Oh, I beg to differ. Kerry is THE most liberal senator is the nation. That's #1, jimmac. On top of this, he's been on both sides of nearly every single issue. Focusing on Kerry's record is the absolute smartest thing Bush can do.
Hmm \
First, that's REALLY something you need to cite, SDW. It's not clear if just you think he's "most liberal," whether liberal groups rate his record the highest among current senators, or what. But even if he's the "most liberal" senator by any criteria, that's really not saying much for the state of progressives in the senate. In other words, if John Kerry is the "most liberal" senator we have, then the Senate is certainly conservative by my standards!
Second, I think we can come up with a lot more genuine Bush flip-flops.
So Bush has a site somewhere that tracks Kerry's "flip-flops". Reader TK probably spent three seconds coming up with this list of Bush flip flops. It's not like they're hard to find:
Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.
Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.
Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.
Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.
Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.
Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.
Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.
Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.
Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.
Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.
Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits
Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.
Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island.
Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding.
Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will
Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say's he shouldn't have.
Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote
Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors._ Bush later admits it was his advance team.
Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.
What ever it is it can't be as damning as Bush's record.
Ok lets start here:
April 23, 1971
Vietnam Veterans Against the War Statement by John Kerry to the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations
I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit - the emotions in the room and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.
They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
We call this investigation the Winter Soldier Investigation. The term Winter Soldier is a play on words of Thomas Paine's in 1776 when he spoke of the Sunshine Patriots and summertime soldiers who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.
We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country, we could be quiet, we could hold our silence, we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, not the reds, but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out....
In our opinion and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart.
We found that not only was it a civil war, an effort by a people who had for years been seeking their liberation from any colonial influence whatsoever, but also we found that the Vietnamese whom we had enthusiastically molded after our own image were hard put to take up the fight against the threat we were supposedly saving them from.
We found most people didn't even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart. They wanted everything to do with the war, particularly with this foreign presence of the United States of America, to leave them alone in peace, and they practiced the art of survival by siding with whichever military force was present at a particular time, be it Viet Cong, North Vietnamese or American.
We found also that all too often American men were dying in those rice paddies for want of support from their allies. We saw first hand how monies from American taxes were used for a corrupt dictatorial regime. We saw that many people in this country had a one-sided idea of who was kept free by the flag, and blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties. We saw Vietnam ravaged equally by American bombs and search and destroy missions, as well as by Viet Cong terrorism - and yet we listened while this country tried to blame all of the havoc on the Viet Cong.
We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum.
We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that moves, and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of orientals.
We watched the United States falsification of body counts, in fact the glorification of body counts. We listened while month after month we were told the back of the enemy was about to break. We fought using weapons against "oriental human beings." We fought using weapons against those people which I do not believe this country would dream of using were we fighting in the European theater. We watched while men charged up hills because a general said that hill has to be taken, and after losing one platoon or two platoons they marched away to leave the hill for reoccupation by the North Vietnamese. We watched pride allow the most unimportant battles to be blown into extravaganzas, because we couldn't lose, and we couldn't retreat, and because it didn't matter how many American bodies were lost to prove that point, and so there were Hamburger Hills and Khe Sanhs and Hill 81s and Fire Base 6s, and so many others.
Now we are told that the men who fought there must watch quietly while American lives are lost so that we can exercise the incredible arrogance of Vietnamizing the Vietnamese.
Each day to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn't have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can't say that we have made a mistake. Someone has to die so that President Nixon won't be, and these are his words, "the first President to lose a war."
We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?....We are here in Washington to say that the problem of this war is not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people in this country - the question of racism which is rampant in the military, and so many other questions such as the use of weapons; the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage at the Geneva Conventions and using that as justification for a continuation of this war when we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions; in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, all accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam. That is what we are trying to say. It is part and parcel of everything.
An American Indian friend of mine who lives in the Indian Nation of Alcatraz put it to me very succinctly. He told me how as a boy on an Indian reservation he had watched television and he used to cheer the cowboys when they came in and shot the Indians, and then suddenly one day he stopped in Vietnam and he said, "my God, I am doing to these people the very same thing that was done to my people," and he stopped. And that is what we are trying to say, that we think this thing has to end.
We are here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We're here to ask where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatrick, and so many others? Where are they now that we, the men they sent off to war, have returned? These are the commanders who have deserted their troops. And there is no more serious crime in the laws of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded. The marines say they never even leave their dead. These men have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They've left the real stuff of their reputations bleaching behind them in the sun in this country....
