Prosecutor who attacked Kerry admits lying to boss

August 27, 2004 11:12 AM

Prosecutor who attacked Kerry admits lying to boss Liar, liar, pants on fire--"Clackamas County prosecutor Alfred French, who called Sen. John Kerry a liar in a political commercial, acknowledged Thursday that he lied to his boss when confronted about an extramarital affair with a colleague. ...
posted by Postroad (35 comments total)

He's disgraced his own service to the country and flushed his career down the tubes.
Another boil on the ass of history has been lanced.
Somehow this is all Kerry's fault.
posted by 2sheets at 11:27 AM on August 27, 2004

The man lied to his boss about an affair that happened 10 years earlier in order to save his job. Therefore, one must conclude that everything he ever says is a lie. (I think I heard somewhere that he also lied to a worker at Weight Watchers once when he said he hadn't had any ice cream that week, and once told his wife that her dress looked "real nice" when, in fact, he thought it was ugly). Clearly, the man is pathological.

Look, the motives and truth of these guys is in serious question. But this is just trivial, and doesn't make anything having to do with Kerry either more or less likely. (And I can't believe five whole minutes had passed since the last Swift Boat-related post. Come on, people! We have to be faster than that!)
posted by pardonyou? at 11:32 AM on August 27, 2004

"It is fair and right to be opposed to this or that candidate but there is no need to use such silly things as this when in fact our porverty rates skyrocket; our chances at decent jobs are vanishing; our health and education are seriously eroding etc." - Postroad, 3 and a half hours ago.
posted by techgnollogic at 11:33 AM on August 27, 2004

*zing*
posted by pardonyou? at 11:37 AM on August 27, 2004

...and the digging into the swiftboat vets' lives continues.
posted by tomplus2 at 11:38 AM on August 27, 2004

Ha ha!
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 11:39 AM on August 27, 2004

...and the digging into the swiftboat vets' lives continues.

And what did they expect? Frankly, you don't get to smear a presidential candidate without getting a little smeared yourself - with revenge on the mind of both right and left for slights both real and perceived, this is the way it's a'gonna be from here on in.
posted by kgasmart at 11:44 AM on August 27, 2004

That was quick!

Kerry hired Clinton/Berger stooge Joe Lockhart just last week to dig up personal dirt on the vets. The smears have already made FPP on metafilter!

I hope those average joes know how to play dirty with the big boys - their "cheap" ads were just too effective for JFK.
posted by dand at 11:45 AM on August 27, 2004

techgnoll - I agree with postroad. However, negative campaigning works. If one side is gonna head for the gutter, the other side has to, or will (generally) loose the fight. Since the Bush team is widely known for their ugly tactics, we can only expect that all of this will get worse.
posted by Irontom at 12:21 PM on August 27, 2004

Those poor, poor Swift Boat Veterans. All they wanted was to smear a man's military service and then when their story fell apart and the media scrutiny fell on them, it was simply unfair for the media to examine their credibility as an organization or as individuals. I mean, if the late-nineties taught us anything, it was that government officials lying about affairs to protect their jobs are reprehensible and should be punished accordingly.

I think it does make sense to look into the Swift Boat Veterans. The more we know about it, the more it stinks. Let's drag this entire operation out into the light and study all the moving parts here. Personally, I am very interested and glad that some part of the media is following this.
posted by rks404 at 12:32 PM on August 27, 2004

This reminds me of the Daily Show re-run I saw last night where Clinton was the guest. His stance on the entire attack ads thing was pretty straightforward: if someone else throws the first punch, feel free to beat them down. He then criticized McCain for not responding to the attacks from the Bush camp in 2000. It's a dirty business, but as he said, as long as negative ads work, they'll happen.
posted by mikeh at 12:54 PM on August 27, 2004

Irontom: I don't deny that you have to fight fire with fire. I just don't think people should whine and complain about how petty, negative, scummy and inappropriate someone's tactics are, and then turn around and do the same thing.
posted by techgnollogic at 12:56 PM on August 27, 2004

Whining about whining is useless.
posted by rks404 at 12:58 PM on August 27, 2004

