Sinclair’s whining amuses. Were this a cable channel, a film outlet, or any other private means of distribution, this would be just another shitty election move. However, he had the gall to use public airwaves to broadcast this message. When his Washington bureau chief, Jon Lieberman, gave an interview to the Baltimore Sun saying that the “documentary” was slanderous and unethical, he was canned.

Anyone who wants a true measure of just how slimy and slanderous this documentary really is should go to http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/20/20312/528 and read it.

Is it anywhere near as “slimy and slanderous” as FAHRENHEIT 9/11?

Opps, I forgot Bush bashing is exempt from the same considerations as Kerry bashing.

Fahrenheit 9/11 wasn’t broadcast on national tv. You didn’t have to go see it. TV has rules about equal air time, which John Kerry would not have been given by Sinclair.

“Fahrenheit 9/11 wasn’t broadcast on national tv. You didn’t have to go see it.”

Do you have to watch this? Take responsibility for yourself and avoid TV that night…

“Is it anywhere near as “slimy and slanderous” as FAHRENHEIT 9/11?”

It’s about equal. The key difference is that no Democrat-owned broadcast group insisted on broadcasting Fahrenheit 9/11 to all its markets, particularly those in swing states, in a blatant attempt to influence the election with an illegal use of public airwaves for partisan gain.

Almost as slimy as the Dan Rather story?

STOLEN HONOR - The Absurd Logic Of A Devious Smear Attack

We all heard about the plan of SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP to air a film accusing John Kerry of being responsible for the treatment of American POWs in Vietcong prisons and for the prolongation of the Vietnam War back in the early seventies.

This film is referring to John Kerry's testimony April 22, 1971 before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee where he recounted war testimonies of American soldiers who voluntarily told his group their stories because they wanted their experiences being made public for the sake of ending the War in Vietnam. Now 33 years later a new Veterans group is accusing John Kerry in 'Stolen Honor' of having betrayed some comrades when he summarized reports of other soldiers before the US senate. But these Vietnam veterans — as you easily can see from Kerry's statement - wanted their stories being told because they thought that the publication of their stories could contribute to end the war. John Kerry didn't pretend to speak for all veterans in 1971: "I don’t want to get into the game of saying I represent everybody over there".

The Los Angeles Times reported that SINCLAIR Broadcast group executives have already given about $ 65.000 to the Republican ticket. But the SINCLAIR Broadcast group executives think that they can do much better in showing the Anti-Kerry-film one week before the US election at prime time and just for political propaganda purposes. This is maybe illegal but Sinclair is classifying the film as “NEWS”.

So we should remember that back in 1971 the soldiers wanted to share their traumatic experiences when they came back from Vietnam and John Kerry helped these guys in overcoming their traumas when he reported their stories without naming their names. Not everybody back in 1971 had the privilege to avoid the draft entirely. Many young Americans had to be part of a brutal war and had to suffer from it. But that doesn't bother this Veterans group. Their accusation in ‘Stolen Honor’ claims that the Vietcong used Kerry’s recount of individual war stories to torture US-Soldiers.

College students may ask themselves if the Vietcong really did need the testimony of a young soldier to justify their actions in a war that had lasted already seven years? To say that John Kerry’s testimony - which had been indeed the testimony of hundreds of traumatized comrades — had made any difference for the POWs in a war with tens of thousands of American and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese casualties would imply that without Kerry’s testimony the POWs would have been treated differently. This is against all historical knowledge and totally absurd.

The cynicism of this argumentation becomes clearer when you compare it with the War in Iraq: When the captors of Kenneth Bigley put him in orange clothes and showed him in television it became clear for everybody that they wanted to imitate the American military's procedure in Guantanamo Bay - nobody could doubt this because this imitation was intentional. If someone now would argue that for the fate of Kenneth Bigley and the two other American hostages not the Iraqi terrorists are to be blamed (who had been emerging since the Iraq invasion) but the American press is responsible for that because it reported about Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib - it would be exactly the same argument, which the Veterans group uses in their Anti-Kerry film against John Kerry.

These veterans now suddenly remember that 33 years ago — exactly since April 22, 1971 - some English speaking Vietcong used their old practices of torture in reference to the testimony of a young American soldier they never had heard of before. And these veterans also suddenly remember that without the testimony of this young American soldier the fate of the other soldiers in Vietcong custody would have been totally different back in 1971. But why have these veterans, who newly rediscovered their memories, never testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 30 or 33 years ago? Are they cowards who can only find their voice with the help of a right wing film producer 33 years later?

And remember: There is a striking similarity to the present War in Iraq! The American media — FOX, ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, WB, UPN etc. — has shown pictures from Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. The media has also shown that Zarqawi did dress his hostages in orange suits, put them into caves and later beheaded them — each American citizen and many Iraqis have seen this on television. Now who is to be blamed for Zarkawi’s crimes? a) Zarqawi b) The American media who criticized earlier some procedures of the American military in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib?
The logic of the film 'Stolen Honor' would argue: the American journalists are to be blamed for Zarqawi's crimes and not Zarqawi himself because they reported about Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay!

Someone should expose that the veterans, who support the film 'Stolen Honor', use exactly the same argument when they claim that John Kerry was responsible for war crimes, which the Vietcong had committed after John Kerry had testified before the US Senate Committee in 1971.

These accusations against John Kerry in the film 'Stolen Honor' are not harmless; they are heinous and totally absurd.

Sincerely Gerhard Straehle