Replies

The difference is that the DU statements you quoted -aren't- supportable with the facts. You claim they are "to some degree", but frankly, they're just not. They're complete fabrications.

But let me try and see it from your perspective. Even if we go with your thesis, at the VERY minimum, the DU charges require incredibly loose definitions of terms like "war criminal" and "AWOL" in order to stick, definitions that the vast majority of people would not accept.

However, I'd be very interested to hear -anyone- who would claim that the definition of "domestic terrorism" would not, absolutely and without caveat, include conspiring to assassinate U.S. Senators in a time of war.

There's a difference between "shocking" and "outlandish". Yes, the charge is shocking, but it is not outlandish, there is a great deal of evidence to support it, far far more than the flip side from DU you are trying to present.

Reading your arguments, the only thing I can glean is that if it's too shocking, it's out of political bounds. Sometimes the truth really is shocking. What do you suggest then - ignore the truth, or cover it up?

Qwinn

Dramatic come ons get the clicks...
Q, why not post, something related to the reality,
was "Kerry Involved with a group planning assasinations"
for example.
It is factual, and by being direct or even understated, it will be better received.
I can see your point, but you must certainly see where this would be turned into
"freepers compare kerry to osama", or some such.

Also, I think certain words should not be devalued. I was never comfortable with Rush's feminazi, for example. Nazi to me is a historical reference, a standard of horror that merits being a group of one.

Similarly, we are in a war on Terror, against militant religious zealots.

Equating kerry with this is , first, not at all appropriate, and second a degradation of the power of the word.

The difference is that the DU statements you quoted -aren't- supportable with the facts. You claim they are "to some degree", but frankly, they're just not. They're complete fabrications.

I want to emphasize this because I plucked out the "deserter" charge as the MOST outrageous and baseless of a baseless lot, but that one is the one that has absolutely not one scintilla of evidence supporting it. But you are right to say the other points on the stupid list are also false and I didn't want to leave the notion that I thought they had any factual support.

The fact is that the VVAW did engage in a type of domestic terrorism (this "seizing" the Statue of Liberty, that Kerry did not participate in), but I would say it is going a step too far to call him a terrorist. But it certainly is a more sustainable charge than these other idiotic allegations.

I am suggesting a middle ground actually. Had the original headline read:

"Did Kerry advocate 'Domestic terrorism'?

I would have had no problem. But the headline states, as fact that Kerry is a domestic terrorist. I contend that the statement does not square with the facts.

'Our man in Washington' spells out a much more reasonable scenario, then to make outlandish statements, ones which only serve to make Freepers out to be extremists.

I think overall, we are much more intelligent and reasonable then to make unfounded accusations.

However, judging from some of the responses I am getting (not yours), I am begining to question ny assesment of some of the people here.

I could not have said it with more succintness,if that is actually a word.

A typical DU charge or one by Terry McAuliffe for that matter is unsupportable on a factual basis.

It seems to me that the criticism here boils down to whether a party who was the NATIONAL SPOKESMAN for a domestic terrorist organization, who has never rejected them can rightly still be called a domestic terrorist.

That seems a like an overly fine distinction.