BROTHERS BAND TOGETHER AGAINST KERRY

[adios]

Ann Coulter often goes "over the top" and says some vile things. That's unfortunate because I think in this article she makes some valid points:

1. The Swift Boat Veterans referred to in this article are represented by plenty of vets who won medals in combat like Kerry did. To dismiss them as a bunch of Republican puppets is unfair methinks due to the fact that their service and service records are worth noting. Apparently Kerry has gone on the record in both a letter to the editor of a Boston newspaper and the Congressional Record stating that he participated in military missions in Cambodia. The Swift Boat Veterans stated that this was a lie and Kerry is apparently backing away from what he has gone on the record as saying previously about being in Cambodia. Kerry apparently has stated that these missions inside Cambodia soured him on the Viet Nam war. Anyway I don't think these Vets are Republican puppets. I think they're sore at Kerry for besmirching their conduct in Viet Nam. To be fair, Jim Rassmann, the guy who Kerry pulled out of the water that resulted in Kerry's Bronze Star wrote an Op Ed column in the WSJ the other day describing what happened and it seems to conflict with what the Swift Boat Veterans group is saying. I'll post Rassman's column after the Coulter column.

2. The Democratic party attempts to suppress the advertising by threatening lawsuits against TV stations that air the negative adds is low and shows the hypocrisy of Democrats saying they're champions of free speech. I'll bet that essentially no lawsuits occur over TV ads and/or the Swift Boat Veterans book.


BROTHERS BAND TOGETHER AGAINST KERRY (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ucac/20040812/cm_ucac/brothersbandtogetheragainstkerry&cid=108&ncid=1935 )

BROTHERS BAND TOGETHER AGAINST KERRY

By Ann Coulter

Democrats haven't been this upset about an American engaging in free speech since Juanita Broaddrick opened her yap.

Two hundred fifty-four Swift Boat Veterans have signed a letter saying John Kerry (news - web sites) is not fit to be commander in chief, a point developed in some detail in the blockbuster new book by John O'Neill, aptly titled "Unfit for Command." At the 2003 reunion of Swift Boat Veterans, about 300 men showed up: 85 percent of them think Kerry is unfit to be president. (On the bright side, Kerry was voted, in absentia, "Most Likely to Run for President on His Phony War Record.") Fewer than 10 percent of all Swift Boat Veterans contacted refused to sign the letter.

Kerry was in Vietnam for only four months, which, coincidentally, is less than the combined airtime he's spent talking about it. It takes a special kind of person to get that many people to hate your guts in so little time. The last time this many people hated one person after only four months was when Margaret Cho had her own sitcom.

But our young Eddie Haskell managed to annoy other servicemen even before he came home and called them war criminals. About 60 eyewitnesses to Kerry's service are cited in the book, describing Kerry fleeing comrades who were under attack, disregarding orders, putting others in danger, sucking up to his commanders, creating phony film footage of his exploits with a home-movie camera, and recommending himself for medals and Purple Hearts in vainglorious reports he wrote himself. (This was apparently before the concept of "fragging" put limits on such behavior.)

After three months of combat, Kerry had collected enough film footage for his political campaigns, so he went home. He even shot three different endings to the episode where he chases down a VC guy after test audiences thought Kerry shooting a wounded teenager in the back was too much of a "downer." After filming his last staged exploit, Kerry reportedly told a buddy, "That's a wrap. See you at the convention in about 35 years."

Kerry is demanding to be made president on the basis of spending four months in Vietnam 35 years ago. And yet the men who know what he did during those four months don't think he's fit to be dogcatcher. That seems newsworthy to me, but I must be wrong since the media have engineered a total blackout of the Swift Boat Veterans.

In May, the Swiftees held a spellbinding press conference in Washington, D.C. In front of a photo being used by the Kerry campaign to tout Kerry's war service, the officers stood up, one by one, pointed to their own faces in the campaign photo, and announced that they believed Kerry unfit for command. Only one officer in the photo supports Kerry for president. Seventeen say he is not fit to be president.

The press covered it much as they covered Paula Jones' first press conference.

With the media playing their usual role as Truth Commissar for the now-dead Soviet Union, the Swiftees are having to purchase ad time in order to be heard. No Tim Russert interviews, no "Today" show appearances, no New York Times editorials or Vanity Fair hagiographies for these heretics against the liberal religion. The only way Swift Boat Veterans for Truth could get less attention would be to go on "Air America" radio.

If the 254 veterans against Kerry got one-tenth as much media coverage for calling Kerry a liar as Clown Joe Wilson did for calling Bush a liar, the veterans wouldn't need to buy ad time to get their message out. (Wilson, you'll recall, was a media darling for six or seven months before being exposed as a fantasist by Senate investigators.)

With their commitment to free speech and a robust exchange of ideas (i.e., "child pornography" and "sedition"), the Democratic National Committee (news - web sites) is threatening to sue TV stations that run the Swift Boat Veterans' paid ads. Sue? Can you tell already that there are two lawyers at the top of the Democratic ticket? These are the same people who accuse John Ashcroft (news - web sites) of shredding the Bill of Rights. WHY ISN'T THE PRESS COVERING THIS??? Wait, now I remember. OK, never mind. (To contribute to the Swift Boat Veterans go here: https://coral.he.net/~swiftvet/swift/ccdonation.php?op=donate&site=SwiftVets)

The threat to sue is absurd, but will allow the very same TV stations that are already censoring the Swiftees to have an excuse to censor even purchased airtime.

Leave aside the fact that Kerry is a presidential candidate and -- judging by the ads being run against George Bush -- I gather there's nothing you can't say about a presidential candidate, including calling him Hitler. After reading "Unfit for Command," I am pretty sure Kerry doesn't want a neutral tribunal deciding who's telling the truth here.

The Swift Boat Veterans provide detailed accounts from dozens and dozens of eyewitnesses to Kerry's Uriah Heep-like behavior -- which "Unfit for Command" contrasts with Kerry's boastful descriptions of the exact same incidents.

By contrast, Kerry's supporters have their usual off-the-rack denunciations of any witness against a Democrat. The veterans are: liars, bigots, idiots, politically motivated, and I was never alone in a hotel with Paula Jones.

Ron Brownstein, Los Angeles Times reporter and Bill Clinton (news - web sites)'s favorite reporter, compared the Swift Boat Veterans' ad to a "snuff film." He claimed the veterans have "strong Republican ties."

