phl@drusd.UUCP (LavettePH) (02/21/85)
>You must be getting your information about the Westmoreland case from the >CBS news. The evidence presented to support CBS's version of the facts was >distinctly *underwhelming*. The most CBS has ever been able to show is that >there was a difference of opinion about the effectiveness of the VC >auxillary forces, and (imagine this!) that the commander's opinion won. > >The fact that Westmorland dropped his suit has no bearing on the substance >of the CBS story; it merely illustrates the near-impossibility of winning a >libel suit. > >We need to do something about libel laws. I think Westmoreland should have >had a good case. CBS obviously manipulated and distorted their reporting >to support their pre-determined conclusion. This represents great power >with no corresponding responsibility, which is wrong. Is it really such a >burden to the press that they should have to try to print the truth? > >Scott Renner From ABC's Nightline, mostly. From what I understand Westmoreland's own witness, a G2 colonel whose name escapes me, testified under cross-examination that when he was interviewed for the TV program he glossed over certain events but since he was in court and under oath he had to give as complete an account of certain meetings with the general as he could remember and then went on to pretty much prove CBS's claim that the general over rode the reports of his own G2 and de- liberately forwarded false figures of VC strength to Washington. Acting on the data received from General Westmoreland, the government failed to provide enough men and material to win the war and as a result it dragged on until the final defeat. Had Washington received accurate reports we would have either withdrawn earlier from a no-win situation or provided overwhelming strength much sooner and maybe have won the war. Either way, a lot of American and Viet Namese lives might have been saved. I think a libel trial was a very unsatisfactory way of trying to establish the true facts of this sorry affair. A general court would either exonerate the general completely or bring out any evidence of guilt. If the general is inno- scent he deserves to have his reputation cleared. If he is guilty he has com- mitted what is probably the worst crime in our military's history and fully de- serves to be punished. In the libel trial the general had to prove he was innocent. In a court-martial he would have to be proven guilty. It is a pity the court-martial didn't come first. I tend to agree with your assessment of CBS news. However, just because I don't particularly care for Dan Blather, doesn't make me assume he is always wrong. The question remains: Is it too late for a general court-martial? Any officer could bring the charges, including the general, himself. - Phil