And We Got It!
The makers of the John Kerry documentary “Stolen Honor” were having such a difficult time getting it on the air due to threats of legal action and so much more that they have made it available to all of us on the web FREE of charge.
I just finished viewing it and it is a must see. To view the documentary click HERE
Articles of Interest:
Stolen Honor
More Stolen Honor
FCC Won’t Block Doc
Even More Stolen Honor
I linked to this spot on my blog. It’s important that people see this. Good work!~Cao
And this is what some people want to put in the White House. And they have the temerity to call Bush a liar.
Thanks, Reilly — just in the process of downloading it as we speak. I hope even more people get to see this than would have initially, and I think that, in a way, since this will hopefully be more accessible to more people who might not have initially gotten the Sinclair channels in question, the legal action threats made by Kerry and Company will have ironically helped, rather than hindered, the distribution.
I hope you’re right, AG. This needs to get around.
It looks like the usial socialists are trying to keep the truth from comming out and they like always use their socialist lawyers to get what they want its a outrage these left-wing socialsits should be exposed to the public time to expose these cockroaches to the light of public critisizm
Is the whole point here to somehow prove Kerry is a liar and that US troops did not commit atrocities?
I will have to remember to keep an eye on the far left bank of the mainstream for reaction to this one.
When Moore came out with F-9/11 the far right bank of the main stream tried to close ranks and refuse to even watch it. (Right)WingNuts like Sean Hannity and Michael Savage spent hours and hours or radio time virtually begging people not to watch it.
It will be interesting to see if the left, and folks like Franken & Rhodes, try and engage in the same tactics.
As for me…. I’m downloading as I type.
No dg ,the point is to show kerry’s character, or should I say lack of it!!
I know a guy who was in “the Nam” as he calls it. He hates the US government for lying about that war. But he is a crazy fucker.
He said it wasn’t nothing to collect the congs ears. “They were killing us!”
He also said he paid for a 12 year old hooker. When the father offered him an older sister, he demanded the 12 year old. The starving father complied and “it was good.”
For you guys that think US soldiers did not commit atrocities, talk to a Vietnam vet.
The soldier cannot be held solely responsible when they were trained by the US military to kill and survive, search and destroy, and to win hearts and minds. These conflicting realities compounded with the horror and fear of dying in the jungle played on the psycology of a young soldier.
Kerry helped bring these truths out into the open to disprove the Government’s claim as to what was really going on in Vietnam.
Ask yourself this: 58,000+ American soldiers killed in Vietnam — for what?
…and Bush is doing it all over again in Iraq!
Well, I watched it – as I just mentioned on >#mixedwingnuts just now:
My review will be posted on stageleft by the end of the day.
Watched the first part of it, and while I can’t judge the whole thing yet, this is the worst piece of journalism I’ve ever seen. At least Michael Moore did not call his movie “journalism”. I’ll post a review on my blog in a bit
dg, you are so blinded by your hate for Bush you blame him for everything.
Was there atrocities committed in Nam? Yes, its’ been proven, as I’m sure there was in other wars.Was it committed on a wide scale? NO! I also personelly knew a Nam vet. He was also Fucked up from it, not because he committed crimes but because of drugs mostly. He never got straightened out and died young. A lot of soldiers in Vietnam didn’t want to be there because of how they were looked down on and spit on in this country. Many were drafted and didn’t want to be there but had to be.
Many Vietnam Vets did their jobs honorably even though it was very unpopular back home mainly because of the press and people like kerry.
kerry didn’t bring the “truth” out in the open to disprove the Government, he did it to be in the spot light to further his agenda.
What truth was he bringing out when he meet with the enemy while still an officer?
58000+ died for what? I’ll tell you what,they died trying to stop communism and would have if not for the press and people like john fucking kerry. The North Vietnamese said so. He’s a hero to them.
I have a brave young man currently deployed to Iraq. He’s like a son to me. He’s been there since Feb, he’s doing his job because it has to be done. That’s it, but how do you, you pompous ass, think he feels when your man exclaims WRONG WAR AT THE WRONG PLACE AT THE WRONG TIME??? Then claims to support the troops, HA! He only supports himself.
Geo
It IS the wrong war at the wrong time!
How does this brave young man like the fact that he was told he was going to war to disarm Iraq only for there to be no WMD?
How does this young man feel that Bush admin. officials made every effort to support the unfounded claim that Saddam was tied to al-Qaeda, only to be proven false?
