Wow, If Kerry can sue this guy, that opens up dozens of lawsuits Bush could file. :mischief

 

NEW YORK POST

 

KERRY FIT TO SUE 'UNFIT' AUTHOR

 

November 18, 2004 -- LIBERAL loser John Kerry might be planning to strike back at John O'Neill, the "Unfit for Command" author who claims some of the credit for Kerry's defeat, sources say.

 

In the book, published by Regnery not long before the election, O'Neill ? who, like Kerry, commanded swift boats in Vietnam ? attacked Kerry's war record and branded him a traitor.

 

 

O'Neill sold over 800,000 copies and his group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, raised $25 million to battle the Kerry campaign and ran TV ads trashing the candidate. Former Sen. Bob Dole endorsed the group.

 

 

O'Neill says he wrote the book because Kerry called his fellow Vietnam vets monsters, terrorists and war criminals, for which he has never apologized. Kerry has called O'Neill's charges lies, though he made some of the comments in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971.

 

 

"I will leave it to the professionals to decide whether we played a crucial role in defeating Kerry, but I am very satisfied," O'Neill crowed to the London Sunday Telegraph days after George W. Bush's victory.

 

 

The paper reported Kerry was "furious" at staffers who advised him not to fight back against O'Neill and noted that the nominee was "enraged" over the book.

 

 

Now, "the Kerry camp is thinking about filing a libel lawsuit against Regnery and O'Neill," a source close to the candidate's inner circle tells PAGE SIX. "I don't know if they will actually go forward, but consideration is serious. If Kerry plans on running again in 2008 ? and I'm hearing he will ? it would make sense that he'd file the suit."

 

 

Kerry's rep, David Wade, said he hadn't heard about any proposed lawsuit, but promised to look into it.

 

 

"It would be a lot smarter of Kerry to just apologize," O'Neill told PAGE SIX. "No lawsuits are going to change the testimony he gave and the impact it had on POWs."

 

 

O'Neill, who is now a lawyer in Houston, says he has not heard from the Kerry camp, but will defend himself against any legal action. O'Neill, who charged that Kerry faked his wounds and won his medals under false pretenses, says he won't write another book if Kerry runs in 2008, but will definitely campaign against him again.

I think he should sue the guy for making up all sorts of lies and contributing to Bush's smear campaign.

The NYP's bias is obvious from the outset of the article: smear Kerry and bias any jury.

I think he should sue the guy for making up all sorts of lies and contributing to Bush's smear campaign.

618465[/snapback]

So should Bush sue Moore and MoveOn.org? :whistle

You can't call it libel if it's based on facts. That's the difference.

You can't call it libel if it's based on facts. That's the difference.

618479[/snapback]

So in order to file the thing, Kerry would have to release his military record. :lol

Depends on whether there's anything regarding Special Ops in there. For all we know, there might be. Whether the potential information in there is still relevant to national security is a different question.

 

And BTW, your boy George hasn't exactly done the same.

Bush is the one who wants to keep his military involvement secret. The only people who have challenged Kerry's already public military record are the ones who he called out after Vietnam for committing war crimes. They clearly just wanted revenge on him for bringing their secrets to light.

You can't call it libel if it's based on facts.? That's the difference.

618479[/snapback]

So in order to file the thing, Kerry would have to release his military record. :lol

618480[/snapback]

How can someone base their movie on facts that they dont know and want to reveal? You see how that works? Let me give you an example. I allege that chewbacca has killed a child. Then when chewbacca sues me, I say I want chewbacca's secret file revealed so I can verify my allegation which is based on a secret file Ive never seen.

 

The defense has to have foundation for allowing secret files to be open. Merely saying that wanting them not opened is enough to establish foundation is a self defeating principle.

I love how the story opens with "Liberal loser John Kerry...."

 

Ah you gotta hand it to those Moonies at the NY Post...

You can't call it libel if it's based on facts. That's the difference.

618479[/snapback]

 

Right b/c everything in F911 were facts. B/c of this statement everything else you've mentioned on this post should be disregarded.

I'll give you a couple of facts:

 

1) Swift boat vets allegations are false, therefore Kerry has a case.

 

2) Michael Moore's allegations are true, therefore Bush doesn't have a case.

 

 

Don't bother arguing with me about the facts in Farenheit 9/11 because they are proven. Maybe his deductions and conclusions based on those facts are wrong, but the White House hasn't exactly denied any of the following:

 

1) Bush had dealings with the Bin Ladens.

