SwiftVets.com

[SF]

Over and over we see the press (NYT on Thurlow, WSJ's 8/23 Best of the Web, talking heads on radio and TV such as Nadler) assuming that which is challenged. Is this what they call begging the question, or circular reasoning? (Are those the same things?) Specifically, the Navy medal citations are accepted as proof of the circumstances surrounding the award -- enemy fire, enemy's numerical superiority, nature of wound, etc.
Maybe short letters to the editor, or to the writer, noting the fallacy would make the point. If this was done every time it happens, a dent might be made.
Seems to me, the medal citations are accepted over and over again as proof that Kerry's telling the truth.
Good analogies would be helpful. Best I can think of is the idea that a Pulitzer citation proves that the Pulitzer was deserved. Not. The Pulitzer = the citation, just as the medal = the medal citation. SBVT need to be clear they are challenging the medal and the **accompanying** (as opposed to *supporting*) citation.
While I agree that the anti-war stuff is more compelling than the medal stuff in the case against Kerry, it is the medals that gave him the credibility to do so much damage as an anti-war leader.

[neverforget]

The following is a great article that addresses your question about whether it's begging the question or circular reasoning. I would answer you, but I can't remember.


http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html