I am responding to this post without having seen Stolen Honor but I will respond to some of the points you raise. First the FCC has been very lax in upholding things like this but the U.S. Broadcasting Regulatory Rule states the following:

"The equal time, or more accurately, the equal opportunity provision of the Communications Act requires radio and television stations and cable systems which originate their own programming to treat legally qualified political candidates equally when it comes to selling or giving away air time. Simply put, a station which sells or gives one minute to Candidate A must sell or give the same amount of time with the same audience potential to all other candidates for the particular office."

Regardless of any sort of classification of content being "news" or not, I do not think that Sinclair has truth and justice as their motivating factors for deciding to air the show. They are trying to unfairly influence the election. This is NOT a 1st amendment issue.

Kerry's record like most statistics can be shown in snippets and sound bites to be anything you want. It takes earnest research into the things that Kerry has voted yea or nay on to truly understand the fine print and the why of each vote - contrary to the opinion of some - the reason is not political opportunism.

3: Many Vietnam veterans came back from Vietnam disillusioned and spoke out against it. Every person has they right to speak out against such actions by their government, especially those who served honorably in the armed forces.

There are even soldiers who appear in the film suing its producers for libel stating that they misrepresent their statements and sentiments.

Can't you understand that Vietnam was unpopular war for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that we completely misunderstood the motives of our enemy? Our government had no meetings with the N. Vietnamese and that is exactly why the war was such a failure.

Ben,

I'd be very curious to hear your distinction between Stolen Honor, which, like you, I have not seen, and the recent Nightline report featuring Vietnamese villagers purporting to "set the record straight" concerning John Kerry's involvement in a firefight 30 years ago.

Clearly, John Kerry's Vietnam service is a subject of great debate. Are the producers of Stolen Honor, and the POW's it features, any less entitled to tell their story than their former enemies? I thought "every person has the right to speak out...especially those who served honorably". Was ABC/Nightline attempting to influence opinion concerning Kerry any less so than Sinclair?

I honestly believe that if the owners of UHF Channel 78 in Nowheresville, USA were to broadcast Stolen Honor 'round the clock from now until November 2, nobody would notice and/or care. But because Sinclair owns enough stations, in enough important markets, suddenly they cannot control the content of their own broadcasts?

You voice your frustration concerning Kerry's record being viewed in sound bites and snippets. I share your frustration. I'm sure you'll join me in putting this entire issue to rest by urging Senator Kerry to sign Form 180 and finally release ALL of his military records. 'Kay?

It is no different than the liberal indoctrination our children are put through at our schools and universities. For god sakes, you know there is a liberal bias in the printed news and on TV. Why is it when it's your canidate, your so upset.

We have seen a clear picture of what is happening in this country and what process will accelerate if the dems regain power. The right has sat through F911, Rock tours, and TV magazine hit pieces. Bush also has to hold up under an incredible onslaught of attacks by the media everyday.
These POWS have considerably more medals than JFK, spent at least 1500% longer in Viet Nam than JFK--and they are not supposed to have the right to speak to the American people? The Dems have threatened them and the stations that want to broadcast at least some of their story, just as they threatened book publishers and sellers about the Swift Boat book.
By the way the person threatening to sue was not a POW he testified at the Fonda/Kerry winter soldier investigation and is upset at the characterization of some of those who testified.

Yea, and let's not forget about the recent PBS\Nightline Kerry for President commercial entitled "Decision 2004" that aired a week ago Tuesday. I must have missed the left's indignation over that LOL.

The hypocracy of the left knows no bounds. They are screeching at the top of their lungs about election fraud they claim to be the work of Repub's, but the data coming in shows an overwhelming participation in fraudulent behavior on the part of DNC 527 proxies.

eff 'em all, show the film, and dub it in French to boot!

Let's be honest about what the "Broadcast Rule" actually says. From 47 U.S.C. § 315:

If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station.

To say that this statute applies, you have to conclude that a documentary critical of Kerry amounts to permitting Bush to use Sinclair's broadcasting station, a documentary in which Bush does not appear.

Then, even if you clear that hurdle, the statute also exempts (1) bona fide newscasts, (2) bona fide interviews, (3)bona fide documentaries and (4) bona-fide coverage of news events. Kerry supporters may not like it, but Sinclair has every right to do what it is doing, just as the networks are free to air newscasts and documentaries critical of Bush.