 

2) Bush while gov. of Texas received the Taliban to build a pipeline through Afghanistan.

 

3) Bush ignored warnings about terrorism, particularly a memo titled: "Bin Laden determined to strike inside the US".

 

4) Bush sat down for 7 minutes while knowing that the country was under attack.

 

5) Bush exaggerated intelligence to build his case for the war in Iraq.

 

 

The rest is history. Maybe Michael comes to a different conclusion. I don't know whether the war in Afghanistan had anything to do with the pipeline and the Taliban having been in Texas. I don't know if Bush deliberately used bad intelligence or he is just a victim of an ineffective CIA. I don't know whether those 7 lost minutes of him sitting down would have made a difference. But the facts are there, Michael just connects the dots in a way that some may disagree. The problem is that no one has come out and denied any of it. Particularly the White House has been silent about it. :mischief2

 

While the Swift boat vets... well, let's say that the media had a field day with it, but they all knew (including conservative poster boy Bill O'Reilly) that these people were lying and they were confronted many times about their false accusations. They were exposed as bitter people with a grudge against Kerry but none of their accusations were based on reality.

Thats exactly the problem, the swift boat accounts cannot be proven to be lies whether you like it or not. And b/c of that they hold as much weight as the Moore claims. Someone is you can please post a link to the thread about the afghan pipeline, and about the lies in F911, i think the latter was a sorianofan post (which by the way where the hell is that guy?)

Thats exactly the problem, the swift boat accounts cannot be proven to be lies whether you like it or not. And b/c of that they hold as much weight as the Moore claims. Someone is you can please post a link to the thread about the afghan pipeline, and about the lies in F911, i think the latter was a sorianofan post (which by the way where the hell is that guy?)

619761[/snapback]

 

Dude, THEY WERE PROVEN TO BE LIES. Time and time again, when confronted on interviews they changed their accounts and fell on their faces. The navy even had to come out and release a statement clarifying that JK's records were spotless clean.

 

The pipeline thing is not even the most important issue on F 9/11 so don't bother.

Some of the SV claims were true and caused the JK campaign to issue "clarifications".

 

ex. Christmas in Cambodia

ex. The purple heart that may have been self-inflicted

620659[/snapback]

Proof? Im assuming by clarifications you mean they admitted they were true, or else you wouldnt say they were true. But Id like to hear what the clarifications were and what the proof is that those claims were in fact true.

I have yet to see any evidence that gives claim to the nonsense that the Swift Boat Vets have been spinning for months now.

 

It's pretty clear to me that the Republican party knew that they could use these veterans against John Kerry, because they have been angry at him since Vietnam when he brought their actions during the war to light.

a sorianofan post (which by the way where the hell is that guy?)

619761[/snapback]

Permabanned

NEW YORK POST

 

KERRY FIT TO SUE 'UNFIT' AUTHOR

 

November 18, 2004 -- LIBERAL loser John Kerry might be planning to strike back at John O'Neill, the "Unfit for Command" author who claims some of the credit for Kerry's defeat, sources say.

 

In the book, published by Regnery not long before the election, O'Neill ? who, like Kerry, commanded swift boats in Vietnam ? attacked Kerry's war record and branded him a traitor.

 

O'Neill sold over 800,000 copies and his group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, raised $25 million to battle the Kerry campaign and ran TV ads trashing the candidate. Former Sen. Bob Dole endorsed the group.

 

O'Neill says he wrote the book because Kerry called his fellow Vietnam vets monsters, terrorists and war criminals, for which he has never apologized. Kerry has called O'Neill's charges lies, though he made some of the comments in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971.

 

"I will leave it to the professionals to decide whether we played a crucial role in defeating Kerry, but I am very satisfied," O'Neill crowed to the London Sunday Telegraph days after George W. Bush's victory.

 

 

O'Neil. What a great American, we should all be proud. $25 MILLION DOLLARS to slander a vietnam vet. I don't feel bad for Kerry, he has to fight his own battles. And if he wants to sue this guy I'll root for him. But I do feel it's a shame that campaigns come down to this sort of thing. I blame the media for putting this fatass on TV over and over again. The tv ads didn't amount to a hill of beans until the media jumped on it. Nevermind the fact that their entire point was clarifying events that took place thirty freaking years ago.

 

Pathetic.