Now Bush Wants to Go to Court over Ads!

Let me ask a question:

Suppose George's slimejob hadn't worked against John McCain during his run for the Presidency and he had gone on to win.

Do you think for one moment that these guys would be on the air against Kerry in his run against a President McCain?

Personally, I do not have a problem with the 527's. I, or anyone else should be able to run an ad because I think it goes to freedom of speech.

What I have a problem with is when the ads contain lies. To me, this becomes a legal issue for the candidate re: libel / slander. One is NOT free to do those things. I would leave it to the courts, which would by the next election have a precedent set for what is or is not allowed. Financial penalties should be high enough to discourage the groups from running ads that contain lies.

The truthfulness of the ads, and whether or not there is coordination or connections between the camps and groups running the ads should be what is addressed, not silencing.

But of course...why not?

I think they would because quite frankly, I think the motive is a deeply rooted hatred for what Kerry did after he came home. Some of what they say may be true, some may not be true. But I really believe the reasons for their speaking up is that they cannot stand that he is emphasizing a vietnam service in his campaign after his heavy involvement in the vietnam vets against the war movement.

I think this article by Oliver North makes some sense as to the reasons behind the attack.

"Dear John,

As usual, you have it wrong. You don't have a beef with President George Bush about your war record. He's been exceedingly generous about your military service. Your complaint is with the 2.5 million of us who served honorably in a war that ended 29 years ago and which you, not the president, made the centerpiece of this campaign.

I talk to a lot of vets, John, and this really isn't about your medals or how you got them. Like you, I have a Silver Star and a Bronze Star. I only have two Purple Hearts, though. I turned down the others so that I could stay with the Marines in my rifle platoon. But I think you might agree with me, though I've never heard you say it, that the officers always got more medals than they earned and the youngsters we led never got as many medals as they deserved.

This really isn't about how early you came home from that war, either, John. There have always been guys in every war who want to go home. There are also lots of guys, like those in my rifle platoon in Vietnam, who did a full 13 months in the field. And there are, thankfully, lots of young Americans today in Iraq and Afghanistan who volunteered to return to war because, as one of them told me in Ramadi a few weeks ago, "the job isn't finished."

Nor is this about whether you were in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968. Heck John, people get lost going on vacation. If you got lost, just say so. Your campaign has admitted that you now know that you really weren't in Cambodia that night and that Richard Nixon wasn't really president when you thought he was. Now would be a good time to explain to us how you could have all that bogus stuff "seared" into your memory -- especially since you want to have your finger on our nation's nuclear trigger.

But that's not really the problem, either. The trouble you're having, John, isn't about your medals or coming home early or getting lost -- or even Richard Nixon. The issue is what you did to us when you came home, John.

When you got home, you co-founded Vietnam Veterans Against the War and wrote "The New Soldier," which denounced those of us who served -- and were still serving -- on the battlefields of a thankless war. Worst of all, John, you then accused me -- and all of us who served in Vietnam -- of committing terrible crimes and atrocities.

On April 22, 1971, under oath, you told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that you had knowledge that American troops "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 Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam." And you admitted on television that "yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed."

And for good measure you stated, "(America is) more guilty than any other body, of violations of (the) Geneva Conventions ... the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners."

Your "antiwar" statements and activities were painful for those of us carrying the scars of Vietnam and trying to move on with our lives. And for those who were still there, it was even more hurtful. But those who suffered the most from what you said and did were the hundreds of American prisoners of war being held by Hanoi. Here's what some of them endured because of you, John:

Capt. James Warner had already spent four years in Vietnamese custody when he was handed a copy of your testimony by his captors. Warner says that for his captors, your statements "were proof I deserved to be punished." He wasn't released until March 14, 1973.

Maj. Kenneth Cordier, an Air Force pilot who was in Vietnamese custody for 2,284 days, says his captors "repeated incessantly" your one-liner about being "the last man to die" for a lost cause. Cordier was released March 4, 1973.

Navy Lt. Paul Galanti says your accusations "were as demoralizing as solitary (confinement) ... and a prime reason the war dragged on." He remained in North Vietnamese hands until February 12, 1973.

John, did you think they would forget? When Tim Russert asked about your claim that you and others in Vietnam committed "atrocities," instead of standing by your sworn testimony, you confessed that your words "were a bit over the top." Does that mean you lied under oath? Or does it mean you are a war criminal? You can't have this one both ways, John. Either way, you're not fit to be a prison guard at Abu Ghraib, much less commander in chief.

One last thing, John. In 1988, Jane Fonda said: "I would like to say something ... to men who were in Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain I caused to deepen because of things that I said or did. I was trying to help end the killing and the war, but there were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it and I'm ... very sorry that I hurt them. And I want to apologize to them and their families."

