152
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 73:
Line 73: + + + + + + +
→"Kerry's fellow soldiers"
::*So would you agree determining exactly what the claims stated by O'Neill and the SBVT is the first line of investigation? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:55, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
::*So would you agree determining exactly what the claims stated by O'Neill and the SBVT is the first line of investigation? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:55, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
...dear lord you're actually so intent on keeping the phrasing such as it is that you're proposing an investigation into the group and Oneill specifically just so you can justify using it. Yeah, lets give unsubstantiated claims that contradict the official record, made by a man with a political axe to grind, even more publicity. What better way to get to the bottom of things than that particular waste of time?
"There is only one who can dispute their claims, John Kerry. Kerry can bring forword eyewitnesses to support his position, eyewitnesses who's own credibility must be examined."
Why is Kerry automatically the one who has to justify himself? Why are you treating ONeill's claims as inherently truthful, claims that are refuted by the official record, and the personal testimony of the people serving on Kerry's boat (a relevant point too is that the SwiftVets never served alongside Kerry in this capacity, their testimony is not that of "witnesses")?
Look, here's a corrolary. I accuse you of being a witch. It would be asanine of me to demand you to provide proof that you're not when my claim, which has no evidence behind it, is almost entirely self-evidently false. The burden of proof is not on Kerry and the people he served with, its on ONeill and the SwiftVets, and given how self-contradictory their claims are and how politically motivated their operation seems to be, why should their criticisms be given more credibility than the official military record, one that, with regards to Kerry's service, had not gone challenged for decades until such time as was politically opportune.
All this though is tangential to my point. Saying Kerry went to great lengths to get his purple hearts is merely an opinion, a gossipy one at that, and one which is at odds with the established military record, and I'm more inclined to trust the United States Military over two people with an axe to grind. I'm pretty sure one of the commandments is about gossip and opinions being used in place of fact. he "has been accsed of it" perhaps, but stating it as objectively true is outright wrong. And characterizing the detractors, who did not serve with Kerry in any real capacity, his "fellow soldiers" is a misleading claim.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 22:04, 21 April 2007 (EDT)