Yes, we are after exactly the same thing as far as clarifying reality for readers. I read Elliott's affidavits, as well as the Globe stories, and it is perfectly clear that Elliott never recanted ANY part of his July 21 affidavit. Any representation or innuendo that he did is false. He did not "change his mind and change back." He never changed his mind!!! The media got it completely wrong in the first place, but can't figure out how to report that (Ha!).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1186934/posts?page=70#70 <-- Mash here for ...
I read the Globe article [by Susan Milligan, dated August 7] Am I supposed to believe it?
Taken literally, why not? The story is somewhat incoherent, however. It does not repeat the quotations of Elliott, or provide sensible context. It may be that Elliott said he "made a terrible mistake" in signing the July 21 affidavit, by not explaining how he -now- and -still- holds the belief that Kerry shot a Viet Cong in the back. No matter, either way, says Elliott, that conduct did not merit issuing a Silver Star. The Globe does not dispute that conclusion either, you'll notice.
Likewise, the Globe merely reports the difference between Elliott's support for Kerry in 1996, including a statment that "Kerry deserved the Silver Star," and Elliott's position today, that Kerry was not forthcoming, and that if Kranish's version of events that resulted in awarding the Silver Star are correct, that he (Elliott) would not have recommended the award. That is, Elliott has changed his point of view, and has fully justified his change in position. The Globe does not dipute that, either!
What the Globe does not address is the innuendo that Elliott had backed away from his current position. For that, the Globe is shown to be untrustworthy.
Thanks again for clarifying. Let's hope MANY can figure it out!!!
Best to you.