How does this young man feel about his Commander-In-Cheif grandstanding on a Carrier in a flight suit claiming “major combat operations in Iraq have ended…” while US soldier were still being killed in Iraq?
Does this brave young man feel like a liberator in Iraq? Do the Iraqi’s see him as a liberator?
Doese this brave young man know who the enemy is in Iraq?
Bush says things are getting better in Iraq? How does this brave young man feel about the situation in Iraq?
dg – you are so filled with hate toward Bush that you could not understand an active duty military members respect for him or the pride they take in doing their job.
Wow – How could anyone vote for Kerry after this – one has to wonder why anyone is really voting for this traitor…..
I am 74 and remember WW2 and the Vietnam War very well – I remember the public treated the vets in a dispicable way – I could never understand why, but after this I see a small reason.
I was brought up by a great Republican lawyer father who was in WW1 – we all loved our military, and I still do.
One has to wonder why John Kerry has still NOT signed the standard form 180 to release all of his medical records – George Bush did.
Well Reilly,
my brother, who was a Srgt. in Dessrt Storm, told me that the miltary was to protect democracy — not practice it.
That says something, now doesn’t it?
George W. Bush, 1994:
“I supported my government during Vietnam. But I either had to go to Canada or let off a shotgun next to my ear, or go into the Texas Guard.”
Where is your outrage over Bush, a non-pilot at the time, getting into the Air National Guard in 1968, a near impossibility for a non-connected kid?
Many Vietnam vets did serve honorably. But most anti-war people never blamed the troops for the war (regardless of the spitting on troops upon return), they were against Johnson and then Nixon for their intervention in a Vietnamese civil war. As for Geo’s tirade, the Vietnam experience began, in earnest, with Kennedy’s attack on South Vietnam to root out insurgents who supported the north, without direct Northern involvement. Millions of lives later, in 1975, three countries were communist. Many historians argue that it was American intervention that allowed this to happen. It was not Kerry or the “media” (who from 1962-1968 were strongly on the side of the army) that lost the war. It was the ill-advised nature of the war, and the willingness of the North Vietnamese, Kymer Rouge, and Pathet Lao yto take horrendous casualties in their cause. No American effort would have won the war, without bringing in direct Chinese or Soviet retaliation. John Kerry’s testimony is edited in this movie. The journalist, a Pulitzer winner in the past, should be ashamed of this partisan tripe.
dg, this brave young man doesn’t second guess his commanders or his Commander in Chief. He knows it’s not his job to do that. He also knows he’s making a difference. Yes it’s difficult but tell me a war that wasn’t.
dg, answere me a question please, What would you do to fight the war on terror?
dg, tell me something else. How do you feel about your man kerry not supporting Desert Storm?
A war the UN sanctioned!!!
dg – - why are you so afraid of the spread of democracy and liberty?
First, I would NOT have gone into Iraq. I would have increased troop support in Afgahnistan and focused on that hven for terrorists.
Osam bin Laden would have been a priority, not an oil pipeline through afgahnistan and pakistan.
I heard the miltary question the hell outta Clinton, so don’t feed me that shit.
I don’t know why Kerry voted against it. Maybe he didn’t trust daddy Bush, I sure didn’t.
Burt as you pointed out, even Bush’s father said the world past the test!
What did that mean?
This film, without compunction, is the most manipulative, politically interested piece of propaganda I’ve ever seen. The music is forboding, only one view is served (making it not, by definition, journalism – at least Moore interveiwed people who did not directly serve his political purposes), and outright lies and exagerrations are presented without comment. Sherwood, by association, compares Kerry’s anti-war advocacy to doctors withholding food from patients. But specifically,
1. Kerry was not a “singular voice” in 1971.
2. The anti-war movement was not “waning” in 1971, the elimination of the draft did that in 1972.
3. Kerry’s comments were edited in audio and textual form.
4. The film does not admit any of the well documented war crimes committed by United States forces in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos (2 of which are still killing people – the use of Agent Orange, and the dropping of millions of unmarked mines from the air *the US is the only country to deploy mines without charts, as it did in Cambodia, killing 30,000 people in that country since 1980 alone.)It only admits that My Lai happened. How objective.
5. Vietnamese torture of American POW’s is well documented. This film breaks no ground there. Vietnam, after all, was not a signatory of Geneva.
