Originally Posted by mosca
ok, i've went and read up a little on the issue, particularly concerning kerry recieving his 3rd purple heart. and i agree with you that the military records should not require more proof than simple allegations made by the swiftvets. i'm skeptical of their account of the bay hap river incident, particularly about them not coming under enemy fire, but hey, if they want to say that what really happened was different than the military records of the event, then that's their right. let the public believe what they may.
this leads me back to what i was originally addressing, your statement that "I think ads should automatically be pulled from the public airwaves the moment proof is presented that the ad contains a lie..." granted, the military records contradict what the swiftvets say in this case, but i don't think this constitutes 'proof' that they are lying.
OK, so where's the proof that they are not
lying... I mean, when a new account contradicts Navy records, shouldn't some
substantiation be shown? To date, I've seen nothing more than "believe me, this is what happened 35 years ago"...
IMO, when official records are challenged, the burden of proof is on those who wish to revise.
Which swiftliar would you like me to post refutation for first... O'Neill, Hoffman, Thurlow, O'Dell. or other?