I don't like Sinclair doing this at the last minute, right before the election (if they'd done it, in say May or June, I'd feel different about it). But at the same time, why don't Kerry supporters want people to see this? It's Kerry's own testimony and what many POWs say they had to endure because of his testimony and actions. Kerry says he's proud of his anti-war activities. Why aren't his supporters?

I find it interesting that most of the commentary here basically revolves around, "the media is liberal... so i guess that justifies any and all actions of conservatives."

I'm not real worked up this issue one way or another, but I believe that Sinclair has offered Kerry equal time to respond to Stolen Honor.

I suggest that Mike might want to study up on the history of the Vietnam War a bit. To say that "our government had no meetings with the North Vietnamese" is simply not true.

Most veterans did not come back from Vietnam and behave as Kerry did. (By the way, he was actually opposed to the war before he ever set foot in Vietnam. It wasn't as if what he experienced there turned him against it.) My uncle spent six years as a POW in North Vietnam and I would share his views of Kerry and his ilk with you, but since this isn't a juvenile left wing blog that relies on profanity instead of profundity, I will just say that there is no question about who he will be voting for on November 2nd.

With high anticipation, I turned to KMWB at 9:00 10/20 to view "Stolen Honor" (it was listed online to broadcast at this time) -- only to see it replaced with back-to-back episodes of "Elimidate." Thinking it got bumped to 10:00, I turned back to find "Fresh Prince". I checked back at 23's website and the programming link showed 10/20 at 9:00 pm.

Did I miss something, or was there a last-minute pull out?

Yeah.

Tell you what: I just watched the excerpts of Stolen Honor on the movie's website. Just listened to Kerry's congressional testimony and read the transcripts.

Stolen Honor is basically a video of some political opportunists taking advantage of some veterans who have evidently never read the Pentagon Papers, or any of the evidence from the My Lai trials. Kerry's claims in his Congressional testimony are corroborated by numerous eye witness accounts. Additionally, he was speaking for 150 other vets who took part in the Winter Soldiers campaign. If none of the vets in the film ever saw or did any of the things Kerry talked about, that doesn't mean they didn't happen.

The record on free fire zones, civilian casualties, destruction of houses, livestock, and farms, is all well-established-- and against the Geneva Convention.

Sinclair wants to air lies, half-truths and distortions, that's there business. I wouldn't try and stop it.

Hey, I'm sure there were guys who fought in the Warmacht who never witnessed a single war crime. Some of those guys were probably in denial until the day they died too.

Joshua,

No rational person denies the free fire zones or the scorched earth measures we took.

But, as re: Kerry - whatwere the lies? The guy gave aid and comfort to the enemy, and it affected our POWs.

That's where the goalposts are.

carson: I have yet to see anyone saying any such thing.

THe points, as I see them, are:
1) It's the truth about Kerry's past. The public
has a right to know. It's certainly a lot more
germane than Bush's DUI or his TANG records.
2) Why are the Kerry people so afraid of this?
Is this another "Chrismas in Cambodia" - another
example of Kerry's perfidy they can't refute?
3) When did the Dems stop supporting the
First Amendment?

Mitch,

Here's a quote from the film:

"I was outraged, and still am, that he (John Kerry) willingly said things that were untrue."

Only the things John Kerry said *were* true. The vet may or may not know better-- and given what he's been through it may not be reasonable to ask him to temper his experiences with a broader historical perspective. But the documentarians and Sinclair broadcasting are taking the vet's statement-- which, however understandable, is still untrue --and presenting it as truth.

Thus, they're lying.

Mitch,

Since the free exercise of religion is the first thing mentioned in the first amendment, I'd say that the left ended real support long ago.

Mitch and Steep:

I'm a registered Democrat and full-on American leftie. Notice I said Sinclair should have the right to air Stolen Honor. I've posted entries in my blog attacking the vandalism of RNC campaign offices (which I consider terrorism-- and yes, I used that word in my writing on the subject) and direct action during the RNC in New York. Many other Dems and lefties feel the same way.

