Question: does anyone know why Kerry, and others that have been

[movonne]

swift boated by these thugs have not sued over false info. Kerry could surly prove that the vile they spewed is false...just wondering...

[Monkeyman]

1. Getting ready to defend Murtha picking battles Oct 30th watch payback

[rfranklin]

2. What exactly does that post signify?

I'm confused.

[LittleClarkie]

7. The dog howls at sunrise

;)

[northzax]

3. sue for what?

it's almost impossible for a politician to sue for libel.

[eallen]

4. The bar is pretty high for public figures suing for defamation.

It's not enough to prove the accusation false. There is more involved.

[blm]

5. Swifts have deep pockets in the GOP - they'll drag out any lawsuit. I did

hear recently that alot of other vets have gotten together and have written a book refuting every lie put up by the swifts. They also describe how the swifts' lies pitted vets who had once been friends against each other.

There was alot of damage done by the swifts, and the entire story will soon be told. The complicity of the corpmedia was the ONLY real reason the swifts got their traction.

It will be up to every one of us to make a clamor about the book when it does come out - that's the only way media will give it even brief attention.

[sendero]

15. It doesn't matter that they would drag it out..

... and it doesn't matter that such a suit is all but unwinnable given current law.

You either take your enemies to task or you roll over and wait for them to do it again.

Kerry absolutely should have sued them and there are only 2 good reasons not to. 1) discovery would unearth some truth Kerry would rather not unearth or 2) Kerry really doesn't mind being called a liar in public all that much.

[blm]

23. That wasn't what I said - - I only said the swifts would drag the case out

long past the point they'd be exposed in a timely manner. The media could hide behind the "still a matter before the courts" wall as long as BushInc needed.

Kerry and his friends have worked out a point by point refutation, using every Naval record, document, order, and bit of film in existence that proves the swifts lied. It's ready for a fall rollout, from what I gather.

Your two reasons are pretty ridiculous and biased with no basis in reality - just sounds good to people who have already prejudged based on their own shallow read of actual events - - but - - in the long run - - Kerry's approach will win the day, unles the media decides they will STAY COMPLICIT and not give the airtime needed. I do expect OTHER vets will become more prominent this go round, and not be as reticent as they were in 2004.

[sendero]

24. Kerry's approach...

.. will win nothing, he won't be the nominee in 2008 so it's really all moot.

[blm]

26. Patriot Project is a lot more than about 2008 - it's about NOVEMBER 2006

and correcting the lies in an IRREFUTABLE way.

Is that something you WORRY about? My guess, based on the way you often attack Kerry in your posts, is that you DON'T care that facts be known, and would prefer that this country doesn't get to know the truth or the way the media protects the liars, because you don't want the country to know the truth about Kerry. You want the country to see Kerry through the lens of lies.

I guess it would suit another purpose for you.

Sad.

I think truth, ALL truth, should be told, and let the chips fall where they may. I would hope that ALL Democrats would want the same.

[Sparkly]

37. But with all due respect blm, being "a matter before the courts"

could help refute the "truth" these vile asshats are continuing to propagate, couldn't it?

If there's some reason Kerry himself would find it difficult or damagine to bring a lawsuit, perhaps his shipmates -- who were ALSO smeared as liars -- could do it.

Having John O'Neill and his merry band of ASSHOLES tied to a defamation of character lawsuit would at LEAST throw a lot of cold water on their credibility.

[blm]

40. We'll see.

The last lawsuit didn't get far.

The other vets involved and smeared along with Kerry wanted to write their own book. Let's see how much support the media gives the actual documented truth.

[Sparkly]

41. I've long wanted to see members of the media sued, as well

for the same thing: "defamation of character." They did it to Gore, and they've never stopped.

[Freidasfiredog]

6. Kerry is very wealthy man and savvy politician. He won't rock the boat.

nt

[blm]

8. You don't know much about Kerry, do you? He has over 35yrs of countering

the DC establishment, GOPs and Dems.

