Sept
13, 2008
Cayton’s
sentences appear in blocked italics, with my comments in regular text.
During
my combat tour in the
Republic
of
Vietnam
in January 1970, my unit engaged in an encounter with the enemy that
resulted in a devastating ordeal that had a profound emotional and
psychological effect on my life.
There
is no way of knowing whether there was such an encounter because
apparently no one has been able to find the after-action report.
Further, we have only Cayton’s word that it “resulted in a
devastating ordeal” and that it “had a profound emotional and
psychological effect on [his] life.” Nor do we know what that
“effect” was.
As
a result of that ordeal . . .
Here,
Cayton is trying to establish a cause-and-effect connection: the
“ordeal” he purportedly experienced “result[ed]” in something.
In what?
I
represented . . . that I had been a Prisoner of War . . .
Interesting
choice of word “represented.” Not “lied” or “misrepresented.”
Nor did Cayton admit to having “falsely” represented.
So
where are we so far?
Cayton,
the victim, claims that he experienced some “devastating ordeal,”
that it “had a profound emotional and psychological effect on [his]
life,” and as a result he “represented” that he had been a POW.
(In effect, “The Viet Cong made me do it.”)
Where
did he make his “representation”?
[O]n
my DD Form 214.
This
is the most interesting admission in the entire document. How
could Cayton control the content of his DD 214? Either he had
access to it, or someone else who had access to it recorded the false
“representation.” This requires further inquiry.
Next
is another specious “cause/effect” statement.
Because
there is no record of the events of that day in January 1970 . . .
there is no record of my POW status . . .
Here,
Cayton is stating explicitly that there is no record he was a POW because
there are no records. In doing so, he is implicitly asserting
yet again that he was a POW, and that if there were
records of the “encounter” they would prove it. Thus, rather
than his letter being the admission and apology you expected, he is
reiterating, albeit by implication, that he was a POW.
Where
is all this zigging and zagging headed?
I
wish to resolve the confusion that has occurred as a result of the
ambiguity.
Note
another spurious cause and effect: There was an “ambiguity”
that caused “confusion.”
There
was no “ambiguity”: Cayton falsely claimed he was a POW.
There was no “confusion” about his claim.
So
how does Cayton want to “resolve” this non-ambiguously caused
non-confusion?
My
records have been purged of this representation.
How
he had them purged, what explanation he offered, who purged them, when
they were purged?—none of this we are told. We are told,
again, however, that what needed to be purged was a mere
“representation,” not a lie or misrepresentation.
So
what is the point of all his double-talk? A confession and
apology?
I
am truly sorry . . .
So
far, so good.
If
my statements and representations have misled or offended any of my
fellow service members, past and present.
Here
we find the disingenuous boiler-plate “apology” of modern-day
wrongdoers: “If.” Cayton,
apparently bursting with candor and contrition, does not know if any
of his colleagues have been “misled or offended.” He damn
well knows, but he is still not man enough to admit it.
If
Richard B. Cayton really wants to confess and apologize, all he need
do is admit that for years he has lied about being a Prisoner of War
and that he is genuinely sorry.
However,
before I would accept the apology I would want to know at least three
things: how the false information was entered onto his DD 214, what
are the details of it having been purged, and what are the complete
details of the alleged pre-trial diversion in the federal court.
