Why do Dems always have to prove a negative - why not ask * to prove

[mbali]

he did what he claims?

In a conference call with reporters on Wednesday, Mr. Mintz was pressed about his recollections and whether he might have missed seeing Mr. Bush, possibly because Mr. Bush was no longer flying at that point and was working in an office position. Mr. Mintz said repeatedly he never saw Lieutenant Bush.

Asked for friends' names who could vouch that they never saw Lieutenant Bush, Mr. Mintz declined, saying he did not have their permission to make their names public.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/09/politics/09guard.html?pagewanted=2&hp

So, let me get this straight - Mintz claims that no one he know can recall seeing Bush perform his national guard service and HE's asked to produce people to say that they didn't see something?

Why isn't the Times demanding that Bush produce someone - anyone - who actually witnessed him anywhere near the base and noting that he has failed to do so?

[JI7]

1. isn't that the truth and we fall into it many times

like with all the threads which pop up demanding and asking about the republican attacks on Kerry's service and asking for explanations and proof they are false.

why not demand THEY PROVE what they say is true rather than accepting in itself .

[Cocoa]

2. it's so bizarre

just think about it, our president has huge gaping gaps in his personal biography. Amazing he could get elected* once, and have a shot at getting re-elected.*

Not just this AWOL period, but the whole decade after that. Wtf was he doing all that time?



*or whatever.

[tomfodw]

3. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way

Because Bush has an honorable discharge (however he got it), the burden of proof must fall on those who claim he did not deserve it. Just as the burden fell on Kerry's accusers to document their claims. The fact that they did so with lies ultimately cost them (although by that point the damage was done), but they did make an apparent attempt to prove their case (admittedly, they knew all along they were lying, and so should the media).

This is how logic works. When you are challenging an accepted position, the burden of proof is yours. How you go about making your case is also up to you. You can do it with lies, smears, innuendo, and malice, or you can do it with truth, dispassion and honesty. We have the goods against Bush; this time, we really do. The Kilian memos will be very hard to dispute. Merely saying, Bush did not need to obey a direct order to take his flight physical because he wasn't flying anymore (which seems to me to reverse the chronological order) will sound like bullshit to anyone who was ever in the military, and sooner or later even Dan Bartlett won't be able to lie his master's way out of this.

[mbali]

4. I agree with you - I'm just noting the inconsistency . . .

Kerry has five medals, but he's been called on to prove that he earned them, even though there's not a smidge of evidence that they were awarded improperly.

Bush got an honorable discharge, but his detractors are being called on to prove that he didn't earn it, even though there's plenty of evidence that he didn't.

Amazing double standard.

[tomfodw]

5. Right, that's why...

...I said that, although the burden of proof falls on the person challenging the accepted story, that doesn't mean they have to go about making that challenge with lies, innuendo, smears, half-truths, non-truths, and malice. I just meant that if you want to overcome the official record, you need to prove your case. The Swift Boat scumbags never intended to do that, and the media should never have given them as much coverage as they did. These charges against Bush, however, certainly do appear to be documentable; but, merely asserting them, however much that may appeal to us Bush-haters, does not prove them. I do think, though, that proof is on the way...