Why is John Kerry attacking "SwiftBoaters" now??

[kentuck]

Is it because if he has any plans of running for President, he must put that issue behind him? So far, I've heard nothing that indicates he has done that or that he has the capability to do that. In my humble opinion, he needs to cut it off at the source. That source is John O'Neill. If he discredits John O'Neill, he discredits the rumors.

He needs to point out that John O'Neill has been attempting to smear his name since he came back from Vietnam. Richard Nixon did not like John Kerry speaking out against the war in Vietnam. In fact, Nixon and Pat Buchanan met with John O'Neill in the Oval Office to discuss how they could co-opt Kerry. O'Neill challenged him to a debate on the Dick Cavett Show at the behest of the Nixon White House. John O'Neill was a patsy for the crook, Richard Nixon. Let him deny that. That is what John Kerry needs to do if he plans on being a credible candidate.

[DesEtoiles]

1. at some point they've got to be stopped or they will attack everyone

thru every election cycle

[kentuck]

3. They have to go on the offensive against O'Neill...

Or he will roast their asses just like he did Kerry the last time. Period.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

2. That is what John Kerry needs to do if he plans on being a credible candid

Sorry, Kerry had his chance... someone else needs to run. I hope it's Gore. He won in 2000 afterall!

[DesEtoiles]

4. for the sake of history, I want to see the record set straight, at least

[Island Blue]

20. By your logic,

didn't Gore also "have his chance"? For that matter, haven't Edwards, Clark, Gehpardt, Lieberman, Kucinich, Sharpton, (etc., etc.) also had their chance(s). And least we forget, if Gore does run in '08 (and if he wants to by all means, he should) this would be his THIRD try at winning. Why should Kerry (or anyone else for that matter) only get one chance?

[blm]

72. Which one do you trust to open the books on BushInc?

i'm with the anti-corruption, open government wing of the Democratic party.

[LSK]

74. and Kerry won in 2004

[still_one]

5. whether he runs or not is immaterial

what is material is to expose that scum bag o'neill for what he is

I put him in the same category as rove, and anything bad that happens to those pukes would be quite nice

[ProSense]

6. Kerry is and was credible. The Swift Liars are liars.

Everything you suggested was done in 2004 and is posted in the Research forum.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1300211&mesg_id=1300211

[mazzarro]

10. If All Were Done Before - Then They Were Ineffective

Mr. O'Neill has to be brought down somehow! In fact it should the be task of the Democratic party to behead this serpent called "Swift Boat Lairs..." because son long as that group is around and is able to make news, the group will smear and slash any and all democrats/liberals/progressives that the rethugs take aim at in any and all campaigns.

[ProSense]

12. They have to be discredited, but the role

the MSM played has to be acknowledged. The MSM drowned them out te response that was the problem! Kerry dismissed them in the spring when the first appeared as an organized group. The MSM latched on to them after the convention and promoted them. Kerry even issued a direct challenge to Bush (the video is in the Research forum):

Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: "Bring it on."

I'm not going to let anyone question my commitment to defending America—then, now, or ever. And I'm not going to let anyone attack the sacrifice and courage of the men who saw battle with me.

And let me make this commitment today: their lies about my record will not stop me from fighting for jobs, health care, and our security – the issues that really matter to the American people...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?

By the time the Swift Boat story had played out, CNN, chasing after ratings leader Fox News, found time to mention the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth–hereafter, Swifties–in nearly 300 separate news segments, while more than one hundred New York Times articles and columns made mention of the Swifties. And during one overheated 12-day span in late August, the Washington Post mentioned the Swifties in page-one stories on Aug. 19, 20, 21 (two separate articles), 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. It was a media monsoon that washed away Kerry’s momentum coming out of the Democratic convention.

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2880

In August, as opposed to spring, Kerry was hamstrung by campaign-spending laws. Members of his crew and veterans like Max Cleland made highly-visible public appearances during that period, even as other groups spent tens of millions of dollars to fill in the gap.

How much money would it have taken to counter a determined MSM?


People put too much emphasis on the powers of these liars when they couldn't have had an impact without the MSM. If the Media aids them again in this way, I doubt it unless they think people are gullible and stupid, they will drown out the response again. I think most people know these idiots are liars. Debunking their claims is the right course every time they resurface.

[sandnsea]

18. Kentuck was at DU in 2004

Ask him whether he was telling John Kerry what to do then too. He could have been helping to spread the history about O'Neill and Nixon, it was definitely posted here for anybody who wanted to use it. But since he apparently is unaware that it was posted, he must have been one of those who spent their time criticizing the campaign instead of being the echo chamber. Being the echo chamber is what it takes to beat this shit down.

[kentuck]

40. Wrong...

Myself, and others, were attempting to tell Kerry to speak up. Don't let it go on and on. I specifically suggested that he attack the source. But he never did. And the source will only come out with more lies that will make it to the M$M and that is all that matters. It doesn't matter if it's true or not - only what people hear. Kerry never responded because he was listening to his advisers who were telling him to just let it die. If you respond, that will only make it worse. And, he still isn't responding to O'Neill, which I think is necessary.

[sandnsea]

104. Exactly

You were busy telling Kerry what to do; not helping to get out the rebuttals that were all over DU and the internet. You didn't stand by him the way everybody did for Hackett and Murtha, who did much less of a response than Kerry by the way; you attacked him instead of attacking the swiftboaters. And you just admitted that's what you did.

[eleny]

7. it's timely since dem vets are running for office now

so, entirely relevant from now until november when swiftboat tactics will, no doubt, be used against them.

[rucky]

8. 1) It's Memorial Day

2) Probably to stave off an attack against Murtha.

[Bozita]

9. As the "swiftboaters" go, so goes the Republican Party

Count on it.

[leftofthedial]

11. because now it's safe

and the DNC hasn't saddled him with campaign manglers yet

[blm]

73. No. It's because he had a team collect every scrap of archival evidence

that exists to refute every lie and charge made against him. They collected official documents, orders, memos, letters and photos and even frames from movie film that will nail every lie told.

He HAD to do it. For the last 12 years, the Democratic party was not set up to defend ANY other Democrat except Clinton.

Thankfully, Kerry formed a team that will now be used to defend EVERY Dem vet running for office - The Patriot Project. They already came out and defended Murtha from attacks.

[tn-guy]

78. Not every scrap has been collected

I beg to disagree. Noticeably absent from the evidence collected are the pertinent excerpts from the diary that Kerry kept during his service. He gave Brinkley access to the diary for his research into his book and the diary is cited by Brinkley at various places.

However; Sen. Kerry has not released the diary or entries from it that cover the times in dispute. It seems obvious to me that if one was keeping a war diary, natural things to note would be items like first command, first patrol, first action, first injury, etc. The fact that the entries were contemporaneous to the events would lend great credibility over recollections from 30+ years ago. Perhaps I'm cynical, but the refusal to release the diary (or germain excerpts) strikes me as very odd, assuming one wants to set the facts straight and get all the evidence on the table.

[blm]

79. How do you know what Kerry is using to refute the lies? It's only been

public that he has had a team collecting this evidence since Sunday. And he hasn't shown his case, yet.

So.... how do you come up with your assertion?

What Brinkley was given over 3 years ago was what he needed to define what Kerry and others were experiencing in Vietnam - I would imagine that any man would not turn over his most intimate writings, but Brinkley, himself, said he was amazed how much Kerry did turn over to him.

