Smooth:
Quote:
How does this make Kerry look bad?
What significance are you attaching to this latest story that you posted?
I can't understand if people are really trying to convince me about Kerry's integrity based on a single line of commentary from over 20 years ago. If that's what you want to base your vote on, that's fine with me--it's none of my business what your reasons are.
(snip..)
So I find it bizarre that you criticise Kerry for "switching" stances regarding whether Bush's military career was relevant.
He thought it wasn't germaine then, nor have I seen him use it as an issue now.
|
Say what you want about Bush, I don't think anyone questions his steadfastness, resolve, and firm convictions. On the other hand, not only has Kerry waffled back and forth on many issues, but he has so many stories about what happened, and his answers are so nuanced that his credibility can be questioned.
Though Charlie Gibson wisely did not, he would have been within his journalistic rights, after reading Kerry's statements recently about his medals incident, and then playing the clip, to ask Kerry, "so were you lying then or are you lying now?" Kerry was caught in an absolute contradiction, and responded by going after Bush's national guard service, just months after he had stated that it wasn't relevant, and criticizing those that were bringing it up. This was yet another change in one of his positions.
Quote:
|
But he certainly has a right to defend himself, in my eyes, against allegations that he is weak on defense, unpatriotic, doesn't care about the troops, and etc.
|
He was not accused of being weak on defense, unpatriotic, or not caring about the troops.
He was being accused, albeit impliedly, of changing his story to be politically expedient at the time.