"Where he got his testimony that atrocities were occurring "every day" with apparent allusions to the entire country side, is beyond me"/ "Kerry was generalizing from his limited exposure in the country."

so which is it? do you know where kerry's knowledge comes from? one statement says you don't the other states its position as fact. i don't know myself and will be interested in reading his testimony to learn more. and no i was not in vietnam. i served in the military during that time period but did not have to go to vietnam. that doesn't mean that i can't know anything about atrocities committed there because there were public trials and public record, men convicted of such acts and other eyewitness accounts of such. it also doesn't mean that since you were there and didn't see any that they didn't happen (i realize you've already conceded that they did happen). if you feel "stained" by kerry's statement of fact why don't you feel more stained by the fact that the military and government you and i served committed these acts?

"he was simply parroting the leftist line"

once again attacking a generlized enemy even after admitting that the point (atrocities did occur) is factual. obfuscation and smear.

i don't quite understand how the quote in your last paragraph points up my hypocrisy. please elucidate.