Swift Boat Was Despicable

to spin the MoveOn issue.

you wrote: "The Swift Boat trashing of Kerry must certainly be juxtaposed by conservatives with the Betray Us ad by Moveon, and saddling Dukakis with Willie Horton was certainly unwarranted."

The biggest problem that you face with bringing these issues together is one of facts. The Swift Boat "trashing" was done by men who served with Kerry, at the same time, in the same unit and based on their personal knowledge of the situation and fact based records. The MoveOn ad however is placed by people that have no personal knowledge nor facts to substantiate the "treason" charge that level against Gen. Petraeus.

Face it my liberal friend, you side either manufactures evidence (ala CBS) or just flat out lies (ala MoveOn).

PS: from your bio ""Do not do unto others which you would not have them do unto you." This explains a lot, for you cannot even quote the Scriptures with any accuracy. Before claiming Christian principles, one must first be acquainted with them, so too with facts.

The question is how we approach and evaluate evidence. I've provided you an example of what I think is documentation of the character of the author of Swift Boat. Moreover, we know the book was intended to be partisan rather than objective. Moreover, we have at least one person who was with Kerry who disputes the author's information. Now, if it were merely an instance of choosing between "he said...but he said something else" an impartial observer would say he had no reason to choose between one and the other. We couldn't know the truth.
But in this case we have additional facts pertaining to the character and intent of the author which tell us there is a high probability that the author is being dishonest.

Moreover, based on my own experience we have a couple of other suspicious things. I've tried to remember things from 45 years ago and nothing is clear, much less available. I've also been in exciting situations with a group of people and found that afterward no one can agree what actually happened, since everyone was focused on what they were doing.

If it's true that the Swift Boat Veterans say they remember clearly and all agree on what happened 45 years ago a fair minded person will be deeply suspicious.

So, we put that all together: questionable character, partisan intent and people who all tell the same story a fair minded person will be deeply, deeply skeptical of the authenticity of that narrative.

Then we add that someone who was actually on the same boat as Kerry backs him up. I think a defense attorney in a court trial would chew up the Swift Boat Veterans.

My understanding is that "Do not do to others...." is the Jewish version, which I prefer.

After thinking it over, the crux of the discussion: If this guy would lie about McCain why would you think he isn't lying about Kerry?

I did some research this morning, since I'd written my blog from memory. Wikipedia gives a good account of both sides of the issue, with lots of links. Obviously, you will make your own evaluation of the evidence.

as I see it is that everything you use to support the supposition is exactly what is used to oppose the same. So if the defense would chew up the Swift Boat veterans then the same would be true of the prosecution chewing up Kerry.

I have personally been in those situations and while some of the minor details differentiate the major points rarely are that diametrically opposed. As to character, Kerry had as part of his campaign that he supported veterans yet prior to his run, he had no proposed veterans legislation and there he has yet to propose veterans legislation since. That too would fall to character.

One person on the boat backs him while three others oppose his version. His own writing in his book proves the falsity of his recollection of events.

you write: "My understanding is that "Do not do to others...." is the Jewish version, which I prefer."

Actually the Masoretic (Jewish) text does not contain the negative.

I still like the negative better. I remember the book and the Jewish author who said that and took him at his word.

I understand liking the negative better. When phrased as a negative then there is no requirement for any action to be taken. However, when it is phrased as a positive then there is a requirement for action to be taken. Throughout the Scriptures one is encouraged to take righteous action toward their fellow man instead of refusing to acknowledge them.

I realized late in life that not everyone wants other people to do the same thing to them. I'm a mild mannered man and probably treat other people accordingly. But I do find some people, I imagine Christians among them, who are more, sometimes much more, agressive than I am and have no problem treating me agressively. So, I finally realized that not everyone expects the same from everyone else. By putting it in the negative, it seems to me, I eliminate my own negative responses to what other people might do to me and put it all on my own morality.