And Usually These Two-Years-After-the-Fact Lawsuits Are So Honest…

A lawsuit against Michael Moore, filed by Sgt. Peter Damon, is getting the expected banner headlines on Drudge and chatter in the blogosphere. Sgt. Damon argues that Moore selectively edited an interview Damon gave to NBC News, making it look like 1)Moore had talked to Damon and 2)Damon opposed the Iraq war. For this, Damon wants $75 million in reparations, and his wife wants an additional $10 million for emotional damages. But there's an interesting wrinkle. It seems that Damon backed up Sen. Ted Kennedy when he gave an anti-war speech in 2004, after the NBC interview but before the release of Moore's film.

In a speech Wednesday, Kennedy said the decision to invade Iraq was grounded in the "gross abuse of intelligence," an "arrogant disrespect for the United Nations" and the GOP's desire to seize control of both houses of Congress in 2002.

The senator from Massachusetts spoke to the Center for American Progress, a liberal advocacy group, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington.

He was flanked by Brian and Alma Hart, whose son John was killed in Iraq, and Army Sgt. Peter Damon, who lost both arms serving in Iraq.

This wouldn't be a big deal but for the fact that Damon's hardcore support of the war is at the center of his complaint. His lawyer told the AP that Fahrenheit 9/11 was "upsetting to him because he's lived his life supportive of his government, he's been a patriot, he's been a soldier, and he's now being portrayed in a movie that is the antithesis of all of that." Was Damon an anti-warrior who changed his mind? Did he flip when lawyers sent visions of eight-figure settlements dancing in his head?

UPDATE: While Damon's lawyer hasn't gotten back to me, there's strong evidence that the Sgt. Peter Damon who appeared with Kennedy in January 2004 is the same man suing Moore.

Here's an AP photo from Nov. 17, 2003, when Sen. Kennedy visited Damon at Walter Reed.

Here's a screenshot of Damon talking to Neil Cavuto about his lawsuit, earlier this week.

What's the point? For one, Damon and his lawyer aggressively claim that Moore has done $75 million of damage to Damon's reputation. Damon has said "I didn't lose my arms over there to come back and be used as ammunition against my commander-in-chief." But two years ago, as a simple google search will tell you, Damon flanked Ted Kennedy as the senator gave a passionate anti-Bush speech.

No President of the United States should employ misguided ideology and distortion of the truth to take the nation to war. In doing so, the President broke the basic bond of trust between government and the people. If Congress and the American people knew the whole truth, America would never have gone to war.

Maybe Damon's appearence at this speech shows he's a vigorous non-partisan and gives his anti-Moore suit more credibility. Even so, why not mention that he's entered the public fray over the Iraq war before? In 2004, Damon appeared in at least two anti-Moore movies, "Michael Moore Hates America" and "Fahrenhype 9/11". Damon lives in a house built by Homes for Our Troops, a nonprofit charity unofficially endorsed by Moore. It's curious that the hundreds of media outlets hyping this story aren't interested in the context.

Comments

[Clean Hands]

Heh. Let the lawyers eat them both.

[Captain Holly]

Did he flip when lawyers sent visions of eight-figure settlements dancing in his head?

I think Mr. Occam would say "yes".

[Dave W.]

Michael Moore will surely go bankrupt because of this frivolous suit. We need a law outlawing lawsuits against Michael Moore so that he doesn't move to the Cayman Islands and make his profitable documentaries there./sarc

[joe]

Well played.

I like the way the phrase "a law outlawing lawsuits" repeats the word "law" in order to undermine the opponent's pose as untainted by the dirty business of lawmaking.

[Brian Courts]

Michael Moore will surely go bankrupt because of this frivolous suit. We need a law outlawing lawsuits against Michael Moore so that he doesn't move to the Cayman Islands and make his profitable documentaries there./sarc

Besides that fact that the sarcasm doesn't even make a point (or at least a very good one) we once again have a lawyer assuring us we don't have too many frivolous lawsuits. Imagine that.

