Thursday, August 12, 2004

The Plot Thickens for Governor McGreedy

Wow! I haven’t EVER seen a press conference like that! New Jersey Governor Jim McGreedy emerges –docile, smiling, Stepford wife in tow- rambles on about how he has tried to “fit into the mold of a traditional life” and my mind was racing…what’s he gonna say? Hookers? Strippers? Call girls? Under-age Girls? I lean towards the TV in anticipation –his nervous preamble alerting me to the fact that the disclosure was going to be big!

“I am a gay American” (as opposed to a gay Frenchman or a gay Australian I suppose)

Once again, Wow! That I didn’t expect ---in a million years! I know that I shouldn’t be reveling in someone else’s pain –and I’m not really, it’s just that it’s SO juicy and I know there is a giant scandal behind it that has yet to unravel (and yes, I will be the first to admit that I love a good political scandal). I mean why resign for ‘coming out’ and admitting that you were having a consensual affair with another dude?

I will get to why this story is relevant to the rest of the country in a minute…

Anyway, it has been reported that Magical Me himself (Clinton) flew into NJ to talk to McGreedy last night…why? To tell him to resign –to tell him not to resign? I want to know! It has also been reported that there will be a law suit filed by a man that worked in the Governor’s office charging him with sexual harassment. The man was made head of McGreedy’s security team after 9/11-- with NO previous security experience…hmmm….

Before you go thinking it was brave and honorable of him to disclose this information –the man that he was having the affair with (also a government official) –was basically blackmailing him…asking for a large amount of money to make it go away. He had no choice. For those of you who may not know –there has also been a big financial scandal brewing –having to do with his campaign finances. This man is also driving businesses from NJ by the truckloads with the Liberal method of tax the hell out of the ‘rich’. This resignation shouldn’t/doesn’t have to do with the fact that he is gay –just a seemingly corrupt person (but that didn’t stop John Street or Marian Barry from multiple wins).

Anyway, here’s how this is relevant to you in other states. There is a NJ state law that says if a resignation is 60 days before a general election the people of NJ get to vote on the new Governor, BUT if it is after that the Lt. Gov. takes the position. Today is 82 days until the election, but McGreedy said that his resignation would be effective as of November 15th…how convenient! Is it all starting to come clear –Clinton’s visit…

The person that would most likely be elected is a Republican (not the Democrat Lt. Gov.) –which means higher GOP turn out on election day –which means NJ is back in play as a swing state and Bush gets a real shot at winning it.

How shady is it to say ‘I resign’ –but not until 13 days after the election. I am quite sure that as the plot thickens and the real story unfolds, there will be lawsuits filed regarding the timing of the resignation (as there should be). Most people that I know from Jersey (Republicans & Democrats) had a low opinion of their Governor anyway and would welcome this chance to vote in someone else. So, thanks to McGreedy and his pesky little secrets…Bush may just have a shot at the 15 electoral votes from New Jersey after all! Those of you in NJ have 22 days to demand your right to an elected –not appointed- governor! Get going!


On a completely seperate subject I would like to take a moment to say Happy Birthday to BigandMean!
In breathy, wispy Marilyn Monroe Voice: "Happy Birthday to you, Happy Birthday to you....Happy Birth day Mr. Big and Mean....Happy Birthday to you!"


leftyjones said...

There is a New Jersey state law regarding this that was passed at some time in the past and your solution to win the governorship (and your "W" pipe dream in Jersey is rich by the way.....)
is to litigate???

The man holds the office.
There is a law on the books.
A constitutional law.
He can resign anytime he wants.
Just because you don't like his timing doesn't make it illegal.

Awfully convenient how quickly a righty will rush to litigate, to trial lawyers no less, when they don't like how it all shakes out.

You've been hanging around Ricky Santorum too long. You know him, the guy who pretends to be against trial lawyers and then sues his wife's chiripractor and in the damages includes that fact that his wife couldn't campaign with him????

Then again, Scalia and his Stepford votes have been known to choose a leader before............

ALa said...

Was that trembling I felt in the clicking of the keyboard keys? Fear I smell in the Canadian air? No, I think that's just moose dung...
You know it's wrong -he knows he is going to leave and the people shouldn't have an 'appointed' Governor for a year and a half --maybe if it was a couple of months...
Also if there is corruption with the Gov -then i am sure the Lt. Gov is involved...we shall see!

leftyjones said...

Witty comments but as per usual you avoid the issue.
You are suggesting that the courts decide an election.
You are suggesting litigation at taxpayer expense.
You are suggesting hiring a fleet of trial lawyers.

You may not like his timing. That by itself does not make it illegal.

If there was a legitimate, criminal reason to impeach the gov. AND the lieutenant gov. before election day in November, then fine, an election should occur.
Otherwise, I believe the law should prevail over your whims.
Besides, I've got a better chance of being elected Gov. of NJ than Doug Forester does. You can like Corzine or hate him but he'd mop Forester from one end of the turnpike to the other. If anything, it would increase Democrat turnout.

this we'll defend said...

I wouldn't blame a republican for taking advantage of such a law. It simply makes sense. That Clinton did the electoral math is yet another showing of his impressive political skill. Instead of whining about how this governor did something entirely legal and not at all improper in resigning on a date of his choosing, what about genuine illegal activities?

The thing that bugs me is that there is a whiff of scandal about this governor unrelated to his gay escapades. He cheated on his wife with another man. That will now be the story. Investigations into whether he accepted bribes, undue influence, etc. will now be dismissed as attacks on him merely because he is gay, and certainly won't be the big story. And the right-wing will play along because the gay issue hurts democrats with many undecided voters. Supporters will decry any attempt to prosecute him as homophobic gay-bashing. Opponents will refer to him as the gay democrat tax-and-spend liberal who cheated on his wife. It should be the crooked NJ governor who went to jail because of campaign finance irregularities.

The sad truth is that this guy appears crooked and now may get away with it - because he's gay. He didn't resign because he's gay, he resigned because he is under investigation for criminal activity (something, sadly, not unique to either party). That should be the real story, not whether he is homosexual.

this we'll defend said...

Oh, one other thing: if the date of his resignation for blatant political purposes upsets you, how about that Texas redistricting, huh? Neat stuff, that.

ALa said...

