Kerry will self-destruct

[Beagle]

Kill the messenger. It's from a notorious conservative source (WSJ "opinionjournal.com").

That's why I posted it here, so you could tell me just how right wing I am. Oh, and stupid. But, I am old enough to know a really good "issue" ad by a POW group when I hear one.

Kerry has the dubious and perhaps unique distinction of being a presidential candidate whose speeches have actually been used as an instrument of torture against Americans. The Los Angeles Times reports on Kerry's April 22, 1971, appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which we noted last week:

Dressed in his combat fatigues and ribbons, [Kerry] told Congress that U.S. soldiers had "raped, cut off ears, cut off heads . . . randomly shot at civilians . . . in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan." He later acknowledged that he did not witness the crimes himself but had heard about them from others. . . .

Paul Galanti learned of Kerry's speech while held captive inside North Vietnam's infamous "Hanoi Hilton" prison. The Navy pilot had been shot down in June 1966 and spent nearly seven years as a prisoner of war.

During torture sessions, he said, his captors cited the antiwar speeches as "an example of why we should cross over to [their] side."

Whereas those who've attended Edwards events report that he's a captivating speaker, listening to Kerry speak is like being in captivity.

I await my just punishment, but no Kerry speeches.

[MMI]

You want a defense of the man without actually quoting him so as to reveal what lies behind the liberal usage of ellipsis (and by conservatives no less)?

Short answer is that the quote is extremely misleading - he is quoting people and in the testimony he makes it clear he is quoting people.

From http://pages.xtn.net/~wingman/docs/kerryst.htm

I am assuming that testimony before Congress is public record and therefore I can quote the first two paragraphs in their entirety.

Vietnam Veterans Against the War Statement by John Kerry to the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations

April 23, 1971

I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit - the emotions in the room and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country

I am guessing that Beagle would not consider the following to be a fair summary of his OP.
Kill ... Kerry
torture ... Americans.
U.S. soldiers . . .acknowledged that. . . Edwards . . . is . . . in captivity.


As to whether or not acknowledging atrocities committed by one's own side is appropriate, I kind of feel the world needs all the Campbell-Bannerman s it can get.

[PhiloVance]

hey, nobody's perfect.

::d&r::

[MMI]

After my previous post I realized that my excessively elliptical quote of the OP could be construed as wishing death on someone. That was certainly not my intent and I apologize to any who might be offended by it. I (seriously) would have reported the post except that there is no little exclamation point icon on the post. (I realize this is no doubt by intent, as what idiot would want to report their own post.)

[elucidator]

If Jane Fonda and gay marriage is all you got, you guys are sooooo doomed.

This shit really chaps my hide. I heard this crap all before, all this "aid and comfort to the enemy" drivel. If telling the truth is not patriotic, your loyalty is misplaced.

By the way, my recollection of his testimony before the Senate differs from yours, I don't recall that he was wearing fatigues. Got a photo?

[Count Blucher]

Originally Posted by Beagle

listening to Kerry speak is like being in captivity.

And we should all be so lucky as to have to listen to Shrub's "Meet The Press" eloquence for Another four years?

[bordelond]

Originally Posted by elucidator

By the way, my recollection of his testimony before the Senate differs from yours, I don't recall that he was wearing fatigues. Got a photo?

Beagle is not going from memory. The LA Times is being quoted by the editorial's author. The article mentioning Kerry's wearing of fatigues appears in yesterday's LA Times (free registration required). A b/w picture of Kerry in fatigues addressing the Senate panel appears to the right of the article.

Clicking on the picture reveals the following caption:

On April 22, 1971, the day before he threw away his combat ribbons, Kerry testifies before a Senate panel. “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” he asked. (AP)

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Beagle

Kill the messenger. It's from a notorious conservative source (WSJ "opinionjournal.com").

That's why I posted it here, so you could tell me just how right wing I am. Oh, and stupid.

... Nah, too easy.

Originally Posted by Beagle

But, I am old enough to know a really good "issue" ad by a POW group when I hear one. I await my just punishment, but no Kerry speeches.