[RexRhino]

It is just me, or can I see how his story totally makes sense.

The guy was anti-war, but gave an interview that was politically neutral. Micheal Moore re-edited that to suit his own political purposes (and to make it seem like he did the interview). If the guy is really pro-war or anti-war doesn't really have anything to do with it.

Now, I am sick of all these frivolous lawsuits, so I still don't have a lot of sympathy for the guy lawsuit wise. But if he was really pro-war, or anti-war has nothing to do with. It is totally possible to be against the war, and still think that Micheal Moore is an idiot.

[Renechaput]

It is also possible to think that he is an idiot and not sue him for 85 million dollars....

The basis of the suit, according to the article, was that this guy is pro-war. Therefore, his stance on the war matters.

You can't claim that you are A and were damaged because you were falsely portrayed as B, if in fact you are (or were then) B. Truth is the ultimate defense against libel.

[HH]

Damon appeared in "Michael Moore Hates America," shot in 2004, with these same complaints about his portrayal. It's quite possible that the content of Sen. Kennedy's speech was not exactly fully endorsed by him as he probably didn't see it ahead of time.

[VM]

Awful thought:

have images of "Team America" racing through my head:

"MATT DAMON!!!!!"

[VM]

Awful thought:

have images of "Team America" racing through my head:

"MATT DAMON!!!!!"

[HH]

Again, whether or not he agreed to appear with his state's Senator on a couple of occasions is neither here nor there, as I doubt he was fully briefed on what would be said. The fact that he appeared in anti-Moore documentaries that same year pretty much bolsters his claim (as is the fact that he says the overwhelming majority of the money won, if any, will go to vets' groups). And the endorsement of a company that helped him by Moore is even less relevant.

[peachy]

Well, I'll join the chorus of those who staunchly opposed the war but still intensely dislike Michael Moore... and the chorus of those who believe Moore is perfectly capable of selectively editing an interview to suit his needs.

But, do you have to be "fully briefed" to have a fair idea what Ted Kennedy's position is going to be? Especially when's he's speaking in front of the Center for American Progress? Shouldn't common sense be enough to keep a diehard pro-war (and pro-Bush as leader of wars) person off a Kennedy-centred stage? By way of comparison, how would you evaluate the claims of a person who is quoted approvingly in a book by Malkin, say, and who has also appeared on a stage at a McCain speech, but insists that they've been against the whole Iraq thing from day one? Just because Malkin is an evil lying bitch wouldn't necessarily mean that our notional claimant is playing it perfectly straight themselves...

[BarryJV]

peachy
But, do you have to be "fully briefed" to have a fair idea what Ted Kennedy's position is going to be?

You don't have to agree with Kennedy's position to accept an invite to a meeting on the basis of giving a fair hearing to the anti-war point of view. I'm not claiming that that is what happened, but it's perfectly plausible that he was invited on the premise, he thought, of listening to the other side. The fact that he does not appear to have given a speach at the rally would seem to suggest that, at the very least, he was not a whole-hearted supporter of Kennedy's cause.

Michael Moore has certainly indulged in selective editing in the past, if this turns out to be one of those cases it will serve him right that he's finally been brought to account.

[Al]

You have to get sign a release to appear on "Girls Gone Wild"- you'd think Moore would have been careful enough to get a release of SOME sort.

The appearance with Kennedy is interesting- I wish someone had asked about it. However, the standard for his explanation will probbably be pretty low until someone invents glasses which lets you see into someone's brain.

[Rob]

As an attorney, I can assure you that there are plenty of frivolous lawsuits filed - but I suspect the amounts are somewhat inflated in people'sminds because you hear about all of them all over the country.

I've only heard of a couple truly frivolous ones in our county in the last couple years - one of which we are defending against now.

However, the proper question is not so much how many groundless suits are filed, but rather, how efficiently does the court system get rid of them - i.e. how many of them make it past a summary judgment motion. . .?

I would say that the answer is "very few".

