It seems to me that the WaPo wanted to sort of call things a draw, with the tie going to Kerry because the records support his version. But the Swift Boat Vets make at least 4 charges. Kerry's version:
1) Kerry was terribly wounded and bleeding heavily (that can be verified and is not in the realm of he said-he said, let's call it a draw.
2) Kerry turned back into the fire zone. It has now been established that Kerry first fled and then returned.
3) Kerry pulled Rassmann to safety with enemy fire all around him.
4) Kerry towed the sinking boat to safety which the Swift Boat Vets dispute.
That was a pretty slick effort on the Washington Post's part but any logical person would ask both who wrote the report and what merit do the other charges have.
1) Kerry was terribly wounded and bleeding heavily (that can be verified and is not in the realm of he said-he said, let's call it a draw. It's no draw.
The medical report from the incident listed kerry's arm injury as "contusion (minor)". Contusions (aka bruises) don't bleed at all, let alone heavily. Had he been so terribly wounded, wouldn't some hospital time be expected? There was none.