Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
292,430
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 80:
Line 80: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→"Kerry's fellow soldiers": response
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)
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)
*'' a man with a political axe to grind''
:*What does this mean? a candidate nominated by an opposition party to run against an incumbant cannot be described as "a man with a poltical axe to grind"?
*''What better way to get to the bottom of things than that particular waste of time? ''
:*So rubber stamping biased media reports is valid historical writing, but an independent investigation into the facts is a "waste of time"?
*''Why is Kerry automatically the one who has to justify himself? ''
:*Under this methodology, ''ABC News'' becomes an eyewitness to any investigation, perhaps how ABC reported the Virgina Tech massacre is admissible evidence, nevermind the fact they didn't have camera's or reporters in classrooms where and when the incident occurred? Does this sort of methodological research and reporting even need commenting on?
*''Why are you treating ONeill's claims as inherently truthful...the SwiftVets never served alongside Kerry in this capacity, their testimony is not that of "witnesses")? ''
:*If you read what is outlined above, it lays out the porper method to proceed. That O'Neil & SBVT made charges is not in dispute; that the characterization of those charges in so-called "mainstream media" has been distorted we already have evidence; that John Kerry's character as a credible witness needs close scrutiny, because that is the basic charge of ''Unfit for Command'' (obvious in the title of the book); that there is evidence to suspect Kerry's character and crediblibly there is ample evidence now, the question is was it questionable 30 years ago; that Kerry may have witnesses to vouch for his tale has been established, and we need to examine their credibility, not accept ''ABC News'' reports asssement of their credibility at face value. And there are other issues to be examined as well.
*''The burden of proof is not on Kerry ''
:*To use a ''Perotism'', Kerry had a job application before the American people, the job he applied for was Commander in Chief. A background check, with references, is standard and routine. A previous associate said he was unfit for the job; yes, examining the credibility of that associate is in order. But it's not simply a "he said/she said". Kerry's credibiblty was already in question. Obviously, the inabilbity to repair Kerry's reputation would lead to a strategy of slander and defamation of his detractors if specific claims could not be refuted. Ultimatley, this is exactly what happened. Let's investigate all of it.
*''given how self-contradictory their claims are ''
:*Yet to be established.
*''their claims are and how politically motivated their operation seems to be''
:*See above ''burden of proof''; yes indeed, efforts to slander & defame the Swifities by Kerry, the DNC, and media toadies does appear politically motivated.
*''had not gone challenged for decades''
:*See above reference to ''Perotism''; Kerry had not applied for the job of Commander-in-Chief til 2004. And this may be a false premise, some of the claims may have arisen in previous Senate campaigns.
*''Saying Kerry went to great lengths to get his purple hearts is merely an opinion''
:*The issue is larger than that; the basic idea is Kerry followed JFK's footsteps. Like JFK, a PT boat cammander, went to Vietnam looking to build a "warhero" image with an intent to return to Massachusetts, like JFK, run for Senate, and like JKF, become President someday. Big difference here between JFK & JFK (John Forbes Kerry), however; the first JFK got his warhero status in service to his country; the second JFK of Massachusetts got his warhero status awarded to himself by himself in service to himself and his own ambitions.