Kerry's claims

Just as with Bush-AWOL claims, I have found myself utterly engrossed in the Kerry-Swift Boats controversy. I'm late getting to this, thanks to my technically challenged blog the last week or so, but perhaps it's not too late for a few observations.
1. A fair amount of hypocrisy exists among the Kerry critics. For many of them, Bush's honorable discharge was all the proof they needed that he had fulfilled his commitments. Kerry not only has an honorable discharge, but a fistful of medals (suitable for throwing) to boot. Does that settle the case? Not at all.
2. Whatever the merits of their claims against Kerry, the Swift Boat vets went over the line in their ad attacking him. Their biggest goof was their failure to clearly distinguish between their claims about Kerry's service and their distaste for his anti-war protests. Since Kerry has invited voters to judge his fitness for the presidency based on his service in Vietnam, their estimate of that service is relevant and useful. They are entitled to their opinions about his protests, but their opinions about that are no matter valuable or useful than anybody else's, including my own. But they are happy to leave the impression that his service itself was dishonorable, and even their most serious claims do not make that case.
3. The charge that appears most likely to stick is that Kerry was never in Cambodia, as he has repeatedly claimed. What would explain such a false statement? Beats me. He used the claim purely for rhetorical purposes, and why tell lies just for that? That would demonstrate a reckless nature that Kerry has not demonstrated in public life before. Could he be honestly mistaken? Perhaps. He is 60 (I think), and I am 53, and I am amazed at how inaccurate my own memory has started to become. It's scary. Perhaps he and I are both headed down a dark road into forgetfulness and confusion.
4. Mainstream media have been slow to move on this story. In the blogosphere, the slowness is taken as evidence of liberal bias. That's one possible explanation, of course, but not the only one. Here are a few others:
a. The Swift Vets book is published by Regnery, which has a history of advocacy for the right. That doesn't mean the book is a lie, but it does justify some caution.
b. The media generally are slow to move on challenges to military records. I thought the media moved awfully slowly on the Bush-AWOL claims when they surfaced in 2000, and that could hardly be blamed on liberal bias. If anything, I think the media's caution may be blamed more on their fear of being accused of liberal bias for attacking the bona fides of people with hard evidence of valor, such as medals or testimony of fellow soldiers. Some evidence for this argument can be found here.
Oops, have to go to a meeting. More thoughts later.