Swiftvets impact the national debate

An op-ed on MSNBC provides convincing evidence that the Swiftvets are having a significant impact on the national election despite the mainstream press' reluctance to cover the issue in an unbiased manner. Entitled "Why Kerry's War Record Matters", the writer concludes with this --

Might a Johnson who was less keen to gild his reputation as a man of action been more wary of Indochina's swamp? Might he have thought twice about misrepresenting what happened -- or rather, didn't happen -- in the Gulf of Tonkin as his excuse to escalate a war that should never have been fought?

The world will never know. But with the benefit of hindsight, people can be absolutely sure that, then as now, one truth really does matter in Presidential politics: Boasts and a talent for self-serving fiction are no recommendations for a lease on the Oval Office.

This strikes at the heart of the argument that a Kerry Presidency, as a former warrior, would be wiser about sending troops in to war. While the argument may be true (and given Winston Churchill's and Franklin Roosevelt's handling of WWII that's far from settled), what may be even truer is that a President who exaggerates and outright falsifies his war record may be even more prone to send troops in to harm's way.

I've argued before that the purpose of our military is to die on our behalf, and I stand by that. However, I would never want our military to die for the glorification of a President or to prove a political point. Their lives are far too precious for us to waste them on meaningless deaths.

Only freedom is a cause worth dying for.