I have one message for Carlton Sherwood and those who accept the message of this movie – I know that you are sore about public and Congressional condemnation of America’s war in South East Asia in the early 1970′s. But argue honestly. Include 1 person that disagrees with you.
Let’s flip this.
2009: A Jordanian documentary airs, accusing Americans of atrocities in Guantanamo in great detail. Only those detained are interviewed. The documentary attacks the King of Jordan for being a moderate voice in the war on terror at the time, siding with the Americans against Al-Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents.
Finally – I would like someone to defend this movie as a piece of journalism. Let’s go.
Reilly
I don’t mind the spread of democracy or liberty. But neither can be imposed by force on a nation. That is completely parodoxical to democracy and liberty.
You can’t see that?
So dg, you are one of those people that believe the war on terror ends with the capture of OBL.I personelly think that a democratic Iraq hinders the terrorists because it gives them one less safe heaven to operate from. President Bush said if you harbored or give aid to the terrorists you are also a terrorist(not verbatum). Iraq was, even though you will never agree.
It is very confusing to try to understand kerry on the first gulf war though. He had his precious UN authority to knock saddam out of Kuwait. He had his precious multilateral coalition. Yet still no go on his part. Not much leadership if you ask me.
How would increasing troops in Afghanistan have helped. I think the Afghan war was very productive the way it was. Have you read General Tommy Franks book, American Soldier? Maybe you should.
I agree completely with the idea of spreading the hope of freedom and democracy, like President Bush, and that will do a lot to win the war on terror. Do you?
No takers? I wouldn’t want to defend this “journalism” either, that uses emotional POW testimony as a crutch for its own argumentative shortcomings. You guys cannot defend a documentary that only represents one point of view – indeed only interviews one type of POW? This is a cynical, manipulative film that serves as the disappointingly inept fruit of a personal crusade. This will backfire with most of the nation. And Sherwood should lose his Pulitzer. Not because of his politics, but because of his violently cynical assault upon journalism. Rather has been roundly criticised. But his piece, forged documents or not, was eminently more respectable than this diatribe. I ask that you condemn this movie as dirty journalism, or at least address it’s grossly unfair character (remember – Moore never called his film “journalism”). And releasing it for free over the internet – a perfect way to circumvent McCain-Feingold. I look forward to someone’s defense of this embarrasing, childish vendetta game of a “documentary”.
Sandy, I can’t comment on Stolen Honor, but moore called his film a documentary. Was it?
If the demopcratic party wasn’t pulling out all the stops, by threatening lawsuits, to keep Stolen Honor from the public it wouldn’t have to be shown on line.
Do you have a problem with freedom of speech? As soon as my copy comes and I have a chance to watch it then I’ll respond to your other observations about the “documentary”.
A link to the film is on this site, Geo. Moore called his film a “documentary”, as it is. This film is also a documentary. But “journalism”, as Sinclair called it last week, it is not. Actually, today’s stories reflect the GOP sending of a team of lawyers to swing states to contest votes:
http://www.slate.com/id/2108608/
I have no problem with freedom of speech. But I do have a problem with “Stolen Honour” being described as “journalism”, or honest. In an interview with Democracy Now last week(www.democracynow.org), the vice president of Sinclair defended the film as journalism and the filmaker as a Pulitzer winner. I can not speak for Sherwood’s earlier work, but this is shoddily done. And I am no Michael Moore fan, by the way. Yet this film doesn’t even stand up to his shoddy example. For those of you who know McCain Feingold inside out (which I don’t), can someone answer as to whether “Stolen Honour”, as it only interviews one side of an important issue, can be sold 10 days before an election?
Sandy, again I’ll hold judgment untill I see it.
You do know the DNC is massing large numbers of lawyers also.
Of course. Bush sued first in 2000 to stop th recount. A shining example of the power of litigation. If this election is a mess again, it is not going to be the fault of only 1 party. I await your analysis of “Stolen Honour”, as do I anyone else who frequent this site of a conservative persuasion.
Best
I am old enough to remember that a lot of these things really happened. Kerry is NOT a hero – in fact, he did so much to hurt the Viet Nam vets and surely is to blame for a lot of the animosity that many Americans showed to these brave men and women.
