[kabar]

You cite the LA times article, which is another puff piece supporting Kerry's version of his antiwar activities. The article says it all boils down to, "At issue for the Massachusetts Democrat are 94 words he uttered during more than two hours of Senate testimony and questioning 33 years ago. Was Kerry accurate? Or does he bear a singular responsibility for smearing American soldiers, as his political opponents contend.

Any reading of the entire Senate testimony, his meetings with the Vietnamese Communists, and other quotes from Kerry on the MTP and in his debates with John O'Neill realize that the antipathy towards Kerry goes far beyond 94 words. The LA Times article is riddled with misinformation and spin.

I find it odd that you are placing the burden of proof on those who question the testimonies of those who participated in the Winter Soldier investigation. The burden of proof should be on them. None of them have testified under oath to these allegations. Where are the affadavits? What are their credentials? We do know from Pitkin, under oath, that the VVAW influenced his testimony, which was false.

[secretagent]

The burden of proof should be on them. None of them have testified under oath to these allegations.

I agree with you on putting the burden of proof on the WSI witnesses. My only points in my posts:

(1) We can't rely on the NIS report, since no one can find it.

(2) Some debunked "veterans" cited as WSI witnesses didn't testify at the WSI.

I don't want to give the WSI apologists easy "gotcha" points, which citing the NIS report and people who didn't testify at the WSI does.

If you say that WSI witnesses didn't have the veteran status they claimed, expect that people will ask you to name them and show how they lied.