Rotating Header Image



Hugh Hewitt offers this today:
August 10, 2004
Posted at 6:10 PM, Pacific

“I interviewed Steve Gardner today. He served two tours in Vietnam, including two months and two weeks of John Kerry’s swift boat service–on John Kerry’s swift boat– from November 1968 through January 1969…” (read the interview on Hugh Hewitt’s site: LINK).

. . . . . . .

As to my last two days:

I watched HANNITY & COLMES yesterday evening, on which a person by the name of “Jeh Johnson” was guesting, a man identifying himself as (1.) a “Kerry campaign advisor” and (2.) “a former federal prosecutor” who, using those qualifications, went on to opine how the Swiftees were “false” in their statements because Johnson didn’t agree with them (so, apparently, he like other Kerry apologists don’t agree with the statements by the Swiftees — first-hand witness/testimony by the Swiftees be damned, it’s disagreeable what they’re saying, so, they are, therefore, “false” if you follow the liberal illogic).

Hannity: “Are you saying they’re liars?”
Johnson: “No, I’m not saying they’re lying, let me finish, let me finish…”
Hannity: “Are you saying they’re liars?”
Johnson: “(more mumbo jumbo mambo continuing)…”
Hannity: “Are you saying they’re liars?”
Johnson: “I’m saying that their statements are false.”

Alright, Mr. Johnson’s a former federal prosecutor. He knows, or it’s popularly assumed that he knows, how to answer a question, follow a theme, define terms, understand what means what, literarily and literally. That he knows what the definition of “is” is.

But, to listen to Mr. Johnson insisting on his illogic in that brief visit to HANNITY & COLMES — same thing by Lanny Grant the evening before last, about the same issue, when faced with similar questions — you’d surely get the impression that these folks have some intellectual, perhaps hearing, impairment.

Both Mr. Johnson and Mr. Grant the evening before won’t respond to the issues being put before them: first-hand testimony by something at or close to two-hundred and fifty individuals who served in Vietnam at the same time that John Kerry did, who were present at key times and who have witness statements that prove the ongoing tales by John Kerry about those times in Vietnam to be false.

But to listen to Johnson and Grant and peers — read the Internet where and when any liberals congregate and you get the same illogic about the Swiftees — they focus on anything but the first-hand testimony by this large group of individual Americans, and instead focus on:

Picture 758.gif (1.) the information is objectionable (it is, but they’re finding it objectionable because it proves Kerry a liar, and them supporters of the lies by not denouncing the liar they support, while to everyone else, the information is objectionable because Kerry’s lying all these years is offensive);

Picture 758.gif (2.) the Swiftees’ first-hand testimony isn’t by people who were ON THE BOAT THAT KERRY WAS ON — at least, not all of them were or were not — so their first-hand testimony about individual observations of John Kerry in specific situations OFF THE BOAT THAT KERRY SERVED ON can’t be credible (the Universe begins and ends with that one boat, despite the persistent presence in Vietnam of OTHER BOATS on which some of the Swiftees did serve, floating yards away, providing easy and necessary eye contact between the boats, not to mention the fact that some of the lies proven by Kerry are about situations and incidents that occured off ANY boat but on land where some of the Swiftees were present — to listen to the Kerry apologists, this is discardable information because THEY WEREN’T ON THE BOAT…), although the Swiftees have never said or written to the contrary;

Picture 758.gif (3.) Some of the Swiftees have been known to be involved in fundraising and/or campaigning for Republican candidates during their lifetimes — surprise, surprise, and various other Democratic PACs and even endless liberal activists who “hate Bush” and campaign for John Kerry are known Democrats and have campaigned in their lifetimes for other Democratic candidates and even FINANCIALLY CONTRIBUTED to Democratic campaigns in their lifetimes; to hear Kerry apologists, the first-hand witness of anyone who is a Republican, has ever campaigned for a Republican or otherwise been involved in a Republican campaign is to be denounced because of that ‘complicity’;


