John Kerry's efforts to hush up and slander some of his fellow Vietnam vets during his failed 2004 presidential campaign have come back to bite him.
Michael P. Tremoglie writes:
The former presidential candidate who, during his election campaign, proudly contrasted his military service during the Vietnam War with that of President Bush's National Guard service - and who once led an organization of Vietnam veterans protesting the war in Vietnam - is being sued by some Vietnam veterans.
The Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation is a plaintiff along with Red, White, and Blue Productions, and Vietnam veteran turned journalist Carlton Sherwood, in a defamation action against current Massachusetts Senator John Kerry and Tony Podesta, who was Kerry's Pennsylvania campaign manager.
The lawsuit, filed in Philadelphia, claims that Kerry and Podesta libeled, slandered, and caused financial harm to the plaintiffs as they sought to prevent the presentation of Sherwood's documentary movie Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal before the 2004 presidential election.
The lawsuit states:
Sherwood established plaintiff Red, White, and Blue productions an independent film company which produced the documentary Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal....This documentary tells the story of Kerry's involvement with the VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against the War) and his participation in the so-called "Winter Soldier" investigation...Stolen Honor also reports that...Kerry testified before the United States Senate that during the Winter Soldier investigation Vietnam veterans testified to war crimes...not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day to day basis with full awareness of officers at all levels of command...in fact the stories told by participants in the Winter Solider investigation were outrageous and slanderous falsehoods against Vietnam veterans...Stolen Honor accurately reported that Kerry's statements.. were lies concocted by antiwar activists...Kerry knew this testimony was false...Vietnam veterans including former POW's had been falsely tarred...Sherwood produced Stolen Honor to bring this otherwise ignored history to light ...and to explain the public sense of betrayal felt by many Vietnam veterans- particularly among former POW's - against Kerry and others who built their reputations slandering America's Vietnam veterans.
...The lawsuit states that the plaintiffs had a contract with Sinclair Broadcasting to air the documentary and a contract with the Baederwood Theater of Abington, Pa., to show the movie. It further claims there was a coordinated conspiracy by, "defendants Kerry, Podesta and others acting in concert with and on behalf of Kerry, to discredit and silence Sherwood and Stolen Honor, through a campaign of knowing, deliberate, and malicious falsehoods about Sherwood and Stolen Honor and of illegitimate and malicious threats directed at Sinclair and Baederwood." The suit states these actions by Kerry et. al. caused Sinclair to show only portions of the movie and Baederwood to refuse to show it.
This may be the first time in American history that a presidential candidate was sued for actions taken by him and his campaign during an election. It may also be the first time that an antiwar activist was sued, if only tangentially, for allegations made about American military personnel.
Democrats did indeed respond vehemently to Stolen Honor. Sinclair, according to a contemporaneous Newsweek report, canceled their broadcast after being intimidated by Democrats. For example, a Democrat New York State Comptroller sent a letter to Sinclair criticizing the broadcast. The Comptroller was the sole trustee for the NY State Common Retirement Fund, which owned 250,000 shares of Sinclair stock.
The Baederwood Theater received phone calls threatening boycotts if it showed the movie. Ominous phone calls were responsible for a suburban Philadelphia conference center canceling another presentation scheduled after Baederwood.
Although the Kerry campaign denied any involvement with these efforts, an October 15, 2004 email from Podesta to Kerry activists called Carlton Sherwood a, "disgraced former journalist, right-wing propagandist and apologist for cult-leader Sun Myung Moon." Podesta urged Kerry workers to ".... take action ...against this garbage.... let the theater know that, as a member of the community, you object to ...this film ...they should not allow "Stolen Honor" to be shown on their screen."
As Kerry struggles to remain relevant as a potential 2008 presidential Dem candidate, he can't view this lawsuit as a good thing, particularly with the Clinton fund-raising machine running at full speed.
Although Kerry shamelessly tried to score points off of his service in Vietnam, he was unsuccessful in running away from his post-war behavior, his betrayal of his brothers in arms.
When he addressed the Democratic National Convention July 29, 2004, Kerry started his speech with, "I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty."
The night was filled with images of Kerry serving in Vietnam. The Dems even trotted out some vets willing to show their support for him. You would have thought that the most important qualification for being the president was having spent less than four months in Vietnam.
