“Do you still have the Silver Star,” I asked Kerry. “Yeah,” he said, “do you want to see it?” My answer was yes. He walked across his study to a secondary desk with clutter on top, mainly books, and opened the top right drawer. This is where he keeps all of his war medals.

“Nothing too fancy,” he said as he pointed to the various boxes in which his medals were kept. “They don’t bring back good memories.” After glancing at them briefly we went back to our taped interview.

Out of all the stories that have hounded Kerry on the campaign trail, the issue of whether he threw away his ribbons or his medals is the most mendacious. Last week the media demanded to view Kerry’s military records. The reason for the urgency was that Grant W. Hibbard, a lieutenant commander during Kerry’s swift boat days in Vietnam, asserted that Kerry’s first Purple Heart was undeserved. According to Hibbard, Kerry had a tiny scratch. The Boston Globe quoted him as saying, “I’ve had thorns from a rose that were worse.” Over 35 years after the fact, Hibbard, a Republican, was trying to belittle, embarrass and malign Kerry.

But the release of Kerry’s war record put an end to the flap. Stuck in the middle of released documents was an evaluation of Kerry by Hibbard, filled out two weeks after he supposedly told Kerry he didn’t deserve a Purple Heart. Nowhere in Hibbard’s evaluation did he mention any problem with Kerry over Kerry’s winning a Purple Heart. In fact, Hibbard wrote that Kerry was one of the best sailors he knew in three categories — initiative, cooperation and personal behavior. Why, if he thought Kerry was trying to finagle a Purple Heart, did he give him such high marks for personal behavior? As Katherine Q. Seelye reported in the New York Times once the document was released, Hibbard went underground, unwilling to grant interviews, hiding from the press in his retirement home in Florida. The story went away.

What we also learned from the release of his medical records is that Kerry still has shrapnel in his body from Vietnam. It often causes him discomfort.

The media showed little interest in that story. However, when ABC News showed an old clip of Kerry talking on a WRC-TV program called “Viewpoints” on Nov. 6, 1971, claiming he gave back medals during the famous Dewey Canyon III march in Washington in April of that year, they pounced. Why did he say on that show that he gave back medals when he was telling everybody else it was ribbons? Which Kerry was telling the truth?

Here is what happened on April 23, 1971, the day of the medal ceremony: First, Kerry had been in Washington for over a week organizing the Vietnam Veterans Against the War march on Washington. Before that he had been fundraising in New York City. His medals had been left back in Waltham, Mass. What he had brought with him, and often wore, were his ribbons. This made perfect sense. His medals were too clunky to wear on his Navy blues. When Kerry testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, for example, he wore his ribbons, not his medals. Throughout the week of Dewey Canyon III, the White House was worried sick about the medal-returning ceremony. Its main fear was that VVAW was going to abandon the Capitol and hurl them over the White House gate instead. President Nixon and his advisors considered having a U.S. military representative accept the medals in front of the White House — such a gesture would ensure there was no violence or wild TV images. But historian Tom Wells, in “The War Within,” explains that Gen. Don Hughes, Nixon’s chief military aide, found the idea repulsive. Meanwhile, the word “throwaway” jarred veterans worldwide. Many were insulted by the prospect. “I did not admire the throwing of medals on the steps because I did not believe it was appropriate when so many brave men and women had sacrificed in order to get those same medals,” former POW John McCain told me in 2003. “John [Kerry] and I later became great friends. But I never addressed this one issue with him directly.”

While McCain’s sentiment was held by many sailors, particularly careerists, others on active duty cheered VVAW onward. In “Who Spoke Up? American Protest Against the War in Vietnam, 1963-1975,” Nancy Zaroulis and Gerald Sullivan detail how much internal sabotage was going on within the Navy. In 1971 alone, 488 cases were reported (191 sabotage, 135 arson, 162 wrongful destruction). Stories of “fragging” also became widespread. Angry GIs sought revenge on officers and men in their platoons or units. The Nixon administration feared widespread mutiny.

So, as its closing salvo, VVAW, in a carefully planned action, had 800 veterans congregate near the Capitol’s front steps. Jack Smith of West Hartford, Conn., a Marine Corps veteran, read a statement explaining why men who earned Purple Hearts and Bronze Stars were now giving them back to the government. For over two hours, men hurled their medals and ribbons over the fence toward a statue of John Marshall, the first chief justice of the United States. Dramatically, veterans from all branches of the armed services broadcast their names, units and citations, and then rid themselves of their mementos in disgust.

