[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
Kerrry was performing acts of heroism under enemy fire and then lead the fight against a war that was destroying America while your hero was living the vida loca, dodging responsible duties. So before you accuse an American hero of being unfit for office, look at the mess your little cheerleader has gotten us into since he decided to become an adult.
As for Bush's lying, I am not limiting it his championing the reports of WMD that was his justification for going to war. The lies and arrogance are on display during all his campaign stops.
This film is propaganda pure and simple. Not that there is anything wrong with that other than it being aired on public airwaves. If Howard Stern and Janet Jackson are held to strict FCC rules, then so should this piece of crap. How telling is it that Sinclairs refuses to air a Nightline episode honoring the brave men who died in Iraq, but preempts regular programming for a smear campaign by the very man who put them in harm's way?
[/QUOTE]
Hey Seminole, sometimes the line between what is propoganda and what is news is a little blurry don't you think. What was Dan Rather's piece of cr*p story on Bush's National Guard service which used forged documents to "prove" the story's hypothesis?
John Kerry has a record of service to the country when he served time in Viet Nam. He also has a record of actions that he took after he came home from Viet Nam. As to those post-service actions, some in America (apparently you included) view them as heroic and patriotic. Other people find them to be at the other end of the spectrum bordering on treason or sedition. Unfortunately, the traditional news outlets have not really come forward with any "fair and balanced" documentary type piece which shows exactly what Kerry did and what Kerry said when he got back from Viet Nam. So far, that has been left to advertisement bought and paid for by groups like the Swift Boat guys.
Before this very important election, I think American voters ought to get a very clear sense and understanding of exactly what Kerry said and did when he got back from Viet Nam and then they can evaluate it for themselves. ** You should have no problem whatsoever with this unless you believe that what he said and did in those post Viet Nam war years would be viewed negatively by the majority of American voters and could lead to his defeat. **
If the Sinclair Group intends on accurately reporting what Kerry said and did and then showing interviews of ex-POWs and wives and children of ex-POWs who state their opinions about why Kerry's words and actions were treasonous and constituted sedition, then there should be an airing of counter-opinions by people who think those words and actions were heroic and patriotic.
Not only would I not object to Fareheit 911 being broadcast, I would welcome it ** provided that after each segment was aired that contained Moorer's bogus "facts", the film was interrupted and equal time was given to refute the allegations. **
My guess is that Kerry's supporters and insiders in the campaign are well aware that if the majority of voters actually knew what Kerry said and did after he got back from Viet Nam, they would view Kerry less favorably. They are not looking for fair and balanced equal time. They want to squash the facts. ** Indeed, I heard a Kerry spokesman make a very clear threat to improperly target the Sinclair Group with government regulators if they won the election. "They better hope we don't win" was the quote. THAT'S SHAMEFUL. **