Thank you for providing arguments as to why the Yomiuri’s comment is off.

To Andrew:

Thanks for this statement, “Whereas Abe, Aso and their LDP cronies have a virtually 100% Japanese voter base… but this is not taken into account, right?”

That seems to hit the nail on the head. There are certain arguments that seem to do nothing but poison the well from which we all need to drink.

there are certain factors regarding Honda’s electoral district–such an increase in the number of residents of Chinese or South Korean origins, while the number of Japanese-origin residents has decreased–that may be behind why the Japanese-American lawmaker of California is leading such an initiative.

Whereas Abe, Aso and their LDP cronies have a virtually 100% Japanese voter base… but this is not taken into account, right?

Also, just as an observation, the Yomiuri tends to take the “it is widely known…” approach every time historians deem that a point in history is unfavourable to the pro-Japanese position.
I would not ask for non-Japanese sources for “proof” of Hiroshima - that would be a disgrace to the memory of those who perished in that terrible event. Yet, to have very selective memories of the suffering inflicted by the events of the past is near crimminal.
English textbooks are not free of the Hiroshima story, but history textbooks are watered down to suit the nationists. The result - millions of young Japanese under the impression that their country was the victim throughout history but is constantly hounded to appologise for losing a war.
Ah, the joy of being able to change history to suit yourself, and without needing a time machine…

1) Without context, claiming that the opposition to the comfort women is somehow biased against is disingenuous at best, and dangerous at worst. Anyone who watches the news knows that the Japanese government is fully able to use the media at any time they wish, and that they have little trouble publicizing their opinions. The women who have testified, on the other hand, have had no chance to tell their story in the court of public opinion. Despite testifying at the hearings, the sway of power is still very much against them, since their chance to tell their side of the story is bound to be subsumed under continuing noise from the other side. The relationship was never one of equity.

2) The argument confuses ‘bias’ with ‘veracity.’ It may be true that in the US House only one side of the story is being told. This is what we might call bias. It does not, however, mean that the testimony given is necessarily any more or less true. This is a simple logical fallacy that pundits often employ (on both the right and left) to spin an issue. It’s simply a distraction from what’s at hand, and is born of an easily-employed set of tactics that are meant to discredit witnesses and their testimony.

3) Of course the other side hasn’t testified in the hearings on this resolution! Why would they? It’s best for them to be as little involved as possible and let the whole issue blow over. Had Mr Seko and Mr Abe kept their mouths shut, we would be four weeks away from the resolution failing to come to a vote on the floor of the house. Instead, they have been forced into the uncomfortable position of being its greatest supporters, by giving people who would not have even noticed the issue something to rally against.

Sure. The explicit bias in who is allowed to testify.

What I want to know is how would Representative Honda’s political motives have any effect whatsoever on the veracity of the witness testimony?