Boy NARAL looks stupid...

[UDenver20]

Didn't some of us say that we should have picked our battles better....?

[Merlot]

1. Link?

[UDenver20]

36. here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1989132

[ElsewheresDaughter]

2. what point are you trying to convey?

[ibegurpard]

3. I don't know how "we" can expect anyone to go to the mat for "us"

when "we" pile on with the right wing to denounce anything anyone from the left says that could even be construed as controversial or questionable.
I think that some of "us" are not really with us.

[atreides1]

5. We have to be better.

NARAL was wrong, they failed to check all of the facts, and instead allowed emotion to rule their thinking.

If we want anyone to go to the "mat" then we have to tell the truth. Even if the truth doesn't agree with our view. That's something the other side won't do, because it would allow their followers the option to think for themselves.

Besides, when any organization uses half truths, they kill their own credibility as well as "ours".

[madfloridian]

8. They were not wrong.

.

[ibegurpard]

10. They will respond to the truth the same way

And I'm not even conceding that anything in the NARAL ad was untrue. Doesn't matter how careful you are, how truthful you are, how honest and earnest you are...they will make you out to be a liar, a traitor, a cheat, what have you.
Continue to pine away in your blissful little bubble. The world is falling apart around it.

[Eloriel]

55. Well said: THEY get to lie, we can't even criticize or tell the truth

and NO ONE ON OUR SIDE WILL DEFEND OTHERS ON OUR SIDE, which kinda means there isn't an "our side," just a sorry, cowed collection of self-serving elected DLC-type Dems and a few -- VERY few -- real Lights like John Conyers.

And of course a few citizen-leaders like Cindy Sheehan.

[MrBenchley]

12. Newsflash: WE ARE BETTER...

And that's why its all the more disgraceful to see people attacking NARAL for telling the truth...

From the Feminist Majority:
"At the time of the Bray case, violence was extensive at women’s health clinics across the country. Our sister organization, the Feminist Majority Foundation, trained thousands of clinic defenders to protect clinics, patients, and health care workers. An estimated 50% of clinics in 1993 were experiencing severe forms of violence including death threats, stalking, chemical attacks, arsons, bomb threats, invasions, and blockades.
Several of the individuals Roberts was arguing on behalf of were making dangerous statements at this time advocating violence. Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue and a named petitioner in the Bray case, told the Washington Post (3/13/89) that he does not criticize clinic bombers because he "believe in the use of force."
Around the time of the first hearing before the Supreme Court of the Bray v. Alexandria case, Michael and Jayne Brays’ public statements advocating violence against clinics and doctors were very extreme. In a Washington Post interview (12/3/91), Michael Bray said, "Is there a legitimate use of force on behalf of the unborn? I say yes, it is justified to destroy the facilities. And yes, it is justified to – what kind of word should I use?" Jayne Bray said, "Well, they use ‘terminate a pregnancy’." Michael Bray said, "Yeah, terminate an abortionist."
Michael Bray later signed a petition supporting "justifiable homicide" of abortion providers – and became the self-proclaimed "lifetime chaplain" of the Army of God, an extremist anti-abortion group that has claimed responsibility for acts of violence, including the 1998 Birmingham clinic bombing that killed an off-duty police officer and critically maimed a nurse."

Trying to pretend that it's somehow out of bounds for NARAL to mention who Judge Frenchfry stood up FOR and what they did later is bullshit. And it's certainly worth speculating that the 1997 bombing in 1998 might not have occurred if the GOP and Judge Frenchfry hadn't intervened in the bombers' behalf and had put them in jail where they belonged back in 1991.

[UDenver20]

39. No one is attacking them for telling the truth...

they're being attacked because of:

(1) the way they went about it
(2) their failure to be, as you put it "better"

Lesson: Its not what you say, its how you say it.

And people need to understand that we are ONLY GOING TO LOOK LIKE WHINEY LITTLE LIBERALS WHEN ALL WE DO IS BITCH ABOUT WHAT THE OTHER GROUP DOES...

Lesson: We need to pick our battles better.

[MrBenchley]

42. This is a battle worth fighting...

and it sure as shit does seem that they are being attacked because what they said was distorted by right wingers.

[sendero]

44. The only thing NARAL..

... did wrong was to pull the ad.

