Typically if you're starring in an inflammatory "attack ad," chances are you're playing partisan politics, in this case conservatively. Moreover, would anybody on earth voluntarily be featured in a Republican ad if they weren't trying to further a Republican cause? It's commone sense. We don't need it spelled out for us. These particular "Swift Boaters" obviously aren't swing voters.
No one should take for gospel the words and accounts of men who, in some of the more obvious cases, are contradicting the statements they made at the time of war, before they had 30+ years to develop an agenda.
Additionally, the latest round of these veteran's accounts contrasts the documented military records for the event in question. Not to mention, if these disgruntled veterans are so non-partisan and simply interested in just clearing the record, why did they wait 30 years, under the context of a presidential election to make their case? They've had 30 years to clear the air but they wait until they have a slimy platform to voice their historical discrepencies?
C'mon, we should all know an agenda when we see one.
It seems that the burden of proof lies overwhelmingly on John Kerry's side of the argument. As for the bitter vendetta of the conservative crowd, it appears to be a lot of cheap talk and empty lies -- hardly the type of "research" with which I would want to identify.
Respond
Back to top