[tn-guy]

86. I don't know what he is using

I only know what he has not used to date. And his diary (or suitable excerpts) is part of what he is not using so far. If I am wrong please point me to where it is available.

[blm]

88. I said we don't know -if Kerry and his team gathered all the evidence they

need to refute every lie told, then they tapped whatever source supplid the rebuttal. Why would anything else be required? Are you expecting MORE charges against Kerry that the Swifts somehow failed to come up with in their search and destroy mission?

I'm curious why anyone believes that every page of a man's personal diary should be required viewing? Is there a CRIME he's suspected of committing?

[tn-guy]

100. Please re-read my earlier post

I don't believe that "every page of a man's personal diary" should be open for viewing.

As I said in my original post he could release the "germain excerpts". I would certainly expect someone keeping a diary in wartime to have an entry like, "I went on my first patrol today," or "I got shot during yesterday's action." The fact that Brinkley used the diary to corroborate certain parts of his book demonstrate that such entries are there. I'm just saying that releasing the pertinent entries would go a long way toward refuting any competing claims. At the time the dairy was written there was no campaign, no SBVT, no press scrutiny, only Kerry and his thoughts. That is why a contemporaneous account would have great credibility.

[blm]

102. Brinkley had the access - what he used was mostly his decision. He didn't

think there was any area that the swifts attacked that had any validity based on all he read.

Now Kerry had a team gather all necessary evidence - if some of that came from his diary we don't know - but I would imagine that if it did, he would still have visual and written documentation to back that up, too.

Brinkley, a historian, didn't feel Kerry held back any important info - I'm curious why you would think so?

[karynnj]

92. He did give access to all of it to Brinkley

and Senator Kerry retained absolutely no revision rights. I do think that exerpts on all the things you mention were used. I'm positive that first action and first injury were. Kerry has already gone futher than any other candidate ever in releasing personal documents.

I also don't think that they would have the effect you are thinking they would. After all, one of the SBVT lies was that the accounts that were the basis of his medals were written by him. (When asked how they knew they were written by him - they said the initials - but the initails weren't JFK or JK because he didn't write them.) Any diaries written by someone else in 1960s vintage ink would actually be better proof.

If General Clark, John McCain, or Chuck Hagel are candidates in 2008 should their entire records be released. Kerry was a highly decorated veteran with a spotless record - there was no more reason he had to prove himself than anyone else.

[tn-guy]

82. Not every scrap has been collected

I beg to disagree. Noticeably absent from the evidence collected are the pertinent excerpts from the diary that Kerry kept during his service. He gave Brinkley access to the diary for his research into his book and the diary is cited by Brinkley at various places.

However; Sen. Kerry has not released the diary or entries from it that cover the times in dispute. It seems obvious to me that if one was keeping a war diary, natural things to note would be items like first command, first patrol, first action, first injury, etc. The fact that the entries were contemporaneous to the events would lend great credibility over recollections from 30+ years ago. Perhaps I'm cynical, but the refusal to release the diary (or germain excerpts) strikes me as very odd, assuming one wants to set the facts straight and get all the evidence on the table.

[karynnj]

91. You're right, but not in the way you meant it

Kerry has the unfortunate luxury of spending part of his time co-ordinating a methodical investigation to disprove everything 100% completely. It was his sterling reputation and character that were smeared. You didn't have to read musch about Kerry to know the value he placed on his integrity and honor. In 2004, they did respond far more than most people knew.

Consider that documents being questionable knocked the Bush story out and got people fired - even though other pieces of the the story were backed up. Even the documents' content was backed up by the secretary who said the documents weren't authentic. Kerry proved several major flaws in this story and they simply went to the next 10 charges.

For Kerry to have concentrated this much effort to reclaim his reputation would have derailed the campaign. Kerry fought on and nearly won. Imagine if he would have lost after spending the last weeks of August arguing with O'Neil instead of about the IEDs killing "our kids".

[cyclezealot]

13. LIttle late John.

You had your chance. I was amazed as you did nothing. Most would be incensed.

[Cha]

29. It's never too late

to set the record straight. Besides with bush getting in this last 4 years..the republicans have been more exposed in spite of the complicit fascist media.

It's our corporate mainstream mediawhores who need to be taken down NOW!

[ProSense]

32. He did something, a lot! You must have missed it!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1311921&mesg_id=1312053

[emulatorloo]

44. IF PEOPLE WERE STILL ATTACKING YOU, YOU WOULD ATTACK BACK

These people are still harassing Kerry and suing him.\\ THEY ARE TRYING TO DESTROY HIM.

If someone was doing the same to you, I would now be saying "Little Late, cyclezealot" with a smug smile on my face. I would be routing for you.

[cyclezealot]

81. Glad he is fighting back now.

Wish him luck. Too many remember the first week of the Swiftboat attack ads, Kerry was out windsurfing off of Nantucket. I remember that quite vividly... Hope he really takes them on. For there will be other's in their target, when needed.Next victim is Nancy Pelosi, should she let them. I predict.

[emulatorloo]

87. Kerry fought back then too -- but media BURIED IT while giving freebies

to swifties -- here's a list of Kerry_Edwards stuff, as well as a recent analysis of media complicity w bushco and swifties:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=358&topic_id=2555&mesg_id=2555

---

read this from recent book, Media Lapdogs, re media complicity:

Altercation Book Club: Lapdogs by Eric Boehlert
Relatively early on in the August coverage of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth story, ABC's Nightline devoted an entire episode to the allegations and reported, "The Kerry campaign calls the charges wrong, offensive and politically motivated. And points to Naval records that seemingly contradict the charges." (Emphasis added.) Seemingly? A more accurate phrasing would have been that Navy records "completely" or "thoroughly" contradicted the Swifty. In late August, CNN's scrawl across the bottom of the screen read, "Several Vietnam veterans are backing Kerry's version of events." Again, a more factual phrasing would have been "Crewmembers have always backed Kerry's version of events." But that would have meant not only having to stand up a well-funded Republican campaign attack machine, but also casting doubt on television news' hottest political story of the summer.

When the discussion did occasionally turn to the facts behind the Swift Boat allegations, reporters and pundits seemed too spooked to address the obvious—that the charges made no sense and there was little credible evidence to support them.. Substituting as host of "Meet the Press," Andrea Mitchell on Aug. 15 pressed Boston Globe reporter Anne Kornblut about the facts surrounding Kerry's combat service: "Well, Anne, you've covered him for many years, John Kerry. What is the truth of his record?" Instead of mentioning some of the glaring inconsistencies in the Swifties' allegation, such as George Elliott and Adrian Lonsdale 's embarrassing flip-flops, Kornblut ducked the question, suggesting the truth was "subjective": "The truth of his record, the criticism that's coming from the Swift Boat ads, is that he betrayed his fellow veterans. Well, that's a subjective question, that he came back from the war and then protested it. So, I mean, that is truly something that's subjective." Ten days later Kornblut scored a sit-down interview with O'Neill. In her 1,200-word story she politely declined to press O'Neill about a single factual inconsistency surrounding the Swifties' allegations, thereby keeping her Globe readers in the dark about the Swift Boat farce. (It was not until Bush was safely re-elected that that Kornblut, appearing on MSNBC, conceded the Swift Boast ads were clearly inaccurate.)