Clemenceau once said, "He who is not liberal in his youth has no heart; he who does not become conservative with age has no head." After seeing old extreme conservatives in power (and in message boards) not reflecting on why they continue to depend on very dubious sources of information for their actions (or talking points), I realize now that Clemenceu was wrong.

As the fearless leader would say:

There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again. - George Bush

Oh, never mind…


That opinion piece in the WSJ is a good example of a messenger that is only telling part of the truth. The result, as I have said hundreds of times before, is a lie.

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by elucidator

By the way, my recollection of his testimony before the Senate differs from yours, I don't recall that he was wearing fatigues. Got a photo?

Just in case you can't be bothered remembering your login id and password (I know I usually can't be), here's another site with that photo. About halfway down the page.

[Giraffe]

I don't get it. Why should Kerry be ashamed of having been a POW?

[elucidator]

Yeppers, point taken. It was worth it to read about Dick Nixon pissing and moaning about Kerry to Haldeman. Thanks!

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Originally Posted by Giraffe

I don't get it. Why should Kerry be ashamed of having been a POW?

He wasn't a POW. His speech was used by the North Vietnamese for propaganda purposes against the POWs.

[Giraffe]

I see. Thanks for clarifying.

[vibrotronica]

Kerry has the dubious and perhaps unique distinction of being a presidential candidate whose speeches have actually been used as an instrument of torture against Americans.

George W. Bush has the dubious and perhaps unique distinction of having been caught lying to the American people to start a war less than a year after he told those lies.

[Tars Tarkas]

at least he showed up for war.

[Governor Quinn]

I actually agree with the OP. Kerry's campaign could, indeed, self-destruct.

However, this isn't what will cause said self-destruction.

[John Mace]

I don't think either side is served by Dredging up (hah!) Vietnam era activities.

By the logic of this article, the My Lai masacre trial could have been used as fodder by the NV to torture American soldiers. This whole "Jane Fonda" tactic is a loser.

Besides, Kerry's 19 yrs of senate voting will offer the Pubs plenty of amunition to use against him withour resorting to this junk.

[Tars Tarkas]

This just in: Kerry to be used to deliver IMF message.

[Truth Seeker]

Kerry has the dubious and perhaps unique distinction of being a presidential candidate whose speeches have actually been used as an instrument of torture against Americans.

Apparently, you've never heard Al Gore give a speech.

[elucidator]

You know, kaylasdad, I looked at that picture and it rang a bell. I've examined closely with special perception enhancement techniques.....

Tucker Carlson is John Kerry's love child!!

(Don't tell Drudge...)

[Already in Use]

So Kerry's speeches have been used as torture? What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Sesame Street music has been used to torture people as well. Anything can be torture given the right context. But the fact is that Kerry was testifying in the hopes that he might prevent more young Americans from getting sent off to die. That's a damnable offense? What is this, Bizarro World?

[SnoopyFan]

Kerry will indeed self-destruct. Hopefully when it happens, it will be too late for the Dems to find a replacement and they'll be forced to keep him on for the election and a major asskicking will take place.

However, it won't be over his speeches. Oy.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by SnoopyFan

Kerry will indeed self-destruct. Hopefully when it happens, it will be too late for the Dems to find a replacement and they'll be forced to keep him on for the election and a major asskicking will take place.

However, it won't be over his speeches. Oy.

What will it be over?

[Who_me?]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

What will it be over?

Kerry reusing dental floss... or something similarly serious...

[rjung]

Originally Posted by Airman Doors, USAF

His speech was used by the North Vietnamese for propaganda purposes against the POWs.

Good god almighty! How dare the North Vietnamese monitor the words and thoughts of the citizens of an open society and repeat them?! Shock! Horrors!

Obviously, the best way to prevent any such future treasonous use of our citizens' words against ourselves is to ban all dissenting speech! If you've got nothing good to say about the President and the nation, then shut the fuck up you treasonous assholes!






...oops, sorry, channelling Ann Coulter for a minute there. Yuck. Now I gotta go gargle.

With bleach.

[Measure for Measure]

Leaving the usual Republican smears aside, I'd like to suggest that Edwards, in fact, may be more electable than Kerry.

Edwards is a good speaker and hails from the South.

