Come on.
Bush avoided Viet Nam using the influence of his family. Kerry didn't.
Kerry came home and protested the war with some very unsavory characters, arguably costing the lives of Americans (though through a pretty convoluted manner). Bush didn't.
Kerry argued in '98 we needed to act decisively against Iraq. Bush didn't.
Bush argued in 2003 we needed to act decisively against Iraq. Kerry didn't, but signed off on it based on the very same intelligence Bush used.
WMD are not found, Kerry now says he didn't really support the war, though it is public record he did.
Kay report indicates no one lied about WMD, everyone was wrong, including SH himself.
Kerry says Bush lied about intelligence (though Kay contradicts this statement).
Okay... the question I ask myself is... who is most consistant in this scenario? Kerry seems to bend to the political wind when it is expedient for his career (supporting Clinton, the head of the Democratic Party; supporting Bush when public opinion said it was wise to do so; deny ever supporting Bush when public opinion says it is expedient not to, etc.). Bush, right or wrong, has been consistant in direction and viewpoint.
Yes, someone is lying. Maybe both of them, but at least one is.
