Kerry and Bush supporters. A question for y'all.

[Saffron]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
Great, more redirection. Let's leave North out of it. Ok?
Uhhhhhhh ... I didn't bring him into it, just commented on him. I would never use him as a source for anything or bring him into any conversation. Someone else did. I just commented!

Spin??? I'll send you a Dramamine. OK?
Please. Because all this spin is making me sick!

Kerry admitted in TWO interviews that he committed such crimes. Did you not read that?
Uhhhh he said he committed atrocities, you and Kendra labeled them crimes. Read them again, did you not read that. Oh, and read the ENTIRE article, not just bits and pieces, K?

Who did he accuse? No one by name but he accused thousands of other soldiers of committing such acts.
Uhhhhhhhh no he didn't. He was elected to testify for them before Congress and relay their stories to Congress. But ... if you had read the actual testimony, you would have read that part. At least I hope. Seems people like to pick and chose what to read in anything posted around here.

Ok. So now that we've established that fact, we can now call him a liar or a war criminal. If that means that others must be labeled war criminals, so be it. If they were following direct orders, they had the obligation to refuse to do something they knew was illegal and report their commanders to others higher up the CoC.

Oh please. Have you read the Geneva and Hague Conventions? Did you read them when you were 18, 19, 20 - 25 years old? Had you even heard of them? What makes you think anyone drafted or enlisted in Vietnam did before they went to battle? Seriously?!?! Aren't you supposed to trust your commanding officers? Read my previous post.

 

[Kendra17]

Saffron,

I'm sorry, I'm not Elwood, but this logic is entirely wrong. If ELWOOD says he's a war criminal, who are we to dispute that? If you tell me you are, in fact a criminal, who am I to dispute that? Unless you have a history of either lying or emotional instability, there's no reason to doubt your honesty. . .until new information comes out.

I, personally, am NOT accusing Kerry of being a war criminal. I was taking him at his word, until I discovered new information that caused me to doubt him. However, he hasn't recanted his statements. So, although I don't BELIEVE he's telling the truth any longer, I am still referring to him as an ADMITTED war criminal. . .or a liar, which he is. . .

 

[peachgirl]

Unless you are really even less intelligent than I normally give you credit for (I mean you seem fairly educated, just have a hard time thinking out of the box),

Don't start with the insults again, Kendra. This is a road you do not want to go down.

Want to answer the question?

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by peachgirl
Don't start with the insults again, Kendra. This is a road you do not want to go down.

Want to answer the question?

i did, twice already. . .keep saying i didn't, but read it again. . .

and, peachgirl, stop what you're doing. . .you are inciteful and unkind and very very manipulative.

You can keep saying I didn't answer, but I did. . .I'll copy and paste my answer, one more time.

From my recent post ANSWERING the question you asked me, then, for a second time even though you clearly knew the answer:

Yes, I stated I was not wrong about Kerry being an admitted war criminal and a liar

and then

. . .and I was responding to my post earlier when I did indeed admit I was wrong about something else--his testimony at the Senate rather than the Congress, and lumping all of his statements made on the Dick Cavett show and Meet the Press together (as if that really makes too much of a difference).

Is that not clear, Peachgirl? I can't help you anymore with this if you still are having a difficult time processing this. I am being as clear as I can be and am double checking my vocabulary to ensure clarity.

 

[Saffron]

Originally posted by Kendra17
Saffron,

I'm sorry, I'm not Elwood, but this logic is entirely wrong. If ELWOOD says he's a war criminal, who are we to dispute that? If you tell me you are, in fact a criminal, who am I to dispute that? Unless you have a history of either lying or emotional instability, there's no reason to doubt your honesty. . .until new information comes out.

I, personally, am NOT accusing Kerry of being a war criminal. I was taking him at his word, until I discovered new information that caused me to doubt him. However, he hasn't recanted his statements. So, although I don't BELIEVE he's telling the truth any longer, I am still referring to him as an ADMITTED war criminal. . .or a liar, which he is. . .

Ooooooooooh! I'm sorry! My bad! I didn't see where Kerry called himself a war criminal! Could you please show that to me? Thanks!

