So why doesn't Kerry sue the Swift Boat liars now?

[dhinojosa]

Everything is all set for him to do so and then John O'Neill and the rest of the attack dogs can get their just dessert. It would be perfect timing since these same attack dog groups are now going after groups like AARP.

I thoroughly believe Kerry. I was just wondering what is taking him so long?

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

1. I wonder the same thing. Sue for libel and defamation of character

at least.

[HeatherG.]

80. Eventually

I wouldn't be against him suing them eventually. But,I think if he sued them now, they would end up all over tv lying again. If he wants to seem electable to democratic primary voters, he wouldn't want the SBVFT to seem like a big issue.

[JI7]

2. he is a public figure

[Southsideirish]

10. Carol Burnett was a public figure when she sued the National Enquirer

for libel and she won, too.

[JI7]

22. he is an elected official

i'm not saying it's impossible, but it would be very tough. it's not something where he can just sue if he wants to , but something that should be prepared in advance by talking to some of the best lawyers and coming up with a case they feel will be strong and can rise above all the objections that will come up since he is a public elected official.

[Toots]

72. I don't care if you are elected no one has the right to spread LIES

They can spread half truths or inuendos but out and out LIES are not allowed by LAW. Kerry has the backing of the US Navy on his side. they have word of mouth. Kerry should be able to sue and win if he is of a mind to do so. If he doesn't it will just get worse from here on out for any Democrat running.

[LiberalFighter]

96. Does that apply to events that occur when he wasn't elected?

[dsc]

42. after several years

and it had been proven they made up quotes. Burnet is one of the very few public figures who have won libel cases in America.

[tsuki]

60. Only because she was the daughter of alcoholics who has been

a spokesperson for AA or the other branch, children of Alcoholics. She could demonstrate a "loss" of credibility which kept her from doing her "job."

[RetroLounge]

118. Sorry, AA doesn't have spokespersons

or any other branches.

RL

[Just Me]

3. Maybe, the wheels of truth and justice are churning,...

,...just not the way you want.

[dhinojosa]

4. In what direction are these wheels turning?

In other words, what are you saying?

[Just Me]

21. We can't know everything,...no one can.

So, we must focus on what we can do instead spinning, spinning, spinning about how others are somehow just not moving fast or right or good enough for us,...YES? :bounce:

[sendero]

63. Sure...

... he's going to deal with it "behind the scenes" like he did Ohio.

Puhleassse. Kerry isn't going to do shit because he is not a fighter.

It really doesn't matter if he could win the suit or not. If in fact the SBVT charges are baseless, he could have the whole thing debunked in a court of law for everyone to see. Other than money (which can't be a factor here) and time (ok, that is a small issue), if IN FACT THERE IS NOTHING TO WHAT THEY SAID, there is NO DOWNSIDE TO TAKING THIS TO COURT.

Until someone draws a line in the sand over this sort of slander, it will continue. We will eventually get someone who will, but I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut it won't be Kerry, he just doens't have it in him.

[Just Me]

82. Your post indicates a strong anti-Kerry sentiment.

So, who do you view as "strong" enough to take on what you want him/her to take on?

[sendero]

88. I was pro-Kerry....

... until a week after the election and I could see he wasn't going to do anything, ANYTHING about what happened in Ohio.

At this point I'm not anti-Kerry per se, I just don't expect much of him. And I damn sure don't want him in 2008.

He's a great senator and I hope he stays there a long time.

[dhinojosa]

90. I will only support Kerry again only if he takes down these liars...

When he says he can fight for us, I want to make sure that he can fight for himself.

[CanOfWhoopAss]

116. Kerry is willing to step aside for zombies let him do it for Dems!

I say f*ck him. I'd support Edwards it seemed like he was willing but could only push if Kerry did since he headed the ticket. Kerry had his shot and did nothing with it.

The zombies fight to the bitter end and beyond. They are trying to recall Atlanta DA Howard and he ran uncontested. They refuse to let Gregoire govern Washington. When it comes to a fight Kerry just steps aside.

Only way I support Kerry is if he wins the primary. If I were running against him in the '08 primarys I'd rip his '04 campaign to shreds just to get him out of the way. He can remain Senator but if he's the presidential nominee I flip a coin in the booth. Or I at least think about flipping a coin.

[googly]

110. I think this post shows FACTUAL Kerry situation n/t

[still_one]

5. As long as he does nothing he will never have my respect

[The Zanti Regent]

52. Why should he do anything? He made a Bonesman deal with Bush

Sherman Skolnick documented the Bonesman deal Kerry made to lay down and die for his fellow Bonesman Bush

http://www.skolnicksreport.com/

Kerry gave his fellow Bonesman everything he needed including giving him the power to send my son, my only child, to die. 19 years old and his life is over and Kerry did nothing to stop it, nothing.