The documentary you're advocating for here attacks Senator Kerry for exercising his 1st Amendment rights during Vietnam.

Your faulure to acknowledge either of these points damages your credibility in my opinion.

To suggest, on the basis of "The Pentagon Papers," or something about My Lai, or having listened to the testimony of a politically connected "4-month tour" Vietnam "veteran," that one knew anything at all about combat in Vietnam (or anywhere else) reveals only the extent of one's own self-deception.

"The Pentagon Papers," the Kerry "testimony" and the My Lai investigation were all peas in the same pod designed to make gullible people believe exactly what was intended. Today, shockingly, that propaganda technique is the foundation of the Kerry/Edwards campaign, which, as many realize, is so riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions and outright falsehoods that CBS published forged documents and ABC interviewed the Viet Cong just to avoid directly addressing the issue of John Kerry's integrity.

We've seen all this before.

In the 60s and 70s, this same propaganda technique was highly successful, because it precluded any opportunity for rebuttal, in effectively forcing one president to resign and electing another who then dutifully compromised American interests in SEAsia, the Middle East, and Latin America and abandoned millions of innocent people to the slaughterhouses of communist, totalitarian regimes.

The difference today is the people, through cable television, AM radio, and the internet, have finally the opportunity to confront the deceit, mendacity and treachery of those who for decades have sought to impose a foreign ideology on these United States.

We know a communist sympathizer when we see one, especially one we've seen before.

Joshua said, "The documentary you're advocating for here attacks Senator Kerry for exercising his 1st Amendment rights during Vietnam."

There is nothing in the 1st Amendment that shields you from facing criticism.

The cure for speech that you don't agree with is not supression of that speech. Rather, the proper response to speech you don't agree with is more speech.

Kerry expressed himself, as was his right. Many people are of the opinion that his speech represented a betrayal of his country, and of all the men and women who had served, or were serving in Vietnam, particularly those who were POW's at the time. The proper remedy for that is speech that exposes the facts regarding Kerry's perfidy, which allows people to decide for themselves what impact, if any, it has on their decision in the upcoming election.

In seeking to curtail free speech in this matter, the Democratic Party is being decidedly undemocratic.

Joshua,

Aren't 1st Amendment rights a two-way street? Kerry can say whatever he likes, but nobody is allowed to respond? (Yes, I acknowledge that you say that Sinclair has the right to broadcast) Kerry claimed during his testimony that war crimes were being committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of all levels of command. That pretty much indicts everybody, right? So Kerry can make that charge and it cannot be challenged? Please explain that, because frankly, I don't see the logic.

Eracus: Yes, the study commissioned by and and carried out by the Pentagon was part of a Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy that included the My Lai trials and John Kerry's testimony before Congress. You've found us out. Now we must send our black helicopters to collect you and ship you to the re-education camps. Don't bother locking your doors. We have the key.

Bugz:

"There is nothing in the 1st Amendment that shields you from facing criticism."

Don't start trying to argue with me about stuff I didn't say.

Mike:

"Aren't 1st Amendment rights a two-way street?"

"(Yes, I acknowledge that you say that Sinclair has the right to broadcast)"

Okay. So, what was your point?

By the way, I'd like to address this "aid and comfort" business.

John Kerry exercised his 1st Amendment rights to protest the actions of the American federal government in a war that he fought in. That catchy little phrase, "aid and comfort to the enemy" is an obvious allusion to the treason clause in the Constitution. But the Constitution also includes the 1st Amendment, stating that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. You'll notice it doesn't say, "Unless we're involved in an undeclared war with a country that poses no direct threat to our national security, in which case you should just sit down and shut up and trust your government."

There is, I imagine, a *reason* it doesn't say that.

Given that free speech is a Constitutional right—and, specifically, free speech to petition the Government for a redress of grievances is a constitutionally protected right—exercising that right cannot be considered treason. Which is to say that exercising the right is *not* _according to the Constitution_, the same thing as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy".

Joshua replied, "Don't start trying to argue with me about stuff I didn't say. "

Well, Joshua, somehow when you say, "The documentary you're advocating for here attacks Senator Kerry for exercising his 1st Amendment rights during Vietnam", I get the impression that you feel that the documentary should somehow be suppressed, and that John Kerry has some kind of 1st Amendment get-out-jail-free card that protects him because, after all, he was just "exercising his 1st Amendment rights during Vietnam."

