It is an eternal truism that the authentic, authoritative history of any given era is always written long after the last person who was alive during that era has died. Gibbon's "Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" was first published in 1776. When the ultimate history of the Vietnam War is written several centuries from now, the events of April, 1975, will loom large in the telling, because then and only then was the ultimate outcome of that war determined. The author will make no mention of any prior dates as being significant because in that year one side or the other "essentially won". That term will have no meaning to the author or his readers. I must confess to you, it has no meaning to me either. I can, however, understand how such a contrived term can by useful to persons who cannot adjust emotionally to the fact that that war did not have a happy ending. If they can pass their remaining years in peace and tranquility by rejoicing in the victories that they "essentially won", I say, "God bless them". But I'm not willing to let them write the history books for our posterity.
 
One last point. Once again, in this message you recycle the story about Kerry killing the Vietnamese child deliberately and in cold blood purely for the advancement of his own selfish interests. Then you tell me that the whole wild, lurid tale is "just a guess". I am not your Father Confessor, Bob; I have no wish to pass moral judgment upon you. If you use that story in Boston, and tell it with an artful flourish, I am sure you will get wild applause. I am also sure that if you don't tell it someone else will, and then he will get the applause that you could have had.There are many people with an insatiable hunger for that kind of red meat. I ask you only to grant me one dispensation: don't expect me to join in the applause.