Indeed. Most people will do almost anything fior money. Witness current "reality" TV.
Well, I actually have little experience with "reality TV," since it doesn't entertain me, but I am fairly confident that its participants do not include "most people" - even if I did suppose that "almost anything for money" included publicly telling disparaging lies about a close associate.
It seems to me that military officers, particularly, tend to be rigorously screened for honesty (note the very strict "honor codes" in military academies), since they
must be trustworthy in communicating tactical information, lest people die. This is not to say that a (former) military officer would necessarily reject dishonesty, even in pursuing political goals, but members of the Swiftboat Vets group were generally without any evident political ambitions, and to suppose that
they were the ones likely to be (unanimously) dishonest, in contravention of professional habits and personal honor, would seem to be contrary to an Occam's Razor consideration.
I did say maybe, meaning it was just an idea to chew on.
Actually, your original statement was:
I seem to recall the right had no problem four years ago when John Kerry was "swiftboated" in attacks that were all lies.
But never mind. I welcome your having calmed down, a bit.
True. however, I am not aware that any court has in fact, convicted John Kerry of being a war criminal.
I'm not sure what you mean, here. John Kerry accused
others of being war criminals. Of the various things that the Swiftboat Vets group had to say about him, I don't recall that accusing him of war crimes, was included.
More to the point, the Swiftboat Vets group was formed, with the common belief that John Kerry would likely be a bad President, if he were to be elected, and with the intent to explain why and to express
their opinion of his military career, in response to
his representation of himself as a military hero and therefore deserving of Presidential election ("I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty," he saluted the cheering [and eyerolling] throngs [btw, "throngs" is a funny word, is it not? Especially since it is arguable that there was only one throng, there, at the time. Anyway...]). To that end, they described their experiences. They were not seeking to prove, nor to convict him of, anything, but merely to express their commonly held opinion of his "fitness to command."
I can sympathize with your concern that disparaging accusations should be proven or not made, but I don't suppose that the Swiftboaters' statements were outrageous, in the context in which they were made, nor was Kerry, himself, exactly rigorous in characterizing, disparagingly, his associates - which was part of what motivated the Swiftboaters, in the first place.
The whole original point was that I didn't see anyone from the Bush camp rushing out to help find the absolute truth, which to date, has still never been PROVEN one way or the other.
I don't suppose that the Bush camp had any basis for disputing the common statements of a group constituted by nearly all of Kerry's military associates, nor for regarding their assertions as irrelevant to Kerry's basing his Presidential campaign upon his military record.
In contrast, Sarah Palin has, in no way, based
her political campaign for Vice-President, upon her 17y/o daughter's sexual behavior.
Bad form on my part, sinking to junior high school name-calling, especially when I was trying to make a serious point... and trying to get in a dig at Greg Burch, my old friend and political sparring partner!