We are currently involved in defending what I would consider a frivolous lawsuit between two brothers over their father's will. It appears highly likely that the judge is going to order the Plaintiff to pay our attorney fees as a sanction for bringing the frivolous suit. Those fees are about $30,000.00.

Do you think that person will bring another frivolous lawsuit after being sanctioned like that?

The Court system is far from perfect, but in many cases it gets rid of frivolous suits in an effective way prior to trial.

[Mark Bahner]

"UPDATE: While Damon's lawyer hasn't gotten back to me, there's strong evidence that the Sgt. Peter Damon who appeared with Kennedy in January 2004 is the same man suing Moore."

How many Peter Damons could there be who "lost both arms serving in Iraq"?

[Mark Bahner]

See previous comment about potential multiple Peter Damons.

On the other hand, doesn't Damon's lawyer, Neil Cavuto, look a bit like Ted Kennedy? (Of course, all white men look alike to me...)

[Trinity]

peachy,

he did not just "agree to meet Sen Kennedy" to give the antiwar side a fair hearing - if that was all there was to it, the meeting when Kennedy visited him at Walter Reid would have been sufficient; plus, if he really was convinced of the rightousness of the war, why would be feel the need to listen to an opposing view? - but he agreed to APPEAR WITH SEN KENNEDY ON STAGE on an occassion where even a three year old could not have failed to realized whatthe purpose of the appearance was.

Personally, as rather a cynic where politics is concerned, I find myself wondering whether he is really hoping to win such a ridiculous settlement on rather doubtful grounds or whether he has not already been well compensated by certain powers that be for creating some media rucous to take of the general public interest - "mind" waswhatI originally meant to write, but it didn'tseem quite accurate - from the rather destructive, for the same said powers, reporting of the so called "Haditha incident" - that is, the murder of innocent Iraqi's by flipped out American marines (whether one can blame them for going nuts under thecircumstances they live underis a different matter)-which already has been hailed as Iraq's My Lai.

Maybe mr proper "supporting my commander in chief all the way good soldier" has already recieved, or been promised, some nice incentives forhis all so timely distraction campaign - and promised that any possible gains from lawsuits would behis to keep as well.

Incidentally,to the person who mentioned that all the money would go to vet groups anyway, where did damon say that? And IFhe said that, did heput it into legally pursuable form? Because if not, any promise to hand it over to whoever is justso much hot air . . .

[SomeDude76]

I laugh when liberals say they are sick of frivolous lawsuits. You have only yourselves and your legion of liberal lawyers to blame. Any attempt at legislation to stop frivolous suits is nearly always blocked by the left.

[TrickyVic]

Selective editing is done by everyone in the media. If you shoot ten minutes of video for a five minute segment editing is just what you do. It's the nature of the beast. You never have the right to decide how the media outlet will choose which parts to air and which parts end up on the cutting room floor. They ALL do it to meet thier ends. There is nothing new there. I has a letter published in the Metro newspaper, they left my premises and cut the conclusion. Oh well, what am I going to do, sue like a loser? Nope, it's just the way the ball bounces.

This guy is in it for the cash, plain and simple. I guess that VA check is not enough to support his family.

[Dave W.]

T.: make sure to read Rob's post above. He is saying the things I always try to get across to you, but in more straightforward, non-crazy language.

[HH]

For nearly two years he has made his pro-war stance known, and called himself a "big fan" of Hannity on the radio today (as well as appearing on TV with him last night). When your state's Senator invites you to appear and you just got off a tour of duty, you usually do it, and that doesn't mean you've signed a contract that you believe everything they do.

[HH]

Video of Damon interview last night here (where he discusses giving money to vet groups)

[JR]

Just for a moment let's forget the lawsuit. Am I the only one that thinks that Moore's manipulation by editing may be a dishonest way to make one's point? No matter what side of the argument you may be on?

[JW]

Target! Cease Fire!!!

[Simon9]

Is manipulation by editing dishonest? Hmmm...depends on what "is" means....