If that wasn't what you meant, just what exactly was your point?

"I get the impression that you feel that the documentary should somehow be suppressed"

Well, your impression is in error. Sorry.

Except, Joshua, that where you say "John Kerry exercised his 1st Amendment rights to protest the actions of the American federal government in a war that he fought in. That catchy little phrase, "aid and comfort to the enemy" is an obvious allusion to the treason clause in the Constitution....yadda yadda...the Government for a redress of grievances is a constitutionally protected right—exercising that right cannot be considered treason. Which is to say that exercising the right is *not* _according to the Constitution_, the same thing as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy".

However, he was a currently-serving naval reserve officer, which means that his remarks, while not legally treason, were certainly illegal.

More later. Maybe. If I remember.

Joshua,

Sorry my earlier post was confusing. Let me try to clarify.

I wonder why you assert that Sinclair has the right to broadcast what you deem to be "lies".
Do you think that the 1st Amendment protects anyone from knowlingly broadcasting lies, even in a political context?

Seriously, I'd like your take on that.

"If that wasn't what you meant, just what exactly was your point?"

My point was that I see a contradiction in Mitch and Steep's position. The contradiction is merely philosophical (rather than legal); since neither the Democrats nor Sinclair is actually breaking the law (they are both acting through legal channels in their efforts to promote and/or suppress the documentary), the 1st Amendment questions in this situation are relevant to the *ethics* of free expression. I think it's disingenuous to use the 1st Amendment as an ethical defense for a documentary that uses false claims about Mr. Kerry's testimony before Congress in an effort to attack Mr. Kerry for exercising his 1st Amendment rights.

None of which, you will note, suggests that the documentary should not be aired, or that Sinclair does not have the right to air it.

Ok, Joshua, then make it clear.

What exactly did you mean by, "The documentary you're advocating for here attacks Senator Kerry for exercising his 1st Amendment rights during Vietnam", and why does failure to acknowledge that point damage the credibility of either Mitch or Streep?

Joshua, it appears our respective posts crossed in the ether.

I do not see that the documentary attacks Kerry for taking advantage of his 1st Amendment rights. It attacks him for being wrong.

What false claims, by the way, do you believe that the documentary makes regarding Senator Kerry's testimony?

"However, he was a currently-serving naval reserve officer, which means that his remarks, while not legally treason, were certainly illegal."

No, they weren't. For one thing, he was on reserve status. For another thing, there was no declared war with North Vietnam. The United States didn't even recognize it as a country, and neither did the U.N. Which introduces a lot of ambiguity into any UCMJ claim against Kerry.

And on to Mike:

"I wonder why you assert that Sinclair has the right to broadcast what you deem to be 'lies'."

Because I believe in free expression.

"Do you think that the 1st Amendment protects anyone from knowlingly broadcasting lies, even in a political context?"

Define "knowingly".

More generally, I do believe that the 1st Amendment protects anyone from broadcasting lies, even in a political context. But I also recognize that U.S. legal code isn't set up that way. So, for example, we have slander and libel laws. We have laws against fraud, and laws governing claims made in advertising and such. My personal ethics are that those laws should not exist. But in order for that to be a workable approach, there would also have to be a change in how the U.S. governs telecommunications. There'd have to be massive tort reform. Etc, etc.

As long as we're working off common law, and the Fed maintains and FCC, there is a case to be made for government intervention based on content. I have a broad objection to that kind of curtailment of fee speech, but I'm not so naïve as to hold out on principle in a system that simply isn't geared to work that way.

That said, I also don't think that Sinclair's little political theater piece violates the strict letter of the law. They offered Kerry a chance to rebut, and the Kerry campaign turned them down (which I think was a mistake— that's valuable air time). That condition satisfied, I believe they should be allowed to go ahead with airing the piece.

It's still bullshit. I dislike Sinclair for airing bullshit and question their ethics for using such blatant bullshit to influence the selection of the next president. But my personal ethics require me to stand by while a lot of things I disagree with take place. Interfering is not within my brief; two wrongs don't make a right. Likewise, I believe the Kerry campaign has the legal right to *try* and halt the broadcast. But I'd be extremely critical of any ruling that supported their efforts.