Words cannot properly describe the chilling effect the event had on the speakers and participants. Each soldier had his own horror story that had brought him to this precipice. As an antiwar action — or a piece of street theater — it was a powerful demonstration. But it was more than that. The bitterness and rage exhibited by these soldiers ripped at the nation’s conscience. Anybody who heard, for instance, Paul F. Winters pray for forgiveness as he hurled his Silver Star, Distinguished Cross and Bronze Star over a fence and then watched him limp away was forever scarred by the memory.

Some men, however, were not quite so dramatic. They gave only their first name and a calm statement: “Robert, New York, and I symbolically return all Vietnam medals and other service medals given me by the power structure that has genocidal policies.” Others vented their spleens, which were bursting with defiance: “Here’s a bunch of bullshit,” one veteran shouted as he hurled a handful of medals.

Over the years some have asked why Kerry chose to dispose of his ribbons, not his medals. Critics saw him as trying to have it both ways. It gave credence, they believed, to what A.J. Liebling of the New Yorker once claimed of Rough Rider Theodore Roosevelt: He was a “dilettante soldier but a first-class politician.” Further confusing the issue was the fact that Kerry did lob the medals of two no-show veterans toward the Marshall statue at their request. “The point of the exercise was to symbolically give something up,” Kerry recalled in his defense. “I chose my ribbons, which is what many of the veterans did.” The medals he tossed had been given to him by two angry veterans who wouldn’t make it to Washington; he was merely serving as their surrogate. Before Kerry discarded his ribbons, he declared: “I’m not doing this for any violent reason, but for peace and justice, and to try to make this country wake up once and for all.”

Kerry spent much of his time that afternoon with two Gold Star moms, Ann Pine of Trenton, N.J., and Evelyn Carrasquillo of Miami. He stood by them as they hurled medals back at the government. As a World War II veteran played taps and about 500 people gathered around, the names of men who died in Vietnam were called out. Watching TV that evening was Rich McCann, who had traveled the Mekong Delta rivers with Kerry and was now a graduate student at George Washington University. “When he threw those medals over the fence, I was pretty upset,” McCann recalled. “I was grappling with a lot of issues myself. It was hard to accept that I had given a year of my life for a lost cause. In retrospect, however, what he did was right.”

Not all the men gave up medals or ribbons. Many chose to turn in hats, jackets and military documents. A photograph taken by George Butler of VVAW shows that the offerings included recruitment letters, induction papers and discharge forms. Historian Andrew E. Hunt, in his superb “The Turning: A History of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War,” explains the rationale of several veterans for returning personal possessions. Ron Ferrizzi, for example, a Philadelphia native, disowned his Silver Star and Purple Heart against the pleas of his family. “My parents told me that if I really did come down here and turn in my medals, they never wanted anything more to do with me. That’s not an easy thing to take. I still love my parents. My wife doesn’t understand what happened to me when I came home from Nam. She said she would divorce me if I came down here because she wanted my medals for our son to see when he grew up.”

For a World War II veteran, the tossing away of medals must have been a painful sight. They didn’t know whether these long-haired hippies were on drugs, or whether something had happened in Vietnam that they couldn’t fully understand. As the memorabilia piled up and the media took it all in, it was clear that the antiwar movement had just turned a sharp corner. First Kerry’s testimony before the Fulbright committee, now this.

Butler captured the emotions of the afternoon with his camera. Collectively, his photographs speak of personal liberation. For many of the veterans, the discarding of military paraphernalia set them psychologically free. It was as if the U.S. government had corrupted them, seized their moral compass with shiny pin-on honor. “You have no idea how healing the whole experience was,” Bill Crandell recalled. “It was our hour of claiming ourselves back.”

Julia Kerry, John’s former wife, who was with her husband the entire week, came to the conclusion that the veterans had been in deep depression and denial. “There was so much buried pain,” she recalled. “It was numbing to witness.” On the last day the veterans also planted a tree, as a symbolic gesture for the preservation of life over death. “The truly impressive thing was that no acts of violence had been committed that entire week,” Sen. Kerry recalled. “We had just promised to be nonviolent and we were.”

