I need some debunking help

[muchacho]

Trying to fend off a freeper (I know why bother?), seems I'm in need of a hobby. Until then...

I got this piece of garbage this morning:

Kerry Met With Enemies, (Viet Cong And North Vietnamese) In Paris In 1971

With a bunch of "proof" all listed from Free Republic. I was just wondering if this has been categorically debunked or is it too daffy to bother with?

Thanks.

[Varmintpoontang]

1. All you can say

is at least Kerry served..

[Dogmudgeon]

2. Links to the nonsense?

I'd never heard of that particular canard, so links to it would be helpful.

In general, whenever a Freeper makes a wild-assed accusation, simply ask him/her to substantiate it. Tell them you aren't in the habit of basing your opinions on hearsay, whether from the right OR the left -- and they had better put up, or shut up.

Chances are, if it's been "debunked", Snopes.com has the poop on it.

--bkl

[muchacho]

4. here you go

please hold your nose when clicking

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1091943/posts

[Dogmudgeon]

8. Did the Freepers even bother to READ it?

Thanks for posting it ... I was surprised they would pick up on this particular item, though.

Kerry wasn't "negotiating with" the VC/NLF; he was trying to get the POWs released.

Why do they think John McCain (and other prominent Republicans through the years) said such nice things about a liberal Democrat such as him? Kerry has worked tirelessly for the POWs since before he entered politics.

They're grasping at straws. Kerry is as much a Patriot as you'll find these days ... a patriot whose love for America isn't confined to bragging in the local bar.

--bkl

[smada]

3. don't play to rhetorical fallacies

This is a common debate tactic and it works only if you engage it and give it a patina of plausibility. The person making the charge challenges his opponent to disprove the charges, effectively sending them on a wild goose chase to shoot down the charges. But this can be endless and pointless. A debator can rapidly throw out many more charges than can be quickly debunked.

The best way to shut that down is to adamantly state that you do not accept the validity of the charges, that they're unsubstatiated allegations, and are worthless unless they're backed by credible documentation. And let it end there. That puts the onus where it belongs, on the person making the charge.

[Varmintpoontang]

5. Screw that double talk

It is better to debunk if you can. Put it in their faces.

[muchacho]

6. I agree

It's been pretty easy to to a quick Google
and shove back at them and ask "Didn't you
research this before you took it as fact?"

I like the confused looks...

[xchrom]

7. all i know is, you are as safe today

as you were on 9-11 with bush in office.
and that's all i need to know.

[NMDemDist2]

9. big deal --- here's the Globe take on it

More recently, the Los Angeles Times focused on FBI surveillance reports, obtained by historian Gerald Nicosia, in which the FBI monitored meetings of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a group that Kerry led in 1971.

Indeed, there may be a tie between Kerry's statement before the Senate committee and the interest of the FBI in his activities. One FBI report provided to the Globe by Nicosia shows that the government was monitoring whether Kerry planned to go to Paris again. Kerry was "planning to travel to Paris, France . . . for talks with North Vietnamese peace delegation," said the report, dated Nov. 11, 1971.

Kerry's Senate testimony spans about six pages in the committee publication, but the lesser-known question-and-answer session was another 24 pages. As he opened the latter session, Kerry said Nixon should declare a cease-fire and "accept a coalition regime which would represent all the political forces of the country which is in fact what a representative government is supposed to do and which is in fact what this government here in this country purports to do, and pull the troops out without losing one more American, and still further without losing the South Vietnamese."

Kerry then suggested that Congress should permit a special national referendum on ending the Vietnam War, leading Fulbright to remind Kerry that Congress "cannot directly under our system negotiate a cease-fire or anything of this kind. Under our constitutional system, we can advise the president." Kerry responded that, "I realize that full well as a study of political science. I realize that we cannot negotiate treaties, and I realize that even my visits in Paris, precedents had been set by Senator McCarthy and others, in a sense are on the borderline of private individuals negotiating, et cetera."

Kerry's statement dealt with the question of whether he was trying to negotiate in Paris as a private citizen and was thus on that "borderline" of what was allowable. A US law forbids citizens from negotiating with foreign governments on matters such as peace treaties. Meehan said Kerry was not negotiating.

"Senator Kerry had no role whatsoever in the Paris peace talks or negotiations," Meehan said in his statement. "He did not engage in any negotiations and did not attend any session of the talks. Prior to his Senate testimony, he went to Paris on a private trip, where he had one brief meeting with Madam Binh and others. In an effort to find facts, he learned the status of the peace talks from their point of view and about any progress in resolving the conflict, particularly as it related to the fate of the POWs."


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/03/25/kerry_spoke_of_meeting_negotiators_on_vietnam/