posted October 14, 2004 04:45 PM            

"Don't look to us to block the airing of a program," Michael Powell told reporters. "I don't know of any precedent in which the commission could do that."

Eighteen senators, all Democrats, wrote to Powell this week and asked him to investigate Sinclair Broadcast Group's plan to run the program, "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," two weeks before the Nov. 2 election.
Powell said there were no federal rules that would allow the agency to prevent the program. "I think that would be an absolute disservice to the First Amendment, and I think it would be unconstitutional if we attempted to do so," he said.

He said he would consider the senators' concerns but added that they might not amount to a formal complaint, which could trigger an investigation. FCC rules require that a program air before a formal complaint can be considered.

Sinclair, based outside Baltimore, has asked its 62 television stations, many of them in competitive states in the presidential election, to pre-empt regular programming to run the documentary. It chronicles Kerry's 1971 testimony before Congress and links him to activist and actress Jane Fonda. It includes interviews with Vietnam prisoners of war and their wives who claim Kerry's testimony demeaned them and led their captors to hold them longer.

In the letter to Powell, the senators, led by Dianne Feinstein of California, asked the FCC to determine whether the airing of the anti-Kerry program is a "proper use of public airwaves" and to investigate whether it would violate rules requiring equal air time for candidates.

posted October 14, 2004 04:48 PM            

Readers have been eager not only to know which anti-choice Democrat senators are fighting Sinclair Broadcast Group's First Amendment right to show "Stolen Honor," they also have been asking which cities have Sinclair's TV stations.

Here is the list, according to USA Today:

Alabama: Birmingham, two WB stations; Tuscaloosa, UPN.

California: Sacramento, CBS.

Florida: Pensacola and Mobile, Ala., ABC and an independent; Tallahassee, ABC and NBC; Tampa, WB.

Illinois: Champaign/Springfield, NBC; Peoria/Bloomington, Fox.

Iowa: Cedar Rapids/Waterloo, CBS; Des Moines, Fox.

Kentucky: Lexington, Fox.

Maine: Portland, CBS.

Maryland: Baltimore, Fox and WB.

Massachusetts: Springfield, ABC.

Michigan: Flint/Saginaw, Fox.

Minnesota: Minneapolis, WB.

Missouri: Cape Girardeau/Paducah, Ky., Fox and WB; Kansas City, WB; St. Louis, ABC.

North Carolina: Asheville/Greenville, S.C., ABC and WB; Greensboro/Winston-Salem, ABC and UPN; Raleigh/Durham, UPN and WB.

Nevada: Las Vegas, WB and an independent.

New York: Buffalo, Fox and WB; Rochester, Fox; Syracuse, Fox and WB.

Ohio: Cincinnati, WB; Columbus, ABC and Fox; Dayton, Fox and NBC.

Oklahoma: Oklahoma City, Fox and WB.

Pennsylvania: Pittsburgh, Fox and WB.

South Carolina: Charleston, Fox and UPN.

Tennessee: Nashville, Fox and UPN and WB; Kingsport/Bristol/Johnson City, Fox.

Texas: San Antonio, Fox and WB.

Virginia: Norfolk, WB; Richmond, Fox.

West Virginia: Charleston/Huntington, ABC and Fox.

Wisconsin: Madison, Fox; Milwaukee, UPN and WB.

posted October 14, 2004 04:51 PM            

Complaints against the Sinclair broadcasting network by John Kerry's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee may have backfired, with non-Sinclair TV stations now expressing an interest in airing the documentary "Stolen Honor."

The film chronicles the top Democrat's role in the anti-Vietnam War movement.

"A few other TV stations around the country have contacted the producer of this documentary as well," Sinclair spokesman Mark Hyman told nationally syndicated radio host G. Gordon Liddy on Tuesday. "So there appears to be some growing interest in making this available to the nation's viewers."

Hyman said that Sinclair's decision to air the documentary was driven in part by a desire to pick up the slack from other broadcast networks, which have increasingly shunned news coverage in favor of entertainment programming.
Referring to the 13 Vietnam-era POWs who appear in "Stolen Honor" criticizing Kerry for protesting the war alongside the likes of anti-American actress Jane Fonda, Hyman told Liddy, "If anybody has earned the right to be heard on the subject of Vietnam, it's these men, who suffered such horrific abuse and unspeakable torture."

"For 31 years John Kerry has run away from that," he added.

posted October 14, 2004 05:01 PM            

"The fight ain't over till it's over," said Barry Piatt, spokesman for Democrat Senator Byron Dorgan, who has led the charge to limit the number of outlets a media company may own.

The conservative-leaning Sinclair plans to pre-empt prime-time programming to air portions of Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal, which deals with the impact of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's 1971 anti-war testimony.

Last week, the U.S. Congress batted down an ownership-cap amendment that Dorgan had offered, which had been attached to a spending bill.

But yesterday, Piatt said the Sinclair controversy has given new life to Dorgan's drive by providing "a classic example of what happens when you allow ownership to concentrate."

Sinclair, a publicly traded company based in Maryland, owns enough stations to reach nearly a quarter of U.S. homes with televisions. Its stations include affiliates of Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC, WB and UPN.

When Congress returns following the Nov. 2 election, Dorgan will try again to attach a media-related amendment to a must-pass spending bill, Piatt said. The measure has considerable bipartisan support, but has been opposed by the Republican leadership.

Many of Sinclair's stations are located in election battleground states, such as Florida, Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

Critics say broadcasting an extremely one-sided program just before the election would be an abuse of public airwaves.

Sinclair has said Kerry is welcome to participate in the program, but has not promised equal time.

Repeated calls to the company went unanswered, but its web site said "the exact format of this unscripted event has not been finalized. Characterizations regarding the content are premature and are based on ill-informed sources."

Public-interest groups opposed to media concentration held a press conference yesterday to say that in light of Sinclair's plans, they, too, would be renewing efforts in Congress and at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to restrict media ownership and increase local control of programming.

Sinclair offers an example "of Big Media at its most despicable," said Timothy Karr, executive director of Media for Democracy, a non-partisan public-interest group.

The groups also threatened to file license challenges at each station that airs the film, and to try to persuade Sinclair shareholders and advertisers that the company is abusing public airwaves.

Last year, the heavily indebted company earned $24 million on revenues of $739 million. It potentially could improve profit margins if it could control more stations and thereby lower operating and news-gathering costs.

In 2003, the FCC approved rules easing restrictions on the number of outlets a media company could own.

But this summer, a U.S. Court of Appeals ordered the FCC to reconsider the rules that would have permitted more combinations of newspaper, radio and TV outlets in a single market, as well as those that would have let companies own two or even three TV stations in a local market.