Hosting an Aug. 28 discussion on CNBC with Newsweek's Jon Meacham and Time's Jay Carney, NBC's Tim Russert finally, after weeks of overheated Swifty coverage, got around to asking the pertinent question: "Based on everything you have heard, seen, reported, in terms of the actual charges, the content of the book, is there any validity to any of it?" Carney conceded the charges did not have any validity, but did it oh, so gently: "I think it's hard to say that any one of them is by any standard that we measure these things has been substantiated." Apparently Carney forgot to pass the word along to editors at Time magazine, which is read by significantly more news consumers than Russert's weekly cable chat show on CNBC. Because it wasn't until its Sept. 20 2004 issue, well after the Swift Boat controversy had peaked, that the Time news team managed enough courage to tentatively announce the charges levied against Kerry and his combat service were "reckless and unfair." (Better late than never; Time's competitor Newsweek waited until after the election to report the Swift Boat charges were "misleading," but "very effective.") But even then, Time didn't hold the Swifties responsible for their "reckless and unfair" charges. Instead, Time celebrated them. Typing up an election postscript in November, Time toasted the Swift Boat's O'Neill as one of the campaign's "Winners," while remaining dutifully silent about the group's fraudulent charges.

That kind of Beltway media group self-censorship was evident throughout the Swift Boat story, as the perimeters of acceptable reporting were quickly established. Witness the MSM reaction to Wayne Langhofer, Jim Russell and Robert Lambert. All three men served with Kerry in Vietnam and all three men were witnesses to the disputed March 13, 1969 event in which Kerry rescued Green Beret Jim Rassmann, winning a Bronze Star and his third Purple Heart. The Swifties, after 35 years of silence, insisted Kerry did nothing special that day, and that he certainly did not come under enemy fire when he plucked Rassmann out of the drink. Therefore, Kerry did not deserve his honors.

It's true every person on Kerry's boat, along with the thankful Rassmann, insisted they were under fire, and so did the official Navy citation for Kerry's Bronze Star. Still, Swifties held to their unlikely story, and the press pretended to be confused about the stand-off. Then during the last week in August three more eyewitnesses, all backing the Navy's version of events that there had been hostile gun fire, stepped forward. They were Langhofer, Russell and Lambert.

Russell wrote an indignant letter to his local Telluride Daily Planet to dispute the Swifties' claim: "Forever pictured in my mind since that day over 30 years ago John Kerry bending over his boat picking up one of the rangers that we were ferrying from out of the water. All the time we were taking small arms fire from the beach; although because of our fusillade into the jungle, I don't think it was very accurate, thank God. Anyone who doesn't think that we were being fired upon must have been on a different river."

The number of times Russell was subsequently mentioned on CNN: 1. On Fox News: 1. MSNBC: 0. ABC: 1. On CBS: 0. On NBC: 0.

Like Russell, Langhofer also remembered strong enemy gunfire that day. An Aug. 22 article in the Washington Post laid out the details: "Until now, eyewitness evidence supporting Kerry's version had come only from his own crewmen. But yesterday, The Post independently contacted a participant who has not spoken out so far in favor of either camp who remembers coming under enemy fire. “There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river,” said Wayne D. Langhofer, who manned a machine gun aboard PCF-43, the boat that was directly behind Kerry’s. Langhofer said he distinctly remembered the “clack, clack, clack” of enemy AK-47s, as well as muzzle flashes from the riverbanks." (For some strange reason the Post buried its Langhofer scoop in the 50th paragraph of the story.)

The number of times Langhofer was subsequently mentioned on CNN: 0. On Fox News: 0. On MSNBC: 0. On ABC: 0. CBS: 0. NBC: 0.

As for Lambert, The Nation magazine uncovered the official citation for the Bronze Medal he won that same day and it too reported the flotilla of five U.S. boats "came under small-arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks."

The number of times Lambert was mentioned on. On Fox News: 1. On CNN: 0. On MSNBC: 0. ABC: 1 On CBS: 0. On NBC: 0.

Additionally, the Washington Post's Michael Dobbs, who served as the paper's point person on the Swifty scandal, was asked during an Aug. 30, 2004, online chat with readers why the paper hadn't reported more aggressively on the public statements of Langhofer, Russell and Lambert. Dobbs insisted, "I hope to return to this subject at some point to update readers." But he never did. Post readers, who were deluged with Swifty reporting, received just the sketchiest of facts about Langhofer, Russell and Lambert.

If that doesn't represent a concerted effort by the press to look the other way, than what does?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12799378/#060518

[blm]

83. He did - media certainly made people believe he did nothing.

Check out the DU Research Forum - the facts are there if you're interested.

[Jigarotta]

14. maybe he's just a little behind that news thingie maboob

that Truthout is so far ahead of?

[neoblues]

15. Slow Reflexes...

Poor Response Time, or perhaps just a Delayed Reaction?

It seems reasonable to think that Kerry would need to do something about that issue, if only to head it off at the pass before the next run for President. Nobody would want to be hit twice with the same club.

As for what he should do... I don't know how Kerry would best address the Swifties; as for discrediting John O'Neill, though... I would tend to doubt that would do very much--since most people probably don't even know who that is. Mostly their perceptions of Kerry's besmirched record is much more generalized than that (and many couldn't even articulate why they feel that way).

[applegrove]

16. Kerry is right to highlight the pattern and speak about himself. It is

a narrative imposed on his life. The more we know about that type of swift-boating.. the less we will fall for it. Perhaps it is not you who needs to learn.. but moderate Americans. OR even freepers need to hear.

I think it is smart. It certainly has the GOP supporters upset. They like to do things and then just get away. Nobody is supposed to shine a light on method and practice and their GOP patterns.

Plus.. it shows McCain to be a patsy.

[Richard Steele]

17. OK, my "Kerry is a Chess Master" theory...He's doing it for Dems '06

Back during the campaign,
he underestimated the effect the ShitBloat liars would have.

Their stories were such obvious lies, he felt safe ignoring them
at first.
By the time he realized his mistake, it was too late
to mount a properly documented counter-offensive, so
he didn't waste time or money to do so.

He's doing it NOW because NOW is when it will have the
greatest effect.
He timed this so it will come to a headline just around November...


That's my "Kerry is a Chess Master" theory.
Not really a "theory", more of a hypothesis
or a vague hope...

It shares equal time in my head with my
"Kerry-is-a-multi-millionare
whose-actions-make-no-sense-to-us-peons
because-his-head-is-firmly-inserted
up-the-Beltway" theory.

Time will tell.

[sandnsea]

19. The Patriot Project

From the NYT article, "In February 2005, Mr. Kerry's supporters formed their own group, the Patriot Project, to defend veterans who take unpopular positions, particularly against the Iraq war. One of their first tasks was to visit newspaper editorial boards in defense of Representative John P. Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat and veteran whose military record has been attacked by Republicans and conservative blogs since he called for pulling the troops out of Iraq."

Also, the August attack was the third one from these yahoos. The first two were knocked down quickly and never went anywhere. That's why they thought the one in August would be the same. They'd send out the crew members who would expose them as liars and that would be that. They had no way of knowing that the media would push and push the story the way they did. Or that they would say he injured himself because nobody had ever said that before, or done the purple heart bandages and such. I know vets who voted for Bush and were shocked at this behavior themselves. In fact, the one vet who worked with Rood on his op-ed most likely voted for Bush in 2004, he just didn't like that so many of these deceased vets were unable to defend themselves from the lies they were lumped into. All the info was out there, the media just didn't push it the way they did O'Neill. So now we have our own group and this isn't going to happen to anybody, ever again.

