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: LindyBill who wrote (62592)	8/22/2004 4:12:23 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793913

The WaPo runs an article today (too lazy to fetch the link now) where the reporter tries to sort out the Rassman incident. Major point of difference between the sides: was there enemy fire or not? Very he said, he said. BUT the Swiftvets are being interrogated as witnesses, not dismissed as slimeballs.

To: LindyBill who wrote (62592)	8/22/2004 4:16:20 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793913

think his memory of the gunfire is not true. I am sure we will hear about it from Swift vets on their site in the next few days I'm sure. But wouldn't it be easy to have disagreements on this point? It can't be easy to tell enemy fire under the sound of a barrage of friendly fire, unless it starts to hit something near you. Since hitting something near you could be quite a localized phenomenon, I would expect different memories if there wasn't too much firing. Did the guys who reported fire get any bullet holes in their boats?