If he told the truth, which is that he voted for the bill, then how was
he 'caught in a lie?' Has it all gotten this Orwellian?


NOYB wrote:
He didn't tell the truth because he *DID NOT* vote for the bill. You
obviously missed this sentence:

"There is only one problem: Kerry voted against it (Helms-Burton
legislation)"

Kerry's people tried to spin it by saying he "supported the legislation in
its purer form--and voted for it months earlier"...but when the actual
legislation came to the Senate floor, Kerry voted against it.

Uh huh... telling the truth is "trying to spin it"? He did not say that
he suppoerted the bill in it's final form AND all riders attached to it
(a clever legislative by-pass that should be outlawed). He said he voted
for it. You said he voted for it... then you turn around and say he
lied. You (and the originating source of this propaganda) are the one(s)
lying, not Kerry. It is laughable.

It would be closer to the WHOLE truth to say "Kerry voted both for and
against this bill, proving that he is unreliable and flip-flops" but
that apparently isn't bad enough. After all, when you've called him a
traitor who obtained high military honors under false pretenses, it's
rather mild to back up and call him a waffler. Bigger and better
slanders need to be hollered from rooftops!

DSK