Kerry is a mediocre to average orator and hails from New England. Northeastern Democrats have a habit of losing.

IMHO, Kerry is a seasoned and thoughtful leader would make better decisions in office than Edwards.

But neither would reliably set aside evidence in favor of their ideological pre-dispositions like Bush does. For deficit reduction and national security reasons, Edwards has my primary vote: he has a better shot at unseating Bush.
---
I urge Republicans to organize a write-in ballot for McCain, Powell, Lugar or Alexander.

[Measure for Measure]

IMHO, Kerry is a seasoned and thoughtful leader who would make better decisions in office than Edwards.

[Netbrian]

Originally Posted by SnoopyFan

Kerry will indeed self-destruct. Hopefully when it happens, it will be too late for the Dems to find a replacement and they'll be forced to keep him on for the election and a major asskicking will take place.

However, it won't be over his speeches. Oy.

One of your most lovable tendencies is to take hard-line conservative agitprop, and then declare it as complete and utter fact.

Oh, that along with your tendency to hit and run at topics.

Brian, who'd be perfectly happy with either Edwards or Kerry. Preferably, both.

[Charlie Tan]

The more the GOP perceive Kerry as a threat, the more vicious the attacks will get. Judging by GOP posters here, GWB is heading for a sure win. So the question remains - if they're so confident, why not just shrug at Kerry (or Edwards) and smile all the way to November?

[Desmostylus]

Will Kerry self-destruct? That's a definite maybe. Certainly the Bushies must hope so:

02/18/2004 - USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll results

2. If Massachusetts Senator John Kerry were the Democratic Party's candidate and George W. Bush were the Republican Party's candidate, who would you be more likely to vote for?

Likely Voters:

Kerry 55
Bush 43

So I guess there's hope there for the Bushies. But wait a minute:

02/18/2004 - USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll results

3. If North Carolina Senator John Edwards were the Democratic Party's candidate and George W. Bush were the Republican Party's candidate, who would you be more likely to vote for?

Likely Voters:

Edwards 54
Bush 44

I can remember the recent polls where an "unnamed Democratic candidate" would win out over Bush, and how those polls were dismissed as unrealistic. Turns out it's true. People will vote for ABB (Anyone But Bush).

But wait, there's still hope for the Bushies:

02/18/2004 President's approval ratings continue to sag

Stephen Hess, a presidential scholar at the Brookings Institution, a think tank in Washington, said that although the poll findings suggest Bush is in trouble, it is too early to consider that a forecast of the Nov. 2 election. The economy and Iraq are unpredictable factors, and the campaign has yet to take shape, he said.

Yep, there's the thing. All the Bushies have to do is wait for silmultaneous miracles to occur in Iraq and the employment numbers. They don't seem to have any sort of plan about Iraq or employment, but hey, just you wait! That non-existent plan's gonna take shape one of these days. Just you Dems watch out.

[ElvisL1ves]

:shrug: His campaign speeches will be used to torture Tighty Righties for the next 9 months, too.

[Metacom]

Originally Posted by Desmostylus

They don't seem to have any sort of plan about Iraq or employment, but hey, just you wait!

Disgusting liberal nonsense!

The plan in Iraq is to transform the country into a WMD-free secular Democracy within four months, and the employment plan is to wait for the massive business growth caused by wealthy people investing their tax cuts. It'll happen any day now......

Also, it's not fair to bash Bush without giving him credit for his social plan: 1.5 billion to help the children of heterosexual couples, and 270 million to tell young people not to have sex before marriage!

[elf6c]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

What will it be over?

WMD, Halliburton, Enron, Jobs, Deficit-- oops you meant Kerry!

Love the panic from the far right wing. The lengths they are going to to try invent something is amazing.

Hey guys, found those WMD's yet? How's that deficit going? The Iraq occupation is paying for itself right? How about all those secret no-Bid contracts to the VP's old company- that worked out ok right? Afganistan then? Anti-gay bigotry? Hmm- how about the treasonous revelation of a spy's indentity cause Shrub got caught fibbing on Iraq's imaginary Nuke program- how's that investigationcoming? Or the one into the adminstration's misteps on 9/11? How about those promises to protect us from big government, oops- oh yeah the Patriot Act and the creepy Ashcroft are doing wonders there.

