John Kerry Fights Back Against “Swift-Boat” Smears

John Kerry Fights Back Against “Swift-Boat” Smears
March 22nd, 2006 @ 5:59 pm

John Kerry is fighting back against the “Swift Boat-style” attacks against that still linger after the ‘04 election. AP News reports that Kerry recently created a “defense fund to pay his legal costs in a federal defamation lawsuit filed last fall by a Pennsylvania filmmaker, Carlton Sherwood.”



MORE & LINKS - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2389

Bobby Jack Perry, Houston-area homebuilder and developer.

Total ass.

supported them as well.

:grr: From what I hear he does some shoddy home building too, grrr.

Georgie's #1 individual contributor.

If I had time, I could go on at length about that worthless jerkoff.

Swift Liars: Kerry-Edwards Campaign Response

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=358&topic_id=2555&mesg_id=2555

This is however a little different. Read the whole piece instead making a knee jerk judgment

and yes, I am of the opinion that he should have answered the allegations made against him in the 2004 election quicker and stronger than he did. It's 2006 for God's sake and it's still being talked about.

Maybe he should "keep his powder dry" and wait A FEW MORE YEARS!

At least it's good for a laugh today!

has not heard of the Mai-Lai Massacre, or the Toledo Blade documentary of atrocities by U.S. soldiers in 'Nam.

Better late than never, but I won't believe it until I see a lot more than what the article is saying about some defense fund.

his speech attacking the swifties and their connex to Bush in Aug.2004 because it was in front of the Firefighters Convention - it would've made Bushboy look bad.

Anway, there's a chronology of his defense moves in the research forum if you're interested in the facts.

Why didn't Soros? That would have had a lot more effect than a speech in front of fire fighters. Why didn't Kerry mention on one of the many free TV interviews he did? You'll never convince me Kerry's Campaign Team didn't drop the ball on this one.

Part of the problem was they did this in August. Kerry already had his convention, so he would have had to use general election money. The Olympics were on through some of those weeks - so Kerry really didn't get a lot of coverage. Then in the last week, all the coverage was of the Republican convention - Kerry hit right after that.

Soros couldn't make an ad for a candidate. Weird fluke of the 527 rules. incidently, a group of Kerry friends including some of his fellow SB peers have started a new fund that has as its charter defending veterans whose patriotism and service is questioned for political reasons. This group can put out information and fight attacks like this. Had this existed in 2004, they would have been in better shape.

As it was, Kerry got information to the media of several charges being provably wrong almost as soon as it started. This should have been enough to discredit the authors and the book. (Compare to the Rather situation) The other thing is that everything Kerry said or his campaign said about his service was in complete agreement with his naval records - which spanned and covered completely the entire time he was in the service. (This would be similar to you telling someone you got an "A" in Calculus and showing them your official transcript and having them come back and say, "I don't know if you're telling me the truth, because there's this guy who says he sat next to you and remembers you got "c"s on everything. You then find they didn't even check to see if he went to the same school.)

The other proof that was there was the widely reported stories that Nixon wanting to discredit Kerry had his war record and other things checked - and was capturned on the Nixon tapes complaining that Kerry was squeaky clean. That alone is proof.

I still think his team misjudged the handling of it.

or they wouldn't have gone to the trouble of setting up the Patriot fund.

Kerry did say that with the calendar as it was and fund raising as successful as it was, it might have been better to decline federal funds. As Kerry was a sponsor of the Wellstone/Kerry Clean elections act this would have been pointed at as a major flip flop.

If there were something like that fund then, they could spend money to "educate" people on the facts. But it takes hindsight to even see that this was needed or that McAuliff's choice of date could hurt that much. (It was the first year affected by McCain/Feingold that left Kerry with the same amount of money for 13 weeks as Bush got for 8 - an unintended consequence of that bill.)

I did assume you knew the charges were bs - but was pointing out that he was fighting the Republicans, the slimers, and the media on this and trying to get out what he needed to on his plans -which the media barely covered. What Kerry did would have been perfect in 2000 or 1992. They did quickly debunk the lies and got the information to the media. This should have caused the media to condemn the SBVT and to move on to cover the real issues. That significant parts of the media were complicit was not predictable.

