Reply #102: Why didn't Kerry, a lawyer, file lawsuits against both the Swifties and the media

[Seabiscuit]

for spreading those lies? He could have gotten temporary injunctions against the media preventing them from promoting the Swifties' lies while the damage suit progressed.

The Swifties were guilty of libel, a print/media form of defamation. When the media spreads their lies they are equally guilty of publishing the defamatory material, and can also be stopped in their tracks by court order.

I recall seeing those ads on both sides, and since Kerry never put forth any real documentary evidence, I was left scratching my head about what had really happened in Vietnam, and if Kerry were to be believed, why wasn't he willing to defend himself more vigorously with real proof, and why didn't he take all those assholes to court? It's not as if he couldn't afford to. A campaign ad is not proof of any kind.

In the present scenario, why hasn't Kerry arranged for a formal contract with this Pickens creep, with a neutral third party to decide the matter? And why hasn't Kerry ever sued all of these creeps? If he's telling the truth about his Vietnam experience, and says he can prove it, he should have an air-tight case against both the Swifties, Pickens, and the media that smeared him in 2004. Right now, he's making Pickens look bad, but he's also making himself appear a bit frivolous.

I just don't understand Kerry on this issue any more than I did when, after it was proven beyond any doubt that Saddam did not possess WMDs, Kerry still falsely claimed he represented a threat to the U.S. that justified invasion and occupation, and that he wouldn't change his vote in favor of the IWR (which he argued against in the Senate before voting for it).