I will NEVER support Kerry for anything again. And that goes for his Bilderberger pal John Edwards too!

[LittleClarkie]

117. I looked at your link, but I can't find the article you are talking about

Which one is it? What's the name I'm looking for?

[LittleClarkie]

120. Ah, never mind, found it by myself

http://100777.com/node/852

Sadly, I don't find him entirely credible on this subject.

And I love the description I found in a review that he's a cross between Walter Winchell and William Burroughs.

[LittleClarkie]

122. I'm changing that to entirely UNcredible

http://www.skolnicksreport.com/ootar47.html

"The satanic worshipping cult, known as Skull & Bones, is basically an elite cabal made up of primarily pedophiles and homosexuals, all pledged to extreme secrecy in return for the doors of finance, industry, central government, and media to be thrown open to them. But the Society name has become a cliche. So, we re-named them Skull & Bastards."

"<2> Another member of the super-secret Skull & Bastards cult is U.S. Senator John Kerry (D., Junior Senator from Mass.). He ostensibly left his first wife because of "incompatibility". His second "wife", appears to be part of a marriage of convenience. She is apparently what is known as a "dyke", and is the widow of U.S. Senator John Heinz (R., Penn.) She is heiress to the Heinz Ketchup fortune. Senator Heinz was assassinated by a sabotaged plane crash, 1991. About the same time, in another sabotaged aircrash, was murdered U.S. Senator John Tower (R., Texas). Both were snuffed out, as we have pointed out, because of matters relating to the murder of President John F. Kennedy, the Iran-Contra scandal as it involved Daddy Bush and the Bush Crime Family, and other dirty, bloody black ops of the American CIA orchestrated by Daddy Bush, part of CIA since 1959 and in 1976, head of the Secret Political Police."

"Credible sources contend that Kerry has been the male sex-mate of George W. Bush, including Victor Ashe, and various persons in the radio/television networks. To sidetrack and neutralize any later possible mention of this, in stating as a Bonesman that the matters are secret, Kerry volunteered that Kerry was at Yale University at a period two years different from Bush. No one in the monopoly press dared ask Kerry why he volunteered such a statement.

"One member of the Kennedy Family, at great danger to themself, in opposition to practically the entire Family, has made it known that the person will speak out about these happenings and knows about the Kerry/George W. Bush male sex-mate relationship. The mess has been covered up by Teddy, the Senior U.S. Senator from Massachusetts."

So now they're lovers as well? I see.

Might I suggest that you find other sources for information. This one has a 10-gallon tinfoil hat on.

[2diagnosis]

6. What specific grounds? nt

[dhinojosa]

7. libel and defamation of character

Do you think that the Swift Boat liars didn't do anything?

[2diagnosis]

Kerry would put himself in an awkward position-

First by engaging this late he would elevate their status and then he would face "Christmas in Cambodia" and "Magic Hat" style attacks.

[sendero]

64. Oh great..

... now it's because it's "too late". Well who's fucking fault is that pray tell?

[2diagnosis]

68. It is not too late, Kerry's biggest hurdle

is form 180. He has said twice on Meet The Press that he would sign it and release all his military records. One of the SBL's direct hits was his longstanding position that he spent Christmas in Cambodia. (Remember "seared"?) My feeling is that Kerry does not want to open his record to misinterpretation.

[Toots]

73. That if it truly happened would not be in official records

It was illegal for the US to have troops in Cambodia at that time unless it was during Nixon's invasion which students at Kent State were killed protesting over. The medals are the main issue. LIARS said he didn't really earn them. The US Navy says different. Who will the courts believe?

[2diagnosis]

84. Kerry says he was mistaken,

the point is, if he sues incidents like this will be mixed in with all different types of interpretations of the events around the medals. You say the US Navy says different, and I think Kerry should let everyone see the paperwork and get it over with.

[blm]

95. His paperwork WAS available for one week to real journalists.

Everything but the medical records. The CIA operations in Cambodia will probably never be opened due to their constant denial that they had operatives in Cambodia at that time.

When Kerry said he may have been mistaken, it was only about the exact date. It was still around Christmas that the operation occurred.

[blm]

94. Baloney. Kerry was in Cambodia ferrying CIA operatives, one of whom

happened to be Christie Whitman's husband. She blurted it out once early last year on the Daily Show that her husband once spent a week in Cambodia with Kerry.

The govt. will likely never release any record of a CIA operation, even if they did use NAVY swift boats and officers to get there.

[karynnj]

99. Whitman's husband was CIA?

I don't recall even seeing or hearing him when she was our Governor.

[blm]

104. Christie goofed when she said that. There's only one possible explanation

for her husband spending a week on a boat with Kerry, since he was not a member of Kerry's crew. Not a far reach to figure he was one of the operatives Kerry had ferried into Cambodia.

