Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (61180)	8/17/2004 9:21:27 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794476

Unless there is more than old memories I'll believe the after-action reports. History is the old memories of those who write it. If you will only take an after action report that was written by one side, then you are going to leave out a lot. What you are missing from what I am trying to tell you is that you don't have to believe the memories of the Swift Vets. Their publication has opened up the whole four months of Kerry's service in Nam. So far, we know from Kerry's own statements, and the writing of people like Brinkly, his authorized bio writer, and others on his side, that their are major clashes in his own and his supporters testimony. He has convicted himself out of his own mouth that the Cambodia story was a phony. He has stated again and again that he was in Cambodia at Christmas. Brinkly's bio, which Kerry read and approved, says he was in Dak teo, 55 miles away that Christmas.

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (61180)	8/17/2004 10:47:18 PM
From: unclewest	Respond to of 794476

It is irrelevant to me who is elected. That was a helluva mouthful froma Canadian. How about saying that in French to your fellow citizens.

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (61180)	8/17/2004 10:59:39 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 794476

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.