I don't think the kerry can push these veterans around..

[dude1394]

I don't think I'd want to piss these vets off. I don't think they will be intimidated. Pretty interesting however how the main-steam-media just cannot stop this stuff from being debated and investigated. The bias of the MSM makes it tougher but the blogosphere really provides another avenue for investiagtion.

swifties fire back

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have hired their own lawyers in response to the Kerry/Edwards campaign's threat of ruinous lawsuits for anyone who allows the independent 527 to purchase ad time at their media outlet. For some reason, the Democrats seem to have a problem with the actual practice of free speech, even after having their party chairman, Terry McAuliffe, call George Bush a deserter and John Kerry question the quality of his National Guard service. When the shoe moves to the other foot, suddenly the Democrats switch from "Bring It On" to "We'll Sue You Into Silence," quite a difference in tone.

Does America need a President this pusillanimous? At least now we understand the reason Kerry selected John Edwards as his vice-president. I suppose that we can expect trial attorneys to attack anyone who dares criticize John Kerry during a Kerry administration, only those trial attorneys will work for the legal offices of the FBI and US Attorneys General.

At any rate, the Swifties intend to stand their ground, showing a bit more character than anyone at the Kerry/Edwards campaign. I've been forwarded a copy of their legal team's response to Kerry's extortionate threats that they have sent to media outlets in which they've made their ad buys. I'm posting the letter below, placing most of it in the extended entry. I think it aptly demonstrates the specificity of the recollections of more than 200 men who have nothing to gain and everything to lose by coming forward -- except for setting the record straight.

They've made a convert out of me.

Dear Station Manager:

The purpose of this letter is to present some of the factual support for the advertisement "Any Questions?" produced and used by Swift Boat Veterans For Truth ("Swiftvets"), an organization properly registered under Internal Revenue Code § 527, and which has filed all required reports. Swiftvets is an organization led by Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann, USN (retired), Commander of all Swift boats in Vietnam during the period of John Kerry's four-month abbreviated tour in Swift boats between late November 1968 and mid-March 1969. A list of the 254 members may be found on www.swiftvets.com. A large majority of those who served with John Kerry in Swift boats in Vietnam and whose location is known have joined the organization. Thus, for example, sixteen of the twenty-three surviving officers who served in Coastal Division 11 with Kerry (the place where Kerry spent most of his time) have joined the organization, together with most of Kerry's Vietnam commanders and 254 sailors from Coastal Squadron One, ranging from Vice-Admirals to Seamen.

[Mavdog]

I hear that there is a new organization "Skull and Bones against Bush" who claim that George wasn't really a serious student at Yale when he gained admittance to the group and did not complete the requisite program to be a Skull and Bones member as he claims he is. They point to his statement that in the spring of '69 "I took a full load of classes" when he was seen in Houston on many occasions. "How could he be in two places at the same time?" the head of the group asks "Clearly we can't trust George W Bush if he uses this type of deception." 35 of the 40 members who were Skull and Bones members during Bush's college years at Yale have signed the statement questioning just how well Bush carried out his duties to the group.

The members have come forward to clear the air on Bush's record of his lack of involvement in the group's party planning and execution of its hallowed tradition of having the best blowouts on the New Haven campus.

However several of Bush's fellow students stand by him and claim that not only did Bush take his classes, he also attended some of the parties and therefore did do his duty to school and the Skull and Bones.

More to follow as this less than serious issue takes the forefront of the campaign, overshadowing the discussion about the economy, the international relations of the US with others in the world and the War in Iraq.

[mavsman55]

Does America need a President this pusillanimous

WTF does pusillanimous mean?

[Male30Dan]

Originally posted by: mavsman55

WTF does pusillanimous mean?

Timid, lily-livered, spineless, etc...

[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

[mavsman55]

Thanks Dan.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
I hear that there is a new organization "Skull and Bones against Bush" who claim that George wasn't really a serious student at Yale when he gained admittance to the group and did not complete the requisite program to be a Skull and Bones member as he claims he is.

md pm'd and said it was a parody.

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: dude1394

link please.

The link is just inside Mavdogs sphincter as like most of his rants, he pulled this one right out of his arse.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Drbio

The link is just inside Mavdogs sphincter as like most of his rants, he pulled this one right out of his arse.

clearly we now know who is the authority on rectums.

tell us, how is the view?

[Drbio]

So lame, but very expected....nice one mavdogpoop.

clearly we now know who is the authority on rectums.

Yes we do. Wear your crown well rectum master.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Drbio
So lame, but very expected....nice one mavdogpoop.