Misrepresenting is nothing new for Moore. Misrepresenting their views is why South Park's Parker and Stone (who appeared in Bowling for Columbine and are actually pro-2nd amendment) hate Moore with such a passion that they lovingly stuffed his puppet effigy full of ham and blew it up in "Team America".

[Ron]

That Damon appeared next to Ted Kennedy while Kennedy ranted against the war is a non-issue. I saw several International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) members standing next to John Kerry during many of his speeches in the last campaign. That those IAFF guys then possibly voted for Bush says it all. Political shills are abundent and are often not even aware they're being used as such.

[Oggy]

I was a big fan of Moore since "roger & me", then watched his TV show after that, but got sick of the way he either-a:portrays people as idiots, or b:does his megaphone-in-yr-face-schtick-till-you-get-angry-or walk-off-in-a-snit. And then I remembered the scene in "roger&me" where he asks the missUSAdetroit(or whatever)contestant if she had anything to say to the poor and homeless, and she responds: "vote for me for missUSA"(or whatever). I couldn't believe she could be that shallow, but now I'm thinking maybe he EDITED that. Probably "vote for me for missUSA" was the FIRST thing she said in reality, THEN he asked his question. If that's true, that's not just EDITING, that's maliscious character assasination. ...I am no fan of beauty queens, but it's just plain WRONG. If that's what he did with this soldier, then I say kudos2u for tryin to milk him for some dough.

[John Mack]

It seems to me that many lawsuits like this are a result of our inability to have any other forum in which to challenge the accuracy of information about us. Moore would use and distort just about anything if it served his dialectical purposes. And the victims of such distortion ought to have a way to complain about it. Suing Moore for $75M isn't it, unfortunately. First, the plaintiff will lose, which may make it appear to the public that Moore was right (as opposed to immune to such a suit under the first amendment and existing law). Second, the $75M figure makes the plaintiff look greedy, as opposed to properly indignant. Third, if the plaintiff wins, it sends the wrong message -- viz., that you can make money off celebrity ideologues, rather than that you can mke them behave responsibly.

[Jen]

Did you know that Senator Kennedy invited Sgt Peter Damon to that speech and did not tell him what was in the speech? Did you know that Sgt. Peter Damon was again embarrased by the liberals and AGAIN was used as a pawn in a political way?
Spin it again!

[Jen]

AND did you know Sgt. Damon will donate the law suit money to organizations who will actually support veterans? Check and see if Michael Moore has contributed to help support the troops. One would think that will all the money he made from his anti-war, anti-military propaganda film, he would at least give a penny or two to others who want to help our AMERICAN HEROES.

[jenD]

A little insight from a nerd in uniform: Personally, I loathe Ted Kennedy. But, were I to be invited to a function by any elected member of our government, it would be my DUTY to keep my mouth shut, shine my boots and purdy up my cammies, and act in a respectful manner like the representative of the World's Finest Navy that I am. Here's hoping someone on Damon's team is smart enough to remind the jury of that. . .Must admit, I'd like to see Moore get his pee-pee smacked on this one.

[jxn]

Jen:

AND did you know that Sgt. Damon is being used NOW as a pawn in a political way? Wake up. Moore is neither beholden to support the troops financially nor must he be expected to--though I wouldn't be surprised in the least if he has. Then again, all those chocolate eclairs are probably pretty expensive.

What should chill you is that the ascendant powers are using legal chicanery to nibble away yet further at free speech--and trust me, this WILL come back to bite us on the butt once the other side is in office. As much as I'd like to see Moore get a little bit of humble pie, the potential implications are a little disturbing.

[ED]

Bull, the Damon piece (and the other injured soldiers comments around Damon's piece) do not portray him as anti-war. He never says anything anti-war. In fact, he says that half-heartedly that the doctors have helped him.

Also, anyone watching themoc=vie would not think that Moore is interviewing him. Instead, it is clear that this is simplya monage of injured soldiers.

This suit is a loser.

