Hugh Hewitt interviewed Steve Gardner, and finally (FINALLY!), someone addresses the idiotic ‘served with’ talking points I have been bitching about for a week:
HH: Last night on the Daily Show on Comedy Central, Jon Stewart, the host, said this about the book that is coming about by John O’Neill: There are powerful indictments, or rather it would be had any of those guys served on Kerry’s boat,. By saying ‘with him’ they mean they were in Vietnam at the same time. Kind of the same way Snoopy served with the Red Baron. How do you respond to that?
SG: Well, on any movement we would do, we are talking four or five boats going in on an engagement, we were always within 50 or 75 yards of each other. And to be perfectly honest about it, if you were to look at an overview, if your were looking for an overview of a situation, you were better off being on another boat and looking at the rest of the other boats.
Finally.
And these pictures (from Q and O) don’t help Kerry’s idiotic defense.
The ‘served with’ canard, in Haiku form:
“Not on the same boat,”
the pundits cry. Their mission:
redefine “served with.”
Oregonian
Ah… So all we have to do is find some men who “served with” Dubya in Alabama and we can get an overview of his leadership abilities?
Sounds good to me.
After reading the recollections of the those Guardsmen, I get a pretty consistent overview that the shrub was a lazy shirker who never even bothered to show up for his monthly drills after he dodged the draft, declined to volunteer for service in Vietnam, and skipped his annual physical.
“Unfit for command” indeed.
I love Balloon Juice…
John Cole
Wow- I can tell from this post that Oregonian was never in the Guard, nor did he ever study the Bush aWOL issue other than survive a few DNC talking points.
Make a relevant arguent or go back to Eschaton, Oregon.
Gahrie
1) Pres. Bush flew a plane that had a reputation for being a pilot killer. It was unstable to fly and had a reputation for exploding.
2) Pres. Bush applied for service in Vietnam, but TNG pilots with more seniority went instead.
AL Maviva
hey, Oregano,
Bush isn’t the one bragging about being a war he-ro. Nice change of subject by the way – that always works for me, too. “What’s 2+2?” “Um., Napoleon. And I reject your racist math.”
How ’bout answering on the merits?
Hey, you aren’t one of those college kids Soros is paying to bombard blogs and newspaper editors with nasty email, are you?
Adrian Spidle
John Kerry has no honor and he endangers America.
While John Kerry promises that he will take care of us veterans; those of us who weren
John Cole
Adrian-
If you spam my comments with another link I am banning you.
Russell Wardlow
John Kerry was in Cambodia.
I can prove it.
Dave
Very disappointing post Mr. Cole. The interview doesn’t really deal with the medals controversy which has been the main point of the anti-Kerry swift boaters (and from what I gather the book they’re pushing as well). But then again it really couldn’t deal with that issue as Mr. Gardner wasn’t “serving with” Mr. Kerry on any of the occasions that Mr. Kerry received medals (save the first purple heart). So we are left with a historical record that on balance, supports Mr. Kerry on the medals issue. While the anti-Kerry swift boaters have made a number of provocative comments about Mr. Kerry’s service, they haven’t presented anything of substance to back them up. Their charges all seem to fall in the catagory of personal opinion, i.e., “I knew John Kerry and he was a bad man”, but nothing tangible or dare I say it, credible, has been presented by them as to his actions in battle to make the case that the medals he received were anything but legitimatly earned. As this is still the United States I would think that it would be incumbant upon the anti-Kerry swift boaters to prove their allegations and that Mr. Kerry would stand “not guilty” of any of the allegations tossed his way until proven otherwise. (And Mr. Stewart’s comments still seem appropriate it seems). As for Christmas in Cambodia? Seems like much ado about nothing really. Better to stick with more substantive issues I would think. (And no I’m not making any comment or allegation regarding Mr. Bush’s military record. While all the talk about that and Mr. Kerry’s record are provocative, the country has more at stake to reduce the debate to those 2 issues which could be argued forever without any real resolution.)
JC
While there is no hope in a fair hearing from this site – as the values, method, and outlook, I have now been convinced, go far beyond the boudaries of decency or rationality – I link to a comprehensive post debunking the alleged claims:
Link here
Also, a wiki site with a great array of links, shooting holes in the characters of those who put out this charade:
Link here
Two other underhanded tactics that Mr. Cole uses.
1. Before the book has even been released, Mr. Cole has been trumpeting the “claims” to the skies. Then, after trumpeting the claims asks: “Just refute the facts.”
You would think he would have the decency to actually wait until the book is released (release date August 15th), so that people will have time to actually look at the charges, yes? But instead, it suits Mr. Cole’s rhetorical purposes to not mention these slanderous charges – aren’t really available to be properly analyzed yet!
2. There is absolutely no balance at all in Mr. Cole’s treatment of this issue. No mention of the uniformly high marks given by Kerr’s commanders while in Vietnam. No mention of the history of Mr. O’Niell or Mr. Corsi. No mention that some people in the SBV – what they say now, completely contradicts what was said 30 years ago, by the same people.
No mention that the person that Kerry saved, has continued to stick by his story.
And let’s not forget the actual legacy we are talking about here:
3 Purple Hearts
1 Bronze Star
1 Silver Star
It’s pretty to discount that record of heroism and bravery, don’t you think?
Lastly, even the main point that Mr. Cole has been harping – answer the charges – is underhanded. Mr. Kerry is not guilty until proven innocent, and the background characters who are coming up with this attack, and who FUND this type of attack, DO matter – Mr. Cole’s silence to the contrary.
John Cole
JC:
A.) Call me John.
B.) I have nbever trumpeted the claims ‘to the skies.’ On repeated occasions, I have stated I do not know what to make ofthe claims.
C.) I did state the ad was devestating. That neither makes it true or false, but instead, devestating. The Kerrycampaign and you seem to agree.
D.) It is not up to me to prove anything. These men were there, they made the accusations, and it is up to Kerry to refute the charges. Thisis a political campaign, and not a court of lie, so you can take your ‘innocent until proven guilty’ nonsense elsewhere. Or you could at least apply the same principle evenly- see Bush, AWOL.
E.) The Kerry campaign has done nothing to refute the claims, other than attempt to stifle them, slander and libel the men making them, and issue talking points like the ‘served with’ nonsense. Your second link is nothing more than proof of the attacks made on the men. Refute their claims, not their character.
F.) Sure I take into account those who speak highly of him- tis a pity you pay no attention to those who say otherwise.
G.) The funding of this does NOT matter. If I fund a commercial that states that “2+2=5,” what makes the claim true or false is not the source of the funding, but the actual veracity of the statement.
Anything I missed?