Kcourt,
Wrong. You are disingenously branding Kerry for speaking to Congress only because he is a Democratic candidate, as is “Stolen Honour”. I can’t speak to Kerry being a hero, but I have a question for you to answer, if you would be so kind. Are Morley Safer, Walter Cronkite, and Seymour Hersh traitors for their negative coverage of Vietnam? Was Vietnam worthy of no dissent, and should the American people been subject to the kind of deceptive reporting that concealed the horrors of war and America’s war aims?
The irony of these Kerry attacks is that Republicans have been inflating his importance and highlighting his address before Congress in 1971, while their own candidate had no accomplishments before 1994, and indeed lived in an alcoholic haze well into his father’s Vice Presidency. Vietnam vets do not deserve our animosity. Generals and politicians who served at that time do, however. “Stolen Honour” misrepresents Kerry’s aims. He was critiquing policies such as free-fire zones, the destruction of villages SUSPECTED of harbouring NVA and Vietcong and the aerial bombardment of civilan areas. The documentary only highlights his forwarding of info brought forth during the Winter Soldier hearings, and makes it seems like he was attacking veterans. That’s dishonest. And its the worst in journalism, something that would have been laughed off of tv sets in the 1960′s.
The irony of these Kerry attacks is that Republicans have been inflating his importance and highlighting his address before Congress in 1971, while their own candidate had no accomplishments before 1994,
no kerry was doing all the inflating, HE brought Nam up not the right, he started the mess and now people attack the right for going after an issue he brought up, the reason people are not worried on the right about Bush 30 years ago is because..no cares a whoel lot abotu 30 years ago but kerry.
but if he wants to bring it up and inflate his importance and try to be the big war hero..i say he needs to be attacked on that issue.
it would be irony is the right had started in on Nam and made it an issue first while ignoring Bush 30 years ago…but it’s not.
Kerry brought up his service, not his anti-war activities, wallywest80. Obviously your statement “noone cares about 30 years ago except for Kerry” is not true. Sinclair cares, the administrators of this Blog care. And the fact that Kerry started talking about Vietnam does not justify “Stolen Honor”‘s blatant disregard for journalistic decency. But it is in good company:
The new Bush ad, also – the one with the wolves (http://www.georgewbush.com/News/MultiMedia/Player.aspx?ID=1102&T=5&PT), is also a lie. 6 billion dollars in intelligence cuts voted by Kerry? Actually he voted to reduce the budget of a specific department that was embroiled in scandal. The cuts amounted to money the department had extorted from the government over a cancelled satelitte program. And the bill was sponsored by Arlen Spector, that paragon of liberalism.
http://www.slate.com/id/2108598/
Kerry brought up his service, not his anti-war activities, wallywest80
um it all goes together. how damn hard is that to understand? it’s like “i was a super major uber great spectacular war hero..please only look at those couple of months!!!”, and of course what he did when he came home is PART of that time period..unless your a lefty it seems, but i’m not buying it, so please don’t insult my.
as they said in the godfather
“Don’t tell me you’re innocent. Because it insults my intelligence and makes me very angry”.
and of course NOW we care, after kerry made it an issue and tried running on that time perdiod, even clinton told him to shut the hell up about it, and he still can’t, don’t try and fool me sandy.
also what has the ads to do with kerry’s war era record? sure it’s a good way to derail the debate beyond the losing argumen you have, and you hope we start talking about it and not look at the kerry point any more, but your don’t fool me one damn bit, the left does this all the time, i mean look how many tiems DG will post some unralted thing about bush so people will ignore what has kerry has just done.
Homeie don’t play that…
wow from godfather to in living in color in one post!
Maybe someone said this, I didn’t read all the posts. I just want to point out that those who think we should have put in more troops in Afghanistan and left Iraq alone because bin Laden was in Afghanistan – lack brains.
Those people (dg is one) need to realize that the border of Afghanistan can be walked across quite easily and that is what has been happening. That’s why we were trying so hard to get Pakistan to let near the borders on their side (but they never agreed). In short, nailing Iraq removes another safe haven, supporter and funder of terrorism.
Kerry wants to go after bin Laden. Bush wants to go after the big picture of terrorism. That makes Bush the only true President available for this election.
My late husband was a Viet Nam vet and he was an honorable man who never committed atrocities. The myth dies hard. The bad stuff is easier to believe and these idiots who think they know Vets who are a mess, apparently never met an honorable vet who served his country and is ashamed to say anything about VietNam because of the stigma. My brother in law was in special forces and there is a book written about him and his company. Yet he never brags or talks about it, he is just a silent hero, unlike John F–ing Kerry, who has emerged the only hero out of Vietnam what a joke! Vote for him you liberal anti-war idiots and see what a coward he is in the face of terrorism. I hope you don’t reside in one of those big cities that typically vote Democratic, because you cowards will be the first to go!!! Bon Voyage!