We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service as easily as this administration has wiped away their memories of us. But all that they have done and all that they can do by this denial is to make more clear than ever our own determination to undertake one last mission - to search out and destroy the last vestige of this barbaric war, to pacify our own hearts, to conquer the hate and fear that have driven this country these last ten years and more. And more. And so when thirty years from now our brothers go down the street without a leg, without an arm, or a face, and small boys ask why, we will be able to say "Vietnam" and not mean a desert, not a filthy obscene memory, but mean instead where America finally turned and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning.
You are right except that testimony was proven to be lies.
Listen I was a teen when this was going on and was very much against the war. You were born in what 1969? I remember reading many stories of injustice in Vietnam. So it's really not difficult at all to believe.
If ever there was an immoral war that was it.
So where's your proof that the testimony was a lie?
Why is kerry backing away from that testimony then?
You'll really have to provide more backup on this subject to make it a viable argument.
So once again proof please.
All I can seem to find on the subject ( other than historical reference ) is wishful thinking by conservative rags desperately trying to find something wrong to say about Kerry.
You'll really have to provide more backup on this subject to make it a viable argument.
So once again proof please.
All I can seem to find on the subject ( other than historical reference ) is wishful thinking by conservative rags desperately trying to find something wrong to say about Kerry.
Returning from his tour of duty,_the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee_testified before the_Senate Foreign Relations Committee (search)_in 1971, in which he claimed it was U.S. policy in Vietnam to carry out atrocities and war crimes.
OK. That's a fact (although the sentence is really, really awkward. However, he only uses the word "policy" once in his statement--and he uses it to describe a routine or accepted behavior. The story suggests that Kerry claimed it was "US policy"--that is, something official.
Score? Deliberate misrepresentation of Kerry's remarks = Lie.
Quote:
A number of Vietnam veterans consider this testimony slanderous and say Kerry had to know it was false. They accuse Kerry of lying about fellow soldiers and officers to push a political agenda, and say his words dishonored comrades in arms at a time of war.
A number? How many is that? You can *always* find "a number" of people who claimed that no atrocities ever happened in Vietnam. Hell, I know a guy who claimed that no one ever smoked pot while he was in Vietnam. Does this mean that Kerry's claims are completely refuted? No. I can find "a number" of people who believe that the moon is made of cheese.
Score? Vague sourcing to slander Kerry's patriotism = Lie.
Quote:
"He knew as an officer that those were lies. It never happened," said Vietnam veteran Carlton Sherwood. "He was principally responsible for cementing the image of_Vietnam veterans (search)_as drugged-out psychopaths who were totally unrestrained and who were a murderous hoard."
There's one. Carlton Sherwood. All we know is that he's a vet. We don't know anything else about him. Is he some lunatic? Was he only in Vietnam for a few days?
Score? Vague sourcing. No score. Advantage Kerry.
Quote:
After Kerry's testimony, military and independent investigations found that many of the soldiers who told Kerry and others they committed such atrocities were either never in the service, never in Vietnam or couldn't provide more evidence of those horrific actions.
"Military and independent investigations"? Which? Who? When? In addition, note the careful language: "many of the soldiers" lied to him. Many means more than 3. How many talked to him? We don't know. Is this 3 out of 4000? Is this 3 out of 4? We don't know. The intentionally vague sourcing here would suggest that the author of this piece cannot independently verify this claim beyond a scant few.
Score? Deliberately vague claims designed to undermine Kerry's credibility = Lie.
Quote:
Kerry told Fox News this weekend that he has no regrets about his service or his protest.
Fact. Advantage Kerry.
Quote:
"Now, if some veterans still can't accept that or they don't like the fact that I stood up and spoke my mind, I respect them, that is their choice," Kerry said.
Fact. Advantage Kerry.
Listen Naples, I know you don't like liberals and all, but you really ought to be more discriminating about what you consider refutation.
Edit: I wonder if Carlton Sherwood is the same guy who is the Exec VP of the WVC3, "a security and antiterrorism consulting firm."
Want to take a guess whether or not he has a vested interest in consulting with certain, ahem, administrations, about how to combat terrorism? And so it might be in his best interests to attempt to discredit the presumptive democratic nominee?
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh, I beg to differ. Kerry is THE most liberal senator is the nation. That's #1, jimmac. On top of this, he's been on both sides of nearly every single issue. Focusing on Kerry's record is the absolute smartest thing Bush can do.
Hmm
First, that's REALLY something you need to cite, SDW. It's not clear if just you think he's "most liberal," whether liberal groups rate his record the highest among current senators, or what. But even if he's the "most liberal" senator by any criteria, that's really not saying much for the state of progressives in the senate. In other words, if John Kerry is the "most liberal" senator we have, then the Senate is certainly conservative by my standards!
Second, I think we can come up with a lot more genuine Bush flip-flops.
Originally posted by billybobsky
ah, so he is a politician?
