I wouldn't be surprised if Fulbright et al deliberately circumnavigated that issue....
Posted on 09/15/2004 6:08:16 AM PDT by Zyke
They told the stories 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 Genghis 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at ice.he.net ...
AFAIK all testimony, House or Senate, is under oath.
I wouldn't be surprised if Fulbright et al deliberately circumnavigated that issue....
I would agree. Isn't it usually in the transcript though?
I remember them swearing him in.
It would be impossible for John f-ing Kerry to tell the truth, under oath or not.
Even though it is largely false/exaggerated, Kerry is probably safe because he was (conveniently) quoting others that these atrocities occurred. But he is paying and will pay a pretty steep political price!
And so what can he say I never said that stuff? Or better yet I was under the influence of drugs when I made that testimony..Or more close to the truth... I am a psycopath that one day aspires to be president because I was born in the west wing and my initials are JFK.... JFK.... JFK... doesn't that tell you stupid americans anything... and I already hired my psychic John Edwards.. He channels the first JFK through me... .... What a nut....
Some of those Senators were providing funds to VVAW. McGovern was a sponsor. Dellums was involved. I can't remember which one it was that got donations for them.
What really bothers me is that the FBI records are declassified but many of the names have been redacted. I think we should be allowed to know who was doing what!
I don't think that is true. If it were, why go through the formality of swearing people in? I believe any body hearing testimony has to swear people in if the intend to make the testimony fire proof.
Well if it weren't true then anyone could just go before Congress and lie. Oh, like they do now. hmmmm I guess I need to rethink this.
You know that is a good point. Quoting others in a senate hearing. And when on 60 Minuntes saying he also did the same thing. Just shows you the amount of integrity he has. NONE.
He can't even stand with his peers and admit he did wrong with them.
What a downward spiral his life has been.
Next stop, the abyss.
FWIW, according to the transcript on C-SPAN, Kerry was NOT sworn.
http://www.c-span.org/vote2004/jkerrytestimony.asp
Exactly - so many of these hearings are a waste of time/money to begin with, only the swearing in of witnesses gives them any credibility at all.
Without at least oath taking, the hearings would have long ago degenerated into forums for DU ranters, conspiracy nuts, and other assorted kooks.
No, they are sworn in. :)
True. The problem is that people still get up there and lie and there doesn't seem to be any repercussions. And how about those damned Senators that sit up there in judgment lying through their teeth the whole time? The entire process is a joke.
Didn't Kerry say in the interwiew, that he took part in the atrocities himself? This must be stressed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.