Kerry campaign to muzzle free speech!

It figures... The DNC's attack machine can take $20M from George Soros under the 527 rules, but when a Republican puts up a measely $100K to air an anti-Kerry ad the DNC FREAKS OUT!!! Hypocrisy anyone!?

humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net...

Doesn't this disturb anyone? This man is running for the Presidency of the United States of America and is advoacting a different set of rules than the very rules that he and his campaign play by. Wouldn't it be fair to assume that given his record in the Senate, his continued waffling and now this that he is clearly unfit for command?

What does Soros or the 527 rules have to do with anything you just posted? (Other than your intent to try and spin the word "hypocrisy" in there.)

Your own link:

The letter claims the ad is "false" and "libelous" and suggests, in not-so-subtle terms, that TV stations should use their "legal authority" to refuse any requests for advertising airtime, stating that "because your station has this freedom [to refuse the ad], and because it is not a 'use' of your facilities by a clearly identified candidate, your station is responsible for the false and libelous charges made by this sponsor" (emphasis added).

I don't see the DNC "FREAKING OUT" about $100K contribution. They're charging libel and a "false light" presentation of events. Kind of like your post.

Libel is not protected as free speech, and this new Kerry bash ad from people who never served with him is basically that: libel, unsubstatiated and incorrect deliberate misinformation to shame someones reputation.

I had heard on the radio yesterday of a letter that was drafted by some of Kerry's campaign officers condemning the Houson areas businessman for bankrolling the $100K ad stating that this whole "Smear campaign" was "Orchestrated by a single wealthy Republican" and "Violates the spirit of campaign finance reform." I will attempt to locate a copy of said letter and post it here. When I heard that on the radio my first thought was, "HUH!?!?", isn't George Soros bankrolling $20M to 527's for Anti-Bush smear ads? Um yeah, um, he sure is! Have any Kerry campaign officers come out condemning that? Um, No they sure haven't. Wouldn't that then be an example of hypocrisy? Um, yeah, it sure would!

Regarding "libel", I would prefer to believe Kerry's commanding officers and those who served with him, those who WITNESSED the events that transpired, over Kerry's version of events. Of course the DNC wants to silence these types of ads, it makes their boy look bad!

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
and this new Kerry bash ad from people who never served with him is basically that: libel, unsubstatiated and incorrect deliberate misinformation to shame someones reputation.

HUH!? You're kidding me right!?!? "Never served with him"??

"George Bates, an officer in Coastal Division 11, participated in numerous operations with Kerry. In UNFIT FOR COMMAND, Bates recalls a particular patrol with Kerry on the Song Bo De River. He is still "haunted" by the incident:

With Kerry in the lead, the boats approached a small hamlet with three or four grass huts. Pigs and chickens were milling around peacefully. As the boats drew closer, the villagers fled. There were no political symbols or flags in evidence in the tiny village. It was obvious to Bates that existing policies, decency, and good sense required the boats to simply move on.

Instead, Kerry beached his boat directly in the small settlement. Upon his command, the numerous small animals were slaughtered by heavy-caliber machine guns. Acting more like a pirate than a naval officer, Kerry disembarked and ran around with a Zippo lighter, burning up the entire hamlet.

Bates has never forgotten Kerry's actions."

You'd better read this!

www.drudgereport.com...

That's the funy thing about "war crimes," you have to go to war to commit them. Hard to do AWOL.

Originally posted by RANT
That's the funy thing about "war crimes," you have to go to war to commit them. Hard to do AWOL.

However I hardly find "war crimes" funny. What I find Ironic is that Kerry would commit such war crimes and then return to the United States, allow himself to be celebrated as a war hero under false pretenses and then accuse his fellow soldiers of the very types of atrocities that he committed. That is what is called HYPOCRISY.

Um kozmo..........

serving with and engaging in an exercise are 2 different things.

The guys who were actually on the boat serving WITH Kerry seemed to think hes ok.

Even the FOX newchannel, that mouthpiece for the Republicans, condemned this whole slam on kerry, pointing out also that these guys who wrote this book didnt evem serve under kerry, only had bried contacts with him.