And THAT was a huge mistake. If you are going to put up an ad, decide beforehand whether you believe in it enough to stand by it.

Not after.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

19. factcheck.org is funded by rightwingnuts! Annenberg...give me an effing

break david!!! you are a stupid whore.....factcheck was the site that Gregory used to question the women from NARAL withh and he was WRONG to use it...he is suppose to be a journalistb HA!...even my 16 year old son knows that www.factcheck.org is biased and owned by wingnut Annenberg

[madfloridian]

25. I did not think Annenberg was right wing.

I may be wrong, but I don't think so. Fact check is very technical about being correct, but the spirit of the ad was right.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

26. read Walter H Annenbergs bio and you deside...he owned TV guide and

Triangle Publisher and was appointed ambassor the UK by Nixon

http://www.annenbergfoundation.org/about/about_show.htm?doc_id=210599

[ElsewheresDaughter]

31. remember when Cheney was pushing www.factcheck.org....i do and Soros jump

on it and created www.factcheck.com ....hehehe

[Lydia Leftcoast]

75. During the Reagan admin, Annenberg's TV Guide (TV Guide!) was

running articles claiming that the anti-nuclear buildup marches were all either Communists or Communist dupes. These articles had nothing to do with TV programs, by the way.

You bet Annenberg is a Republicanite.

[ElectroPrincess]

69. AMEN! Why to fundy freaks like Pat Roberson put ADDs that are OK?

Did you ever notice the FACT that "the Republican Noise Machine" presently sets our country's agenda?

We're (Democratic liberals) totally screwed = intellectually dumbed down and fed right wing talking points and propaganda unless or until we get control of the National Cable TV and Broadcast News Media.

[UDenver20]

38. Bingo-bango-bongo

You just hit the nail on the head.

[UDenver20]

35. You are correct...

I don't think everyone is n board with the idea of attacking anything the right says or anyone the right nominates.

Instead some of us believe that if we're ever going to regain the majority we need to start picking our battles better.

[guruoo]

59. It's killing us

Once a stand is taken, it's too late to back down.

[ElectroPrincess]

72. No the problem was that we FAILED to support NARAL and

They backed down. One thing in our American Culture that has been driven home is "once you take a stand, go all the way home, or die with it."

Don't back down with right wingers - ever! That and our lack of sacrifice to be team players will continue to screw liberals.

Only when masses of people are forced into poverty will we finally unite and swallow our pride to work for the good of the "common human being."

Until then, it's MY special interest above all else.

Yes, I despise the lock step of the right wing. However, if we want our civil rights and compassion back, we must fight for it and we must fight as a TEAM.

[atreides1]

4. This is the right battle

The problem was that NARAL tried to swat a fly with a hammer.

They should have had someone doing the fact checking, instead of just lashing out.

So it's not that this battle wasn't a good one, it was the weapons used to fight that were bad.

[guruoo]

6. But backing down made it look worse

[madfloridian]

7. Here are the "facts"....the ad is correct. I support NARAL

It is no different than what the right has been doing to us for years. They squeal like little piggies when they are called out. Here is the statement with 6 pages to download in pdf form.

Stop criticizing until you research...and tell Jon Stewart he hurt the cause badly on this one. He needs to pick his battles.

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/facts/roberts_extremists.cfm

[ibegurpard]

11. thank you.

It never fails to amaze me how many of "us" are ready to battle to the death against people who are fighting to protect OUR rights.

[bloom]

56. I just figured the ad must have touched a nerve

for it to get all the bad press it did.

Nobody should ever assume that NARAL or whatever liberal cause/organization the MSM attacks did anything "stupid". I never do. Anymore.

(Looks like the OP is a newbie - hasn't caught on yet. That's no excuse for anyone who is backing him up, though).

[jasmeel]

15. Al Franken went off on this also yesterday. It's quite irritating

when we start attacking each other.

[Teaser]

16. Who says this is John Stewarts cause?

His cause is to make his audience laugh. Stop assuming that it's more.

[madfloridian]

18. He said the ad was wrong.

Don't lecture me on this topic unless you are informed.

