Why would anyone even mention the SWIFT BOAT book?

[The once and future king]

"--because the book contains objectively verifiable information, such as quotes from those who served with him."

"I'm not saying their quotes are objectively true;"

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[The once and future king]

So even though Michael Moores books contain numerous objective facts you think that MM being the author is irrelevant and has no bearing on how those facts will be presented and everyone should check out his books.

I bet you dont, and that if not that makes you a hypocrite.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Blanketly dismissing everything in the book based on one's dislike or distrust of the authors is STUPID--because the book contains objectively verifiable information, such as quotes from those who served with him.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's the same thing that some people do with Michael Moore. For example, with Bowling for Columbine the central question of the film is why does the US have more gun violence than other countries. Instead of discussing that issue, people rant about Moore being anti-capitalist (and probably communist), they focus on his distortions instead of discussing the root issue.

For me, the root issue raised by the Swifties is whether anti-war activity makes someone unfit to be president of the US. I don't think so, but I'm willing to discuss it. Focusing on whether someone was in Cambodia or near it is silly.

[elwoodblues]

Objectively verifiable means they can be proven true or false not that they are true. They could be objectively false.

[MMMMMM]

"So even though Michael Moores books contain numerous objective facts you think that MM being the author is irrelevant and has no bearing on how those facts will be presented and everyone should check out his books."

Of course it has a bearing. However anyone with a serious interest in the matter should not disregard the book.

[The once and future king]

I take it he means the existence of the quotes themselves can be objectively verified.

He still removed the the first sentence and failed to mark his quote as edited.

As far as objectively verifying the quotes, only if the quotes are assertions of fact. If I say 'Kerry is a idiot" that is very hard to quantify as it is a qualitive statement as are most of the quotes in said book.

[Cyrus]

It is patently hilarious to see the stubborn Bush faithful grasping at anything that will save their man's credibility. What's more funny is that they are attacking the opposition on the issue of "military service record", its strongest point -- the beleaguered fools!

Beyond the chaff about which veteran said what about Kerry, remains, tall and distinct, the giant, ugly rock formation of Bush's own military non-record: Getting into the Air Nat'l Guard to avoid Vietnam; going AWOL repeatedly there; getting out earlier; etc. But even more importantly for the coming election is the more recent record: 9/11 and beyond.

The record shows that George W Bush is lousy at picking worthy team mates, is incompetent in leading a team towards formulating policy, listens badly if at all, is extremely indecisive, is likely to freeze (would you believe seven fucking minutes?) at a time of crisis, has been rated as "unfit to serve even as staff officer" by (otherwise extremely hawkish) British generals, and will throw good money after bad without much thought.

The man is clearly unfit to command a 4-table card room. Much less the Oval Room.

[MMMMMM]

If I edited that sentence--and I don't recall so doing, but I do often edit posts for clarity or typos--it was not for the reasons you seem to suspect. And if I edited it, I doubt I changed the meaning substantially--I certainly didn't reverse meaning or anything like that. Again, go back and reread all my posts in this thread and you will see the same theme: the book contains objectively verifiable information and therefore should not be completely disregarded by those seriously interested in the subject.

[Cyrus]

You want 'personal' ?

It doesn't get more personal than this :

NY Times - The Department of Defense has identified 932 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the death of the following American on Friday:

Tarlavsky, Michael Yury, 30, Capt., Army; Passaic, N.J.; First Battalion, Fifth Special Forces Group.

[vulturesrow]

Cyrus,

What was the point of that post? Is that individual someone you know?