Apparently, before being permitted to engage in free speech against Democrats in this country you have to: (1) prove that you are not a Republican, (2) take a vow of poverty, and (3) purchase the right to speak in a TV ad. On the basis of Clown Wilson, Michael Moore, George Soros, Moveon.org, etc., etc., etc., I gather the requirements for engaging in free speech against a Republican are somewhat less rigorous. Hey! Maybe John Edwards (news - web sites) is right: There really are two Americas!



O'Neill, the author of "Unfit for Command" and founder of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, can be heard on the Nixon tapes -- unaware that he was being taped -- telling Nixon that he came from a family of Democrats and voted for Hubert Humphrey in the prior election. Unlike Joe Wilson, Anita Hill or Richard Clarke, Woodward and Bernstein, et al., O'Neill has said he will take no royalties on his book but will donate all his profits to the Navy. So I think even under liberals' rules, O'Neill is allowed to have an opinion.

Before the book was released and O'Neill could appear to defend it, liberals were on TV denouncing the book. If memory serves, the last book Democrats tried this hard to suppress was the Bible. The DNC is threatening to sue to prevent the Swift Boat Veterans from buying ad time. When Democrats are this terrified of a book, it's not because they have a good answer. Howard Dean (news - web sites) can accuse Ashcroft of book-burning all he wants, but it's the Democrats who are doing everything in their power to prevent you from reading "Unfit for Command." In bookstores beginning this week.

Rassman's Op Ed column:

Shame on the Swift Boat
Veterans for Bush

By JIM RASSMANN
August 10, 2004; Page A10

(See Corrections & Amplifications item below.)

I came to know Lt. John Kerry during the spring of 1969. He and his swift boat crew assisted in inserting our Special Forces team and our Chinese Nung soldiers into operational sites in the Cau Mau Peninsula of South Vietnam. I worked with him on many operations and saw firsthand his leadership, courage and decision-making ability under fire.

On March 13, 1969, John Kerry's courage and leadership saved my life.

While returning from a SEA LORDS operation along the Bay Hap River, a mine detonated under another swift boat. Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river, and a second explosion followed moments later. The second blast blew me off John's swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river. Fearing that the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath.

When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire, I repeatedly swam under water as long as I could hold my breath, attempting to make it to the north bank of the river. I thought I would die right there. The odds were against me avoiding the incoming fire and, even if I made it out of the river, I thought I'd be captured and executed. Kerry must have seen me in the water and directed his driver, Del Sandusky, to turn the boat around. Kerry's boat ran up to me in the water, bow on, and I was able to climb up a cargo net to the lip of the deck. But, because I was nearly upside down, I couldn't make it over the edge of the deck. This left me hanging out in the open, a perfect target. John, already wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat, came out onto the bow, exposing himself to the fire directed at us from the jungle, and pulled me aboard.

For his actions that day, I recommended John for the Silver Star, our country's third highest award for bravery under fire. I learned only this past January that the Navy awarded John the Bronze Star with Combat V for his valor. The citation for this award, signed by the Commander of U.S. Naval Forces, Vietnam, Vice Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, read, "Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry's calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service." To this day I am grateful to John Kerry for saving my life. And to this day I still believe that he deserved the Silver Star for his courage.

It has been many years since I served in Vietnam. I returned home, got married, and spent many years as a deputy sheriff for Los Angeles County. I retired in 1989 as a lieutenant. It has been a long time since I left Vietnam, but I think often of the men who did not come home with us.

I am neither a politician nor an organizer. I am a retired police officer with a passion for orchids. Until January of this year, the only public presentations I made were about my orchid hobby. But in this presidential election, I had to speak out; I had to tell the American people about John Kerry, about his wisdom and courage, about his vision and leadership. I would trust John Kerry with my life, and I would entrust John Kerry with the well-being of our country.

Nobody asked me to join John's campaign. Why would they? I am a Republican, and for more than 30 years I have largely voted for Republicans. I volunteered for his campaign because I have seen John Kerry in the worst of conditions. I know his character. I've witnessed his bravery and leadership under fire. And I truly know he will be a great commander in chief.

Now, 35 years after the fact, some Republican-financed Swift Boat Veterans for Bush are suddenly lying about John Kerry's service in Vietnam; they are calling him a traitor because he spoke out against the Nixon administration's failed policies in Vietnam. Some of these Republican-sponsored veterans are the same ones who spoke out against John at the behest of the Nixon administration in 1971. But this time their attacks are more vicious, their lies cut deep and are directed not just at John Kerry, but at me and each of his crewmates as well. This hate-filled ad asserts that I was not under fire; it questions my words and Navy records. This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency, people who don't understand the bond of those who serve in combat.

As John McCain noted, the television ad aired by these veterans is "dishonest and dishonorable." Sen. McCain called on President Bush to condemn the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush ad. Regrettably, the president has ignored Sen. McCain's advice.

Does this strategy of attacking combat Vietnam veterans sound familiar? In 2000, a similar Republican smear campaign was launched against Sen. McCain. In fact, the very same communications group, Spaeth Communications, that placed ads against John McCain in 2000 is involved in these vicious attacks against John Kerry. Texas Republican donors with close ties to George W. Bush and Karl Rove crafted this "dishonest and dishonorable" ad. Their new charges are false; their stories are fabricated, made up by people who did not serve with Kerry in Vietnam. They insult and defame all of us who served in Vietnam.

But when the noise and fog of their distortions and lies have cleared, a man who volunteered to serve his country, a man who showed up for duty when his country called, a man to whom the United States Navy awarded a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts, will stand tall and proud. Ultimately, the American people will judge these Swift Boat Veterans for Bush and their accusations. Americans are tired of smear campaigns against those who volunteered to wear the uniform. Swift Boat Veterans for Bush should hang their heads in shame.

Mr. Rassmann, a retired lieutenant with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, served with the U.S. Army 5th Special Forces Group in Vietnam 1968-69.

Corrections & Amplifications:

This commentary misstated the name of a group of Vietnam veterans; the correct name is the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

[Stu Pidasso]

The democrats must be really worried about the impact from this if they are resorting extortion tactics to keep the voices of the Swift Boat Veterns from being heard. Its a shame that they choose to counter these allegations with an attack on first amendment rights. I guess thats only defense they have.

Could these swift boat veterns modify the commericial to become an advertisment for their book?

Stu

[El Barto]

It is kind of amazing that the media doesn't care about the intimidation of TV stations being applied to silence these ads. Is the free exchange of ideas still allowed in this country?