I did see where he said he committed attrocities in war that were USA government and military sanctioned and ordered, making those that wrote and sacntioned the orders war criminals, but that's not what you're talking about, right? Because I've pointed that out to you time and time again.

 

[peachgirl]

Is that not clear, Peachgirl?

Crystal, but I'm talking about the one you didn't answer.

Originally posted by peachgirl

So, which one is the liar, Kendra?

Bush or the SBVT group??

Because one of them has to be.

Unless you are really even less intelligent than I normally give you credit for

That's an insult. I have not insulted you, period. It's against dis rules and while I don't like running to the mods, I will. You won't keep tossing insults my way and me let it stand. You can think whatever you want of me, but you just can't post it here. It's the rules and you've been warned about it twice now by the moderator.

Now, the question, once more...

So, which one is the liar, Kendra?

Bush or the SBVT group??

Because one of them has to be.

 

[swilphil]

Originally posted by crazyforgoofy
Okay, ask my husband a disabled Vietnam Vet, (USMC 1968-80). Okay, I'll ask him for you.

He said he doesn't fault Kerry for doing and saying what he did after the war. He respects and admires him for speaking out even if he didn't like it much at the time. He told me to tell you "John Kerry has my vote and the vote of many of the vets I know. He served his country honorably and volunteered for duty when he could have gotten out of it like W and his lot of chickenhawks. He knows the true cost of war. So do the families of the 1000 young Americans who are dead in the search for Saddam's WMD"

Oh and he said to say "You're welcome!"

Crazy for Goofy--I loved what your husband said. I admire Kerry for many things, including his military service and speaking his mind afterwards. Bless your husband for serving for so long. I don't agree with a lot of decisions our govt. has made in regard to Vietnam and Iraq, but I wholeheartedly support the troops. I hope they come home safely from Iraq.

P.S I love your Little Miss Spider quote. It's my favorite book!

 

[Elwood Blues]

Saffron.

As of now, Kerry has not retracted the statements he's made during those hearings or interviews. So one can only assume that he did what he said he did. At this point he's isn't lying.

The only other conclusion is that he committed war crimes.

If he was ordered to do these things, why didn't he report his commanders to the proper authorities when he learned it?

And he being an officer would make me want to believe he should have been aware of what was considered illegal actions.

 

[Saffron]

Bingo!

Page two of the Dick Cavett interview that somehow didn't make it to this thread! This was the part of the interview after O'Neil accused Kerry of trying to speak for all 2.2 million vets who had fought in the war up to the date of the interview. And funny, O'Neil called him a liar, even though O'Neil could read his words! Funny how that happens! Like some other hard headed people, he just wouldn't hear Kerry say he was speaking for the soldiers he interviewed and the VVAW. *sigh* I can post that argument, but it looks like a CB agrument , so let me just skip it right now and go to this part. Since people are questioning why Kerry didn't report what he felt were atrocities or war crimes.

... MR. KERRY: This question of equal time perturbs me because two presidents have been speaking for the war for the last eight years, and I really don't think it's as though people haven't had the other side.

I'd like to move on to the question of – we've had some very serious things raised here tonight, and I'd really like to discuss the issues that are at hand, and I think the American people deserve a little more depth on the question of the war itself at this point.

Whether or not the group on the other side knows it or not – in fact, they should change their name from Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace to Vietnam Veterans for a Continued War because that in fact is really what Vietnamization is. It is nothing more than a way of getting the United States out of Vietnam by changing the colors of the bodies in that country. It's a military solution in a problem that requires a very, very sophisticated political solution. And all that it will do in the end is possibly intricate us into a much, much deeper war than we are in now or at least allow us to withdraw in time for the elections of next year when the president can say, "Yes, indeed, we did withdraw," at which time more Americans will have lost their lives and more Vietnamese will have lost their lives needlessly.

Now, when we talk about something like war crimes, we're not throwing this term out lightly. The Hague Convention, the Geneva Conventions, history has laid down certain laws of warfare. Hague Convention, I believe, Article Four, states that you are not allowed to bombard uninhabited villages or villages that are not occupied by defendants. We have done that constantly in Vietnam.

MR. O'NEILL: [Unintelligible] John. Can you tell me about any war crimes that occurred in that unit, Coastal Division 11? And a second question: Why didn't you attempt to get out of the unit or submit a request when you were there if you saw anything that shocked a normal man?