TWD: I specifically said that him being gay isn't why he should resign...
There are many things that could be said about that -the personal side of it. The fact that he married and had children with two women knowing full-well that he was gay (probably putting political aspirations above their right-to-know) How many affairs has he had -was he using condoms with his wife or has he exposed her to disease and STDs...
But this isn't the political story -that is just the 'another shitty guy' story.
I have been complaining about McGreedy's corrupt dealings before this was even a whisper in the wind! he was going to be in trouble anyone and this was a out -a personal out instead of a political out.

ALa said...

Oh and lefty...I also think I said it should be up to the people of NJ to speak out and demand their right to have a representative elected governor...not trial lawyers. I was pointing out that there will be lawsuits about the validity of resigning 95 days before you actually resign...or to see if they can impeach him for shady business dealings before the resignation...

Bigandmean said...

You never cease to amaze me. I was about to go to bed after helping my son and my daughter in law move into their new apartment. I thought I'd check your blog to see what words of wisdom you were laying on our friends lefty, TWD and the other common sense challenged commandos from the left.

I don't think I've had a bigger surprise on my birthday since my sister gave me something called a "Mexican low rider pimp shirt" with my name sown on the back above the words "You Da Man!". Your happy birthday wishes were totally unexpected and appreciated.

It reminded me of the story about the similarities in the lifes and deaths of Lincoln and Kennedy. Lincoln was elected in 1860, Kennedy in 1960. Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy, Kennedy's was named Lincoln. Lincoln was shot in a theater and his killer ran to a warehouse. Kennedy was shot from a warehouse and his killer ran to a theater. A week before he died, Lincoln was in Monroe, Maryland. A week before he died Kennedy was in Marilyn Monroe. Unbelievable!

Not all is lost for Govenor McGreevey. I hear he's headed to Hollywood where his new found fame has landed him a starring role in the new production of "Butt Pirates of the Carribean" co-starring Barney Frank. It's this huge extraganza about these two gay pirates who single handedly commandeer a French ship transporting a load of truffles to the froggie girly man army that is about to attack an American singer named Pearl Bailey who they attack and ravage every year on December 7. I'd like to finish telling you about this but it would ruin the ending. It's a real laff riot!!!

Jen, if you read this don't tell your Mom. I'm already on double secret probation.

this we'll defend said...

ALa71: just to be clear, I don't agree that the gov has done anything illegal or unethical in delaying his resignation for political purposes. everything else we agree on - it seems he is a scumbag. And being gay has nothing to do with it and should not give him any cover, as you rightly say.

Tammi said...

Jim @ is a lawyer living in NJ and is going to be worth following on this also. He's a good one for keeping us up on what is going on in the Garden State. (just thought I'd point you there in case you hadn't seen him)

I really saddens me the way this is all playing out. You're right, the Real Issues will now be swept under the carpet and everything will swirl around his sexuality. And the big news is that he is as crooked as my grandpa's willow tree.

I also agree that the people of NJ need to speak up and challenge the timing. It's obvious. And I would feel that way whether he was a D or an R. The people deserve a say.

justrose said...

I would like to thank ALa71 for recounting McGreevey's words in the press conference verbatim. When I watched the replay on TV, I realized ALa71 had been CHANNELING McGreevey! I don't know how she memorizes that stuff on the fly! She had everything down -- the pauses, the moments of doubt. And this was over the phone that she told me! She's a genius.

Also I agree with TWD, not about the gayness, but the other corrupt stuff on the downlow, to be revealed. Who cares about his orientation (except maybe his poor wife), but the news is running with that part of it for the juice that's in it.

And BigandMean -- I think that "mexican low rider pimp shirt" is now my favorite phrase. I nearly dumped my dish of salsa.

Oh and Lefty -- you sound tired and cranky. Is the northern clime not agreeing with you?

ALa said...

Lefty_ BTW, I was talking about Brent Shundler not Forrester...(Corzine is an idiot -I hope NJ wouldn't pick so poorly twice in a row). Also, this is not the Republicans trying to manipulate the is obviously the Democrats --McGreedy said that he was resigning because everything that was happening WOULD SURELY AFFECT HIS ABILITY TO GOVERN EFFICIETNLY. Now, if the things are hitting the fan NOW what is that saying? My life is in shambles and I will not be able to focus on the work-at-hand for you, the people of NJ that elected me, BUT we need to hang onto this seat so for the next three months-during heightened terror alerts -nothing will get done.
Come on --if this were a Republican doing this fur would be flying --you can say that you are glad that it legally can be done (and at least I will respect your honesty), but to say it's OK or to shirk responsibility onto the uninvolved-in-the-scandals party is just 'intellectually dishonest'!

Bethany D said...

Yea. The Metro had a screaming headline and the whole day I tried to get ahold of one but to no avail. So awful how that guy just remarried and then he goes and does that. Women will never trust him again - and with good reason.

Anyway - I was thinking, you get so many comments... why don't you sign up for a message board? You can get one at and might be able to hook it up to your blog. In fact, I'm sure that you can hook up a phpbb message board to your blog. - ten minute documentary on Kerry's waffling - Will Ferrell making fun of Bush

Tom said...


A great mind like yours can think like a mediocre one like mine anytime.

That said, what I find most amusing about the left's attempt to couch this in their usual victimology - "It's because McGreevey's queer" - is the right's apologetic response to it. Liberals would stand there with their mouths agape, drooling (more than usual) in shock were Republicans to challenge their distaste for, say, an anti-abortion religious conservative holding a governorship - even one without the corruption and other taint surrounding a McGreevey. Being a "gay American" is just as frought with political/ideological consequences as being a "Christian American" when it comes to "fitness" for office as determined by voters. So screw the libs and their PC demands. In this particular case, McGreevey's a corrupt liberal Democratic moron, anyway; being a gay one is icing on the cake. But conservatives would be no more obligated to ignore this liberal politician's gayness (gaity?) were it the only issue than the left would feel obligated to ignore a conservative's religious beliefs. I have no problem with either, because debate is the essence of politics.

this we'll defend said...

Tom - you must have missed my posts above because you seem so sure you know exactly what "liberal morons" think (Fox News must have told you).

The gov of NJ is corrupt. Not because he is gay, or a democrat, but because he is a crook. His shameful attempt to "come out of the closet" are an attempt to seek cover so that attacks against him seem attacks on his sexuality are despicable. He is playing the "gay card" the way OJ played the "race card" and it is wrong.

Any attempt by right-wing homophobes to focus on his homosexuality are EXACTLY what he wants, because that takes the focus away from what is important - his criminality. He didn't engage in criminal behavior because he likes men, he did it because he is a crook.

