Whoa! You got a camera hidden in my room or something? :eek: 
Once, I was repairing a computer infested with scumware. this customer I once had, was blaiming the company software for the porn popups she was getting, I should have replied: “lady, it is a jungle out there! and you have a broadband connection to it!!” So, it is indeed a jungle; and going to the scummy Savage nation, to get the goods, is a great feat!
Maybe it is referring to hostile fire….
Or it was an attack from Hostess!
Powerful stuff! Even the cosmic cube of the Red Scull was no match for Captain America and a Twinkie!
And this is why the battle against ignorance takes longer than we thought, folks – no sooner have the fundamental dishonesty of the Swift Bullshitters for Bush been roundly demonstrated (and Sam Stone gets spanked two score around the SDMB on the matter), than Scylla takes up the mantle and pretends nothing has happened, sending the entire nonsense back to Square One and requiring yet another round of ignorance-fighting.
Oh, and you’ve also gotta love how he says:
"The very first one is the only one that I can actually attest to because I was there when that wound happened."
And then not two sentences later says:
"And at that time I didn’t even realize that John Kerry had supposedly been wounded. There was no mark on the guy."
So which is it? Was he “there when THAT WOUND happened,” or was there “no mark on the guy”?
Or wait, maybe it was like he said in his first sentence… all 3 were scratches.
He can describe all 3, but he was only there for 1, but he wasn’t really there, scratches, wounds, no wounds, no action, fire from hostlies. My head’s a spinnin’ here guys!
Aaaaeeeeeeeeeeeee!!
Gardner is not particularly eloquent, you know? In the beginning of that transcript Savage asks him if he served with Kerry and he replies “No, I served with John Kerry.”
In the transcript you show he says:
“Well, every one of them were scratches. The very first one is the only one that I can actually attest to because I was there when that wound happened. I was not on the boat with him. But in the next three days following that I was with him on the boat to take our new position”
Why would he say one thing in one sentence and contradict it in the next?
One could read this in two ways. The first, the way you are reading it, is like this: “The very first one is the only one that I can attest to because I was there (on the boat with John Kerry) when the wound happened.” If this is how you read it then the very next sentence is a direct contradiction. “I was not on the boat with him.” Since that doesn’t parse intelligently or coherently a disinterested observer would conclude that this interpretation was obviously not John’s intent.
The second way is like this: The very first one is the only one that I can attest to because I was there (at John Kerry’s unit, in Vietnam) when the wound happened." If you read it this way then the next sentence is a further clarification not a contradiction. “I was not on the boat with him.” and a further clarification “But in the next three days following that I was with him on the boat to take our new position.”
This interpretation parses coherently and from context is clearly what John meant. You can only make the interpretation you do (that Gardner is lying from one sentence to the next) if you disingenuously deconstruct his words in an attempt to create such meaning.
I hope you see this. Please take a moment to understand what I am saying. Just stop and think it through. You see that I am correct, don’t you?
Shayna:
I want to go a little bit further with this Gardner thing because something puzzles me. Instead of parsing and deconstructing his words to try to find a lie, why not try to see what he’s actually trying to communicate and review it’s merits?
If you do the former, you can create this neat little sound bite that let’s you disingenuously pronounce Gardner a liar in capital letters. Unfortunately, analysis dispels this and then Gardner is vindicated.
If we actually look at what Gardner is communicating and you are looking to discredit him, you actually have something much more substantive. Gardner is saying that Kerry was not wounded simply because Gardner did not observe a wound. “There was not a mark on him.”
Is Gardner going to testify that he say Kerry naked? That he conducted a medical examine? All Gardner can say by his own admission is that he didn’t notice a wound
In reality Gardner cannot testify with athority about the nature of the wound, beyond the fact that it did not observedly leave Kerry incapacitated. Kerry never claimed it did.
So, if you read it through carefully Gardner doesn’t have anything particularly meaningful to contribute on this incident. He is IMO just trying to make Kerry look bad.
Scylla, was Steve Gardner on the boat with John Kerry to witness how his wound/scratch/not a mark happened or not? A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’, please.
Did I not say it clearly? I apologize. I went to some effort to be clear. According to Gardner he was not on the boat for the incident on the Boston Whaler type vessel that gave Kerry his first purple heart. According to Gardner, your answer is “no.”
He was “there” in the sense that he was in the same unit, at the same time. He observed Kerry in the days immediately after this incident as Kerry prepared to take command of PC-F 44, the boat upon which he served under Kerry for a little over 3 months. His thesis is that Kerry did not have a mark on him and therefore he wasn’t wounded seriously, if at all, and therefore does not deserve a Purple Heart.
Is that clear now?
…And please don’t insult me. I’m debating with you in good faith.
And I’d prefer not to be insulted, either. I’m not finding any of your contortions to even resemble a “good faith” effort to examine the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. But I’ll give you another shot at it…
So, either that boat never left the dock without Gardner – never, or it left the dock without Gardner on at least one occasion, making him incapable of witnessing how John Kerry received his wound/scratch/not a mark.
Liar? Or just an ineloquent speaker?
Shayna:
“That Boat” was the boat Gardner served on. The first purple heart mission was on a small ‘Boston Whaler’, while Kerry was under training. There is absolutely no contradiction here. I’m surprised you don’t know this after the amount of time you’ve spent debating this topic - it’s a crucial part of the story.
Gardner’s main contribution as an eyewitness is to disprove Kerry’s claim that he was running secret missions into Cambodia. Gardner says that he was on that boat for every mission, and not once did they go into Cambodia.
However, Kerry served on a different boat later on, and Gardner will not speak of what happened on that boat, since he wasn’t there.