[cardcounter0]

"Is the free exchange of ideas still allowed in this country?"

I really don't know, better ask the Dixie Chicks.

[El Barto]

[ QUOTE ]
"Is the free exchange of ideas still allowed in this country?"

I really don't know, better ask the Dixie Chicks.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Dixie Chicks were in the UK at the time, so how does that apply to US free speech issues?

[nicky g]

Clearchannel withdrawing Dc's songs from their networks following the comments isn;t relevant to the US?

[cardcounter0]

WoW!!! Pure Ignorance. Phew! Better bottle that up. Fox News could use it.

[cardcounter0]

Staging "Burn the Dixie Chicks Records" parties in Texas, whooops! We were talking about the U.S., never mind.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
Staging "Burn the Dixie Chicks Records" parties in Texas, whooops! We were talking about the U.S., never mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one is preventing the Dixie Chicks from talking or advertising, nor preventing their opponents from talking or advertising. That is the issue.

The Kerry campaign is actively trying to prevent the Swift Boat Veterans from advertising. That is the issue.

You guys are flooding this thread with unrelated issues - the issue is Intimidating media outlets to refuse advertisements. Care to comment on that issue?

[vulturesrow]

First off, radio stations as a private entity have the right to play whatever music they like. Secondly, the Republican candidate for President didnt threaten legal action against said stations if they continued to play DC music. How you can even compare the two issues is beyond me. Once again, lets drag in something totally irrelevant and totally ingnore the issue that was brought up, that is the Democrats attempt to suppress this commercial. NT, sometimes you make some great points and sometimes you post something like this that just blows my mind.

Chris

[MaxPower]

They are not Republican puppets, but they are being used by highly partisan Republicans (The Texan who funded their group and the authors of the book). They feel that they have a legitimate disagreement with Kerry about his statements after the war. Where have these guys been for all these years while John Kerry was running for congress? Aparently some of them actually supported Kerry in his campaigns and praised his heroism - now the same people are saying that he is undeserving.

Jim Rassman, on the other hand, has no particular agenda as far as I can tell. I'm sure there is someone paying his campaign expenses though. I have no reason not to believe him.

This is such a non-issue. Simply negative campaigning design to discourage people from voting (especialy independent voters).

[ChristinaB]

What do you think of these pathetic ads?

Group Runs Anti-Kerry Ads on Black Radio Stations (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1803&u=/washpost/20040812/pl_washpost/a58006_2004aug11&printer=1)

[cardcounter0]

Since all the media is controlled by Northeastern French-Loving Liberals, why do you think the democrats would even need to resort to intimidation?
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[nicky g]

The free exchagne of ideas and libelling someone aren't quite the same thing. I don't know whether the accusations are correct or not but they're pretty serious; if they aren't true Kerry would be within his rights to sue. That said I don;t think it would be a very smart thing to do. Also targetting the TV stations rather than the group itself is pretty low, if true.

[cardcounter0]

Why should we pay any attention to anything nut-case-wacko Ann Coulter has to say?

Swift Boat Vets have had an axe to grind with Kerry for his anti-war comments made in the 70s. They come up with a bunch of half-truths, distortions, and lies (funded by Karl Rove).

Now the usual gang of Right-wing cheerleaders pick it up and run with it. The next Bush Cheerleader will probably quote Ann Coulter's distortions, and add his own. The Lies continue to feed itself on cross-quotes, self-references, and sheer volume of being repeated.

John McCain, the Republican Party, and the Administration has all distanced itself from this venom. Of course, behind the scenes, there is probably money being funded to the usual wackos to keep repeating and adding to the lies.

How many miles did Bush get from Cambodia?

[nothumb]

During this year's Super Bowl, another political action group tried to buy airtime on a major network to air an ad critical of Bush's policies. It was not aired because the station felt it was overly partisan or divisive. I presume you were outraged about this as well?

I presume the DNC is threatening to sue for libel or some such thing. If so they would be within their legal rights. If the Republican campaign is not telling lies, they have nothing to worry about.

Every time someone attacks Bush's record on the war, they are accused of being partisan and politically motivated. I assume you feel the same way about groups funded by the RNC and attacking Kerry's record?

The sword cuts both ways. Why Bush has gotten off so easy for his war record is really inexplicable. The same Republicans who called Clinton a draft-dodger are now acting as if the Texas Air National Guard was face-to-face with the man in the black pajamas.

NT

[cardcounter0]

Even more outrage was expressed by all when CBS bowed to pressure (and threatened lawsuits) and stopped airing the series that didn't show Reagan in a completely favorable light. I think Ann Coulter wrote a whole series of articles expressing her outrage that the whole show was not aired. /images/graemlins/grin.gif


Didn't Bush keep the border between Oklahoma and Texas completely safe from attacks from the Viet Cong during his heroic military service? I am sure pure modesty keeps him from telling stories about his battles trying to get beer cans in the Officers Club open without a bottle opener.

[nicky g]

Serving in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam war isn't a crime in itself. I don;t think it;s fair to criticise Bush for specifically having served there rather than in Vietnam; its not as if it was created solely for him, it did need new members. What would be wrong is if he had have gotten into the Air Guard through his father's political connections to avoid having to go to Vietnam - there's no conclusive proof of that but it looks like a reasonable assumption - and not served/had to serve properly (going AWOL etc).

What really sickens me about Bush (and this is way off topic) is that as a notorious ex-cocaine user who managed to get himself back into shape enough to become president of all things, he presides over a system that totally ruins millions of peoples lives for committing the same or lesser offences. To say he should be ashamed is an understatement.

[vulturesrow]

Wow lots of tangent following and misdirection, as usual. I just want to ask my liberal friends in here, do you think it is right or wrong for Kerry to try to suppress these ads by threatening legal action against stations that air them? Its a yes or no question. I doubt very many of you will be able to restrict yourself to a yes or no, but I am willing to see /images/graemlins/smile.gif We can discuss the other issues as much as youd like, lets just stick the fundamental question at hand.

[nicky g]

"I just want to ask my liberal friends in here, do you think it is right or wrong for Kerry to try to suppress these ads by threatening legal action against stations that air them? Its a yes or no question."

Er, no it's not. But regardless: I think it's wrong. If they are genuinely libelling him, I do not think it would be wrong for him to sue the group.

[vulturesrow]

Nicky,

If it indeed turns out to be libel, I agree with you 100% that Senator Kerry should sue them. However threatening the stations that play the ad is not right.