Bugz:

"What false claims, by the way, do you believe that the documentary makes regarding Senator Kerry's testimony?"

I'll take one example that I believe is representative of the excerpts from the documentary that I've been able to view on the internet.

In the documentary excerpts, one vet says:

"I'm also horrified by the fact that he said all these people were doing it and couldn't produce anybody who'd actually done it. Then he adds that he did it. Which automatically means that he's a war criminal...(snip) we just don't do that. We're Americans. Not that we try to conceal things. But I certainly wouldn't come out and start talking about things that aren't even true."

So let's take it piece by piece:

1) Of course Kerry could produce people who had actually done it. He was representing 150 other veterans, some of them highly decorated, who claimed to have witnessed or committed war crimes and attrocities in Vietnam. Additionally, during his testimony, he discussed Lt. Calley and My Lai repeatedly. Calley was *convicted* of atrocities. There are *photographs* of the bodies of murdered old men, women, and small children. There is testimony from soldiers who took part in it and witnessed it. (and let's not forget that Calley, who was the only soldier convicted in the murder of 400 unarmed civilians, only served 3 ½ years for it).

2) Debatable. I won't get into it here, but Telford Taylor's excellent book _Nuremberg and Vietnam_ discusses a lot of the legalities of American war crimes in Vietnam and, after reading General Taylor's points, I believe Kerry's actions fall into the wide gray area of free fire zones and other illegal policies enacted in Vietnam at high levels. To be clear, Taylor's book was written shortly after the My Lai massacre was made public, and was not intended as part of the current debate.

3) Evidence in the Peer Report from My Lai indicates that Americans *did*, in fact, make an effort to conceal war crimes in Vietnam.

4) As I've said elsewhere—nothing in Kerry's testimony was not corroborated by either My Lai, the Pentagon Papers, or hundreds of other witnesses from combat positions in Vietnam.

So like I said, that's just one example. But I believe this point of view is representative of the message of the documentary as a whole.

Joshua,

Thanks for your response to my question. I wish I had more time to respond as I cannot tell you how strongly I disagree with your view.

I fail to see how free expression is promoted when one party is committing a fraud.

I also don't understand how you can cavaliarly throw around phrases like "lies" and "blatant bullshit" regarding the views of former POW's. Your patronizing suggestion that a vet "may or may not know better- given what he's been through" is particularly offensive.

Joshua; please favor us with the lies you believe the POWs are telling.

Did US troops commit war crimes? It's a given. Everyone acknowledges that war crimes happened.

So, now, please show us what the "lies" are on the part of the POWs in "Stolen Honor".

Joshua,

I just clicked on the link to your blog for the first time. Wow. I think I'm done trying to have any sort of reasonable conversation with you.

Mike:

"I also don't understand how you can cavaliarly throw around phrases like 'lies' and 'blatant bullshit' regarding the views of former POW's."

So, what's your position here Mike? That they can't be lying because they're former POWs? That's silly.

"Your patronizing suggestion that a vet 'may or may not know better- given what he's been through' is particularly offensive."

Ah yes. "Patronizing". The dirtiest word in the liberal-baiting vocabulary.

Listen, if a former German POW got back from the Russian front and said the Holocaust was a complete fabrication, I'd have to assume that the bloke was either A) lying, B) delusional or C) horrifyingly misinformed. There's nothing patronizing about that. These things happened. Someone can claim not to have been aware of them when they were happening. But to claim that they didn't happen is something else altogether and former POW status doesn't change that.

"I just clicked on the link to your blog for the first time. Wow. I think I'm done trying to have any sort of reasonable conversation with you."

Whatever. I guess asking you to justify that crack would be trying to prolong "reasonable conversation"?

And JTK? See above re: "false claims" the documentary makes.

Mike, you've just discovered what anyone who's ever dealt with Joshua has known all along.

Hey Allison? Time for your shot sweetheart.

Ok, Joshua, I looked above for where the former POWs in "Stolen Valor" are lying. I found:

"Stolen Honor is basically a video of some political opportunists taking advantage of some veterans who have evidently never read the Pentagon Papers, or any of the evidence from the My Lai trials."