6: DG, you’re quite capable of dishing it out where Bush is concerned. I would assume you would be just as capable of taking it where Kerry is concerned, especially in the name of free thought and the pursuit of the truth.
Bye the way Lib’s John F Kerry entered the Naval RESERVES, not the NAVY, THE NAVY RESERVES, check your stats. So those of you who claim Bush enlisted in the Reserves need step back and eat some crow. He was in the Reserves and he just happened to be deployed. Read UnFit for Command.
38: Wait a minute now.
Should this in fact be true, considering the scuttlebutt about George Bush being in the National Reserve not qualifying as true military experience, shouldn’t Kerry not be considered a true military man, being a mere Reserves man?
Thus, wouldn’t this be a good time for the “Bush wasn’t a real military guy”-people to eat their own share of crow?
It is true American Girl— Read Unfit for Command they mention it about 10 times.
Sorry, Kathy…guess I misunderstood to whom you were making your point.
Pretty good catch! 
I do have the book. I’m trying to finish up Ann Coulter once and for all before I get to it. It may be after the elections by that point, but I guess that old saying, “Better late than never,” applies in spades.
Theres someone in our town who has a sign in their buisness window reading CHRISTIANS FOR KERRY how can any christian support a person who is a proabortionist and a supporter of the radical gay agenda they sure are not christains and they should be excommunicated from the christain faith forever.:mad: And those who oppse the antikerry film are the usial brownshirts that hitler would have:cool:
Am. Girl, that book is very disturbing, I can hardly sleep thinking this liberal communist could win this with his dirty tricks and scare tactics. Imagine saying in a Black Baptist Church that the Republicans blocked one million blacks from voting in 2000!!!! It is insane, what did we use Tanks at the polling places. And how could these people believe this, how gullible can they be?? And that the seniors will lose 45% of their social security. Or sending out fake draft cards to teenagers and Michael Moran giving out free underware for thier votes and colleges. The irony is 2 Demoncrats proposed the Draft bill and 100% of Republicans voted it down? Are people just stupid or uniformed. I am really worried. It is so easy to find out the facts with the internet. A Democrat strategist said on one of the 24 hour news shows that if Kerry loses they have thousands of lawyers standing by ready to sue!!! It boggles the mind what Gore has done involving the courts in the election process. If we lose the Whitehouse we may never get it back!!!
This was a a good documentary. It presented another side of the man that would like to be the POTUS, using the very foundation of his conventions platform. He is John Kerry and he is reporting for duty. He brought this to the forefront, but doesn’t seem to think there is another side.
I liked the fact that they used first hand accounts of what the people saw. I do wish that John Kerry would have been allowed to speak about this. I would be interested to hear what he has to say.
The content is not too far off what I have studied.
Jane apologized for her actions, I think it about time for John to do the same.
Comment to Sandy re: Walter Cronkite – I fault these MSM guys but they did not appear before congress telling of atrocities.
They did their part by yellow journalism and I don’t condone their actions, but it is a different thing.
Kerry is a nominee for President, not a newsman.
44: I agree, Peejz; I finally finished the entire documentary, and I think it was a very chilling, powerful, thought-provoking account of the men and their families. It chills me to the bone what these poor men, who went to war believing in and willing to die for their country, would go through, how much more suffering, should such a back-stabber be elected president.
FWIW, Peejz, I don’t think Kerry needs to say a thing. His multiple lawsuit attempts in the face of all this speak volumes.
I suppose I should at least give Kerry credit for not taking the “I did not inhale”-approach.
Kathy, it’s good men like your husband that skerry dishonors and the left seems to think kerry is the hero for speaking out against the war. Don’t forget they think— kerry trashing fellow soldiers good— Good honorable men like your husband bad.
It’s men like your husband that make me a proud American and it’s a shame that scum like kerry dishonor them.
Kerry is a nominee for President, not a newsman.
very true, the left likes to say “well what about (insert random person here)?”, and i’m always “well who is running for president?”, you can bring up soem other sentaor or newsman that did something, and while that is bad, and should be addressed later..right now the guy running for president is the important one to go after before it’s too late.