The Bush administration has supported the FCC's efforts to loosen restrictions, while Kerry supports tighter caps.

Yesterday, Democrat Representatives John Dingell and Ed Markey members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, sent a letter urging the FCC to investigate whether Sinclair is abusing the public trust.

Earlier this week, 18 Democratic senators made a similar request, but the agency is not expected to act before the film airs.

During the 2004 political cycle, Sinclair executives have given nearly $68,000 in political contributions, with 97 per cent going to Republicans, according to a campaign finance watchdog group.

In April, the company ordered seven of its stations not to air ABC's Nightline, which was showing the names and pictures of troops killed in Iraq. The company said the broadcast was a political statement "disguised as news content."

posted October 14, 2004 05:58 PM              

My father was career Army. He volunteered and served three tours of duty in Viet Nam. He saw some of the worst fighting, including the infamous Hamburger Hill. He saw many friends die and came back with a chest so full of medals, his whole left shoulder looked like a patchwork quilt. It was after the Lt. Cally trial and the hearings at which John Kerry testified that I finally had the chance to ask him. Is it true? Did American soldiers really torture and murder innocent people during the course of the war? I only saw my father cry one time in his life. That was the time.

He told me that the testimony at the hearings was correct. He said that he has seen children as young as two years old killed in front of their parents to force information from suspected VC sympathisers. He said women were routinely raped and tortured, often in front of their husbands or families. And more...so much more. He put his head in his hands and I saw the tears roll through his fingers. He told me that growing up as a boy in Texas, he had never even imagined that such things took place, especially from OUR side. We were supposed to be the good guys. As he talked, he said he thought it must be war itself that was at fault. The men he fought with were not monsters. Most of them came there as green teenagers freshly plucked out of their hometowns and scared half to death of the horrors that were going on around them. But, he said, war changes a man. You never get used to death and blood and body parts lying around the battlefield. It kills a little part of a soldier seeing his friends, his brothers, die or be maimed in front of his eyes. So when they finally fought their way into an area, some of the guys just went kind of crazy. They took out their anger, their pain, their fear, on any Vietnamese they could find. More than a few killed themselves as well. He said that without the protests at home in America, without trials like Lt. Cally's, without action like the Congressional hearings, America could easily have been sending its young men to that h*ll for many, many more years. He was proud of the men who came home and protested the war because they were doing what they thought was right, and he could understand why they thought as they did. He also said it took a very brave man to publically admit what so many witnessed, but what so few were willing to bring out into the open. My father remained in the Army until several years after the war was over, then finally retired. He never got over the things he saw there, but like many others who lived to see home again, he decided the best way to influence policy was from the inside. I guess being President is as far inside as you can get, but my father had no such lofty aspirations. He eventually returned to that samll town outside Austin, Texas and served as an elected official for the rest of his life. He did not hate the Army or the American government for the things that happened over there...he blamed war. It changes everyone it touches.

When my father died, both the US Army and the State of Texas sent me a fist full of commendations and letters from those who knew him saying what a hero he was. I didn't even know states sent out things like that, but his arrived with the big gold star in the corner. It was signed by every current member of the Texas State Legislature at the time plus Governor William Clements.

I met lots of my father's Army friends as the years went by, plus others (one of whom was a highly decorated Green Beret). Not one of them thought the protests or the hearings were out of line. In fact, they seemed to think that if the American people had know the real truth about what was going on in Southeast Asia, they would have ended things much sooner. What DID hurt them was that everyone who came back were painted with the same brush...expected to have the same reaction to all the turmoil both at war and at home...spat upon by strangers who had no idea who gave in to the pressures and acted as criminals and who remained strong and acted heroically. They were individual heros, and individuals don't always agree with each other. Even among the many who did not resort to torture and murder and rape, there was wide-spread post-traumatic shock.

Back in WWII, my grandfather and six of his brothers volunteered to fight. Two of them, Uncle Wayne and Uncle Earl were prisoners for a short time. At the end of it, Uncle Earl decided to remain in the army and then go into law enforcement. Uncle Wayne blamed the government for sending him to such a place and hated them until the day he died. Two men...brothers...who went through almost identical situations, but came back with opposite points of view.

posted October 14, 2004 06:08 PM            

People now have a choice and they're rejecting the nonsense of the left. One of those choices is what to air and that's a function, legal function of the ownership of the outlet, no matter who it is.

Ain't America great? Now, we're going to get the story the leftist media WILL NOT report. The truth about John Kerry.

I don't remember any hue and cry from the Kerry crowd when the congenital idiot Michael Moore splashed his fictional trash about Bush over movie screens all over America, do you? I don't remember any hue and cry from the Kerry crowd when Moore announced he was working on deals to televise his trash about Bush just before the election, do you? No, you don't because they were popping the champagne corks and dancing in the aisles at the DNC and Kerry campaign headquarters.

posted October 14, 2004 06:25 PM            

But the institutional breaches of the rules of war that Kerry is supposed to have seen and reported did not happen. Commanders did not condone or instruct troops to commit them as Kerry claims.

posted October 16, 2004 12:50 AM              

Jwhop, leave it to you be happy about what Sinclair Broadcasting Co. is doing over free air waves which he uses with the guarantee to serve the people, not his own partisan agendas. I, along with many others, have signed a petition against Sinclair Broadcasting. The DNC lawyers have contacted the authorites regarding the showing of this film as an illegal contribution to the Bush campaign.

The difference between Kerry's showing of his film just before the election and Michael Moore's movie is that they are being shown in theatres where people pay to go see the movie. Not over free air waves that belong to ALL the American people. People are not being forced to watch Kerry's film or Michael Moore's. They are not pre-empting regularly scheduled programs and forcing this movie on people as Sinclair Broadcasting is doing.

There is no place for people like Sinclair Broadcasting in a democracy where their political agendas are forced down people throats on television over free air waves which they use to broadcast. Leave it to you to be happy that Bush and his supporters have once again taken steps to destroy democracy in the U.S. Jwhop, you are applauding the very things that take place in communistic and Marxist societies. Not in a democracy where the people should be presented with both sides of things and have them reported with impartiality. If Sinclair shows this film he should follow it up by showing Kerry's film. That would be non-partisan and democratic.

You should apologize to FishKitten for being so insensitive and totally disregarding her touching story of what her father experienced in Viet Nam and in fact denying to her that what her father said and all those other vets she has talked to have said is the truth. Simply because it is not the truth as you see it.

posted October 16, 2004 01:15 AM              

NEW YORK, October 13, 2004 -- While Sinclair Broadcast Group is allowed to use the public airwaves for free, it shouldn't come at such a heavy cost to Americans.