Libel is not protected as free speech, and this new Kerry bash ad from people who never served with him is basically that: libel, unsubstatiated and incorrect deliberate misinformation to shame someones reputation.

After hearing the ad, I'd have to concur that this isn't just character bashing or mud-slinging, it sounds more like Libel to me....

if it were libel there would be a lawsuit.

there isn't.

what does that tell you?

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Um kozmo..........

serving with and engaging in an exercise are 2 different things.

The guys who were actually on the boat serving WITH Kerry seemed to think hes ok.

Even the FOX newchannel, that mouthpiece for the Republicans, condemned this whole slam on kerry, pointing out also that these guys who wrote this book didnt evem serve under kerry, only had bried contacts with him.

You don't have to serve "UNDER" someone to have served "WITH" someone. There is a chain of command in the military, and those who served "ABOVE" Kerry are included with those who served "WITH" him in denouncing his ability to be Commander-in-Chief.

This has nothing to do with free speech or hypocrisy. As pointed out by other posters, this is an issue of libel, which is not protected speech. As far as the question of why no lawsuit has been filed, give me a break. The ad just appeared this week, and the book has not been officially released. The Drudge article that kozmo is quoting is just an excerpt from the book. Don't be surprised if libel lawsuits result from the ad and book by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

As far as the Democrats sending letters to TV stations to try to prevent the ad being aired, why is this hypocrisy? Hypocrisy is when your actions contradict your beliefs. The Democrats believe libel is wrong, and they are trying to stop it. They are just exercising their free speech by advising TV stations that the ad is libel, in their opinion.

I have a question for the moderators. How many Kerry-bashing threads are you going to allow in this forum, all based on the same ad and book by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? There are now four Kerry-bashing threads, all based on the same material from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

I tried yesterday to post an article on the funding and individuals behind Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. I got an automatic message that this was a duplicate post, and that the topic was already covered. So, apparently, I am not allowed to make a new post exposing the funding and individuals behind Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, but Kerry bashers like kozmo, are allowed to keep starting new threads based on material from the group.

John McCain has stated that the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. The White House has stated that they will never question Kerry's military service. For more background on Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, please read the following.

POLITICS: John McCain Condemns Anti-Kerry Ad

Swift Justice

The GOP's not-so-impartial hit man

Submerging the truth about Swift Boat Vets on Hannity & Colmes, Scarborough Country

Republicans' Dishonorable Charge

if it were libel there would be a lawsuit.

Last I heard, there were quite a few lawyers involved... Their first goal is to prevent it from airing, then I'd bet you'll see a lawsuit filed.

I got an automatic message that this was a duplicate post, and that the topic was already covered

You must have chosen the exact same title as an existing thread, in order for this to occur....

[edit on 6-8-2004 by Gazrok]

well, the fact remains there is no libel lawsuit.

and unless one is filed, the presumption is, the ad is factual.

Originally posted by moxyone
well, the fact remains there is no libel lawsuit.

and unless one is filed, the presumption is, the ad is factual.

Really? Then did SwiftVets sue John McCain for calling them "dishonest and dishonorable"? Or is HE factual?

BRING IT ON! Not only would it confirm what all of these men are saying, it would probably bring more dirty laundry to the general public that would cost him his bid at the Presidency. It would end any speculation that the allegations were false and would cement what many of us already know... Kerry is terribly unfit for command!

And a deserter and a moron IS fit for command?

Personally, I like neither choice, but as in most elections, we're faced with picking the lesser of two evils....

There appears to be some issues with the claims...

Personally, I like neither choice, but as in most elections, we're faced with picking the lesser of two evils....

*************************************

The sad thing is that you should have more than two choices.
However, The Kerry Camp is trying to disenfranchise voters
by trying to get Nadar off the ballots.

Talk about Kerry muzzling free speech!!

Originally posted by moxyone
well, the fact remains there is no libel lawsuit.

and unless one is filed, the presumption is, the ad is factual.

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. In other words, you presume everything you read, see, and hear is factual. Only when a libel lawsuit is filed do you question the factual accuracy of anything you have read, seen, or heard???