There can be no doubt what-so-ever that the events John Kerry described that have gotten him in all this trouble (congressional hearing - Senate Foreign Relations Committee - 92nd Congress) are true. There were great atrocities committed by our troops in Veitnam. SBVFT seem to think that he should not have testified against is fellow troops, even though they were doing illegal things that were sactioned by our military leaders. So he stood up for what is right, and in return angry vets who either didn't see these atrocities (not every person is going to see the same things, not everyone saw D-day but that doesn't mean it didn't happen) or are mad because he went outside the military and 'betrayed' troops still in Veitnam by testifying and trying to get them home. Vietnam was a nasty war, and our troops did some nasty things (obviously the other side did horrible things as well) that are well documented. And I have spoken to many vets, my dad is even a vet, and the majority of them say the same thing and know that this attack is baseless and dirty.shenbaw wrote:I'd have to say a definite NO on that one. Personally, I'd rather have a President who fought and has some regrets than have one that didn't fight and couldn't be more proud.MrSelf wrote: Do you think it is wrong for him to be truthful about events that happened?
"I mean come on, do we really want a President who isn't smart enough to avoid going to Vietnam?" - Rob Corddrey
That part aside, from official records and personal testamony from people who served with Kerry show that the other accusations are false as well, so why would the president not come out and condemn the ad which is based on provenly false information? All the While Mr. Cheney has personally attacked Kerry on every issue. So while Bush has not directly attacked Kerry, he has sent out his friends to do the dirty work.
Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:11988