I’m starting this thread here because I really am looking for answers. If it ends up in GD or the Pit, that’s fine, I guess.
I’m asking, of course, about all the mud that was slung at John Kerry during the last election, by groups with names like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and in books with titles such as Unfit For Command. The premise of these detractors was that, instead of the decorated and presumably brave Navy officer we originally thought him to be, he was in fact a liar and a coward who exaggerated his exploits, falsified official reports and did all manner of other dastardly deeds.
Now, I’ll fully admit that during the campaign I assumed it was all just bullshit, meant to tear Kerry down and draw attention away from the glaring gap between the two candidates’ military records. However, in a recent conversation with my uncle (who is Vietnamese, and one of the few Vietnamese sailors to do a full five years on the Swift Boats), I found out that he knew Kerry and thought very pporly of him, for the reasons named above. In fact, it turns out he was quoted in Unfit For Command – I saw his copy and read some of it.
So, my question is this: after the initial wave of attacks on Kerry’s military record, what were the rebuttals by the Kerry camp? Was there any real fact-finding done, by neutral parties or otherwise?