Even Jane Fonda apologized. Will you, John? "

Oops, meant to only post the link. Sorry. Here is the link to the article though. It is an opinion piece, so take it for what you will.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth/on20040827.shtml

Larry wrote:

Then you haven't got a clue who John McCain is and how much this country would be different without the effects of the George Bush slime machine.

Public figures, such as presidential candidates, don't often prevail in such lawsuits.

And, even THAT reasoning for the attacks by SBVets is hard to swallow. Given that now, 35 years later, our soldiers are committing atrocities in Iraq, what makes you think it didn't happen then?

Kerry's records, that have been made public even contains a body count for one of the missions. Why would there be a body count? A count for dwellings destroyed? For rice destroyed? If it wasn't encouraged by the brass, why would they be keeping track?

I don't doubt that the atrocities in Vietnam took place. I also don't hold each and every VET responsible for them, and neither did Kerry say each and every one did these things. Why are these SBVets feeling attacked? Guilt?

"I don't doubt that the atrocities in Vietnam took place. I also don't hold each and every VET responsible for them, and neither did Kerry say each and every one did these things."

You are correct, squinney, he did not.

But he acknowledged that he did and stated that his acts were violations of the Geneva Conventions, ie., war crimes.

Maybe Squinney it is because they also were there and know for a fact that while there were some things that were done that were atrocities, it was not as widespread as Kerry made them seem. Just as while there have been some atrocities in Iraq, I doubt that they are nearly as widespread as some would have us believe.

I think the article by North goes a long way toward explaining why so many of his fellow vets are against Kerry.

This is a willful distortion designed to give the impression, to those who don't have the resources to find the truth, that John Kerry has admitted to cutting off ears and heads and such. What he admitted to doing is what almost every veteran would admit to doing, ie participating in free fire zones. The ones who ordered those things should be tried for war crimes. As Bush would say, you're playing 'gotcha'.

Duck: You would not recommend the Nurnberg defense, "I was just following orders", for his self-admitted violations of the Geneva Conventions would you?

I certainly wouldn't.

While illegal, participating in 'free-fire zones' is perhaps the lowest form of atrocity that could be committed - after all, the situation was pretty dire and noone faults our soldiers for erring on the side of caution.

But, to equate what he said with other, much worse atrocities, is disingenuous and shouldn't be done. Kerry admitted in front of a Senate panel what he did years ago. He said he wasn't proud of his actions. He went on to describe much, much worse things which routinely took place.

Cycloptichorn

Kerry denounces Moveon.org's ad:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0818-03.htm

Bush also said that McCain's service was noble, despite the fact that he smeared him in the primaries.

It is a precarious position the swifties have put Bush in. If he condemns the ad specifically, then he risks alienating Vietnam veterans who would vote against Kerry. If he calls for all 527 ads to be pulled, he risks alienating diehard constitutional conservatives hellbent on free speech.

I think that either way, he loses.

I also think it's too bad the Republican's first and only 527 group is specifically trying to smear Kerry through lies and heresay.

At least with organizations like Moveon.org, they can discuss MANY of the other issues, as well as the actions of George Bush to hinder our consitutional rights in a time of "war."

Which is certainly more substantive than listening to a bunch of swift boat vets lie through heresay and second hand knowledge of an event that happened over 30 years ago.

Then we should investigate EVERY Vietnam soldier to see what atrocities, however minor they may be, were committed. How much you wanna bet that thousands upon thousands of U.S. soldiers would fall under the same category as Kerry?

In his statement Kerry admitted he did what "thousands of others did".

I agree on an investigation. Let's start with the easy ones, those who have openly confessed and then move on from there.

And since time is short until the election, Kerry would logically head the list don't you think, dookie?

Isn't that a legal defense? Are you suggesting we bring up all Vietnam combat vets up on these charges? After all, the things that Kerry admitted to are well documented orders by higher ups. It should be easy to find those who followed orders, yes? Certainly you are not calling all Vietnam vets war criminals. And what of the recently charged soldiers from Abu Ghraib? Should they also be brought up on war crimes charges?

I reassert that the only reason someone would continue to harp on this is that they enjoy playing 'gotcha' politics. You would have to force yourself to misunderstand his statement out of pure malice in order to actually believe what you are asserting.

Agreed FD.



Frankly? Yes.

Cycloptichorn

Kerry's statement was in pretty simple English which I understand quite well, Duck.

"I commited atrocities....which were a violation of the Geneva Conventions", he said.

And of course, the Nurnberg defense can be invoked, but it won't work because of the legal precedent set in the judgment at Nurnberg.

And no, I do not believe all our military in Viet Nam committed atrocities, but Kerry is the only one I know who has so confessed.

Oh, c'mon, this is thin.

When you know a bunch of soldiers are committing atrocities. Beyond a shadow of a doubt. And you know that there are people higher up ordering them to do such things. You seriously believe the proper way to deal with the situation is to punish the one soldier who actually admitted to doing it?

Do you think whistleblowers should all be fired and put in jail?

Cycloptichorn