Posted on 09/24/2004 8:42:28 AM PDT by ironman
She [Vice President Dianne Brandi] also turned down the latest spot from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth because it "accuses Kerry of treason, a crime punishable by death."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Here is the rhetoric that you labeled as extreme:
http://swift4.he.net/~swift4/article.php?story=20040923072328187 <--VIDEO
OPEN WITH: Footage of Jane Fonda.
CUT TO: STILLS Kerry, protesters.
CUT TO: SUPER John Kerry secretly met enemy leaders.
CUT TO: STILL Kerry testifying.
CUT TO: Fonda at press conference.
CG: Paid for by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and not authorized by any candidate or candidates committee. www. Swiftvets.com. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is responsible for the content of this advertisement.
AUDIO
Announcer: Even before Jane Fonda went to Hanoi to meet with the enemy and mock America, John Kerry secretly met with enemy leaders in Paris.
Announcer: Though we were still at war and Americans were being held in North Vietnamese prison camps.
Announcer: Then he returned and accused American troops of committing war crimes on a daily basis.
Announcer: Eventually Jane Fonda apologized for her activities, but John Kerry refuses to.
Announcer: In a time of war, can America trust a man who betrayed his country?
Announcer: Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is responsible for the content of this advertisement.
IIRC, some prominent Democrats have accused GWB of betraying the country, as well, with weaker undisputed facts than appear in this advertisment.
This is Kerry's MO when it comes to "intimidating" those that they fear come a bit too close to the truth. As Swift Boat Vet Numero Uno John O'Neill said, "So, SUE US"!!!!
I agree with John O'Neill!!!!
I guess it is ok to say that Kerry lied and is unfit to be CIC, as the initial ad said. You just can't say that he betrayed his comrades and country. The distinction is lost on me in terms of libel law.
I already knew that, cuz I've heard the ad.
Here's an odd twist. Swiftboat Vets now have an actionable cause against FOX, as FOX's press release charged the SBV of doing something they didn't do.
Little boy, perhaps you do not realize what it is all about. Because of people like Jane Fonda and John Kerry during the 1970's, over 2 million (2,000,000) people died after the American military was removed from Vietnam.
Is this what you want to happen to the people in Iraq? How many people (millions once again) will die in Iraq, if Democracy fails?
There was nothing in the most recent SwiftVet advertisement that is not factual.
Yes, the truth does hurt, as it should.
More than ever, Ollie North needs to air Stolen Honor (factual basis of the Swift ad)on War Stories!
Almost makes you think that Fox MUST have a legal liability argument for refusing. It doesn't make much sense to arbitrarily refuse.
Different War, Same Kerry:
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3216.html
treason (fromWebsters ll New Riverside Dictionary)
1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, esp. the betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.
If the shoe fits.....
What falsehoods?
You just read my old mind.
John O'Neil should challenge this VP to have both of them on Fox and run the ad.
Then, John should say to this VP were did that ad say or mention treason?
Then, John can threaten to sue Fox unless they run the ad for free every 30 minutes until the next commercial comes out.
You'd think that privately meeting with the leaders of the enemy while your government is trying to negotiate with them fits this definition..
Ill play.
First of all, no normal business operation would pass on an obsene amount of cash if the advertisement was within national political discourse.
An example I can think of would be the KKK or maybe a militant terrorist group trying to buy a slot on a channel.
Its not censorship in this case, its plain common sense and the channel would get major kudos for resisting the all mighty dollar for standards and decency.
No, they are forgetting what got them on top. Kinda like the republicans in congress.
O'Neill was asked directly, by Alan Colmes, if the ad was accusing Kerry of treason. O'Neill said that he was not going to get into legal parsing (which is necessary to reach the conclusion of "treason"), which makes it clear that the SBVfT are not accusing Kerry of treason. They are putting out uncontested historical facts to remind the viewer of Kerry's past.
Kerry is NOT an Irish Catholic.
No, I think they just blew it in the way they explained their refusal. They could have refused to air the thing, give no explanation why & there would be no cause of action. They could have said they had insufficient evidence & were going to err on the side of safety.
Instead, FOX made a specific claim, the SBV ad makes a specific claim that treason was committed by Kerry, which the ad clearly did not.
Sure, but once a term becomes part of the legal lexicon, using it gets sticky.
It's like watching someone shoot someone & the guy dies. Reporting the guy committed murder would be technically wrong. Usually reporters cover their butts by saying "alleged" about someone's crime, until after a court has made a guilty ruling.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.