And being Christian doesn't mean you are right-wing, but if you think not being right-wing means you aren't a "true Christian" then you attend one of those many Christian churches where Jesus and his message of love aren't welcome.

A pastor once told a story about asking a long-time deacon who seemed filled with hate and condemnation of others to come to Christ and accept Jesus. The deacon blustered "I've been a deacon here for 35 years!" The pastor said "Yes. Don't let that stop you."

So yes, McGreevy is a corrupt, liberal, democratic, moron. The "liberal democrat" part shouldn't be used as an insult in a nation where opposing opinions aren't viewed as dangerous.

Just my opinion, an honest, liberal, democratic, Christian, and I hope intelligent one.

Tom said...


I don't recall identifying you as spokesman for liberal morons, but if you want the title ...

"The gov of NJ is corrupt. Not because he is gay ..."

Nor do I recall establishing that particular post hoc ergo propter hoc argument. The fact you couldn't cite a direct quote from my post where such a causal relationship is drawn bears this out.

"...or a democrat, but because he is a crook."

Read more closely next time: I said exactly the same thing. I did not say it was because he was a liberal, or a democrat, or gay.

"His shameful attempt to 'come out of the closet' are (sic) an attempt to seek cover so that attacks against him seem attacks on his sexuality are despicable. He is playing the 'gay card' the way OJ played the 'race card' and it is wrong."

Uh, yes. Everyone is pretty much in agreement on that. But if you really needed to lay out your liberal bona fides re homosexuality and race, I'm glad I gave you the opportunity, notwithstanding the fact the connection to anything I wrote is extemely tenuous.

"Any attempt by right-wing homophobes to focus on his homosexuality are EXACTLY what he wants..."

You wanna go back and read what I wrote? I know you think you're a world class debater, but it's too bad you argue about points no one raised. I noticed in your biography at your blog that you attended law school. Maybe things have changed, but I thought law school training entailed learning how to deal with hypotheticals, assuming you can recognize a hypothetical when you see one. My hypothetical candidates are not corrupt like McGreevey; I would argue that their respective "lifestyles" (for want of a better term) are both equally legitimate issues for voters - liberal and conservative - to consider.

"He didn't engage in criminal behavior because he likes men, he did it because he is a crook."

Oh, brother. Again, nothing contrary to that was stated in my post.

"And being Christian doesn't mean you are right-wing ..."

And again, you're projecting the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy to which you are prone onto me. Bad move. Because I introduce A Christian conservative in my hypothetical does not translate into my thinking that ALL Christians are conservative, and not being conservative means that one is not a "true Christian", and try as you might, TWD, you will not be able to demonstrate I made such a leap beyond your own fantasies.

"So yes, McGreevy is a corrupt, liberal, democratic, moron. The 'liberal democrat"'part shouldn't be used as an insult in a nation where opposing opinions aren't viewed as dangerous."

How pious. Too bad no one said opposing opinions ARE dangerous. Talk to yourself often?

"Just my opinion..."

And I would never, ever, deny you your right to be wrong, TWD, so opine away.

this we'll defend said...

Tom, great post.

You wrote about "the left's attempt to crouch this in their usual victimology" - excuse me for thinking you know what the "left" thinks. Even though many left-wing commentators have "come out" to blast this governor for his transparent attempt to shift blame for his troubles away from his own actions.

You also blasted the right's "apologetic response," which I agreed with (the governor should be blasted by both parties) until I read on.

You said that his being gay was "icing on the cake." You implied the right should attack the governor over his homosexuality since it was a part of "fitness" for office, and the left be damned ("so screw the libs and their PC demands"), especially since the left would attack the right over "an anti-abortion religious conservative holding a governorship - even one without the corruption." Which led to my "Any attempt by right-wing homophobes to focus on his homosexuality are EXACTLY what he wants..." You can go back and read your original post if you want.

You are right, you never did say he was corrupt or a crook because he was gay. I never said you did, but I did word it poorly and I can see how you thought that. My bad, I should have been clearer. My point was that his attempt to shift the debate from corruption to homosexuality is what McGreevy wants. That is why even if it is a legitimate issue for the voters it shouldn't be an issue here. It has nothing to do with his many problems but is merely a smokescreen.

Nobody said opposing opinions are dangerous, true. Instead the "left" was portrayed as employing their "usual victimology," "drooling (more than usual)" with "mouths agape." The adjectives "liberal" and "democratic" were included with the adjectives "corrupt" and "moron," implying that the first two are pejoratives. And throughout your post was the implication that religious beliefs and the democratic party don't go together. My point was that opposing views don't make one the enemy.

Your are right to correct my use of "are" when I should have used "is" in my sentence. Thank you.

I think we are in violent agreement over McGreevy - he sucks (no pun... well, pun intended) but we differ over whether his sexual orientation should be an issue. I say no, for both the right and the left. You say it is ok for the right to use it against him as another nail in his coffin. We can agree to disagree over that.

Tom said...

"You wrote about 'the left's attempt to crouch ...'"

I think I said "couch" ...

"'... this in their usual victimology' - excuse me for thinking you know what the 'left' thinks. Even though many left-wing commentators have 'come out' to blast this governor for his transparent attempt to shift blame for his troubles away from his own actions."

I've heard just as many, if not more, praise his "courage". Evidently McGreevey himself knows what and how the left thinks or he wouldn't have pulled that ridiculous stunt.

"You also blasted the right's 'apologetic response,' which I agreed with (the governor should be blasted by both parties) until I read on."

Yes, because the apologetic "It has nothing to do with his being gay" implies that gayness - or any "lifestyle choice" - is never a legitimate issue when it comes to politics and with this I disgaree.

"You said that his being gay was 'icing on the cake ...'"

Yes ...

"You implied the right should attack the governor over his homosexuality since it was a part of 'fitness' for office ..."

Well, I didn't say "attack", but, yes, his homosexuality is a legitimate "issue".

"...and the left be damned ('so screw the libs and their PC demands") ..."


" ... especially since the left would attack the right over 'an anti-abortion religious conservative holding a governorship - even one without the corruption ...'"

Yes, meaning he is not corrupt BECAUSE he is a homosexual, though his homosexuality IS intertwined with his corruption (see below), but if an anti-abortion religious conservative's fitness for office can be challenged on that basis alone by liberals because they perceive it a threat to their social/cultural "values", then consrevatives are free to address a candidate's homosexuality in so far as it impacts social cultural values to which they adhere. And, yes, TWD, I meant to put quotes around liberal "values".

