[secretagent]

I wonder if Kerry fears an examination of the WSI, or if if he really believed in the truthtelling of most of the witnesses. I think he did believe, but we'll see, hopefully.

Although many of the alleged atrocities have never been verified -- and some have been disproved

In the WSI itself? Plenty of debunked atrocity mongers outside the WSI, but I've not heard of a single named WSI witness debunked so far.

Off to work - back later today.

[writer33]

This issue has become so tiresome it died a couple of months ago. Kerry and the Dems are having to bring it to life every time they turn around.

[NetValue]

"....the national director of Veterans for Kerry, said Kerry had no intention of taking back anything he said....

Ahh yes, now he's infallible. Next he'll be a candidate for Pope.

[KellyAdmirer]

If you read the testimony in its entirety, you see that he was paying great tribute to those who were serving."...

LOL, this has to go down as one of the great doublespeak, Orwellian-type explanations of the year. Kerry testified that the US soldiers all went around commiting war crimes, gunning people down, burning down their hooches - but this was paying them "a great tribute." LOL, some people have no shame at all. I think the whole "being on both sides of everything" disease has infected his idiot spokeswoman, too.

[cwb]

"Moreover, in recent days Republican operatives have been circulating copies of Kerry's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April 1971, which has formed the basis of much of the conservative critique about Kerry's efforts against the war...."

This is what pisses me off most about the mainstream media. Whenever a negative story exists about a Democrat, the media attributes that story to "Republican operatives." Even if this is true, republican operatives shouldn't have needed to circulate his testimony since it is widely available for anyone willing to look...i.e, the media.

I've said this before, but it deserves repeating: The "media" is only happy to dig into the pasts of Republicans, using their vast resources. But when it comes to Democrats, the media sits on stories, waiting for Republican operatives to uncover what they've known all along.

This serves two purposes for the mediacrats: They not only get to shelter the Democrat for as long as possible, but when the story does break, the "media" can attribute the story to Republicans...creating an image that republicans fight dirty. The unfortunate fact is, Republicans often have to do the job of the mainstream media, since they've decided to put away their investigative journalist credentials when Democrats are around.

[Chummy]

Kerry was in country for but four months (gives another dimension to "Just For Kerry" -- "Just Four, Kerry").

How could he possibly have firsthand knowledge or observation of all that he claimed before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee given his limited sphere of duty within the rivers of the Mekong Delta?

Could he have -- gosh! -- LIED to the Congress?

[ghost of nixon]

If Kerry would just come down off his high-horse and admit his testimony was disgraceful and attribute it to being young and naive - I think he would get some slack on this issue. For him to claim he was being honest and "supporting the troops" is just asking for more trouble on this issue.

[cyncooper]

In the WSI itself? Plenty of debunked atrocity mongers outside the WSI, but I've not heard of a single named WSI witness debunked so far.

Really? My understanding from reading here at FR, is that it was precisely the "testimony" given at the WSI that was debunked. People not soldiers, testifying falsely under the names of real soldiers and so on.