On a side note, just for perspective, you understand, the following historical snippet from the delightfully equine Ms. Coulter (“Anne of Green Goebbels”)
"…During World War II, then-congressman Lyndon Johnson went on a single flight – as an observer – for which he was awarded the Silver Star by Gen. Douglas MacArthur. Only recently has it been exposed that the medal was a complete fraud, probably awarded by MacArthur to curry favor with a congressman.
At the time, no one in the press bothered to investigate why Johnson was the only member of the crew to receive any sort of decoration for the 13-minute flight that never came under enemy fire – and on which Johnson was merely an “observer.” For the rest of his life Johnson got away with wearing what historian David Halberstam called “the least deserved and most proudly displayed Silver Star in military history.”
Johnson told harrowing tales of his uneventful 13-minute flight, boasting that the men had called him “Raider Johnson.” One time he harangued a congressman on foreign aid, saying: “I know foreign aid is unpopular, but I didn’t want to go to the Pacific in '41 after Pearl Harbor, but I did. I didn’t want to let those Japs shoot at me … but I did.”
The sole surviving member of the crew, Ret. Staff Sgt. Bob Marshall, U.S. Army, a gunner on the plane, disputed Johnson’s story about being attacked by Japanese Zeros: “No way. No, that story was made up … we had never seen a Zero. It was never attacked. There was nothing.”
(I ain’t providing a link…you want to link to Anne Coulter, you get no help from me. Nosir. Ain’t gonna do it.)
It’s so tempting to be snarky, but we got enough of that here already.
One does not “see bullets hitting the water.” One sees splashes in the water that could be bullets or could be schrapnel, or could be something else. Then one assumes what these things are.
I’ve asked you several times to read posts before you reply, David Simmons. I have made no comments about swiftboats. I simply called into question one posters allegation that beheadings in VitNam were “doctrine.”
Well, it was certainly more powerful than the M-16, and because of the shape of the cartrige, it jammed a lot less. Many of us would gladly have traded, but the distinctive sound it made would have made us instant targets.
The .30 caliber holes in the swiftboats were either made by the .30 cal AK-47 or by a US M-14 or M-60, unless there was some other anomolous .30 cal gun there…
The holes were .30 calibre? Which holes, the ones that didn’t exist, or the one’s that were there from the day before? I don’t recall anyone specifying the size of the holes.
PS: not snarky question, just don’t recall hearing any such definition.
In effect, if not quite in the precise name of the motion. It’s Evidence 101 that an affidavit not based on personal knowledge is inadmissible, as Mr. French almost certainly had to have known. It’s precisely because of those reasons that I’ve been waiting for O’Neill to produce his alleged Affidavits of Doom. I fully expected them to be filled with scurrillous shit that wasn’t based on personal knowledge, just like Larry Thurlow’s affidavit (which Sam Stone was kind enough to link to above).
And hey, just for kicks, let’s make fun of the Thurlow affidavit and point out (in all seriousness) why it’s legally insufficient. Here’s the text, in its entirety (interspersed with my comments between the quotes):
So far so good. He swears this stuff is within his personal knowledge. Okey dokey.
Hold yer horses, Larry. You’re swearing that Kerry “claimed” those awards? That he affirmatively requested those awards? You heard him make that claim to the relevant authorities, right? Or perhaps not. See, an affidavit is supposed to reveal the basis of the affiant’s claimed knowledge, and yours doesn’t. Nope, doesn’t say anything about how you know “Kerry claimed a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star.” That sentence is completely inadmissible.
“Totally” lied? Every word that has ever left his mouth about that incident is a lie? You’re familiar with all of those words? You heard him make all of those statements? And they’re all lies? Sorry, this sentence is offered without factual basis and is therefore inadmissible.
Again, the affidavit does not demonstrate any basis for the affiant’s claimed personal knowledge. Did he observe this incident? Hear about it second-hand at the time? See the fanny wounds between the time of the rice cache and the mine explosions later on? Hear about it 35 years later from another SBVFTT malcontent?
I’m not claiming that he’s wrong on that point, of course–Kerry and Rassmann, who were present–both say that’s the way it happened. Just pointing out that Thurlow’s affidavit is woefully insufficient and legally inadmissible on this point.
“Fled,” you say? Are you clairvoyant, Mr. Thurlow? How do you know Mr. Kerry “fled,” instead of (as Mr. Kerry contends) going downriver to attempt to put troops on shore to outflank the ambushers? Again, what is the basis of your personal knowledge of Mr. Kerry’s state of mind at the time of the mine blast?
Also, for cheap cross-examination points: You stayed to fight, but there was no fighting involved? What the fuck?
Once again, did you personally observe Mr. Kerry pulling Mr. Rassmann out of the water? Did you personally observe at the time that there was no enemy fire directed towards Mr. Kerry and Mr. Rassman? Your affidavit does not state the basis of your claimed knowledge of these events. Thus, once again, this statement would be legally inadmissible.