Sinclair executives have threatened to abuse this most vital public trust by forcing upon Americans a piece of propaganda meant to serve their narrow business interests.

In repeated media appearances, Sinclair's vice president of corporate relations, Mark Hyman, has billed "Stolen Honor" as worthy of broadcast solely because of its "real news" value. But, Sinclair's track record on political contributions suggests that executives at the company have another agenda in mind.

In 2004, Sinclair executives have given overwhelmingly to those GOP candidates who have demonstrated their support for loosening media ownership restrictions, thereby allowing Sinclair to control more stations in more local markets across the country. Sinclair CEO and President David Smith personally gave $2,000, the maximum individual contribution, to President Bush's 2004 re-election campaign. (See the MediaChannel Report.)

The only "real news" we're witnessing here is a story of Big Media at its most despicable. It would be nice to be able to write off "Stolen Honor" as journalistic amateurism and turn our attention to more valid investigations of the issues this election year. But we live with a media system where the gatekeeper has allowed a single corporate entity not only to own "competing" media outlets in markets throughout the country, but also to seize control of the content on their airwaves in a heavy-handed attempt to influence this year's election outcome.

The "real news" is a Big Media system that has become a menace to our democracy. Americans granted these media companies our very first constitutional protection. In return, many commercial broadcasters have short changed American democracy by putting their corporate interests before those of the public.

Unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has been lax in ensuring that bad actors such as Sinclair are held to a more meaningful set of public interest obligations, including a minimum of fair coverage of electoral and civic affairs. Free from the consequences of a more forceful FCC, media companies like Sinclair will continue to push their extreme bias onto the public.

It's now time that the public turns the tables on Sinclair. Along with the other groups here today, MediaChannel and Media for Democracy have issued a challenge that Sinclair uphold its obligation to the public interest by offering on all 62 of its stations an equal amount of pre-election, prime-viewing airtime for the broadcast of a program that is controlled by those representing an opposing view to "Stolen Honor."

But there's more that we can, and will, do. If Sinclair doesn't act now to repair its shoddy intentions on behalf of the public, MediaChannel and Media for Democracy pledge to mobilize local activists against the 62 stations that operate under Sinclair's banner. We already have more than 21,000 activists on the ground in Sinclair markets. More citizens across the nation are responding with a willingness to take action if this station group moves ahead with "Stolen Honor." Actions will include comprehensive monitoring of Sinclair stations, call-in campaigns to station general managers and news directors, public forums and meetings to reach others and educate the community about Sinclair's public interest obligations, and, if necessary, a formal challenge to Sinclair license renewals, station by station, when they come due.

I am confident that with some hard work, American citizens will win back their airwaves one station at a time. MediaChannel.org and Media for Democracy promise to stay involved every step of the way to help Americans settle the issue of who will control our media and to what end.

-- Timothy Karr is the executive director of MediaChannel.org and Media for Democracy 2004. The preceding is Karr's statement during an October 13 press conference on Sinclair Broadcasting Group convened by MediaChannel.org, Common Cause, the Alliance for Better Campaigns, Media Access Project, Media for Democracy, and the Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ.

© MediaChannel.org, 2004. All rights reserved.

http://www.mediachannel.org/views/dissector/affalert278.shtml

posted October 16, 2004 02:14 AM              

Sinclair Broadcast Group of Maryland, owner of the largest chain of television stations in the nation, plans to preempt regular programming two weeks before the Nov. 2 election to air a documentary that accuses Sen. John F. Kerry of betraying American prisoners during the Vietnam War.

Sinclair has ordered its 62 stations, some of which are in the critical swing states of Ohio, Florida, Iowa and Wisconsin, to air "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal" during prime-time hours next week. The Sinclair station group collectively reaches 24 percent of U.S. television households.

In Michigan Sinclair's station is in Saginaw so fortunately I won't be subjected to this garbage that disguises itself as "news" but I think this is so wrong and is another attack on democracy.

posted October 16, 2004 03:40 AM              

Republican-funded Group Attacks Kerry's War Record
Ad features vets who claim Kerry "lied" to get Vietnam medals. But other witnesses disagree -- and so do Navy records.

August 6, 2004

Modified: August 22, 2004
http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html

Summary

A group funded by the biggest Republican campaign donor in Texas began running an attack ad Aug. 5 in which former Swift Boat veterans claim Kerry lied to get one of his two decorations for bravery and two of his three purple hearts.
But the veterans who accuse Kerry are contradicted by Kerry's former crewmen, and by Navy records.

One of the accusers says he was on another boat "a few yards" away during the incident which won Kerry the Bronze Star, but the former Army lieutenant whom Kerry plucked from the water that day backs Kerry's account. In an Aug. 10 opinion piece in the conservative Wall Street Journal , Rassmann (a Republican himself) wrote that the ad was "launched by people without decency" who are "lying" and "should hang their heads in shame."

And on Aug. 19, Navy records came to light also contradicting the accusers. One of the veterans who says Kerry wasn't under fire was himself awarded a Bronze Star for aiding others "in the face of enemy fire" during the same incident.

Analysis

"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" is a group formed March 23 after Kerry wrapped up the Democratic nomination. It held a news conference May 4 denigrating Kerry's military record and his later anti-war pronouncements during the 1970's. The group began running an attack ad Aug. 5 in which 13 veterans variously say Kerry is "not being honest" and "is lying about his record."

SBVT Ad "Any Questions?"

John Edwards: "If you have any questions about what John Kerry is made of, just spend 3 minutes with the men who served with him."

(On screen: Here's what those men this of John Kerry)

Al French: I served with John Kerry.

Bob Elder : I served with John Kerry.

George Elliott: John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam.

Al French: He is lying about his record.

Louis Letson: I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury.

Van O'Dell: John Kerry lied to get his bronze star...I know, I was there, I saw what happened.

Jack Chenoweth: His account of what happened and what actually happened are the difference between night and day.

Admiral Hoffman: John Kerry has not been honest.

Adrian Lonsdale: And he lacks the capacity to lead.

Larry Thurlow: When he chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry.

Bob Elder: John Kerry is no war hero.

Grant Hibbard: He betrayed all his shipmates...he lied before the Senate.

Shelton White: John Kerry betrayed the men and women he served with in Vietnam.

Joe Ponder: He dishonored his country...he most certainly did.

Bob Hildreth: I served with John Kerry...

Bob Hildreth (off camera) : John Kerry cannot be trusted.