Yes we do. Wear your crown well rectum master.

oh no, DrCleo is the one who brought that area of the body into the discussion.
You deserve the crown, you've proven your worthiness. ad infinitum.

[Drbio]

Gosh...such a witty retort from the forum dunderpate.



You always pull stuff out of your ass when you are on the run. Again....there is no link. You were caught by dude pulling a "story" out of your ass and you got called out. You are a sad pathetic loser with no talent but to infest this wonderful site and bring it down.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Drbio
Gosh...such a witty retort from the forum dunderpate.

You always pull stuff out of your ass when you are on the run. Again....there is no link. You were caught by dude pulling a "story" out of your ass and you got called out. You are a sad pathetic loser with no talent but to infest this wonderful site and bring it down.

a bit too highbrow for your intellect huh? whoosh, the tounge in cheek post went right over that pointy head of DrCleo.

Don't worry, I'm sure someone would take the time to explain it to you.

[mavsman55]

Mavdog just because you use big words that nobody knows doesn't mean you're smart.

[Drbio]

It's the recycled lame ass crap that he insists on using over and over that is so pathetic. I wish he actually understood the words he is using and not just copying them from Evilmav et al.

[LRB]

Since neither Mavdog or Doc are running for office this election, at least no President or Vice President of the USA, let's drift back on subject.

It concerns me greatly that either of the major parties would resort to threats of lawsuits against media outlets to stim criticism. I certainly hope that Kerry would publicly disavow this tactic and pressure the resignation of any involved with it in the democratic party. I certainly cannot see how any democrat who calls themselves a patriotic American and believes in the constitution would condone such an attempt to violate the rights of free speech. I cannot stand Michael Moore traiterous word full of it's deceiptful and venemous lies. However the last thing I would want to see is to have the Republicans silence his dumb ass by suing any movie theater that showed his garbage.

If the dems believe these men are not telling the truth, then they should be able to expose their lies by providing evidence to prove these swift boat veterans wrong. Surely the media would pick up and carry the dems story. If however the swift boat veterans are telling the truth, then the surely the dems aren't afraid of the truth are they? I certainly hope that the dems arenot trying to make it a key plank of their political platform to silence all detractors with any and all dirty and illegal tactics at hand.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB
It concerns me greatly that either of the major parties would resort to threats of lawsuits against media outlets to stim criticism. I certainly hope that Kerry would publicly disavow this tactic and pressure the resignation of any involved with it in the democratic party. I certainly cannot see how any democrat who calls themselves a patriotic American and believes in the constitution would condone such an attempt to violate the rights of free speech. I cannot stand Michael Moore traiterous word full of it's deceiptful and venemous lies. However the last thing I would want to see is to have the Republicans silence his dumb ass by suing any movie theater that showed his garbage.

I've read that the DNC and Kerry campaign asked the commercial not to be aired, where have you seen that there was any threat of a lawsuit?

If the dems believe these men are not telling the truth, then they should be able to expose their lies by providing evidence to prove these swift boat veterans wrong. Surely the media would pick up and carry the dems story. If however the swift boat veterans are telling the truth, then the surely the dems aren't afraid of the truth are they? I certainly hope that the dems arenot trying to make it a key plank of their political platform to silence all detractors with any and all dirty and illegal tactics at hand.

The response is to reply with the crew from his boat:
"Three veterans on Kerry's boat that day - Jim Rassmann, who says Kerry saved his life, Gene Thorson and Del Sandusky, the driver on Kerry's boat, said the group was lying."

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

I've read that the DNC and Kerry campaign asked the commercial not to be aired, where have you seen that there was any threat of a lawsuit?

Here is the letter being sent to tv stations by the DNC and the Kerry Campaign. The "threat is in the last paragraph of the letter.

DNC threatens TV stations

[Drbio]

More facts? How will be able to manufacture a response now?

[Mavdog]

It is tough to read, but where is there a threat to sue if the station airs the ad?

[Drbio]

The hilarious thing is that the DNC stated, "You have the duty "to protect the public from false, misleading, or deceptive advertitising." Do you think they actually were able to type that with a straight face?

Think they said the same thing to the maggot Moore?

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: dude1394

md pm'd and said it was a parody.

A flip-flop worthy of Kerry and his followers.

[Drbio]

There is nothing that mavdog or any other idiot can do to refute the ad.

Click here to review the facts.



It's awfully damning.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
It is tough to read, but where is there a threat to sue if the station airs the ad?

How would you take a letter from some lawyers telling you that you had an "overidding duty to protect the public from false misleading or deceptive advertising" per some statute.

I guess you would just toss it in the trash, eh?