[2diagnosis]

109. Must be his hat that Kerry carries around.

I wonder if Christie wants it.

[2diagnosis]

111. What's baloney? That he said he would sign form180

to release all his military records? Blurting something doesn't make it true, Kerry blurted out on Meet The Press that he delivered weapons to the Khmer Rouge, do you believe that?

[blm]

112. All of Kerry's records WERE available to real journalists for a few days.

Anyone who was a REAL interested journalist was allowed to examine his entire Naval record during that window of time.

What is YOUR problem with that? You think it was only worthwhile if his medical records were open, too?

Funny, you only seem to have a bug up you about this matter.

[2diagnosis]

113. Your reaction is perfect. If he is going to sue then all of his records

will be available. There is a defensiveness about a very simple signature on a form, readily available on the internet in pdf form, that to me seems misplaced.

Kerry needs to go all out to defeat the liars in the court of public opinion, and my frustration is that this small task has yet to be done.

[blm]

115. HIS RECORDS WERE SEEN BY JOURNALISTS.

If you can't handle the truth and want it done only to YOUR satisfaction, then that is your problem.

If it went to court, Kerry could show the judge everything including the medical records. Maybe the judge could get the govt. to release the classified CIA files, too.

Then what would you complain about?

I really think you should find out which journalist availed himself of Kerry's records back when they were at his HQ and pump him every detail not already covered a hundred times in various reports. Then you can finally sleep at night.

[2diagnosis]

121. ok, I'll bite, which journalists have seen all of his military records? nt

[still_one]

9. forget the grounds, just come out and debate the bastards

any charge left unchallenged is assumed true

He let his surragates answer those charges, and that is not the same thing

He has got to stand up and be counted

In reality, the opportunity is now gone, and with it the destruction of America

[Cuban_Liberal]

8. Because, as a public figure, he's very likely lose.

That's why, in a nutshell.

[knight_of_the_star]

11. Not in this case

They lied about his war record, I think that goes a bit beyond what public figures normally deal with.

[Cuban_Liberal]

13. In almost any case.

Public figures are almost guaranteed to lose in any action for defamation.

[sendero]

65. Not if there is malice...

.. and IMHO, O'Neil has such a long history of smearing Kerry it should not be that hard to prove malice.

Have you seen this little maggot interviewed? He's seeps resentment and envy from every pore.

[Cuban_Liberal]

97. Commencing a defamation action is not always a good idea, frankly

Here's why:

1.) The publicity that results from a defamation lawsuit can create a greater audience for the false statements than they previously enjoyed.

2.) Defamation cases tend to be extremely difficult to win, and damage awards tend to be small, even when successful. Cosnequently, it is most unusual for attorneys to be willing to take defamation cases on a contingent fee basis, and the fees expended in litigating even a successful defamation action frequently exceed the total recovery.

3.) Even where the statements made by the defendant are entirely false, it may not be possible for a public-figure plaintiff to prove all of the elements of defamation, particularly actual malice. Most people will respond to news that a plaintiff lost a defamation lawsuit by concluding that the allegations were true.

The bottom line is the plaintiff in a defamation action may be required to expend a considerable amount of money to bring the action, may experience significant negative publicity which repeats the false accusations, and, if unsuccessful in the litigation, may cement into the public consciousness the belief that the defamatory accusations were true.

[sendero]

105. I stand by my position.

.... if the SBVT ads are totally without truth just getting an airing of the facts is worth it. Who cares about monetary judgements, for Kerry at least, that means nothing.

As far as the charges getting more airing, again - if they are false and debunked well, who cares - it is a win for Kerry. As it is there has not, to my knowledge ever really been a fact by fact refutation by Kerry.

At a bare miminum, it would give pause to those who think they can make stuff up with impunity. Someone has to lay down the gauntlet eventually - how do you propose it be done?

[Cuban_Liberal]

119. You're certainly entitled to your opinion.

For the reasons I set forth previously, I am not of the same opinion.

[still_one]

15. really, they also lied about mccain's record

and he trembled before them also

[Warpy]

14. Nope, he needs to prove two things

first that they lied, and that's a slam dunk.

Second that they were acting out of malice, and that should be really easy considering the enormous amount O'Neill has shot his mouth off on air.

Winning aint the point, though. See my post a little later on...

[Cuban_Liberal]

16. Are you quite sure?

Please cite the staute or case that makes it a 'slam dunk'.

[still_one]

24. its not about winning

its putting in their place

[Cuban_Liberal]

26. Wrong.

A loss makes it look to 99% of the American public like the charges were true. Think about it.

[still_one]

30. they already think its true

when you have nothing you have nothing to lose

[Cuban_Liberal]

33. Not 99%

Why file a frivolous lawsuit?

[still_one]

35. principle

[Cuban_Liberal]

36. Ummm...

Being branded a liar publicly, then confirming it by losing a libel case, is a pretty damned dumb principle.