Where the Money Comes From

Although the word "Republican" does not appear in the ad, the group's financing is highly partisan. The source of the Swift Boat group's money wasn't known when it first surfaced, but a report filed July 15 with the Internal Revenue Services now shows its initial funding came mainly from a Houston home builder, Bob R. Perry, who has also given millions to the Republican party and Republican candidates, mostly in Texas, including President Bush and Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay, whose district is near Houston

Perry gave $100,000 of the $158,750 received by the Swift Boat group through the end of June, according to its disclosure report .

Perry and his wife Doylene also gave more than $3 million to Texas Republicans during the 2002 elections, according to a database maintained by the Institute on Money in State Politics . The Perrys also were among the largest Republican donors in neighboring Louisiana, where they gave $200,000, and New Mexico, where they gave $183,000, according to the database

At the federal level the Perrys have given $359,825 since 1999, including $6,000 to Bush's campaigns and $27,325 to DeLay and his political action committee, Americans for a Republican Majority, according to a database maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics .

The Silver Star

Several of those who appear in the ad have signed brief affidavits, and we have posted some of them in the "supporting documents" section to the right for our visitors to evaluate for themselves.

One of those affidavits, signed by George Elliott, quickly became controversial. Elliott is the retired Navy captain who had recommended Kerry for his highest decoration for valor, the Silver Star, which was awarded for events of Feb. 28, 1969, when Kerry beached his boat in the face of an enemy ambush and then pursued and killed an enemy soldier on the shore.

Elliott, who had been Kerry's commanding officer, was quoted by the Boston Globe Aug 6 as saying he had made a "terrible mistake" in signing the affidavit against Kerry, in which Elliott suggested Kerry hadn't told him the truth about how he killed the enemy soldier. Later Elliott signed a second affidavit saying he still stands by the words in the TV ad. But Elliott also made what he called an "immaterial clarification" - saying he has no first-hand information that Kerry was less than forthright about what he did to win the Silver Star.

What Elliott said in the ad is that Kerry "has not been honest about what happened in Viet Nam." In his original affidavit Elliott said Kerry had not been "forthright" in Vietnam. The only example he offered of Kerry not being "honest" or "forthright" was this: "For example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back.

In the Globe story, Elliott is quoted as saying it was a "terrible mistake" to sign that statement:

George Elliott (Globe account): It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here. . . . I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake.

In his second affidavit, however, Elliott downgraded that "terrible mistake" to an "immaterial clarification." He said in the second affidavit:

Elliott (second affidavit): I do not claim to have personal knowledge as to how Kerry shot the wounded, fleeing Viet Cong.

Elliott also said he now believes Kerry shot the man in the back, based on other accounts including a book in which Kerry is quoted as saying of the soldier, "He was running away with a live B-40 (rocket launcher) and, I thought, poised to turn around and fire it." (The book quoted by Elliott is John F. Kerry, The Complete Biography, By The Reporters Who Know Him Best.)

Elliott also says in that second affidavit, "Had I known the facts, I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for simply pursuing and dispatching a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong." That statement is misleading, however. It mischaracterizes the actual basis on which Kerry received his decoration.

The official citations show Kerry was not awarded the Silver Star "for simply pursuing and dispatching" the Viet Cong. In fact, the killing is not even mentioned in two of the three versions of the official citation (see "supporting documents" at right.) The citations - based on what Elliott wrote up at the time - dwell mostly on Kerry's decision to attack rather than flee from two ambushes, including one in which he led a landing party.

The longest of the citations, signed by Vice Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, commander of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam, describes Kerry as killing a fleeing Viet Cong with a loaded rocket launcher. It says that as Kerry beached his boat to attack his second set of ambushers, "an enemy soldier sprang up from his position not ten feet from Patrol Craft Fast 94 and fled. Without hesitation, Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY leaped ashore, pursued the man behind a hooch, and killed him, capturing a B-40 rocket launcher with a round in the chamber."

Two other citations omit any mention of the killing. One was signed by Admiral John J. Hyland, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, and the other was signed by the Secretary of the Navy. Both those citations say Kerry attacked his first set of ambushers and that "this daring and courageous tactic surprised the enemy and succeeded in routing a score of enemy soldiers." Later, 800 yards away, Kerry's boat encountered a second ambush and a B-40 rocket exploded "close aboard" Kerry's boat. "With utter disregard for his own safety, and the enemy rockets, he again ordered a charge on the enemy, beached his boat only ten feet away from the VC rocket position, and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy." In these citations there is no mention of enemy casualties at all. Kerry was cited for "extraordinary daring and personal courage . . . in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire."

Elliott had previously defended Kerry on that score when his record was questioned during his 1996 Senate campaign. At that time Elliott came to Boston and said Kerry acted properly and deserved the Silver Star. And as recently as June, 2003, Elliott called Kerry's Silver Star "well deserved" and his action "courageous" for beaching his boat in the face of an ambush:

Elliott (Boston Globe, June 2003): I ended up writing it up for a Silver Star, which is well deserved, and I have no regrets or second thoughts at all about that. . . . (It) was pretty courageous to turn into an ambush even though you usually find no more than two or three people there.

Elliott now feels differently, and says he has come to believe Kerry didn't deserve his second award for valor, either, based only on what the other anti-Kerry veterans have told him. He told the Globe Aug. 6:

Elliott: I have chosen to believe the other men. I absolutely do not know first hand.

On Aug. 22 an officer who was present supported Kerry's version, breaking a 35-year silence. William B. Rood commanded another Swift Boat during the same operation and was awarded the Bronze Star himself for his role in attacking the Viet Cong ambushers. He said Kerry and he went ashore at the same time after being attacked by several Viet Cong onshore.
Rood said he was the only other officer present. Rood is now an editor on the metropolitan desk of the Chicago Tribune, which published his first-person account of the incident in its Sunday edition. Rood said he had refused all interviews about Kerry's war record, even from reporters for his own paper, until motivated to speak up because Kerry's critics are telling "stories I know to be untrue" and "their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us."

Rood described two Viet Cong ambushes, both of them routed using a tactic devised by Kerry who was in tactical command of a three-boat operation. At the second ambush only the Rood and Kerry boats were attacked.

Rood: Kerry, followed by one member of his crew, jumped ashore and chased a VC behind a hooch--a thatched hut--maybe 15 yards inland from the ambush site. Some who were there that day recall the man being wounded as he ran. Neither I nor Jerry Leeds, our boat's leading petty officer with whom I've checked my recollection of all these events, recalls that, which is no surprise. Recollections of those who go through experiences like that frequently differ.

With our troops involved in the sweep of the first ambush site, Richard Lamberson, a member of my crew, and I also went ashore to search the area. I was checking out the inside of the hooch when I heard gunfire nearby.