[ QUOTE ]
Its a yes or no question."

Er, no it's not.

[/ QUOTE ]


Ok, I will make a qualification. Lets assume that the vets are at least telling the truth or what they genuinely believe to be the truth..or is at least semi factual.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
If the Republican campaign is not telling lies, they have nothing to worry about.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all they're not funded by the Bush-Cheney campaign. As I indicated earlier, these guys won medals in Viet Nam just like Kerry did. And if the standard is lying well certainly they've exposed Kerry's lies about what he, Kerry, did in Cambodia.

[ QUOTE ]
Every time someone attacks Bush's record on the war, they are accused of being partisan and politically motivated. I assume you feel the same way about groups funded by the RNC and attacking Kerry's record?

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is your proof that this group is funded by the RNC?

[ QUOTE ]
The sword cuts both ways. Why Bush has gotten off so easy for his war record is really inexplicable.

[/ QUOTE ]

A highly subjective conclusion. The Bush campaign has continually complement Kerry on his service in Viet Nam.

[ QUOTE ]
The same Republicans who called Clinton a draft-dodger are now acting as if the Texas Air National Guard was face-to-face with the man in the black pajamas.

[/ QUOTE ]

nicky pointed out the relevant issues regarding Bush's National Guard service. Kerry has admitted to committing atrocities in Viet Nam, I wonder why that is preferable to serving in the National Guard?

[nicky g]

"However threatening the stations that play the ad is not right. "

I agree.

"Ok, I will make a qualification. Lets assume that the vets are at least telling the truth or what they genuinely believe to be the truth..or is at least semi factual. "

No, I just meant the way you phrased it meant it wasn't a yes or no question. I was being nitty.

[adios]

Questions regarding the legitimacy of Kerry's medals have come up before most notably in 1996. The leader of this group has had an ongoing dispute with Kerry for over 30 years. I find it amazing that people dismiss this group as nothing more than political hatchet men when their ranks have many people who won medals in Viet Nam and put themselves in harms way there. Kerry has made his service in Viet Nam an issue and thus has brought this scrutiny on himself. And talk about rich benafactors for the Republicans sponsoring political ads, what about George Soros and the Democrats? Soros is a friggen billonaire for crying out loud.

[vulturesrow]

Letter to TV stations (http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_pdf.html)

[adios]

Thanks for the link. From the link:

[ QUOTE ]
As their first piece of evidence of the ad's supposed lies, the DNC/Kerry lawyers claim that the veterans in the ad "purport to have served on Senator Kerry's SWIFT Boat in Vietnam" but, "in fact, not a single one of the men who pretend to have served with Senator Kerry was actually a crewmate of Senator Kerry's." The problem is that none of these men claimed to have served on Kerry's SWIFT Boat. They simply said they "served with John Kerry" -- and they did. The letter goes on to make several more misleading statements about the advertisement, in an attempt to protect Kerry's "war hero" record. Read the full text below.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find it interesting that the Democratic party spin doctors seem to be shooting the messenger rather than pointing to Kerry's record. It's not like these Swift Boats didn't travel together, they worked in close quarters with other Swift boats.

[cardcounter0]

Do you think Kerry just helped himself to those medals? Obviously someone evaluated and awarded those medals to him, so if you have a problem with Kerry getting medals, shouldn't your concerns be addressed to the people who gave them to him?

Please post a link to Soros funded attack ads on George Bush's war record.

[elwoodblues]

Yes, assuming he has a colorable claim.

No, if he doesn't.

Let me explain. If it is Kerry's position that the ad's are defamatory (and that is a legitimate position) he has as much right as anyone to protect himself against defamation. The letter to the networks by Kerry's lawyers suggested that they might be opening themselves up by airing the defamatory material. Again, if this is a legally viable position, I don't have a problem with it.

Let me ask you a question: Should John Kerry be able to legal protect himself from defamatory materials (under a heightened standard because he is a public figure)? If the answer to that question is Yes, what is your problem? I assume that you don't believe that the material is defamatory --- that's fine, but that isn't for you to decide. Kerry's lawyers are putting the ball in the network's court to make an informed decision about whether they want to air the ads. They can weigh several factors to reach their conclusion including: the likelihood of Kerry suing, the likelihood of him succeeding on the merits of the case, the benefit gained by airing the commercials, etc.

The similarity to the Dixie Chicks is that the current administration encouraged the idea that criticizing the administration is unpatriotic (and even treasonous). This contributed to a hostile environment in which dissenting opinions were harshly treated. The Dixie Chicks had to weigh several factors to determine whether to voice dissenting opinions including: the likelihood of being labeled unpatriotic/treasonous, the extent to which that label would harm their livelihood, the benefits gained by voicing their opinions, etc.

[cardcounter0]

Yes, any one who was in the Navy during that time frame could make the obtuse claim that they "served with" Kerry.
Actually, it doesn't even have to the Navy. George Bush was in the Air National Guard, so technically he also served with Kerry. Cheney, Rumsfield, Rove, Limbaugh, etc., etc. can't even make that weak claim.

[Taxman]

In my personal opinion, their agenda arises from their dislike of Kerry for "betraying" his fellow veterans when he came home and spoke out against the war. Who really cares whether or not he was in Cambodia? It has nothing to do wiht his medals and it is a very good possibility that he was simply mistaken (being say 10 miles from the Cambodia border). Even if he was fudging the truth on purpose, it is minor in the face of some of the incumbent's past indiscretions. I do think Kerry should make some deffinitive statement regarding this farce of an issue, just so people aren't getting their panties in a twist over it any more. I find it particularly telling that the Bush campaign has not chosen to take the story and run with it.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Who really cares whether or not he was in Cambodia?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because Nixon at the time claimed that we had no troops in Cambodia and Kerry has stated that he knew this was a blatent Nixon lie since he was there himself. Kerry has stated that this was a significant factor in his souring on the war. It shows a proclivity to be deceiful about his service. I agree with you that these Vets didn't like what Kerry had to say about their service in Viet Nam. What do you think of the Rassman op ed column?

[cardcounter0]

Was Kerry in Cambodia? Who knows. Of course, official records are going to say no. Cambodia was Nixon's secret war. According to official records no one was in Cambodia.

Did Kerry come under fire from Khmer Rouge elements? Naw, I don't think the Khmer Rough would have crossed the border into Vietnam without the proper passports, right? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

One thing is for certain, I can find no instances of the Khmer Rouge shooting any one in Texas. Bush kept that part of the Country safe for us, almost single handedly.