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
It is tough to read, but where is there a threat to sue if the station airs the ad?

your station is responsible for the false and libelous charges made by this sponsor.

Saying that the station is responsible for libelous statements is equivacle to saying that you are can be sued for libel. Since this is coming from lawyers and includes case law, the implication is clear, don't air this or risk being sued.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB

Saying that the station is responsible for libelous statements is equivacle to saying that you are can be sued for libel. Since this is coming from lawyers and includes case law, the implication is clear, don't air this or risk being sued.

Typically there is "cease and desist" language when a threat of suit is threatened.

The case law appears to be that the mediums owe no obligation to air the ads, not that they are in harm's way of a suit.

[LRB]

Mavdog I sometimes find it incredibly hard how purposeforely obtuse you can be in your blind allegiance to liberal causes. It seems that you throw reason out the window and proceed full spead ahead with the 1st inane argument that comes to mind.

Case in point, is your argument over why DNC lawyers are not telling media outlets not to show adds from the swifties.

Typically there is "cease and desist" language when a threat of suit is threatened.

The whole point is not that they are telling media outlets to stop showing the ads, it's that they're telling them not to show them in the 1st place upon threat of lawsuit. It is nigh on impossible to cease and desist with something that has never been done in the 1st place. It's almost a forgone conclusion that if a Repbulican said a wall was white and there were over 1,000 independently verified pictures detailing this, and a democrat said the wall was black and that he didn't want to show his picture of the wall until he was elected president; you would be proclaiming how the wall is truely black. Facts apparently mean nothing to you when they in any way contridict the liberal point of view.

I also have concerns about how much you truely support free speech with you lack of concern over the intimidation tactics of the DNC lawyers. Had this been Republican lawyers doing the same thing about Michael Moores piece of garbage film, you most likely would have been all up in arms about it. In fact if I remember correctly, you were all up in arms about the Repbublican trying to censor Moore by putting political pressure on Disney not to show Moore's film. Way to flip flop. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-disgusted.gif[/img]

[Mavdog]

Facts apparently mean nothing to you when they in any way contridict the liberal point of view.

Ironic that you hurl a point of ignoring facts while failing to support your position with any...while at the same time you fall victim to the blind ideology which you accuse me of having.

You must have not read the letter if you truly believe that there was a threat of lawsuit by the DNC should the station run the ad. Quite to the contrary, the letter focuses not on ANY possibility of a lawsuit initiated by the DNC but on the right of the station to not air the advertisement, and its duty to only run ads which are accurate.

"your stationm is not obligated to accept this advertisement nor is it required to account in any way for its decision to reject such an advertisement."

"Thus your station may freely refuse this advertisement."

"Moreover as a licensee you have an overriding duty to protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advsertising."

"We request [note the lack of the word "demand"] that your station act immediately to prevent broadcasts of this advertisement and deny any future sale of time. Knowing that the advertisement is false and possessing the legal authority to refuse to run it, your station should [note lack of the word "must"] exercise that authority in the public interest."

ANY political ad should conform to the standard of accuracy without deception or false statements. The point by the DNC is that this advertisement failed to meet that criteria. This is not a Freedom of Speech issue, it is an accuracy in advertisement issue.

[Drbio]

It is amazing that mavdog can ignore fact after fact and then generate so much crap. Give him credit for being a liberal spin doctor, but give him nothing for his comprehension of fact.


"You can lead a fool to wisdom but you can't make him think."

[LRB]

by Mavdog:

ANY political ad should conform to the standard of accuracy without deception or false statements. The point by the DNC is that this advertisement failed to meet that criteria. This is not a Freedom of Speech issue, it is an accuracy in advertisement issue.

If the same standard was to be applied to Kerry's speeches and advertisements as the DNC lawyers were applying to the Swifties ads, then most of Kerry's speeches and ads would be banned. If the same standard was applied to Michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11 film, then no station would show ads for it.

However, this is about free speech. There is no clear proof, and in fact only the word of a small handful of men against well over a hundred, that shows that the Swifties are lying. Kerry could release his military records which might offer some conclusive proof one way or the other, but John refuses to do so. So clearly this is all about free speech. How can you be so blantantly hypocritical to accuse Bush of trying to pressure Disney to squash 9/11 film with no proof other than inuendo by Moore himself, and yet when there is a published fax for DNC lawyers pressuring to surpress ads for the Swifties book, you feel that it is alright. I've come out saying that Moores movie is full of lies and deceipt, but I'm against suing to surpress it from being shown or even advertized. It's dispicable what the UnDemocratic party and it's followers have become. How easily they trample over the rights of any who dare disagree with them. Your agrument and the DNC lawyers actions are equally pathic and downright unamerican.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB
by Mavdog:

If the same standard was to be applied to Kerry's speeches and advertisements as the DNC lawyers were applying to the Swifties ads, then most of Kerry's speeches and ads would be banned. If the same standard was applied to Michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11 film, then no station would show ads for it.