[still_one]

39. he should of answered the charges during the campaign

he didn't, and now it is too late, and for that reason you are correct.

the democrats let the neocons have everything during the first four years, and now it is too late

if the democrats do not fight for social security, which means getting into the mud and fighting along side the neocons, then the democrats do not deserve to be a viable party

[marcologico]

100. He did, repeatedly, and still does, every time he's interviewed.

For example, did you see him on Meet the Press Jan. 30? At least 2/3 of that hour was spent on idiotic SBVT crap, including closeups of the "unfit for duty" book and clips from the asswipe commercials.

But he refuted all of it.

[still_one]

18. excellent POINT

unfortunately, I believe the real character of Kerry has already been shown to us during the campaign

I just wish we would have given someone else a chance if he wasn't going to answer charges against him

[Warpy]

12. that's the trillion dollar question

and I mean that literally, since that's how much the national debt has risen since he failed to sue them the day that book came out.

Why he doesn't sic a team of lawyers with subpoena power on those thugs is beyond my understanding. They are not going to go away. The only thing to do is to slap them with a libel suit, start the subpoena process to follow every dime backing them, and to tie up all their resources fighting this thing.

The point is not winning the suit. The point is hamstringing them while the lawyers find out just who their daddy is.

Perry, the homebuilder in Houston, financed the book and that first ad. There is no way he was capable of financing the progressively slicker ads nor was there any way he could pay for the air time to run them.

A lawsuit would find out where that huge amount of backing was coming from. My guess is that the initials would be gee oh pee, and that is illegal, and we could nail the lot of them.

[PsN2Wind]

23. I gotta agree......Follow the Money

Win, lose or draw. Show who was behind this shit and why. Sitting on his hands (listening to his advisors) screwed him and the USA. So tie them fu***rs up before they can do more harm.

[JDPriestly]

17. If he or some of the other Swift Boaters don't sue,

this whole thing will rear its ugly head again next time he runs for office. And it will be very difficult for him to refute it because he hasn't taken any legal action on it. Also not taking action on it emboldens the Swift Boaters -- and that is bad for all of us.

[Cuban_Liberal]

19. There's no point in filing a lawsuit you can't win.

As a public figure, Kerry is virtually certain to lose.

[still_one]

25. if you don't answer a charge then you are guilty

[Cuban_Liberal]

27. If you lose one you file, it's even worse.

Think about it.

[still_one]

28. doesn't have to file

just start having a campaign against the swift pukes. Get free TV time like they did. Run commercials day in and day out showing how these same people destroyed max cleland, mccain, kerry, and on and on and on

pound it in for months like they did, and if they don't like it, let them sue

[Cuban_Liberal]

31. " So why doesn't Kerry sue the Swift Boat liars now? "

I thought that was the topic here.

[Scout Finch]

43. Maybe you're missing the obvious here.

Maybe the SBV's hit something damn close to the truth. This is not to inflame, but, the topic keeps missing this thought by "that much".

[emulatorloo]

62. They are proven liars, and if you believe them, you believe liars

EOM

[HeatherG.]

78. The Charges

I think the ultimate way to get back at O'Neil is for Kerry to gain the presidency. We need our guys to be quicker on their feet. We need our guys to be aware of the particular charges and to know how to respond when the Swifties are lying. O'Neil, for instance lied to Ted Koppel repeatedly. There was a lot of action going on when Kerry ran down the guy with the rocket launcher. They were in a dangerous situation. The crew confirms this. O'Neil makes it sound like there was only one VC. O'Neil also repeatedly calls this VC a teenager. How the hell could O'Neil be so sure of the VC's age? He wasn't even there. The villagers say the guy was in his 20's. It is not that easy to tell the difference between a teen and a 20 something young man. Was Kerry supposed to wait for the guy to come back and kill him and his crew? It was the navy's decision to give Kerry the medal. He was not the only one who got a medal in the incident. You say they may have hit on something close to the truth. It is possible that out of all the claims they made, they may have hit something close to the truth. I didn't look to hard into the purple hearts. It wouldn't make a difference in my decision to vote for him wether he recieved all the purple hearts in combat or not. I don't blame him for wanting to get out of there.

[dhinojosa]

114. I hope that's not the case n/t

[JDPriestly]

38. That isn't entirely true.

A public figure can sue for libel. It is much more difficult to win (I think they have to show actual malice), but in this case, Kerry might be able to do it. Also, note that I suggested that if Kerry doesn't want to sue, some of the other Swift Boaters who were called liars and libeled almost as much as Kerry could sue. They are not public figures and would not have to meet the same burden of proof.

[Cuban_Liberal]

41. What I said is entirely true

What you're saying is different. My answer, insofar as it applies to Kerry, is correct.