Not long after that, Kerry returned, reporting that he had killed the man he chased behind the hooch. He also had picked up a loaded B-40 rocket launcher, which we took back to our base in An Thoi after the operation.

Rood disputed an account of the incident given by John O'Neill in his book "Unfit for Command," which describes the man Kerry chased as a "teenager" in a "loincloth." Rood said, "I have no idea how old the gunner Kerry chased that day was, but both Leeds and I recall that he was a grown man, dressed in the kind of garb the VC usually wore."

The Bronze Star

The most serious allegation in the ad is that Kerry received both the Bronze Star, his second-highest decoration, and his third purple heart, which allowed him to be sent home early, under false pretenses. But that account is flatly contradicted by Jim Rassmann, the former Army Lieutenant whom Kerry rescued that day.

Van O'Dell, a former Navy enlisted man who says he was the gunner on another Swift Boat, states in his affidavit that he was "a few yards away" from Kerry's boat on March 13, 1969 when Kerry pulled Rassman from the water. According to the official medal citations, Kerry's boat was under enemy fire at the time, and Kerry had been wounded when an enemy mine exploded near his own boat. O'Dell insists "there was no fire" at the time, adding: "I did not hear any shots, nor did any hostile fire hit any boats" other than his own, PCF-3.

Others in the ad back up that account. Jack Chenoweth, who was a Lieutenant (junior grade) commanding PCF-3, said Kerry's boat "fled the scene" after a mine blast disabled PCF-3, and returned only later "when it was apparent that there was no return fire." And Larry Thurlow, who says he commanded a third Swift Boat that day, says "Kerry fled while we stayed to fight," and returned only later "after no return fire occurred."

Kerry Ad "Heart"

John Kerry: I was born in Fitzsimmons Army Hospital in Colorado, my dad was serving in the Army air corps. Both of my parents taught me about public service. I enlisted because I believed in service to country. I thought it was important, if you had a lot of privileges as I had had, to go to a great university like Yale, that you give something back to your country.

Del Sandusky: The decisions that he made saved our lives.

Jim Rassmann: When he pulled me out of the river, he risked his life to save mine.

Narrator: For more than 30 years John Kerry has served America.

Vanessa Kerry: If you look at my father's time and service to this country, whether it has been a veteran, prosecutor, or Senator, he has shown an ability to fight for things that matter.

Teresa Kerry: John is the face of someone who is hopeful, who is generous of spirit, and of heart.

John Kerry : We're a country of optimists...we're the can-do people, and we just need to believe in ourselves again.

Narrator: A lifetime of service and strength: John Kerry for President.

A serious discrepancy in the account of Kerry's accusers came to light Aug. 19, when the Washington Post reported that Navy records describe Thurlow himself as dodging enemy bullets during the same incident, for which Thurlow also was awarded the Bronze Star.

Thurlow's citation - which the Post said it obtained under the Freedom of Information Act - says that "all units began receiving enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks" after the first explosion. The citation describes Thurlow as leaping aboard the damaged PCF-3 and rendering aid "while still under enemy fire," and adds: "His actions and courage in the face of enemy fire . . . were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service."

A separate document that recommended Thurlow for that decoration states that all Thurlow's actions "took place under constant enemy small arms fire." It was signed by Elliott.

The Post quoted Thurlow as saying he had lost his citation years earlier and had been under the impression that he received the award for aiding the damaged boat and its crew, and that his own award would be "fraudulent" if based on his facing enemy fire. The Post reported that, after hearing the citation read to him, Thurlow said: "It's like a Hollywood presentation here, which wasn't the case. . . My personal feeling was always that I got the award for coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting. . . . I am here to state that we weren't under fire."

None of those in the attack ad by the Swift Boat group actually served on Kerry's boat. And their statements are contrary to the accounts of Kerry and those who served under him.

Jim Rassmann was the Army Special Forces lieutenant whom Kerry plucked from the water. Rassmann has said all along that he was under sniper fire from both banks of the river when Kerry, wounded, helped him aboard. Rassmann is featured in an earlier Kerry ad, in fact, (see script at left) saying "he (Kerry) risked his life to save mine."

On Aug. 10, Rassmann wrote a vivid account of the rescue in the Wall Street Journal that contradicts the Kerry accusers. Rassmann said that after the first explosion that disabled PCF-3:

Rassmann: Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river and a second explosion followed moments later. The second blast blew me off John's swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river. Fearing that the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath.

When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire I repeatedly swam under water as long as I could hold my breath, attempting to make it to the north bank of the river. I thought I would die right there. The odds were against me avoiding the incoming fire and, even if I made it out of the river, I thought I thought I'd be captured and executed. Kerry must have seen me in the water and directed his driver, Del Sandusky, to turn the boat around. Kerry's boat ran up to me in the water, bow on, and I was able to climb up a cargo net to the lip of the deck. But, because I was nearly upside down, I couldn't make it over the edge of the deck. This left me hanging out in the open, a perfect target. John, already wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat, came out onto the bow, exposing himself to the fire directed at us from the jungle, and pulled me aboard.

Rassmann said he recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for that action, and learned only later that the Bronze Star had been awarded instead. "To this day I still believe he deserved the Silver Star for his courage," he wrote. Rassmann described himself as a retired lieutenant with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. "I am a Republican, and for more than 30 years I have largely voted for Republicans," Rassmann said. But he said Kerry "will be a great commander in chief."

"This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency," Rassmann said. "Their new charges are false; their stories are fabricated, made up by people who did not serve with Kerry in Vietnam."

On Aug. 22 the Washington Post quoted a new eyewitness in support of Kerry's version. The Post said it had independently contacted Wayne D. Langhofer, who manned a machine gun aboard PCF-43, the boat directly behind Kerry's, and that Langhofer said he distinctly remembered the "clack, clack, clack" of enemy AK-47 assault rifles.

Langhofer: There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river.

The Third Purple Heart

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth further says Kerry didn't deserve his third purple heart, which was received for shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on right forearm. The Swift Boat group's affidavits state that the wound in Kerry's backside happened earlier that day in an accident. "Kerry inadvertently wounded himself in the fanny," Thurlow said in his affidavit, "by throwing a grenade too close (to destroy a rice supply) and suffered minor shrapnel wounds."

The grenade incident is actually supported by Kerry's own account, but the shrapnel wound was only part of the basis for Kerry's third purple heart according to official documents. The evidence here is contradictory.

Kerry's account is in the book Tour of Duty by Douglas Brinkley, who based it largely on Kerry's own Vietnam diaries and 12 hours of interviews with Kerry. "I got a piece of small grenade in my ass from one of the rice-bin explosions and then we started to move back to the boats," Kerry is quoted as saying on page 313. In that account, Kerry says his arm was hurt later, after the mine blast that disabled PCF-3, when a second explosion rocked his own boat. "The concussion threw me violently against the bulkhead on the door and I smashed my arm," Kerry says on page 314.