Your assertion on campaign rhetoric in speeches versus the swiftboat claims is weak to say the least. Using the same logic one would say that Bush's ads stating "The best economy in 40 years" and "we're safer today than anytime since 9/11" might run afoul of your criteria of accuracy...

As for Moore's ads, I'm not sure what they say in any statements, I've not seen any.

However, this is about free speech. There is no clear proof, and in fact only the word of a small handful of men against well over a hundred, that shows that the Swifties are lying. Kerry could release his military records which might offer some conclusive proof one way or the other, but John refuses to do so.

The letter spells out some "proof"as to why the ad should be questioned for its accuracy.
you mean these military records? Guess that "refusal" isn't what you think it was.
Both candidates sevice records

So clearly this is all about free speech. How can you be so blantantly hypocritical to accuse Bush of trying to pressure Disney to squash 9/11 film with no proof other than inuendo by Moore himself, and yet when there is a published fax for DNC lawyers pressuring to surpress ads for the Swifties book, you feel that it is alright.

I asked if it were proper of Disney to stop the release of the film; they didn't, there were alternative ways for them, they removed their name from the distribution and it was released. Good for them. Do you not agree that acting to block the film would be a free speech issue?

Apparently you have concluded (as I stated) that this letter is not a threat of legal action. That's progress.

I've come out saying that Moores movie is full of lies and deceipt, but I'm against suing to surpress it from being shown or even advertized. It's dispicable what the UnDemocratic party and it's followers have become. How easily they trample over the rights of any who dare disagree with them. Your agrument and the DNC lawyers actions are equally pathic and downright unamerican.

I won't spend the $ to see F 9/11, so I can't comment on its accuracy. If the RNC felt it was "full of lies and deceit" and could prove their point, they should use whatever means they have to stop it. That is the American judicial system at work if they can prove their position. Perhaps they can't...

Nobody's "rights" are being "trampled" on. last I looked, these "swiftboat veterans" and their accusations are getting so much pub they would most likely say "mission accomplished."

[LRB]

Once again you try and split hairs on a ticks ass to sidetrack the topic. The very reason we have free speech is to protect the rights of groups like the swift boat vets to speak out. There is absolutely no proof that I have see presented other than John Kerry's word and less than a handful of witnesses on his part. The Swifties have over 100 witnesses. It is at best a he said/they said disagreement between Kerry and the swifties. However the Swefties do have some hard evidence as well. Kerry could make public more hard evidence, but refuses to do so. Sure looks to me like he's hiding something. But that's really beside the point. The point is that these Swifties should have the right to express their political opinions. However the DNC doesn't believe this. They are using legal intimidation tactics to limit the swifties in their right to free expression. Yet you try and rationalize this away. I'm not saying so much that the DNC is doing something illegal as they are doing something immoral and unAmerican.

If the RNC felt it was "full of lies and deceit" and could prove their point, they should use whatever means they have to stop it. That is the American judicial system at work if they can prove their position. Perhaps they can't...

Funny you say this, because the DNC can't prove that the Swifties are lying so instead they just try and use legal strong arm tactics to help silence them.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB
Once again you try and split hairs on a ticks ass to sidetrack the topic. The very reason we have free speech is to protect the rights of groups like the swift boat vets to speak out. There is absolutely no proof that I have see presented other than John Kerry's word and less than a handful of witnesses on his part. The Swifties have over 100 witnesses. It is at best a he said/they said disagreement between Kerry and the swifties. However the Swefties do have some hard evidence as well. Kerry could make public more hard evidence, but refuses to do so. Sure looks to me like he's hiding something. But that's really beside the point. The point is that these Swifties should have the right to express their political opinions. However the DNC doesn't believe this. They are using legal intimidation tactics to limit the swifties in their right to free expression. Yet you try and rationalize this away. I'm not saying so much that the DNC is doing something illegal as they are doing something immoral and unAmerican.

Funny you say this, because the DNC can't prove that the Swifties are lying so instead they just try and use legal strong arm tactics to help silence them.

You didn't see this in the letter?

"The advertisement contains statements by men who purport to have served on Sen Kerry's swiftboat in Vietnam, and one statement by a man pretending to be the Doctor who treated Sen Kerry for one of his injuries. In fact, not a single one of the men who pretend to have served with Sen Kerry was actually a crewmate of Sen Kerry and the man pretending to be his doctor was not."

