On 24 Aug 2004 15:50:18 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:28:45 GMT, felton said:


The Rassman incident, in which "other Swiftees" claimed there was no
gunfire at the time was rebutted by Jim Russell. This was the
incident in which Kerry won the Bronze Star.

Yes. That's the one I asked you about. I asked whether Russell denied the
other three COs' statement that Kerry's boat was the only one that fled the
scene as soon as the single mine went off. Of course, he didn't deny it.
Another masterful job of lawyerly smoke and mirrors from Team Kerry.
Focusing entirely on Russell's recollection that there was hostile fire, the
statement glaringly omits any reference to whether or not Kerry's boat was
the only boat that fled the scene.

This is what the old English lawyers called a "negative pregnant." Example:
If you say "I deny beating my wife with a stick" you are denying that you
used a stick, but admitting you beat your wife.

Feel free to read the entire article, although I doubt you will.

I did. The difference is that I read it carefully, with a view to the games
the Kerry lawyers were trying to play when they wrote the story.

I notice that you have changed your focus to the "Kerry fled"
argument, having now abandoned the completely discredited "no enemy
fire" argument. How compelling. Of course, he did manage to be
present to rescue Rassman.

Three Bronze Stars are awarded that day, one to Kerry. We are
supposed to believe that he was the only one receiving an undeserved
award, over the accounts of Rassman, his own crew and several people
from other boats, all supported by the Official Records of the Navy.
Amazing how these charges of "Kerry fled" took 35 years to surface.

The burden of proof obviously falls on those making their current
charges, which had never before been leveled before Kerry was
nominated for President. They don't convince me. Your threshold of
evidence is obviously much lower.