A Possibly Final, but Probably Not, Thought on the Swift Boat Vets Brouhaha

Once again, let me state that I respect, and gratefully acknowledge the Senator's service. But, I really don't care that he served in Vietnam. Four months service thirty-five years ago is hardly worth talking about and shouldn't be made to be the bone of contention that it has become.

However, it was Senator Kerry who put it out there as the cornerstone of his campaign. Apparently he feels that he can say whatever he wants (and I am not debating the truth of his statements, just the fact that they were said) and expect that no one will challenge him. In fact, no one should challenge his version of the events that transpired in those four months.

I believe, and I think I've stated this before, and if not, should have, that he has the right to say whatever he wants to about his service. The men who served alongside him, in the same boat or in other boats, at the same time, also have the right to tell their side of the story. They earned it by virtue of the fact that they are American citizens, and especially, by their service in that same war.

I wasn't there. My brother was, but wasn't in the Navy, wasn't on a Swift Boat, and didn't serve with, alongside, or anywhere near Senator Kerry. I don't personally know anyone who did. So, I can only judge his accounts and the account of those who were there by what is said today. As I said, it was thirty-five years ago. One of the accounts is of his first Purple Heart. Nine days after the action that won him the Purple Heart, he wrote in his journal that he hadn't seen action or hadn't been fired on yet - something to that effect. That makes me wonder how he was awarded a medal that is only awarded for injuries sustained in battle. If I have learned one thing in my 20-plus years in law enforcement it's: If it isn't documented, it didn't happen. And if it is documented, that's what happened. One document (the Purple Heart application) says there was a firefight, or some type of action that caused his injury, another document (his own journal), written nine days later, says he hadn't seen action yet.

Let's take a moment to define lie. From the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:

to lie: 1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive 2 : to create a false or misleading impression.

If his journal entry says he hadn't seen action, which is the lie? The Purple Heart documentation which had to (and did) state that the injury was received in battle, or the journal entry? He was either wounded in battle or hadn't yet seen action. Then, there is Christmas is Cambodia. He said he was 5 miles inside Cambodia. His own shipmates say it didn't happen. And his own journal, again, contradicts his statements. Tour of Duty by Douglas Brinkley, a book written to document Kerry's tour in Vietnam doesn't recount this event.

But back to my original thought. Senator Kerry apparently thinks that if he or his supporters say something, they should be believed without question. And if anyone dares to contradict his version of events, televison stations, publishers, bookstores will be threatened with legal action.

I don't know who's right about those events, I think there's truth and lie on both sides, but I don't think I want someone in the White House who attempts to suppress Freedom of Speech (Amendment 1 of The Constitution): Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. He might not be initiating a bill to limit Freedom of Speech, but his actions, or the actions of his campaign on his behalf, are an attempt to do just that: restrict someone's Freedom of Speech. And this is a man who wants to be the President of the United States.