I prefer to think of myself as a cucumber. [After all, they say cucumbers are better than men. 
]
Scylla, let me see if I can make this clear…
I believe George Elliott was telling the truth back in 1969 when he praised John Kerry as being “unsurpassed” in a combat environment. I believe George Elliot was telling the truth in 1969 when he said John Kerry had come under enemy fire from an ambush.
I believe the records of Larry Thurlow, written in 1969, to be true and accurate.
I believe that these men were telling the truth in their original versions of events back in 1969.
I believe that the allegations that those men make now, which are contradicted by multiple sources, including the written records of every participating veteran at the time (including their own), to be fabrications.
I believe they have a strong motive to lie now.
I believe everything about the original version of events in 1968 & '69, just as I believe Congressman Smith’s original version of events, when he said he was offered a bribe and then threatened by fellow Republicans.
I believe that Congressman Smith could not possibly have a motive to have lied to his fellow Republicans at a dinner they all shared after the vote. (To what end?)
I believe the “at least eight members of the Republican Study Committee” who said “that they believe Smith told the truth about the pressure he received.”
I believe the other members of the Republican party who concur with one another that Nick Smith told them of bribes and threats.
I believe that Nick Smith is an honorable man who refused to accept those bribes or cow-tow to their threats, and I admire him greatly for standing by his convictions and not allowing himself to be coerced into committing a criminal act.
I believe that when he first publicized how he’d stood up to bribes and threats to vote his conscience, that he thought he’d be viewed as a hero, and didn’t consider the larger consequence – that criminal charges could be investigated based on his statements.
I believe that when he wrote of those events, and spoke of them in the radio interview, that he was pissed off at the audacity of his fellow Republicans, and didn’t really fully consider the legal consequences of his accusations.
I believe that Timothy Noah hit the nail on the head when he speculated as to why Smith would use the term “bribery,” apparently without the above-mentioned fear of consequences, when he said, “Why wasn’t the criminal component recognized earlier? Chatterbox would guess the obstacle was the collective habit in Washington of using words like “bribery” metaphorically to describe the corrupt-but-legal nexus of money and power. It can be hard to remember that “bribery” has a specific meaning in criminal law.”
I do not believe that Nick Smith is lying now, as much as he’s trying to place a spin on the events that would cause the actions he first called “bribery,” to fall outside the legal definition of the term.
And I believe there is a huge difference between a smear campaign of lies, perpetrated by Republicans against a Democratic candidate for President, and the thoughtless but true utterances by a Republican against other Republicans, with no motive to specifically cause them harm.
And on an interesting, but (somewhat) unrelated note, in researching his background, I came across Congressman Smith’s opening statement before the Committee on International Relations, which reveals some fascinating tidbits that utterly support John Kerry’s version of why he voted to give the president the authority to go to war, if necessary.
Gosh, that’s precisely what John Kerry has been saying all along. It was not a vote to GO to war, but a vote to authorize it, if necessary, in the hope that **the threat alone ** would be enough to scare Saddam and avoid war altogether.
Hmmmm.
And last, but certainly not least, to pantom, whose children I’m sure I’d love to bear were we each not happily married to other people, I curtsey in return and blushingly thank you for the compliment.
I believe that Shayna is a thoughtful, rational, reasonable, articulate person.
I believe Shayna rocks.
I second that emotion!
one post previous:
That “rule for life” of yours didn’t exactly last very long. You’re not posting from the grave as the living dead, I hope.
Shayna:
I see your point. I hope you’ll make the effort to see the one I’m going to make.
You base whether you will accept what somebody says based on their credibility. To evaluate their credibility you must ascertain their motivations. For example, you don’t like what the Swiftvets say, because you beleive they have strong motives to say what they are saying that override their motivation to tell the truth.
You accept Smith’s original statements because you see no motive for dissembling, but discount his subsequent statement because there is a motive to spin it.
Am I correct in this summary, because I don’t wish to mischaracterize you.
Assuming I am correct, the problem exists that you must still assign motivations to those people. If you assign motivations poorly, or wrongly you are going to get bad results. There’s really no way around it though. You can’t ignore motivations. You have to generate a theory as to why a person is saying what they are saying in order to evaluate it.
It seems to me that you are rather certain in your motivations and confident in your assigning of them. In reality motivations tend to be multifaceted and complex, and are not always discernible.
And, of course, in some instances, I don’t agree with your absolute assignation. For example, with the Swiftvets I don’t doubt that their funding is politically motivated. It’s not like Kerry’s campaign guys are gonna give the Swiftvets money, so to me it’s unsurprising that considering the substance of what they have to say that they are funded by Republicans. Who else?
They have stated as their goal that they are trying to prevent Kerry from being elected, and I see no reason to doubt that statement. So, that motivation is clear. When I read anything they say, I beleive that they are painting as bad a picture of Kerry and his service as they possibly can.
I also beleive that some of these 250 plus people and Pows and decorated veterans are saying what they are saying simply because they are Republicans and not for any other reason.
I think however it is fallacious to assign that motive to every single one of them and therefore ignore what they have to say. Because, you would probably be wrong.
Kerry and his group have every motivation to put the best possible face on everything, do they not? Would you discount them because of their motivations?
At some point, you have to stop playing the motivation game since it’s arbitrary and insoluble and actually look at what they say as if it was offered at face value because if you simply assign motivations you almostalways get the answer you prefer.
I’ve cited this before. I cite it again. Reality doesn’t go away even if you want it to.
July 2003. One, count 'em, one, gas centrifuge. You do know that you needs just oodles and gobs of gas centrifuges, right, Shodan? Buried under a rose bush for…how many years was it, Shodan? Something like 10 years, wasn’t it? And since then, bupkis, as they say in Lubbock.
Jesus could raise the dead, but if you want to raise this issue, you’re gonna have to go him one better.
It’s not a gas centrifuge, it’s a bearing. Calling a bearing a gas centrifuge is like calling a spark plug a car.
Its certainly irrefutable evidence of a automobile related program activity!
Yup, nothing proves you have nuclear ambitions better than taking your nuclear program components, burying them somewhere without any care to their later usability, then forgetting all about them for a decade until someone else digs them up.