Hey you guys, here's a little tip:
The election is over.
Get a life.
The question is still relevant and will remain so as long as there is a history of the United States. Anyone who chooses to run for president of the US has made themselves a public figure and as such are subject to scrutiny and questions. Just because that person lost a race doesn't mean they can opt out of history. Our media has failed us miserably by not asking the question of why the six year gap between his completion of service and his discharge. If some newsie wanted to make a real name for themselves they would pursue this. Seems the security on military personnel records is superior to the CIA and FBI doesn't it? Otherwise someone would have leaked this by now. The whole thing stinks to high heaven.
Normally I'd totally agree, but Kerry seems to want to be a thorn in Bush's side for the next four years. Had he been a gracious, gentlemanly loser, no problem. I'd even respect that. But he wants to wallow in the insane bizarro-leftist freak world of people like Michael Moore. I say finish him off.
So for both reasons, the issue of Kerry's original discharge should be pursued to a genuine conclusion, and not just die on the vine because the presidential election is over. Following your logic, we should drop the pursuit of Dan Rather because the election in which he demonstrated his dishonesty, is over.