| Look, I don't want to go through this point by point. I've read the accounts, and to me, it's pretty simple: the overwhelming majority of people who were actually present at the events in question support Kerry's version of the story. Several of the people on the other side have changed their stories over time, and many of them just weren't there and are reporting hearsay. As noted by others, the motivation for the whole effort was Kerry's testimony attacking the war, and in many people's eyes, attacking American soldiers. That's something that he certainly did, and people can reasonably object to it. But it's my judgment, after reading the statements of people on both sides of the issue, that it is much more likely that Kerry's version of the events is mostly true. I observe that there are people who make the contrary judgment, but I really can't understand how a fair-minded person could do so. |