Reply #32: I think it could play either way, not automatically a bad thing [View All]

[A_Possum]

Remember how people cheered some of the Hollywood stars like Carol Burnett who finally sued The National Enquirer? (She won, too.)

It would have to come across as Kerry saying, on behalf of all American vets, I'm not gonna take people lying about what I and my crew did. I want the record straight. Because this defamation extends to his crewmen and Rassman too. The SBV's are claiming there was "no fire," while the records and the guys on Kerry's boat say there was.

Clearly, at the time, this was not a political matter, it was simply a Navy matter. Now, however, there's a huge reason why political opponents would wish to harm Kerry and bring advantage to themselves by defaming his record. That's critical and obvious. They have motive.

Seems to me that a lot hinges on whether the SWB's are actually saying that Kerry "lied" (fact) or if they are just saying they think he's unfit for command (opinion).

At best, the SVB's have their memories of an incident 30+ years ago to draw on, in which they were bystanders, and now have a suspect motivation. While Kerry has naval records and someone like Rassman who would be quite credible in saying he can remember if there were bullets aimed at him while he was in the water.

I don't think the "it's only drawing attention to the accusations" holds water as a reason not to sue. The attention will be there--the nature of the defamation assures that. Anyone who =didn't= respond directly, with factual vigor, appears as if they have no defense at all. Remember--ack, his name!--the congressman accused of murdering his girlfriend a year or so ago when she vanished, who tried to stay silent and was pilloried as guilty.

That's my opinion.