Side issue: We saw above that you're touchy about the term "patronizing", but the preceding graf was, well, patronizing. The former POWs, I suspect, have motivations of their own beyond any "political opportunism" going on. EVERY Vietnam vet I've ever known, from former grunts to Navy fighter pilots, cordially detests Kerry on nearly the same level of vitriol reserved for Jane Fonda and Ramsey Clark.

" Kerry's claims in his Congressional testimony are corroborated by numerous eye witness accounts. Additionally, he was speaking for 150 other vets who took part in the Winter Soldiers campaign. If none of the vets in the film ever saw or did any of the things Kerry talked about, that doesn't mean they didn't happen. "

That's right. But there are a couple of problems with this:

1) Kerry's testimony overreached immensely; he generalized the participation in war crimes, as if the majority of GIs were directly involved. To extend your Wehrmacht analogy; it's as if someone captured a U-boat crewman off New York and started sweating him for secrets about Sobibor because someone had gone on the Deutsche Welle and claimed that all German troops were directly involved in the Final solution. Germany was responsible for the Holocaust; many Germans directly participated in it, but far from all. Assignment of collective guilt is anathemic to most of us.

2) The "war crimes" you cite, and the ones Kerry cited in his testimony, are in rather different leagues. There's a difference between the mass-murder that Kerry discussed (and pinned on the mass of American troops, rather than on specific criminals) and the ones you cite from the Geneva Convention; destruction of dwellings, crops and livestock are illegal, but were property crimes, if you will (and practiced on both sides); wrong, certainly, but not mass murder. Free fire zones were wrong, of course, albeit not uncommon in counterinsurgency warfare; I'm not going to defend them.

But...

3) The way to handle such things is through our own military and civil judicial systems - not in the media. Forgive me if I don't think it appropriate for Kerry to deputize the PAVN to administer justice for war crimes accusations. To say the least, the men didn't receive any sort of fair trial.

Did Kerry have the right to testify to the Senate, on behalf of the Winter Soldiers (some of whom were decorated veterans, many of whom were frauds who'd never been overseas)? Sure. Did he have the right to make any exaggerated claims about "Jenjis Khan" and indiscriminate hacking off of limbs and heads and whatever? Sure. It's America. Should Kerry have to face the consequences of his speech? Absolutely. Should it be on Sinclair this Friday? Why not?

"Only the things John Kerry said *were* true. The vet may or may not know better-- and given what he's been through it may not be reasonable to ask him to temper his experiences with a broader historical perspective. But the documentarians and Sinclair broadcasting are taking the vet's statement-- which, however understandable, is still untrue --and presenting it as truth."

Are the ex-POWs wrong about whether war crimes happened? Sure. Are they wrong about having never seen any of them carried out, or having been ordered to carry them out? You don't know, you weren't there.

Were they wrong about having John Kerry's "Winter Soldier" testimony and Jane Fonda's interviews with the press shoved in their faces? I'll take their word for it.

""The documentary you're advocating for here attacks Senator Kerry for exercising his 1st Amendment rights during Vietnam. "

Or, alternatively, it attacks Kerry for the consequences of his actions on his countrymen, which Kerry undertook while still a reserve officer in the USN.

Mitch--

By and large I think we understand each other's points and just disagree about interpretations. Just to hit a few small things:

"You don't know, you weren't there."

I've been careful not to draw any conclusions about what the Stolen Honor vets may or may not have seen with their own eyes. Check me on that if you want, but I think I'm consistent on that score.

"Kerry's testimony overreached immensely; he generalized the participation in war crimes, as if the majority of GIs were directly involved."

See, I don't agree on that one. When he runs down his list of attrocities in his Senate address, he's talking very specifically about himself and the other men in the Winter Soldier group.

This is not to say he didn't overreach in other forums. I've read some quotes from him at rallies and such that I think went too far. Though I'll also point out that he has admitted as much since then.

Anyway, I think that's about it.

Joshua, here's your first clue:

Don't believe everything you read.

Here's your second clue:

Read more than one book.

Here's your third:

When you find yourself in a deep, deep dark hole, stop digging.

Hope this helps.

