Oh but we have.
Let's put it this way:
Quote:John Kerry really did put himself in for three Purple Hearts (one for each band-aid) and later use those awards to get an early release after a 13 week tour of duty.
"Put himself in for"?! How awful! How illegal! How unusual!
No?
What exactly is wrong with the above, even if we assume it is factually true? (The "bandaid" classfication is highly arguable, for example.) Where is the lying?
Quote:John Kerry really did appear prominently before the Congress and testify to his direct knowledge of widespread atrocities done by those with whom he served
Again, what is wrong with this? Do you say that he lied? That they lied? That no atocities took place? WHAT is your beef with the above?
Quote:and later deny that he ever saw or participated in any himself.
I asked McGentrix to find a cite saying that he recanted his testimony, and he couldn't come up with anything. What he did come up with confirmed that Kerry had stuck by his testimony all of these years. Can you come up with anything? (And not, of course, any nit-picking or well-stretched rationalizations about how actions against the Geneva convention like blowing up food supplies were atrocities.)
Quote:He did all this and then thirty years later go on to great lengths to portray himself as a war hero.
He did all this -- what? So far you have said he legitimately got three Purple Hearts, which legitimately got him sent home -- but you don't like it. He legitimately took testimony and relayed that testimony from soldiers, which he hasn't recanted -- which you don't like at all. He has responded to numerous attacks from the Bush campaign about his perceived toughness and ability to lead during war time with the obvious, that he has already proven his toughness in actual war, unlike Bush -- which you really, really don't like.
Aside from your personal dislike, what is there?