Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (61180)	8/17/2004 10:59:39 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) of 794162

I think it's correct to say that reports made immediately after the fact are universally accepted to be more credible than recollections many years later. That's simply beyond dispute. However, what you have here are reports made by people who were not asked to give their report immediately after the fact. They are not contradicting themselves. How to treat them? Well, I suggest that the way to treat them is to compare them to objectively known facts. Take, for example, Kerry's statements that he was in Cambodia during Christmas 1968. These statements were made long after the fact, and are contradicted by objectively known facts. So, dismiss them as unreliable. This would be consistent with your argument about the events leading to the Purple Hearts. No? The statements given by people who were present at the events leading to the Purple Hearts are probably not relevant to the question of whether Kerry deserved the Purple Hearts, so many years after those facts, but are certainly relevant to the questions as to how Kerry comported himself in battle.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next