VNSFVetAkerry 3

There is a lot of rhetoric, and plenty of accusations and denials from both sides in this controversy. The Swift Boat Vets site lays out its case, and it looks believable, at least at first blush. I'm not saying I believe it totally, or reject it. This whole issue really needs to be scrutinized thoroughly - something I haven't seen done by either the liberal or the conservative press. No doubt about it - Kerry served in Vietnam for a little over four months. No doubt about the fact that he pulled a guy out of the river. Almost anything beyond those incontrovertible facts is a guess. The pro-Kerry faction points to his Navy citations as proof to back up his assertions - I, and almost anyone who has been in the military (or at least who was during the Vietnam era) can tell you how citations and medals were given out, for the most part. I got a Bronze Star in VN just based on the fact that I was a captain and was there - it was a routine decoration. I refused a Purple Heart because, although I actually was wounded, it was such a superficial scratch it wasn't worth the paperwork involved to issue it, as far as I was concerned. As far as after-action reports which were the basis of Kerry's Bronze and Silver Stars, I'd like to know who wrote them up, and under what circumstances - an awful lot tended to get exaggerated and embellished in writing these citations, across the board. In that sense at least, Kerry is right (although I haven't seen his state it in quite these terms) - there was a lot of sham involved in the war. I think that the Swift Boat vets may also be taking some liberties with their assertions, although usually where there's smoke, there's fire. I think that the Swift vets have a large bone to pick with Kerry's actions and words maligning those who served in Vietnam in general, rather than being specific. Sounds to me like Kerry based most, if not all, of his statements about atrocities on what he heard from third parties. If indeed he did commit atrocities himself, as I believe he has stated, he ought to be able to tell the media just what he did and where, i.e., what villages did he participate in burning, what innocent civilians did he kill, etc. As an aside, all of this bruhaha over him shooting a VC in the back seems overdone to me - it sounds like a lousey thing to do, and maybe it is, but if someone is shooting at you with an RPG or a B-40 rocket launcher, I think that it's undestandable that even the most rabid liberal has a right to shoot back, whether the VC was a kid or an adult, already shot in the legs, and running away (take your pick). I'm not sure this issue will ever be resolved to the satisfaction of either side. Depends on who and what you want to believe.