Posted on 08/24/2004 11:49:52 AM PDT by Stultis
The words of trusted friends and associates is NOT hearsay.
You know not "trust" or "reliability" or "integrity", do you? You don't seem to be able to make distinctions between the words of a person known to be a reliable witness and a honest observer -- known by long assoiciation, by a studied verification of that person's habit, and ones who allow fancy and temper to sway and distort every word out of their mouths. The later type know you well, eh?
If you haven't, as it appears, read the entire affidavit, you have no basis for making such a claim. From all indications, you're just taking a reporter's word for it as gospel.
Get real. This is FR, not DU.
We rely -- we HAVE to rely on those we can trust, whose trustworthiness is proven to us. If you aren't doing that, your life is small and fearful, paranoid, neurotic.
I would hope -- I hope -- you have friends, family, associates you can trust to the point that their eyes are your eyes, their ears are your ears. What they report is not then hearsay to you.
I went to your source in the Oregonian, and this popped out at me.
They were in the same unit, and French says they didn't engage in atrocities. This is something he would know, and it's also something that Kerry has admitted to exaggerating.
The other quotes were basically French saying that Kerry lied about specific incidents. Since we don't have the affidavit in front of us we don't know what modifiers French used in those very short quotes attributed to him in the article. Since it's supposed to be a 3 page statement, and these quotes are a few short sentences, then all I can say is that I want to see the entire statement.
I want to see the context and if there are modifiers used.
Do you have a link to the affidavit?
Second, many of the factual statements are utterly benign, and thus could never be actionable. For example, “I served with John Kerry” [French, Elder, Hildreth]. That leaves factual statements like Hibbard’s: Kerry “lied before the Senate.” In libel law, truth is an absolute defense. If, for example, it is true that Kerry “lied before the Senate,” that Kerry “has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam” [Elliott], that Kerry “is lying about his record” [French], and that Kerry “lied to get his Bronze Star” [O’Dell], Kerry has no case for libel.So would French's benign statement be libel since he's admitted he didn't witness the events himself? I dunno. Probably depends on the court you're in. The professor says Kerry's lawyers would never let him file libel charges because then he'd be opening himself to document discovery requests which we all know would be disastrous for him.
I still don't see the evidence that he provided a false sworn statement about something he later said he did not witness.
He did say he was not a witness to some of these events. He did say that for some of them he was relying on the testimony of actual observers.
But:
1. We don't know if he admitted to this in the statement as well as later.
2. We don't know how he precisely phrased everything that he said. Being a lawyer, I'd expect we'd find a very precise document.
You're just full of DNC talking points tonight, aren't you? Elliot did not retract his charge. Just because the reporter said he did doesn't make it true. He has disputed the published report of his 'retraction' and reiterated that (paraphrased):
Had I known the true facts of the incident, I never would have considered recommending him for his Silver Star.
The only change to his claims was the correction of an omission. He had failed to indicate that the 'shot in the back' portion of it was based on other people's accounts rather than his own personal knowledge of the events. That's hardly a retraction of his entire affidavit.
As described in the attached affidavits, Al French (Exhibit 2), Bob Elder (Exhibit 3), Jack Chenoweth (Exhibit 7), Larry Thurlow (Exhibit 10), and Bob Hildreth (Exhibit 14) were all officers in charge of Swift boats in Vietnam in Coastal Division 11 with John Kerry.With French now discredited as a witness to these events, 20% of the officers who accuse Kerry just evaporated. That two attorneys (French & O'Neill) could have somehow overlooked the fact that French did not serve with Kerry in combat is more than a little odd.
If the post is the reading you wish done it is unconvincing.
I repeat has he swore to this in Court?
"French, reporting what he was told at the time, is giving valuable information about how a particular story has not changed, about a sequence of events that was in the mind of other participants at the time, and, since he was in the unit, he would have been in a position to know if any of the boats had received small arms damage.
"He appears to be very careful to say he was not involved."
Exactly. And if he had not publicly stated what he knew along with the applicable context, he would have been derelict in a reasonable search for truth.
His only "offense" is that he is in the liberal state of Oregon.
So we have a commanding officer who recommends for the medal.
Well, at least you got that part right. Note, however, that this recommendation was based on kerry's own after-action report. He expected that it would be accurate and honest when, in fact, it had been kerry-ized.
Then campaigns for Kerry in '96 on just how much Kerry deserved the medals.
No, he didn't. He defended kerry against what he considered an unfair charge that killing the VC was a war crime.
Now he campaigns against Kerry and makes an affidavit.
Gee, you got another one right. Congratulations.
Then retracts part of the affidavit.
Ooops, the reporter says he retracted it. He says he didn't. That's the reason he disputes the report.
Then retracts the retraction.
Wrong again, he disputed the report. He hasn't retracted the affidavit.
Now he says he shouldn't have given Kerry the medal at all. Because some other guys said so.
No, that's what he said in the original affidavit. The medal recommendation was based on information that he has since learned was wrong.
John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887) based the following poem on a fable which was told in India many years ago.
It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind
The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!”
The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, “Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me ’tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!”
The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a snake!”
The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” quoth he;
“ ‘Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!”
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!”
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!”
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!
Moral:
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
With the Swift Boaters, That's the equivalent of being in the same company in the army....it's probably even fewer people than that. It is not the same as an army "division" of thousands of people. Trust me...if you were in 1st platoon C Company and I was in 2nd platoon C Company, then we served in combat together. Our paths probably crossed regularly when in the field, and we could easily have been friends who hung out together when off duty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.