More cheap cross-exam points: You testified that you stayed to fight against enemies who never returned fire, correct? And at the time that you were firing at those enemies who never shot back, were you simultaneously watching Mr. Rassmann? So during those periods of time when you weren’t watching Mr. Rassmann, you would not have been able to observe whether he was taking any incoming fire, would you? And didn’t you just say that Mr. Kerry “totally lied” about the incident? But here you’re telling us that Kerry really did pull Rassmann out of the water, correct?
Allow me to cut to the chase, Mr. Thurlow. Do you have any personal knowledge of whether Mr. Kerry personally wrote the after-action report to which you refer? No? Then would it surprise you to learn that your attribution of it to him is inadmissible?
Not one word in either report is true and correct? Every word of those documents is a lie? Are you personally familiar with every detail of every incident described in those reports? No? Then I’m sorry, but this ridiculously overbroad sentence is once again offered without factual basis and is therefore inadmissible.
That’s nice, since the after-action report does not claim that there was 5000 meters (i.e., 3.1 miles, you twit) of “intense fire.”
Despite all that firing you were doing after the mine exploded?
Inadmissible opinion testimony. An affidavit is supposed to testify to facts, not subjective, unverifiable opinions. The affidavit is further insufficient in that it fails to describe how “one could not depend on John Kerry” and what about the “other days” supports that subjective, unverifiable opinion.
Hearsay, lack of personal knowledge, lack of foundation. Seriously, this shit supposedly constitutes an affidavit?
Whereupon Minty, bearing a striking resemblance to Raymond Burr, strolls away from the witness stand, while a sobbing Mr. Thurlow blubbers confessions to the murders of James Hoffa and Fredo Corleone…
Oh, the passion with which stooges believe in their beloved lies.
Here’s what the article shows was in Kerry’s Vietnam diary from the day in question:
Kerry was quite near the Cambodian border in Christmas 1968.
He had a book with him about what it was like dealing with Cambodians.
Since it was a secret mission it would make perfect sense that he wouldn’t have that information in his diary in case he got captured.
Once again, a smear evaporates.
In the meantime George Bush, by his own admission, ducked military service because he didn’t want to risk his neck even though he supported the war. And, of course, it’s obvious he went AWOL since 1) only one witness claims to have seen him at the base in Alabama, 2) said witness got the dates wrong, 3) GWB was the son of a Representative of the United States which would have made him conspicuous, 4) the son of a millionaire which would have made him conspicuous, 5) a fighter pilot, which would have made him conspicuous, 6) a transfer from an out-of-state base, which would have made him conspicuous and 7) a well-known and compulsive schmoozer which would have made him extremely conspicuous. Yet only ONE PERSON supposedly remembers seeing him there!
And what was Boy George supposed to be doing all this time? Reading flight manuals. That’s right, Operator. He was supposed to be leading a monk-like existence and reading flight manuels. Why, Jebus, folks, if there’s one thing we know about George Bush is that he doesn’t like reading. I can’t see him reading Henry Miller for that long without going nuts.
But, here we have another man who volunteered for service when, like GWB he could have ducked and let others risk death for him, who vounteered for the most dangerous duty going, got three purple hearts plus a bronze and sliver star and here you are believing a bunch of obvious liars trying to rip him down because he 1) he isn’t a Republican and 2) did his best to tell the truth about atrocities based on his knowledge at the time. And that’s the man who’s integrity you see fit to question?
Of course, that’s precisely why the requirements for affidavits are so important: You can’t cross-examine a person testifying by affidavit, or subject him to voir dire to determine what is the basis of his testimony.
Whazza “voir” and why is it so “dire”? Is it like a really dangerous Peeping Tom? Do you guys just make up this Latin stuff so dummys like me will give you money? Have you gotten Dewey drunk and taken him to a titty bar, like you promised?
I may have missed it… but do we know the boats in question didn’t have their jackets hung on the side of these swiftboats to protect them from bullets coming through the hull? Not that it matters, since nobody is saying that the VietCong, possibly pinned down by fire from the boats, necessarily would hit any of the boats, but even if they did, we have yet another reason that they wouldn’t necessarily show battle damage.
Um, Razorsharp? There’s this. Kinda thought you woulda read it. Que sera, sera. . .
That’s right, You don’t know. You’ve no idea. You are clueless. Of course, being one in pursuit of truth, you flinch at not knowing. So, instead, you attribute motives. And since the motive attribution is for Kerry, you make him out to be a cad. If motive attribution were being made for, say, John Birch, I imagine that he would be far more likable. Cuddly, even.
Well, yeah. They were his personal films. Who in hell else would have had them? And since approximately every carbon based life form on the entire planet is now in possession of the fact that Kerry was in Vietnam, I imagine that it’s possible that his staff may have asked if he had anything. I, personally, have watched home movies from Vietnam that were filmed by five separate people. As well as looked at more than seven different still photos. Of course, Kerry may have said something, too. What of it? You are aware, I hope, that he’s running for President? When one is doing so, one usually toots one’s own horn. One is, after all, a politician. Well, with the exception of H. Ross Perot. Then one is a creepy little nutbag with an annoying voice and an ego as big as all outdoors.
