Watch "stolen Honor" Online

trj911 · trj911's Garage

WATCH STOLEN HONOR ONLINE

Click here

Warning: this movie is 42 minutes long
1. Turn on your speakers
2. Maximize the screen on your media player

The Kerry campaign is threatening the producers and Sinclair with lawsuits and boycotts to suppress this movie. This might be your only opportunity to see it

island911 · 10-23-2004, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by trj911
.. .
The Kerry campaign is threatening the producers and Sinclair with lawsuits and boycotts to suppress this movie. This might be your only opportunity to see it

Kerry wants to be POTUS, and he is now using legal intimidation (again) to squelch free speech. (he can't have anyone replaying Kerry movies from 1972)

Meanwhile, liberals are championing the guy, Kerry, as an alternative to the "facist Bush" . . .The POTUS who lets the slanderous F9/11 type crap proceed along unimpeded.

Kerry puts up legal blocks to prevent legal actions (Judicial Watch)from seeing his records, While Bush, who sign-off to let all his personal miltary records out, is call "secretive Bush"

---welcome to Bizzaro-World.

island911 · 10-23-2004, 12:11 PM

Excellent link, Tom.

These POW's are giving Kerry some timely payback, for his fabrications.

No one can watch that and then vote for Kerry.
Only complete US sell-out could.

bryanthompson · bryanthompson's Garage

I've got it downloading now, thanks for the link!

SteveStromberg · 10-23-2004, 12:21 PM

I am down loading it also. To bad I dont have Kevin Mitniks skills I would hack it on to Kerrys website.

350HP930 · 10-23-2004, 12:23 PM

Wow, 42 minutes?

You can know about everything you need to know about the treasonous actions of bush in just about 30 seconds.

http://easylink.playstream.com/ctsg/MediaFund/all_in_the_family_tmf_55_30_hires.wvx

cowtown · 10-23-2004, 12:41 PM

Thanks for the link, Tom. It's nice that supression of information is now impossible, no matter how much power/money you have. That goes for both sides.

trj911 · trj911's Garage

Why wasn't he tried for war crimes? He admitted doing them.

350HP930 · 10-23-2004, 06:31 PM

For the same reason bush and his predecessors haven't ever been tried. The US has made sure that our soldiers and their leaders are exempt from such charges.

When our side commits war crimes they are excused as 'isolated incidents', 'accidents' and 'collateral damage'.

fintstone · fintstone's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by 350HP930
For the same reason bush and his predecessors haven't ever been tried. The US has made sure that our soldiers and their leaders are exempt from such charges.
.....

Of course that is not true. Bush rightfully rejected giving a "World Court" made up of our enemies the right to judge our soldiers....

If you call for Bush to be tried for "war crimes" for Iraq...did you also call for Clinton to be tried for the same in Yugoslavia?

bryanthompson · bryanthompson's Garage

We punish our own soldiers. Take a look at the abu Garab guys, they're all goin' to jail, just as they should. We don't need a bunch of countries that don't like us anyway judging our people.

350HP930 · 10-23-2004, 06:54 PM

Yes, NATO leaders including clinton are just as guilty as bush for some of the acts they committed in yugoslavia.

And abu garab is still a whitewash that is slapping a few bottom dwellers on the wrist. When rummy and sanches come up on charges for allowing this to go on even after it was brought to their attention then maybe it will be a sign our government and military is trying to keep its own house clean but so far no luck.

Hell, even colin powel rose his way through the ranks by assisting the cover up of the mai lai massacre during the vietnam war.

RoninLB · 10-23-2004, 08:15 PM

the act of castrating Sinclair may lead to unintended consequences.

911pcars · 10-23-2004, 09:36 PM

Wait a minute. Sinclair promoted this programming as news. As such, they have an obligation to present both sides of a story, a mandate rescinded during the Reagan years. This is not a free speech issue where someone has a right to say what's on their mind. They wanted to use the public air waves to distort the difference between "news" and conjecture.

Did they really expect this event to be judged fair knowing Kerry would decline to be on a panel defending the allegations of this movie?

Sinclair, in ordering all it's subsidiaries to show the film, doesn't have a clue what it means to broadcast news.

