Tweet
Originally posted by ODShowtime
I hear this ALOT and I must admit it perplexes me. pubs say that they wouldn't have trashed Kerry's war record if he wouldn't have run on it so heavily. But I don't think he did, really.
And further, someone as intelligent as you appear to be should realize that Bush&Friends were gonna attack every little loose end of Kerry they could. That's an excuse that they only attack Kerry's Vietnam record because he's running on it. They would have let loose those dogs either way, in my opinion.
I hear this ALOT and I must admit it perplexes me. pubs say that they wouldn't have trashed Kerry's war record if he wouldn't have run on it so heavily. But I don't think he did, really.
And further, someone as intelligent as you appear to be should realize that Bush&Friends were gonna attack every little loose end of Kerry they could. That's an excuse that they only attack Kerry's Vietnam record because he's running on it. They would have let loose those dogs either way, in my opinion.
Puh-Leeeze! Remember the "I'm reporting for duty" line? That assclown has to run on Vietnam because if it was about issues and his senate record he wouldn't have been able to beat Kucinich!
At his opening address as a candidate he pulls up in front of a Navy ship with the lone (still shell-shocked) swifty that he supposedly "saved"(read up on that one here....http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=40037)and appeared very "military".
The Swift Vets go back with John all the way to '71 when he started his pack of lies. It's amusing that Lurch's story keeps changing and evolving but the 250 other soldiers stories are the same. Lurch could file for slander and even libel IF they were lying. He's not and neither are they! That's why this is an issue, these guys are pissed that Lurch trashed what we were doing there and they don't want a Benedict Arnold in the White House.
Comment