the more people see him for the fraud he is.... Ithink its now official... John Kerry has now spent more time talking about vietnam than he actually spent there... He has now also spent more time talking about vietnam than he spent actuall doing anything in the Senate..
Mickey Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 Unless Kerry signs the release, FOI requests cannot proceed. You know that You are missing my point, Mickey. The Kerry campaign has decided that they, for their own reasons refuse to expose them to even the possibility of them being "pried". I certainly understand that the spin is that Bush et al is resisting and therefore allegations of stonewalling are being put forth. But Kerry et al chooses to not even allow it to be a potential topic of adjudication. "We don't want to allow for a discovery process", so to speak. I would not be proud of that. So the question remains, Why not? The Kerry campaign has managed to get a certain stink about them. CBS trying to massage seemingly forged memos on their behalf. The calling of everything Republican ignorant, stupid, the neverending condensation and belittlement directed at least half of the electorate. That is not a way to win the Presidency... And your own words, introducing a statement about "supple thighs" is many miles off any issue at hand and is indicitave of the malaise that the once-important liberal viewpoint has fallen. It is the very type of self-important sneer constantly issued by the left and one of the reasons that the Dem's lose legislatures and governorships nationwide. Surprising as it may seem, it doesn't play well in Peoria. Look at Texas...after controlling the legislature and calling the shots for a 100 years, the Dem's run away to other states like children with diaper rash because they didn't rule the roost for a few years out of a hundred. How infantile, and they have likely assured that they won't be calling the shots anytime soon. Sad. 35100[/snapback] Here is a link to an anti-Kerry site where the author issued an apology for having made the oft repeated claim that the President signed a Form 180: Bush did not sign a Form 180 as claimed As for the FOIL request and to what extent service records would be obtainable through that device: this is a not a question either of us can answer off the top of our heads. The media has made such a request for Bush's records and have apparently won so I don't know why you would conclude that a FOIL request would not get those records for Kerry. I don't want to sound dramatic but frankly, these are McCarthy-ite tactics. The idea that if someone doesn't make all of his private business public he must therefore have something to hide is an exercise I find repugnant. Such tactics leave a person in the position of having to sacrifice their legitimate rights to some degree of privacy or to allow people to hang you with innuendo. The whole business stinks. At least on a FOIL request, there is a Judge limiting the disclosure in some way and every one gets a chance to make their arguments for or against disclosure. Neither has given wide open, no holds barred access to all their records. I have never once complained here or anywhere that Bush was keeping records secret that would hang him, that he was hiding something. You have never stopped with this Form 180 thing for Kerry yet have not balanced that with the same criticisms of Bush. If you think they should both sign the form, fine, post away and make all the same negative inferences, justified or not, by their refusal to do so as long as you do it for both.
RkFast Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 Im so tired of this.............. A son of a man of power in this country got preferential treatment when he was a kid? Naw...that never happens. And further...I DEFY anyone to step into GHWB's shoes and say they wouldnt do the same for their children in the middle of a military action. Good Lord...this is a country where we dont want to use red markers anymore to grade our children's papers lest it "traumatize them" and we buy cars that double as TANKS to "protect" our little ones, and the word "legacy" will get a young man or woman everything from sex to a high paying job, but we are all flustered because a man with a record of service to the USA ten miles long pulled a few strings to keep his kid not even out of the military...but just out of 'Nam? What a load of hypocritical stevestojan.
stuckincincy Posted September 17, 2004 Author Posted September 17, 2004 I looked at your reference from the Wizbang blog site. I can't say I've every heard of it, or it's verity. As I read that site, Bush authorized the Pentagon, as CIC, to release his records - all of them. If the site owner is correct, that Bush did not sign form 180, then I am misinformed. So if the AP sued because there was more, as I said, that is quite ok with me. But if you could provide an authorative site - something other than Wizblog - that can explain why Kerry (evidently, not being the CIC, cannot direct the Pentogan to release informatiom) has not used the avenue available to him, the so-called form 180, to clear up any controversy? Surely you must be curious as to why not?. I certainly understand what you mean by McCarthy tactics (and BTW after the breakup of the FSU, they admitted that McCarthy was right about their efforts to infiltrate) - and they seem to be practiced by the Left IMO these days. Mickey, you and I have locked horns many times, but I will try to make myself very clear hear. The Democrats have for the last decade or so, degenerated into an organization that offers only critism. They scream about health care but effect no advancement when in control. Shout simultaneously about national security failures and decry domestic security efforts. Have developed a fractious base of youngsters and dummies that are custom-made for inhaling inflammatory rhetoric so that they might vote for them. Take every effort to divide the nation racially and economically, all to get votes and gain power. Worthwhile, considerate candidates like Bayh, Biden, Leiberman etc. no longer have a chance in their voting universe. The screed and hate during the service for that good man, Sen. Wellstone of Minnesota, was telling. Hubert Humphry wept. I forsee an end of choice, of two parties. The Clinton model of winning for winning's sake has been described by people far more astute than me. The "government by focus group" has been well-discussed. I hope this does not happen.
PastaJoe Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 Im so tired of this.............. A son of a man of power in this country got preferential treatment when he was a kid? Naw...that never happens. And further...I DEFY anyone to step into GHWB's shoes and say they wouldnt do the same for their children in the middle of a military action. And this is any different than when Clinton (who didn't have the advantage of a rich family) was accused of being a draft dodger by going to school in England? What goes around comes around.