And do you really want to bring up the war issue when your rich, cowardly little daddy's boy used his father's connections to dodge the war, then dodge his obligations.

[filmore]

Originally Posted by rjung

Obviously, the best way to prevent any such future treasonous use of our citizens' words against ourselves is to ban all dissenting speech! If you've got nothing good to say about the President and the nation, then shut the fuck up you treasonous assholes!

This is so funny because a lot of people actually have that opinion. Or tragic, I suppose.

[rjung]

Originally Posted by filmore

This is so funny because a lot of people actually have that opinion. Or tragic, I suppose.

All tragedy, no comedy, IMO.

I blame talk radio.

[Matchka]

Originally Posted by Metacom

Disgusting liberal nonsense!

The plan in Iraq is to transform the country into a WMD-free secular Democracy within four months, and the employment plan is to wait for the massive business growth caused by wealthy people investing their tax cuts. It'll happen any day now......

Also, it's not fair to bash Bush without giving him credit for his social plan: 1.5 billion to help the children of heterosexual couples, and 270 million to tell young people not to have sex before marriage!

Metacom, I had a can of lighter fluid with your name on it until I was halfway through your post.

Say...Speaking of the Hanoi Hilton, anyone have a link to any comments the excellent Mr. McCain might have regarding our Mr. Kerry?

Just curious.

[xenophon41]

Originally Posted by Matchka

Say...Speaking of the Hanoi Hilton, anyone have a link to any comments the excellent Mr. McCain might have regarding our Mr. Kerry?

Just curious.

Well, here's one from a biased source (Newsmax; biased against John Kerry), which cites McCain as a defender of Kerry.

Here's another biased source (Kerry's own website), which quotes McCain:

Asked if Kerry was the Democratic candidate most closely resembling him, McCain demurred.

``I don't know,'' he said. ``He and I are very good personal friends, so my objectivity is probably skewed.''

McCain said he would not be surprised if political foes and the press try to pick apart or distort Kerry's combat record.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Matchka

Metacom, I had a can of lighter fluid with your name on it until I was halfway through your post.

Say...Speaking of the Hanoi Hilton, anyone have a link to any comments the excellent Mr. McCain might have regarding our Mr. Kerry?

Just curious.

It's a little indirect but McCain relaesed a pretty scathing attack on the so-called "Vietnam Vets Against John Kerry" last week. He was especially harsh on group organizer, Ted Sampley:

"I am well familiar with Mr. Sampley, and I know him to be one of the most despicable people I have ever had the misfortune to encounter. I consider him a fraud who preys on the hopes of family members of missing servicemen for his own profit. He is dishonorable, an enemy of the truth, and despite his claims, he does not speak for or represent the views of all but a few veterans. The many veterans I know would think it a disgrace to be considered a comrade or supporter of Ted Sampley."

It's not really an endorsement of Kerry (which would not be expected) but it's a blistering assault on those who are attacking Kerry's war record.

[dropzone]

I have to admit all the attacks on "one of America’s most radical appeasement groups, Vietnam Veterans Against the War" have been making me laugh in a sad, ironic manner. Did the people who make such claims actually KNOW any of those guys? RADICAL? Shit-oh-dear, they made the Grandmothers Against the War look radical.* The ones I knew were politically moderate to conservative. They were just against the war. And by the time the VVAW formed most of the country was turning against the war. If Kerry was guilty of anything it was jumping on the bandwagon. And the modern cons forget that their St Richard was elected on an "end the war" platform.


* - Okay, I'll admit that some of the grannies had been Commies back in the 30s and were still pretty far left but who's gonna diss grandmothers?

[Spavined Gelding]

So far, and admittedly we are not very far into it, all the anti-Kerry people have produced is wishful thinking along the lines of Senator Kerry’s campaign is doomed because he attended an anti-war rally with Jane Fonda, because he threw his service ribbons, because the North Vietnamese used his speech to the Congressional committee to propagandize POW, because he had an illicit relationship with an employee, because he uses big words and deals in concepts that are complex, because he is a New England liberal, because this and because that. It is wishful thinking. None of the rumors, half truths and slanders have worked, although Rush was blathering about the young woman in Kenya on Wednesday morning as if the Sun’s discredited s exposé was verified and double refined truth. Some of our friends are hoping for a miracle so hard that they have hallucinated reality out of conjecture.