[adios]

Kerry has basically admitted he wasn't in Cambodia as a result of this book and ads thus backtracking on his claims that he was in a letter to the editor of the Boston Globe and his statements recorded in the Congressional record. Nice red herring on your part.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me ask you a question: Should John Kerry be able to legal protect himself from defamatory materials (under a heightened standard because he is a public figure)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely

[ QUOTE ]
If the answer to that question is Yes, what is your problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

If Kerry thinks he is being libelled or defamed, why not go right to the source and bring suit against the vets. At the the very least, this would be a means of putting a stop to the ads while the suit was ongoing I would think. I just think targetting the radio stations is shady and I dont think they are putting the ball in the stations' court, they are making a thinly veiled threat.

[ QUOTE ]
The similarity to the Dixie Chicks is that the current administration encouraged the idea that criticizing the administration is unpatriotic (and even treasonous). This contributed to a hostile environment in which dissenting opinions were harshly treated. The Dixie Chicks had to weigh several factors to determine whether to voice dissenting opinions including: the likelihood of being labeled unpatriotic/treasonous, the extent to which that label would harm their livelihood, the benefits gained by voicing their opinions, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very tenuous comparison. The anti-Dixie Chicks movement was largely a grassroots movement led by local radio stations and their listeners. There were no overt threats leading up to it. Its just not the same thing.

[cardcounter0]

My understanding is he was within 50 miles from the border. In a little swift boat in the winding, meandering, Mekong river.

Do you think there is a big fat black line between Vietnam and Cambodia? Maybe a nice Visitor Center to tell you about the local tourist attractions when you cross the border?

Troops were in Cambodia at the time Nixon said no one was there. We had been bombing Cambodia for a good year before that was admitted to also. And this is the time frame that Kerry is referring too.

[vulturesrow]

Now you are being deliberately obtuse. Saying you served with someone when you were in two different branches of the Armed Services and saying you served with someone in a common unit in boats that acted in a coordinated fashion within yards of each other is hardly the same thing.

[cardcounter0]

LOL. Those 'local' radio stations are all owned by the same Corporate Entity. And that Corporation is headed by long time Bush supporters and big time campaign contributors. Grass-roots if you count the grass growing on the White House lawn. The same Radio Corporation allowed to expand based on new rules made the FCC headed by the son of Colin Powell. Amazing how all these liberals stick together!

[Bubbagump]

[ QUOTE ]
This is such a non-issue. Simply negative campaigning design to discourage people from voting (especialy independent voters).


[/ QUOTE ]

Kerry made this an issue when he decided to base his entire campaign around his service in Vietnam. If he hadn't brought his service to the forefront and instead concentrated on issues people actually cared about, we wouldn't be discussing this right now. Unfortunately, when it comes to issues like jobs, taxes, the economy, Kerry doesn't appear to have anything concrete about how he is going to fix problems in any of those areas.

Bubbagump

[andyfox]

Kerry's far from an ideal candidate or man. The bottom line for me is that Bush and his team are dangerous lunatics and I'm going to vote for the other guy. I'm with Zee on this one.

[Taxman]

I do understand this caveat. Given your statement, maybe Kerry fudged the truth towards his own political ends, which would make him exactly the same as nearly every politician ever (including the incumbent). Based on what I have read, Kerry was not especially persistent in making this claim over and over and has since backed away from the statements slightly. If he were to come out and say "I thought I was in Cambodia at the time, but did not recant when I found out otherwise, I'm sorry if I mislead some members of congress, but let's focus now on the issues at hand" I would consider the case closed. Maybe there is an even better explanation (like he was actually there), or maybe there is a slightly worse one (like he willfuly and repeatedly lied for some malicious purpose), but the latter seems unlikely. If it was the truth, I think it would be a prominent focus of the Bush campaign. I also believe that we did have troops in Cambodia, meaning that Kerry may well have thought that he could be a face to illustrate that fact, which is not such a bad thing. If George Bush can admit to cocaine use and drunk driving, Kerry can admit to being an angry young idealist without it affecting my opinion of him. Again, I do think Kerry should make some statemtent regarding the issue, just to put it to rest. Again, I also consider it telling that Bush and friends have not embraced the campaigning of this group against Kerry.

[cardcounter0]

Who might re-examine who is saying what, and who served exactly where, when it comes to this Swift Boat Group.

Anybody bother to ask Kerry's Commanding Officer how he stole all those medals without him knowing about it?
/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL. Those 'local' radio stations are all owned by the same Corporate Entity. And that Corporation is headed by long time Bush supporters and big time campaign contributors. Grass-roots if you count the grass growing on the White House lawn. The same Radio Corporation allowed to expand based on new rules made the FCC headed by the son of Colin Powell. Amazing how all these liberals stick together!

[/ QUOTE ]

What the hell are you talking about ? Do you listen to country music radio? I do and during that time, the stations were swamped with callers asking that they not play Dixie Chicks music on the air anymore. It was the choice of programming directors all over the country. Some didnt, most did.

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
Questions regarding the legitimacy of Kerry's medals have come up before most notably in 1996. The leader of this group has had an ongoing dispute with Kerry for over 30 years. I find it amazing that people dismiss this group as nothing more than political hatchet men when their ranks have many people who won medals in Viet Nam and put themselves in harms way there. Kerry has made his service in Viet Nam an issue and thus has brought this scrutiny on himself. And talk about rich benafactors for the Republicans sponsoring political ads, what about George Soros and the Democrats? Soros is a friggen billonaire for crying out loud.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do know that these issues have come up in the past. I don't think the members of the group are political hatchet men. They have a difference of opinion with Kerry about the way Kerry conducted himself after coming back from Vietnam. But, this group has been very well funded and aided by those that are political hatchet men. The Swift Boat Veterans would not be able to spread their message so broadly without the funding of Bob Perry.

I think these ads using "soft money" are detrimental to the process whether they come from the right or the left. If one of the groups that Soros is backing made ridiculous accusations against Bush, I would not approve of that either.

I am registered as an independent. I have no particular love for the Democratic Party. Even though both parties are guilty of using soft money to level cheap attacks, I do think the Republicans have taken disinformation and distortion of facts to a new level.

The truth lies somewhere in between. Kerry is not the greatest American hero nor is he an evil anti-American traitor (I’m exaggerating here). I think most undecided voters know this and don't really care about these ads. They are only designed to make the undecided voters disillusioned with the political process and discourage them from voting.