Lt you beached your boat let General Clark wage the ground war for 08. In all seriousness I will have no problem voting for Senator Kerry again, if he choosed to run, I just would perfer to see someone new take the reigns.

the article, it looks to me like he's fighting to have a lawsuit dismissed against him. At first, I thought you meant that he was finally fighting back against the all those smears that he ignored during the campaign from the Swift boat lying fuckers, but it certainly doesn't look like that to me.

:popcorn:

I wish he would take it further and take those bastards to court for what they did to him in the campaign.

claiming that he somehow impinged on their free speech rights with a targeted campaign to restrict the viewing of their film. They are seeking damages.

This sounds like a frivolous lawsuit to me, but then again, I'm not a lawyer.

fighting the smears they leveled on him during the campaign. Now I can see it's a lawsuit he's fighting. Once he gets that suit thrown out of court I hope to heck he goes after them with a vengeance for hwat they did to him during the election. It is so frustrating to see those swift boat liars still getting off scott free.

I think there will be plenty of smears against good Fighting Dems this year. I think he has pledged to give them support and money to fight the stuff going forward. This might be a better strategy for all the Dems.

The vindicitiveness of the RW liars didn't start with Kerry and it won't stop with him either. I thin a better use of the resources is to fight it going forward. I think it will help more Dems get elected.

too. They need to be taught a lesson like when children get taught lessons in a school yard playground.

No, the vindictiveness of the RW liars didn't start with Kerry and it won't stop with him for sure. The swift boaters just perfected it. Someday they'll get theirs.

I like what he did last fall when the Rethug morons went after Jack Murtha after the Congressman came out against Bush and for a six month withdrawal plan:


JACK MURTHA, AN AMERICAN PATRIOT -- (Senate - November 18, 2005)
Mr. KERRY. (snip)
I do not intend to stand for, nor should any of us in the Congress stand for, another Swiftboat attack on the character of JACK MURTHA. It frankly disgusts me that a bunch of guys who never chose to put on the uniform of their country now choose in the most personal way, in the most venomous, to question the character of a man who did wear the uniform of his country and who bled doing it. It is wrong. He served heroically in uniform. He served heroically for our country.

Have we lost all civility and all common sense in this institution and in this city? No matter what J.D. HAYWORTH says, there is no sterner stuff than the backbone and courage that defines JACK MURTHA's character and his conscience.

DENNIS HASTERT, the Speaker of the House, who never chose to put on the uniform of his country and serve, called JACK MURTHA a coward and accused him of wanting to cut and run. On its face, looking at the record, looking at his life, JACK MURTHA has never cut and run from anything. JACK MURTHA was not a coward when he put himself in harm's way for his country in Vietnam and he earned two Purple Hearts. He was a patriot then and he is a patriot today. He deserves his views to be respected, not vilified.

JACK MURTHA did not cut and run when his courage earned him a Bronze Star, and his voice ought to be heard today, not silenced by those who would actually choose to cut and run from the truth.

****************

I think he the Senator is defending his record, but in a way that is much better than just making it about him. (Again, I don't think we disagree much, it might just be on methods here.)

We need more rhetoric like that in the future. We also need to come up with future plans to nip that kind of stuff in the bud, before it gets out of hand ever again, kind of like what Kerry did in the Murtha incident which you referred to. Stop them as soon as they start.

SBVT type attacks that involves a lot of Kerry allies - Droz is the wife of a swiftboat skipper, killed in VN, who was a close friend of Kerry's and who led one of the other boats when Kerry got his silver star.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=70131&mesg_id=70131

You are right - the intent is to hit then quickly and hard. Also, the defense is from others not the candidate - letting the candidate get his/her message out. Kerry had a long history of quickly defending others, 2004 would have been better if others had helped support him on this.

I am so sick of the swift boat liars that I could scream!

If they really cared about veterans, they would be focusing their energies in impeaching Bush for plunging our nation in this wasteful war in Iraq.

In what freakin' world does that happen? Unreal.

He ought to sue each and every one of those lying SOBs.

the other posters. And your right, after all the lies and smears they passed off as truths, he should go after them with all he has.

:beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :spank:

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

your popcorn smilies hurt me more than you know ...euwweeee...but probably not as much as the $500 I lost donating to the the Kerry For President campaign..OUCH.

Sh*t.

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

Thanks anyhoo :D

.... he's been working behind the scenes!