You can't even name another lawmaker in modern history with a record of investigating and exposing government corruption that even comes close to Kerry's.

[LittleClarkie]

12. Rocked a few boats, indeed. Sank a couple. Didn't even matter that one

was a popular Democrat (can't remember his name) that was involved in BCCI. Full speed ahead.

[karynnj]

43. No, Kerry never rocked the boat

Kerry returned a war hero from Vietnam and chose to fight a paranoid President to end a senseless war. The "smart money" for a well connected guy would have been to simply to parlay his medals into the politics as he wanted to

When he got a Senate seat he chose to risk it fighting Reagan at the height of his popularity, Kerry alone - out of the 100 Senators exposed Contra drug running and the Contras bringing drugs into the US.

Kerry fought his whole party and the Republicans to force the closing of a bank aiding terrorists and drug runners.

By the way, Kerry was always well connected - but not personally wealthy. He is now through money inhereted from his mother. Teresa is very very wealthy.

[soulcore]

9. Three words...

Skull and bones.

[Der Blaue Engel]

10. Five words...

Give me a fucking break.

[guidod]

17. Six Words...

...childish little brats club. Nice cats!

[MH1]

28. I do believe

that Urd is extending his middle digit.

Smart kitty.

[LittleClarkie]

33. That's the point, actually

A bunch of college kids playing fort does not a nefarious plot make.

[blm]

13. Try reading REAL HISTORY - BCCI for starters. Clinton covered up more for

BushInc than any other Dem and he wasn't a Skull and Bones member.

Kerry, otoh, investigated and exposed more government corruption by BushInc and his cronies than any lawmaker in modern history - something LAZY MINDS just can't grasp.

[soulcore]

25. Perhaps someone could explain to me then...

..why he rolled over so easily after Election 2004?

[MH1]

27. The votes weren't there.

He didn't "roll over."

Normally the loser concedes on election night. Kerry waited til the next morning and waited for input from his team of lawyers and advisors. They told him there was no chance to prevail.

Don't forget, the diff was over 100,000 votes, and still there is no proof of sufficient fraud to make up that difference.

[blm]

29. He had a DNC that didn't believe in machine fraud. The machines needed

securing BEFORE the election as after was too late.

And perhaps you could explain to me how you didn't know anything about Kerry's role in exposing more government corruption than any lawmaker in modern history?

Or why you think it's OK that the Dem party didn't secure the machines BEFORE the vote? Or why Clinton, then McAuliffe allowed the Dem party infrastructure in crucial states like Ohio to collapse to the point of nonexistence since 1996?

[soulcore]

31. Easy, I hadn't done the research...

I'm relatively young and wasn't around for any of it, but now I know I need to go catch up on my reading.

As for the whys you speak of, I think it's fairly simple, yet downright chilling to me, and unpopular to most here....

There's no difference in parties. It's the illusion of choice, which is why there will never be a viable third party candidate for President.

Like our votes "count" anyway.

[blm]

38. You let alot of the real culprits off the hook by pointing at Kerry.

The more research you do, the more you'll realize that plenty of people want Kerry to be dismissed as a public figure, because he is the lawmaker who WOULD open government books to the public.

Here's a starter article for you.

http://www.alternet.org/election04/20268/

[LittleClarkie]

34. No smoking gun, that's why

And he was in a more tenuous position than Gore. He didn't even have the popular vote. Not to mention that I get the feeling that some of the people in Ohio who were supposed to be on his side, weren't.

[LittleClarkie]

14. B and S

I wouldn't believe all you hear on Art Bell if I were you.

Or maybe he and Bush really are Freemason bonesmen aliens from hell.

[CrushTheDLC]

30. Skull and Bones is no myth

Kerry has admitted to being a member. Why deny it?

Now whether that has any bearing on him not demanding accountability in Ohio, or not following through on the BCCI thing, is another story entirely.

But my question to the Kerry camp is did anybody ever bother to investigate exactly HOW Swift Boat Liar John E. O'Neill was connected to the Bush Crime Family.

