<p>Well, in the Swifties case, we could use the arguement that some of them were there and knew more of the details about some of the events not included or mis-stated in Kerry’s award package, details that the commander may not have. However, this is ALL speculation, and actually I find it as distasteful as you. He got recognized for actions he was a part of, by the people who commanded him, and the people there with him collaborated his accounts. That’s the end of that story in my book. </p>
<p>But Kerry also made claims about his service in areas that he wasn’t a part of, and NOT awarded a medal for. Things like his memories of his Christmas time in Cambodia, ordered there by President Nixon. Only he NEVER was in Cambodia, and Nixon wasn’t even President during the time he claims he was there. A mistatement or a memory fogged by time? Perhaps. But it can also be seen as a trend towards a disregard for the truth on his part to add to his desire to paint the Vietnam war as immoral, especially when taken with his lies to Congress about what he saw. Something that gets people’s attention when the man runs on a platform of “war hero”; something that may perhaps cause them to dig a little deeper into ALL of his claims, even the ones that have legitimacy and proof. Rightfully so? Again, I don’t beleive so, but I can understand how their anger lead them down this path. I just don’t approve of it.</p>
<p>The search into Bush’s service record as part of the Air National Guard comes to mind as a similar example, also argued along political lines. And you would be right to say that the side which was so intent on trying to expose Kerry’s war record as false were just as offended when the shoe was on the other foot in regards to the efforts to disprove Bush’s war records. You can’t have it both ways, my friends.</p>
<p>This seems to me to be a typical political arguement, where each side will refuse to acknowledge the others opinions. That happens, and it’s something I can live with (and something I am willing to die for to protect the right of). However, I do agree with you; you usually need some legitimacy yourself if you’re about to research and question a medal honorably earned in combat. I think some of the Swifties fit this requirement, but their motives are biased based on the anger they feel in this case (anger I agree with, as you can see by my posts, but I still remain uncomfortable by the methods they chose to pursue). But I also think that in a free society, when you get inconsistencies and evidence of a history of falsehoods, it should open up the criteria so EVERYONE has the right to question the rest of the story.</p>