Haven't you defended James Webb by saying that he is justified in attacking Kerry for his antiwar protests? And you have the gall to come snark about the Swift Boat liars?

Oh, the irony kills me.

.. and an election short.

Sigh.

For those of you who aren't commenting negatively, just to bash Kerry,Consider this, those suing Kerry are actually guilty of what they accuse Kerry of. Please read carefully! This filmmaker is suing Kerry for defaming him, when in fact, the filmmaker was out the continue the SBV routine in a film that was to be aired in many areas of the country on a very Republican friendly channel. I remember a big e-mail and write in campaign organized by outside groups going after the sponsors. It turned out to be a fairly successful campaign. Many sponsors pulled out and the film was aired, but with certain restriction placed on it.

of a thread.

Since it is not about the content of the documentary. However, it might get scary for the SwiftBoaters if the defense makes heavy use of discovery.

I think President Kerry is just clearing the brush for another run. :loveya:

the war. Period. End of story. Congress wouldn't fund that mission after the truth started coming out

Winter Soldier (the movie)
http://www.wintersoldierfilm.com/

What's that about "a dollar short and a day late"?

I thought this was an Onion piece.

Nothing like doing things in a TIMELY manner!

(sarcasm off)

Did you actually read the whole thing? Do you get that the people who defamed Kerry are suing him for defamation? I guess you don't or you wouldn't pass such a judgment.

Facts not good for the preferred storyline?

And why bother to read the post. It is about a law suit the SBVT filed against Kerry. But I guess most agree with them here, as far as I can see.

No Republican would ever file such a frivolous lawsuit; the reporter must be talking about a different Carlton Sherwood.

:sarcasm:

during the campaign. Water over the dam, I know, but I still wish it. I'm not a Kerry fan, but he would have been a better POTUS than Bush.

TC

conspired with this administration in the slow news month of August to continue to run with the accusations by playing the ad over and over again while discrediting it while it played on and on. people got the visuals, but not the words refuting it.

was Kerry who was defamed. I hope this filmmaker is forced to destroy his "work".

It is indeed very difficult even today for people to fathom just what was meant or is when Richard M. Nixon was or is referrred to as a monster.He proved to be as far to the right as could be,and faithful to the right wing and unfaithful in far too many areas.To stop at nothing means just that,and anything or anybody that could or would down the road present any kind of a potential threat to the over all causes of the R. right wing over all plan.s.And so., how Revolting right? Howard Hughes as a matter of for instance viewed Nixon as being unfaithful period.And unfaithful meaning unfaithful to the presidency period end.And so in good conscience ask, just what does faithful and unfaithful mean,than vote your conscience.And don,t forget to spread your finding,s around to the order of food for thought.

I would have responded immediately and swiftly..no matter the consequences.

My good name is just that..MINE..and no one can rely on anyone else to truly defend it to the dregee I can.

It was the worst mistake he made during the campaign...bar none..even the flip flop thing was not as bad as letting the swiftboat thing fester forever. That mistake EQUALS picking Lieberman as a running mate for AL Gore in 2000. That was a killer mistake too.

He was fighting the Republicans, the slimers, and the media on this and trying to get out what he needed to on his plans -which the media barely covered. What Kerry did would have been perfect in 2000 or 1992. They quickly debunked the lies and got the information to the media. This should have caused the media to condemn the SBVT and to move on to cover the real issues. That significant parts of the media were complicit was not predictable.

This is why various Kerry associates have set up a group that will defend veterans whose charaters and sevice are smeared. This will help others (or Kerry in 2008 if he runs and wins) in the future.

Kerry has say that he realizes now he should have used money to aggressively fight this back. In 2004
with the calendar as it was and fund raising as successful as it was, it might have been better to decline federal funds. As Kerry was a sponsor of the Wellstone/Kerry Clean elections act this would have been pointed at as a major flip flop.

If there were something like that fund then, they could spend money to "educate" people on the facts. But it takes hindsight to even see that this was needed or that McAuliff's choice of date could hurt that much. (It was the first year affected by McCain/Feingold that left Kerry with the same amount of money for 13 weeks as Bush got for 8 - an unintended consequence of that bill.) Having accepted the funds, Kerry would have been at a hugh disadvantage if he spent a large amountof money in August.

While everyone claims he didnt respond in 04 (he did, the media just ignored it), he should nail these fuckers anyways.