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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (612720)	8/28/2004 5:17:02 PM
From: Kevin Rose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Ha, only Tommy Watson could take one sentence out of a context and ignore the rest, and then print the entire section! Didn't you read Rove' Big Lie Book? You're supposed to omit the unsupporting context when you attempting to lie... "I had no reason to doubt that we were under fire (that day) because it had always happened that way before."

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (612720)	8/28/2004 6:18:25 PM
From: Math Junkie	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

"Lambert, 64, acknowledged that he can't prove the U.S. boats came under enemy fire because he and other sailors started firing .50-caliber machine guns into the jungle immediately after one vessel hit a mine. The noise of the mine's explosion, the shooting and the screaming boat engines made it unclear exactly what was happening." The above certainly suggests an explanation for how different witnesses can have such differing opinions on whether they were or were not under fire. In my opinion, Lambert has the most credibility of any witness who has spoken up about the events of that day, partly because he's not telling a version of events that supports the candidate he favors, and partly because he doesn't hide the fact that the firing of the .50-caliber machine guns made it impossible to know for sure if there was opposing fire or not.