Without question, Kerry deserves to be honored for serving his country. However, he also deserves to be held accountable for what he did and the statements he made after he returned home.
This lawsuit addresses that.
Has former POW John McCain ever exploited his Vietnam service to such an extent?
Of course, McCain doesn't shy away from his war hero status; but, to my knowledge, he hasn't set out to dishonor fellow vets the way Kerry and his stooges did during the 2004 campaign.
I'm glad that the Vietnam vets Kerry slimed have decided to sue. It's a matter of honor.
I would think that John O'Neill, author of Unfit for Command, might have grounds to file suit against Lawrence O'Donnell after their exchange on Hardball, October, 2004.
O‘DONNELL: I just hate the lies of John O‘Neill.
(CROSSTALK)
O‘DONNELL: I hate lies.
BUCHANAN: I know. Now, you‘ve argued that these are lies, but let me suggest...
O‘DONNELL: It‘s not an argument. They‘re proven lies. Every single journalistic look at this book has ripped it apart, left it in shreds. O‘Neill is a liar. He‘s been a liar for 35 years about this. And he found other liars to...
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: Why cannot John Kerry‘s band of brothers and Max Cleland come on and take this...
O‘DONNELL: They have come on. They have told you. Every single person who served with John Kerry...
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: I‘ve gone through every single incident.
O‘DONNELL: O‘Neill never served with them, never met them until Vietnam. Everybody who was on that boat with Kerry says all of this stuff is a lie.
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: Why have none of them signed the sworn affidavits that admirals and others have signed?
(CROSSTALK)
O‘DONNELL: Those affidavits have no legal meaning. They are fraudulent.
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: They‘re fraudulent? Twenty people got up and lied and signed their name to it?
O‘DONNELL: Yes.
(CROSSTALK)
O‘DONNELL: Because some of those people have signed their names to reports that say John Kerry‘s conduct in Vietnam was exemplary, reports written at the time. You can‘t sign both documents. They are lying somewhere.
(CROSSTALK)
O‘NEILL: Can I say one thing?
BUCHANAN: John O‘Neill, go ahead, John.
O‘NEILL: Pat, Mr. O‘Donnell has certainly shown he has a good pair of lungs.
But to try and return a little bit to just basic information, you asked the question, how do we know the report was written by Kerry? The first way we know that is that the other four officers that day, all four of them, say Kerry wrote it.
The second way we know it is the journalist Tom Lipscomb tracked the report to a Coast Guard cutter and proved that the only one on the cutter to write the report was John Kerry. Third, the report is compatible with John Kerry‘s account, which as late as the Democratic Convention.
O‘DONNELL: What are the initials on the report?
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: Let him finish.
(CROSSTALK)
O‘NEILL: Mr. O‘Donnell, this is what you all did to the POWs.
(CROSSTALK)
O‘DONNELL: Just tell me the initials, you liar.
O‘NEILL: You‘re afraid of the American people getting the truth.
That‘s why you scream and you yell.
O‘DONNELL: Creepy liar.
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: Hey, listen, we don‘t need the personal insults to you.
O‘DONNELL: Does that matter to you? They‘re not his initials? Does that matter to you at all?
O‘NEILL: You‘re totally afraid of the truth. Can I speak or you‘re going to yell...
(CROSSTALK)
O‘DONNELL: ... liar who makes things up.
I know that I digress, but I can't help it.
When I think of sliming Vietnam vets, I think of that disgusting performance by O'Donnell. Much like Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia, "I have that memory which is seared — seared — in me."
In the final analysis, some people have integrity and some don't.
If John Kerry believes he has a chance of becoming the Dem nominee in 2008, he is living in a fool's paradise.
I don't think this lawsuit will do any more damage to Kerry than he has already self-inflicted. The suit is more an issue of serving justice and restoring the good names of the Vietnam vets that Kerry dishonored than anything else.
Therefore, I see no political ramifications for Kerry coming from this legal action. Furthermore, in terms of Kerry's political future, it's a moot point because he is out of the running for the 2008 presidential race.
Kerry has no chance of toppling Hillary. His hopes of ever being the President of the United States were dashed on November 2, 2004, when the country rejected him and all of his "plans."
No comments:
Post a Comment