That’s bullshit, Sam, plain and simple. Either Gardner CAN ATTEST to the FIRST purple heart INCIDENT because he was serving ON THE SAME BOAT with Kerry, yet WASN’T ACTUALLY ON IT THAT DAY, or the fucking boat NEVER LEFT THE DOCK WITHOUT HIM.
You CANNOT have it both ways.
Quit with the damn intellectual dishonesty already and give up. Gardner is a liar.
And he can either ATTEST to the FIRST incident or he CANNOT.
You CANNOT ATTEST to something you DID NOT WITNESS.
He DID NOT WITNESS it, because he WASN’T ON THE BOAT.
So, when you boil it all down, Gardner’s only importance is the fact that of all the men who actually served in the immediate presence of Sen Kerry, he is the only one who has chosen to cast his lot with the Swifties. Which means that when Sen Kerry says that everyone who was on his boat speaks well of him, he is a monstrous liar telling huge…
Oh, wait. No, we’re still waiting on the cite/link from friend Scylla that proves conclusively that Kerry said such a thing. Not me, not Shayna, not anyone but Kerry.
Well, now that we’re past this little diversionary dust-up, we can expect that since Scylla is not otherwise occupied, he can rush to post such a quote, which he no doubt has at his fingertips.
Whenever you’re ready with that.
Please bear with me for a second. Look at what I write not as an enemy to be debated but as someone trying to explain something.
There are three boats on which Kerry served on the rivers of Vietnam. The first is a Boston Whaler, while Kerry was still training to skipper a Swift. Gardner was not on that boat.
The second was PC-F 44, on which Gardner was a gunner during the three months that Kerry was the skipper. This is the boat that “never left the dock” without him.
The third was the 94 boat which Kerry skippered for about a month and change. Gardner did not serve on this boat.
Gardner’s first hand experience serving under Kerry with Kerry as skipper begins immediately after Kerry’s first purple heart.
He testifies that Kerry did not appear seriously wounded after the incident. At other times Gardner talks about incidents, including some medal ones (irrc) that occured on PC-F44 (second purple heart. ) He contradicts Kerry on his Cambodia claim, saying the boat never went there.
Gardner stays with PCF-44 when Kerry takes command of 94. Therefore he is not serving on Kerry’s boat during the Rasmussen incident (third purple heart)
Now Shayna, I’ve read the Swiftboat book. I’ve examined the website, I’ve looked at the rebuttals, and I’ve tried to understand this thing.
I realize that when Kerry talks about his Vietnam experience he is trying to paint it in the most favorable light.
I realize the when the Swiftvets talk about it, they are trying to paint it in the most unfavorable light.
Gardner himself is a decorated war veteran and a recipient of the purple heart. He deserves respect for his service and he should be pronounced a liar based on a sound bite and an insufficient understanding of events.
In the final analysis Gardner’s testimony really isn’t damaging to Kerry. He hates the guy. When you read what he says with this understanding, I don’t think you’re left with a lot more than that.
It doesn’t mean that he’s a liar, though.
No he cannot attest to the whaler incident from a firsthand perspective.
That’s the reason I brought it up. Yes. I concluded from reading everything that Gardner said that it did not constitute proof the Kerry served dishonorably.
Yawn. Parsing words, and playing deconstruction games with Elucidator. What fun. Yes, I did say that Kerry said that. Actually though, he may not be on the record saying it. As we both know Kerry hasn’t really taken on the substance of thing firsthand (and I’m not sure he should, or needs to.) Rather the statement about not being on the boat comes from the 35 page response the Kerry campaign made to the Swiftvets and has been repeated by various Kerry campaign people and others who care to pick up the meme, IIRC. Probably not ever Kerry himself, just his representatives.
Get serious and stop playing word games with me.
Ok now, getting back on topic. What we’re we talking about? Oh yes. Elucidator was expressing incredulity concerning Veterans and POWS claiming that Kerry’s actions with VVAW extended the war and cost lives and more suffering. At the same time he us unwilling to consider anything that appears on websites he disaproves of.
How about one of our most decorated soldiers, former POW Colonel Bud Day?
Is Front Page magazine an ok cite?
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14898
is this guy a liar, too?
Speaking of which … 
Doesn’t look like you’re done catching up yet. Have you read your homework assignments yet?
Just keeping the record straight. “Due diligence”, and all that. Just as you say, Mr. Gardner’s testimony is pretty much inconsequential, his significance rests entirely upon the fact that he is the only one of the men who served directly with Sen Kerry (“directly” meaning “on the same boat”, wouldn’t want to “parse words” or “deconstruct”) who is willing to align himself with the Swiftys position. All the rest speak well of him, if not glowingly.
Good, then! We are in agreement, then, that this part of the Swiftys ads and testimony is, not to put too fine a point on it, a crock of shit. Excellent! It is a good thing to honestly debate these points, and arrive at a concensus, especially when that concensus agrees with one’s original opinion.
But I would like to take this moment of comity to advance a question of opinion, bearing on character: do you think Kerry was sincere? One must assume, due to the way in which you freely use words like “treason” that you don’t. Another, more generous interpretation of Sen Kerry’s anti-war activities was that he was sincerely devoted to bringing a halt to a monstrous folly. That he approached the NVietnamese in earnest, hoping to advance the cause of peace. One might well argue that such was misguided, and still accord Sen Kerry the good opinion that his intentions were worthy.
Yet you cry “treason”! Am I given to understand you hold the opinion that Sen Kerry was deliberately seeking to undermine American resolve, by way of offering “aid and comfort” to the enemy? That his motives were those of a traitor, a concious and deliberate betrayal of our nation?
I am fully aware that this is a question of opinion and conscience, I ask for no cite, no link, beyond your own personal belief.
What say you? Do you stand by your previous accusations, or no?