[esmense]

The segment in which Sgt. Damon appears is simply illustrating -- informing the audience about -- the (at that point mostly overlooked) fact that a significant number of soldiers were returning from Iraq with devastating injuries. That point, made in the segment by soldiers themselves, had nothing to do with whether they were pro or anti-war, pro or anti-Bush. The only assertions being made by those injured soldiers was that there hadn't been much publicity given to, and there wasn't much awareness among average Americans of, them and the kind of injuries they and others had sustained in the war.

Damon's assertion that his appearance in the film, in a segment that in no way addresses how the soldiers being interviewed feel about the war or the President, implies he was making an anti-war or anti-Bush statement seems absurd to me.

But there really is only one issue that I think really matters here: Did this guy sign a release? And if he did, why did he? And if Moore didn't get releases from the people who appear in the film, why not?

[alfalfa male]

For the record, Michael Moore donated many of the proceeds from Farenheit 911 to a variety of organizations benefitting veterans including The Wounded Warrior Project, Homes For Our Troops and booksforsoldiers.com. Damon himself was a beneficiary. Guess it just wasn't enough. Fact is it's a frivolous suit that doesn't deserve a fraction of the media attention it's gotten. Damon's fair game here - he agreed to be interviewed on network TV. There's also the little issue of timing. They're going after Moore 2 years after the movie's release. There's not a judge in the country who's gonna take this thing seriously. You'll see it get tossed quicker than you can say, "Frivolity."

[darrelplant]

Moore didn't have to get a release from Damon any more than he had to get releases from George Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, Don Rumsfeld, or any other person he used footage of from archival footage. Once he'd contracted the rights to the footage from the original broadcaster, he could use it for whatever purpose he had contracted to do so.

[Sailor Sam]

Do you think he's awapping notes on Media and Image consultans with Paula Corbi Jones? A little advice from Ailes and Tyrell, perhaps?

Maybe a paid excursion to the Scaiffe estate...

[Ryan]

@ rob

Sure that plaintiff won't be filing any more frivolous lawsuits, but what about the lawyer who filed it for him in the first case?

[Matt in Texas]

Excuse me, but I see no evidence of Mr. Damon saying he was anti-Bush, anti-war,or pro-war. He was talking about his injuries. I didn't infer his statements as anything but that. (And yes, I've seen the film.)

Whether you like Michael Moore or not, there's just nothing to make one feel Mr. Damon is being "used" in any way.

I hope this young soldier can live as full a life as possible, and gets love and support all around. But I just don't think he has a case.

[dave Hardy]

He may just have a solid claim that has nothing to do with holding him out in a false light.

From news reports, Damon let CBS film him. They didn't ask for a written release, because consenting to being filmed is implicit consent to use the footage. BUT not for anyone else to. CBS informed Moore that it was selling him the footage (i.e., licensing its copyright) but that he needed to get the permission of anyone depicted in the footage, too. He apparently did not bother. Use of someone's likeness, to make a profit, without their consent, is generally something you can recover damages for.

[dick]

A lot of speculation by every one. Facts speak for themselves. Let's spend some time on the way our military are treated after getting back home. What thier future is. What is our future? The courts will sort the facts. We as Americans have many more things to deal with.

[jackp]

This looks to me like a sneaky way for Bush and co to get back at Michael Moore. A "swift boat" aproach. I think the purpose is to discredit Moore, nothing else probably because he is coming out with another movie bashing the private health organizations. There are a lot of very powerful people pissed off at Moore. I agree with Moore. How come Osama Bin Laden hasn't been found and why are Haliburton stocks doing very well and why is there a pipeline going through Afganistan??? Sorry folks, most of what was in the film was true. Sometimes the truth is too hard to stomach, with Bush, it is most of the time.

[Joey]

Hey dick and all you liberal idiots. There is no pipeline going thru Afganistan and we're not in Iraq for oil as you all think. I'm a soldier US Army and I've been to both. Every drop of oil goes right into the Iraqi treasury. The pipeline thru Afganistan was originally proposed in 1996 by Bill Clinton. The project was later abandoned. I know what's really going on because I was there; I saw what happens with my eyes personly; not most of you liberals and of course not Michael Moore. I think you should thank soldiers for the right you have to speak so freely, even to the point of disrespected.

