Originally Posted by mosca
in a perfect world...
who's to decide what the 'proof' is? even in the swiftvets case, which i admit i haven't been following totally, it seems to boil down to one person's account of the facts vs. the other. i don't know that 'proof' has been demonstrated either way.
The proof is out there, Mosca.
1) 30 years ago, when John Kerry was (politically) a virtual nobody, a determined Richard Nixon actively attempted to discredit him... using John O'Neill as a handpicked foil. If credible evidence of the claims the swiftliars are now promoting existed, it would have come to light 30 years ago.
2) The debate is not
"he said" vs. "he said"... it's the swiftliars' unsubstantiated claims vs. established military records. Has one swiftvet produced an iota of evidence beyond their affidavits regarding events that occurred 30+ years ago?
Why do the established military records require more proof than unsubstantiated... contradictory... and in some cases, thoroughly discredited... allegations?