"Further, the "doctor" who appears in the ad, Louis Letsom, was not a crewmate of Sen Kerry's and was not the Doctor who actually signed Sen Kerry's sick call sheet. In fact, another physician actually signed Sen Kerry's sick call sheet. Letson is not listed on any document as having treated Sen. Kerry after the Dec. 2, 1968 firefight. Moreover, according to news accounts [National Review], Letson did not record his "memories" of that incident until after Sen.Kerry became a candidate for President in 2003"

[kg_veteran]

Mavdog - I read the letter. You can tell that the lawyers for Kerry/Edwards and the DNC worded the letter very carefully so that they could come back and make the legalistic argument that they were only "requesting" that the ad not be aired because of its "inaccuracy", rather than demanding that the station not air the ad at risk of being sued. Still, I read letters like these ALL the time (part of the job), and there's no question that they're making a veiled threat of litigation.

[Drbio]

"You can lead a fool to wisdom but you can't make him think."

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

You didn't see this in the letter?

"The advertisement contains statements by men who purport to have served on Sen Kerry's swiftboat in Vietnam, and one statement by a man pretending to be the Doctor who treated Sen Kerry for one of his injuries. In fact, not a single one of the men who pretend to have served with Sen Kerry was actually a crewmate of Sen Kerry and the man pretending to be his doctor was not."

"Further, the "doctor" who appears in the ad, Louis Letsom, was not a crewmate of Sen Kerry's and was not the Doctor who actually signed Sen Kerry's sick call sheet. In fact, another physician actually signed Sen Kerry's sick call sheet. Letson is not listed on any document as having treated Sen. Kerry after the Dec. 2, 1968 firefight. Moreover, according to news accounts [National Review], Letson did not record his "memories" of that incident until after Sen.Kerry became a candidate for President in 2003"

1st of all this doesn't offer any proof, only spin. DNC is narrowly and without any sort of reseaonable precedent construing "served" to meaning was a member of the crew of the boat that Kerry commanded. That would not hold up in a court of law. 2nd they cannot prove that Dr. Letsom did not treat Kerry. While there may be no public documented records available to show that Letsom id treat Kerry, there are no public records available to show that he did not. While certainly if would hae made a better case for the Swifties if Letsom had published his memories earlier, that in and of itself is no proof. Likewise there is no document showing that John Kerry was in Cambodia at any time. There is no superior officer that can confirm that Kerry was every sent to Cambodia. There is no record of a swift boat crossing the the blockade line one border near the date that Kerry said he was in Vietnam. There are documents which place crew members of Kerry's boat outside of Cambodia on the day in question. So according to the DNC standards of truth, Kerry and the Swifties both lied. Now I say that there is nothing but Kerry's word and a couple of others against the Swifties. You've produced nothing that shows otherwise. However, it looks like there is a good bit of evidence that Kerry lied about his Vietnam service. Maybe those lawyers should fax stations to not show any Kerry commericals that mention his Vietnam service.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
Mavdog - I read the letter. You can tell that the lawyers for Kerry/Edwards and the DNC worded the letter very carefully so that they could come back and make the legalistic argument that they were only "requesting" that the ad not be aired because of its "inaccuracy", rather than demanding that the station not air the ad at risk of being sued. Still, I read letters like these ALL the time (part of the job), and there's no question that they're making a veiled threat of litigation.

Well said from someone whose profession is the law.

[kg_veteran]

ANY political ad should conform to the standard of accuracy without deception or false statements. The point by the DNC is that this advertisement failed to meet that criteria. This is not a Freedom of Speech issue, it is an accuracy in advertisement issue.

But we can't assume they (the DNC) are correct. They make a bunch of statements in their letter to the station without offering any proof to support it.

[LRB]

It sure looks like Kerry and the DNC are running scared about something here since they keep resorting to behind the scene dirty tricks instead of confronting what they call "lies" with "true facts". One has to wonder on shortage of "true facts" in Kerry's favor.

[kg_veteran]

It's too bad that the letter from the DNC (whether it's a threat or a request) isn't getting more coverage from what dude calls the MSM. Why isn't the media investigating to see if the Swift Vets are right or not? If they are, it certainly seems like something we need to know about Kerry. If they're not, wouldn't it legitimize Kerry somewhat as a candidate?

The people have the right to know the truth. It's too bad the MSM isn't interested in that.

[LRB]

KG maybe the MSM has investigated and determined the Swifties are correct in their assertions. That could very well explain the overwhelming silence.