Some posters have accused me of not presenting any facts or backing up my postings with evidence. OK.....

From FastCheck.Org:


Quote:
-------------------
August 17, 2004 Modified: August 17, 2004 released Aug. 13

A Bush-Cheney '04 ad:

Bush Nails Kerry's Poor Attendance at Intelligence Committee Hearings

Bush says Kerry missed 76% of public hearings. He could have missed even more.

A Bush-Cheney '04 ad accuses Kerry of being absent for 76% of the Senate Intelligence Committee's public hearings during the time he served there. The Kerry campaign calls the ad "misleading," so we checked, and Bush is right.

[b]Official records show Kerry not present for at least 76% of public hearings held during his eight years on the panel, and possibly 78% (the record of one hearing is ambiguous).

Kerry points out that most meetings of the Intelligence Committee are closed and attendance records of those meetings aren't public, hinting that his attendance might have been better at the non-public proceedings. But Kerry could ask that his attendance records be made public, and hasn't. Aides also claimed repeatedly that Kerry had been vice chairman of the intelligence committee, but that was Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, not John Kerry.
----------------

No wonder Kerry doesn't want to talk about his 20 years in the Senate. He was hardly ever there to do the "people's" business!!

__________________
"John Kerry gave the enemy for free what I and my comrades in the prison camps in North Vietnam took torture to avoid saying. He sold us out."
- Paul Galanti, US P.O.W.

Old news, discussed ad nauseum. Nice to see you don't have any new issues to argue with.

The basic rebuttal: The public meetings of the Intelligence Committee, of all things, are not where the work gets done.

And that's factcheck.org.

NOT in public session...

This has been discussed elsewhere ad nauseum...

__________________
The last time this country mixed politics with religion, people got burned at the stake.

...that in this day and age of accusation and counter-accusation, we should just take liberal's word on this issue??

Fastcheck.Org also says (as posted above):

Quote:
-----------
Kerry points out that most meetings of the Intelligence Committee are closed and attendance records of those meetings aren't public, hinting that his attendance might have been better at the non-public proceedings. But Kerry could ask that his attendance records be made public, and hasn't.
-----------

Why doesn't John Kerry clear this up himself?? Seems like it would be easy to do, espeically if TB's statement above is true....

__________________
"John Kerry gave the enemy for free what I and my comrades in the prison camps in North Vietnam took torture to avoid saying. He sold us out."
- Paul Galanti, US P.O.W.

..whilst on 'active duty'...?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander....

Way to stick to the topic, TB!!

Here's a question for you (or any liberal):

Do you feel that GB's 6 months is more, or less, important than what John Kerry was doing for AT LEAST 6 YEARS while "serving" on the Senate Intelligence Committee??

__________________
"John Kerry gave the enemy for free what I and my comrades in the prison camps in North Vietnam took torture to avoid saying. He sold us out."
- Paul Galanti, US P.O.W.

..something your dime-store cowboy has very little of...

You'd think that you would apply that same logic to Kerry, but you are obviously so biased and partisan that you cannot even apply "your" same standards as to what constitutes "character" even-handedly.

I hope you are the exception, and not the rule, for liberal thinking TB. But I am not holding my breath.

Face it: you wanna say GB was "AWOL" from his Guard Duty for 6 months and in the same breath overlook EVIDENCE that Kerry was AWOL from his Senate duties for over 6 YEARS! WOW!

Gimme a break...

__________________
"John Kerry gave the enemy for free what I and my comrades in the prison camps in North Vietnam took torture to avoid saying. He sold us out."
- Paul Galanti, US P.O.W.

...that whenever anyone disagrees with you on this site, it's because they're "biased and partisan"? Isn't it possible that we liberals MAY actually find Bush's AWOL status more important, in light of his claims to be a war president, than Kerry's YEARS of service in Congress?

Something that happened 30 years ago (oh, and this after he has proven he became a changed person) is more important than what has happened in the past 8 years? On the surface, not on the surface, and all around that doesn't make sense.