|
Are you alluding to the Swift Boat Vets? |
| |
Written By:
Ugh
URL:
http://
|
|
There is no conspiracy. This was the act of a single gunman, acting alone. |
| |
Written By:
Steven Donegal
URL:
http://
|
|
I’m trying to figure out the reference to "how relatively minor wounds were incurred" was a past Right argument in 2004. |
| |
Written By:
Nathan
URL:
http://brain.mu.nu/
|
Are you alluding to the Swift Boat Vets? Do you need to ask?There is no conspiracy. This was the act of a single gunman, acting alone. Mr Whittington dropped back. And to the left. Back. And to the left. Back. And to the left.I’m trying to figure out the reference to "how relatively minor wounds were incurred" was a past Right argument in 2004. Do I have to spell this out? The SBV story brought a lot of questions about how Kerry’s relatively minor wounds were incurred. Michelle Malkin took a lot of grief for suggesting they were "self-inflicted". The exploding-pile-of-rice injury story, the 3 purple hearts, etc. |
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
This was the act of a single gunman, acting alone. Don’t forget the grassy knoll. |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/
|
Sorry, Jon, your analogy does not work.
In 2004,"all the accounts" were not "similar and consistent". That was at the root on the contention. The SBVs, many of them either direct or indirect witnesses to the disputed events in Southeast Asia, had entirely different perspectives than the official reports on the actions of Mr. Kerry .
In the Cheney massacre, thus far, "all the accounts are similar and consistent". When one or two people come forward with differing stories, the conditions of your analogy will fit better. |
| |
Written By:
JPSobel
URL:
http://
|
In 2004,"all the accounts" were not "similar and consistent". In Kerry’s case, the official records were consistent with his story. Meanwhile, some of the initial reports (from witnesses) were at odds with the eventual official report. (it was Whittington’s fault, no beer/beer, etc) |
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
In Kerry’s case, the official records were consistent with his story. Not about the Cambodia business or his "lucky hat", they weren’t. |
| |
Written By:
SaveFarris
URL:
http://
|
Did the records contradict it? No, they were silent on that subject.
Christ, people, settle down. The analogy is not perfectly equivalent. For example, the SBVs did not charge that Kerry had been drinking when he shot a lawyer, either, but the comparison I drew did not require perfect equivalence. |
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
"The analogy is not perfectly equivalent."
The problem is it isn’t even roughly equivalent.
The SBVs had long standing, documentable disagreements with Kerry’s (and in some cases the offical) accounts of events, and in many cases the SBVs have more credibility than either Kerry or the official documents.
There is simply no reasonable comparison to draw between the events involving the SBVs and Kerry and Cheney’s accidentally shooting a hunting partner of his; not either from the standpoint of "coverup" or "controversy".
Maybe you could redraw your analogy and have work better.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp |
| |
Written By:
Tom Perkins
URL:
http://
|
I also didn’t notice Whittington trying to get a medal for the wounds.
It wasn’t the wounds that were the problem, it was the citation, and using the citation as a platform from which to denounce the war, and characterize everyone but him as marauding in the fashion of Jenjhis Khan. |
| |
Written By:
Nathan
URL:
http://brain.mu.nu/
|