Ok yeah politicians do this, but not to the extent that Dr. Who does. Every major issue.
kos
Bush's flip flops
by kos
Sun Mar 7th, 2004 at 21:37:53 GMT
So Bush has a site somewhere that tracks Kerry's "flip-flops". Reader TK probably spent three seconds coming up with this list of Bush flip flops. It's not like they're hard to find:
Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.
Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.
Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.
Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.
Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.
Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.
Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.
Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.
Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.
Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.
Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits
Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.
Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island.
Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding.
Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will
Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say's he shouldn't have.
Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote
Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors._ Bush later admits it was his advance team.
Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Ah, read it and weep, you hypocritical Bush flip-flopping defenders:
kos
Um, to many misrepresentations,,, where to start?
Originally posted by NaplesX
Um, to many misrepresentations,,, where to start?
Ahem. misrepre-what?
Originally posted by SDW2001
Yes.
Wow. ok. If you're gonna set the bar that low there's no way Bush could fail you.
Well actually... anybody in office could pull that off,
Originally posted by jimmac
Go right ahead. let's see what you come up with.
What ever it is it can't be as damning as Bush's record.
Ok lets start here:
April 23, 1971
Vietnam Veterans Against the War Statement by John Kerry to the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations
I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit - the emotions in the room and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.
They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
We call this investigation the Winter Soldier Investigation. The term Winter Soldier is a play on words of Thomas Paine's in 1776 when he spoke of the Sunshine Patriots and summertime soldiers who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.
We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country, we could be quiet, we could hold our silence, we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, not the reds, but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out....
In our opinion and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart.
We found that not only was it a civil war, an effort by a people who had for years been seeking their liberation from any colonial influence whatsoever, but also we found that the Vietnamese whom we had enthusiastically molded after our own image were hard put to take up the fight against the threat we were supposedly saving them from.
We found most people didn't even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart. They wanted everything to do with the war, particularly with this foreign presence of the United States of America, to leave them alone in peace, and they practiced the art of survival by siding with whichever military force was present at a particular time, be it Viet Cong, North Vietnamese or American.
We found also that all too often American men were dying in those rice paddies for want of support from their allies. We saw first hand how monies from American taxes were used for a corrupt dictatorial regime. We saw that many people in this country had a one-sided idea of who was kept free by the flag, and blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties. We saw Vietnam ravaged equally by American bombs and search and destroy missions, as well as by Viet Cong terrorism - and yet we listened while this country tried to blame all of the havoc on the Viet Cong.
We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum.
We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that moves, and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of orientals.
We watched the United States falsification of body counts, in fact the glorification of body counts. We listened while month after month we were told the back of the enemy was about to break. We fought using weapons against "oriental human beings." We fought using weapons against those people which I do not believe this country would dream of using were we fighting in the European theater. We watched while men charged up hills because a general said that hill has to be taken, and after losing one platoon or two platoons they marched away to leave the hill for reoccupation by the North Vietnamese. We watched pride allow the most unimportant battles to be blown into extravaganzas, because we couldn't lose, and we couldn't retreat, and because it didn't matter how many American bodies were lost to prove that point, and so there were Hamburger Hills and Khe Sanhs and Hill 81s and Fire Base 6s, and so many others.
Now we are told that the men who fought there must watch quietly while American lives are lost so that we can exercise the incredible arrogance of Vietnamizing the Vietnamese.
Each day to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn't have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can't say that we have made a mistake. Someone has to die so that President Nixon won't be, and these are his words, "the first President to lose a war."
We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?....We are here in Washington to say that the problem of this war is not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people in this country - the question of racism which is rampant in the military, and so many other questions such as the use of weapons; the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage at the Geneva Conventions and using that as justification for a continuation of this war when we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions; in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, all accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam. That is what we are trying to say. It is part and parcel of everything.
An American Indian friend of mine who lives in the Indian Nation of Alcatraz put it to me very succinctly. He told me how as a boy on an Indian reservation he had watched television and he used to cheer the cowboys when they came in and shot the Indians, and then suddenly one day he stopped in Vietnam and he said, "my God, I am doing to these people the very same thing that was done to my people," and he stopped. And that is what we are trying to say, that we think this thing has to end.
We are here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We're here to ask where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatrick, and so many others? Where are they now that we, the men they sent off to war, have returned? These are the commanders who have deserted their troops. And there is no more serious crime in the laws of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded. The marines say they never even leave their dead. These men have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They've left the real stuff of their reputations bleaching behind them in the sun in this country....