So they [the Government] go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent.
Sir Winston Churchill
posted by a3matrix at 1:06 PM on August 27, 2004

The guy was already screwed, since he signed an affidavit claiming to have personal knowledge of things that he knew only by hearsay. Perjury is uncool, kids.
posted by subgenius at 1:10 PM on August 27, 2004

it seems like being "disbarred in 2002 by the Oregon Supreme Court for unethical conduct and violating state law" should be a significant stain on one's credibility, especially when he admits in the article that "he was relying on the account of trusted friends when he said Kerry lied about the two Purple Hearts".

i totally agree that this issue is taking up way too much airtime, so to speak, but it is also a big deal for the Oregonian to so clearly come out and say that this guy is untrustworthy. i've canvassed a little bit (here in portland) since these ads came out and have been yelled at a few times by old men angry at kerry for lying about his military service. while *i* know and probably *you* know that these statements are almost entirely just a smear campaign, apparently there are still some people out there who believe them. mainstream media outlets NEED to attack these kinds of claims or else they just stand uncorrected in these peoples' heads.

also, just for perspective on the Oregonian, they also ran a story on the front page about a young undecided voter who is angry at losing valuable campaign time to this crap, time that could be spent talking about, say, issues.
posted by pikachulolita at 1:21 PM on August 27, 2004

Wait, he lied about an affair? If I learned 1 thing from the Clinton years it was that everybody lies about their affairs, and so its OK. Everybody ... nobody died when the prosecutor lied, nobody died when...

Hey, whay aren't you singing with me.
posted by schlyer at 1:32 PM on August 27, 2004

" Wait, he lied about an affair?"

That's just the icing on the cake.

"since he signed an affidavit claiming to have personal knowledge of things that he knew only by hearsay"

That's why he was already in hot water, and his career headed down the toilet.

And I don't know what "everybody" thinks, but I thought Clinton's biggest crime was his violation of work place ethics, and whatever laws applied in that case. I don't care for people getting hummers on the clock when I'm paying their salary.
posted by 2sheets at 1:45 PM on August 27, 2004

The man lied to his boss about an affair that happened 10 years earlier in order to save his job. Therefore, one must conclude that everything he ever says is a lie.

Isn't this precisely the logic behind the attacks on Kerry, except that he didn't lie and the "lies" were 35 years ago?
posted by kirkaracha at 2:04 PM on August 27, 2004

it seems like being "disbarred in 2002 by the Oregon Supreme Court for unethical conduct and violating state law" should be a significant stain on one's credibility

Read the article again, pikachulolita. French (the alleged liar) wasn't disbarred -- it was his former boss, Gustafson, who fired French allegedly for taking four weeks off without permission.

Isn't this precisely the logic behind the attacks on Kerry, except that he didn't lie and the "lies" were 35 years ago?

I'm not sure about "precisely," but you could make that argument. And two wrongs don't make a right, right?
posted by pardonyou? at 2:21 PM on August 27, 2004

and the digging into the swiftboat vets' lives continues

How can you call it "digging" when the Tom Swifties invited these investigations.

And two wrongs don't make a right, right?

Or:"You wouldn't hit a man with glasses now, would you?"
posted by octobersurprise at 3:53 PM on August 27, 2004

"The fact of the matter is, the United States currently has tens of thousands of troops on the ground, in Iraq, right now, and the difficulties and dangers they face everyday are not getting the attention they deserve from the candidates or the media. Why haven't candidates, or the media for that matter, addressed the tens of thousands of Veterans coming home with serious psychological problems? Where are the front-page headlines on proposed budget cuts to the Department of Veterans Affairs? Who is shining a light on the drastic need to institutionalize family support systems and increase pay for those called to war? Why have we heard so little about the possible detrimental effects of Larium, the anti-malaria medication widely administered to troops in the Middle East? What are the effects of the Pentagon's "Stop-loss" policy, which locks in troops who have completed their contractual obligation? Most importantly, is there a clear exit strategy for war in Iraq?"
posted by homunculus at 4:31 PM on August 27, 2004

pardonyou?, if you don't mind me asking, as a Democratic voter how come you defend the lies of the anti-Kerry's so much, but never seem to attack the lies of the Bushies?

