Again Paul Dunn has used The Pilot to denigrate the Vietnam Swift Boat Veterans who opposed John Kerry's quest for the presidency of the United States. As a matter of fact, it appears to be a policy of liberals to denigrate these combat veterans who more than earned their right to speak out.
This is puzzling to me, and I can only conclude that it is further evidence of their anti-military agenda.
Although I totally agree with the vets' opposition to Kerry, they do not need me to defend them. Their records and arguments are well documented, and I choose to believe and support them.
My primary purpose is to dispel any notion that the liberal jabberwocky often written in The Pilot by Paul Dunn, John Waugh, et al. is accepted as fact by anyone I know.
Also, I might as well question the "research" Mr. Dunn did on the Navy's official position regarding Kerry's medals. I got the impression that the Navy was embarrassed by the controversy and wanted it to go away, because it became virtually impossible to find out who recommended this or endorsed that.
No more details were provided by Dunn than we received during the campaign.
In my view, Kerry had an agenda from the start to create a political resume. After only four months in-country, Kerry had his resume and returned stateside. Why? And whose authority? Oh yeah, three Purple Hearts! Right.
I am persuaded that the vets know Kerry for exactly who and what he is. John O'Neil could not have said it better than the title of his book, "Unfit for Command."
Gary B. Mattocks
More like this story