1) Contemporaneous reports say that they were under fire.
2) Reports 30+ years later say they were not under fire.
Without evidence, why should one believe 2 over 1?
Cheers,
Scott.
Um, let's review.
1) Contemporaneous reports say that they were under fire.
2) Reports 30+ years later say they were not under fire. Without evidence, why should one believe 2 over 1? Cheers, Scott. |
Swift Vet Thurlow hangs tough under fire
- (marlowe)
- (13)
- Aug. 20, 2004, 12:08:27 PM EDT
well sir, produce the report
- (boxley)
- (1)
- Aug. 20, 2004, 12:44:58 PM EDT
It's Kerry who's withholding evidence, not me.
- (marlowe)
- Aug. 21, 2004, 10:03:02 AM EDT
Hey Marlowe - you ought to read this
- (lincoln)
- (3)
- Aug. 20, 2004, 01:03:05 PM EDT
Hey lincoln, you ought to read the top of the thread.
- (marlowe)
- (2)
- Aug. 21, 2004, 09:58:00 AM EDT
I replied to the Thurlow story
- (lincoln)
- Aug. 22, 2004, 09:03:57 PM EDT
you have proof Kerry authored the report?
- (boxley)
- Aug. 23, 2004, 09:30:39 AM EDT
But he hasn't presented evidence.
- (Another Scott)
- (3)
- Aug. 21, 2004, 10:23:18 AM EDT
It's an ewewitness account, dude.
- (marlowe)
- (2)
- Aug. 21, 2004, 11:12:13 AM EDT
Um, let's review.
- (Another Scott)
- Aug. 21, 2004, 11:53:47 AM EDT
And here's another eyewitness account, dude!
- (jb4)
- Aug. 23, 2004, 09:57:46 AM EDT
WashPost 8/21/2004:
- (Another Scott)
- (1)
- Aug. 21, 2004, 12:14:10 PM EDT
Re: WashPost 8/21/2004:
- (pwhysall)
- Aug. 21, 2004, 12:24:12 PM EDT
8/20/2004: FactCheck.org
- (Another Scott)
- Aug. 21, 2004, 08:41:04 PM EDT