What strikes me is that Carl Rove and his surrogates might well have shot their wad already and the only scandal they have is the weak tea that has already been spilled. That means that, assuming that Senator Kerry is his party’s nominee for President, sooner or later President Bush is going to have to face him man to man in a discussion of the great issues of the day. Based of the President’s performance catching soft balls on Meet the Press is not going to be pretty. The hard core, Bush adherent’s best hope is that Senator Kerry is struck by lightening before that confrontation happens. Our friends might as well predict a lightening strike as a campaign destroyed by c scandal or hubris. The Bush camp can’t afford to have their boy go up against Senator Kerry in the open field.

What does scare me is not Senator Kerry and any proclivities he might have, but rather the immense war chest that the President and his friends have accumulated over the past three years. That money has to be spent before the national convention. After that the spending limits kick in to level the playing field. I’m not at all sure that Senator Kerry can contend with the barrage of half truths that will be dropped on the TV watching public between now and the GOP convention. I say half truths because it is my experience that that is what almost all political ads are and because the whole truth will cause President Bush’s self destruction.

[bmoak]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

It's a little indirect but McCain relaesed a pretty scathing attack on the so-called "Vietnam Vets Against John Kerry" last week. He was especially harsh on group organizer, Ted Sampley:

It's not really an endorsement of Kerry (which would not be expected) but it's a blistering assault on those who are attacking Kerry's war record.

Ted Sampley is quite a character and his issues with Kerry and McCain go back to the Senate Special Committee on POW-MIA affiars in the early 90s , which Kerry chaired and McCain was a member of. Initially, McCain was the the target of Sampley's ire, and was targeted in a series of articles tarnishing his patriotism and accusing him of being a "Manchurian Candidate", copted by the KGB during his captivity. (For a contrary look at these accusations, read this .

Sampley's charges languished until McCain began his run for the presidency. Then they started to percolate throughout the conservative media and commentary base (NewsMax, Front Page, TownHall, etc.), which seemed to accept the story uncritically. The accusations never really hit the mainstream media, but was reprinted on right-wing sites a lot and possibly did real harm to McCain during the primaries.

Now Sampley trots out his new organization (he has several) to get the smear machine against Kerry, his other long-time enemy, going. He'll probably get more mainstream media attention this time, but if Republican operatives are depending on Sampley to carry the anti-Kerry standard it could backfire, especailly if media sources look at his background and not blithely accept his stories.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by Spavined Gelding

What does scare me is not Senator Kerry and any proclivities he might have, but rather the immense war chest that the President and his friends have accumulated over the past three years. That money has to be spent before the national convention. After that the spending limits kick in to level the playing field. I’m not at all sure that Senator Kerry can contend with the barrage of half truths that will be dropped on the TV watching public between now and the GOP convention.

Right. So the issue facing Democratic Primary voters is: "Who can better withstand the Republican smear brigade, Kerry or Edwards?"

(Also: I thought that Bush had turned down matching funds so that the hard money spending limits do not apply. )

[Spavined Gelding]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

(Also: I thought that Bush had turned down matching funds so that the hard money spending limits do not apply. )

Relying on a story on NPR last week, it is my understanding that since both President Bush and Senator Kerry have opted out of public funding they can both spend what ever amount they want up through their respective party's convention but that after the convention each is limited in what they can spend whether they are taking public money or not. Maybe somebody with an expertise in this stuff can give us a definitive answer. I may have misunderstood the NPR story but I think that is what the supposed expert who was doing the talking had to say. His point is that from now until the Republican convention the President might bury Senator Kerry in advertizing because there is no point to saving it up for the general election.

