Instapundit links to a fascinating article in the NY Sun, that raises some interesting questions.
Various pundits have speculated on Kerry's refusal to release all of his own military records, but it didn't seem that there would be much "there" there. After reading this article, now I'm not so sure. A few possible damaging revelations that I can think of off the top of my head, from least to most damaging:
1. Kerry's Purple Heart medals were for TRULY insignificant wounds, not just as is now assumed to be relatively minor scrapes.
2. He was given less than glowing evaluations.
3. The reason that he was allowed to leave so quickly on the technicality of recieving three minor wounds is that he was, as reported, "out of control", and that this was the easiest way to get him out of the country, especially given that he was politically "connected".
4. They knew or suspected him of war crimes - and actually recorded such knowledge or suspicion. This is hinted at in Professor Thompson's recollection of Zumalt's remarks.
It would be highly ironic if the 1971 Kerry statement I most despise him for, where he stated:
"I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command...."
was in part proven correct, because HE committed such incidents and his superiors, rather than bringing him up on charges instead hustled him out of Viet Nam with a bogus Silver Star.
PS Instapundit also made reference to LBJ and his own Silver Star. I thought that I might link to a CNN(!) page that pretty much proves that award was DEFINITELY bogus.