Is this a valid point re Kerry's senate hearings after Nam?

[DebJ]

When I brought this up yesterday with a VietNam vet, he agreed with me but then changed the topic.

I said, shouldn't the Senate be allowed to talk to men returning from war and to get any information they can from them, be that info true, false, or whatever....like Abu Ghraib...and then the Senate can decide what to do with that information?

Isn't the real 'problem' you have the way that the media carried that information everywhere?

What if these had been non-publicized meetings? Would you then have a problem with a soldier giving the Senate information?

Now, I think myself personally this type of stuff, just like Abu Ghraib, should be made public within a relatively short span of time of the receipt of such information. But I really think it should be hammered home that the Senate has a right to such information.

The VietNam vet concurred with me. Perhaps I gained one inch. But he needs to hear this about 50 more times, you know. So do the rest of them. This then hammers home two points:

1)Yes, the Senate has a right to information (something Bush has squashed at every single turn, in his abuse of power). Kerry's testimony was therefore a GOOD thing.

2)The media sucks. (Hey, I LIKE what the results of the medias actions back then were....withdrawal from Nam, and another Dem pointed this out to the VietNam vet and he agreed with that, too...but hey, any opportunity to slam the media is okay with me...)

[blm]

1. I agree. Many have forgotten that the American people were already against

the war by the time Kerry spoke. His testimony only helped to prod the indecisive in Congress who couldn't figure out how to get out of Vietnam.

[DebJ]

2. That point was brought up, but the Vet dissed it as not

important...if not important to him, then what was? The treatment that VietNam vets received when they returned. He says they were literally spit upon. My fellow Dem kept telling him, well, the worst part was that their OWN guys, military guys from other wars, was not allowing VietNam vets into their organizations, either. He agreed with that...seemed to hit home to him a bit more. Whatever works, let's use it!

I find it interesting that their is no 'contact' with them that most Americans were at that point disputing the war. Just doesn't hit the mark for them.

[GoldenOldie]

3. Not under this controlled House

The present Republican Senators (the majority of them), would crucify any Iraqi/Afgan/Quantanamo Vet that mentioned the abuses and corruption that is and has been going on. Their testimony would only clarify what many Americans already know.....nothing goes on without this Administration ordering or knowing about it. They sure as hell don't need this type of crucifixtion from the very same chickenhawks that did not serve when it was their time.