"Which led to my 'Any attempt by right-wing homophobes to focus on his homosexuality are EXACTLY what he wants...'"

And this is where you step off the path. First, any "focus" on homosexuality is not indicative of the so-called homophobia knee-jerks have invented in order to stifle legitimate debate. Thus, had you said, "Any attempt by conservatives to focus on his homosexuality are EXACTLY what he wants so that he can level the spurious charge of 'homophobia' and deflect attention from his other corrupt behavior" you would have been correct. Instead, you show just how politicall savvy McGreevey is, because the phrasing you chose is exactly what he depends on.

"You are right, you never did say he was corrupt or a crook because he was gay. I never said you did, but I did word it poorly and I can see how you thought that. My bad, I should have been clearer. My point was that his attempt to shift the debate from corruption to homosexuality is what McGreevy wants."

And I never said such a "shift" was necessary. Of course it isn't. But his alleged "gayness" (which I think is a crock of shit, but that's another story) is one of the many considerations here. In other words, the people of New Jersey have as much right to decide whether they want a gay governor as they do to decide whether they want a liberal or conservative governor. Hell, New Jersey gays have the right to decide whether they want a straight governor. To which you would no doubt respond, "So what if they do? There aren't enough gays to ensure such a outcome even if they overwhelmingly preferred a gay governor." And you would be correct. Ain't democracy grand?

"That is why even if it is a legitimate issue for the voters ...."

I'd be interested to know if you think it would be under other circumstances.

" shouldn't be an issue here. It has nothing to do with his many problems but is merely a smokescreen."

Oh, really? Let's see, he allegedly brings back a MALE lover from Israel, with whom he had a HOMOSEXUAL adulterous affair. His "sexuality" is most definitely an issue in so far as it has negatively impacted on his public responsibilities and led him to betray the public trust, just as it did with Clinton. And it's funny how liberals will claim "it isn't about sex" when the candidates themselves obviously realize it is because it it wasn't they wouldn't lie through their teeth about it, would they, until they get nailed moistening the old wick illicitly. Think of Clinton prior to the 92 election lying about Gennifer Flowers. Jump ahead to McGreevey lying about his sometime predilection for men. Tell me, is homosexuality an issue in the Catholic Church scandal involving pederastic priests?

"Nobody said opposing opinions are dangerous, true. Instead the 'left' was portrayed as employing their 'usual victimology', 'drooling (more than usual)' with 'mouths agape.'"

Well, you're conflating the two separate contexts for each statement. Lefties (okay, not all, but a good many) are preparing their spurious "homophobia" defense in anticipation of ANY attempt to demonstrate that McGreevey's sexual irresponsibility is just as serious an issue here. If McGreevey were an unmarried admitted homosexual bringing different men into the governor's mansion every week, his sexual promiscuity would be a legitimate issue, depending of course on the prevailing cultural standards. Don't try to tell me that liberal democrats wouldn't spout their nonsensical "private life" defense were these the circumstances at hand. Leftists stand with mouths agape drooling more than usual when their attempts to defeat religious conservatives solely on the basis that they are religious and conservative, which leftists label "extreme", are challenged.

"The adjectives 'liberal' and 'democratic' were included with the adjectives 'corrupt' and 'moron'...

Well, "moron" is the noun modified by the others.

"...implying that the first two are pejoratives."

Okay, I must confess, TWD, that while I may not think all leftist opinion is dangerous, though much of it is, I do think the majority of leftists eat paste.

"And throughout your post was the implication that religious beliefs and the democratic party don't go together."

No, sorry. Nothing of the sort was "implied" in my post. I merely established a hypothetical based on the fact that liberal democrats attack religious conservatives like rats attack cheese.

"My point was that opposing views don't make one the enemy."

Well, they could, depending on the content of the "opposing view." For instance, I have yet to see an anti-abortion Democrat speak at a Party convention. Evidently, those holding that view in opposition to liberal orthodoxy aren't regarded as bosom buddies. The democratic response to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth isn't exactly of the "Well, everybody is entitled to their own opinion" variety. And personally, I consider raving liberal lunatics like Michael Moore to be as dangerous an enemy as any raving Muslim lunatic plotting an attack on this country because Moore and other left wing idiots like him facilitate - wittingly or unwittingly - such plots. The problem with liberals is that they want everybody to follow their rules of debate- or one rule, which is, "We are free to attack who-, what-, when- and wherever we choose. Conservatives are free to attack any conservative they choose."

this we'll defend said...

You write "I consider raving liberal lunatics like Michael Moore" I'll stop there.

I consider raving lunatics dangerous, regardless of whether they are left or right. So I'll say good day to you, sir.

Tom said...

Name a raving liberal lunatic. I mean, since you're so objective and all.

I'll name a raving right-wing lunatic, if you'd like.

ALa said...

See, I keep hearing everyone say that the 'raving lunatics' are on both sides --but no one can give me one example of someone on the right...And it can't be someone that USED to be out there (like Jerry Falwell after 9/11) --someone that is out there now on the right spewing the level of hate and vitriol that the left has in Moore, Gore, Ms. Clinton, Dean, MOveon, Whoopi (and various other Hoolywood hasbins...) I honestly don't know of any...

Tom said...

It's more interesting to me, though, that the self-proclaimed objective sages on the left fall silent when asked to prove just how objective they are. TWD's allegedly not afraid to call 'em as he sees 'em no matter which side is in error.

As Judge Smails would say: Wellllll? We're waiting.

this we'll defend said...

Left Wing Lunatic: Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro - ok, you want Americans. Ted Rall, Ralph Nader, Michael Moore, Tom Hayden, for a few.

Someone on the right spewing the level of hatred blah blah blah? Cheney, The Swiftvets, Ann Coulter (the word "Treason" was the title of her book, remember?) and on and on and on and on.

ALa said...

Cheney is hardly a right wing nut job...he has an openly gay daughter whom he supports 100% -he supports civil unions...why does the left demonize him so? Ann Coulter --is bombastic but she doesn't make up blatant lies --I don't know if you read Treason, but it's what 'converted' my husband. She is a bomb thrower in interviews and I will give you that, but that is why people have her on...I am disgusted that you put the tri-partisan swiftvets in is SO WRONG that you keep doing this and put Kerry's four months over their year or longer in regards to free speech -THEY FOUGHT FOR THE RIGHT --they didn't come forward when he ran for the Senate --just when he wanted to be Commander in Chief. IT DRIVES ME CRAZY THAT YOU DO THIS WHEN YOU ARE A VET AND TWO OF THE "ALLEGATIONS" HAVE ALREADY BEEN PROVEN TRUE.....sorry, you know how I feel about this...

