Stolen Honor has some questions unanswered

Email Send Email to: IvanO'Brien@wesupportthevets.com

The obvious question after watching "STOLEN HONOR
By Ivan O'Brien staff writer wesupportthevets.com

Politics makes strange bedfellows...and companions, and actors and it looks to us, like it also makes money for aspiring filmmakers.

Lets look at the version of "Stolen Honor" we have listed (a link) on the front page here. I watched the entire forty some minutes trying to hold politics and biases in thoughts to a minimum. Actually that was not hard to do after the first five minutes of the film because you can read these guys agenda pretty clear.

They hate John Kerry.

The film production was professional although one can spot some footage of WW2-not Nam sprinkled in the scenes, but the storyboard held the plot and point they wanted to broadcast. Don't vote for John Kerry because he was active in an anti war movement.

Lets look at that statement.

An antiwar movement.

Liberally defined as a gathering of people protesting a subject or issue by speaking out and demonstrating against an administration or authority. Ok- now we have the basic premise of what John Kerry was guilty of according to these 13 very brave men showcased in the film. He demonstrated against something that he considered wrong the administration was doing at the time. He spoke out. He joined others with the same mindset and participated in rallies.

Is that un-American? Is that degrading to this nation or,....is that an expression of free speech that every veteran in every war fought to defend? He singled out atrocities allegedly committed by U.S. forces that were presented in another movements press meetings. ( Re: Winter soldier investigation in Detroit, Jan 1971)). The participants in the film claim that Kerry "lengthened their captivity" by making statements. Pretty strong. These men may not realize the image they project from the film when they single out one person and accuse that person of crimes and statements. They assume they are unloading the entire veteran community's anger and disgust against a presidential candidate. Instead they come across as a bunch of grumpy old men that have harbored an attitude for thirty years.

I wonder how many of these individuals are retired with twenty or more years service? How many are disabled? Obviously they are all POW's that's why they are in the film. They have given their best years and in some cases, their body for this nation. What do they think of this administration and the way they treated disabled vets by blocking the HR303 bill that would give full restoration of pay to them and their brothers? What do they think about the fact that even with the slight inroad veterans have made on this issue, it will still take ten years for eligible retired vets to obtain their earned pay? Will these men be around to cheer? Why didn't they protest the closing of veteran's med centers? Where was the filmmaker--the "investigative reporter" that he claims to be? Was Carlton Sherwood aware that if he really had a veteran's concerns at heart he would take his camera inside a Veterans Hospital and show the lines, the understaffed departments and the need for more doctors and personnel. He could have done this at anytime in the past four years. The reason evidently was, there was no "hook" money in that idea. You could not get the bucks from political backers for something like that. The Kerry/Fonda connection had a better "hook" for fund raising. Show a bunch of pot smoking hippies and flower children bashing veterans in a antiwar movement with the man that would, thirty years later, be a presidential candidate. That had a hook that would bring the bucks.

Its absolutely amazing IMHO that it takes an election year to swing the focus of media to America's veteran. In no election since early 1900's when vets had to storm the White House to get Hoover's attention have vets had the spotlight. This should have been the year to organize, get behind the movement of the veterans party of America http://www.veteransparty.us and get established as a third political party in America. The vets party got off to a good start and established themselves in several states but they were under funded. It would appear that the "Stolen Honor" is in the fact that the funds that were used for this film and all the commercials sponsored by the swifties could have gone to make the vets party a reality. Something that would grow and have a voice for vets. An established veterans party will happen but not this election. Instead, America will see veterans as a group of bickering, divided old men with an attitude.

Ivan O'Brien