[JDPriestly]

55. What do you mean

that Kerry would be unlikely to win? I'll grant you it would be very difficult, but you can't say categorically that he would not win. As I understand it, he would have to prove actual malice, i.e., "establish with clear and convincing clarity that the defamatory falsehood was published with knowledge of its falsity and recklessly." Prosser and Keeton on Torts (Fifth ed. 1984) 806. Let's face it, the Swift Boaters knew full well that some of the things they were saying were lies. Some of their lies were too blatant, too clearly lies. It shouldn't be hard to prove they knew they weren't true.

[Cuban_Liberal]

57. Once again, that's not what I said.

What I wrote:

As a public figure, Kerry is virtually certain to lose.


What you wrote:

"...you can't say categorically that he would not win....

Nor did I, in fact, say that.

You are quite free to argue in favor of Kerry's likelihood of prevailing in a libel suit, but I would greatly appreciate your not setting up my argument as a strawman in order to do so.

[still_one]

20. kerry is history

but, buy standing up now, he could do a great service for the country and the democratic party

[mikehiggins]

29. He doesn't beleive that

It is part of being a Beltway pol that you simply can never accept that your moment has passed. In Kerry's case, that is the case. There was never a particularly good reason for him to be our nominee in the first place. He pulled out a win in the early contests and the whole thing went downhill from there. The question that was never answered through the entire campaign was why anyone SHOULD vote for Kerry other than the fact that he wasn't Bush.

For people like me, of course, that was more than enough reason but the end result demonstrates that it wasn't enough for the rest of the country.

There is no way of knowing what would have happened if Dean or Clark or Gephardt or even Dennis had led the charge. All we do know is that Kerry had a chance for greatness and allowed it to slip through his advisor's fingers.

His day is done, but he will never know that.

[still_one]

32. i agree

[wisteria]

48. Yes, Kerry is history in the making!

Old history,no! He has answered these SB charges and this gang has been discredited. Sometimes, no matter what you attempt to do people will believe what they want to believe.

[wisteria]

49. These nasty, lying thugs have been discredited.

John Kerry has answered their charges and proved that they are wrong. The SBer's are actually a small group of self-serving jerks, perhaps, we have to be more vocal in discrediting them. Suing them will only bring more MSM attention their way.

[dhinojosa]

51. Yep, this swift liars are running over the AARP now....

They are running around now like they have some sort of political mandate. What they did was wrong, and I want Kerry to do something about that.

[CoffeeCat]

34. I'm not an attorney, but he's got an excellent libel case...

If I remember correctly, from my law classes--the elements of libel are:

Publication
Identification
Defamation
Falsity
and Fault--if you're a public figure.

To prove Fault, you must demonstrate that the person libeling you knew that the accusations were false, but went ahead and printed/said them anyway.

Kerry would have to prove that their statements were lies. Then he would have to prove that they were intentionally lying to defame him.

Could he do that? It seems like a slam dunk to me. I don't think it would be difficult to prove Fault--which is usually the biggest challenge with libel cases involving public figures.

Personally, I think Kerry should skip the libel suit and hire a Tony-Soprano-like figure to teach John O'Neil a few good lessons. That man is the biggest piece of scum that has ever walked the earth. Did you see Kerry emasculate O'Neil on the Dick Cavett show? It was beautiful!

I can't think of anyone in the political arena that is more detestable and scummy than John O'Neil.

[zulchzulu]

37. It's definitely in the works...

Kerry knows that he needs to put out that fire before 2006 and certainly 2008. As a former prosecutor who has taken down mafia asswipes and nearly took down the Reagan administration single-handedly with Iran-Contra, he knows that it has to be the right time and place to overwhelmingly strike with blunt and deadly force.

I'd expect something by the summer.

[still_one]

40. won't happen

you saw his character during the campaign

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[still_one]

46. really

answer me THESE QUESTIONS:

1. Why during the campaign in the Grand Canyon did kerry say he would vote the same way to give * the authority to go into iraq, knowing what he knows now?

2. Why during the 3 debates when they asked him why he voted against the 87 billion dollars for iraq, he didn't answer the question directly, when he had more than a reasonable answer?

3. Why didn't he come out immediately and deny the swift puke charges?


Hey buddy, as far as referring me as a */rove kerry basher, that shows you objectivity

For the first four years Kerry and the democrats gave * everything he wanted, including the patriot act. Yes, I am pissed, because HE BLEW IT. THERE WAS NO REASON THAT HE SHOULD HAVE LOST

You have no idea what my background or knowledge is, and yet you throw insults at me based on your immature behavior

This is why the democrats will continue to lose elections, until they have the GUTS to stand up for principle. Boxer is ONE OF THOSE DEMOCRATS. Kerry's voting record is much better now than it was during *'s first term, but WHERE WAS HE THEN

[Lexingtonian]

45. This is politics, not commerce

There is no reason for Kerry to resort to the courts; in fact it's wrong for him to do so.