[cardcounter0]

There are no program directors across the country. All these stations are programmed centrally, download packaged format (with gaps to insert local commentary), or given 'approved' playlists.

Give me 120+ radio stations and name the subject.

I can have the yahoos lighting up the switchboard for or against it in about a week.

[Taxman]

amen

[Taxman]

Do you have proof that they served on boats that were constantly within yards of Kerry's boat (especially during the time in question)?

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
There are no program directors across the country. All these stations are programmed centrally, download packaged format (with gaps to insert local commentary), or given 'approved' playlists

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me get this straight. You are telling me the position of program director does not exist at radio stations across the country?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe there is an even better explanation (like he was actually there), or maybe there is a slightly worse one (like he willfuly and repeatedly lied for some malicious purpose), but the latter seems unlikely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically my understanding is that it's clear he wasn't there and I agree that it's SOP for politicians to fudge the truth.

[ QUOTE ]
If it was the truth, I think it would be a prominent focus of the Bush campaign.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually believe Bush would like this to go away to I disagree with this assessment.

[ QUOTE ]
I also believe that we did have troops in Cambodia, meaning that Kerry may well have thought that he could be a face to illustrate that fact, which is not such a bad thing. If George Bush can admit to cocaine use and drunk driving, Kerry can admit to being an angry young idealist without it affecting my opinion of him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe Kerry has stated this in the past but he ought to say that he exaggerated about the extent to which U.S. troops committed atrocities in Nam when he was young. I think this would go a long way towards placating his detractors and perhaps healing some old wounds. You weren't old enough, when Nam vets came back they were more or less given a cold shoulder and in many cases despised. This was a terrible thing for them to endure after serving in Nam where they experienced all the bad things soldiers encounter in a war. A very sad chapter of U.S. history.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, I do think Kerry should make some statemtent regarding the issue, just to put it to rest.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that will though.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, I also consider it telling that Bush and friends have not embraced the campaigning of this group against Kerry.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Bush would like this to go away as I stated earlier. I think it will die out fairly soon.

[tolbiny]

If George Bush can admit to cocaine use and drunk driving

I dont ever recall Bush actually admitting to any of this.

[adios]

................

[cardcounter0]

There is probably a position called 'Program Director'. But if you are at a Clear Channel Station (and chances are good you are, there is at least one in every population center) then you don't make any decisions regarded what you play. There is a centralized computer system that determines what is 'popular'.

[cardcounter0]

Isn't the leader of the group, the guy who 'replaced' Kerry? This would indicate to me that he served exactly zero time 'within yards' of Kerry during action.

[Bubbagump]

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't know, better ask the Dixie Chicks.

[/ QUOTE ]

What the fukc does this have to do with anything. The Dixie Chicks spoke what was on their mind and their fans spoke with their wallets. This is the way it should be. God Bless America.

Bubbagump

[adios]

Ok I'll bite, where do Bush and Kerry differ?

Iraq -- Have you read the Democratic party platform for 2004? It states that they want to put more troops in Iraq.

War on Terror -- Have you read the Democratic party platform? Pretty tough talk, in that document. Out "Bushing", "Bush" for the most part IMO.

Civil rights -- Ok there's one difference, the Dems are pro affirmative action while the Republicans aren't.

Entitlements -- I think expectations that bigger government has all the answers is a form of lunacy but heh.

Taxes - Households making $200,000 a year are wealthy? Ok, I guess if Kerry says so.

Israel - Not much difference there.

Energy policy - none forthcoming from either party that is remotely going to address the current and future problems as far as I can tell.

Patriot Act and such -- perhaps I'm wrong but the 9/11 commission basically endorsed much of the Patriot Act and Kerry has stated that the 9/11 Commission recommendations should be adopted ASAP and that there needs to be sense of urgency.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
There is probably a position called 'Program Director'. But if you are at a Clear Channel Station (and chances are good you are, there is at least one in every population center) then you don't make any decisions regarded what you play. There is a centralized computer system that determines what is 'popular'.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think I see what happened here. I wasnt referring specifically to Clear Channel. My point was in general that much of the outcry against the Dixie Chicks was grass roots and many program directors at independent stations did indeed remove their music from their play list. Also lets be clear. Their is a big difference between organizing a rally and being the sponsor to a rally. Clear Channel may have been a corporate sponsor of some of these rallys ( I am still researching this ) but that doesnt mean they provided the motivation for them.

[Taxman]

I think if Kerry was in fact a part of some grand conspiracy involving heavy lying, Bush would be quite interested (which is mainly my point in saying that this issue is not a big deal). Nevertheless your point is well taken. I thank you for clarifying some facts as I am only partially acquainted with the specifics of all of this. I fully agree that Kerry should make some comments along those lines, perhaps even if he doesn't really believe it. There is no doubt that a few US soldiers committed some pretty terrible acts, but I think many of Kerry's opponents see him as having attacked the entire military's credibility. You probably are right in that this whole thing will go away soon enough. As an aside I noticed that fox news devoted extensive time to this issue (mostly on it's opinion shows I'll grant) while other news outlets did not spend a lot of time on it. Does this mean fox was showing a conservative bias, or the other news stations a liberal one? Or that I watch fox news more than I should? Also, as another aside, I've decided that I don't really like Brit Hume. Cheers.

[cardcounter0]

"Their is a big difference between organizing a rally and being the sponsor to a rally. Clear Channel may have been a corporate sponsor of some of these rallys ( I am still researching this ) but that doesnt mean they provided the motivation for them."

REALLY? You mean if I provide the money and venue for a rally and advertise it on my radio stations, I really don't have anything to do with this 'grass roots' movement?
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Like I said, give me 120+ radio stations across the country and name any subject --- I'll have a hue and cry, grass root movement, majority opinion of the 'man on the street', rallys, and protest movements --- for or against it --- within a week.

YEEEEEHAAAAAAWW! I think I hear Hank Williams Jr. playing ...
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
If Kerry thinks he is being libelled or defamed, why not go right to the source and bring suit against the vets

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. However, he still might have a colorable claim against the networks. Assume that you are Kerry and that you HONESTLY feel you are being defamed. Which would be a more effective way to stop the defamation --- going after an antagonist will almost certainly fight it or go after the "defamer by proxy" who has no vested interest in continuing the defamation and against whom you have a colorable claim. If you want the defamation to stop, you go after the 2nd because their decision is purely a business one. The first group has a business and personal reason to CONTINUE the defamation.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
This would indicate to me that he served exactly zero time 'within yards' of Kerry during action.