Tom said...


Thanks. I know how difficult it had to be for you to name Ted Rall and Michael Moore. You no more consider them raving left wing lunatics than I consider your right wingers to be lunatics. But you had to say something to get yourself out of that intellectual corner you painted yourself into. Nader & Hayden? Eh. Dummies, not necessarily lunatics. I can see why you chose Nader, though. His level of lunacy rises commensurate with the risk he poses the Kerry candidacy. You're not so much commenting on his cockamamie statism's threat to our capitalist republic as you are his overt liberalism's threat to the stealth candidate Kerry.

I really didn't want you to name any rightwingers. First, the agreement was that you name leftwing nutjobs and I would name the rightwingers. Second, I knew you would trot out an old standby like Coulter (and what, no Rush? No Hannity? Wha' happened?). Since you and pretty much everyone else on the left lack the intellectual capacity to debate her, it makes you feel better to call her crazy. Put it this way, I'm willing to pay to see you (or leftyjones) take on just one of her columns or a chapter from one of her books. On the other hand, I can see why men who belong to the party of such brainy pinups as Carol Mosely Braun and Nancy Pilosi would feel threatened by the likes of Coulter and Laura Ingraham.

Calling Cheney a right wing lunatic was good for a laugh, too. "Spewing hatred"? Don't you jokers EVER get tire of spouting meaningless cliches? If criticizing, say, a presidential candidate's promise to fight a "sensitive" war is "spewing hatred", what is rambling on and on about a president "misleading" the country when the person leveling that accusation had access to the same intelligence as the president? Irrespective of which side may be "right", if both positions are arguable, what makes one hatred and the other mere campaign rhetoric? You guys will say anything in an attempt to close off a debate you're not up to engaging in, and you're not up to the task because you've had no practice defending your positions. You attend schools dominated by liberal ideology where everyone thinks the same way and gangs up on dissenters using the same spurious accusations you engage in here. In your particular case, TWD, having been an army drill, you were so used to everybody asking "How high?" when you said "Jump" that the thought of anyone having the temerity to challenge your kneejerk opinions and responses in these fora drives you crazy. And I don't think I owe you any special dispensation from criticism because you're a "veteran". Veteran status evidently doesn't mean squat to you when it comes to besmirching other veterans' character (as we'll see in a moment).

Just curious, mind you, but why is it that pseudo-liberals such as yourself, who preach your egalitarian-I-love-everybody-everybody's entitled to his opinion bullshit always gravitate toward the pseudo-fascist positions where they get off controlling other people's lives and can go unchallenged? I mean, it's understandable why conservatives seek judgeships, teaching and executive positions, political office and the like because they adhere to traditional capitalistic notions of social and economic status, cultural heirarchies, authority, etc. You guys are the ones who purport to be so sensitive to notions of "equality" but you pursue positions of power with a fucking vengeance.

Oh, well.

By far your "best" example of right wing lunatics "spewing hatred" is the Swiftboat Veterans. Can a liberal - especially a liberal who purports to be a veteran (combat veteran, by the way?) - demonstrate his intellectual impotence any better than labeling fellow (combat) veterans "lunatics" simply because they challenge the liberal's favored candidate's fitness for office based on a personal knowledge of that candidate the accusatory liberal doesn't share? You have absolutely no basis in fact or experience for accusing them of either lying or "spewing hatred" (a term we've already established covers everything the liberal disagrees with and therefore means nothing), yet you sit there at your computer tapping out the allegations on your keyboard because (to paraphrase Bill Clinton) you can.

By all means, TWD, tell us what you personally "know" about John Kerry that refutes the Swiftboat Veterans' recollections, that reveals them to be lying lunatics spewing hatred. So far, John Kerry himself has backpedaled on the accusations he made before congress 35 years ago, and he is in the process of retracting the Cambodia fable he's been recounting since then. The score thus far: Swiftboat Veterans 2 Kerry O.

Clue us in, guy. Kerry obviously needs the help.

this we'll defend said...

Tom, I wasn't answering your "deal" I was answering ALa71. YOu are so consumed with hatred for the left that you can't imagine they are or ever have been right about anything. You view the left as the enemy. Instead of responding rationally or ever admitting to error or even admitting to exaggeration when a charge you make is shown false you respond with new allegations and eventually recycle old, already disproved ones (such as Swiftvets). I don't enjoy debating with you. Not because you are a great debater or because I am "scared" of you, but because you are a fanatic. I visited your blog, and I should have included you with Ann Coulter and Mr. Cheney.

this we'll defend said...

Ala71: Cheney continues to repeat discredited information about Iraq and Al Queda. He used the F word on the floor of the Senate - not in an argument but to a senator who was gracious, and then he said he felt better about it (the Senate is and must be the most civil debating floor in the world). I don't care about the F word or that he used it to a Senator - he did it on the floor of the senate. YOu don't smoke in church, you don't spit on the floor in somebody's house, and you don't curse at a Senator on the Senate floor. His attack-dog speeches strike new lows in mud-slinging politics, such as his deliberate and knowing misinterpretion of Kerry's "sensitive" comment on war. Being "sensitive" in war is to understand all of the consequences of your actions and choose carefully, not to hand out flowers and hugs. You can be "sensitive" and gut your enemy with a bayonet. But it played into the stereotype the right is attempting to force Kerry into, that of a hippy weakling. He does this because he can't win on the truth, only on deception.

Ann Coulter called her political opponents "traitors" and her web site drips with venom. She has no respect for her opponents - she views them as the enemy, much like Tom. She thinks they have never been right about anything ever. Such extremist views don't contribute to our debate but only to talking over each other in an attempt to win total power for the side you are on.

As for Swiftvets - no, no "charges" have been proven true. I've shown how they are false. Perhaps you didn't catch the many times I've done that, on your blog as well as others. Here is another try, from the non-partisan and reliable

Republican-funded Group Attacks Kerry's War Record -
Ad features vets who claim Kerry "lied" to get Vietnam medals. But other witnesses disagree.


A group funded by the biggest Republican campaign donor in Texas began running an attack ad Aug. 5 in which former Swift Boat veterans claim Kerry lied to get one of his two decorations for bravery and two of his three purple hearts.

