Why would anyone even mention the SWIFT BOAT book?

[MMMMMM]

"I think, just like in the case of the drooling idiot, it is safe to dismiss any findings they have."

There may be nothing wrong with dismissing their conclusions, if you wish, but one should not dismiss reported facts so lightly. That doesn't mean you should automatically accept their reported facts either, but you should list them, then attempt to verify or disprove them via other sources if possible.

Blanket dismissals based solely on source are a very dangerous, and non-scientific, approach.

[eLROY]

[cardcounter0]

Can you find someone Bush even served with in the Alabama National Guard? Find one person who served with Bush, since he wasn't AWOL, and was in the Guard in Alabama. There is a $50,000 reward if that person will step forward.

Then let's ask him if he thinks Bush is fit to serve.

>>>>> The people pictured all have a 30-year-old axe to grind with Kerry, about his anti-war stance and statments from the 70s.

[Utah]

Let's see - your defense of Kerry's lie is that Bush and Company are liars. That seems a pretty weak agrument from a lawyer such as yourself. I'd grade that an F.

Kerry didnt just claim - he said over and over and he used the word seared. He lied. Its a simple fact.

"The particular date on which he crossed into Cambodia before the U.S. was willing to admit it (that he did so no one seems to doubt) hardly seems material."

Its material because it shows him to be a liar. And yes, whether he ever crossed into Cambodia is very much in doubt.

[MMMMMM]

Sorry Chris, but that is an unscientific and needlessly biased approach and is incompatible with seeking the truth of the matter.

Dismiss their conclusions if you wish; view their reported "facts" with a jaundiced eye if if you deem so prudent, then attempt to get outside confirmation or denial of such "facts"--but to dismiss wholesale their reported facts, is simply unintelligent and prejudicial, especially since the Swift/Kerry matter is currently in the investigative stage to some significant extent.

[vulturesrow]

This post is yet another fine example of your typically liberal debating tactics, i.e., deflecting discussion from the main issue, attacking the source, etc. Here are some facts.

1) Kerry has repeatedly made his Vietnam service a cornerstone of his election campaign.
2) Bush didnt do the same in the case of his service, nor has he made an issue of Kerry's service.
3) It has already been shown that Kerry has misled people about the nature of his service in Vietnam.

Make of that what you will but the fact remains that Kerry made this an issue and when he got challenged on it he sent out his goons instead defending it himself. I will even say I dont think it should be an issue. But he made it an issue and now it cant easily be dismissed out of hand. Id rather talk about how incredibly liberal his voting record has been and why that makes him unfit to be President.

[eLROY]

Kerry's desire to attach himself to historical events just shows what a desperate, pathetic person he has always been. It's the chronic lie of baby-boomer nobodys, trying to cling to their own vanity, the stereotypical little guy trying to be part of something big described in Hoffer's "The True Believer".

It's not about the Vietnam War or terrorism or the great economic debates of our time; it's about John "Cambodia" Kerry looking in the mirror. Healthy people can separate discussions of the world from discussions of their own special role in it, and speak objectively.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
"I think, just like in the case of the drooling idiot, it is safe to dismiss any findings they have."

There may be nothing wrong with dismissing their conclusions, if you wish, but one should not dismiss reported facts so lightly. That doesn't mean you should automatically accept their reported facts either, but you should list them, then attempt to verify or disprove them via other sources if possible.

Blanket dismissals based solely on source are a very dangerous, and non-scientific, approach.

[/ QUOTE ]

On that basis I report the fact that Bush is in fact a 9 foot alien lizard, preping the world for alien invasion. This is evinced by his very poor understanding of human dialect and lack of knowledge of earth in general.

However his abilty to bring instability and confusion to Earths major powers and alliances is obvious to all.

In conjunction with his other earth Agent Osama we at Lizard HQ expect the Earth to be on its knees in less than 9 months.

[MMMMMM]

A little knowledge of logic is a dangerous thing--as your post seems to illustrate.

Your post is only apropos if the book's claims are as obviously fabricated as your Lizard Report. Given that they aren't an obvious fabrication, your response is meaningless.

But I suppose I could apply the "Ad Hominem Blanket Source Dismissal" to you and your future posts based on this post--if I thought anything like cardcounter0, that is.

The problem is the lack of an open mind. All who are interested in the matter yet would blanketly dismiss everything in the book simply do not have open minds.

2 keys to understanding life and the world: 1) Open Mind, and 2) Logic

[adios]

First of all there are affidavits from veterans who won medals as well that are offered as evidence by the writers. Why dismiss these veterans out of hand? We have Rassman's account which I would think carries the most weight (I posted Rassman's account last week). Kerry has made his record the centerpiece of his campaign therefore it's fair game. Kerry also refuses to provide a complete accounting of his military record by releasing some documents is my understanding. This whole thing will blow over soon is my take.