Yes, he's been involved with them since the Nixon administration. But does the connection go deeper than that?

The "E" stands for "Ellis". That's John Ellis O'Neill.

Like John Ellis, the Bush cousin who called Florida for Chimpy on FAUX News in 2000.

Like John Ellis Bush (a.k.a. Jeb), the Chimp's brother.

How common of a middle name is "Ellis"?? Is he an actual member of the Bush Crime Family himself?

This should have been investigated before Crazy ass Corsi got his book published, let alone by the time the SBL's got their ads on nationwide TV.

But that's what happens when the DLC robots dominate your campaign, I guess.

[LittleClarkie]

32. Oh right. John Kerry and John O'Neill are actually bosom buddies

More like deadly enemies.

I don't deny that Kerry belonged to Skull and Bones. But if you think he threw the election because of some nefarious plot between him and Bush, then you've never taken a very close look at him at all. He's not built that way.

[CrushTheDLC]

35. Uh, what?

I don't know what drugs you're taking, but that isn't close to what I said at all. :wtf:

[LittleClarkie]

36. Well, first you talked about Skull and Bones

presumably making a connection to Bush and Kerry. Then you connected Bush and O'Neill, as if O'Neill needed another connection for being involved besides his old grudge against Kerry and being a fellow rabid rightwing Texan like Bush, but anyway.

So you connected Bush and O'Neill. Which, combined with your previous post, would seem to suggest that all three are in cahoots with each other against the American people. Which is absurd. As I say, Kerry isn't built that way.

And why would Kerry have needed to investigate the connection between Bush and O'Neill when they already knew there were Texas connections, and Kerry didn't need to know much more about O'Neill beyond the fact that O'Neill was his old Nixonian nemesis?

[blm]

39. Kerry DID follow thru on BCCI - he even kept the case alive when the feds

tried to end it, so Kerry went to to the NY state prosecutor and had it tried under state law.

Kerry stuck with BCCI for FIVE YEARS. He did so AGAINST the entire DC establishment, and most of the Dem party, too.

Some GOP trolls who used to post here tried to smear Kerry as if he covered up BCCI, not expecting that there were too many of us who access the actual records regularly at the National Security Archives.

Maybe you shoiuld take up your grievances with the DNC and its lameass spokepeople and weak ass left media.

Because Bush didn't lift a finger - did he?

[karynnj]

44. Another three words

That is IDIOTIC!

Look at what the man did in his life - how do you compare?

[LittleClarkie]

11. I do know he's hired an investigator to scour Navy records for evidence

but mostly there are supporters who are still gathering info. He supports them, but stops short of joining them.

We shall see what he does before 2008. He might consider it a waste of resources, or he might have been told by lawyers that it's hard to sue when you're a public figure.

[sendero]

16. You don't have to win.

... to render their claims total lies in the court of public opinion. You don't have to win to make it painful enough that you think twice about doing it again.

Stop with the win stuff, it doesn't matter.

[LittleClarkie]

18. I disagree. I think that winning a case adds to the perception

that it was a valid case in the minds of the public

[sendero]

20. American.

... with brains bigger than a pea are familiar with the term 'malice' and well familiar with the near impossibility of winning these sorts of cases, if for no other reasons than they read the tabloids.

And besides, there is a simple concept at play here that EVERYONE understands. If someone accuses you of a heinous act, something dastardly, vile, unforgivable - and you don't challenge them it sure doesn't look right. If you swing at them and they win the fight it doesn't matter, you at least made an attempt to defend your honor, and showed that you were outraged by their accusation.

That's Kerry's big problem, nothing seems to get him to that outrage point. If someone accused you of faking war wounds to get a medal, what you you do? I'd kick the motherfucker's ass, or at least give it my best shot.

[LittleClarkie]

22. Aye, but Americans with brains bigger than a pea

already knew that the allegations were bogus. I didn't think we were trying to reach them.