[Joey]

Hey dick and all you liberal idiots. There is no pipeline going thru Afganistan and we're not in Iraq for oil as you all think. I'm a soldier US Army and I've been to both. Every drop of oil goes right into the Iraqi treasury. The pipeline thru Afganistan was originally proposed in 1996 by Bill Clinton. The project was later abandoned. I know what's really going on because I was there; I saw what happens with my eyes personly; not most of you liberals and of course not Michael Moore. I think you should thank soldiers for the right you have to speak so freely, even to the point of disrespect.

[Joey]

Hey dick and all you liberal idiots. There is no pipeline going thru Afganistan and we're not in Iraq for oil as you all think. I'm a soldier US Army and I've been to both. Every drop of oil goes right into the Iraqi treasury. The pipeline thru Afganistan was originally proposed in 1996 by Bill Clinton. The project was later abandoned. I know what's really going on because I was there; I saw what happens with my eyes personly; not most of you liberals and of course not Michael Moore. I think you should thank soldiers for the right you have to speak so freely, even to the point of disrespect.

[Thomas]

Hey Joey -- learn to press "Post" only once.

By the way, what unit were you in? Where were you deployed? Hm?

Anyway, I don't see what all the freakin' fuss is about, people. When I saw the movie, and if you watch it you'll also see, that at no point in the clip with Sgt. Damon are any political views addressed. It's simply a clip of a guy who just lost both his arms talking about what it feels like to have just lost both his arms. I never took it to imply an endorsement of the film by Sgt. Damon. I mean, hell, Bush was in the film too, and I doubt he endorses it.

This case shouldn't even make it to court. I don't think Mr. Moore has a thing to worry about.

[jackp]

Joey, I apologize, there isn't a pipeline going through Afganistan. But there will be. They are building one as I type. Also, could you please keep your profanity to yourself? You fought for freedom, great. Who's freedom, mate. Why is it you Yanks always have to think you are the only free country in the world?? There are plenty of free countries in this world more freeer than the USA. Go on and kid yourself.

[Ken]

Question: are all those interviewed or included in an antiwar documentary presumed to be antiwar?

My take on this is this: the clip of him in the movie did NOT show or try to elicit a political message from Damon. Nor did one naturally come out of him. His comments were only about his injuries and the pain he was feeling. He also commented on the efficacy of the pain medication he was receiving.

The prior point in the movie was that one of the crimes of this war is that we (the American people) are not seeing the casualties. The movie then shows 3 or 4 soldiers at Walter reed describing their injuries. The contention is that there are injured soldiers and we are not seeing them. The evidence is the FACT that each of the men shown (including Mr. Damon) were soldiers in Iraq and they were injured there.

The only way to misrepresent this guy in the movie would be to try to assert that he was NOT injured, the medications did NOT take "the edge off", or that he was NOT feeling pain. These are his statements in the movie.

/not a lawyer
//don't play one on TeeVee
///Suffer from CSS (Common Sense Syndrome)

[Hieronymus Braintree]

Damon never mentions Bush and says nothing about whether he supports the war or not. All he does is talk about how his no-longer-existent arms hurt. This controversy is totally bogus. Once again, Republicans are wasting our time with bullshit. It's been a long time but I see HH remains his usual pavlovian self.

[Plisko]

Has anyone here heard of an image release?

When a news company is interviewing someone they or their representative are asked to sign an image release that lets the company basically do anything the want with the material including exploit it for profit, edit it however they see fit or license it to other people for use in their own projects and profits.

If this guy signed an image release he has no case. This stuff happens every single day. One could even say from looking at the footage that he is only being used as an example of the suffering and courage of our troops who are often being ignored once they get home. The context he claims is marginal at the most when you think about how news footage is used.

How do you think the Daily Show and Colbert do all those whacky interviews that make people look like idiots as part of their program? You think those people were happy to be made fools of?

How do you think political pundits take only the parts of someone's statement in order to remove all context and make them look bad?

