To begin with, I did not think much of the Swifties' story when it first came out. I knew there were issued, but it seemed a bit callous to dispute that Kerry earned his medals. After Kerry started his attacks on the character of the Swifties, instead of their charges, and the documented fact that the Swifties were able to get a retraction from Kerry on the Cambodia story, I realized the Swifties had to be on to something credible.
But, facts are facts and facts are generally ignored by the media. It does not matter what Captain Ed uncovers in the timeline and the facts, the media will ignore the facts. The media really only cares about process stories because they are easy to write.
For example, the media rarely writes about the facts in the Bush and Kerry agendas. The media would rather write about how the agendas were poll tested and poll driven and funded by mysterious people. The facts are irrelevant.
So, let me put in a few cents on a bit of the process of this story that the media has so far ignored.
In the late 1960's, John Kerry won several medals in Vietnam. Several of the medals were awarded solely on written reports prepared by John Kerry. John Kerry, while in Vietnam, joked about advancing his political career after winning the medals.
In the early 1970's, after returning from Vietnam, but while still in the Naval Reserves, Kerry began speaking out against the war. Coincidentally, Kerry arrived in the United States at the height of the anti-Vietnam war fervor. Kerry turned his back on his fellow soldiers and sailors and accused them publicly of war crimes.
In the 1980's, having made a name for himself as a lefty crusader against war, Kerry was elected Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts and then Senator from the same state. While in the U.S. Senate, Kerry used his war stories to argue against battling communists in Central America, vote against increased funding for the military, support the nuclear freeze, and generally oppose what he viewed as militarist policies of the Reagan administration – policies which ultimately won the cold war.
During the 1990's, Kerry continued his campaign. After the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, Kerry voted to cut intelligence funding and continued voting against the military.
After 2000, when Kerry decided to run for President, he all of a sudden began touting his military career in Vietnam. He used his "war hero" status to claim he knew better than the President. A central component of his campaign for President has been his role in Vietnam, while ignoring his post-Vietnam activities. Yet, when given the chance, Kerry still voted against funding our troops – he voted against the $86 billion bill to fund our troops in Iraq.
So, here is the process: for thirty years John Kerry used his lefty anti-Vietnam status to climb the political ladder of lefty politics in America. Then, after thirty years, he immediately tried to claim the mantle of war hero in a war he condemned and used, for thirty years, to condemn most all military activity.
Do we trust the John Kerry of three years, or the John Kerry of thirty years? Can we really say John Kerry is fit to be President in a time of war when, for thirty years, he has been disloyal to his band of brothers only to claim them when it was politically expedient?
I say the answer is no.