[/ QUOTE ]

I book is co-authored first of all. Second of all I'm fairly certain that O'Neill does not claim to be serving alongside but quoted those that did and solicited avadavits from those that did. A book review by Robert Novak:

Robert Novak Review (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1187890/posts)

Review of Unfit for Command by Robert Novak

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The television ad that aroused the wrath of John McCain and journalist supporters of John Kerry just begins deconstruction of the Democratic presidential candidate's war record. "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry," a 214-page critique of his performance in Vietnam and the antiwar movement, is off the presses ahead of schedule.

I have read the book and found it is neither the political propaganda nor the urban legend that its detractors claim. It is a passionate but meticulously researched account of how Kerry went to war, what he did in the war and how he conducted himself after the war. The very serious charges by former comrades deserve answers but so far have produced only ad hominem counterattacks.

Why should details of what Kerry did more than 30 years ago be part of this election campaign? Only because the senator has made them integral to his strategy. Kerry as war hero received more attention at the Democratic National Convention than plans for the future. Thus, what he did in his shortened four months of combat becomes a valid campaign issue.

John E. O'Neill, co-author of "Unfit for Command," replaced Kerry as commander of Swift Boat PCF 94 in 1969 and has been confronting him since 1971. O'Neill told me he is no George W. Bush partisan and probably would have supported John Edwards had he been nominated for president, but is committed to keeping Kerry out of the Oval Office. Thus, reversing the usual formulation, the assault on Kerry is personal but not political.

O'Neill told me neither he nor his co-author (Jerome R. Corsi, a writer and expert on the Vietnam antiwar movement) has had contact with the Bush White House or the Bush-Cheney campaign. He said he and Corsi, on their own initiative, went to conservative Regnery Publishing to offer the book.

The co-authors paint Kerry as a reluctant warrior. Contrary to claims by Kerry's supporters that he served two combat hitches in Vietnam, his one-year term aboard a guided missile frigate was far from action. His four months in the brown water navy were terminated eight months early by a third Purple Heart wound, none of which required hospitalization.

The book's strength is the vehemence of testimony by swift boat veterans, alleging that Kerry "gamed" the system to win decorations and later betrayed comrades by charging war crimes. Typical is the quote by Bob Hildreth, commanding an accompanying boat: "I would never want Kerry behind me. I wouldn't want him in front of me, either. And I sure wouldn't want him commanding our kids in Iraq and Afghanistan." Some 200 "Swiftees" on May 4 signed a letter to Kerry demanding full release of his service records.

The book's weakness is support for Kerry's presidential campaign by his swift boat crewmates, presumably people who knew him best. O'Neill told me that these former sailors served with Kerry no more than five weeks. Jim Rassmann, now part of the Kerry presidential campaign, was a Special Forces lieutenant spending a few days with Kerry when he fell or was knocked off the swift boat while under fire and was fished out of the Mekong River by the future candidate.

The "band of brothers" was organized by Kerry, according to this book. It tells of a 2003 telephone call to Adm. Roy Hoffmann, who commanded swift boats in Vietnam, telling him he was running for president. Hoffmann, mistakenly thinking it was former Sen. Bob Kerrey, "responded enthusiastically." Once the admiral realized it was John Kerry, "he declined to give Kerry his support." Hoffmann is quoted as saying, "I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States."

"Unfit for Command" sends a devastating message, unless effectively refuted. Perhaps most disturbing are allegations that Kerry's combat decorations are unjustified. His first Purple Heart, the book alleges, was accidentally self-inflicted. His commander, Grant Hibbard, is quoted as saying: "I didn't recommend him for a Purple Heart. Kerry probably wrote up the paperwork and recommended himself." Full release of documents demanded by his critics could settle this claim quickly if it is unwarranted.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
REALLY? You mean if I provide the money and venue for a rally and advertise it on my radio stations, I really don't have anything to do with this 'grass roots' movement?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow way to attempt to spin my words. The organization of (and major impetus to) the rallys was by various local groups. If said groups requested and got sponsorship from Clear Channel is no indication of wrong doing. Coroporate sponsorship of public events is a "crime" that every company in America is probably guilty of committing.
[ QUOTE ]
Like I said, give me 120+ radio stations across the country and name any subject --- I'll have a hue and cry, grass root movement, majority opinion of the 'man on the street', rallys, and protest movements --- for or against it --- within a week.



[/ QUOTE ]

That might be so. Just because it could be done doesnt mean that is the way it happened.


[ QUOTE ]
YEEEEEHAAAAAAWW! I think I hear Hank Williams Jr. playing ...


[/ QUOTE ]

What was the point of that?

[elwoodblues]

I think you're right. But, at least at some level, the current administration encouraged the paranoia that directly led to the grass roots movement. Similarly, I would suggest that McCarthy and his cronies were in some ways responsible for the Blacklisting of directors/actors/authors. It might have been a grassroots movement that decided they wouldn't purchase the wares of a commie, but it was McCarthy that fueled the paranoia leading to that decision.

[cardcounter0]

"The organization of (and major impetus to) the rallys was by various local groups."

Wake up. Those "local groups" were formed, organized, and funded by Clear Channel.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
My understanding is he was within 50 miles from the border. In a little swift boat in the winding, meandering, Mekong river.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wait a sec... this is the story line of "Apocalypse Now".

Once again I'm running against someone they wrote a book/movie about. First, Gore in "Love Story" and now Kerry in "Apocalypse Now".

[vulturesrow]

Here is a rally organizer (http://www.patriotwatch.com/CinnSays.htm)

Why dont you tell this individual she is a pawn of Bush and evil corporate america?

And tell nationally syndicated radio talk show host Mike Gallagher that he is a pawn. I bet the Marshall Tucker band was called directly by the CEO of Clear Channel and told to play at this concert.


I can throw this links at you all day.