[jasmeel]

21. I was irritated by Stewarts rant last night as well. I know he's

not a newsman but he has shown the ability to investigate the issues and understand/explain them to his audience. He didn't seem to try to do that here. It was annoying.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

29. Interesting...

The basis for Stewart's comments last night was that Roberts' amicus curae was written in the early 1990's, before the clinic bombings in the late 1990's. From what I've seen, Bray's activities took place before Roberts' brief (in the middle 1980's). I've only seen the advertisement once (on TDS), so did the ad mistakenly give the chronological order wrong, or did Stewart and Franklin misunderstand?

[rinsd]

47. The ad conflates the later bombing with Robert brief....

...dealing with a different but violent anti-abortion group one of whose members was involved in bombings during the 80's but was not involved with the later bombing.

[classof56]

24. I'm with you. I found Rush's take on it particularly aggravating.

"This is PMS at work. This is a bunch of feminists on PMS having PMS and they're just deranged. They're hysterical....If a woman is on PMS, get her out of here, you know? Give her a couple-three days and I'll talk to her then."
-- Rush Limbaugh on NARAL ad re John Roberts

Not surprising, of course. Typical slimeball Rush. Thanks for the link, BTW.

Tired Old Cynic

[rinsd]

27. Sigh....

...this is so simple.

Roberts wrote a brief saying a law from the 1800's that was enacted to protect people from the Klan was not applicable in the case of blockading the clinics. The problem was the state already had a law but the state officials were overwhelmed in terms of manpower to enforce the law that is why a federal injuction was sought using that law as the basis. The Supreme agreed with Roberts and turned down the injuction 6-3. Congress later passed a law dealing with access.

The ad trots out the time old tale of smear by association.

If Roberts is a supporter of violent extemists because he filed this brief then the ACLU supports Nazis, Klansmen etc. It's a bunch of BS.

"It is no different than what the right has been doing to us for years"

So in other words this is your admission that the ad itself is misleading. And the excuse is republicans do it too?

And tactically it was stupid. The ad was so obviously misleading it was embarrasing and only served to help Roberts.

[Vinnie From Indy]

57. That's the way I see it!

n/t

[Eloriel]

54. Madfloridian, you are WONDERFUL, one of a kind

No one like you on DU -- unfortunately.

[Pepperbelly]

62. I don't know ...

I read through the pdf and I saw a lot of guilt by association and a thing or two that seemed fast and loose with the truth. For example, the main tie of Roberts to the case is his role in Bray as a deputy solicitor general. However, attention should be paid to the deputy part. The solicitor general during that time period was our old friend Ken Starr who, I suspect, was far more responsible for the policy than was Roberts.

Amicus briefs were FLYING in that case. I do not think this is as solid as others do.

[ClassWarrior]

9. Hmmm... another poster I've never seen before bashing Progressives...

Hmmm...

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

13. And why doesn't it surprise me that he/she/it starts this and disappears?

NGU.

[UDenver20]

40. You were saying?

[ClassWarrior]

51. Glad you showed up to respond to the "substance."

:rofl:

But at least you kept this pos kicked.

NGU.

[UDenver20]

41. That's it....

great point...

Posts by people who don't have "(1000+ posts)" next to their name don't mean as much.

Are you insinuating that I'm less of a Democrat/Liberal than somone who doesn't question what's going on? Gee - that sounds an awful lot like the repukes who question people's patriotism because they question our President.

[ClassWarrior]

50. You have to wonder about strangers who show up and break the rules.

Yeah, that's REAL Progressive. It's against the rules to call out someone's post count - even your own.

NGU.

[UDenver20]

61. ok...

You brought up the fact that I don't post all over the place.... not me...

>> another poster I've never seen before bashing Progressives...

If that's not what you meant then I apologize. But that's certainly how it looked (and still looks).

And... I'm not bashing progressives. I'm bashing people that don't know how to pick their battles. (Consider my post above a big, fat, "I told you so" to everyone who disagreed with those of us who said fighting Roberts would be a waste of political capital).

Besides, I don't think there's anything progressive about defending a woman's right to choose (which, by the way, I support). That was progressive several decades ago.

What would, on the other hand, be extremely progressive would be for the left to start getting strategic about regaining some power instead of just complaining about everything the right does.

