Vietnam Is a Double-Edged Issue

Washington Post ^ | 2/21/2004 | Paul Farhi

[secretagent]

Bush could really open up the drain pipes if he supported the fight against the commies in Vietnam. So many people at least agree on one point: we should have never gone there.

So the Kerry forces might think they have Bush over a barrel on Vietnam.

If Bush concedes the wrongness of the war, then Kerry's zeal comes out as basically right, even if he got the atrocity estimate off by a factor or two.

If Bush upholds the rightness of the war, then his reluctance to volunteer for the front line seems like hypocrisy.

Then again, Bush might blow all this game-playing away by just telling the truth as sees it, without excess regard to his own ego.

Kerry might have his weakest point there - stumbling all over his image.

[secretagent]

You say hearsay, but Kerry might have believed it, or at least believed most of it. He did hear the atrocity accounts in person as a moderator, coming from the alleged perpetrators themselves.

All this took place after the government tried to cover up the My Lai massacre. So it might seem very possible that more My Lais took place. "Not isolated incidents".

[Chummy]

I say hearsay?

It matters not whether Kerry "might have believed it, or at least believed most of it...." If he did not observe or experience the events himself, they are nothing but hearsay.

[secretagent]

Kerry referred to the testimony of named eyewitnesses. That testimony was taken so seriously that Senator Mark Hatfield called for an investigation into the claims. That inquiry, the NIS report, has unfortunately disappeared, so its no help. But my point is, the WSI wasn't just batted away as hearsay.

Just as a juror might believe the testimony of eyewitnesses, so to might have Kerry. Just as juries sometimes come to decision solely on the basis of eyewitness testimony, so might Kerry. Except he had the My Lai cover-up in mind, and some hinky stuff he saw in Vietnam.

We might get Kerry with an unfair trial charge: he didn't wait for a rebuttal from the defense.

Now that I write this, it seems obvious: the WSI has the smell of a commie show trial, especially with Kerry passing judgement without a cross-examination.

[Chummy]

Kerry referred to the testimony of named eyewitnesses.

This is hearsay. According to the 'Lectric Law Library, hearsay is "...secondhand information that a witness only heard about from someone else and did not see or hear himself...."

That testimony was taken so seriously that Senator Mark Hatfield called for an investigation into the claims.

Almost anything could be investigated, and the US military was being accused of war crimes by Just for Kerry. Wouldn't it make sense, in the context of the times in particular, to delve further into his claims?

...But my point is, the WSI wasn't just batted away as hearsay.

Don't confuse Kerry's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and that which veterans stated; it's only hearsay if they didn't observe or experience it themselves, but only related what they heard from another.

Just as a juror might believe the testimony of eyewitnesses, so to might have Kerry.

There is no correlation between a juror in a court of law and Just for Kerry in this instance. Think for a moment of the myriad differences between the WSI setting to which Kerry heard others talking -- no cross examinations, for example -- and then how he walked away from this to conclude what he heard were facts.

Just as juries sometimes come to decision solely on the basis of eyewitness testimony, so might Kerry.

There is no basis of comparison between these; Just for Kerry was a national organizer of VVAW, and apparently accepted what he heard on face value, and then related it as fact to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Except he had the My Lai cover-up in mind, and some hinky stuff he saw in Vietnam.

Do you seriously deign to state you have firsthand knowledge of what Just for Kerry had in his mind at the time, ie, My Lai?

Some "hinky stuff he saw"? He was in country for roughly four months, and his time is well accounted for. Are you aware of his home movies of his Excellent Adventure?

We might get Kerry with an unfair trial charge: he didn't wait for a rebuttal from the defense.

What you get is what you got and hope to again avoid: the self-serving testimony of someone who cannot be trusted.

Now that I write this, it seems obvious: the WSI has the smell of a commie show trial, especially with Kerry passing judgement without a cross-examination.

Bingo.

[secretagent]

Don't confuse Kerry's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and that which veterans stated; it's only hearsay if they didn't observe or experience it themselves, but only related what they heard from another.

Right, hearsay for Kerry, but he referred to the WSI. The Senate could have called the eyewitnesses in the WSI before them to get their testimony, but didn't.

Instead Sen. Mark Hatfield called for an investigation, which has never surfaced, only "hearsay" from Guenter Lewy about one.

I actually find that incredible. Neither side has pursued this issue, leaving the WSI both unrefuted and unverified. As though both sides felt unsure.

Do you seriously deign to state you have firsthand knowledge of what Just for Kerry had in his mind at the time, ie, My Lai?

I don't know what Kerry thought for sure, true. To me, his "not isolated incidents" seems to refer to the My Lai "incident", a huge event at the the time.