Seems to be a common conclusion when someone actually reads the swifties book.

[dude1394]

I've seen the same thing said by buchanan, kristol, fred barnes and now investor's daily. I would be interested in seeing some analysis by someone on the left who has actually read the book. Maybe they really don't want to.. ???

Investor's Business Daily did something that those like Chris Matthews disdains doing. They read the book, Unfit for Command, and find it very compelling.

ibd

We've read the book front to back and have been impressed with not only its thoroughness, but also the extraordinary number of people who contributed to it. This is not one man's story, but the accounts of dozens of credible witnesses.

Yes, as with virtually all books, minor inaccuracies have crept in. But the larger message still holds: Kerry appears to have exaggerated his wartime heroism for political gain, distorted his record by filing false reports, and lied repeatedly about his presence in Cambodia in December 1968.

After the war, in his 1971 testimony before the Senate and again in his book "The New Soldier," Kerry lied about atrocities he claims he saw others routinely commit while in Vietnam.

His later actions as an anti-war activist included meeting with North Vietnamese communists and the Viet Cong during the Paris Peace Talks. And after the talks were through, he sided with the enemy.

These aren't mere quibbles, or beer-bar disputes. They go to the very heart of the qualifications of a person who seeks the presidency. It's a question of believability, of integrity, of character.