Kenneth Baer thinks so.
My first reaction reading this article was "stupid, stupid idea. Crazy." Baer points out:
Doing so [suing] would magnify the impact of the charges made in the ads, which as of now are only playing in seven small media markets, and keep them in the news for the duration of the campaign. It would also derail the campaign from its message, underscore the litigious history of his vice presidential pick, and open the candidate up to a possibly invasive subpoena.
Not only that, but Baer probably underestimates the frothing such a suit would cause on the right, frothing that would quickly make its way quickly onto CNN and MSNBC. Freepers are already making jokes all over the Internet about how Kerry & Edwards' War on Terror will amount to "suing the terrorists for bodily harm." The right would go absolutely wild if Kerry were to initiate a suit.
But then I read on. Baer (not a lawyer) thinks that precedent and the general sloppiness of the SBVT smear campaign could make for legal vulnerabilities:
Gunner's Mate Van O'Dell says that: "John Kerry lied to get his Bronze Star. I know, I was there, I saw what happened." O'Dell did not serve on Kerry's boat, but was on another boat in his division. O'Dell claims to have witnessed the entire incident in which Kerry won his Bronze Star. Yet, his account does not show up in any official Naval documents--from the spot reports filed immediately after the incident that detail damage to two boats, including Kerry's, and Kerry's injury report to the eyewitness accounts of Jim Rassman, the man who Kerry pulled out of the river. Either O'Dell is right, and Rassman, Kerry, and the US Navy are wrong--or O'Dell has a big legal problem on his hands.
Read More