For one thing, what kind of 'remedy' is such a court supposed to give him?
Secondly, it all just means humiliating assertions from Kerry that all this stuff materially damaged him enough to be worth pursuing. Personally, I don't believe that particular hullaballoo actually cost him the Presidency or really did him permanent damage. And he has no need for any money or stupid other form of 'restitution'.

The one and only right way to deal with it all is relentless retaliation, is political annihilation of these people. But: there isn't any need to do it right now, or even to do it first- in fact, the best way to do it is to destroy them in the public eye after ruining their sponsors, allies, and cause. That's the real dimensions and possibilities of the game.

In the coming Kerry pseudo-campaign I think we'll see a PR jab in that direction, just to make them feel mortal- a nice little Michael Mooreish expose of their immorality and criminality- and crushing them fully will wait until the larger work of undermining the Right in '06 is done.

[sendero]

66. The remedy....

... is justification in the court of public opinion. The remedy is establishing in a court of law that the SWVT are liars.

The benefit to society is drawing a line in the sand concerning the veracity of political speech.

I couldn't disagree with you more.

[forgethell]

135. Any time your honor

is destroyed, you have suffered damage.

The fact that he has neither sued, nor signed the form tells you all you need to know about his character, although not the truth of the assertions. There can be other reasons for refusing to defend yourself besides guilt, although I can't think of any good ones.

My problem is, who have we got that can't be smeared like Kerry? How come, when they smear us, it sticks, and when we smear them, it doesn't. For example, nobody but us seems to care that * was a drunk when he was younger. Remember how we complained about RR being a Teflon president?? Now *!! AWOL?? Not important. So can we hire their PR people??

[dsc]

47. It is incredibly difficult for politicians to sue for libel

especially when the libel occurs in political ads. This would be an expensive, time consuming case, and Kerry would have at best a 50/50 shot at winning. He would have to prove that the ad was inaccurate and that the SBL group knew it and didn't care or should have known it and didn't care.

[DesEtoiles]

50. Remember seeing this posted previously

John E. O'Neill
Bar Card Number: 15297500

John E. O'Neill, author of Unfit for Command, is an attorney licensed and practicing in Texas.

According to the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct:

Rule 8.04 Misconduct (a) A lawyer shall not: ...(3) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

Look at each of those words carefully. Deceit. Misrepresentation. This is less even than a lie.

PLEASE WRITE, FAX, FED EX THE TEXAS STATE BAR TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THESE VIOLATIONS - including at least one specific example of a lie -- include your name to be taken seriously:

Texas State Bar
P.O. Box 12487
Austin, Texas 78711
1414 Colorado St.
Austin, TX 78701
Fax: [phone] <----------------------------

Telephone Numbers --- but writing is better
Toll Free: [phone]
Local: [phone]

COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF O'NEILL'S DEBUNKED LIES AT:

www.mediamatters.org - search on "O'NEILL"

Also - pick apart this interview on Hardball:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5694561

And see this from the Daily Howler:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh101804.html

www.texasbar.com for more info if you need it

Take your time, write something concise and compelling - not just an angry outburst.

(AND WRITE LETTERS TO THE EDITOR OF TEXAS NEWSPAPERS ASKING WHY O'NEILL IS NOT BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE UNDER THIS RULE)

[Falalalalala]

53. Kerry needs to sue

after he signs that 180 to shut the Pubs up.

[starwolf]

59. And he still won't

Which adds to the FUDs.

[2diagnosis]

85. Why won't he? eom

[Cuban_Liberal]

102. see post #97.

It pretty much says why.

[starwolf]

106. #97 does not address

Why he won't sign a SF180, though it was an informative post. IIRC recently during an interview Kerry was challenged on just this point.

[2diagnosis]

108. #97 refers to a lawsuit. Why not sign Form #180?

I was under the impression that this was done a long time ago and argued with friends that he had. It turns out that the statements released by Kerry's campaign were a bit misleading. By not signing 180 and releasing the records, it leaves the "impression" that there is something to hide.

[moondust]

54. The SBVT garbage will spread like fire

if it is not nipped in the bud. Kerry seemingly has a good opportunity to bring some slime bags to their knees and do something to civilize the process.

Just wait until "no lie too big, no smear job too mean" takes hold at the grassroots level and we'll all be swimming in slime...

[marcologico]

56. Kerry was a prosecutor. These clowns have been heckling him for 35 years.

If he had a winnable case, I think he would have brought it.

Has ANY politician ever won a libel case against a campaign smear?

[dhinojosa]

58. Yeah you're right, it's all about precedent....

...and not about doing what is right.