Well, I don’t recall claiming that Blair was credible. You, no doubt, can point out to me where I did so. Nor did I make the same claim for CNN. Although I consider the NY Times to be more than a couple levels of above National Review. The number of levels keep increasing when you get to Drudge, and the NYT is positively celestial when compared to WorldNetDaily. Of course, you knew that.
And I honestly don’t recall Clinton’s record (or lack thereof) being an issue in '96. Nor, for that matter, any liberals claiming that Dole’s service was inconsequential. Do you have any cites for this?
As opposed to those who have a history of touting service to the country as a defining characteristic falling in line and hailing someone who joined the TANG to keep Texas safe from the menace that is Mexico. Gotcha.
Well! Thank the fates that I’ve accomplished something today. Otherwise I was gonna be smitin’ myself all night long.
Well, elucidator and MaleBox have beat me to my witty rejoinders, so I’m just scratchin’ my head and thinking, “Huh? Did I claim otherwise? Did I inadvertently lead Razorsharp to think that I am Elvis?” In short, what the hell is the above about?
That makes no sense to me. If I had any reason to think someone was going to try to plug me, the flak jacket stays on me! I mean, maybe you might hang the jacket to bolster the armor if you plan on cringing behind the jacket and the bulkhead, but why would that be an improvement on wearing the flak jacket and cowering behind the bulkhead?
Maybe the jackets are hung there to keep them close at hand? And are not worn unless necessary because its so goddam hot?
And, of course, there were atrocities, Kerry was attacking not the soldiers but the military policies they were follwing. If Kerry exaggerated, it was only slightly and based on the best information he had at the time. Also some of the quotes he’s being held responsible for were actually cites from other sources.
People may want to compare the reasonable accuracy of Kerry’s remarks to, say, Bush’s remarks. You know, the ones about WMDs and how Saddam wouldn’t let inspectors back in and that’s why we had to go to war when, in fact, we had to pull the inspectors out before we could start it.
My suggestion to a lot of my conservative friends is to start a new organization and call it “Duped Citizens For Better Liars That We Can Believe In.”
Shayna, I hope that you post more often! Well done!
Thurlow admitted last week on Hardball in a phone interview with Chris Matthews that some of the information that he had been saying was true was simply passed on to him from another of the SBV. (Sorry that I can’t be more specific.) It was obvious that he was trying to be elusive about admitting that, but Matthews finally pinned him down.
Question:
(See note on Thurlow above.)
[quote] Sam: Nothing about being a Green Beret makes you a better witness while you’re floating in choppy water wearing heavy gear and boots, repeatedly diving to the river bottom because you think you’re being shot at. Pretty hard to figure out what’s happening 75 yards away.
But being a sailor would have? (I’m just asking you to see how your comments are inconsistent.)
Sam, how did you respond in your thinking about the “sides” when you found out that Elliott had been caught contradicting his own accounts in official naval records? What about the other two? Why do you still say that Kerry’s side is the side that keeps changing their stories? Is it possible that both sides have contradictions?
I’m not familiar with the contents of Kerry’s diary. Is it possible that since these missions were clandestine (and Kerry had high intelligence clearance) that if he did go into Cambodia, he wouldn’t have written about it in his diary and that might explain why that was his last entry?
Look at the op-ed that you cited. I saw something similar in another thread. The link there led to an article by Dave Kopel – not known as an unbiased source. In both of these commentaries, only vague references are made to the sources of information:
Which spokesmen? Where? What did they say exactly? How did it contradict what was previous said exactly?
And notice that the quote from Buchanan about what Kerry said is not actually what Kerry said. It is Buchanan’s paraphrase of how he interprets what Kerry said. If I am mistaken on this, I am certainly open to correction.
As I have mentioned earlier, when I am truly trying to get at the truth of a matter, I very often look to see what people on the other side are saying – especially the ones I respect. Again I ask you why you are so willing to dismiss what John McCain has said about these ads? Also, why is Fox even backing off (not that I particularly respect them)?
Why aren’t these red flags for you?
I agree with luci in that I think a lot of the SBVT have become victims of some very unscrupulous and manipulating schemers. It is the only thing that makes real sense to me.
Thanks for clarifying your quote from yesterday. I had misunderstood what you were saying about Rassmann. I thought that you were implying that he didn’t know whose boat had picked him up. I guess I will have to take back my blue ribbon prize.
You mean that a sailor in a combat zone took some pictures? Maybe something like this?
I know as a matter of personal, on-the-scene knowledge that the officer shown in the cited photo was never within miles of an ME-262 that could shoot back. I’m surprised he didn’t pose with his foot up on the thing, looking fierce and warlike, rifle in hand.
Actually, when the picture was posed the officer had in mind running for president, and thought this would make a good cover for his book besides.
That was before his craft ran over a mine and he was thrown overboard with other posters speeding away and toward him and heated invectives flying around…
