Re: Gulf War "Source" P*ssing Match (hehe...)

	Howdy!

On Sun, 15 Nov 1998, Colfox wrote:

> Now me:
> 
> Oh, really?  While I'll admit that whether a tank is destroyed or not
is
> pretty much a statement of fact (like the fact that a crime has
occured),
> HOW the damage happened to a tank, and the weapon used would quite
likely
> depend on who you asked (the 10 witnesses).  I think it's a good
analogy
> for combat AAR's.

	Yes.

> I think the important point of Mr. Lowrey's post was that it is quite
> possible for two equally reliable sources to not agree 100%.

	Yup.  Zaloga culled his info from people who were there, AARs
for
the VII Corps, the analysis from Aberdeen, and other sources.  A number
of
these may be slightly politically biased, or baised in some other
fashion
(to save jobs, etc.).  However, they are some of the best sources
available for what occured.

	Laterish!