On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 06:26:14 -0800 (PST), rb608
wrote:

On Feb 18, 8:55*am, Scott Seidman wrote:
I don't know why you'd sentence poor Bob to read pages and pages of Kerry
testimony. *

:-)

When this came up a while back, I looked up the Kerry testimony as
part of my usual fact-check whenever I get a "send this to everyone
you know" message. Apparently it was "common knowledge", or at least
often repeated that Kerry had lied in his testimony, so I checked. He
didn't.

Not only that, I thought it was a pretty good read and a relevant
lesson for what we're now doing in Iraq. He was spot on in most of
his analysis, and without the benefit of the 20-20 hindsight we now
enjoy almost four decades years later.

Joe F.

You might wish to do a little more research. Whether Kerry lied or not
I'll leave to the reader, but the whole "Winter Soldier Investigation"
stuff that supposedly took place in Detroit and which he claimed to have
been a part simply didn't happen as he described, and there is pretty
clear evidence that he knew at least some and most likely a large part
of what was being said and what was attributed to those involved in the
"investigation" were not only lies about the alleged "war crimes" and
atrocities, but some were lying about having ever been in Viet Nam. IAC,
I'd offer that if any GOP figure, um, pushed the envelope (at the least)
in such a fashion, you, Ken, 'tripper, etc. would be the first to call
them liars.

That said, Kerry did make some excellent points about the stupidity and
futility of wasting one more life (US or otherwise) in Viet Nam, but
that does not excuse his behavior while a Commissioned Officer in the
United States Navy. His actual service seems to nothing special - he
was neither a hero or a coward, but rather, a political opportunist who
tried to have his cake and eat it, too, in that he signed up to protect
his political viability, but signed up with a unit he was betting on
never saw the slightest bit of action. Ooops. When he found out he
screwed up, he then proceeded to milk it for all it might ever be worth.
And when he got out of the fighting, he then realized he had his "issue"
and so, and being as generous as possible, grandstanded his way into the
national spotlight with misrepresentations. Granted, it isn't _certain_
that he misrepresented his own wartime experiences, but he certainly
turned a blind eye to representations he knew to be false being
disseminated.

Bottom line for me? Is there enough evidence to secure a certain
conviction of him for perjury? Very iffy. Did he lie? Almost
certainly. Did he suborn perjury, did that subornation injure the US in
direct violation of his oath, and is there enough evidence to support a
conviction of that/those violation(s)? Unquestionably (and personally,
I believe such a conviction would be an accurate reflection of the
facts).

HTH,
R