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: Ilaine who wrote (61204)	8/17/2004 11:35:09 PM
From: Alan Smithee	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 794373

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. Generally true, with the caveat that a report made immediately after the fact by a person known to embellish, or actually to falsify reports, are suspect. I, for one, would be interested in knowing who wrote up the after-action report of the incident that resulted in Kerry's being awarded the Bronze Star. Did Kerry have a hand in it's authorship? If not, was he a primary source of information to the person writing the report?

To: Ilaine who wrote (61204)	8/18/2004 9:04:28 AM
From: Alastair McIntosh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794373

Re: what you have here are reports made by people who were not asked to give their report immediately after the fact There were five boats involved in the particular incident. Would the other skippers not have as much input into the after-action reports as Kerry? There is no "prima facie" case that Kerry had more influence in the after-action reports that the four others. Reading the report I would think the opposite to be true. Again, I am not arguing for the truthfulness of Kerry's statements but for the probably of error in the swifties statements.