Wow! Serious men with conviction stating calmly what is at stake -- this documentary will devastate Kerry's credibility as a potential Commander in Chief.

So, we know what Kerry said; we know that the VC used his words against POW's. What is the moral nexus between these two? In other words, how can we ascribe culpability to Kerry over this?

Frankly, your question bewilders me. Are you kidding me?

... because the resulting propaganda from spreading lies about systemic war crimes in Vietnam should be self-evident?

There were war crimes that took place in the Vietnam War, but they were relatively few and far between, certainly not at all systemic and ubiquitous (the way that Kerry described them).

His words were intended for political effect, but their impact spread much farther than the US Legislative Branch and electorate.

And any idiot, especially a vet, would know this.

His words were intended for political effect, but their impact spread much farther than the US Legislative Branch and electorate.

First, should he have known that the VC would use his words for this effect? Second, don't you think the VC would've done what they did regardless of whether or not Kerry testified before Congress? The former goes to Kerry's culpability, the latter to the causal nexus on which that culpability rests.

I would expect any idiot should see that assigning blame to Kerry without a little more analytical rigor is problematic.

"First, should he have known that the VC would use his words for this effect?"

What planet do you live on? Yes!

"Analytical rigor?" You can't plainly see that a vet falsely accusing the US Military of systemic war crimes at every level of command in front of the Senate would be automatically used as a propaganda tool by the North Vietnamese, who TORTURED POW's to extract similar, faked confessions?

This does not require analytical rigor. It is self-evident. It was common knowledge then (as it is now) that POW's are routinely tortured to obtain false confessions to war crimes that are used as propaganda.

Stretching my current ability to be civil with you, you're either a very naive individual, or you are a disingenuous partisan.

Also implicit in your critique of me is that, even if Kerry was not aware that his testimony could be used against POW's, you consider it an appropriate tactic to falsely accuse the US military of systemically raping, torturing and murdering innocent civilians in order to make his anti-war point. This certainly immoral.

I'm done humoring your illogic.

The illogic is in JP's premise that if the VC would have used the same arguments ("You are war criminals who have been denounced by your own countrymen") even if Kerry had not testified before Congress, then Kerry is not responsible for any additional torture to the POWs.

If I heard the POWs correctly, that is exactly what happened initially but the POWs rejected it as propaganda. It was Navy Officer Kerry's speech and in one case a transcript of a POW's mother testifying that had the most impact on the POWs not the VC.

This isn't a courtroom and the burden is not on Kerry's critics to make a case -- the POWs will tell their story and public opinion, as translated into election day action, will render the verdict.

If you feed a troll after midnight do they turn into a gremlin?

RS: worse. They turn into Michael Moore.