<sarcasm-off>

[marcologico]

67. Look, he's not fighting the National Enquirer, he's fighting the VietNam

War. Haven't you figured that out yet? These guys will swear to any lie any spy can invent because we lost the war and this is their way of winning it. So Kerry's basically up against the U.S. Army, Navy, and Marines not to mention White House and Supreme Court.

Oh yeah and National Guard. :)

[Vinca]

61. By not pursuing legal action, he leaves the impression it's all true.

Sorry, but that's the way it is.

[Padraig18]

69. And by losing a lawsuit, he confirms it. n/t

[Vinca]

75. But if he was, in fact, smeared, he wouldn't lose the lawsuit.

[marcologico]

76. Lower courts, conceivably, appeals courts, not a chance.

Don't forget that the highest court in the country gave us Bush 2000.

[Padraig18]

81. Not exactly true.

The standard of proof required for a public figure to prove defamation is much, MUCH higher than it is for an ordinary person. IIRC, a public figure must not only prove that it was untrue, but reckless and deliberately mailicious. That's an incredibly heavy burden of proof to carry successfully.

[Cuban_Liberal]

83. You are correct, Paddy. n/t

[dhinojosa]

91. But, in this case, the facts are already there.

Just do it.

[Vinca]

92. That's a very good point, but I don't see how he could go into

2008 with this baggage still attached. I really think he needs to go after the bastards or face "2004 Part Deux" from the Swift Boat Liars. I love John Kerry - don't get me wrong - but we can't risk a repeat of this crapola in 2008, there's too much at stake.

[Cuban_Liberal]

103. And if he loses?

If he loses, he's toast, because most people will assume the charges are true---- correctly or incorrectly.

[GetTheRightVote]

70. Perhaps it is a bone left for the dogs later, like 2008

When he runs in 2008, he will probably jump on it and make himself look very good when he trashes them.

:kick:

[sleipnir]

71. What? The Swifties weren't telling the truth??

I must have missed that one. Damn, they had me convinced Kerry never even set foot in Vietnam. They kept on sending me emails that explained how Kerry Photoshopped his way into several pictures. Veterans for Truth...my ass.



Sarcasm...off....

[Qanisqineq]

74. I've been wondering the same thing

I wish he'd get off his butt and do it soon! :)

[marcologico]

77. Even better: follow the money to Rove and sue for election fraud.

Better still: fold it into the impeachment charges. :)

[HeatherG.]

79. Because

Because then they would be all over the tv again, and they would be lying again. What if he lost the law suit? Then we would have to listen to the Swifties gloat. The most important thing in restoring Kerry's reputation is that our columnists, consultants, and pundits learn to respond to the charges. They need to be able to identify when they are being lied to. They need to do research on the SBVFT's claims using websites like dailyhowler, and they need to be able to respond quickly. I think interest in the SBVFT will be reduced if Kerry runs again.

[ellenfl]

86. shrub didn't win the election. kerry lost it.

i still don't know why he would not stand up to ANYTHING. can anyone tell me why he would not take a stand? i understood that he voted for and against the 87 mil in war appropriations because of pork and/or other types of unwanted amendments added to the bill, but i never heard him come out and say that! he should have been repeatedly affirming his decision as well as fighting the swifties. it made me think he had something to hide.

every time i wanted to stand up and scream 'that's just not true', he said nothing. i still don't get it. what IS he hiding (from)?

i think he is a good man and would have been a president for the people, but it felt to me like he wanted to lose this election.

ellen fl

[Catchawave]

87. Swifties aren't his only problem....

You must've heard of these guys:

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/

If you follow the money, this is the group that took down McCain in 2000. And yes, I'm still pissed at McCain for wussing out too.

There's alot of veterans out there who are still fighting the war, and they still blame Kerry for losing it. I'm sorta surprised the Dems weren't better prepared for this, especially after McCain's experiences?

[karynnj]

89. Could part of the problem be the use of afidavits

that they had various people sign attesting to various pieces of their claims protect the truly quilty authors? Going from some of the descriptions of the book, the authors have signed testimony from lots of people - many of whom backed down when Kerry et al proved they were lying. I am not a lawyer, but would they be able to say that they believed what they wrote because of this - even though from many accounts they told the people what to say.

If so, it really explains the problem Kerry faced - he was hit simultaneously with hundreds of accustaions, seeming to come from the majority of the people around him (although this wae not true).
Eventually they disproved almost all of them.

The Cambodis one was really a case where some of the media were just unfair. Kerry, while on the Senate floor arguing against covert military actions in Central America in the mid 80s, talked about going into Cambodia in December, 1968 when our government denied we were there. He mentioned Christmas eve. In tour of duty, there is a story of hime being ambused very close to the border that day. Brinkly backs him up that in early 1969, he and other swiftboats were going into Cambodia. Accounts from that time all agree that the US destabalized the Shianook government. Kerry's story, told 15 years later, at worst, has minor timing errors. His comments on the Senate floor did not glorify him and his comparison of destabalizing Cambodia to Central America are not affected by his minor errors.