MR. KERRY: We – Well, I'll come back to the question.

MR. O'NEILL: I'd like you to answer that question, if you would. You obviously are quite good on the polished rhetoric, but I did serve in the same place you did, and not for four months but for 18 months, and I never saw anything, and I'd like you to tell me about the war crimes you saw committed there, and also why you didn't do something about them, although [unintelligible].

MR. KERRY: Did you serve in a free fire zone?

MR. O'NEILL: I certainly did serve in a free fire zone.

MR. KERRY: [Reading] "Free fire zone, in which we kill anything that moves – man, woman or child. This practice suspends the distinction between combatant and non-combatant and contravenes Geneva Convention Article 3.1."

MR. O'NEILL: Where is that from, John?

MR. KERRY: Geneva Conventions. You've heard about the Geneva Conventions.

MR. O'NEILL: I suggest – I suggest –

MR. KERRY: May I complete my statement?

MR. O'NEILL: Sure, go ahead.

MR. KERRY: Thank you. Yes, we did participate in war crimes in Coastal Division 11 because as I said earlier, we took part in free fire zones, harassment, interdiction fire, and search-and-destroy missions. The concept of operations, I gather, changed somewhat from the time when I was there and the time when you were there later on. And I believe that we moved into operations called Silver Mace II and some others in which we were not quite involved in as –

But I know that there's no way in the world you can say that you didn't ride through the Ku Alon River or the Bodie River [phonetic spellings] and see huts along the sides of the rivers that were totally destroyed. Did you see them destroyed?

MR. O'NEILL: I think –

MR. KERRY: Were they destroyed?

MR. O'NEILL: May I answer the question?

MR. KERRY: Were they destroyed?

MR. O'NEILL: I'd like to answer that question very fully. On those particular raids, as you and I both know, John –

MR. KERRY: How do you know? Were you on them? Were you on them?

MR. O'NEILL: Yes, I was on the –

MR. KERRY: Sealords?

MR. O'NEILL: Absolutely correct.

MR. KERRY: Sealords raids.

MR. O'NEILL: That's absolutely correct.

MR. KERRY: And you never burned a village?

MR. O'NEILL: I'd like to continue with my statement, if I may. No, we never – I never – I never burned a village, that's absolutely correct. On those particular raids, as you know, from the time you came into the Ku Alon River to the time you left the Bodie, you're receiving almost continuous fire the entire time. If you went on a little further – and I had the experience of being there after you, which is fortunate – you would have seen that right there on the Ku Alon River at the present time there's a village of 10,000 people that came out from that entire area, refugees – refugees not from us, but refugees from the Viet Cong. People who came there just to have their own type of government and just to be free, and I think we all realize that, as honorable men, we'd never – I don't' know the semantics, perhaps, as well as you, but we all realize that we'd never do anything dishonorable. And I think that you must realize that, that you would have done something about it then. I think it was only the fact that a fellow changes when he runs for congressman from Massachusetts. That's what's – accounts for [unintelligible].

MR. KERRY: If I could – First of all, first of all, we did –

MR. CAVETT: Excuse me, there. You may answer those after this commercial from a car with 25 years of improvement.

[Commercial break]

MR. CAVETT: We're back, and two of the charges against John Kerry at the moment, that I remember, are why didn't he leave when war crimes were being committed in front of him –

MR. O'NEILL: Mr. Cavett –

MR. CAVETT: I'm going to finish this sentence.

– and your attitude changed because of your political ambitions. Those are two things that were mentioned.

MR. KERRY: Well, I hardly think the second really merits that much discussion – I'm not sure – that much discussion or consideration.

The fact of the matter is that the members of Coastal Division 11 and Coastal Division 13 when I was in Vietnam were fighting the policy very, very hard, to the point that many of the members were refusing to carry out orders on some of their missions; to the point where the crews started to in fact mutiny, say, "I would not go back on the rivers again;" the point where my commanding officer was relieved of duty because he pressed our objections to what we were doing with the captain in command of the entire operation.

MR. CAVETT: The man above you was relieved of duty?

MR. KERRY: That is correct. The man above me was finally relieved of duty.