[geek tragedy]

14. The ad served its purpose--it got people thinking this guy's nomination

is controversial instead of one that everybody is going to vote for.

[lynne]

45. I don't think it served the purpose that it intended -

- as it ended up putting the focus on NARAL instead of Roberts. Today's WP editorial was critical of NARAL because of the ad, not critical of Roberts because of his actions.

ABORTION SMEAR

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/11/AR2005081101603.html
Friday, August 12, 2005; Page A18

IN GENERAL, discussion of the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. to the Supreme Court has taken place on a civilized level. Democratic senators, by and large, have appropriately reserved judgment; disputes over documents, while pointed, have been polite. The ad released this week by NARAL Pro-Choice America is a distressing exception. Seizing on his role in a 1993 Supreme Court decision as a lawyer for the government, it graphically -- and wholly unfairly -- seeks to tar Judge Roberts with being an apologist for abortion clinic bombings.

<snip>

What really happened? The solicitor general's office filed a friend-of-the-court brief in 1991 in a case dealing with whether federal courts could use an 1871 civil rights law to prevent physical blockades of clinics by antiabortion protesters. One of the named defendants had earlier been convicted in connection with clinic bombings, but that was not the subject of the case. The administration's stance in the case and others like it was, while aggressive and controversial, not extreme or legally untenable. Indeed, it prevailed at the Supreme Court on a 6-to-3 vote. In no sense did the brief defend clinic violence, much less bombings. Indeed, Judge Roberts began his oral argument by describing the conduct of the protesters as "tortious" and emphasizing that it was illegal under state law. The question in the case was whether federal law at that time provided additional grounds for legal action. Arguing that it did not is not the same as excusing clinic bombings.

NARAL is certainly within its rights to disagree with the position the government took in the case. But the impression it creates with this ad is not an argument but a smear-- a smear that will do less to discredit Judge Roberts than it will the organization that created it.

[madfloridian]

17. Bray v Alexander

"In Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, then Principal Deputy Solicitor General, co-authored and submitted for the United States an amicus curiae brief, siding with the notorious anti-choice group Operation Rescue and some of the world’s most aggressive and violent anti-choice extremists, Michael Bray, Randall Terry, Patrick Mahoney, and others. In the amicus brief and during oral argument, John Roberts maintained that Operation Rescue’s unlawful behavior and “military-style tactics” used to block women from accessing reproductive-health clinics did not amount to discrimination against women and that a civil rights remedy was inappropriate."

He defended the tactics of Operation Rescue. That is pure fact. Someone needs to tell Al Franken and Jon Stewart to do their homework.
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/facts/roberts_extremists.cfm

6 pages of pdf files on the topic.

[jasmeel]

22. This information needs to be put out there-to Al Franken and the

progressive media. People do NOT understand this issue.

[rinsd]

28. BS...

His arguments was whether the law from late 1800's was applicable for the Fed to issue an injunction. His arguments was that instead of dsicrimination against women it was discrimination against those who were seeking abortions. It was not a defense of tactics.

BTW, the Supremes agreed. Later Congress go off their ass and enacted the clinic access laws.

[Igel]

30. How do you defend the tactics while calling them unlawful?

I can draw a distinction between defending the tactics, and arguing that a given law doesn't properly apply to the malefactors. It's not a tough distinction to make.

In fact, it's a very important distinction to make in many instances, and results frequently with lawyers arguing points making it *appear* that they're defending wrongdoing when they aren't.

Lawyers defend not only people, but principle and process.

Freepthink routinely hurls blurry accusation against civil rights lawyers that get people that probably did bad things off on technicalities: the law can't be applied a certain way, or allowing evidence into court on this case implies that evidence collected that way can be used later. It all boils down to precedent.

Claiming coincidence of outcome isn't sufficient to claim coincidence of motive.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

20. pot meet kettle?

[October]

23. Another "hit and run" type...what was this post about?

The post will sink unless the poster can dialogue...

[GoldenOldie]

32. A Progressive group who is unafraid to admit a mistake.

Don't ya just love it when the CON's go on the attack against a Liberal/group when they accept the responsiblity for a mistatement they may have made?

UNLIKE the CON and their leaders who will never, ever, admit a mistake or take any responsiblity for them.