MichFan Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 And this is any different than when Clinton (who didn't have the advantage of a rich family) was accused of being a draft dodger by going to school in England? What goes around comes around. Active service in 'Nam > National Guard service >>>>>>>>> draft dodging Don't even try to compare draft dodging as a moral equivalent with having strings pulled to get into the National Guard. It is an insult to the many people who have served in the guard.
Alaska Darin Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 And this is any different than when Clinton (who didn't have the advantage of a rich family) was accused of being a draft dodger by going to school in England? What goes around comes around. 35340[/snapback] Because back then you were defending it and now you're on the other side? Yep, that's probably it.
Mickey Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 I looked at your reference from the Wizbang blog site. I can't say I've every heard of it, or it's verity. As I read that site, Bush authorized the Pentagon, as CIC, to release his records - all of them. If the site owner is correct, that Bush did not sign form 180, then I am misinformed. So if the AP sued because there was more, as I said, that is quite ok with me. But if you could provide an authorative site - something other than Wizblog - that can explain why Kerry (evidently, not being the CIC, cannot direct the Pentogan to release informatiom) has not used the avenue available to him, the so-called form 180, to clear up any controversy? Surely you must be curious as to why not?. I certainly understand what you mean by McCarthy tactics (and BTW after the breakup of the FSU, they admitted that McCarthy was right about their efforts to infiltrate) - and they seem to be practiced by the Left IMO these days. Mickey, you and I have locked horns many times, but I will try to make myself very clear hear. The Democrats have for the last decade or so, degenerated into an organization that offers only critism. They scream about health care but effect no advancement when in control. Shout simultaneously about national security failures and decry domestic security efforts. Have developed a fractious base of youngsters and dummies that are custom-made for inhaling inflammatory rhetoric so that they might vote for them. Take every effort to divide the nation racially and economically, all to get votes and gain power. Worthwhile, considerate candidates like Bayh, Biden, Leiberman etc. no longer have a chance in their voting universe. The screed and hate during the service for that good man, Sen. Wellstone of Minnesota, was telling. Hubert Humphry wept. I forsee an end of choice, of two parties. The Clinton model of winning for winning's sake has been described by people far more astute than me. The "government by focus group" has been well-discussed. I hope this does not happen. 35224[/snapback] Check the Washington Times Article where the President's spokes person was quoted as saying the same thing if you don't beleive the link to the anti-Kerry guy apologizing for wrongly stating that Bush signed the 180. Bush didn't sign Form 180 You might want to read Al Franken's version of the Wellstone funeral, he was actually there. Biased? I am sure he is as were the reports of what went on there that you have read. No solutions, only criticism? You use health care as an example. Good, lets start there. I seem to recall quite a major effort by the Clinton administration on that score. They got shot down but they tried and those who crapped all over their idea certainly had no solutions of their own and still don't. Maybe you could tell me what plan the Republican party has offered in the last 12 years with the goal of solving the problem of the uninsured? The Clintons spent every ounce of political capital they had trying to get something done on that issue. No one else has had the guts to go near that problem since. The right was full of criticism on that issue and totally bereft of solutions themselves. The very thing you are taking democrats to account on. As for the "custom made to inhale inflammatory rhetoric", surely you are talking about the rank and file of the Republican party? Afterall, someone is listening to Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh and the rest. Republicans invented the inhalation of inflammatory rhetoric. Didn't Coulter write a book accusing every democrat in the nation of treason? Do you seriously not see that as inflammatory? This is the party that still thinks Hillary killed Vin Foster for gods sake. I am sorry but if you can't see the irony of your criticism of the democratic party in this post, I just don't even know where to begin. I think the right has some worthwhile leaders but they have no chance given the state of the party now. McCain is one good example. Bush and his tactics creamed him. His honor and straightforward manner, his intelligence and service to his country were no match for Bush and his Lee Atwater style politics.
Captain America Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 Active service in 'Nam > National Guard service >>>>>>>>> draft dodging Don't even try to compare draft dodging as a moral equivalent with having strings pulled to get into the National Guard. It is an insult to the many people who have served in the guard. 35397[/snapback] You are right for instance did you know that Teddy Roosevelt and the 'rough riders were National Guard.On any given day, an average of 4,700 ARNG soldiers are away from home in support of our national security 33% of the Army's Armored Cavalry Regiments are in the Army National Guard. The Army National Guard has 56% of the Army's Combat force structure. More than 60,000 Army Guard personnel were called to active duty for the Gulf War. 52% of the Army's Infantry Battalions are in the Army National Guard. 38% of the the Army's force structure is in the Army National Guard 45% of the Army's Mechanized Infantry forces are in the Army National Guard. This and many other factoids and it can esily be seen why they are called to active duty. I would imagine that Bush going into the Air National guard as a pilot a congressman would have to recommed him like say his father. Many Air Guard pilots were in Viet Nam. So keep up the good work libbers ....Bush wins in a landslide.
RkFast Posted September 18, 2004 Posted September 18, 2004 Because back then you were defending it and now you're on the other side? Yep, that's probably it. 35510[/snapback] This seems to be the premise of their whole efforts to get people elected.
Recommended Posts