Picture 758.gif (4.) One of the authors of the Swiftees’ book, “Unfit for Command,” wrote objectionable content on a conservative forum — despite the fact that the context is easily recognizable as hyperbolic and otherwise “tongue in cheek” (the content was wry and sarcastic, based in pejorative generalities about human types and activities, in bad taste, but also recognizably exaggeration of themes there for to make rhetorical points), if you follow the Kerry apologists here, then that fellow’s entire first-hand testimony from his service in Vietnam is to be discounted; I’m wondering how the many blogs of the leftwing of today and the recent years are going to come back to haunt them in our tomorrows, if we are to apply the Kerry apologists’ line of reasoning, that anyone who’s ever written or said anything pejorative about other humans is to be discounted as being implausible or otherwise inviolate — then, if that’s the case, great, we can now disregard as being inviolate moby, atrios, most of the Kennedy’s, certainly all of the DU, Paul Krugman, Eric Alterman, any liberal opinionator writing about his or her hates for President George Bush/Republicans/Conservatives/Christians/Jooooossss…

The preposterousness of the Kerry story is that, Kerry has lied about his history and motives, which leaves a reasonable person to wonder what else he’s lied about (standard of credibility is, after all, if someone is known to have lied about one thing, they can be assumed to be capable of lying about everything, that they cannot be considered as reliable), and, the Kerry apologists have no defense if they are to continue to endorse, support and otherwise protect the lies and the man responsible for the lies, which is Kerry.

Instead, they are working hard to derail any conversation about the entire thing and denigrate the credibility of the two-hundred-+ Swiftees. If you have no defense, apparently, then you attack the prosecution. Not to mention rely on the use of the threat of lawsuits (even THAT is being alleged by the Kerry apologists to not constitute a “threat of suit” but, if not that, then what, exactly, is a letter from a group of attorneys advising the recipient of potential harms they are engaged in, that can be perceived by someone else as being [name your transgression here] — certainly isn’t a greeting of good will; me, I say those letters by those attorneys are acts intended to intimidate).

This time, the gloves fit. So, the defense (Kerry apologists) attack that which isn’t even on the record. It’s called forgery, falsification…it’s called a lie.


Picture 758.gif Mr. Johnson made another appearance this morning on FOX News…denouncing the Swiftees by attempting to PEJORATIVELY LABEL them (I guess this now eliminates Mr. Johnson from being taken seriously in future discussions, as per his earlier premise from yesterday), the “Swiftvets for Bush.”

Mr. Johnson continued (despite him violating his very own conditions) that the Swiftees’ book contains “no first person observance, all second and third person observances…” and then made other allegations that the FOX host was able to calmy clarify for Mr. Johnson, despite his remaining relentless in his nasties about the Swiftees, also insisting Kerry had “clarified” one of his stories at some point in time…all of which has since been clarified by other clarifiers to be Kerry maintaining obfuscation, regardless.

Let’s see…the fellow whose life was saved by Kerry is a “registered Republican” (Mr. Johnson says as if that proves the Swiftees wrong, or otherwise disproves the stories by anyone else, while I don’t see so far that any Swiftee is saying or suggesting that Kerry never saved the fellow’s life — perhaps I missed the point here because Mr. Johnson has a lot of negative energy about this area of Kerry’s lies).

Mr. Johnson, Kerry campaign advisor, campaigning for John Kerry. Nothing about Kerry’s Christmas in Cambodia lies so far…just stories about the surviving Vet whose life Kerry saved, and how much the Swiftvets must be working for Bush, as per Johnson’s insistence. I could sense Mr. Johnson’s perspiration.


  1. justaguy says:

    House Minority Leader Pelosi Breaks
    Her Pledge To Support Porter Goss
    For CIA Director

    In June, Pelosi Pledged Her Support For Goss If He Was Nominated Because Of His Independence. “If Goss is nominated for the post, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said that she would support him. Pelosi worked closely with Goss during the congressional investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks. Whoever replaces Tenet needs to be independent of political pressure, Pelosi said. Goss, who worked for the CIA before becoming a congressman in 1988, has shown that ability as chairman of the House Intelligence panel, she added.” (“CIA To See Change In Leadership Style,” Chattanooga Times Free Press, 6/5/04)


    Pelosi Says She Does Not Support Porter Goss’ Nomination Because He’s Too Partisan. CNN’s ED HENRY: “Nancy Pelosi though, did point out … that maybe Porter Goss is too political of a pick, at a time in the post-9/11 world where there should be more bipartisanship on national security. Here’s what Pelosi had to say.” PELOSI: “But I will say what I said before is that there shouldn’t – a person should not be the director of central intelligence who’s acted in a very political way when we’re dealing with the safety of the American people. Intelligence has to be the gathering and analysis and dissemination of information, of intelligence, without any political, any politics involved at all.” (CNN’s “Inside Politics,” 8/10/04)