Recent critics of Kerry assert that his Dewey County III ceremony is a metaphor for a lifetime of political flip-flopping. For Kerry, giving up his ribbons — the objects he had with him in Washington that week — made perfect sense. To his way of thinking, he was symbolically returning his medals to the U.S. government by tossing his ribbons. Even Sen. Stuart Symington, D-Mo., when preparing to cross-examine Kerry at the Fulbright committee meeting, asked him what the “medals” on his chest represented. They weren’t medals, they were ribbons; it was — and is — a common mistake. From Kerry’s vantage point, there is nothing contradictory about his statement to “Viewpoints” that he had given back “six, seven, eight, nine medals.” To have said that he had given back ribbons but that his medals were at home would have simply confused the TV audience.

Still, the persistent resurrection of this issue means Kerry should have been more exact in his language back in 1971. Clarity is usually a virtue in politics. But we should also remember that he earned those medals/ribbons. The shrapnel in his thigh should remind us of that sacrifice. It is a tangible souvenir from Vietnam that is still with him every day.

“I’m not ruling anything out,” Wurzelbacher told The Ticket in an interview Thursday. He added that he thought it was an “interesting idea” and that people have been asking him to run for office since he confronted Obama four years ago. He’s spent much of his time since then on the speaker’s circuit, he said, encouraging others to run for office.

“I like the idea of it — just regular Americans running. If a regular guy runs, right away the media’s going to attack him,” Wurzelbacher said. “What kind of education does he have? What does he know about this? My answer to that is, regular Americans aren’t experts, but dammit, look where the experts have gotten us. Maybe we need some regular guys in there. That’s what I’ve been doing the past two and a half years, just encouraging regular Americans to run. Tell the liberal media to go to hell and I don’t care what you guys say about me, I’m going to try to fix this country.”

Man, I hate it when people condescend to regular Americans! Especially when people like Joe the Plumber condescend to “regular Americans.” Regular Americans don’t have publicity agents, Joe!

The local Republican Party is begging Mr. The Plumber to enter the race, because while running against a 30-year veteran is usually a pointless task, a pseudo-celebrity candidate can at least make a game of it. Kaptur won with 60 percent of the vote in 2010 and 74 percent in 2008, though there’s a chance redistricting could make her vulnerable. (Kaptur also introduced a bill restoring Glass-Steagall! So basically I like her.)

Local Republicans say there’s about a 90 percent chance Joe will enter the race, at which point once again he will be asked questions on camera and he will say embarrassing things, like he did last time.

But as dumb and small-minded and tiresome as Joe the Plumber is, there’s no reason why he couldn’t be a congressman. Ben Quayle is!

Today’s Wall Street Journal editorial page takes a break from excusing the criminality of the executives in charge of its parent company to deliver an official house reaction to the developments in Tripoli that starts off cautious and then just descends right back into the exact same lame arguments it’s been using for the last six months:

Having helped to midwife the rebel advances with air power, intelligence and weapons, NATO will have some influence with the rebels in the days ahead. The shame is how much faster Gadhafi might have been defeated, how many fewer people might have been killed, and how much more influence the U.S. might now have, if America had led more forcefully from the beginning.

Planning for this moment is precisely why we and many others had urged the State Department to engage with the rebels from the earliest days of the revolt, but the U.S. was slow to do so and only formally recognized the opposition Transitional National Council in mid-July. The hesitation gave Gadhafi hope that he could hold out and force a stalemate.

Libyans will determine their own future, but the U.S. has a stake in showing the world that NATO’s intervention, however belated and ill-executed, succeeded in its goals of removing a dictator, saving lives, and promoting a new Libyan government that respects its people and doesn’t sponsor global terrorism.

I’m not sure how long the editors of the Wall Street Journal think your average revolution lasts, but assuming Gadhafi’s hold on power is as weak as it appears today, I would argue — as a layman, of course — that NATO’s intervention seems neither “belated” nor “ill-executed.” (I mean, it seems well-executed, in the sense that it seems to have accomplished its goal?)

