Standards of Proof

Perhaps the phrase the Bush campaign is looking for is that there was no "operational relationship" between them and the SwiftVets? (Though as more comes to light, even that becomes suspect.)

Maybe it's time for the pro-Kerry people to start paraphrasing both the President and the Vice President, and say "The reason we keep saying there was a relationship between Bush and the SwiftVets is because there WAS a relationship between Bush and the SwiftVets."

I don't believe we have evidence of anyone who was officially working for Saddam actually also officially working for Al Qaeda, right? But for months and months, Bush and Cheney have been crowing about the "ties" between the two. As of this writing, we have documented proof of not one, but TWO people working for the Bush campaign, who were also, at the same time, working for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The President wants us to believe in the first connection, but not in the second?

Apparently in the Bush regime, the standard of proof required before sending troops to die is far lower than that for assigning blame in a political campaign.