I wouldn't believe a rat if he told me the ocean was wet. But if French said it himself, where do we stand?
Why did the author write the article in such a way as to imply that French didn't serve at all? Was the omission just accidental, or was it deliberate?
Why did the author not mention that French did indeed serve in the Swift Boats, at the same time as Kerry, under the same command as Kerry? Was the omission accidental, or deliberate?
It looks deliberate since the author is so sloppy about ALL of his or her information in this piece. You can tell an article is merely a hit piece when the author goes out of his way to be this fuzzy.
Why would the author omit so much information? Simple- because some people know darn well that under the normal definition of serving under the same command, in the same theater, that means he did serve with Kerry. And we're not talking about just the same theater, but a much closer relationship in the very same operations.
It wasn't for his statements against Kerry,
How does he know that? Did the author bother to check and see if there might be reason to believe the accusations against French were politically motivated? It doesn't look that way.
but for lying about an extra-marital affair.
How does the author know the accusers are only interested in an alleged affair ten years ago and have no interest in the current controversy about Kerry's apparent lies? Yet absent any investigation, the author assertively claims there is no connection- even though the rest of his article makes it pretty obvious there is. this is as much a lie as anything he's trying to laden others with.
How did the author determine French actually lied about an extramarital affair if the guy hasn't actually been proven to have done so and hasn't had a chance to answer the accusations? Shouldn't the author have said "allegedly lied," or "accused of lying," or at least provided some evidence to support his assertion?
Reports say French misled his former boss ten years ago to avoid getting fired.
What reports? There may very well be reports, or there may not be. They may be proven, or they might just be unsubstantiated accusations, perhaps even false claims made by a disgruntled worker, or a wife wanting divorce. We don't know because the author apparently didn't bother to inquire. Is the author really so stupid that he's not even curious about the source of the reports? Or is the author not interested in telling us what he knows?
French has faced a great deal of scrutiny since the ad first aired, with veterans calling for his resignation.
Which veterans? Just Kerry and a friend or two, or the VVAW, or what?
He said in the spot that he had served with John Kerry, and that Kerry exaggerated his war record.
Is it too much trouble for an author to actually give us a quote here? Did Kerry exaggerate his war record? It's proven that he did just by his own words, it's the extent of the exagerration. How come the reporter didn't say "It wasn't for his statements against Kerry, but for lying exagerrating things about an extra-marital affair." Why use the word lie with reference to one guy, and use exaggerate with reference to the other?
He also signed an affidavit, swearing to tell the truth during the taping.
So did Kerry- but Kerry really did claim to have witnesses the things he recounted, whereas we don't know if French claimed to have been the actual observer or if he just claimed he served with Kerry during the period. It's true that French signed the other Swift Boat group's affidavit, and he should be held accountable to it, though not by a third party's flexible definitions but to the standards of those who had him sign the affidavit.
French later admitted he had not served with Kerry, but relied on accounts from his friends.
Did French admit he didn't serve with Kerry? Explain the photo. Or did french only admit he wasn't on the same boat? Is it too much to ask for the reporter to actually include the complete quote of this alleged 'admission?' Can the reporter explain how it is we have a photo of French that places him there?
Were the accounts of French's friends accurate or not? If not, why not? While this doesn't release French from his obligations under the affidavit, it is important information. You'd think a reporter would at least inquire.
That irked local veterans,
Did the reporter check to make sure these people he labeled as 'local veterans' are truly local and had actually been veterans, and is their service relevent since they didn't serve either with Kerry, with French, and may or may not even have served in the Vietnam war or any war? Are these Swiftboat veterans? Yes, or No? Are they Vietnam veterans? Yes, or No? Were they members of another group, say a political group like the VVAW? Yes or NO? Do any of them have ties to the Democrat Party or the Kerry campaign? Yes, or No? Why not actually give us some names and quotes from them?
This has the be the laziest and least curious reporter I've seen in a while.
who complained to the Oregon Bar Association.
Has this group of "local veterans" or any of the individual "local veterans" ever filed a complaint with the Oregon Bar Association against ANY other individual, or is this a first for them? If it's their first, how can the author conclude the dismissal of French wasn't politically motivated? Do the "local vets" only object to just this one guy who just happens to have served in Vietnam with the Swift Boats and who just happens not to think John Kerry is swell, or do they have a track record of filing complaints against anyone who they believe has ethics problems? I suspect that Al French is their only target- you'd think the reporter would wonder, too.
They say French violated his duty as a state official by lying on the affidavit, and can no longer be trusted.
So it seems that their filing was NOT just about his alleged affair as the reporter claimed earlier. Wouldn't this make the reporter a liar?
This is Oregon here, and like all states there have to be a lot of people with questionable ethics trying to stay in or get into politics. Did these veterans file any complaints against Lumumba Ford, the terrorist supporter who served in the office of the Portland Mayor? Against anyone other than French?
If French said he was in the same boat as Kerry when he wasn't, that would be a lie. If he said he served with Kerry, that would not be a lie as we have photographic evidence he was with the swift boats. It's not a lie even if he was asked later if he served on Kerry's boat and said no. The definition of serving with someone is a broad one and is not limited to arm's length distances or even visual distances.
Maybe the reporter is right- problem is, the reporter didn't provide any evidence, and the reporter lied as well, not to mention left out critical information, so who am I to believe?