They were so confident that they were telling the truth that they had elected to remain UNINCORPORATED and take the risk of being perhaps the only 527 in which its members were willing to accept PERSONAL liability for their actions, unlike MoveOn which had compared Bush to Hitler and called an American General in wartime a traitor. The Swiftvets were very brave or stupid not to incorporate and protect themselves from legal action; OR they were truthful.
In fact, Senator Kerry has let the last statute of limitations for defamation to lapse, forever barring any defamation claim against SwiftVet authors O'Neill and Corsi.
http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2007/08/sen-kerry-permi.html
"The very last thing John Kerry wants is to ever give the SwiftVets the legal tools they'd need to conclusively document their claims, because truth is, of course, a complete defense to defamation claims."
2007-09-20
05:21:56
·
14 answers
·
asked by
Private Deek
2
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
Can always count on you Jim for the well reasoned logical response.
2007-09-20
05:26:32 ·
update #1
Children.
Moveon called an American General in a time of war a traitor to his country by calling him "betrayus." Instead of diagreeing with his view they call him a traitor. The swifties were relaying historical experience about John Kerry, NOWHERE did they call him traitor or anything of the sort. They merely were trying to point out his shortcomings and possible lies.
Do you SEE the distinction or has moveon blinded your ability at rational thought?
2007-09-20
05:30:09 ·
update #2
Sure they were. And the Easter Bunny is real too.
2007-09-20 05:24:51
·
answer #1
·
answered by Jim W 3
·
9⤊
5⤋
I'm confused. Even though their allegations have been proven false, by evidence, eyewitness testimony (Most of them had actually served at the same time and place as Kerry), inconsistencies in their claims along with one of them admitting he did not have firsthand knowledge about what he SWORE to, you think that because Kerry didn't sue they must have been telling the truth? How about some more logical explanations. First, it is very difficult for a public figure such as Kerry to bring a successful defamation suit. He would have had to prove not only that they were knowingly lying (That would have been easy), but also that they were acting with malice. That is a hard standard to prove to a court. For a second explanation, maybe he didn't want to give them another public forum to spread their lies. Regardless, the lack of a defamation suit is not, in the eyes of any logical person, proof that they were telling the truth.
2007-09-20 12:35:28
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
So this means Michael Moore was telling the truth because no one has sued him yet and Al Frankovich for calling Rush a big fat liar was telling the truth also and guess what they were. where as Kerry can gain nothing from suing a bunch of neocons so he let it go. Its funny how you idiots don't believe the Military when they award medals but swallow everything they have to say about the war.
2007-09-20 12:32:05
·
answer #3
·
answered by region50 6
·
3⤊
1⤋
Dont confuse leftists with facts. The swiftboat guys simply came out to refute the lies of John Kerry. They told their side of the story and exposed his lies. There is no similarity between that and the hate and blind ideology of moveon
2007-09-20 12:30:56
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
Lying is only wrong if the right does it. The left can do no wrong - just ask 'em.
Remember - most of these people insist that Bush called the Constitution a "God damned piece of paper" but can't supply any credible source. The entire "piece of paper" mess stemmed from ONE pissed off guy with a computer. Scary, isn't it?
2007-09-20 12:29:20
·
answer #5
·
answered by Jadis 6
·
4⤊
2⤋
They are liars and have already been proven to be so!
What does this matter anyway - is Kerry running again? No - so what possible reason, other than being a bridge troll would someone present such a bogus point?
2007-09-20 12:28:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋
Personally I think all the 527's, swifties, and MoveOn included are a disgrace and embarassment. If there are issues let the candidates hash it out between them....so I guess by your logic Bush is actually Hitler since he let the statute of limitations run out too?
2007-09-20 12:27:28
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
4⤋
According to snopes (Urban Legends), the swiftboaters are contradicted by their own words in documents they filled out in the past.
And all but one of them never served with Kerry.
2007-09-20 12:28:54
·
answer #8
·
answered by oohhbother 7
·
3⤊
2⤋
yawn, Swiftboat losers attcking Kerry were implicitly backing war deserter coward Bush.
Say, If Bush doesn't sue me in a couple years that means I am truthful, correct?
2007-09-20 12:30:02
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
4⤋
if they weree telling the truth, why did one claim Kerry didn't deserve a medal because there was no action that day, but RECIEVED ONE HIMSELF FOR SAME INCIDENT?
at least he was there while BUSH WAS A W O L
The first SBVT ad was contradicted by the statements of several other veterans who observed the incidents, by the Navy's official records, and, in some instances, by the contemporaneous statements of SBVT members themselves.
Several major newspapers were also skeptical of the SBVT allegations. For example, a New York Times news article stated, "on close examination, the accounts of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth prove to be riddled with inconsistencies."[46] ABC News's The Note opined, "the Swift Boat ad and their primary charges about Kerry's medals are personal, negative, extremely suspect, or false."[47] Regarding the medal dispute, a Los Angeles Times editorial[48] stated, "Not limited by the conventions of our colleagues in the newsroom, we can say it outright: These charges against John Kerry are false." The editorial argued this position on the basis that "Kerry is backed by almost all those who witnessed the events in question, as well as by documentation." On August 22, 2004 The Washington Post reported: "An investigation by The Washington Post into what happened that day suggests that both sides have withheld information from the public record and provided an incomplete, and sometimes inaccurate, picture of what took place. But although Kerry's accusers have succeeded in raising doubts about his war record, they have failed to come up with sufficient evidence to prove him a liar."[49]
The ABC television show Nightline traveled to Vietnam and interviewed Vietnamese who were involved in the battle for which Kerry was awarded the Silver Star. These witnesses disputed O'Neill's charge that there "was little or no fire" that day; they said that the fighting was fierce.[50] SBVT supporters question whether these witnesses are reliable because they spoke "in the presence of a Communist official",[51] but their account of enemy fire is substantially the same as that previously given by another former VC to an AP reporter[1][not in citation given] and by the American witnesses, including the only SBVT member who was actually present that day, Larry Clayton Lee.[52][53][54][55]
Jerome Corsi has said that a picture of Kerry's 1993 visit to Vietnam hangs in the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City as a gesture of "honor" by the communists "for his contribution to their victory over [the] United States",[56][57] and John O'Neill has stated that Kerry "is in the North Vietnamese war museum as a hero. . . . one of the heroes who caused them to win the war in Vietnam".[58] The statement is also repeated in "Unfit for Command" (pp 167-174). However, Josh Gerstein of the New York Sun stated in this regard:
“ While the museum clearly honors opponents of the war from America and other countries, it is not clear that the photo of Mr. Kerry is part of that tribute. The picture of the senator hangs among a set of photos devoted to the restoration of diplomatic relations between America and Vietnam in the 1990s.
It was apparently taken as Mr. Kerry took part in a delegation President Clinton sent to Hanoi in 1993. Other photos nearby show visits during that period by former American officials who played key roles in the Vietnam War, including a Navy admiral who has since died, Elmo Zumwalt, and a defense secretary, Robert McNamara. A secretary of state during Mr. Clinton’s term, Warren Christopher, is also shown meeting Vietnamese officials
2007-09-20 12:26:11
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
8⤊
5⤋
Moveon.org was telling the truth too. Have you seen the ad? it was backed up by quotes from Patreus.
2007-09-20 12:26:15
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
4⤋