[Cha]

28. Thank you, I like that..

"The Patriot Project"!

Now they know.."It's The Media, Stupid"!

[TayTay]

30. Or perhaps it is because

His service, good name and record matters to him. Perhaps it would not matter to you if you were slandered or if that slander also stained the reputation and honor of people you considered friends and 'brothers.' It matters to him. It also matters to those other people who served with the Senator in Vietnam. They are still with him and still fighting these lies.

Perhaps it also matters because it will happen again to other Democrats. It did happen to Jack Murtha and Paul Hackett. I have heard attempts have been made to slime Jim Webb. The Pentagon Generals who publicly called for Rumsfeld to resign have been maligned.

This will never stop. It doesn't concern just John Kerry. Perhaps it doesn't bother you that Democrats are being lied about. It does bother some people. They want the records set straight and the liars revealed as the slime merchants they really are.

It matters. It matters for our future.

[Mass]

21. The rumors ARE discredited. Only some freepers left and right refuse

to admit that.

[bunkerbuster1]

24. And by "some freepers," you mean most of AM talk radio's audience

I think the perception that JFK a) filed phony injury reports to get a Purple Heart, and b) overstated his combat heroics to get a Silver Star, plus c) has been "anti-military" throughout his life, is a lot more widely held by the 29% backwash than you acknowledge.

I'd say at least a quarter of the country believes these things, and if JFK is going to be a prominent Democratic voice (which, I believe, he should be), that's got to change.

[TayTay]

27. There is no changing those opinions.

What percentage of the country believes that if we had just fought harder, killed more Vietnamese and dropped a whole lot more bombs, we could have 'won' Vietnam? What percentage of the country believed, despite all evidence to the contrary, that there were still large numbers of POW/MIA's being held in SE Asia in the early 90's?

Some 30% or so of the country believe this about Kerry because they want to believe it. Facts, evidence, first-person testimony, etc are meaningless and irrelevent to them. They believe this because they want to believe it and it reinforces their worldview. They would easily believe the same thing about any Democrat with military background because their worldview does not permit them to believe otherwise.

You don't go 'after' these people and attempt to change their minds. It's not going to happen and is a waste of your time and effort. They are irretrievably lost and were never yours to get in the first place. (They do not believe what you believe. At all.) You defend with an eye to people who have not completely swallowed the bullshit and try to cut this off before it becomes irrefutable dogma for them. That's the target.

Democrats have opponents that are not ours to get back. They are not ever coming back. Ever. Deal with that. RW Talk radio is part of that crowd that is never coming back no matter what you do. They are not open to changing their minds. Period. End of conversation. Move on to those you can influence and communicate with and present persuasive arguments there.

We never had the people who talk about Kerry in the negative on talk radio. They are not 'our people.' It is a serious waste of time and resources to continue to think we can get them back. They were never ours to begin with.

[bunkerbuster1]

56. I mis-wrote.

I tend to agree with you, the folks who believe that Vietnam was "winnable" can't really be turned around.

What I should've said, is that folks who believe such things shouldn't be permitted to frame debates as if theirs was a mainstream view. It's not. Americans, by and large, are more liberal than they are made out to be, and I do think it's important to marginalize in any way that we can, that one of our most prominent voices is a "phony war hero."

I don't think that is a waste of time (I don't know that you do, either); I think these struggles over how we interpret recent history is an ongoing thing that we must never surrender.

[TayTay]

65. Controlling the message is important

And I think candidates walk a fine line here between sounding packaged and pre-programmed and spontaneity, which can lead to verbal, exploitable gaffes.

I don't participate in a lot of these blaming threads. I think they are a way of avoiding really looking at what happened in 2004. I think they are also a way of pretending that there is a magic cure for 2008. In 2004 Democrats raised more money than during any other election ever and were nearly level with the Republicans in fundraising. The Democrats increased the vote from 2000 from between 6 to 10 million people. The percentage of Americans who actually voted went up, which is amazing. (It is unbelievably hard to increase the numbers. I believe this was the first uptick in the percentage of Americans who went to the polls since at least 1972. Amazing.)

Yet the Democrats lost. They did what Dems are supposed to do to win and lost. (Fraud notwithstanding.) We have to stare that monster in the face and come to terms with it. All candidates are imperfect and make mistakes, it's part of being human. There are no perfect campaigns or candidates. Bush made lots of mistakes in 2004 (and in 2000 too btw) that are glossed over because of the outcome. The next nominee, no matter who it is, will make mistakes. All candidates do. I think these arguments that blame Candidate X for a loss are largely content-free and devoid of any real wisdom that will actually help in the future. (People forget that polls showed that at the time of the election the electorate did not believe the Swift Boat Liars. The ones who did, didn't like Kerry to begin with. It was not a definitive reason for the loss.)

The next candidates and nominee will be slimed. This is unavoidable. It will happen. No candidate is immune. This is what the Rethugs do, they slime people because it diverts attention from the issues. It will happen to whomever runs in '08. It's what they do. We have to start getting beyond this and looking to where our opponents are weak, where their support is weak and start figuring out ways to peal off voters. That is the game, that is what we have to do. We need to exploit their weaknesses and stop waiting for a perfect Democrat to emerge, a Democratic Messiah. It's not going to happen.

[karynnj]

93. The 29% backwash is NEVER going to support

any Democrat. Even if they thought Kerry was the best sailor ever in VN, they would still not vote for him because he is NOT RW. Kerry is a prominent Democratic voice.

[Mass]

22. The sad thing is that the SBVT are only interesting for the Democrats

at this point.

The fraction of the right who will never vote for Kerry will not vote for him because of his action AGAINST the war, and whether he has earned his medals or not does not matter.

Polls proved that very few independants changed their votes because of the SBVT.

So the only two constituencies it matters are:

1/ The Democrats who continue to agitate that (particularly those who never wanted Kerry to run in the first place).

2/ The media who understand that it is good media because of some freepers and some Democrats.

The rest of us could not care less.

[NI4NI]

23. Is it ever too late to defend your honor or dignity?

The liars had been waiting for over 30 years to smear John Kerry, and the MSM helped by giving them credibility.
Perhaps Kerry should have taken the time for a press conference back then to issue an angry forceful response; If Kerry did, I'm sorry I missed it. Maybe he was more concerned at that time with the real issues at hand and with getting his message out, but that doesn't bode well for MSM TV ratings.
But, if he has plans on going after them now after less than 2 years, (and possibly with the help of THE FIGHTING DEMS group who definitley won't stand for any swiftboat shit) I'm glad he is whether or not he has plans for 2008; And if he does run I'll proudly vote for him again.

[karynnj]

94. He did - before a large crowd of firefighter supporters

Kerry Patriot Group is actually aiming to protect the Fighting Dems not the other way around.

[JHB]

25. It doesn't matter that he's "too late"...

...and in fact, now that he's not in mid-campaign, it removes any counter claim that he's "just saying it to get elected". And yes, maybe it's due to a current lack of "advisors" telling him otherwise, but that doesn't matter in the long run either.

