Should this book be banned?

[DawnCt1]

Kerry is calling upon the publisher of Unfit for Duty to withdraw the book, www.drudgereport.com. Apparently the Swift Boat Vets havBe hit a nerve. I don't recall the Bush Team demanding a recall or banning of the Michael Moore movie. I didn't realize that the Democratic party stood for book banning but this book has chipped into his polling numbers. Again, I anticipate the usual attacks on Matt Drudge's web site, a case of attacking the messenger.

 

[POLLY ANN]

Dawn, I'm not able to access your link. I would be interested to see it, however.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by POLLY ANN
Dawn, I'm not able to access your link. I would be interested to see it, however.

I have such bad luck with links, Go to Drudgereport.com. Its today's lead story.

 

[monarchsfan16]

I've heard about this book. It definitely should not be banned. After all in this country we have freedom of speech. No book should ever be banned no matter how negative it is. And if Kerry is so intent on banning this book I think that tells us something about his true colors. Obviously noone wants something bad written about them, but how many have gone this far. There are plenty of books that attack President Bush and he hasn't tried to ban any of them. However most importantly it is the right of the authors to write this book, and it needs to remain available to the public.

 

[Beth76]

I didn't look at the link, but I don't believe than ANY book should be banned.

 

[gometros]

Originally posted by POLLY ANN
Dawn, I'm not able to access your link. I would be interested to see it, however.

It's only becuase the period at the end of the link was taken as a part of the link.

I haven't read the report, but perhaps the difference between the two is that the former is a work of fiction parading as fact and the latter is not?

 

[wvrevy]

Here's a slightly different take on this story, that the sludge report is putting out:
--------------------------------
Unfit for bookstores
The Kerry campaign calls on a conservative publisher to withdraw book after the Washington Post torpedoes the veracity of a Swift boat veteran.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Eric Boehlert

Aug. 19, 2004 | The Kerry campaign has told Salon that the publisher of "Unfit for Command," the book that is at the center of the attack on Kerry's military record by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, is retailing a hoax and should consider withdrawing it from bookstores. "No publisher should want to be selling books with proven falsehoods in them, especially falsehoods that are meant to smear the military service of an American veteran," said Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton. "If I were them, I'd be ducking under my desk wondering what to do. This is a serious problem."

Even some uncomfortable Republicans might breathe a sigh a relief if "Unfit for Command" were to vanish from bookstores: "I don't think the Swift Boat Veterans are helping the Republican cause," Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., remarked on CNN Thursday.

Yanking the title may seem unlikely given the fact that Regnery Publishing, the conservative shop that is home to fire-breathing right-wing partisans like Ann Coulter and David Limbaugh, is behind the book. Thanks to the big-spending campaign of the Republican veterans group, which is bankrolled by major Bush contributors, the book has already hit bestseller lists and is sure to turn a big profit.


But there is a long-standing tradition by reputable publishers of withdrawing titles that prove to be hoaxes or frauds. Just last month Random House's Australian unit was forced to pull an international bestseller after it was determined to be a fabrication. The book, "Forbidden Love," allegedly detailed the death of a Jordanian woman, murdered by her Muslim father after he discovered she was seeing a Christian man. After questions were raised, an internal investigation by Random House concluded the book was a fraud.

"Unfit for Command" and the veterans group behind it are facing similar questions Thursday after the Washington Post torpedoed the veracity of one of its key members. Larry Thurlow, who commanded a Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam, has insisted Kerry lied about the circumstances surrounding his Bronze Star award, claiming Kerry's boat never came under enemy fire on March 13, 1969, the day an injured Kerry leaned overboard to scoop wounded Green Beret Larry Rassmann out of the river. But contrary to Thurlow's claim, the Washington Post has reported today that according to his own military files, which recorded the events of March 13, 1969, "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" were directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla, including Kerry's.

Earlier, Retired Adm. Roy Hoffmann, chairman and co-founder of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, flip-flopped on a key element of his Kerry story. In May, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported, "Hoffmann acknowledged he had no first-hand knowledge to discredit Kerry's claims to valor and said that although Kerry was under his command, he really didn't know Kerry much personally." But with the pending publication of "Unfit for Command," Hoffmann changed his story, insisting he "knew [Kerry] well."

Hoffmann wasn't alone in reversing his story on the Kerry attack. In 1968, Grant Hibbard, a lieutenant commander in Vietnam during Kerry's tour, described Kerry favorably: "One of the top few in his willingness to seek and accept responsibility." But now he claims Kerry lied about his service. Another vocal Kerry critic, Capt. George Elliot, who served in Vietnam at the same time Kerry did, praised Kerry both in a 1968 evaluation ("In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, Lieutenant Junior Grade Kerry was unsurpassed") and as recently as 1996 when Elliot publicly praised Kerry for charging after the enemy.

A Regnery Publishing spokesperson did not return a call seeking comment about the factual cloud over "Unfit for Command." But if Regnery doesn't withdraw the book, perhaps bookstore retailers will at least consider moving the title over to the fiction section.

 

[Maleficent13]

I don't care if someone publishes a book that says the moon is made of green cheese and the earth is flat. I want to be able to read it to decide for myself.

