 |
|||
Dear Eye Editors, I am left absolutely dumbfounded. Who allowed this to happen? More than a modicum of erroneous statements, which constitute libel, somehow slipped by the eyes of the editors into publication. I for one, upon reading a recent Op-Ed piece regarding Senator John Kerry, was shocked, embarrassed, and appalled. First of all, the author declares, with a certain amount of chagrin: "Funny thing is, a close examination of his Purple Hearts shows that they were probably for nothing more than Band-Aid scratches." The date of distribution of the newspaper was April 7, 2004, implying that the article must surely have been written before this date. However, no such 'close examination' of Mr. Kerry's medals could have possibly in time for the writing and publishing of this article, as his records of military service, in which he was praised for his service, reputation, devotion, and heroism, were not released until April 20, 2004. The author proceeds to claim that Mr. Kerry put his own name down to receive the Silver Star. These awards are given by the military; one's senior commanding officer must approve the nominations for the awards. In the subsequent paragraph, the author calls Mr. Kerry a "self-proclaimed war criminal and murderer." This is the most degrading and blatant rejection of objective truth. The author's research, or, rather, lack thereof, seems to have neglected to reveal that these claims are not, at all, concerning John Kerry; Mr. Kerry never once knighted himself a war criminal or murderer. In fact, these statements refer to Bob Kerrey, a current member of the September 11 investigation commission. The author speaks negatively of Mr. Kerry for attesting to participating in "atrocities" such as the "burning of villages" and "firing upon civilians"; apparently, the author was too involved in misconstruing and fabricating arguments to consider the circumstances of such 'atrocities.' The decision to fire upon civilians or burn villages would not have been in the hands of Mr. Kerry, as he was not an officer. A soldier is obligated to follow the order of his commander, whether it be just or not; and thus, such acts, had he committed them or not, were far exceeding his control; this same situation exists still today in Iraq and Afghanistan. Are we to castigate those troops we would rely on for protection, should there be an invasion, simply because they are fulfilling with fidelity their oaths of service? It is imperative to note that Mr. Kerry enlisted in the Navy and operated on a flat boat, and thus would not have reason to be on land, which would be a prerequisite in order to torch villages. Rather, such occurrences were attributed to the infantry, such as the Army's 101st Airborne, who, in an investigation ending in October of 2003 were revealed to have killed and mutilated hundreds of civilians in the Vietnam War. In the succeeding paragraph, the author declares that there is no difference between Mr. Kerry's desire to cut taxes for the middle classes and George W. Bush's economic plan. I find the laxity to see the deceptiveness of this statement astounding. 27% of the capital from George W. Bush's tax cuts went to the echelon of America's wealthiest top percent; this is the equal share for the bottom 90% of income-tax payers America. Mr. Bush's tax policy is not intended to aid the middle class; any other claim is absolutely arbitrary and erroneous. A final point that renders me aghast is the utterly pretentious diction selected by the author for his closing words, as well as the pompousness disseminated by them: "A book could be written on this man's incompetence and hypocrisy, but I guess I'll stop right here. Kerry done just got pillaged." The incompetence lies within the author's lack of understanding of Mr. Kerry, and the hypocrisy lies within the fact that the author mistakenly acts as a sort of demagogic authority of Mr. Kerry. Senator John Kerry has been awarded three Purple Hearts and one Silver Star. Exactly how many citations does it take to be deemed a hero? As noted by before, these honors are awarded by the military (as stated in the New York Times on April 23, 2004), and the soldiers awarded them receive the badges without any authority or elective vote in the matter. Republican Senator John McCain, himself a decorated Vietnam veteran, defended Mr. Kerry, saying that he has no doubt that Kerry earned the medals that he was awarded. By my assessment, anyone who serves the nation in active military service is a hero deserving of one's praise and gratitude. Should we spurn a man because we do not exercise the faculty to analyze? |
|||