The RCP commentary (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/commentary.html#4_27_04_1149) and the NY Post editorial (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/23309.htm) bring up some valid questionable points in Kerry's own description of the medal incident. I just can't understand why Kerry has not managed to lay this matter to rest by now. It's just not that complicated of a situation; why does it have to be so hard? Honestly, I'm not interested in what he threw at that moment at all...but why oh why are there differing quotes at all? Did his memory improve (or degrade) during this time? or did he just screw up? And if so, why can't he merely say so. It would certainly give him a better track record of acknowledging facts than President Bush has had and it would cease to be the confusing issue (the last thing I think Americans want at the moment is one more ambiguous issue bearing the scent of the White House to be left out of). Earlier today, I wrote a paper about the problems of trust in Middle Eastern politics. I'm not sure we're as advanced as we might like to think.