Posted on 09/10/2004 3:06:56 PM PDT by Mach9
Just wondering: Matthews' Hardball segment on 9/9/04 suggested in part that Kerry's testimony didn't really affect the fate of currently held POWs. Even tho that appears to some (like Matthews) as debatable, I'm not so sure it can't be proved that Kerry's testimony did affect their treatment and did affect Nixon's plans to get them home earlier than '73.
The National Advertising Council agreed to create and distribute print and radio ads entitled "Send a letter to Hanoi" some time in '71. The idea was to highlight the request of the families, the government and the International Committee of the Red Cross that the POW issue was NOT political--it was humanitarian. It called for regularization of POW conditions, release of sick and wounded, free exchange of mailss & packages including those provided by the Amer. Red Cro, etc., all entitlements of the Geneva Conventions.
On the other hand, Kerry's testimony recommended (and was entirely in keeping with the precise negotiation points of the DRV & PRF) that the U. S. set a date certain for the withdrawal of troops of all American personnel, AFTER WHICH the DRV & PRF would set a date for the release of POWs.
If the defeat of Richard Nixon was an aim of the Kerry testimony (and the Dems who encouraged him), it would then be to the Dem's advantage to attempt to foil the Ad Council's campaign which would be to take the POW issue OUT of the political settlement of the war. I'm sure you get the point here. To Kerry & co., the POW issue NEEDED to be considered political so that other aims of the anti-war left could accomplish goals of leaving a crippled South Vietnam.
If anyone can answer original question, I'd appreciate it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.