Was he? Reading the transcript Elvis was so gracious to provide, it looks like he was asked to testify as John Kerry, war veteran. The transcript start out thusly:
I’m not getting the same vibe that you are from that. If he has any associates, doesn’t sound like something you’d say to someone invited to speak for others, especially when you ask for those others to speak, if they exist.
Sigh.
No, we need to see something that invited him specifically to offer “hearsay” evidence.
This is a bit ironic, considering that the “Democrats did it too!” theme was introduced (by me) in direct response to you citing another example of RW campaign tactics which you felt was even worse than the Swiftboats.
Is your position is that the thread should be linked to Swiftboats and other Republicans only?
Uhm, no. And since you continue to dance around the question instead of answering it, I’ll just assume you are unable to. Answer it, that is-- you’ve demonstrated a remarkable ability to dance.
Thanks, 'luci! You see what I did?
I cited an example of a Republican doing it to another Republican. How, exactly, did that implicate the Democrats?
Yeah, you proved that Pee Wee Herman did not live it vain!
If I ask you whether it’s “fair” if Republicans do X, are you seriously thinking we can have a reasonable debate about that without referencing whether Democrats have done anything similar? Or, is there some rule book we can refer to instead?
I’d say as soon as you introduce the concept of “fairness”, you open the door for comparisons.
I’m not dancing around it. I’m *mocking *it. Which is all it deserves.
You can’t judge the fairness of an act without reference to tu quoques? Pretend Ted Cruz wins the presidential nomination, and Democrats start making up stories about how he’s not constitutionally eligible to become President. Will that be “fair” because Republicans did it to Obama? Or will it still be a bullshit tactic?
Whatever - what you’re not doing is answering it.
No, you can’t. Not without a “fairness” rule book. Got one?
Yep, it would be fair. You offer a false dichotomy-- this is politics, not the Boy Scouts.
Must have been one of those days when Congressional Committees put out signs saying “Walk Ins Welcome!” and Kerry to a look and said “Hey, here’s my chance, I can walk in and testify and then claim they asked me to! Yowzuh!”.
Really, guys, WTF?
Sure, just like it’s unfair to Bush for lying us into a war that cost hundreds of thousands of lives and cost hundreds of billions of dollars, because Obama said you could keep your own doctor too. Exactly the same thing, lies are lies, they both do it, therefore you score a point. Happy now?
That was not my claim.
Please reread my post (including the last paragraph.)
The purpose of the Fullbright Hearings was, in the words of Sen. Fullbright himself:
Kerry spoke at length about ending the war, troop withdrawals, implications for South Vietnam, and so forth, which was well within the scope of the hearings.
Before that, though, he read a prepared statement about the Winter Soldier Investigation, and what participants in it had reported about service in Vietnam.
It’s reasonable to suggest that the conditions that American soldiers found themselves in should be part of a discussion about ending the conflict. But, it’s also reasonable to note that Kerry wasn’t, in fact, specifically asked (at least on the record) to testify about the Winter Soldier Investigation, or what soldiers other than himself had witnessed.
You didn’t just move the goalpost there. You took the goalpost down and put up a volleyball net.
He was invited as a spokesman for Vietnam Veterans Against the War. A representative. Which means he was there to speak for others as well as himself. Capisce?
Now, what the fuck *else *do you think the Senators should have expected him to talk about than about what vets knew and experienced about the war, and how that shaped their views about how to get the fuck out of it?
Here:
As **elucidator **so succinctly and aptly puts it: Really, guys, WTF?
Or, to repeat myself: Sheesh. :rolleyes:
Good to see you’re still incapable of reading for comprehension without making assumptions.
Sheesh is right. It took you 10 posts of moaning because you couldn’t accept that your first cite was inadequate. Sheesh!