We only have to look at 9/11, WMD, Plame Leak, Iraq/Afghanistan. Even when it has been proven they have lied and thousands have died because of their lies and mistakes, they wil not acknowledge any wrong doing.

Give me a Liberal/Progressive or an honest Republican who can admit that they have made mistakes and I will find a person/group of honor and integrity.

[Douglas Carpenter]

33. It is a good thing that the Democratic left does police itself

It is absolutely true that the Republicans run highly deceptive adds all the time.

It is absolutely true that the corporate media ignores it when its rightwing groups running deceptive adds but piles on like crazy when progressives once in while do the same thing that rightwingers do all the time.

It is a good thing that NARAL has admitted its error.

It is a good thing that progressives have a higher standard than our enemies.

That's part of being progressive

_______________________



A True Voice of Opposition
--A Voice for Working People
--Not the Elite--
http://www.bernie.org/issues.asp

[Dr Fate]

34. Unlike the media pukes who embraced the Swiftboat Liars.

That's the difference- we try to keep it honest.

[AtomicKitten]

63. sad

but true, and sometimes I wish "our side" wasn't so damn easy to manipulate with the browbeating. Just once I'd like to stoop to their level - and stay there for long enough to inflict some wicked damage.
Hopefully in the next presidential election.

[ibegurpard]

37. Yes.

Pat yourself on the back for holding people fighting for YOUR freedoms accountable while the right-wing goes unchallenged.

[Douglas Carpenter]

43. I think honesty is good..I think dishonesty is bad

The rightwing can only win but convincing people to believe lies. We can win by telling the truth. We don't have to lie to oppose Roberts, defend choice or any other progressive cause.
___________________________


Independent World Television is building the world’s first global independent news network. Online and on TV, IWTnews will deliver independent news and real debate from professional and citizen journalists -– without funding from governments, corporations or commercial advertising.

http://www.iwtnews.com/

[Eloriel]

58. Eggsackly. Too bad this isn't about safeguarding VIAGRA --

that'd likely get their attention and interest, wouldn't it?

Or, put another way: if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

[Yupster]

60. Does this post say anything besides

Hey everyone, watch me post something completely sexist.

Watch me make a joke about men. Aren't I a hoot?

Honestly, I don't know why completely sexist posts like this one are permitted.

[madfloridian]

73. Why not? We put up with ones toward us all the time.

There are many here who think it is fine for pharmacists to deny birth control. Go figure.

But boy, don't mess with their viagra.

[Yupster]

76. Sorry Floridian

Maybe it's just late, but I can't make a lick of sense out of your post?

Your saying that sexist posts are okay because of why?

Because some pharmacists don't want to distribute birth control?

And the proper way to fight that would be not with boycotts or letters to the corporations or pickets, but by telling anti-male jokes?

Well, I've got to say that you lost me.

Because all I see when I see the "If only men blah, blah, blah ..." comments is lame and ignorant sexism. And usually the sexists think they're actually being humorous.

[madfloridian]

77. Well, they want to regulate birth control...not a word about viagra.

I have not seen a word about any woman wanting to regulate vasectomies or viagra or such. Nothing. Nada.

Hey, not a joke, I am serious. Why do they get the nerve to regulate whether women can keep from getting pregnant because of someone else's "conscience."

I really do think it is time women started a campaign to get those pills better regulated for men.

[AngryAmish]

46. Cowards

Never back down even if the facts are wrong. It makes you look weak.

we have to crush them into dust.

[UDenver20]

67. Bulls-eye

It made them look even worse...

[union_maid]

48. It doesn't sound like it, but it's too much nuance again.

As counter-intuitive as that statement might seem, I think the whole thing was clear as mud and the ad was poorly conceived. It wasn't that NARAL was wrong. It was a bad ad. It gave the impression that they were distorting. You have to consider your audience when you create an ad. You can't just "do what the right does". You have to know that the right is going to challenge it and they're really, really good at speaking the language that their audience understands. To get NARAL's point, you'd have to take your understanding of the issue to yet another level. That's not going to happen.

When we hit them hard, it has to be with a simple blunt instrument. This was not that, and it backfired. We need to learn from it, not implode over it.

[madfloridian]

49. I think we should always have nice comfy ads.

Let them destroy our candidate with the Swiftboat ad with the help of the media.