To the point that we had a continual rotation going on of new officers coming from the divisions that were not in this to try and replenish our spirit. To the point that the commanding admiral of all forces in Vietnam and General Abrams himself flew us to Saigon – completely stopped the war, put us in an airplane, we put on our khakis and went up there and were briefed for an entire day and told how what we were doing was writing Navy legends and how we were writing a new kind of history in the war, and so on and so on. And then we returned to go back into the rivers to do the same thing.

The fact of the matter remains that after I received my third wound, I was told that I could return to the United States. I deliberated for about two weeks because there was a very difficult decision in whether or not you leave your friends because you have an opportunity to go, but I finally made the decision to go back and did leave of my own volition because I felt that I could do more against he war back here. And when I got back here, I was serving as an aide to an admiral in New York City, and I wrote a letter through him requesting that I be released from the Navy early because of my opposition, and I was granted that release, and I have been working against the war ever since then.

So I don't think that it's a question of principles that change or of ideals or the fact that we didn't try to fight it over there. That's just not true at all. We did.

And there you have it.

 

[Saffron]

Originally posted by Kendra17
Thank you for your well thought out opinion. As we know, you are indeed entitled to it. Actually, the truth is that I understand what he was doing, too. But, since I don't believe that he participated in those "atrocities" and since I sincerely doubt that they were commanded to commit those atrocities, I'm actually not insulting any other soldier--just Kerry. I thought I had made that part clear in my posts; apparently I had not.

To put your mind at ease, I do, in fact, call him a liar at home. I do this, because I believe people like John O'Neill who FULLY sources and credibly defends his book and the allegations against him when speaking, Oliver North's recent condemnation of Kerry and show of support for the SBV, and the SBV who call his conduct into question, as well.

If you see my posts, you will indeed see that I usually say, he's either a war criminal or a liar. Either one, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION (based on the definitions of war crimes and his own statements), would be correct.

I'm not sure you realize that many people consider the Winter Soldier story to be a false one.

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Historians

Therefore, it is HE who condemns those that served. I certainly do not.

I did hear an apt and interesting comparison recently, however. The speaker stated that for the Left to dismiss the SVB's claims--all 255 of them--is very much the same as the Left spitting on them and condemning them when they returned to America after serving their country in Vietnam.

So it was the Left who spit on the soldiers! Well that's interesting. I had heard stories about it, but I never knew who was doing it. Thanks for filling me in on that.

And "people" as in the Freepers disbelieving something from the Left. Who would have ever imagined that!

Funny, I heard a comparison lately, much like the one you heard. The comparison is: for the Right to dismiss the 50 - 150 men who gave their stories to be part of the representation against the war when Kerry testified in front of Congress, to dismiss their claims, is very much like the Right spitting on them and condemning them when they voiced their stories and opinions after serving their country in Vietnam.

 

[WillyJ]

Let's see. .


I posted these comments on this thread Link 1 and Link 2 on Aug. 9th, a week and a half ago. .


Part of what I said was:

" Okay, now I'm just guessing. . . but this sure is starting to look like one of Karl Rove's disgusting gutterslime disinformation campaigns he is so infamous for. . ."

"Again, I'm just guessing. . but it sure is starting to remind me of Rove. . . So when I see statements on the "Swift Boat" site. . two things immediately come to mind. . I wonder what Karl Rove has been doing the past few weeks?. . ."

"
I also have to wonder: Kerry has been a Senator for 20 years and ran in some pretty heated campaigns against some popular Republican opponants, plus running as the Dem nominee for the past year. . . if these hundreds of guys had these awful "facts" against them did they wait until now when he has a very legit chance at being President to make them public??


Again, my best guess is that it has to do with Kerry running against someone who has Karl Rove has thier campaign manager. . ."



And now, today's headline and story from US News:

"Democrats Say "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" Has Links To Bush, Rove"

". . . Nightline also notes that as of Friday, "the anti-Kerry veterans had bought nearly $500,000 worth of TV ads in key battleground states. According to the group's June 30th statement with the IRS, $100,000 came from Bob Perry, a Houston real estate magnate and long-time Republican donor with ties to Bush's powerful political adviser Karl Rove."

Full Story



So, that settles that. . . I had it nailed and those of us who knew the Swift Boat Bush-boys were liars were right. .

