The same people that some bloggers are relying upon to paint Kerry as less than Rambo are discredited by their own accounts.
Given that Vietnam was a long time ago, who's to say what group of partisan veterans is any more entitled to hold the credibility than the rest? I say the Democrats, because the documented evidence from that time, and the accounts of the now detractors, were originally on par with John Kerry's current stance.
The people who were on Kerry's boat all agree; those who weren't actually on the boat are now changing their tune. So the real issue is how can we believe the detractors now when they already have admitted to lying in the past? Which is it? Were they liars then or are they liars now?
Either way, they've admitted to being either being dishonest or confused at best. Regardless the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have credibility issues because they're the ones retracting on their words, not Kerry.
Nobody's going to agree on what really happened, but we can agree that credibility requires consistency, something I haven't seen from the SBVFT.
Ultimately I think this saga will play out in Kerry's favor, because it draws attention to the fact that he was actually in combat -- a stark contrast from Bush's National Guard duty.
When analyzed across the board, comparing Kerry's scrutinized heroics to Bush's cakewalk is like comparing the NHL playoffs to Disney on Ice.
Respond
Back to top