SwiftVets.com

[Powerboss]

Earlier, Retired Adm. Roy Hoffmann, chairman and co-founder of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, flip-flopped on a key element of his Kerry story. In May, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported, "Hoffmann acknowledged he had no first-hand knowledge to discredit Kerry's claims to valor and said that although Kerry was under his command, he really didn't know Kerry much personally." But with the pending publication of "Unfit for Command," Hoffmann changed his story, insisting he "knew [Kerry] well."

Hoffmann wasn't alone in reversing his story on the Kerry attack. In 1968, Grant Hibbard, a lieutenant commander in Vietnam during Kerry's tour, described Kerry favorably: "One of the top few in his willingness to seek and accept responsibility." But now he claims Kerry lied about his service.

From the Salon article

http://www.salon.com/feature/2004/08/19/index_np.html

[tvaughan]

Powerboss,

I don't think these stories are contradictory. Describing how you know someone depends entirely on the context of the question, and the conversation.

Having someone below in your chain of command can be described as "not knowing them personally" or knowing quite a bit about them from those you personally trust who directly command them.

There is no way to determine if these statements are contradictory without knowing the entire context of the interview. Seeing how desperate some reporters are to edit out and manipulate information to affect public opinion, I am skeptical to say the least.

Anyone not present on the days in question (and there are many, many days in question) will have to say that they did not witness the events and therefore have no personal knowledge of what happened. But they could say that nine people whom they trust tell them something and they believe them. This is not evidence of what happened, but IT IS NOT PROOF OF ANYTHING ELSE EITHER.

It is neither fair or credible to discredit a story by quoting someone who was not there who honestly said, "I have no direct personal knowledge of what happened that day."

Elliot is getting killed in the press because he is quoted twice, once before his chain of command told him what actually happened, "Kerry deserved his award" and after he was told what actually happened, "If I knew what I know now, I would not have recommended him for the Silver Star".

This is not "changing your story", this is learning about the whole story and having a reaction.

I can tell you that I was very skeptical of the Swift Boats when I first heard the story. I understood their anger, but I was skeptical of what they're saying.

But Kerry's reaction has been so unconvincing and the Swift Boats evidence just keeps piling on...

At this point in time there is very little doubt in my mind about who is telling the truth. Watching the press and their intellectual gymnastics trying to discredit these guys... is very depressing.

If these 250 men were making things up out of thin air, would it be this difficult to discredit them?
_________________
Talking point #1: Sign 180
Talking point #2: Sign 180
Talking point #3: Sign 180

[Powerboss]

Thanks for the response.

I agree with you, I just wanted to hear other reaction regarding this.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind what the mainstream media will do to see to it that Kerry wins.