But the veterans who accuse Kerry are contradicted by Kerry's former crewmen. One of the accusers says he was on another boat "a few yards" away during the incident which won Kerry the Bronze Star, but the former Army lieutenant whom Kerry plucked from the water that day backs Kerry's account. In an Aug. 10 opinion piece in the conservative Wall Street Journal , Rassmann (a Republican himself) wrote that the ad was "launched by people without decency" who are "lying" and "should hang their heads in shame."


"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" is a group formed March 23 after Kerry wrapped up the Democratic nomination. It held a news conference May 4 denigrating Kerry's military record and his later anti-war pronouncements during the 1970's. The group began running an attack ad Aug. 5 in which 13 veterans variously say Kerry is "not being honest" and "is lying about his record."

Where the Money Comes From

Although the word "Republican" does not appear in the ad, the group's financing is highly partisan. The source of the Swift Boat group's money wasn't known when it first surfaced, but a report filed July 15 with the Internal Revenue Services now shows its initial funding came mainly from a Houston home builder, Bob R. Perry, who has also given millions to the Republican party and Republican candidates, mostly in Texas, including President Bush and Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay, whose district is near Houston

Perry gave $100,000 of the $158,750 received by the Swift Boat group through the end of June, according to its disclosure report .

Perry and his wife Doylene also gave more than $3 million to Texas Republicans during the 2002 elections, according to a database maintained by the Institute on Money in State Politics . The Perrys also were among the largest Republican donors in neighboring Louisiana, where they gave $200,000, and New Mexico, where they gave $183,000, according to the database

At the federal level the Perrys have given $359,825 since 1999, including $6,000 to Bush's campaigns and $27,325 to DeLay and his political action committee, Americans for a Republican Majority, according the a database maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics .

The Silver Star

Several of those who appear in the ad have signed brief affidavits, and we have posted some of them in the "supporting documents" section to the right for our visitors to evaluate for themselves.

One of those affidavits, signed by George Elliott, quickly became controversial. Elliott is the retired Navy captain who had recommended Kerry for his highest decoration for valor, the Silver Star, which was awarded for events of Feb. 28, 1969, when Kerry beached his boat in the face of an enemy ambush and then pursued and killed an enemy soldier on the shore.

Elliott, who had been Kerry's commanding officer, was quoted by the Boston Globe Aug 6 as saying he had made a "terrible mistake" in signing the affidavit against Kerry, in which Elliott suggested Kerry hadn't told him the truth about how he killed the enemy soldier. Later Elliott signed a second affidavit saying he still stands by the words in the TV ad. But Elliott also made what he called an "immaterial clarification" - saying he has no first-hand information that Kerry was less than forthright about what he did to win the Silver Star.

What Elliott said in the ad is that Kerry "has not been honest about what happened in Viet Nam." In his original affidavit Elliott said Kerry had not been "forthright" in Vietnam. The only example he offered of Kerry not being "honest" or "forthright" was this: "For example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back.

In the Globe story, Elliott is quoted as saying it was a "terrible mistake" to sign that statement:

George Elliott (Globe account): It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here. . . . I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake.

In his second affidavit, however, Elliott downgraded that "terrible mistake" to an "immaterial clarification." He said in the second affidavit:

Elliott (second affidavit): I do not claim to have personal knowledge as to how Kerry shot the wounded, fleeing Viet Cong.

Elliott also said he now believes Kerry shot the man in the back, based on other accounts including a book in which Kerry is quoted as saying of the soldier, "He was running away with a live B-40 (rocket launcher) and, I thought, poised to turn around and fire it." (The book quoted by Elliott is John F. Kerry, The Complete Biography, By The Reporters Who Know Him Best.)

Elliott also says in that second affidavit, "Had I known the facts, I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for simply pursuing and dispatching a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong." That statement is misleading, however. It mischaracterizes the actual basis on which Kerry received his decoration.

The official citations show Kerry was not awarded the Silver Star "for simply pursuing and dispatching" the Viet Cong. In fact, the killing is not even mentioned in two of the three versions of the official citation (see "supporting documents" at right.) The citations - based on what Elliott wrote up at the time - dwell mostly on Kerry's decision to attack rather than flee from two ambushes, including one in which he led a landing party.

The longest of the citations, signed by Vice Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, commander of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam, describes Kerry as killing a fleeing Viet Cong with a loaded rocket launcher. It says that as Kerry beached his boat to attack his second set of ambushers, "an enemy soldier sprang up from his position not ten feet from Patrol Craft Fast 94 and fled. Without hesitation, Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY leaped ashore, pursued the man behind a hooch, and killed him, capturing a B-40 rocket launcher with a round in the chamber."

Two other citations omit any mention of the killing. One was signed by Admiral John J. Hyland, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, and the other was signed by the Secretary of the Navy. Both those citations say Kerry attacked his first set of ambushers and that "this daring and courageous tactic surprised the enemy and succeeded in routing a score of enemy soldiers." Later, 800 yards away, Kerry's boat encountered a second ambush and a B-40 rocket exploded "close aboard" Kerry's boat. "With utter disregard for his own safety, and the enemy rockets, he again ordered a charge on the enemy, beached his boat only ten feet away from the VC rocket position, and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy." In these citations there is no mention of enemy casualties at all. Kerry was cited for "extraordinary daring and personal courage . . . in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire."

Elliott had previously defended Kerry on that score when his record was questioned during his 1996 Senate campaign. At that time Elliott came to Boston and said Kerry acted properly and deserved the Silver Star. And as recently as June, 2003, Elliott called Kerry's Silver Star "well deserved" and his action "courageous" for beaching his boat in the face of an ambush:

Elliott (Boston Globe, June 2003): I ended up writing it up for a Silver Star, which is well deserved, and I have no regrets or second thoughts at all about that. . . . (It) was pretty courageous to turn into an ambush even though you usually find no more than two or three people there.

Elliott now feels differently, and says he has come to believe Kerry didn't deserve his second award for valor, either, based only on what the other anti-Kerry veterans have told him. He told the Globe Aug. 6:

Elliott: I have chosen to believe the other men. I absolutely do not know first hand.

The Bronze Star

The most serious allegation in the ad is that Kerry received both the Bronze Star, his second-highest decoration, and his third purple heart, which allowed him to be sent home early, under false pretenses. But that account is flatly contradicted by Jim Rassmann, the former Army Lieutenant whom Kerry rescued that day.