And according to a Navy casualty report released by the Kerry campaign, the third purple heart was received for "shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on his right forearm when a mine detonated close aboard PCF-94," Kerry's boat. As a matter of strict grammar, the report doesn't state that both injuries were received as a result of the mine explosion, only the arm injury.

The official citation for Kerry's Bronze Star refers only to his arm injury, not to the shrapnel wound to his rear. It says he performed the rescue "from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding and in pain." The description of Kerry's arm "bleeding" isn't consistent with the description of a "contusion," or bruise.

Rassmann's Aug. 10 Wall Street Journal article states that Kerry's arm was "wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat," which would make that wound clearly enemy-inflicted.

In any case, even a "friendly fire" injury can qualify for a purple heart "as long as the 'friendly' projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment," according to the website of the Military Order of the Purple Heart. All agree that rice was being destroyed that day on the assumption that it otherwise might feed Viet Cong fighters.

Another major discrepancy raises a question of how close Kerry's accusers actually were to the rescue of Rassmann. Tour of Duty describes Rassmann's rescue (and the sniper fire) as happening "several hundred yards back" from where the crippled PCF-3 was lying, not "a few yards away," the distance from which the anti-Kerry veterans claim to have witnessed the incident.

First Purple Heart

Two who appear in the ad say Kerry didn't deserve his first purple heart. Louis Letson, a medical officer and Lieutenant Commander, says in the ad that he knows Kerry is lying about his first purple heart because “I treated him for that.” However, medical records provided by the Kerry campaign to FactCheck.org do not list Letson as the “person administering treatment” for Kerry’s injury on December 3, 1968 . The person who signed this sick call report is J.C. Carreon, who is listed as treating Kerry for shrapnel to the left arm.

In his affidavit, Letson says Kerry's wound was self-inflicted and does not merit a purple heart. But that's based on hearsay, and disputed hearsay at that. Letson says “the crewman with Kerry told me there was no hostile fire, and that Kerry had inadvertently wounded himself with an M-79 grenade.” But the Kerry campaign says the two crewmen with Kerry that day deny ever talking to Letson.

On Aug. 17 the Los Angeles Times quoted Letson as giving a slightly different account than the one in his affidavit. The Times quotes him as saying he heard only third-hand that there had been no enemy fire. According to the Times, Letson said that what he heard about Kerry's wounding came not from other crewmen directly, but through some of his own subordinates. Letson was quoted as saying the information came from crewmen who were "just talking to my guys … There was not a firefight -- that's what the guys related. They didn't remember any firing from shore."

Letson also insisted to the Times that he was the one who treated Kerry, removing a tiny shard of shrapnel from Kerry's arm using a pair of tweezers. Letson said Carreon, whose signature appears on Kerry's medical record, was an enlisted man who routinely made record entries on his behalf. Carreon signed as "HM1," indicating he held the enlisted rank of Hospital Corpsman First Class.

Also appearing in the ad is Grant Hibbard, Kerry’s commanding officer at the time. Hibbard’s affidavit says that he “turned down the Purple Heart request,” and recalled Kerry's injury as a "tiny scratch less than from a rose thorn."

That doesn't quite square with Letson's affidavit, which describes shrapnel "lodged in Kerry's arm" (though "barely.")

Hibbard also told the Boston Globe in an interview in April 2004 that he eventually acquiesced about granting Kerry the purple heart.

Hibbard: I do remember some questions on it. . .I finally said, OK if that's what happened. . . do whatever you want

Kerry got the first purple heart after Hibbard left to return to the US .

McCain Speaks Up

Sen. John McCain -- who has publicly endorsed Bush and even appealed for donations to the President's campaign -- came to Kerry's defense on this. McCain didn't witness the events in question, of course. But he told the Associated Press in an August 5 interview:

McCain : I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crewmates have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam.

At this point, 35 years later and half a world away, we see no way to resolve which of these versions of reality is closer to the truth.

Sources

Michael Kranish,“Veteran Retracts Criticism of Kerry ,” The Boston Globe, 6 August 2004 .

Jodi Wilgoren, "Vietnam Veterans Buy Ads to Attack Kerry," The New York Times, 5 August 2004.

Douglas Brinkley, Tour of Duty, (NY, HarperCollins, 2004).

Jim Rassmann, "Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush," Wall Street Journal, 10 Aug 2004: A10.

Ron Fournier, "McCain Condemns Anti-Kerry Ad," Associated Press, 5 August 2004.

Michael Kranish, "Kerry Faces Questions Over Purple Heart," The Boston Globe , 14 April 2004: A1.

Michael Kranish, "Heroism, and growing concern about war," The Boston Globe, 16 June 2003.

Maria L. La Ganga and Stephen Braun, "Race to the White House: Veterans Battle Over Truth; An ad calls Kerry a liar. His Vietnam crew sees a hero. Memories, and agendas, are in conflict." Los Angeles Times 17 Aug 2004: A1.

Michael Dobbs, "Records Counter A Critic Of Kerry; Fellow Skipper's Citation Refers To Enemy Fire" Washington Post, 19 Aug. 2004: A1.

William B. Rood, "FEB. 28, 1969: ON THE DONG CUNG RIVER
`This is what I saw that day'" Chicago Tribune 22 Aug 2004.

Michael Dobbs, "Swift Boat Accounts Incomplete: Critics Fail to Disprove Kerry's Version of Vietnam War Episode," Washington Post 22 Aug 2004: A1.

posted October 16, 2004 02:25 PM            

Have you filed a complaint with the FCC against Michael Moore and the stations he is attempting to enlist...yet?

If not, isn't your position pure unadulterated hypocrisy?

posted October 16, 2004 03:32 PM            

Now, if we could just find a landfill foul enough to dump the odorous Michael Moore.

Saturday, Oct. 16, 2004 10:57 a.m. EDT
Cable Channel Dumps Michael Moore's '9/11'

The cable pay-per-view company iNDEMAND has backed away from a plan to show a three-hour election eve special with filmmaker Michael Moore that included the first television showing of his film "Fahrenheit 9/11."

The company said Friday it would not air "The Michael Moore Pre-Election Special" due to "legitimate business and legal concerns." A spokesman would not elaborate.

Moore has just released his movie on DVD and was seeking a TV outlet for the film, which sharply criticizes President Bush, as close to the election as possible.

