What he does as a private citizen is his business and certainly within his rights. (And obviously he can legally do whatever he wants in public too.)
But what Kerry was doing - on both occasions - was a deliberate attempt to influence public opinion by these symbolic displays. So the notion that he was acting out of expedience was relevant.
No one could prosecute Kerry for anything he did, of course. But how one interpreted his actions and personality, and how that translated into support or lack thereof for his political career, is anyone’s prerogative. Which is the context of the discussion here.
And the fact that embracing the medals at that particular point happened to help his political ambitions was just a coincidence?
It’s possible. I would think there was some of both aspects involved.
But regardless, that’s not my argument in this thread (best as I recall). I was merely noting to Bricker that his observation that Kerry’s initial actions were an act of courage missed the point of the accusations against him, which remains true regardless.
What makes you think he embraced the medals just then? There is every chance that he decided they were pretty cool in 1980 or 1990 or pretty much any time post-Vietnam.