MHO,
Sherwood

fintstone · fintstone's Garage

It is just as much "news" as what the national networks put on the air every night trying to help Kerry...maybe more so. As a group, they have refused to show the other side of this issue, yet have not hesitated to report any conjecture (as fact) that might hurt Bush or our nation. If the networks had been fair in their coverage.....this information would not have to be viewed in this fashion. Everyone would already be informed and be able to make an informed decision. Currently all they get is Kerry's side.

island911 · 10-23-2004, 10:46 PM

Really Sherwood, that is laughable. .. .News!? .. that is what your going with?

First, it happened 30+ years ago. That makes it history. (not news)

Second; how can you argue that our "news environment" has been remotely close to telling both sides? Ra^ther is just the tip of the propaganda iceberg being passed off as news.

Third; this piece is about setting straight a distorted record.

dd74 · 10-24-2004, 01:41 AM

Sherwood and Fintstone is completely correct in this case. Sinclair is a news industry, and set this up as a documentary; vis-a-vis news that does a 180 on what is believed to be the liberal viewpoint. Sinclair, however, did what Michael Moore did not need to do, which was bend to corporate pressures - IOW - Burger King, et al. That is why the ROW is seeing a watered-down version of what they intended to broadcast. In my opinion, if I were Sinclair and feared corporate advertising pull out, but felt resolved to my anti-Kerry broadcast, I'd pull the plug entirely. Watered-down, in short, plays like "watered down."

Also, IMHO, I would take "Stolen Honor" with no more credence than I would F9/11. Both suffer conjecture and partisanship. In other words, no record is set straight that cannot be altered once again by the opposing side.

All "Stolen Honor" is tit-for-tat crap.

YMMV, of course.

CarreraS2 · 10-24-2004, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dd74

Also, IMHO, I would take "Stolen Honor" with no more credence than I would F9/11. Both suffer conjecture and partisanship. In other words, no record is set straight that cannot be altered once again by the opposing side.

All "Stolen Honor" is tit-for-tat crap.

YMMV, of course.

True, there is a lot of room for partisanship when presenting history.

But, a lot of what Kerry did and said, and who he met with, during that time is beyond dispute.

Anyways, is there really anything in Kerry's past that shows that he is anything other than a cut-rate opportunist?

350HP930 · 10-24-2004, 08:20 AM

Well, it appears kerry's actions were in the interest of stopping a war that was killing thousands of americans and millions of vietnamese.

Is that now defined as opportunism? I guess only to those who want to cast everything the man has done as suspect.

I guess if someone can point out to how bush remaining cozy with the saudis to the point of protecting them from scrutiny even after 9/11 is not opportunism then by the relative view of candidate A vs candidate B it still appears that kerry is way ahead of bush as far as character and ethics are concerned.

fintstone · fintstone's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by 350HP930
Well, it appears kerry's actions were in the interest of stopping a war that was killing thousands of americans and millions of vietnamese.

Is that now defined as opportunism? I guess only to those who want to cast everything the man has done as suspect.

I guess if someone can point out to how bush remaining cozy with the saudis to the point of protecting them from scrutiny even after 9/11 is not opportunism then by the relative view of candidate A vs candidate B it still appears that kerry is way ahead of bush as far as character and ethics are concerned.

The difference is:
Kerry was against the war and spoke out against it before:

Joining the Navy-If ethics were involved, would he have not gone to Canada or been a Consciencous Objector?

Before killing a badly injured vietnamese teenager execution style, then putting himself in for a medal for the act

Before recreating battles and making home movies of himself as a hero in the battle...regardless of what he actually did in the battle

Lying about the circumstances of a minor injury that resulted in his first purple heart...then resubmitting it after it was turned down to bypass the leaders who knew the truth.

Returning early and lying before Congress regarding his service and that of other soldiers who served honorably

Throwing away someones? medals and lied about it

Met with the leadership of the enemy and then represented their views to Congress

Trashed an entire generation of military veterans

Lied about his service...making it a central theme of his campaign.

Yep...proclaiming oneself a war hero in a war he was against before joining the military to fight...and against after fighting in that war....certainly seem opportunistic to me....Kinda like Madonna doing another "Like a Virgin" tour.