We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service as easily as this administration has wiped away their memories of us. But all that they have done and all that they can do by this denial is to make more clear than ever our own determination to undertake one last mission - to search out and destroy the last vestige of this barbaric war, to pacify our own hearts, to conquer the hate and fear that have driven this country these last ten years and more. And more. And so when thirty years from now our brothers go down the street without a leg, without an arm, or a face, and small boys ask why, we will be able to say "Vietnam" and not mean a desert, not a filthy obscene memory, but mean instead where America finally turned and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning.
It was a terrible war... which he fought in... he testified before congress.
They wanted the war to end.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
What's your point?
It was a terrible war... which he fought in... he testified before congress.
They wanted the war to end.
You are right except that testimony was proven to be lies.
The winter soliders were interviewed and vetted before they told their stories.
Are you calling all those veterans liars?
Originally posted by NaplesX
You are right except that testimony was proven to be lies.
Listen I was a teen when this was going on and was very much against the war. You were born in what 1969? I remember reading many stories of injustice in Vietnam. So it's really not difficult at all to believe.
If ever there was an immoral war that was it.
So where's your proof that the testimony was a lie?
You really picked the wrong subject here!
You'll have to do ( much ) better than that.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
It wasn't.
The winter soliders were interviewed and vetted before they told their stories.
Are you calling all those veterans liars?
Why is kerry backing away from that testimony then?
Originally posted by NaplesX
Why is kerry backing away from that testimony then?
You'll really have to provide more backup on this subject to make it a viable argument.
So once again proof please.
All I can seem to find on the subject ( other than historical reference ) is wishful thinking by conservative rags desperately trying to find something wrong to say about Kerry.
Originally posted by jimmac
You'll really have to provide more backup on this subject to make it a viable argument.
So once again proof please.
All I can seem to find on the subject ( other than historical reference ) is wishful thinking by conservative rags desperately trying to find something wrong to say about Kerry.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113632,00.html
there is a video link on the bottom of the article that has the original story I saw.
It is fox news, but no-one else covered the story. At least look at it before you blast me.
Returning from his tour of duty,_the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee_testified before the_Senate Foreign Relations Committee (search)_in 1971, in which he claimed it was U.S. policy in Vietnam to carry out atrocities and war crimes.
OK. That's a fact (although the sentence is really, really awkward. However, he only uses the word "policy" once in his statement--and he uses it to describe a routine or accepted behavior. The story suggests that Kerry claimed it was "US policy"--that is, something official.
Score? Deliberate misrepresentation of Kerry's remarks = Lie.
A number of Vietnam veterans consider this testimony slanderous and say Kerry had to know it was false. They accuse Kerry of lying about fellow soldiers and officers to push a political agenda, and say his words dishonored comrades in arms at a time of war.
A number? How many is that? You can *always* find "a number" of people who claimed that no atrocities ever happened in Vietnam. Hell, I know a guy who claimed that no one ever smoked pot while he was in Vietnam. Does this mean that Kerry's claims are completely refuted? No. I can find "a number" of people who believe that the moon is made of cheese.
Score? Vague sourcing to slander Kerry's patriotism = Lie.
"He knew as an officer that those were lies. It never happened," said Vietnam veteran Carlton Sherwood. "He was principally responsible for cementing the image of_Vietnam veterans (search)_as drugged-out psychopaths who were totally unrestrained and who were a murderous hoard."
There's one. Carlton Sherwood. All we know is that he's a vet. We don't know anything else about him. Is he some lunatic? Was he only in Vietnam for a few days?
Score? Vague sourcing. No score. Advantage Kerry.
After Kerry's testimony, military and independent investigations found that many of the soldiers who told Kerry and others they committed such atrocities were either never in the service, never in Vietnam or couldn't provide more evidence of those horrific actions.
"Military and independent investigations"? Which? Who? When? In addition, note the careful language: "many of the soldiers" lied to him. Many means more than 3. How many talked to him? We don't know. Is this 3 out of 4000? Is this 3 out of 4? We don't know. The intentionally vague sourcing here would suggest that the author of this piece cannot independently verify this claim beyond a scant few.
Score? Deliberately vague claims designed to undermine Kerry's credibility = Lie.
Kerry told Fox News this weekend that he has no regrets about his service or his protest.
Fact. Advantage Kerry.
"Now, if some veterans still can't accept that or they don't like the fact that I stood up and spoke my mind, I respect them, that is their choice," Kerry said.
Fact. Advantage Kerry.
Listen Naples, I know you don't like liberals and all, but you really ought to be more discriminating about what you consider refutation.
Want to take a guess whether or not he has a vested interest in consulting with certain, ahem, administrations, about how to combat terrorism? And so it might be in his best interests to attempt to discredit the presumptive democratic nominee?
Carlton Sherwood!? You've got to be kidding.
The guy that wrote this:
Inquisition : The Persecution and Prosecution of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon
hahahaha.
He's to the right of Limbaugh!