That's that.

Ball Game.

thanks for coming. .

 

[BedKnobbery2]

Originally posted by Kendra17

Had you known about Carter's actual deeds regarding Haiti, I believe you would not have disputed the sources--since you are not refuting the facts in them now. I believe you would have immediately--being the logical person you are, of course--told me you wanted a quote regarding Clinton's feelings towards Carter. You did not. . .you challenged my sources regarding Carter's DEEDS.

Actually, Kendra, I wasn't the one who challenged your sources (although I believe I made a guess that they would be much along the lines of those you cited); others did, at which point you started whining about everyone ignoring your "factual accounts" (which actually were opinions peppered with facts) and instead only attacking the sources you used. At which point, I contributed by pointing out that you had sourced opinions that agreed with you; not strictly facts.

My observation, oddly enough, was a historical one, based on the fact that you repeatedly cite sources that come to the same conclusions you do and express those opinions, and when people don't buy those opinions wholesale, you accuse them of ignoring the facts--which they aren't, they are pointing out that since the sources you cite share the same opinions they will naturally agree with yours. I do note, as well, that when people cite sources that come to differing conclusions, you make no hesitation to jump right on the "not a reliable source" bandwagon, and accuse those sources of being biased--which you did when I posted sources about the same exact series of events and came to different conclusions. And they were biased--as your sources are as well. My arguement has been, and still is, that opinions are not facts--no matter how badly you want them to be perceived as such. However, once again, you are refusing to concede that point, and again are jumping back to your standard reply when someone disagrees with you--that obviously they are ignorant of the facts--when you have absolutely no basis for that assumption. Now, if I had said, "What? Carter has never been to Haiti, what the heck are you talking about?" THAT would be a statement that is obviously one based on ignorance of the facts. But I never said that, and neither did anyone else who challenged the opinions of the sources you cited.

 

[faithinkarma]

and the plot thickens

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040...

Volunteer Links Anti-Kerry Flier to GOP

46 minutes ago

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer

CRAWFORD, Texas - A volunteer for John Kerry (news - web sites) said Friday he picked up a flier in Bush-Cheney headquarters in Gainesville, Fla., promoting Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group the Bush campaign has insisted for weeks it has no connection to.



The Kerry campaign e-mailed the flier to news organizations Friday, declaring that the Bush-Cheney campaign was "busted" for coordinating "in their smear campaign against John Kerry."


At Bush-Cheney campaign headquarters outside Washington, spokesman Steve Schmidt said: "The Bush-Cheney campaign has nothing to do with that piece of paper. ... I don't know how it showed up at the campaign headquarters."


"The Bush-Cheney campaign would object to any flier like this being displayed in any Republican headquarters," said Schmidt.


The flier distributed at Alachua County Republican Party headquarters promotes a weekend rally sponsored by "Swift Boat Vets for Truth" and other groups.


Bill Shilling, a Kerry volunteer in Gainesville, says he went to the GOP offices there Thursday and picked up the flier from a pile of literature on the table.


"The flier they gave me was on the same table as some Bush-Cheney bumper stickers," said Shilling. "I asked them if the Swift boat veterans were coming to Gainesville, and the woman I talked to said yes."


Shilling said he went back to Kerry headquarters and turned over the flier.


"I thought there was supposed to be some separation between Bush-Cheney and the Swift boat controversy but I didn't understand there was a big deal about this," said Shilling. "I think this whole thing attacking Kerry's war record is a diversion by Bush-Cheney from the real issues of the campaign."


Financed by a Texas businessman with longtime ties to prominent Republicans in the state, including President Bush (news - web sites), Swift Boat Veterans for Truth sponsored an ad featuring several Vietnam veterans who accuse Kerry of lying about the circumstances surrounding events for which he won his medals. Kerry received a Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts while in Vietnam.


The anti-Kerry group distributed a second commercial to the news media and said it would begin airing the ad next week in Pennsylvania, Nevada and New Mexico, the last a state Bush plans to visit next Thursday. The ad intersperses clips of a youthful Kerry talking about war atrocities during an appearance before Congress in 1971 with images of veterans condemning his testimony.


The Kerry campaign filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (news - web sites) alleging Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was illegally coordinating its efforts with the Bush-Cheney campaign.


