Of course, one of them happened to be dead and unable to defend themselves, but whatever.
Why should the testimony of
one man be of such astronomical need when living witnesses (and Kyle's own written testimony--vague in identification as it was) are around?
If I need
living people to defend their own autobiographical narrative, then what is the use of biographies (not autobiographies), written history, and why should I believe one single think about George Washington or any American hero long gone?
And in fact I regard writing history as more of an art than a science. Every other American can
with confidence bump their gums about what
they know are facts and truths about the Crusades or some Pope that lived 500 or even 1,000 years ago. But with the best forensic science, best investigative tools and techniques of our modern age, and living witnesses, and even the protagonists own recorded words, they still can't figure out if OJ Simpson is guilty of a double homicide or exactly how truthful Chris Kyle was at times. But yet Americans want me to trust with blind faith their agenda driven renditions of history. This includes subcategories of Americans too be they Protestants, blacks, feminists, LGBT, conservatives or what have you.
That a bunch of SEALs never
stampeded to the
defense of Kyle's widow, his estate, always bothered me. If someone was about to jack my dead homies wife, estate, out of large sums of money in court, then I would come to my homies widow's aid by testifying in court. I mean if numerous SEALs witnessed Jesse Ventura being punched and knocked down by Kyle then there are living witnesses. Why would Ventura go to court against 5, 10, 20, or however many Navy SEAL witnesses? So, all that put some question marks in my mind.