Probably not a bad case on the facts but would play right in to the hands of the "there they go again" crowd.

I'll guess anyone buying in to this smear campaign are already commited to (don't laugh) *President* Bush's re-(straight faces now)*election* and wont sway the undecideds.

None the less, sue the baztids! Or if not, how should these "charges" be effectively attacked?


---------------------------------

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=baer081104

"As the Supreme Court ruled in New York Times v. Sullivan and in subsequent cases, to prove libel a public figure must show that what was written or said about him was false and that those who said it had "actual malice;" that is that they knew it was false and had reckless disregard for that fact. At this point, we only can assume that the SBVT knew what it was saying was false: One member of the group has already called his participation in the ad a "terrible mistake;" that same veteran and another one in the ad actually defended Kerry from similar charges in his 1996 Senate race; another gave Kerry exemplary ratings as an officer; and none of them have ever initiated official proceedings to challenge the Navy's decision to award Kerry these medals."

No need. The fact that one of them already admitted that he lied hurt them far more than any lawsuit could.



Probably not a bad case on the facts but would play right in to the hands of the "there they go again" crowd.

I'll guess anyone buying in to this smear campaign are already commited to (don't laugh) *President* Bush's re-(straight faces now)*election* and wont sway the undecideds.

None the less, sue the baztids! Or if not, how should these "charges" be effectively attacked?


---------------------------------

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=baer081104

"As the Supreme Court ruled in New York Times v. Sullivan and in subsequent cases, to prove libel a public figure must show that what was written or said about him was false and that those who said it had "actual malice;" that is that they knew it was false and had reckless disregard for that fact. At this point, we only can assume that the SBVT knew what it was saying was false: One member of the group has already called his participation in the ad a "terrible mistake;" that same veteran and another one in the ad actually defended Kerry from similar charges in his 1996 Senate race; another gave Kerry exemplary ratings as an officer; and none of them have ever initiated official proceedings to challenge the Navy's decision to award Kerry these medals."

No need. The fact that one of them already admitted that he lied hurt them far more than any lawsuit could.

which one admitted he lied?

The Left (the article calls the attackers the "Right," so it must be a fair label) can sure dish out the mean-spirited, false, attack ads and media ploys, but they sure can't take it. Two totally different standards. When the Left says something, hell, it's not only damn well true, but absolutely justified because the future of liberalism and liberal power mongers is at stake! However, a threatening, hurtful retort from the Right, and the Left are running around screaming "no fair," "mean-spirited," and "Sue the *******s!".

To the Left, "free speech" means you are free to say anything, as long as you don't disagree with them, much less attack them.

This particular attack is a demonstrable and acknowledged lie.

This particular attack is a demonstrable and acknowledged lie.

Hmm. Maybe we should seriously deal with those who commit a "demonstrable and acknowledged lie"? Interesting concept. I wonder if it would be worse if it were by a licensed lawyer, under oath in the judicial process, who is a sitting public official? What exactly is the Liberal/Left/Democrats' standard for dealing with lying? It seems it only matters if their political opponents do it.

So now we see what the Republicans do when they feel threatened.

I think that the public humiliation these goons have invited upon themselves and the Bush camp is punishment enough. I was simply challenging the phony equivalence you are trying to draw between negative truths told about Bush and negative lies told about Kerry.

So now we see what the Republicans do when they feel threatened.

I think that the public humiliation these goons have invited upon themselves and the Bush camp is punishment enough. I was simply challenging the phony equivalence you are trying to draw between negative truths told about Bush and negative lies told about Kerry.

Yes, it's a convenient way to illustrate the double standard. Sorry we have to keep returning to it, but when you get such a good, clear illustration of a point, it's hard to let it go. Of course, the standard Left counter is "there you go again" (having given up on "It was just about sex"?) with no substance.

The situations are not even remotely similar. Are you saying that Democrats should insist that ????? sue Clinton for libel before they suggest that Kerry should sue your lying heros?

The practical answer is no, he shouldn't sue. A lawsuit just prolongs the issue, which harms Kerry, true or not. By ignoring it, at least publicly, it fades away.

After the election, if he loses, he should consider suing, and he'll have a good case. There is no question of malice, so it's hard to imagine him not winning.

If he wins the election, it won't look good if he sues anyone, so the issue is dead.

But for the sake of argument:

It's generally acknowledged that the left is more open to divergent views and criticism than is the right. And has a more reality based notion (flexible) of standards. (incorrectly to the point of no standards in some cases)

It's also been the case that scandals don't stick to the right as they do to the left. They have this "I'm made of rubber, youre made of glue" Teflon thing going on that's just annoying as hell. The right is less open to criticism and divergent views. The right's notion of rigid standards is unrealistic idealism.