The Kerry campaign cited recent press reports and the group's own statements. The Bush campaign denied the allegation, as did the organization that aired the ad.

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by WillyJ
Let's see. .


I posted these comments on this thread Link 1 and Link 2 on Aug. 9th, a week and a half ago. .


Part of what I said was:

" Okay, now I'm just guessing. . . but this sure is starting to look like one of Karl Rove's disgusting gutterslime disinformation campaigns he is so infamous for. . ."

"Again, I'm just guessing. . but it sure is starting to remind me of Rove. . . So when I see statements on the "Swift Boat" site. . two things immediately come to mind. . I wonder what Karl Rove has been doing the past few weeks?. . ."

"
I also have to wonder: Kerry has been a Senator for 20 years and ran in some pretty heated campaigns against some popular Republican opponants, plus running as the Dem nominee for the past year. . . if these hundreds of guys had these awful "facts" against them did they wait until now when he has a very legit chance at being President to make them public??


Again, my best guess is that it has to do with Kerry running against someone who has Karl Rove has thier campaign manager. . ."



And now, today's headline and story from US News:

"Democrats Say "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" Has Links To Bush, Rove"

". . . Nightline also notes that as of Friday, "the anti-Kerry veterans had bought nearly $500,000 worth of TV ads in key battleground states. According to the group's June 30th statement with the IRS, $100,000 came from Bob Perry, a Houston real estate magnate and long-time Republican donor with ties to Bush's powerful political adviser Karl Rove."

Full Story



So, that settles that. . . I had it nailed and those of us who knew the Swift Boat Bush-boys were liars were right. .

That's that.

Ball Game.

thanks for coming. .

Sorry, Will, but this doesn't support collusion under the FEC rules. Not even close.

But maybe we ought to look closer at the Kerry campaign's ties to Moveon.org. Did you know that Kerry's director of online communications worked for Moveon.org up until April of this year?

 

[bsnyder]

I doubt the flyer would meet the collusion test either.

The issue is whether the Bush campaign colluded on the ad. There's not one shred of evidence that they did.

 

[faithinkarma]

did I say it did? it is just one more piece of the puzzle. Surely you want all the pieces?

 

[peachgirl]

I doubt the flyer would meet the collusion test either.

Ummm yeah, as I said earlier, no proof will satisfy you.

No one said that this single piece of information is all they need, but it's certainly a start.

Does it not bother you in the least that this was done? That flyers promoting the SBVT were being distributed at a Bush Campaign headquarters?

You don't see where that might lead a sane person to think that the Bush campaign approves of the SBVT???

The issue is whether the Bush campaign colluded on the ad.

No, I think the issue is whether or not the Bush campaign is distributing SBVT literature.

<center><IMG width="200" SRC="http://irregularradio.com/lovetoomuch.gif"></center>

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by peachgirl
Ummm yeah, as I said earlier, no proof will satisfy you.

No one said that this single piece of information is all they need, but it's certainly a start.

Does it not bother you in the least that this was done? That flyers promoting the SBVT were being distributed at a Bush Campaign headquarters?

You don't see where that might lead a sane person to think that the Bush campaign approves of the SBVT???



No, I think the issue is whether or not the Bush campaign is distributing SBVT literature.

<center><IMG width="200" SRC="http://irregularradio.com/lovetoomuch.gif"></center>

Is it against FEC rules to have flyers like that?

Is it against FEC rules for the Kerry campaign to hire someone who worked for Moveon.org?

Does it not bother you in the least that the liberal 527's have spent $176 million dollars (to the conservatives $10 million).

The irony of all of this outrage over the Swiftvets ads is quite amusing!

 

[bsnyder]

And Peachgirl, it's not a matter of evidence satisfying me!

The Kerry campaign has leveled a serious charge at the Bush campaign and is attempting to supress free speech. The FEC has rules and regulations and I guess we'll just have to wait and see what type of evidence the Kerry campaign has. So far, they've offered nothing.

 

[peachgirl]

The Kerry campaign has leveled a serious charge at the Bush campaign and is attempting to supress free speech.

Do you think that filing a complaint with the FEC is an attempt to surpress free speech?

Just curious, as I don't quite understand that idea.