[karynnj]

45. Not winning - even on technical grounds

would be seen as the lies having merit - it's been done before. Not to mention it would put many fragile people through hell. There was an article posted about one the men who had been a winter soldier and who went through hell when he thought of having to testify on all that he said happened - in his case it was well documented. Many people who went through the particular mission Kerry was on came back and suffered badly from PTSD. That mission lasted only 4 months before being changed - a month after Kerry returned to the US, it was changed completely. O'Neil was NOT in the same circumstances as Kerry.

[JI7]

47. i disagree, most people think the Swift Boat lies ARE BS

most who believe it are partisan types who WANT to believe it.

that's why people so easily use the term "swiftboating" to refer to attacks on politicians, especially attacks directed at military service of elected officials.

if Kerry or anyone else lost the lawsuit even if it was clear that it was based on technical grounds and even if they admitted the attacks were based on lies most of the ignorant public would only see it as Kerry losing against the liars and think there is some truth to what the liars say.

[karynnj]

19. For all of them there are the same reasons

As public figures, it is very hard to win because you need to prove that they knew it was false and with malice published it. They would also have to prove they were hurt by it.

With Kerry, one problem could be that O'Neil and Corsi had all these guys sign sworn afidevits. They could argue that they trusted these guys - so it was not with malice and they wanted the truth out. Kerry sueing a lot of little guys roped into this would be a nightmare.

I am not a lawyer - I do occasionally watch lawyers on TV.

[ProSense]

21. Here is why it's impossible to sue

Scalia revealed that he felt the landmark1964 ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan was wrong. That decision held that when a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit is a public figure, such as a government official, the plaintiff can only prevail if he or she can show the statement was made with "actual malice" - a problematic phrase.

The requirement of "actual malice" means that the person publishing the defamatory statement must have done so with one of two states of mind: Either he knew the statement was false, or he published it with reckless disregard to whether it was true or false.

Simple negligence, then, is not enough under New York Times v. Sullivan: "Reckless disregard" requires that there had to have been a compelling reason to prompt taking some care before making the statement.

In practice, the "actual malice" standard means that the plaintiff usually loses. It's virtually impossible to prove with clear and convincing evidence (as is also required when the standard applies) that the publisher of the false statement either knew it was false, or published it despite good reason to more fully investigate the matter, thus recklessly.

Snip...

The constitutional law of defamation is a disaster. It is nearly incomprehensible. It is unfair. It is unjust. And it is long overdue for a correction. Sadly, I could randomly select dozens upon dozens of cases to make the same point the Lohrenz case makes.

Scalia is correct: Everybody should be able to protect their reputations. But not until New York Times v. Sullivan -- which literally changed the law of the land overnight -- is reversed, will that ideal be a reality.

Hopefully, Justice Scalia was giving us a hint of coming changes at the Court, when defamation cases are heard. At a minimum, the Court ought to make clear that only true public figures are deemed public figures for defamation law - for current law only encourages the victimization of private persons. Better yet, the Court should chose a more realistic standard than "actual malice" - one under which even public figure plaintiffs who are lied about, can get justice.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051202.html

The liars would simply harp on the fact that the case could be proved in court, feeding the perception that the liars case has an ounce of validity. Better to expose the lies with facts, educate the pulbic and hold the media accountable.

[Sparkly]

42. "Actual malice"

In practice, the "actual malice" standard means that the plaintiff usually loses. It's virtually impossible to prove with clear and convincing evidence (as is also required when the standard applies) that the publisher of the false statement either knew it was false, or published it despite good reason to more fully investigate the matter, thus recklessly.

If it can't be proven that the SwiftLiars acted on actual malice, it can't be proven at all. I'm not a lawyer, but I would like to see it tested. The facts were all there, there's plenty of evidence that the SwiftLiars were made aware of the facts, and plenty of evidence that they continued to libel and slander.

I don't understand the legal hangup?

[skeeters2525]

46. Maybe

Maybe because he has gotten on with his life.

Maybe you should try it.