But we need to be nice.

:sarcasm:

[Eloriel]

52. How dare you tell women what we should be concerned about

Sheesh. Where do you get off? NARAL has the right to protest and run ads about anything they damn well want to, whether other left-wing groups -- or DUers -- "approve" or agree it's a good strategy or not.

FYI, I didn't get miffed about your post til I read this:

Didn't some of us say that we should have picked our battles better....?

And FWIW, I don't think they look stupid at all. They look UNDEFENDED by the left. The right gets away with lie after lie, but in NARAL's case, not even honest errors get defended: the rightwing wins agaon. If you want to chalk that up to "not picking our battles" well enough, then that just demonstrates what the fuck is wrong with this party, AFAIC.

[madfloridian]

53. "Undefended by the Left"....yes, you are right.

It has been done before.

[UDenver20]

66. I dare because they do have the right to protest, and so do I....

NARAL does has the right to protest. You are correct.

Just because they can protest - desn't mean they should have come out with guns blazing without looking to either side or behind them to see if anyone was with them.

It also doesn't mean that they should contribute to the image that liberals are obstructionists. I don't think they meant to, but they should have been smart enough to realize that Faux News, CNN, Rush, Sean, Ann C, and O'Reily would do their best to group us all together. To a lot of people, we all look rediculous.

THEY HAVE ACTUALLY UNDERMINED BIGGER BATTLES.

I don't care whether they listened to those of us that said this was a waste of capital. You obviously don't. But don't be a hypocrit and then ask "how I dare" to say "I told you so."

They DO look stupid. They look rediculous. They look like a fringe-group that will do anything to maintain abortion's legality. They look like they don't have any follow-through because they pulled their ad when it got tough. As a result, there is (for right or for wrong) an impression that they don't fact-check (or worse, that they lie), which probably resulted from people asking "did they pull it because it was untrue?"

And, you're right - they also look undefended. Thank God we don't all have egg on or our faces. Thank God that some of us knew better than to go there.

Finally, if you support NARAL and its mission, perhaps you should support an effort to redefine its leadership and its decision-making process.

[madfloridian]

70. You really sound overly-offended at NARAL.

I mean it is really not just a little.

I do support their efforts, and as I see the party selling out women's rights to birth control and abortion.....I support them more.

I am ashamed of our party for letting it go so far as to let the Democrats for Life, Tim Roemer, Jim Wallis, Feminists for Life....all set percentages of what a women is worth.

How dare they.

This is one issue Howard Dean as chair is going to get truly bugged about. He is under great pressure, but he can stand up to it. I hope he does. The others in the "go along to get along" contingent have no intention of standing up for our rights.

[ElectroPrincess]

74. Here here ...

I like the way you think Eloriel. In fact, I'd enjoy being a member of your political TEAM.

It sucks people, but if you want to win, you must support your progressive brothers and sisters. Sure, I wish they would have framed it differently. But once they came out, I supported their underlying cause and WOULD not have disrespected them in front of any Republican.

However, the TRUTH is that the Right Wing is hiding its true agenda = an assault upon women of childbearing age. They want young girls and women to be forced into marriage, denied *all* forms of birth control, and basically KEPT home or as a member of a distinct underclass.

The above is the goal of those who foam at the mouth and spew all the BS of "killing babies in the womb." Most of them are old, bloated men who could not relate to women. Yes, true women-haters who want the societal big "get even." If you doubt my rationale, watch a pro-birth rally and note the biggest NUT-CASES are MEN.

If they do overturn Roe v. Wade, it will set womens civil rights back to the early 1900s. We must fight against right wing "head cases" like Roberts.

[McCamy Taylor]

64. Boy, do I so not care about UDenver20's Opinion of NARAL.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

68. makes 2 of us

[madfloridian]

71. Make that 3 who so do not care!

I do not care what they think.

[second edition]

65. Now the repubs are demanding that NARAL apologize to

Roberts. They won't let this go away either. It will be brought up again and again. The ad was bad, but it should have been left to run its course. Would Repubs pull something off the air and apologize? How about the Swift Boat Vets? Those ads were fraudulent and hurtful. Doesn't the media and the sponsors of these ads owe John Kerry and all of those who supported him an apology?