A lot of great stuff here.

One final thought for now: maybe I’m just missing something, but isn’t the fact Kerry TESTIFIED significant in and of itself?

He was not there to discuss his own experience, apparently, since he did not witness war crimes except insofar as his actions were questionable (firing on friendly villages, for instances, which was negligent on his part at the very least).

I assume he was chosen to speak before the Senate because of his percieved or actual ability to present the information the veterans in question wanted to convey. My problem with this is twofold:

1) Since he had minimal firsthand knowledge, would not a more experienced veteran have been more appropriate?

2) Was his intent to truly enlighten Congress on the conduct of the war– or to bolster his own political ambitions?

Problematically, it seems everything John Kerry has ever done goes back to (2). His testimony is appalling in and of itself, but the questionable motives behind it are even worse. This is the same guy that attended meetings where the assassination of Senators was discussed… I have an extremely hard time believing his oath to tell the truth meant much.

Yes, crimes of war occured in Vietnam. But “Ghengis Khan?” An ex-soldier dutifully reporting to the Senate does not use that kind of language.

The surface of Kerry’s actions are fishy, but what lies beneath is plain rotten.