As presented, outrageous. I hope a Rottweiler with a good law degree reads this and helps Mr. Gardner with some good advice -- and that his former employer features in Chapter 7 of some future business-history text...

Is it for real? Does he have a web-site? I'd send him ten bucks.

Whatever you people say, but what Kerry did in Vietnam was an insignificant issue in the Campaign. What he did after his 3 month tour is the reason he should never have been elected President.

Gardner lied and deserved what he got.

Bret,

Power Line says that they're trying to contact the author of the story to find out how contributions can be directed to Gardner.

Vietnam Vet, do you have any evidence that Gardner lied? I heard alot about the "lies" of the Swift Boat Vets, but it all seemed to come down to one or two minor errors that were insignificant compared to their total story.

Typical facist response, "he deserved what he got."

Even assuming that his opinions of Kerry were shaded by politics, he didn't deserve to get fired for them. Based on what the story reports, it seems persuasive that he was fired for his anti-Kerry activities.

What has happened to you liberals that you've turned into facist morons?

Remember the Kerry advisor who said about Sinclair Broadcasting "They better hope we lose"? Why should anything these people do surprise?

You can tell the truth and deserve what you get. No reason your boss shouldn't fire you for your politics.

Thanks Ed.

OJ is right: in an at-will state (NC & SC are, I believe), you can be fired for no reason or any nonsense reason. I distinctly recall some knucklehead in Dallas, TX being let go for wearing a Green Bay Packers shirt just before a big Cowboys/Packers game. No recourse.

Here's an email address for Gardner, from Mary Laney, the freelance reporter who wrote the Chicago Sun-Times story.

Reason #962 why the Federal Income Tax must be eliminated forthwith.

Two states here:

"Deserving" to be fired is one thing,

"Legally fire-able" is another.

I don't question that he was legally fire-able, I only question whether he was deserving.

Yes, you only questioned whether he was "deserving," but at the same time called someone a "facist moron" for suggesting that he was. The twain don't meet.

You can deserve to be fired if you offend your fascist moron bosses. I'm agnostic on whether firing someone for opposing John Kerry automatically makes you a facist moron.

I heard alot about the "lies" of the Swift Boat Vets, but it all seemed to come down to one or two minor errors that were insignificant compared to their total story.

PapayaSF--

Other than contradicting their attestations at the time (esp. Hoffman's and O'Neill's glowing evaluations), the military record (not just Kerry's Bronze Star citation, but SBVTer Larry Thurlow's and the spot report), the recollections of the vast majority of the people actually involved (the men on Kerry's boat, especially), and logic (the initials "KJW" on a report prove Kerry wrote it?!), their story is watertight.

Try http://mediamatters.org/items/200410190003 to start.

Did he just cite Mediamatters?

Ha, ha, ha, ha!

Er yeah, watertight, which is why JFK immediately signed the 180 releasing all his military records . . .

NOT!

Jim--

Sorry if I cited a site which checks its facts, which links to the original documentation. Couldn't be as credible as, say, talk radio.

There is a reason the Left went nuts over the SwiftVets, while the Right (and the President himself) stayed calm over Bush's service in the TANG (until CBS stepped into the poop). A very good reason.

As far as fact-checking goes, I have never seen any media outlet refute more than two minor points in John O'Neill's entire book.

However, if Kerry decides to run again (unlikely as it seems), he will have to address this issue directly and talk about Cambodia, the sampan, his form 180, the magic hat, the gun-running, the 'brother' who was on his boat for 2 days, and all the rest. Maybe he will even debate O'Neill again.

S.S. -- facts, shmacts. Who cares abut facts??

SS -

Does the name David Alston mean anything to you? It obviously did to the Kerry campaign, because after the convention in Boston, Alston never appeared with the candidate again.

jim--

As far as fact-checking goes, I have never seen any media outlet refute more than two minor points in John O'Neill's entire book.

I imagine your level of refutation is that the authors disavow their own writings. All the major charges have been debunked by the military record, by the previous statements of those same men, and by the recollections of men who were actualwitnesses. This is available in many media outlets. That the ones who hated Kerry for the Winter Soldier testimony (and changed their "recollections" after they heard it) didn't stand up and say "I lied because I hate him!" isn't a very high level of proof.

So you'd acknowledge that their Winter Soldier charges are true.

SS:

The point is that we don't know the military record - Kerry's words on the subject contradict his "authorized" biography (Brinkley), and they contradict the Boston Globe book on his career.

To my knowledge, John O'Neill never supported Kerry for anything. Neither did Steve Gardner. What did they have to disavow?

The point about David Alston is very telling: the Kerry campaign dumped him when it became clear that he was on JFK's boat for less than 2 days AND that he did not fit the timeline Kerry had always claimed with respect to taking command of the boat (from the previous commander, who was wounded).

Likewise, the Kerry campaign was forced to revise the Cambodia story when it became clear that Kerry's version (told many times, including on the floor of the Senate) was just not true.

How many other holes are there in Kerry's history?

Without the form 180, there is no closure.

But we should be perfectly content to focus on his leadership role in a Communist Party front organization with people who conspired to assasinate pro-war Representatives and Senators.

Reynolds now links to a statement -- easily checkable though I haven't done the work -- from the employer denying the Sun-Times story.

Harry:

Shocking.

Harry:

Ees Party Line, Comrade.

Well, at my paper we'd have asked the employer before publishing the story. But we're not big and famous like the Sun-Times.

And spiked it if he denied it?

Depends what the evidence showed.

So the denial doesn't matter.