Greenville anti-Chicks concert (http://www.greenvilleonline.com/news/specialreport/2003/05/01/200305015699.htm)

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree. However, he still might have a colorable claim against the networks. Assume that you are Kerry and that you HONESTLY feel you are being defamed. Which would be a more effective way to stop the defamation --- going after an antagonist will almost certainly fight it or go after the "defamer by proxy" who has no vested interest in continuing the defamation and against whom you have a colorable claim. If you want the defamation to stop, you go after the 2nd because their decision is purely a business one. The first group has a business and personal reason to CONTINUE the defamation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Elwood,

You certainly make a good argument. I feel somewhat hamstrung on this as I dont much knowlege of the law regarding this sort thing (or law in general for that matter) so I dont know how valid it is. That being said, I guess what boils down to for me is this. I feel that it is a clear violation of the letter and spirit of the 1st amendment for Kerry's lawyers to threaten these stations to keep these stations from playing this ad. Whether or not I am technically correct in the legal sense I cannot say. I just feel that it is a ploy by the Kerry campaign to silence an ad that might harm Kerry's chances for election and they thought the easiest way to suppress it was by targeting the stations. And before anyone asks, if the situation were reversed, I would be against it.

And I do appreciate you discussing this with me in a logical rational matter and sticking to the issue at hand.

[cardcounter0]

"Why dont you tell this individual she is a pawn of Bush and evil corporate america?"

I don't think I have to. Seems a local republican representative used some tax payer money to pay for the sound system at some of these rallys. And again, Clear Channel funding, organization, promotion, and advertising.

"And tell nationally syndicated radio talk show host Mike Gallagher that he is a pawn."

A pawn? LOL. No. He is an EMPLOYEE. What radio stations do you think he is nationally syndicated with? He is a regular on the FOX NEWS network. Could you have possibly found someone with more direct coporate ties?

"I bet the Marshall Tucker band was called directly by the CEO of Clear Channel and told to play at this concert."

No, the CEO wouldn't have had to call. When you run 120 top radio stations all over the country, what band is going to want to piss that company off? They probably had a long list of bands dying to kiss ass and play. The reason Marshall Tucker played that particular rally was probably to save expenses, they are Spartenburg based so you save on travel.

Last time I saw Marshall Tucker they played at a free concert in Kansas City for Hallmark Cards. I think they also do Mall Openings now. I bet a Junior Assistent VP from Clear Channel could have got them to play at their organized, funded, advertised, promoted Clear Channel rally.

[nicky g]

Just to clarify, I was under the impression Clear Channel imposed a stationwide ban on the Dixie Chicks. They didn't, although there are allegations their central management put a lot of pressure on stations not to play them. Cumulus, a smaller group, did however ban the group from all the stations.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I feel that it is a clear violation of the letter and spirit of the 1st amendment for Kerry's lawyers to threaten these stations to keep these stations from playing this ad

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep in mind that in this regard Kerry is acting as an individual not acting as the state. The first amendment is really only implicated when there is state action (just as country music stations aren't violating the dixie chicks first amendment rights.) With Kerry there is more of a First Amendment implication because by threatening litigation you are, to an extent, bringing in the state. The reason it just sounds like a 1st amendment issue is because Kerry is a political figure.

Assume someone hated me (a non-politician, but highly controversial lead singer of a rhythm and blues revue). That person wanted to run a commercial saying "Elwood Blues is a member of the Illinois Nazi party." Because this person really hates me, I know that pleading to them to pull the ad would do nothing. If I sent a similar letter to the network, I doubt that many would think that the first amendment was implicated by my plea to the network.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't the leader of the group, the guy who 'replaced' Kerry? This would indicate to me that he served exactly zero time 'within yards' of Kerry during action.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my professional life, I have often replaced people I have worked within in yards of. I also worked 3 years on an air force base, and often saw service members being replaced by other service members who worked yards from each other. Its an extremely common occurance.

[ QUOTE ]
This would indicate to me that he served exactly zero time 'within yards' of Kerry during action.

[/ QUOTE ]

This indicates to me that your judgement in this matter is in error.

Stu

[vulturesrow]

You are missing the point. Whether there are corporate ties or not is irrelevant. I fully acknowledge that there were. Corporate sponsorship is a normal part of every day life. My point is that the backlash against the Dixie Chicks came from local people who organized various forms of protest including rallys, concerts, and boycotts. It was quite a demonstration of free speech in action and I find it quite sad that you are so convinced that it some sort of evil corporate conspiracy.

[nicky g]

The Cumulus decision was a corporate decision. Also sponsorship of a political rally is not the same as sponsorship of a pop concert. Given the very clsoe ties Clear Chanel ahs to the Republicans, there are at least grounds to be suspicious that it was involved in promoting the ban as well as responding to wishes for it. Certainly some of its DJs were involved in promoting pro-war rallies, which it was also sponsoring. Do you really think that;s the same as say, Coca Cola sponsoring a Seinfeld episode or whatever?

[cardcounter0]

When a Corporation uses its resources to plan, organize, fund, promote, and advertise numerous rallies, boycotts, concerts, meetings, and gatherings -- it is pure bullshit to call it a 'grass roots' movement.

One more time -- Give me 120+ radio stations, most top in their markets, all across the country, and I will create a 'grass roots' movement for or against any topic of your choice.

I will get rock stars, country stars, hollywood stars, and falling stars to all speak out for or against said movement, and naturally People Magazine will pick up on the cause. All the polls will show overwhelming support for my position, and the nightly news will all devote segments to it. Within a week, Congress will be having hearings about it (this is an election year, after all).

[The Armchair]

[ QUOTE ]
Keep in mind that in this regard Kerry is acting as an individual not acting as the state. The first amendment is really only implicated when there is state action (just as country music stations aren't violating the dixie chicks first amendment rights.)

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not true, as there is state action -- a court of law must adjudicate the outcome in Karry's case. (NB that in the Dixie Chicks case, that's not true.) The courts cannot restrict speech any more than Congress can.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
When a Corporation uses its resources to plan, organize, fund, promote, and advertise numerous rallies, boycotts, concerts, meetings, and gatherings -- it is pure bullshit to call it a 'grass roots' movement.


[/ QUOTE ]

Right so all the poeple that attended those rallies, boycotts, concerts, meetings, and gatherings (many of which Clear Channel had no involvement in)didnt actually mind what the Dixie Chicks said and were just brainwashed by the evil corporation. It is sad that you think so little of your fellow citizens.

[ QUOTE ]
One more time -- Give me 120+ radio stations, most top in their markets, all across the country, and I will create a 'grass roots' movement for or against any topic of your choice.


[/ QUOTE ]

One more time, just because its theoretically possible doesnt mean it happened that way. Frankly, I give my fellow citizens a little more credit than that.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
The courts cannot restrict speech any more than Congress can.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's defamtory they can.