analyst41 wrote:

How do you "answer" a group that

(1) said nothing for 30 odd years, or said/wrote in the past the exact
opposite of what they are saying now ?

Wrong. Kerry was publically opposed by several members of the Swift Vets when
he first ran for public office. Kerry invited these men to organize when he
made his service in Vietnam the center piece of his Presidential campaign.

(2) Say that Kerry is lying, Kerry's boatmates are lying, Rassmann is
lying

Well, even the guy who recieved a Bronze Star for the event says he was
surprised to receive it since there was no enemy fire. Sounds like you've got
guys with nothing to gain telling one story and guys with much to gain telling
the other.


snip other "lies"

These guys can lie endlessly and there is simply no way of refuting
their allegations completely.

Well, if Kerry would personally address the issue instead of sending out his
surrogates to attack the messengers we would at least have two sides to the
story.

But these guys have put themselves out there and they already stand
discredited from the motive standpoint

What motive? Lets pretend Bush himself is organizing this, what could he offer
these guys as payment for their work? Cabnit positions? Money? Face it, these
guys have nothing to gain and that is what makes their story so compelling and
dangerous to the Kerry campaign.

These are small-timers who might even crack under the pressure the
Kerry campaign is going to bring to bear on them

The only pressure the Kerry campaign has brought to bear is on the book
publishers and TV stations. This follows the Kerry campaigns absolute
embracement of Michael Moore. Can you say hypocritical?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"