That's fine, and as I've noted twice elsewhere on this thread, the main goal is to set the record straight about Kerry's service. But... common sense indicates that if they want to really sock it to Kerry (as someone else noted, payback is a b*tch), they're going to do it when it will most strongly affect him, and that might just be when he's running in a tight campaign for POTUS. And common-sense wise, which campaign is more likely to be negatively impacted? I doubt these guys lack for common sense.
Rephrasing a point I made earlier: if all they have to gain is a factual account of John Kerry's service in Vietnam and in particular, a clearer picture of his minimal action under hostile circumstances (which didn't merit commendations for valor), then to appear motivated only by that high regard for truth, they should have done this prior to Kerry's nomination as the Democratic candidate for POTUS. Because they have timed it as they have timed it, then many people could perceive that one of their motivations is to affect the election. And when they run most of the ads in swing states (rather than a more general canvassing of the entire U.S.) that helps strengthen an incorrect perception of their motivation(s).
That's stated about as clearly as I can.
1) His presidential nomination
The Swiftees were uninvolved in politics (and even moderately supportive of him against some charges) but only as long as he remained nothing more than just one of a hundred senators. His shooting for the CiC job changed everything.
2) His biography
Sometime earlier this year, as part of his campaign, Brinkley's biography of kerry was released. Once it was, they could see just how badly he had distorted/fabricated his Vietnam service with them.