Van O'Dell, a former Navy enlisted man who says he was the gunner on another Swift Boat, states in his affidavit that he was "a few yards away" from Kerry's boat on March 13, 1969 when Kerry pulled Rassman from the water. According to the official medal citations, Kerry's boat was under enemy fire at the time, and Kerry had been wounded when an enemy mine exploded near his own boat. O'Dell insists "there was no fire" at the time, adding: "I did not hear any shots, nor did any hostile fire hit any boats" other than his own, PCF-3.

Others in the ad back up that account. Jack Chenoweth, who was a Lieutenant (junior grade) commanding PCF-3, said Kerry's boat "fled the scene" after a mine blast disabled PCF-3, and returned only later "when it was apparent that there was no return fire." And Larry Thurlow, who says he commanded a third Swift Boat that day, says "Kerry fled while we stayed to fight," and returned only later "after no return fire occurred."

None of those in the attack ad by the Swift Boat group actually served on Kerry's boat. And their statements are contrary to the accounts of Kerry and those who served under him.

Jim Rassmann was the Army Special Forces lieutenant whom Kerry plucked from the water. Rassmann has said all along that he was under sniper fire from both banks of the river when Kerry, wounded, helped him aboard. Rassmann is featured in an earlier Kerry ad, in fact, (see script at left) saying "he (Kerry) risked his life to save mine."

On Aug. 10, Rassmann wrote a vivid account of the rescue in the Wall Street Journal that contradicts the Kerry accusers. Rassmann said that after the first explosion that disabled PCF-3:

Rassmann: Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river and a second explosion followed moments later. The second blast blew me off John's swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river. Fearing that the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath.

When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire I repeatedly swam under water as long as I could hold my breath, attempting to make it to the north bank of the river. I thought I would die right there. The odds were against me avoiding the incoming fire and, even if I made it out of the river, I thought I thought I'd be captured and executed. Kerry must have seen me in the water and directed his driver, Del Sandusky, to turn the boat around. Kerry's boat ran up to me in the water, bow on, and I was able to climb up a cargo net to the lip of the deck. But, because I was nearly upside down, I couldn't make it over the edge of the deck. This left me hanging out in the open, a perfect target. John, already wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat, came out onto the bow, exposing himself to the fire directed at us from the jungle, and pulled me aboard.

Rassmann said he recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for that action, and learned only later that the Bronze Star had been awarded instead. "To this day I still believe he deserved the Silver Star for his courage," he wrote. Rassmann described himself as a retired lieutenant with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. "I am a Republican, and for more than 30 years I have largely voted for Republicans," Rassmann said. But he said Kerry "will be a great commander in chief."

"This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency," Rassmann said. "Their new charges are false; their stories are fabricated, made up by people who did not serve with Kerry in Vietnam."

The Third Purple Heart

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth further says Kerry didn't deserve his third purple heart, which was received for shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on right forearm. The Swift Boat group's affidavits state that the wound in Kerry's backside happened earlier that day in an accident. "Kerry inadvertently wounded himself in the fanny," Thurlow said in his affidavit, "by throwing a grenade too close (to destroy a rice supply) and suffered minor shrapnel wounds."

The grenade incident is actually supported by Kerry's own account, but the shrapnel wound was only part of the basis for Kerry's third purple heart according to official documents. The evidence here is contradictory.

Kerry's account is in the book Tour of Duty by Douglas Brinkley, who based it largely on Kerry's own Vietnam diaries and 12 hours of interviews with Kerry. "I got a piece of small grenade in my ass from one of the rice-bin explosions and then we started to move back to the boats," Kerry is quoted as saying on page 313. In that account, Kerry says his arm was hurt later, after the mine blast that disabled PCF-3, when a second explosion rocked his own boat. "The concussion threw me violently against the bulkhead on the door and I smashed my arm," Kerry says on page 314.

And according to a Navy casualty report released by the Kerry campaign, the third purple heart was received for "shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on his right forearm when a mine detonated close aboard PCF-94," Kerry's boat. As a matter of strict grammar, the report doesn't state that both injuries were received as a result of the mine explosion, only the arm injury.

The official citation for Kerry's Bronze Star refers only to his arm injury, not to the shrapnel wound to his rear. It says he performed the rescue "from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding and in pain." The description of Kerry's arm "bleeding" isn't consistent with the description of a "contusion," or bruise.

Rassmann's Aug. 10 Wall Street Journal article states that Kerry's arm was "wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat," which would make that wound clearly enemy-inflicted.

In any case, even a "friendly fire" injury can qualify for a purple heart "as long as the 'friendly' projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment," according to the website of the Military Order of the Purple Heart. All agree that rice was being destroyed that day on the assumption that it otherwise might feed Viet Cong fighters.

Another major discrepancy raises a question of how close Kerry's accusers actually were to the rescue of Rassmann. Tour of Duty describes Rassmann's rescue (and the sniper fire) as happening "several hundred yards back" from where the crippled PCF-3 was lying, not "a few yards away," the distance from which the anti-Kerry veterans claim to have witnessed the incident.

First Purple Heart

Two who appear in the ad say Kerry didn't deserve his first purple heart. Louis Letson, a medical officer and Lieutenant Commander, says in the ad that he knows Kerry is lying about his first purple heart because “I treated him for that.” However, medical records provided by the Kerry campaign to do not list Letson as the “person administering treatment” for Kerry’s injury on December 3, 1968 . The medical officer who signed this sick call report is J.C. Carreon, who is listed as treating Kerry for shrapnel to the left arm.

In his affidavit, Letson says Kerry's wound was self-inflicted and does not merit a purple heart. But that's based on hearsay, and disputed hearsay at that. Letson says “the crewman with Kerry told me there was no hostile fire, and that Kerry had inadvertently wounded himself with an M-79 grenade.” But the Kerry campaign says the two crewmen with Kerry that day deny ever talking to Letson.

Also appearing in the ad is Grant Hibbard, Kerry’s commanding officer at the time. Hibbard’s affidavit says that he “turned down the Purple Heart request,” and recalled Kerry's injury as a "tiny scratch less than from a rose thorn."

That doesn't quite square with Letson's affidavit, which describes shrapnel "lodged in Kerry's arm" (though "barely.")

Hibbard also told the Boston Globe in an interview in April 2004 that he eventually acquiesced about granting Kerry the purple heart.

