Changes

:*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?

:*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")? ''

*''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.

:*If you read what is outlined above, it lays out the proper 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 ''

*''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.

:*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 inability 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 ''

*''given how self-contradictory their claims are ''

:*Yet to be established.

:*Yet to be established.