What matters is putting into peoples' heads (in this "down time" between elections) the truth: that the swifties were a pack of liars and part of a regular pattern of Republicans smearing the service of Democratic veterans to protect another good-for-nothing pack of liars.

There's nothing bad about actions that will let the words "lying bastards" percolate through the public mind with the word "Republican".

[sendero]

26. He's trying to convince us..

... that he really didn't run the rotten campaign in 04 that we watched him run. He's still campaigning for 2008, he's never stopped. That's why I can't stand the man as a presidential candidate.

[ProSense]

31. Trying to convince you? Nah! You can go on believing the lies. n/t

[sendero]

33. They aren't lies..

... and that is why Kerry is spending so much of his valuable time trying to spin perceptions of what happened in 2004. Soon, we'll be hearing about his strenuous and herioc efforts to clean up Ohio with some obscure bullshit legislative initiative.

[ProSense]

34. Like I said, continue believing them. Be happy! n/t

[sendero]

36. I believe my own eyes and ears..

.. If his message did not get out, he HAS ONLY HIMSELF TO BLAME. We will have an unfriendly media for some time, those who cannot deal with that are not fit to run the country.

As for happy, I'll be happy if anyone other than Kerry or Hillary get the 2008 nomination!

[ProSense]

38. We'll see who is "fit to run." Kerry set the bar at 59 million votes! n/t

[sendero]

39. Against a moron..

... way to go!!!! A moron who, by the way, would be polling negative just weeks after the election!

[ProSense]

43. Still the bar is set at 59 million votes! Do you deny that too? n/t

[sendero]

48. No..

.. the actual count was probably higher. So what, he didn't win.

And BTW, charaterizing folks who disagree with you on subjective perceptions as "liars" is pretty stupid on your part.

[ProSense]

52. Then Kerry set the bar at more than 59 million votes!

I called you a liar? How did you interpret that from my statements. I said continue believing the lies. I said you are denying the facts!

[blm]

89. A moron who had more media protection than Ronald Reagan had in 1984.

A moron who was turned into a heroic figure by the media for the three years after 9-11.

A moron who had a TEAM of cuthroats out defending him every day with lies more effectively than the weakass Dem spokespeople, schooled for years in defending Clinton, could tell the truth. about any other Democrat.

That moron never defended himself on any charge against him - EVER. His team controlled the media message, which is easy to do when your cronies own the media.

[karynnj]

95. Do you realyze that there were no previous Presidents

who had approval ratings in the 40 - 50% range? When the pundits said, based on that data that if you were below 50%, you lose, they were violating a basic rule in statistics - you can't make statements outside the range of the data.

If a Republican President has a 48% approval rating - he could have 3% on the ultra conservative side not approving, but willing to vote for him to keep a Democrat out

[mtnsnake]

41. "If his message did not get out, he HAS ONLY HIMSELF TO BLAME"

You're damn right, sendero. Kerry had every opportunity to take the national stage and stick up for himself, yet all he did was address the swiftboat lies with occasional little-too-late sound bites at speeches which were limited in audience, such as the fireman's speech that a few posters always love pointing to.

If he wanted to nip it in the bud, he could've called for a press conference of national magnitude, one where EVERYONE would hear him, to address the Swifties allegations one by one and clear his name on a national scale ONCE AND FOR ALL. I mean, the guy was the Democratic nominee for chrise sakes. To think that he couldn't get a chance to stand up there in front of a NATIONAL audience during prime time is ridiculous. To think that he couldn't have FORCED the media to cover what he had to say is equally ridiculous. Kerry could've called CNN or any other major news outlet and said, "Because of some people who are discrediting my good name, I want to take a break in my campaign right this minute to address the nation about the Swift Boat smears against me. As a Senator, as a war veteran, as a citizen, I need to tell the American public what really happened." The fact that he didn't do something like this tells much about his leadership ability, or lack thereof.

[ProSense]

47. Still ignoring the facts, heh!

May 4, 2004. The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event. (Above are, r-l, Wade Sanders, Del Sandusky and Drew Whitlow). Senior Advisor Michael Meehan said, "The Nixon White House attempted to do this to Kerry, and the Bush folks are following the same plan." "We're not going to let them make false claims about Kerry and go unanswered," Meehan said. He said his first instinct was to hold a press conference with an empty room where veterans could testify to their time spent in the military with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Spaeth Communications, which hosted the event, "is a Republican headed firm from Texas which has contributed to Bush's campaign and has very close ties to the Bush Administration." Lead organizer John O'Neill, a Republican from Texas, "was a pawn of the Nixon White House in 1971." Further some of the people now speaking against Kerry had praised him in their evaluation reports in Vietnam.

John Dibble, who served on a swift boat in 1970, after Kerry had left, was one of the veterans at the Kerry event. He said of Kerry's anti-war activities that at the time, "I didn't like what he was doing." In retrospect, however, Dibble said, "I probably should have been doing the same thing...probably more of us should have been doing that." He said that might have meant fewer names on the Vietnam Memorial and that Kerry's anti-war activities were "a very gutsy thing to do."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=358&topic_id=2555&mesg_id=2555


It stopped them cold, until the MSM launched its onslaught in August. Then Kerry called them out and issued a direct challenge to Bush:

Kerry defends war record

Aug. 19: John Kerry responds directly to attacks on his Vietnam military service Thursday, accusing President Bush of relying on front groups to challenge his war record.
http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=40a0d9b1-0386-41ef-bc0e-904bcc95946c&

Text:

Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: "Bring it on."

I'm not going to let anyone question my commitment to defending America—then, now, or ever. And I'm not going to let anyone attack the sacrifice and courage of the men who saw battle with me.

And let me make this commitment today: their lies about my record will not stop me from fighting for jobs, health care, and our security – the issues that really matter to the American people...

You are just determined to believe what you want, despite the facts!

[mtnsnake]

58. Are you kidding me? You call that defending himself?

Of course I remember him with his "Bring it on" message to Bush in regards to their military service in Vietnam. That was the high point of him defending himself, and it was way too little. He didn't take it far enough, nor did he elaborate. All he did with that statement was mock Bush's military record when it was his own that was coming under attack from the Swift boat liars.

As to the first link you provide about the May 4th press conference called by the Kerry campaign, notice who is visibly absent...Kerry himself. THE PEOPLE WANTED TO HEAR IT FROM KERRY, NOT FROM HIS FRIENDS WHO WERE STICKING UP FOR HIM. Kerry did way too little to get the message out. Blame the "RW media" all you want, but the blame for not sticking up for himself PROPERLY AND VISCIOUSLY falls square on Kerry's shoulders himself.

You are just determined to believe what you want, despite the facts!

No. The facts that you're citing weren't good enough to thwart what the Swifties did to him. If they were, we wouldn't be talking about it right now. He never defended himself against the Swift Boat lying scumbags IN THE MANNER WE ALL WANTED HIM TO. If you're satisfied in the manner he defended himself, then fine. I'm not. Agree to disagree.

[ProSense]

60. You're the one kidding yourself!

THE PEOPLE WANTED TO HEAR IT FROM KERRY, NOT FROM HIS FRIENDS WHO WERE STICKING UP FOR HIM.

That was Kerry in the video wasn't it?

You stated that Kerry should have held a press conference, and I present two instances and you come back with this. That's just plain denial!

You say he didn't take it far enough. If you remember, then you should remember the ad that ran that day with a quote from the statement, and a similar ad that ran three days later. There is much more in the Research forum.