Hibbard: I do remember some questions on it. . .I finally said, OK if that's what happened. . . do whatever you want

Kerry got the first purple heart after Hibbard left to return to the US .

McCain Speaks Up

Sen. John McCain -- who has publicly endorsed Bush and even appealed for donations to the President's campaign -- came to Kerry's defense on this. McCain didn't witness the events in question, of course. But he told the Associated Press in an August 5 interview:

McCain : I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crewmates have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam.


Michael Kranish,“Veteran Retracts Criticism of Kerry ,” The Boston Globe, 6 August 2004 .

Jodi Wilgoren, "Vietnam Veterans Buy Ads to Attack Kerry," The New York Times, 5 August 2004.

Douglas Brinkley, Tour of Duty, (NY, HarperCollins, 2004).

Jim Rassmann, "Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush," Wall Street Journal, 10 Aug 2004: A10.

Ron Fournier, "McCain Condemns Anti-Kerry Ad," Associated Press, 5 August 2004.

Michael Kranish, "Kerry Faces Questions Over Purple Heart," The Boston Globe , 14 April 2004: A1.

Michael Kranish, "Heroism, and growing concern about war," The Boston Globe, 16 June 2003.

Tom said...


Anyone who claims he has proven one narrative "false" merely by requoting the conflicting narrative that is under scrutiny in the first place is either an idiot or a liar or both. Where'd you say you got your law degree? Grenada? Man, if you were a judge a criminal wouldn't hesitate to choose a waiver trial: It's automatically a not guilty based on your simple-minded notion that complainant and witness testimony that the defendant did it is contradicted by the defendant's family's claim he was at home when the crime occurred.

All you've shown is that SBVT are being called liars by Kerry supporters. No one has demonstrated that they are in fact lying. All that rambling reprint from the alleged "non-partisan" and "fair" illustrates that either side COULD BE lying.

So which is it, TWD, are you an idiot or a liar? Sorry, but there's no third possibility.

ALa said...

TWD: See, I warned you about those pesky references...You using Brinkley to verify would be like me using...uh, my personal friend and private historian...No one believes there is ANY publication that is non-partisan.

this we'll defend said...

Judges rarely hear one side say "I'm guilty, I was lying" and the other side say "Yep, they lied." Judges listen and discern the truth among lies. A criminal caught with his hand in the cookie jar, with inconsistent explanations about his behavior, with testimony from his own mouth (such as with Elliot) that contradicts his story now, with claims shown to be false (such as that Dr. Letson treated Kerry), this criminal would have no credibility with a judge. Any judge.

And, lest some readers miss it, I have posted numerous factual references showing the charges false - this was just the latest. Did you already forget how I pointed out that Swiftvets charge Kerry with refusing to disclose ANY of his fitness reports, and on the SAME PAGE on their OWN WEB SITE they charge him with SELECTIVELY releasing ONLY SOME of his fitness reports? And in fact, as I pointed out, ALL of his fitness reports have been available for some time now? They charge that he both provided none and some of them - can't you see that this is mutually exclusive, that they both can't be true? And the truth is neither one is true - ALL have been available. They are online right F'ing now! Read something besides instapundit. Fox News has even declared the charges baseless.

I don't think you did miss it. I don't think you care what the truth of the matter is at all, you seek only to damage your opponent and lying is acceptable to you.

So, no, you aren't a fool. You are a liar and I am through with you.

Tom said...


This is too priceless not to quote verbatim:

"Judges rarely hear one side say 'I'm guilty, I was lying' and the other side say 'Yep, they lied.' Judges listen and discern the truth among lies. A criminal caught with his hand in the cookie jar, with inconsistent explanations about his behavior, with testimony from his own mouth (such as with Elliot) that contradicts his story now, with claims shown to be false (such as that Dr. Letson treated Kerry), this criminal would have no credibility with a judge. Any judge."

Oh, you mean like when a guy claims he was "in" a country under a particular set of circumstances, and then when someone comes forward and demonstrates that he couldn't have been "in" that country under that particular set of circumstances, he then says he was "near" (I guess 50 miles is "near') the country under an entirely different set of circumstances? You mean like that? You have to, and because you have to, and because you have established that any "inconsistencies" or "contradictions" render one totally unbelieveable means that even if those who support SBVT concede that Elliot is a liar, then you must concede that Kerry is a liar. SBVT can afford to lose Elliot, they have a couple hundred more witnesses or so for you to nitpck to death. Can you afford to lose Kerry. I don't think so.

Aside from that obvious undermining of your own position, Dr. Letson's treatment of Kerry has not been shown to be false. It's only been shown that he didn't sign a report. But numerous service personnel from the Viet Nam era have come forward and said it was not SOP that the treating physician or corpsman always signed the subsequent treatment reports.

But this is all smoke you guys try to blow up everyone's ass, anyway, because the whole matter could be settled by Kerry himself, the alleged hero of the Mekong Delta. He need only say, "Dr. Letson is a liar. He never treated my wound." Instead, he has DNC mouthpieces do it, and they themselves lied in their threatening letter to broadcasters when they claimed that Dr. Letson was not/is not a doctor.

Any one here with an ounce of common sense and a degree of self-respect - which obviously leaves you out - wouldn't hesitate to directly and unequivocally challenge a person who lies about anything they've done or accuses them of having done something they didn't do.

Tell you what, TWD, not to tax your mind too much, but consider the following hypothetical:

A person claiming to have been a PFC, but you know for a fact was a private, at Fort Jackson at the same time you were playing Drill Sergeant there comes forward now and says he personally witnessed you molesting male recruits in the showers.

Scenario A: You respond by saying that he is a despicable liar, immediately file suit for slander (or libel if he wrote it) and look forward to vindicating yourself in both a court of law and the court of public opinion.

Scenario B: Through a spokesperson, you issue a statement that this person is obviously lying about the molestations because he was a buck private, not a pfc, during the time in question.

After choosing scenario B, you would no doubt stand there mouth agape, drooling (more than usual), unable to figure out why most thinking people suspect you molested recruits in the shower.

this we'll defend said...

Great point. I don't know if I mentioned this, but you are a fanatically partisan ass. Just to be clear.

Frater Bovious said...

I had to laugh at your Marilyn Happy Birthday. I have called people up at work and left them voicemails singing my best Marilyn Monroe, and then hanging up. It is amazing who all they think left the message. One lady swore it was her son, and basically didn't believe me when I told her it was me. I think it hurt her feelings, since he apparently didn't call...