[djmcmath]

Kerry was probably right about that part. If he was in Cambodia, the US Gov't wasn't admitting to it. The rest of his Vietnam history is more interesting, and it comes down to a question of credibility.

One the one hand, you have a group of vets who may be getting paid to say mean things about JFK. There's a bunch of them, and they were mostly nearby when the stuff they describe happens. Their story correlates moderately well (but not spectacularly well), like you'd expect 35 year old eyewitness accounts to do. There are others who disagree with them.

On the other hand, you have Kerry, who is known to say absolutely anything his audience wants to hear. His story changes a bit more than most eyewitness accounts do, and generally looks more like the stuff of legends than of history books.

Is he lying? Tough to tell. Again, like Bush's charges, the charges against Kerry are similarly vague. He said one thing, then he said another, and it's almost impossible to demonstrate that he was actually lying. (sigh)

So you end up voting your heart, or your wallet, or whatever, because you've gotten all caught up in whether or not the Swifties were lying, and couldn't remember how the candidate stood on the issues.

Dan