Earlier this week, trade publications said Moore was close to a deal with iNDEMAND for the special, which also would include interviews with politically active celebrities and admonitions to vote. The Nov. 1 special was to be available for $9.95.

Moore said Friday he signed a contract with the company in early September and is considering legal action. He said he believes iNDEMAND decided not to air the film because of pressure from "top Republican people."

"Apparently people have put pressure on them and they've broken a contract," Moore told the Associated Press.

"We've informed them of their legal responsibility and we all informed them that every corporate executive that has attempted to prohibit Americans from seeing this film has failed," Moore said. "There's been one struggle or another over this, but we've always come out on top because you can't tell Americans they can't watch this."

The New York-based iNDEMAND, owned by the Time Warner, Cox and Comcast cable companies, makes pay-per-view programming available in 28 million homes, or about one-quarter of the nation's homes with television.

In a statement, iNDEMAND said any legal action Moore might take against the company would be "entirely baseless and groundless."

This spring, Moore did battle with the Walt Disney Co., which refused to release "Fahrenheit 9/11" through its Miramax Films because it was too politically partisan for the company's taste.

After that fight became public, Moore found other distributors. The movie, which attacks Bush's handling of the war on terrorism and war in Iraq and the Bush family's ties to Saudi royalty, earned more than $100 million at the box office.

In an interview with a Maine television station that aired this week, former President George H.W. Bush called Moore a "slimeball" and an expletive.

posted October 17, 2004 04:02 AM              

Even so, Indemand is a sattelite or cable network. People pay to watch that station. I have Comcast Ondemand and you pay for the movies you select to watch. So choice is involved there. It is not network television like Sinclair Broadcasting which uses free air waves and there in no pre-empting of regularly scheduled programming to show the movie thereby actually forcing it on people who were viewing something else.

QUOTE:

This spring, Moore did battle with the Walt Disney Co., which refused to release "Fahrenheit 9/11" through its Miramax Films because it was too politically partisan for the company's taste.

That was not the Disney Company's reason for backing out of releasing "Farenheit 9/11" Actually they knuckled under to intimidation tactics aimed at their taxes on Disney World in Florida.

I don't care what the senior Bush says about Michael Moore. There are some who think he is a slimeball himself. Matter of opinion.

I am not interested in anything Newsmax says either, Jwhop. I thought that I had more than made that clear as have others on this forum. If you want to present a solid argument present it from sources that are not biased and partisan and who do not out and out lie and slant the truth. Otherwise your argument does not carry any weight. It amounts to argument for argument's sake.

posted October 17, 2004 12:24 PM            

Of course, I'm presuming you do have more than one channel where you live, now don't you?

posted October 17, 2004 11:32 PM              

People shouldn't have to turn their TV sets off or turn the channel or have a program they are watching interrupted because of the stations partisanship. Not in a democracy. Not on free air waves.

It amounts to giving Bush free air time to campaign for his election. Candidates are supposed to pay for their political ads. What Sinclair is doing amounts to an illegal donation to the Bush campaign as he has already reached the maximum monetary contributions he can make. Of course he stands to gain personally if he can get Butch elected.

posted October 18, 2004 10:06 AM              

quote:

---

Have you filed a complaint with the FCC against Michael Moore and the stations he is attempting to enlist...yet?

---

Mirandee answered:

quote:

---

Indemand is a sattelite or cable network. People pay to watch that station. I have Comcast Ondemand and you pay for the movies you select to watch. So choice is involved there. It is not network television like Sinclair Broadcasting which uses free air waves and there in no pre-empting of regularly scheduled programming to show the movie thereby actually forcing it on people who were viewing something else.

---

As Mirandee said, Paying for something....is PAYING for something.....whether it's a movie, or a "pay extra" channel on TV...

When NBC, CBS, and ABC stations, deliberately BLOCK some show I have wanted to see (at the EXACT same time the owner of the stations uses his "power" to take that anticipated show off the air and replace it with HIS political view, that he wants to shove down our throats).......SOMETHING IS SMELLING AWFUL BAD IN DENMARK!!!!!....

People who are looking forward to seeing their favorite sitcom or drama on a regular network (which they don't have to pay extra for), are being treated unfairly, when instead of seeing the favorite show they were expecting, they instead get a good dose of "brainwashing" at the whim of a big wig in power, who does it BECAUSE HE CAN........stinks! stinks! stinks!

On the other hand, HAD Michael Moore's film landed on inDemand, those watching it would only be watching because they WANTED TO WATCH (since it is a pay extra channel), and not because some idjet with lots of power decided as long as he had the opportunity, he'd "play dirty." It would not be FORCE FED to them....

*sigh* but I believe even with this last ditch effort, which is a very desparate act, the large audience for Michal Moore's film, both at the theater and on DVD, will counter any mudraking at the last minute, by the obviously nervous opposition.....

posted October 18, 2004 01:12 PM            

AND

That ABC should lose it's broadcast license for going to the Communist North Vietnamese to prove Kerry's heroism, taking the word of the Communist enemy over the word of decorated war heroes AND the biography of John Kerry, both of which said there was only 1 (one) Viet Cong, a boy dressed in a loin cloth who confronted his swiftboat in an incident that won Kerry a medal.

Both incidences reflect the attempt by major broadcaster to give Kerry aid in the presidential election. Further, both broadcast actual lies to help get Kerry elected. Both show no effort at impartiality, both enjoy a benefit from government and both were fatally flawed attempts to steal an election by partisan electioneering.

posted October 19, 2004 12:41 AM            

This is a man with no conscience and no moral compass. This is one of the empty suits the left is attempting to foist off on America as a war hero. He's anything but.

Dave Eberhart, NewsMax.com
Tuesday, Oct. 19, 2004
Former POW: Kerry Preyed on My Family

A former Vietnam War prisoner of war charges that as he was being tortured by his communist captors, John Kerry was preying on his family to denounce the United States.

The new allegation against Kerry is made in the controversial documentary “Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal” by James H. Warner, a former Marine Corps naval flight officer who won the Silver Star after spending more than five years in a North Vietnamese prison.

Warner’s sensational charge against Kerry is just one of the fresh allegations that Kerry did more than protest U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War – he also worked to help the North Vietnamese by getting families of POWs to criticize the U.S. government.

When Capt. James (Jim) Howie Warner was shot down on Oct. 13, 1967, he could hardly have known at the time that his pain and suffering wwould be enhanced by a recently discharged naval officer-turned-war protester named John Kerry.

As Warner suffered brutal treatment in Vietnam, young Kerry was helping to organize the infamous Winter Soldier hearings held in Detroit, Mich., at the end of January and into early February of 1971.