Where Kerry may have been slightly wrong, O'Neil was proven to have blatanly lied. He said no one could have gone into Cambodia. But he was taped telling Nixon that he went into Cambodia. I would not call Kerry's errors lies, because it is far easier to see them as small details unrelated to the point he was making.

[marcologico]

93. Good analysis. Win or lose, a libel suit would be total victory for Rove.

It would make Kerry look ridiculous and small and the SBVT liars would get wall-to-wall good press as victims, patriots, vets, etc.

Kerry has to go higher, much higher, and I hope he will.

[mourningdove92]

98. Does anyone know the statute of limitations for him to file

suit?

[Silverhair]

101. He is a politician. He can't.

The bar for a politician to sue for libel is so high that it is impossible to reach. And doubly so for statements in a campaign. All he would do is place them in the spotlight again.

[Deja Q]

107. Whatever he does or does not do, I refuse to be surprised about.

He could have floored * during the debates all the way down to China.

His campiagn was about fighting and not stopping. Tell me again how long it took, in minutes (something like 840) before he conceded?

He'd proven himself to be the flip-flopper that the infinitely larger flip-flopper* was.

I hope he doesn't run in '08. He doesn't deserve any of our votes. He won't get mine. Period.

[googly]

123. Kerry is working behind the scenes to sue the pants off SBV liars.

[Dr Fate]

124. Because he's too scared of Wolf Blitzer & Judy Woodruff...

And too scared to go on TV and debate the media whores who lied(?) about him.

Just like the rest of them-too frightened to go on TV- too busy "writing letters" so they can pretend they are fighting the GOP/media.

[marcologico]

125. He went on Meet the Press on Jan. 30 and talked about it for an hour.

I've heard him talk about it in dozens of interviews, radio and TV, in fact in EVERY interview he's given since last summer.

He's not shying away from SBVT, or Iraq, or Social Security, or Guckert, or Condi, or Gonzalez, or Bolton, or any other Dem issue.

p.s. here are others I could name who are too "scared" to even do an NPR interview.

[Dr Fate]

126. Great- so he will sue them then????????

Did he call Bush & Rove "liars" to for smearing his record? Did he accuse Russert of "knowingly spreading Rove's lies, just like Gannon?"

No?

I'll bet he was "nuanced"- just nuanced enough to give the rest of the press an excuse not to report it.

Now you know why no one but DUers even knows that the Swiftboat stuff was BS.

I am here to tell you that the only way DEMS will get anywhere is to start stirring the shit- in a big way.

[marcologico]

127. He said "President Bush is hyping a phony crisis," speaking of SS.

That nuanced enough for you? :)

[Dr Fate]

130. "President Bush is lying again, and so are you, Tim."

That is want I want to hear.

Call me crazy if you want- but I think it would create a buzz and excitement like no other. The media would not be able to ignore it, that's for sure.

[marcologico]

134. Unless he made some embarrassing gaffe, they'd ignore it.

Like they did all last year.

[LittleClarkie]

128. No one but DUers? No, there are other thinking people in the world

besides us.

And if folks are paying attention, and know it's the same group attacking AARP, perhaps they will put two and two together and realize that if the AARP crap is bogus and political, then so must the Smear vet crap also be bogus and political.

[Dr Fate]

129. Just like they put 2 & 2 together in 2000, 2002 & 2004?

You have more faith in people who watch "the Liberal media" than I do.

[LittleClarkie]

131. Well the retired membership chairman at the local Dem Party

doesn't read DU. (Though he does stream AAR)

And he understood that Dean was selected by the states, ie the grassroots. He understood that the Smear boat crap was bogus.

Well those are Dems. But I know Republican veterans who say that they know that the Smear vet crap was purely political.

Depends on if you think we won or lost in 2000 and 2004, I suppose.

I prefer to think they were stolen. I'm not so surrounded by idiots that way.

[Dr Fate]

132. Oh- okay- we WON the Smearboat battle against the GOP/media then...

Sorry- I must have remembered the whole thing wrongly. We kicked their ASS on that one!!! (Rattles pom poms and jumps up & down)

[LittleClarkie]

133. I was just reacting to exactly what you said

Were we on DU the only ones who knew the truth? No, we weren't.

Does that mean the issue didn't effect us? No, it does not.

Did we win the issue? Eh, it divided down party lines mostly. Did we lose on that issue? Eh, again, I think 9/11 and the war in Iraq played a bigger role.

It probably didn't help. But I don't think it hurt as much as some might think. Dems mostl knew the truth.

However, if you remember DU as being the only ones who knew the truth then, indeed, you remember the whole thing wrongly.

[LilBitRad]

136. Kick for later read after work n/t