Like I said, you are just determined to believe what you want, despite the facts!

[blm]

90. The firefighters speech was expected to be televised - it would've been if

Bush was making it.

Post 9-11 the firefighters endorse Kerry and there is no story there - especially when Kerry was using that speech to attack the swifts?

You want to venture that ANY OTHER Democrat would have gotten the coverage from a media who was so OBVIOUSLY in the tank for Bush? Please name that Dem who can control the decisions made at CNN, the NBCs, ABC, CBS, FOX, PBS.

[ProSense]

35. I forgot to add the, what did you call it, "herioc efforts."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1015710&mesg_id=1015710

[LittleClarkie]

64. Obviously he's not trying to convince you

And I didn't need convincing.

I think it's because this is "new evidence" and because the Smear vets are still at it, so he needs to squish them, even if it no longer means anything to you or I.

[wiggs]

37. I would welcome discussion of SBLT if it were part of an overall effort

to examine WH lies, deception of public, spin, fake news.

IMO, it has been a major problem of the opposition party...failing to discuss the big picture of accumulated misdeeds in the WH and GOP. How easy would it be to talk about how the WH has deceived the public and congress for six years...no need to list the fakery here but there are dozens of instances of distraction and lies and deception of which SBLT is a small part.

Taking issues on briefly one at a time by a small portion of the opposition party has gotten us nowhere. The other issues just go away when the topic of the week becomes the newest distraction. It is time someone stood up and said that this administration has lied to the public from day one and remind people of all the examples.

The dems have all the issues and could/should spend months talking about misdeeds, incomptence and lies AS PART OF A PATTERN. I view one 2004 candidate talking about a 2 year old smear as a distraction from that unless he can connect the dots to the bigger picture.

[ProSense]

42. Distraction from the truth? It's his record and his right to defend it!

Kerry also sees this as part of the big picture, as he has defended others from similar smears. He is also dealing with propaganda and payola:

05/12/2005

John Kerry: It's Time to Reign in the Spin

The Truth in Broadcasting Act, authored by Senators John Kerry and Frank Lautenberg, will require all prepackaged news stories produced by a federal agency to clearly identify the United States government as the source of the story.

Below is a statement by Senator Kerry on his legislation:
“The American people have a right to know they’re not only watching the administration’s spin on their local newscasts, they might be paying for it too. It’s one thing to watch Jon Stewart on television, but it’s another to imitate him with Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars. We should stop this abuse of the public trust and waste of taxpayer money.

“It’s hard to believe that in the greatest democracy in the world, we need legislation to prevent the government from writing and paying for the news. It runs counter to everything we believe as Americans. I hope Congress will stop the legal hairsplitting and end this dishonest practice.”

http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=237541

Senate Report 109-210 - TRUTH IN BROADCASTING ACT OF 2005

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS
S. 967, the Prepackaged News Story Announcement Act, amends the Communications Act to require prepackaged news stories produced or funded by, or on behalf of, the Federal Government to contain a clear disclosure of such stories' government origins. The bill, as amended, further provides that the circumstances under which such disclosure may be removed are to be determined by the Federal Communications Commission. As explained in the definitions section, the legislation applies only to a prepackaged news story, not to other individual segments contained in a video news release. The bill further provides that nothing in the legislation shall be construed to apply to any lawful and authorized intelligence activity of the United States Government.

[wiggs]

50. I didn't say "distraction from the truth"

I said distraction from the much more important goal of showing an overall pattern of deception and spin.

And I'm not saying that dems have not addressed the issue at all. I'm AM saying they haven't done nearly enough to make the points they need to make strongly enough. I don't see how anyone can argue that they have, really.

It seems that whenever someone points out how the dem approach could have been better or more forceful or more clear, someone posts a cspan speech or a little known letter or a quote. That's all fine, but that's not the point. I'll agree that if you look hard enough you can find that Kerry has said something that indicates what his position is and that he is generally on the correct side of the issue. That isn't enough for a presidential candidate and not enough for an opposition party with all the issues on their side but little media help, questionable election tactics, and the smaller share of corporate backing.

Old politics vs 2006 politics.

[ProSense]

59. It's important

to get the truth out and shine a spotlight on these smear tactics. They're beginning to smear other prominent Democrats. I think this will focus attention on these jerks as liars. The smears happen in the background, they materialize in the MSM. That is the problem. Exposing the liars will undercut attempts by the MSM to promote the lies.

[karynnj]

96. Consider that this could be step 1

A careful methodical study of a very significant smear. Proving the lies as lies and making the connections on funding and who is paying the people involved and what organizations they belong to.

Look at the Patriot group web site mentioned up thread. They have a graphic showing everyone involved in the Murtha smear. This looks like a concerted effort to identify the parts of the spider web of RW smears. They are going back over Kerry's because - they are a group of Kerry people. The woman heading it is the widow of Kerry's friend Droz. Kerry worked with investigators on Contra drug running and BCCI to untangle things no one wanted him to untangle - he may be the one to do this.

[wiggs]

101. It is a logical step one...that's fine

But we've had misdeed after misdeed and lie after lie since 2000 and nothing comes of them. There's hardly ever step 2 or 3. Medicare lies and bribing? Illegal transfer of 700,000,000 to Iraq planning? AWOL? 9 billion missing in Iraq? DSM? Election reform? Phase II of WMD report? Signing statements? NSA spying? Dubai ports? On and on....

Very few politicians ever link one to another and paint an overall picture of misdeeds, incompetence, and lies that would strengthen the case for each one...no, they take on one at a time and climb the hill for each one, dealing with it for a while until it goes away...then on to the next one. It gives the impression that they are the opposition party, but so much more could be done.

I will say that I've seen Gore and Kennedy and Conyers connect the dots and talk about power grabbing, secrecy, incompetence, and the rest as symptoms of a dysfunctional dangerous administration. That's the big picture that dc dems should be talking and writing about all the time. Waxman created a comprehensive report about WMD lies...good at the time...let's bring it back and combine it with DSM and more current stuff.

Too long have we focused on the trees and not the forest. Even then, after a week we forget about the trees and just demand an apology and move on.

[karynnj]

106. Kerry has connected dots on misdeeds better than the men you mentioned

- all of whom are good.

-Kerry spent 5 years working with investigators on BCCI, when everyone in the party, including Kennedy (who even had Jackie Kennedy call) begging him to stop because the terrorist bandk had bought off top Democratic moneymen as well as Republicans.

-Kerry is also the Senator who got only 9 other Senators to sign a letter demanding the intelligence report part 2 and referred to the DSM.

-Kerry fought to continue investigating contra drugrunning when the Reagan administration stonewalled valid requests for information - even when Kerry got Senators Lugar and Pell to make the requests as Chairman and Ranking Member of the SFRC.

I like the other three, but in this area, Kerry beats them.

[emulatorloo]

45. BECAUSE THESE YO-YOs ARE SUING HIM AND ATTACKING HIM STILL

EOM

[emulatorloo]

46. KENTUCK - read this -- SWIFTIES ARE SUING KERRY

Sorry for the rightwing source - but it will give you a sense of their TWISTED BULLSHIT

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=9627

----

Vietnam Vets File Lawsuit Against John Kerry
by Michael P. Tremoglie
Posted Oct 12, 2005

The former presidential candidate who, during his election campaign, proudly contrasted his military service during the Vietnam War with that of President Bush's National Guard service - and who once led an organization of Vietnam veterans protesting the war in Vietnam - is being sued by some Vietnam veterans.

The Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation is a plaintiff along with Red, White, and Blue Productions, and Vietnam veteran turned journalist Carlton Sherwood, in a defamation action against current Massachusetts Senator John Kerry and Tony Podesta, who was Kerry's Pennsylvania campaign manager.

The lawsuit, filed in Philadelphia, claims that Kerry and Podesta libeled, slandered, and caused financial harm to the plaintiffs as they sought to prevent the presentation of Sherwood's documentary movie Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal before the 2004 presidential election.

The lawsuit states:

Sherwood established plaintiff Red, White, and Blue productions an independent film company which produced the documentary Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal....This documentary tells the story of Kerry's involvement with the VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against the War) and his participation in the so-called "Winter Soldier" investigation...Stolen Honor also reports that...Kerry testified before the United States Senate that during the Winter Soldier investigation Vietnam veterans testified to war crimes...not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day to day basis with full awareness of officers at all levels of command...in fact the stories told by participants in the Winter Solider investigation were outrageous and slanderous falsehoods against Vietnam veterans...Stolen Honor accurately reported that Kerry's statements.. were lies concocted by antiwar activists...Kerry knew this testimony was false...Vietnam veterans including former POW's had been falsely tarred...Sherwood produced Stolen Honor to bring this otherwise ignored history to light ...and to explain the public sense of betrayal felt by many Vietnam veterans- particularly among former POW's - against Kerry and others who built their reputations slandering America's Vietnam veterans.

The lawsuit continues by saying that the movie received its initial funding entirely from Pennsylvania veterans. It asserts that Stolen Honor points out Kerry's false allegations were used by the North Vietnamese to threaten and demoralize the approximately 700 POW's in North Vietnam. Stolen Honor told this history through interviews with some POW's including a Medal of Honor recipient and one who recounted how his interrogator went through Kerry's statements and told him that Kerry admitted he was a war criminal and deserved punishment.

The lawsuit states that the plaintiffs had a contract with Sinclair Broadcasting to air the documentary and a contract with the Baederwood Theater of Abington, Pa., to show the movie. It further claims there was a coordinated conspiracy by, "defendants Kerry, Podesta and others acting in concert with and on behalf of Kerry, to discredit and silence Sherwood and Stolen Honor, through a campaign of knowing, deliberate, and malicious falsehoods about Sherwood and Stolen Honor and of illegitimate and malicious threats directed at Sinclair and Baederwood." The suit states these actions by Kerry et. al. caused Sinclair to show only portions of the movie and Baederwood to refuse to show it.

This may be the first time in American history that a presidential candidate was sued for actions taken by him and his campaign during an election. It may also be the first time that an antiwar activist was sued, if only tangentially, for allegations made about American military personnel.

Democrats did indeed respond vehemently to Stolen Honor. Sinclair, according to a contemporaneous Newsweek report, canceled their broadcast after being intimidated by Democrats. For example, a Democrat New York State Comptroller sent a letter to Sinclair criticizing the broadcast. The Comptroller was the sole trustee for the NY State Common Retirement Fund, which owned 250,000 shares of Sinclair stock.

The Baederwood Theater received phone calls threatening boycotts if it showed the movie. Ominous phone calls were responsible for a suburban Philadelphia conference center canceling another presentation scheduled after Baederwood.

Although the Kerry campaign denied any involvement with these efforts, an October 15, 2004 email from Podesta to Kerry activists called Carlton Sherwood a, "disgraced former journalist, right-wing propagandist and apologist for cult-leader Sun Myung Moon." Podesta urged Kerry workers to ".... take action ...against this garbage.... let the theater know that, as a member of the community, you object to ...this film ...they should not allow "Stolen Honor" to be shown on their screen."

If this lawsuit accomplishes nothing else, it will be that the heroes of Vietnam are finally condemning the lies told about them during the war. If nothing else results from this, it will be that those who served their country meritoriously, despite great controversy, despite the adversity, those who truly deserve to be called the Greatest Generation, are once again serving their country by telling the truth about Vietnam.

[kentuck]

49. Perhaps he should counter-sue ??

Does the law still permit one to do that?? He should do everything possible to keep them from smearing his record any further.

[ProSense]

57. Here information on that

An article by John Dean:

Scalia revealed that he felt the landmark 1964 ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan was wrong. That decision held that when a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit is a public figure, such as a government official, the plaintiff can only prevail if he or she can show the statement was made with "actual malice" - a problematic phrase.

The requirement of "actual malice" means that the person publishing the defamatory statement must have done so with one of two states of mind: Either he knew the statement was false, or he published it with reckless disregard to whether it was true or false.

Simple negligence, then, is not enough under New York Times v. Sullivan: "Reckless disregard" requires that there had to have been a compelling reason to prompt taking some care before making the statement.

In practice, the "actual malice" standard means that the plaintiff usually loses. It's virtually impossible to prove with clear and convincing evidence (as is also required when the standard applies) that the publisher of the false statement either knew it was false, or published it despite good reason to more fully investigate the matter, thus recklessly.

Snip...

The constitutional law of defamation is a disaster. It is nearly incomprehensible. It is unfair. It is unjust. And it is long overdue for a correction. Sadly, I could randomly select dozens upon dozens of cases to make the same point the Lohrenz case makes.

Scalia is correct: Everybody should be able to protect their reputations. But not until New York Times v. Sullivan -- which literally changed the law of the land overnight -- is reversed, will that ideal be a reality.

Hopefully, Justice Scalia was giving us a hint of coming changes at the Court, when defamation cases are heard. At a minimum, the Court ought to make clear that only true public figures are deemed public figures for defamation law - for current law only encourages the victimization of private persons. Better yet, the Court should chose a more realistic standard than "actual malice" - one under which even public figure plaintiffs who are lied about, can get justice.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051202.html

[patcox2]

51. Because he finally "got it" two years too late.

If he had fought in 2004 we might be living in a different world.

[kentuck]

53. Let's get one think perfectly straight.

John Kerry is an honorable man and a war hero. These people have discredited his good name. He has tried valiantly to clear it up but for some reason, he has not been able to do that. He is fighting from the defensive. He needs to think offensively and he needs to attack some people personally when they attack him. That's why SBVT were so effective. Kerry never attacked the source - who seemed so vulnerable - and O'Neill was on every day, on every station, spewing his bullshit.

[wiggs]

61. Agree and good point that should be applied to other issues. nt

[LittleClarkie]

71. With the media complicit, I might add

since the truth was never important to these people, I'm not sure how effective Kerry will be even now. And I don't care that some think this comes too late. His honor is not only important during an election year. If they're still at it, I'm glad he's fighting back.

But I'm not sure he could sue unless he comes up with some ironclad evidence in his favor. Which may be what the researcher he's hired is for.

Either way, I'm glad. It hurts me to see the right wingers crow about the "brave" smear vets and how they told the "truth" about that scary Kerry.:puke:

[Yollam]

54. Because there's no risk of it causing him to win the election now.

Not like he ever really wanted it in the first place.

Kerry needed to do what's being done now 3 years ago. They should have been prepared for any mud or distortion beforehand. ANd he should have done as you've suggested, too.