Warner recounts that Kerry personally recruited his grieving mother to testify at the Winter Soldier hearings – testimony that Warner was confronted and taunted with while in captivity, testimony that later appeared in John Kerry’s infamous wartime book, “The New Soldier.”

In “Stolen Honor,” Warner says, “They showed me a transcript of testimony that my mother had given at the Winter Soldier hearing. I read her testimony; it was not particularly damning, but I wondered how did someone persuade her? Then they showed me a statement by John Kerry. I know that he did talk to her and my sisters. It is really a contemptible act to take a grieving old lady and prey upon her grief and manipulate her grief purely for the promotion of your own political agenda.”

In his interview with NewsMax, Warner’s anger toward Kerry for involving his family is still very much alive and well: “There’s not a single thing Kerry has done – except to marry a rich woman – that didn’t show bad judgment.”

From his Winter Soldier hearings, which have largely been discredited by historians, Kerry gained national publicity for himself and furthered the anti-war cause. The POWs claim Kerry and his fellow anti-war protesters helped prolong the war – and their brutal captivity – by two years or more.

For his efforts, Kerry has been lauded in Vietnam and is featured as one of the Vietnamese communists' heroes in their national war museum.

Warner says that while Kerry was having his various dialogues with the enemy in Paris and using Warner’s family for his ends, he still could have intervened to help the POWs.

Warner says with some anguish that Kerry didn't “even ask them to stop the torture. While he was making friends, why didn’t he do something to get us letter privileges with our families? My mother didn’t know if I was alive or dead.”

B.G. Burkett, Vietnam historian and author of “Stolen Valor: How the Vietnam Generation Was Robbed of Its Heroes and Its History,” tells NewsMax that Warner’s family was not alone in their experience.

Burkett said that Kerry’s Winter Soldier group contacted the families of several POWs to denounce the United States.

“It’s a pretty horrendous thing, these family members being called by Kerry or his group while their son or husband is being tortured in a Hanoi prison,” Burkett said. “And the message to the POW families was clear: If you speak out against the U.S., the communists will go easy on your loved one.”

Burkett said the effort to involve the POW families in the anti-war movement was one of the most “evil things Kerry and his group ever did.”

When Virginia Warner did testify, she did not denounce the U.S. but she spoke as a mother would: “My name is Virginia Warner, and I am the mother of James Warner, who has been a prisoner in Vietnam, North Vietnam, since 1967 in October. I'm here to ask the American people to help get this thing over with.”

Having his mother’s testimony included with the "testimony" of those who claimed to be veterans, with the left-wing activists present, gave a dignity to the whole proceeding that it did not merit, Warner argues.

Kerry’s work on behalf of North Vietnam and his use of Warner’s mother were not overlooked by Warner’s communist captors.

A Captor Taunts the Marine Aviator

In a recent essay, Warner writes about the interchange between himself and one of his tormenting captors – a man he refers to as “Boris.”

“Then Boris reached behind his back and pulled out some clippings from a left wing newspaper in the U.S. He showed me several articles about an event, which had been held in Detroit, called 'The Winter Soldier Hearings.' He left me to read the articles while he left the room. The articles reported alleged "testimony" from people who claimed to be Viet-Nam veterans who allegedly claimed that they had done things which, if true, would have [led] to courts martial for each of them.

“Suddenly, I read an article about my mother testifying. Unlike the leftists, she did not condemn the U.S., she merely stated that she hoped the war would end soon and I would be released. The next article mentioned testimony from my father. His was like my mother's testimony, merely expressing hope that the war would end soon and that all who suffered from war would find relief. Nothing they said fit with the virulent anti-American sentiments that the leftists had expressed. But having their testimony included in with the ‘testimony’ of those who claimed to be veterans, and the left wing activists present, seemed to give a dignity to the whole proceeding which it did not merit.”

Boris told Warner to note especially the former U.S. military officer who had accused American soldiers of war crimes.

“‘This man was an officer in your navy. He says that the war is illegal, immoral and unjust. Read what he says.’

“I read the words of John Kerry. What John Kerry said, according to the clippings, was that the U.S. should abandon South East Asia, unilaterally and immediately. This, of course, would not only leave the Prisoners of War in the hands of the communists, but far worse, there was not a sane person in the universe who did not know that the instant the countries of South East Asia were abandoned, the blood bath would begin.”

Warner wondered why Kerry did what he did.

“When John Kerry said that Vietnam vets were criminals, did he not know that the communists would use his words against the POWs?” Warner asked. “He feels insulted when someone questions his patriotism. What other conclusion would you come to, if you were in my shoes? Kerry, from what I read, did not criticize the tactics or strategy we were using in Vietnam. If that was what he wanted to say, I am sure that most Vietnam vets, who saw first hand that McNamara's strategy was foolish, would have agreed with him.”

Warner is just one of 17 POWs who appear in "Stolen Honor" and who accuse John Kerry of betrayal.

Warner is frustrated that his story, and that of the other POWs, is being denied to the American people and efforts have been made to stop Sinclair Broadcasting from airing the documentary.

“They should have read the McCain-Feingold law that most of them voted for,” Warner says. “In the black letter law of the act, the restrictions do not apply to one who owns or operates a media outlet.”

Burkett argues that new revelations, such as Kerry’s use of POW families, need to be revealed to the American people before they make a historic decision on Election Day.

posted October 19, 2004 01:13 AM              

I think this stuff about Kerry's war record is a bit anal retentive since his records have been approved by the Navy and even the Pentagon has gone over them. Nothing has been found to discredit his service. Except for what people who were paid by a rich Bush supporter said about him. They have even gone back on things they said, then changed their minds again. Who's flip-flopping there? Like I said follow the money trail and it always leads back either to the Republican party or rich and influential supporters of Bush.

Bush has not accounted for a whole lost year in his National Guard service. You forget that.

We need to get past this and look at the issues that effect every day working class people. Kerry served in Vietnam 35 years ago. He served in Vietnam. Bush didn't. Case closed. It's sad when people have to tear down other people to feel good about themselves and I have noticed that Bush does that a lot. Truthfully if Bush dodged the Vietnam war I don't blame him. Lots of guys did. But he shouldn't be cutting down the records of those that did serve. That shows a lot of insecurity if you ask me.

No, I will not agree that CBS should lose it license. They presented the show in good faith. Once they found out the documents were forged they admitted their mistake and apologized. Dan Rather admitted his mistake and apologized. "60 Minutes" is a legitimate show which has been on the air for eons. Anyone can make a mistake and they said they did and owned up to it.

posted October 19, 2004 05:05 AM              

...oops! I forgot....

When asked on the debates whether he had made any mistakes....this godly, saintly man could not think of any mistakes he had made...*sigh*