The Washington Post is running a story supposedly refuting one of those who attack Kerry's record.
National Review's The Kerry's Spot has this to say in response:
FRONT PAGE POST STORY BLOWS IT [08/19 08:29 AM]
This front page post story about the Swift Boat Vets blows it, or at least the headline writer does. The Post declares, "Records Counter A Critic Of Kerry; Fellow Skipper's Citation Refers To Enemy Fire." But a central point of "Unfit for Command" is their contention that Kerry lied about what happened on his missions, thus putting false information into the military records. Citing records that the Swifties charge Kerry wrote himself does not prove that the Swifties are lying. Reporter Michael Dobbs concludes:
Thurlow and other anti-Kerry veterans have repeatedly alleged that Kerry was the author of an after-action report that described how his boat came under enemy fire. Kerry campaign researchers dispute that assertion, and there is no convincing documentary evidence to settle the argument. As the senior skipper in the flotilla, Thurlow might have been expected to write the after-action report for March 13, but he said that Kerry routinely "duked the system" to present his version of events.
Besides that, the story doesn't recount all the testimony from other witnesses Chenoweth, Odell, and Pease in "Unfit for Command," or the wound in Kerry's buttocks from the grenade in the rice bin. It's a he said/he said story, with a headline that implies that the Kerry critic is lying.
Still, this sort of story does suggest that the news media is now paying attention to the Swift Boat Vets, and feels the need to write something about them.
If you want to see more on this, go to Jon Henke's coverage at Q and O.
Alternatively, you can read somebody who takes a different view of things here.