And speaking of the "Republican smear brigade," our friend Beagle has brought up the prospect of a Kerry self destruction in General Questions, on the topic of Bush allied web sight depreciating Senator Kerry's record in Vietnam (e.g., he wasn't awarded the decorations in Vietnam--of course he didn't get them until well after the events and after he had left Vietnam, there is a procedure, you know). In the GQ he suggests that there are "other" scandles being held in reserve to dump on Kerry at some more advantages moment. How our friend knows that he does not tell. If he is privy to the internal workings of the GOP propaganda machine you would think that he would keep his mouth shut so as not to give away the ambush. If he isn't privy to the plan then he doesn't know any more that he is told each day by Rush and the boys and he is blowing smoke. Having uncovered the ambush you would think that if he is to maintain any credibility he would tell us what these reserved mud balls might be. Otherwise we must conclude that our friend is once more engaged ia an exercise in wishful thinking, friends, wishful thinking.

[rjung]

I'm sure that in the mind of Beagle and the other Bushistas, Kerry's choice of having a bagel or cereal for breakfast is a "scandal" just waiting to be dumped on the six o'clock news.

[Beagle]

Originally Posted by vibrotronica

George W. Bush has the dubious and perhaps unique distinction of having been caught lying to the American people to start a war less than a year after he told those lies.

That's what my father called it when he was flying missions against German submarines while the United States was "neutral".

BTW, at least half of the comments here have ignored the issue. Not the testimony in front of the 1971 committee, but its use as an instrument of propaganda against actual US POWs. I know that sometimes English is a difficult language, but this is seriously malfeasance. Hey, rubes, read the article!

[Desmostylus]

Originally Posted by Beagle

BTW, at least half of the comments here have ignored the issue. Not the testimony in front of the 1971 committee, but its use as an instrument of propaganda against actual US POWs. I know that sometimes English is a difficult language, but this is seriously malfeasance.

Malfeasance on who's part? Seriously, I think people are ignoring the "issue" because they don't think there is one, and that you're completely nuts.

[Beagle]

Funny, I haven't voted for a Republican presidential candidate since Reagan in 1984 -- my first election.

You fucknugged closed-minded leftists wouldn't know an independent thought if it fell out of a tree and hit you in the head.

HEY, MORONS, SOME PEOPLE CARE ABOUT POWs -- and lying that gets them tortured.

[Mtgman]

Originally Posted by Beagle

HEY, MORONS, SOME PEOPLE CARE ABOUT POWs -- and lying that gets them tortured.

Establish the following premises in support of your above statement if you would please.

1. Kerry's statement before Congress about acts committed in Vietnam was a lie.
2. POWs in Viet Cong custody were tortured some/more as a result of Kerry's statements.

Enjoy,
Steven

[manhattan]

Originally Posted by Already in Use

So Kerry's speeches have been used as torture? What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

Nothing. Taranto's daily column, which I enjoy immensely and recommend, is a mix of serious, snarky and funny. Mostly the latter two (his bye-kus are great -- his "what would XX do without YY" headling riffs are hilarious). This tidbit fits squarely into the "snarky" column. Why someone decided to start a whole thread over it is a question best left to that person. It's kind of like quoting Al Franken. How seriously some people some people in this thread are taking it given that it's in the BBQ Pit and not GD is best left to them.

[MMI]

Originally Posted by Beagle

BTW, at least half of the comments here have ignored the issue. Not the testimony in front of the 1971 committee, but its use as an instrument of propaganda against actual US POWs. I know that sometimes English is a difficult language, but this is seriously malfeasance. Hey, rubes, read the article!

So, should the civil rights movement been shut down lest reports of difficulties demoralize the troops? Should the troops in-country be denied access to radios capable of non-official business, lest they be swayed by the siren song of propoganda? Perhaps all reports of casulaties (and all untoward events) should be suppressed, lest the American people lose faith in their government or the war effort?

Should all reports of police brutality and corruption be suppressed, lest public confidence be shaken and the good cops morale be injured? Are any protests at all allowed over anything, or is the danger of perceptions of disunity being used against us just too horrific to contemplate.

You are not accusing Kerry of lying, as far as I can tell. You are suggesting that some how he is responsible for the fact that his testimony before congress on the conduct of the war in Vietnam was used as propoganda against POWS. Yes, had he not testified, those particular words would not be a potential torture device. In which case no doubt the North Vietnamese would have given up on torture?

In you were John Kerry what would you have done?