It's time to wake up and smell the media people. This was partly Regan's idea when he got rid of the fairness doctrine. You can't be a Regan Republican and then complain about fairness in the media.

If you want the media to be fair, vote for people who will make it fair.

[Mike Emor]

Michael Moore is such a liar. I can't stand how he misrepresents things. Like that time he told us that Iraq had WMD's and they didn't or the time he said those balloon trucks were mobile weapons labs. I think I will sue that liberal piece of cr@#p for misleading us into a War. I mean if it were not for his starting the war Sgt. Damon would still have his hands. I think I will ask for $85 Trillion.
Mike

[billmon]

"Michael Moore has certainly indulged in selective editing in the past, if this turns out to be one of those cases it will serve him right that he's finally been brought to account."

I see -- frivilous lawsuits are OK as long as they're against left-wing filmakers that we hate?

So THAT'S how libertarianism works.

[Anita]

As I said before, this guy is suing Moore only because he wants to "save face" towards his unit. He doesn't want his buddies to know how he really feels. It's all bullshit. And, in looking at these photos with him and Kennedy, my reasoning is valid.

[molasky]

All these issues undermine Damon's credibility -- but the even more important point: The use of his clip is not edited to say anything except that there are a lot of veterans severely injured in Iraq and that Damon is a typical example. Other clips are used to say that there has been infufficient concern for such veterans, but not Damon's. His words are clearly supportive of the quality of treatment he recieved. Surely there are better anti-war propaganda clips Moore could have made than Damon saying that his arms hurt but his treatment has been good.

I don't see how anyone could see the F911 clip and jump to the conclusion that Damon was "anti-war". I saw the film and assumed that almost all soldiers depicted in the hospital would defend the war and perhaps the political leadership or otherwise be politically neutral.

However, I WOULD assume that someone standing next to Ted Kennedy at an ant-war speech is at least somewhat critical of the war or its handling.

[Lettuce]

AND did you know Sgt. Damon will donate the law suit money to organizations who will actually support veterans?

That's excellent; because they aren't getting any support from the Administration that's getting them maimed.

Good for him!

[Dar]

I look at it a little differently. Why is this even being covered by the media? It's not news to me and the motivation of him doing interviews about it doesn't reflect positively on him IMO. This is not about principles he's just another greedy person.

[Joey]

I was with 101st Airborne at Fort Campbell, KY. when I went to Iraq. There I spent most of my time in Mosul which is in the North. In Afanganistan I was all around (hardly ever knew where I was) but spent a lot of my time in a little town called Shaqulalawa. I'm now in the 25th Infantry Division (Airborne) in Alaska. And sorry about the profanity earlier.

[Joey]

I don't know what they're talking about wounded veterans being left behind. A good buddy of mine in Iraq was blown away by an IED (Improvised Explosive Device) or in other words, a roadside bomb. He survived and our government is giving him around $3500 a month plus $100,000 up front for what happened. That does not in include the money he gets from other organizations. He and his family are set for life. No, the US government is not leaving us behind as Michael Moore and the news (CNN, which I will never believe again) suggests. And jackp the freedom I'm fighting for my own country's freedom and it's people. It was ATTACKED, 11 September 2001. The US doesn't want to go to war as many liberals and anti-american groups think. We were attacked and we were drawn into war. Iraq was not a harmless as Micheal Moore and liberals say. Saddam went on Iraqi TV on the 11 September 2002 (one year later) and asked for more sucide attacks on the US in return for financial freedom for thier family. Attacking Iraq was the right thing to do and it freed that country and it's people. Those people have more oppertunity now than ever and have no fear from a dictator who killed almost 2 million of his own people. Most of the Iraqi people love Americans, unlike what liberals and Michael Moore says. Countless people have said "Thank you. America good!" Of course you still got the idiots, BUT I'd rather fight them in Baghdad instead of Boston.

[Joey]

One more thing jackp, if Austraila was attacked I think the US would be the first ally to help you out. So indirectly, I'm fighting for your freedom also.