You are absolutely right that the "search for truth" can easily result in a food fight or partisan political confrontation, and while our search might be catagogized as an obsession, our strongly held beliefs are no less strongly held by others who have done far less homework than we have.

The problem with coming up with different answers suggests that there is no way to come to agreement based on some sort of agreed upon objective facts, even in hindsight. The philosophical problem with that is it also suggests that conundrum in which since you can't know the facts, you can't make a decision, but not making a decision is also a decision in itself.

Now the specific question you pose about the anti-war movement is a good one. Perhaps at the time, an individual may have honestly been motivated in one direction or another, but in hindsight he should have decided after 35 years whther he was right or wrong. His statements about how easily communism would suit the peope of Vietnam were flat wrong and I think that the role of the anti-war movement was not only to undermine the war effort and extend the war, but it was responsible for quitting a war that was effectively won at great cost in treasure and blood. The question however is esential to an understanding of the outcome of the war, so I have cc'd this to the person who will discuss that subject and suggest that he use this example in his presentation if he wishes.

If you can come to Boston, I would be pleased to see you there. I would like this conference to be the product of debate, not food fights and I would value you particiaption.