Why are we not surprised?

I haven't paid much attention here to the presidential race for reasons I expect should be clear by now, but just in case, a quick recap:

- First, because I've already stated (more than once) my position. I'm not a fan of John Kerry; he wouldn't have been my first (or even my third) choice among the Democrats running in the primaries. I used to be a fan, for example back in the days when as a senator he was conducting a lonely investigation into the connections between the contra thugs the US was supporting in Nicaragua and drug smugglers. But the more he stakes out a foreign policy position that is in a number of ways to the right of George Bush, the less enthused I am. However, as Greg Palast noted, a slap in the face is not as bad as a brick to the head, so if I lived in a swing state, I would swallow my pride and vote for Kerry. I wouldn't be happy about it, but I'd do it.

- Second, because as again I've said several times, I tend to let slide things that are being amply covered by other bloggers, which this campaign most assuredly is, even to the point of largely ignoring what I think are the equally important Congressional races.

Despite that and even though you very likely have already heard about this, I just have to mention it, if briefly:

In newspaper interviews and a best-selling book, Larry Thurlow, who commanded a Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam, has strongly disputed Kerry's claim that the Massachusetts Democrat's boat came under fire during a mission in Viet Cong-controlled territory on March 13, 1969. Kerry won a Bronze Star for his actions that day.

But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act, contain several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla. Thurlow won his own Bronze Star that day, and the citation praises him for providing assistance to a damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him."

Thurlow claims he lost his Bronze Star citation more than 20 years ago, which while not unreasonable is still quite convenient. And he still insists there was no shooting during the incident and he got his medal simply for coming to the aid of a boat in the flotilla that hit a mine.

Now, I recall that during Vietnam there were those who claimed medals were too easy to come by. But to accept Thurlow's tale we have to accept that:

- He got a Bronze Star for what amounted to simple assistance, with no risk involved. (Before you start typing mad responses, yes, it is clear that there were mines in the river. But that risk was a constant, that is, it existed for any boat anywhere on the river - so by helping out the one that did hit a mine, he in no way increased the risk to his own boat.)

- And he got his medal without having any clue what the citation said, either then or later. (Aren't citations normally read aloud at the time the medal is given, or is that a misunderstanding on my part?)

Let's just say I don't find Thurlow convincing.

Footnote: As some have noted, the media have slowly, reluctantly, even unwillingly, started to look askance at the Bushites. But I'll believe it means something when and if I see an exchange like this:

Reporter: Mr. President, Senator John McCain has called the ads being run by a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth "reprehensible" and has called on you to specifically denounce them. Why haven't you done so?

Shrub: We have never questioned Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam. [Which is what mouthpiece Scott McClellan always says when the question comes up.]

Reporter: Excuse me, Mr. President, but that's not what I asked you. I didn't ask about what you've said about John Kerry's service. I asked you about this ad. I would appreciate an answer directed to that.

Hell, I'm easy: I'd even be satisfied if reporters consistently said something like the factually-correct "Despite trying to maintain an air of distance, the White House has implicitly endorsed the ad by refusing, despite numerous opportunities, to denounce it."