No double standard, diferent standards.









The Left (the article calls the attackers the "Right," so it must be a fair label) can sure dish out the mean-spirited, false, attack ads and media ploys, but they sure can't take it. Two totally different standards. When the Left says something, hell, it's not only damn well true, but absolutely justified because the future of liberalism and liberal power mongers is at stake! However, a threatening, hurtful retort from the Right, and the Left are running around screaming "no fair," "mean-spirited," and "Sue the *******s!".

To the Left, "free speech" means you are free to say anything, as long as you don't disagree with them, much less attack them.

Bring it out in the open and have it debated in court. I'd love to see the arguments made, for and against. Get it over with. If both sides say they are telling the truth, then it seems that one must be lieing. We have a pretty good system for ferreting out the truth, and this seems to be the right venue.

On the other hand, he could just say "I'm above this whole thing", ignore it and debate the issues.

From the Boston Globe:

A key figure in the SwiftVets' attack against John Kerry admitted that he made a "terrible mistake" in an interview with the Boston Globe. George Elliott, Kerry's former commanding officer admitted that he was given an affidavit to sign by the SwiftVets that attacked Kerry's nomination for the Silver Star. He admitted to feeling pressured into signing the affidavit due to the approaching deadline of the book by John O'Neill. Elliott admitted the mistake and feels that John Kerry deserved his Silver Star.

which one admitted he lied?

Yes! Put up or shut up. As part of discovery, a subpoena will be issued for the release of Kerry's entire military records, not just the selective ones he's released. The SwiftVets have made claims which can't be proven/disproven until the entire story is made public. So do it, let the vetting process begin, and be done with it. So what if one guy recanted his story. Sixty-plus others haven't.

From the Boston Globe:

A key figure in the SwiftVets' attack against John Kerry admitted that he made a "terrible mistake" in an interview with the Boston Globe. George Elliott, Kerry's former commanding officer admitted that he was given an affidavit to sign by the SwiftVets that attacked Kerry's nomination for the Silver Star. He admitted to feeling pressured into signing the affidavit due to the approaching deadline of the book by John O'Neill. Elliott admitted the mistake and feels that John Kerry deserved his Silver Star.
I hear nuthink! I see nuthink!

Sixty-plus others didn't serve on Kerry's boat or were anywhere near him. Some began their service after Kerry was back in the States.

But that's not the greatest absurdity. That award would have to go to those who are trying to pick apart Kerry's actual service during the war while ignoring W's dishonorable and cowardly avoidance of it. So, some guys supposedly didn't like Kerry. Nobody can even remember W. Surely, such a hero would merit the memory of someone. Anyone? Drug dealers don't count.


Yes! Put up or shut up. As part of discovery, a subpoena will be issued for the release of Kerry's entire military records, not just the selective ones he's released. The SwiftVets have made claims which can't be proven/disproven until the entire story is made public. So do it, let the vetting process begin, and be done with it. So what if one guy recanted his story. Sixty-plus others haven't.

Sixty-plus others didn't serve on Kerry's boat or were anywhere near him. Some began their service after Kerry was back in the States.

But that's not the greatest absurdity. That award would have to go to those who are trying to pick apart Kerry's actual service during the war while ignoring W's dishonorable and cowardly avoidance of it. So, some guys supposedly didn't like Kerry. Nobody can even remember W. Surely, such a hero would merit the memory of someone. Anyone? Drug dealers don't count.
I hear W is good buddies with the Saudis. maybe they can shed some light.

Yes! Put up or shut up. As part of discovery, a subpoena will be issued for the release of Kerry's entire military records, not just the selective ones he's released. The SwiftVets have made claims which can't be proven/disproven until the entire story is made public. So do it, let the vetting process begin, and be done with it. So what if one guy recanted his story. Sixty-plus others haven't.

Right. I agree entirely.

To change gears for just a moment, then you agree that GWB should release all of his military records, not just the selective ones he's released? Then we could once and for all get the debate over his service out of the way.

My point? The right and the left complain about the other's tactics but then do exactly the same thing themselves.

So do it, let the vetting process begin, and be done with it.

HouseMoney, would you hold your Fearless Leader to the same standard? Funny isn't it, how GWB supporters seem to get amnesia except when it comes to finding something to squawk about with the Dems. Every time you throw a stone, an entire mudslide descends upon your heads.

Not surprising when you blindly and inexplicably follow the Neocon's. DUH!

I agree. Let the vetting process begin. That is, IF the Pentagon can find either of their records.