timberlandko wrote:Of course, there likely will be some who would contest the official history of the US Air Force should it conflict with baseless, ill-informed, unfounded, utterly incorrect partisan screed
why stop with the contesting of the official history of the US navy when IT conflicted with baseless, ill-informed, unfounded, utterly incorrect partisan screed?
told ya bro... sbvt's were playing a stupid and dangerous game, opening the door to questioning of every medal ever worn or awarded.
i rest my case.
Dont, you have no case. First, Kerry's Official Naval Records do not contradict the claims against Kerry, if anything, the numerous multiple and/or revised entries add credence to skepticism, something just now beginning to undergo scrutiny in the Mainstream Media.
Second, The segment of the official US Navy History dealing with the Vietnam period is By Sea, Air, and Land: An Illustrated History of the U.S. Navy and the War in Southeast Asia (416 pp 1 Vol., illustrations, photos, notes, suggested readings, index); Marolda, E. J. (ed): United States Government Printing Office 1994
GPO Stock No. 008-046-00145-6
Chapter 3 of that work, "The Years of Combat", includes the following 13 subchapters:
3-I -The Naval Command in Southeast Asia
3-II -The Carrier Force
3-III-Rolling Thunder
3-IV-Amphibious Landings in South Vietnam
3-V-Bombardment from the Sea
3-VICoastal Interdiction
3-VII-The Naval Command in South Vietnam
3-VIII-River Patrol
3-IX-Riverine Assault Force
3-X-The Naval Advisory Effort
3-XI-Civic Action
3-XII-The Navy's Logistic Support of the War
3-XIII-Naval Support Activities
The name John F. Kerry does not appear in subchapter 3-VIII, "River Patrol", nor indeed anywhere else in the book.
He has as much as a case as you do, Timber, and you know it....
Incredible stubborness from both sides on this issue. And then, when we point to each other's candidate, we can't see how it is the same thing at all...
Is NOONE interested in policy these days over mudslinging?
Cycloptichorn
Cyc, what I know of my case is that it is supported by law and by official record.
What you know of Kerry's case is supported by law and official record as well. There is as much evidence to the veracity of Kerry's records as there is to Bush's records, and a great deal less confusion about where Kerry was during Vietnam.
Face it. The case against both Bush and Kerry would fail miserably if brought to an actual court, because there's no real way to prove either one of them besides circumstantial fact and 30-year old memories. There's no real proof either way, so the attempt is made to find proof in conflicting documentary evidence, which is a fools game both ways - we all know that documents are messed up routinely in all aspects of our lives.
But, the attack against Kerry can go on literally forever, because there is no requirement to actually prove any of the allegations - the allegations merely serve to make Kerry look bad. That is their entire purpose. Same with the attacks against Bush. The longer the attack goes on, the better it is for the Republicans, and that's the fact of the matter.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:Is NOONE interested in policy these days over mudslinging?Cycloptichorn
yeah, you're right. this vietnam redux is getting us nowhere and has just about run out of relevancy.
but, i couldn't help but fire a parting shot across the bow...
the new bush book
well actually I think the attacks on Kerry will stop damn near immediately as they have outlived their usefulness of filling the empty time slot leading up to the GOP convention and the GOP won't allow any diversion of attention away from Bush for the next week. The Swifties were a time/media filler for the pre-convention.
