I don't believe I said the "veterans" were all liars, did I?

Nevertheless, your argument is wonderfully analogous.

In the case of Bush, his Administration interpreted ambiguous information as threatening. In the case of the "Veterans" (I use quotation marks to call attention to their ambiguous nature. Some, of whom later turned-out to be bogus or exaggerated their involvement in Viet Nam), they offer no proof other than their weepy words.

In neither case did people who should have been very skeptical, embrace skepticism. Instead, they embraced what they believed to be true, despite lack of conclusive evidence.

B