Just wondering...
posted by dash_slot- at 4:56 PM on August 27, 2004

dash_slot: Because the latter are more obvious. It's intellectually healthy to "defend" the other side and point out its strong points than to just merrily push the party line.
posted by abcde at 5:32 PM on August 27, 2004

Is that why, pardonyou?
posted by dash_slot- at 5:46 PM on August 27, 2004

That does it -- Al French has lost my vote for President.
posted by aaronetc at 6:13 PM on August 27, 2004

dash_slot -- sorry, I left work. The short answer to your question is that I'm not a partisan hack. I don't believe that everything Democrats say is gospel, or that everything Republicans say is a lie.

The longer answer is still simple: There are already an overwhelming number of voices on MeFi who don't hesitate to point out misdeeds of the Bush administration. I don't feel like I'm adding much to the conversation by saying, essentially, "me, too!" And at the same time, I can't stand when I see overreaching by Democrats. And there are a comparative few people on this site pointing out illogic on the Democrat side (and most of those get dismissed as trolls or nuts the instant they post -- e.g., seth, hama7). Moreover, it's just far more intellectually interesting to me to be somewhat contrarian, rather than participating in mutual backslapping. To that extent, abcde is absolutely correct (and I've made this argument in the past, too -- I can find it if you'd like).

Finally, there are so many substantive reasons to criticize Bush and the Republicans (or the Swift Vote people). I truly believe you do great damage to your arguments when you resort to petty, specious claims like this.

Aren't you glad you asked?
posted by pardonyou? at 7:18 PM on August 27, 2004

Swift Vote Boat
posted by pardonyou? at 7:28 PM on August 27, 2004

For the record, discounting the Swift Boat dudes' arguments based on this is a classic argumentum ad hominem. Far better to point out that their testimony in the commercials contradicts Navy records, their own earlier statements and is largely based on heresay.
posted by Joey Michaels at 9:21 PM on August 27, 2004

For the record, that's exactly why this was a lame-ass post. It adds well-deserved insult to injury for the SBVT, but is not in any real way a significant development, and should certainly have instead been added as a link to one of the 1,771,561 Swift Boat threads already on the front page.
posted by soyjoy at 9:46 PM on August 27, 2004

Its not a big deal and it all it does is suck up more time and energy, but I'm glad it was posted anyway. When someone comes out and lies - testifies with hearsay to smear a president, then that guy deserves what he gets. Personally, I hope he can never find a job again. I guess in this case two wrongs came out all right for this guy.
posted by xammerboy at 10:17 PM on August 27, 2004

Anti-Kerry producer blew journalistic credentials shilling for Moon
posted by inksyndicate at 1:08 AM on August 28, 2004

Doesn't it boil down to the fact that what, 4 or 5 SBVs are on Kerry's side, and some 200+, one of whom was on his boat, some on boats adjacent, and most of his entire chain of command have said that he is a "liar".
I just can't believe that you could get 200+ decorated naval combat vets to do that. It is a double code of honor that you don't betray your comrades, and that you don't lie when it matters.
I do know that he is still causing immense pain to ALL of the veterans of that war, and doing it for personal gain.
posted by kablam at 9:13 AM on August 28, 2004

kablam, you crack me up. Really.

"4 or 5 SBVs" - I love it.

*waits for kablam's links*
posted by soyjoy at 8:16 PM on August 28, 2004

*tumbleweed*


Thanks, p-y.

Actually, I do understand the contrarian impulse very well. I often do this myself, sometimes to test the facts & logic of my own side's views. Me-tooism is also so deeply unattractive, and turns me off a whole lot of other sites. Community should be broad, like a family (but not like THE Family), and I agree a lot that it's like an echo chamber in here sometimes.

I wonder if the advantages of a 2-party system are outweighed by the polarisation which occurs. It's hard to be an independent, when there ain't any such choice on the ballot. However, it's your last argument which is more convincing.

And yes, I am glad I asked. (",)
posted by dash_slot- at 2:20 PM on August 29, 2004