But it’s the line about America leading “more forcefully from the beginning” that the neocons and GOP hawks will continue to cling to no matter what actually happens in Libya. It’s the same argument BFF Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham used in their joint response to this weekend’s developments: “Americans can be proud of the role our country has played in helping to defeat Qaddafi, but we regret that this success was so long in coming due to the failure of the United States to employ the full weight of our airpower.”

All-out war! From day one! With the full force of American airpower! One definite way to make a civil war faster and less bloody is for a foreign country to enter it fully, right? (It tends to unite the populace, for one thing!) And conflicts are always less bloody when America drops more American bombs. That’s how we won Vietnam!

There’s no point in countering McCain and the Journal’s arguments with reason, of course, because these are not actually fact-based responses to news, they’re just rote recitations of Republican dogma: Obama weak! (Except domestically, where he is an autocrat.)

And this is the “respectable” Republican talking point. The line from the real nuts — I’m guessing something along the lines of “radical Obama allows Muslim Brotherhood to seize control in Libya” — will begin bubbling up from the sewers to talk radio and Fox News and Michele Bachmann’s campaign soon enough.

“I believe that the planned drawdown is an unnecessary risk,” McCain, a Republican from Arizona, who claimed that no military leader has spoken in favor of the timetable.

Lt. Gen. John R. Allen, a Marine general expected to carry out the president’s drawdown order, has said the schedule is a bit more aggressive than the military had anticipated. Allen has cautioned that successfully winding down the war will require new progress on a wide front, including more help from allies and less Afghan corruption.

McCain — during a stop at the Kabul headquarters of the foreign military contingent, called the International Security Assistance Force — said he’s concerned there may not be enough American troops for a move from southern Afghanistan to the east to “finish the job there.” There are currently about 90,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan among a total international force of more than 132,000.

NATO has deployed the bulk of its forces to Helmand and Kandahar, two southern provinces where Afghan Taliban influence is strong, but international terrorist groups are less influential.

McCain said the drawdown will deprive NATO “to a significant degree” as it attempts to pacify eastern Afghanistan next summer.

Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, cited gains in Afghan security force recruitment and capability and said he was optimistic that native forces would soon be ready to take over security. But Graham also worried Obama’s withdrawal plan may reduce U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan too quickly.

“Withdrawal is what the enemy hopes to hear,” said Graham. “Our goal is to make sure that the enemy doesn’t hear withdrawal and the Afghan people don’t hear withdrawal.”

Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, said it was important to reassure Afghans that they will continue to receive help long after the 2014 deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops.

“We’re certainly going to be here in great numbers until the end of 2014 and I hope as a result of a strategic long-term partnership with Afghanistan that we will have a military presence here and cooperation here with our Afghan partners for a long time after that,” said Lieberman.

The senators were skeptical about Western efforts to reach a negotiated peace with the Taliban’s leadership and suggested that political compromises with the insurgents could betray the Afghan people.

“I don’t think there will be serious negotiations with the Taliban until they are convinced that they cannot succeed in the attaining their goals through the force of arms on the battlefield,” said McCain, who lost to Obama in the 2008 presidential race.

Lieberman said that the Taliban would not seriously consider peace until coalition and Afghan forces “basically beat down and wear down the Taliban fighters and they lose their will increasingly and the leadership is isolated.” Lieberman called the idea that Afghan President Hamid Karzai, NATO leaders and insurgent commanders could talk out their differences at a peace conference “a dream, a fantasy.”

The senators’ harshest observations were reserved for Pakistan, home of many of the insurgent groups NATO forces are currently fighting in Afghanistan.

“There’s growing anger, it’s not just impatience, in the Congress of the United States toward Pakistan,” said Lieberman. “We want to have a good relationship with them but we’re tired of seeing them be both our allies and our enemies and supporting our enemies at the same time. They’ve got to decide to be our allies and we’ll be good allies to them, or we won’t.”

Shortly before the senators’ news conference in Kabul, an improvised bomb exploded on the other end of the capital, wounding three Afghan policemen, the Afghan Interior Ministry said. Insurgents have focused many of their attacks on Afghan security forces to undermine their development and NATO’s plans to transfer security operations to Afghan control.

As Salon’s Justin Elliott has pointed out, McCain’s “substantial evidence” has been hard to confirm — and last night, Jon Stewart tried to clear things up by interviewing the politician’s cranky puppet counterpart.

See the full clip here: