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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (61780)	8/19/2004 9:53:16 PM
From: unclewest	Respond to of 793939

Let me play devils advocate here a minute. Comments? Nadine, Read the book. It is very comprehensive and will answer all your questions about John Kerry and all your questions about the Swiftvets. The book is so completely documented it will likely become a required read. uw

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (61780)	8/19/2004 9:53:31 PM
From: CYBERKEN	Respond to of 793939

I didn't HAVE to be a black and white record to now be an obscure detail-long forgotten-of a presidential campaign a third of a century into the future. They could have run the CURRENT John Kerry, and taken their chances. Thus, one wonders what they REALLY think of those chances...

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (61780)	8/19/2004 11:31:22 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793939

<font color=blue>"If they weren't so mad at Kerry, the swiftvets would have honestly remembered a far less unflattering account of him."<font color=black> I agree, but they might have made a better overall case. If they were still asked to recount their recollection of events & apply available documentation to support their claims, they might have ended up with a more compelling account dispelling Kerry's version reality, sans some of the heated rhetoric. I say this partially based on O'niell's ability to present a lawyers type brief that stands up to scrutiny.