I have examined your viet-myth website and find it very stimulating.

Those of us who are still burdened with obsessions rooted in our experiences in Vietnam all have strong convictions about the still unresolved moral issues to which we were exposed as a result of those experiences. We all believe passionately that we have the right answers. The problem is that we do not all come up with the same answers. We discover that many have reached conclusions which are diametrically opposite to our own and are as passionately sure of the infallibility of their judgments as we are of ours. We tend to become so frustrated that we are tempted to impugn their intelligence and/or their character---not to mention their patriotism. What starts out as a scholarly pursuit for the truth can quickly deteriorate into a food fight---or a partisan political confrontation.

In short, what is one man's point of view is another man's "myth".

For example, consider these two declaratory conclusions:

     1. A Vietnam veteran who led a movement to terminate the war in 1969 committed a treasonous act which prolonged the war, gave aid and comfort to the enemy, and thereby disqualified himself from entitlement to hold public office.

     2. A Vietnam veteran who led a movement to terminate the war in 1969 committed an heroic act which helped his country extricate itself from an unjust an unnecessary war, and thereby deserves elevation to high public office.

Which, if either, of those statements is a myth? Could they not both be myths?

Who is qualified to make that detemination?

Let me give you one more example:

     1. If the Americans had stayed the course in Vietnam for one more day, one more month, one more year, or one more decade they would have won the war.

     2. The Vietnam war had become clearly unwinable by 1968 and the US was bogged down in a quagmire in which our lives and our treasure were being sacrificed needlessly and shamefully.

Which is truth and which is myth? Who really knows?

Finally, let me project this line of reasoning into the present and the immediate---until November 2---future.

It is crystal clear that there will be many sincere people who will declare themselves opposed to the election of John Kerry because of his anti-war activities in 1969. My question to you is this:

     Is there anyone who would have voted for John Kerry if he had spent the Vietnam war in the National Guard in Massachusetts but will not vote for him now because he went to Vietnam and became disillusioned by what he saw there?

I don't think so. Do you?

Wils