Vets drop suit over anti-Kerry film

Associated Press ^ | 07/18/06 | MARYCLAIRE DALE

[presidio9]

Three Vietnam War veterans who sued over a documentary about Sen. John Kerry's anti-war activities have dropped their lawsuits, leaving just one court fight pending over the 2004 film.

Filmmaker Carlton Sherwood says the withdrawal of the lawsuits shows they were frivolous complaints filed by Kerry operatives to try to block the film's release in the final weeks of the presidential race.

"We've always believed that Kerry controlled these lawsuits," Sherwood said Monday.

The 42-minute film, "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," charges that Kerry's actions as an anti-war activist after his tour in Vietnam harmed American POWs. It also questions the veracity of reports by some veterans about U.S. atrocities.

Sherwood continues to press his defamation suit against Kerry and campaign aide John Podesta, which charges they conspired to block the film's release by labeling him a "disgraced journalist" and "Bush hack." The Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. canceled plans to air the full documentary on its stations before the November 2004 election.

Lawyers for Kerry and Podesta have asked a judge to toss Sherwood's suit, arguing their actions were protected political speech.

One of the veterans who dropped his suit against Sherwood said depositions in the case threatened to take an unfair toll on family and friends. Kenneth Campbell, a University of Delaware professor who has taught a course on the Vietnam War, said he still believes the film maligns him.

"They used my image and voice from an old film to go after Kerry. I thought they painted me as a fraud," Campbell said.

Two other veterans also dropped their lawsuits, according to Sherwood's lawyer, Robert C. Clothier. The Legal Intelligencer of Philadelphia first reported that the suits had been withdrawn.

[newcthem]

MSM TRANSLATION: These were Kerry political operatives, not vetrans.

[Jameison]

"We've always believed that Kerry controlled these lawsuits,"

And the last thing Hanoi John Kerry wants, is his conduct in Vietnam examined in court, and the light of public scrutiny shone on his nefarious activities in Vietnam.

[oyez]

Whatever. Lt Kerry is a painfull figure in American history, IMHO.

[Bommer]

v they conspired to block the film's release by labeling him a "disgraced journalist" and "Bush hack." ....Lawyers for Kerry and Podesta have asked a judge to toss Sherwood's suit, arguing their actions were protected political speech

Since when is slander considered "protected political speech?"

[Bigg Red]

Sherwood continues to press his defamation suit against Kerry and campaign aide John Podesta,...

***
Good!

[AdvisorB]

The last thing I want is my Vietnam conduct scrutinized period. Nefarious isn't the half of it, but you'll never know because I'm only releasing my shameful conduct to my friends in the leftist media and my fellow-travelling biographer.

[XR7]

[greccogirl]

DID kerry EVER sign the 180? The moonbats insist he did.

[Inwoodian]

Okay. When will someone in the media will bring up to Kerry his strong armed unconstitutional attempts to muzzle there honorable veterans? Oh, that'll be around the time he's grilled about his refusal to publish his service record? I see.

[weegee]

At least not until 2009.

[weegee]

Depends on what you definition of "signed" is.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05/24/the_caveat_emperor/

He never said he'd mail in the request.

[weegee]

Wait! Kerry was in Vietnam? Why wasn't this ever brought up during the campaign?

[AdvisorB]

"DID kerry EVER sign the 180? The moonbats insist he did."

Well, he was for signing it before he was against it.

He supposedly signed the form 180 but, he directed the file to his leftist reporter buddy on the Globe, and his biographer, that disgracefull weasal down in New Orleans,
doug brinkley. So for all practical purposes he pulled a sKerry, he can claim one thing while having actually done something else.

I'm just sick of this dishonest dirtbag.

[ImpBill]

You're being way to kind to the treasonous, lying SOB, who not only disgraced himself, but lied in the attempt to disgrace all Vets who served honorably.

[oyez]

Damnfino.

[Jameison]

LOL!

[greccogirl]

So the records were never made public?

[chuckles]

We have public records now. We know for a fact that he joined in 1966. We know for a fact he was discharged in 1978. What we don't know is why he wasn't honorably discharged in 1972 when his enlistment was up. We know for a fact President Carter forgave all the traitors in 1978. We just don't know for a fact Kerry was one of them. We know for a fact Kerry went to give aid and comfort to the N. Vietnamese and sell out his own country. We also know for a fact he belonged to an organization that voted to kill 7 American Senators. We know for a fact that he was there at the meeting the vote took place. We don't know how he voted and we don't know how long after that vote he deny's he was a member of the VVAW. I think I would have trouble getting elected to public office if I was a founding member of the KKK, but denied having ever lynched anyone. He was a founder of a pro communist, anti American organization that voted to kill Senators. He denies being a member at that time. FBI surveillance says otherwise. We also don't know the extent of the "wounds" he received in order to get his Purple Hearts and how he qualified for them. That info is in dispute.

I think a simple yes or no answer would solve many doubts if he would just answer the question if he was less than honorably discharged in 1972. If he was, all the rest of his persona, is a sham and a lie.