A lot of Kerryites have pointed out that he DID stand up for himself and refute the accusations, but these people were watching the media, and they knew the message wasn't getting through, so Kerry should have hammered away at the fact that O'Neill was a lying GOP tool over and over again until it did get through.

But no, Kerry had important photo ops to conduct...




I've said it many times - great senator, lousy presidential candidate. Not again.

[fedupinBushcountry]

84. Answer me one question

Who did you support first before you had to pinch your nose and vote for Kerry? You wonder why we lose,

[johnaries]

55. I don't know if this is "why", but it's good that he is before the '06

campaign gets into full swing. By demonstrating and proving the lies, he is bringing to light the techniques used by Republicans and discrediting them. He is undermining the Republican's most effective campaign strategy - the smear campaign.

By proving that the lies in previous campaign's were lies, it is making it harder for the Repukes to lie in future campaigns. Fewer people will believe thsm.

They can't beat uson the issues. They can only beat us through smear. If Kerry can prove that such smear campaigns are manufactured, the Republican smear campaigns will lose their effectiveness.

So, whatever Kerry's motivations, it's good that he is doing this now.

[dogday]

62. Start a suit, file an injunction

so those liars cannot repeat the lies and deception.. I don't care how long it has been, or why it is happening, only that it is happening and he can stop these guys from spreading their lies.. I also hope this will set precedent for further swift-boating groups who want to spread lies and deceit against any candidate...

One thing when the smears are true, another when they are not... John Kerry needs to clear his name and this is a good way to do it....

[karynnj]

97. Kerry and his brother are both considered excellent lawyers

Kerry also has friends and allies who are top lawyers - If he sues it will be because he finds a way to be realtively certain to get over the high bar public figures need to meet. It also may not be doable. (Imagine if even one person on the jury feels sorry for them because they are veterans. Kerry is too but he's also wealthy, powerful and successful.)

[LittleClarkie]

63. I have a couple of theories

Because they haven't stopped yet, so he needs to go after them, even if he doesn't run for prez, because they won't leave him alone.

Because he's had a researcher on the case, and we are seeing the new photos his researcher found. It's being billed as "new evidence" so I'm assuming it was just uncovered.

Either way, I'm finding it immensely satisfying.

But we will see if it has any effect on these bozos. Something tells me they don't care, or are too nutzo to care, that they have the facts all twisted. I thought they were fairly discredited before, but aparently that means nothing to them.

I do get sick of right wingers talking about how brave the Smear vets were to tell the "truth" about John Kerry. I could just gag.

[Gothmog]

66. It may be too late to sue the Swifties

I for one believe that Senator Kerry should have sued the Swift Boat liars. In Texas, there is a one year statute for defamation cases and so it may be too late to sue. I would have loved to see a good lawsuit on this issue.

[BOHICA06]

67. He can't get it behind him .....

...he lost when he pushed (and I mean pushed) his war record without addressing his VVAW accusations of which he did not have first hand knowledge.

[TayTay]

68. He should have pushed his record

It was real and honorable. It had a hand in shaping the human being who has occupied high elected office since 1984. It was an informed part of the man who sat in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for two decades. It is a very important part of who Kerry is. I would have emphasized it as well.

This is like those people who blame the rape victim because they wore 'provocative clothing' and brought about the conditions under which they were assaulted. I don't buy it and it's a crappy and dishonorable argument.

[LittleClarkie]

70. Except that our friend here is talking about Kerry's testimony

and how he talked about things he'd never seen, which is a horrible misrepresentation.

I do think the attack on Kerry's record was more damaging than the attack on his testimony. When the smear vets came out with their ad RIGHT when the Abu Ghraib report came out, it was such a tactical mistake on their part, and only served to remind everyone of that noble, angry young man who spoke his mind so long ago.

I've been quite pleased to see Kerry involking that young man lately.

[BOHICA06]

75. If you or I sat down and testified about the horrors of ...

Iraq and used Jessie MacBeth as a source we would be pilloried. Hubbard and the VVAW had quite a few MacBeths in the mix - Kerry got caught in the mix being their Senatorial spokesperson. He never addressed it.

[ProSense]

76. Before you continue spewing RW talking points,

see these:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1300211&mesg_id=1300918

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1300211&mesg_id=1300925

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1300211&mesg_id=1301752


There is more in the thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1300211&mesg_id=1300211

[LittleClarkie]

77. Or so Nixon and company would have you believe

Btw, it was Congressional, not Senatorial.

And another thing, if I sat down to testify and used an Iraq soldier's testimony it would be ludicrous, because I've never been in Iraq.

Kerry, on the other hand, had been to Vietnam, and seen some of what he talked about. He identified his other testimony as coming from someone else. He had nothing to address, and nothing to apologize for.

[karynnj]

98. Except for three facts

1) Kerry didn't repeat individual accounts - he summarized things said by multiple people

2) Kerry said that soldiers said these things, Senator Hatfield put many of them in the congressional record that same month, Senator McGovern had the complete transcript and the VVAW gave the Senate all the information they had. Therefore, the Senate which had oversight and supoena power could verify the accounts. John Kerry had no way to do so - just his gut instinct and including things that several people spoke of.

3) Colin Powell and Tommy Franks both admitted that things like Kerry reported had happened. Kerry's testimony was after My Lai was known.

[LittleClarkie]

69. That's hardly why he lost

It wasn't his VVAW accuations. In fact, having the smear vets use that angry young man in their ads was a mistake. It reminded people that Kerry could be passionate, and had them asking the same question he did "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake."

If you read his testimony, he CLEARLY identifies that he's passing on what he's heard from other vets, as well as telling what he felt he'd participated in, which was free fire zones.

You are completely off base here.

[kskiska]

80. It's only just made the papers NOW

There have been lawsuits and countersuits going on for a while now. O'Neill's been over to FR with his tin cup numerous times to raise money for the unexpected lawsuits over the bogus Kerry movie.

[blm]

103. Some folks won't understand till the same tactic, same media complicity

and same coverups of the response happens to their favorite Dem.

It's a TACTIC we have to deal with as thoroughly as possible - expose the tactic, expose the complicity of the media.

It can't be done overnight - we have to do it every day now ourselves and urge those who have any power to do the same.

[Ksec]

85. Same as it ever was

I listened to cspan the other day and there were quite a few of these obsessive droolers posing as patriots, bashing Kerry and his service. Kerry does not deserve such hatred. He actually was a patriot who fought for this country. These wacked out repuke chickenhawks are a sick bunch of drunks who sit over there beer and bitch about war all day. Most of them dont have lives , other than drooling in taverns and slobbering all over themselves.

[zulchzulu]

99. Kerry and many of his vet friends had been fighting back...

Going after them and finally snuffing the last breath out of them is not only necessary, but what needs to be done to finally stop them from attacking the integrity of the military and the honor that goes with receiving medals for valor.

The Swiftboaters basically assault the military by making people think that medals are handed out like candy at a playground.

[Faygo Kid]

105. Kerry made two huge mistakes. This was one of them.

Unbelievable that they didn't immediately take them on. More DLC mindset/advisers in action, same people who torpedoed Gore in the debates. Kerry's other massive mistake was in saying that if he had to do it all over again, he would have voted to give Bush authority to wage his war whenever he wanted. You could just feel the air go out of his campaign. I wish he were president; I could support him again, but Al Gore is my candidate right now.