Eracus,
I am guessing from your posts that it is still one more book than you have read. What kind of idiot believes that Nixon was forced to resign for any reason beyond his own criminal activities. You are ridiculous.
Chris,
too bad you didn't pay more attention in those 'liberal' schools maybe you could have learned to spell properly. lol

Right. The reversal of American geopolitical strategy in the Pacific theater and the Arabian Crescent occurred as the result of a third-rate burglary attempt in a Washington, DC apartment complex. The publication of "The Pentagon Papers" by Neil Sheehan, published by The New York Times in 1971, and the CBS broadcast of "The Selling of the Pentagon," also in 1971, had nothing at all to do with shaping the popular opinion to which even you have apparently so completely surrendered, despite your profound erudition and scholarship in national security studies. Afterall, we all know what paragons of virtue and principle The New York Times and CBS News have become, so what better sources of information can there be? Besides, Noam Chomsky and Edward Said can't BOTH be wrong, can they? Even George Soros and Bruce Springsteen agree, so it must be true.

Nevertheless, those of us less enlightened as yourself, and which must be maddingly apparent, continue to believe not what people say but what people do. And somehow, frustrating as it must be for you, we are not persuaded by arguments unsupported by the evidence and contrived on false pretenses by those whose personal and political agendas are to undermine our freedom and those who seek their own.

We believe, you understand, that even if the NYTimes, CBS, and a hundred million people believe a stupid thing, it is still a stupid thing. Keep digging. You may get there yet.

The fact are that you should report facts. Something is not biased simply because the facts paint your guy in a worse light (like the Frontline Choices 2004 show on PBS).

And lets toss out the idea of a liberal bian in media shall we? I don't see any of these billionaire TV station owners clamoring to show Farenheit 9/11, Going Upriver, or Brothers in Arms which you think would happen in such a liberal media as we have in America. Ha!

TV station owners will broadcast anything to generate revenue, which seems to be the current state of affairs considering what passes for television programming these days. So it's reasonable to conclude that if commercial sponsors could be found who were willing to associate themselves with the anti-American propaganda of Michael Moore, television would have aired the film. The fact is none would do so because it makes no sense to advertise hatred for George Bush when half the consumer market that buys your product supports him. Hence, the movie, which cleverly exploited hatred as a campaign tactic by those willing to wallow in the latest excrement from Michael Moore, who was last seen laughing all the way to the bank. That his latest campaign gimmick is to distribute clean underwear to newly registered voters only more proves the point.

Sinclair, to its credit, recognized the product "Stolen Honor" as a viable response not only to Michael Moore but to the document forgeries of CBS and the ongoing distortions emanating from ABC and NBC in their own broadcast market. Unlike the other commercial networks, Sinclair has no news division, which is why they no doubt accepted "Stolen Honor" as a commercial broadcast to the other half of the consumer market that was not being served by ABC, CBS, or NBC. Sinclair's decision is probably more about business than politics, but as always in such matters, the conclusions we draw really depends on whose ox is being gored.

The irony is "Stolen Honor" will probably do little if anything to influence the electorate beyond what has already been accomplished. The salient issue of the day is the character of the president and his challenger. And considering the extent to which Hollywood, network television, and the established print media have destroyed their own credibility to align themselves with someone who betrayed his countrymen in war, violated the privacy of his opponent's children, and seems unable to influence the behavior of his own wife, let alone the activities of his party followers vandalizing the private property of his fellow citizens, it is a certainty that any reasonable person would conclude John Kerry is not qualified to be president of the United States, and will vote accordingly.

The right to free speech and to petition the government does not include the right to perjure yourself before a congressional committee. Kerry asserted - as a fact - that war crimes and atrocities in Viet Nam were government policy and were universally practiced and that he knew this from personal observation.

The opposite is the case. It was the enemy in Viet Nam that universally violated the rules of war as a matter of policy - including criminal abuse of prisoners for propaganda purposes.

It is fair to ask if Kerry was duped or if he was a willing agent of the enemy in this propaganda war. The latter would disqualify him from the Presidency according the the Constitution.

Unlike Jane Fonda, Kerry has never expressed regret over his behavior in this affair. This is not news, in the sense that it is public knowledge, but it is relevant for the many voters who do not follow these things closely.