I haven't gone to the link yet, but if it is as presented by the OP, this might qualify for me on that thread someone had going about if there was anything that someone might do to make you change your vote. I'd have to investigate it thoroughly before making any decision.

 

[peachgirl]

It's not unusual for reputable publishers to recall books that have been proven to be based on lies and inaccuracies. Reputable would be the operative word here.

That's not book banning, that's responsible journalism.


Perhaps rather than call for the publisher to withdraw that piece of trash called a book, he should insist that the publisher require the authors to correct the lies they told in it.

Then again, if they did that, they wouldn't have a book to sell, would they?


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

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by peachgirl
It's not unusual for reputable publishers to recall books that have been proven to be based on lies and inaccuracies. Reputable would be the operative word here.

That's not book banning, that's responsible journalism.


Perhaps rather than call for the publisher to withdraw that piece of trash called a book, he should insist that the publisher require the authors to correct the lies they told in it.

Then again, if they did that, they wouldn't have a book to sell, would they?


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

Wouldn't it first be required that the mainstream media actually investigate the charges made in the book, to determine what the truth is?

The only thing they've investigated, so far, is the SwiftVets themselves, and any ties they may have to the Republican party.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by bsnyder
Wouldn't it first be required that the mainstream media actually investigate the charges made in the book, to determine what the truth is?

The only thing they've investigated, so far, is the SwiftVets themselves, and any ties they may have to the Republican party.

Oh, please...Every piece of evidence backs up Kerry's version of events. The ONLY thing these guys have is their "word", and when that word is being bought and paid for by Bush's biggest supporter in his old state, how can anyone actually take them seriously ?

 

[LisaSt]

No I don't think it should be banned just like Moores movie shouldn' be pulled from theartres but this is no worse than the Bush supporters calling for a boycott of Bruce Springsteen

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Oh, please...Every piece of evidence backs up Kerry's version of events. The ONLY thing these guys have is their "word", and when that word is being bought and paid for by Bush's biggest supporter in his old state, how can anyone actually take them seriously ?

Oh please....how do you know the evidence backs up Kerry's version of events? The evidence has never been examined in detail. Never. Kerry hasn't even signed the necessary forms to release all his military records.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Oh, please...Every piece of evidence backs up Kerry's version of events. The ONLY thing these guys have is their "word", and when that word is being bought and paid for by Bush's biggest supporter in his old state, how can anyone actually take them seriously ?

Actually, there is virtually no "evidence" that backs up Kerry's version of events. The Swift Boaters are out there, answering the tough questions, explaining the circumstances and Kerry still won't release all of the records. Recently the Swift Boat Vets raised $450,000 from10,000 Americans interested in knowing their story. Its hurting Kerry. Why is Kerry's word any more credible to you than the word of these war heros? Also, Kerry's has changed his version of events a couple of times, not to mention, "Christmas in Cambodia". Could it be that Kerry's is the Manchurian Candidate?

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by LisaSt
No I don't think it should be banned just like Moores movie shouldn' be pulled from theartres but this is no worse than the Bush supporters calling for a boycott of Bruce Springsteen

Sorry, but the way I see it, this is totally different. I have no problem with a boycott of the book, if the Dems or the Kerry campaign want to organize one. But banning the book would be analogous to the Bush supporters calling for Springsteen's label to drop him entirely.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by bsnyder
Wouldn't it first be required that the mainstream media actually investigate the charges made in the book, to determine what the truth is?

The only thing they've investigated, so far, is the SwiftVets themselves, and any ties they may have to the Republican party.

The mainstream media has been given every opportunity to investigate this story, but clearly, the story doesn't support their candidate. You are right. The SwiftVets who dared to come forward and tell their story have been maligned and examined and the candidate has been given a pass. I think it will get to the point where the need for a good, honest story may be even too much for the press and they will be "forced" to take a closer look. One can only hope.

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by DawnCt1
The mainstream media has been given every opportunity to investigate this story, but clearly, the story doesn't support their candidate. You are right. The SwiftVets who dared to come forward and tell their story have been maligned and examined and the candidate has been given a pass. I think it will get to the point where the need for a good, honest story may be even too much for the press and they will be "forced" to take a closer look. One can only hope.

I think they'll have to now. The blogosphere has definitely made it's mark on the political process and its' influence in future elections will only grow stronger. Conversely, the mainstream media's stranglehold on shaping election storylines is becoming a thing of the past.

For the record, I have always said I wasn't interested in the military service issue....for either Bush or Kerry. I would rather focus on the important issues, rather than the ancient history of 30 years ago. I would like to have taken at face value the claims that Kerry served heroically and with valor in Vietnam, and give him credit for that.

However, he chose, as a campaign strategy, to make that service a central pillar of his qualifications to run for office. Many vets are now questioning those qualifications. The mainstream media has an obligation to examine the facts and report objectively on them. And if they won't do it, they'll continue to lose credibility with the public.

 

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by bsnyder
Oh please....how do you know the evidence backs up Kerry's version of events? The evidence has never been examined in detail. Never. Kerry hasn't even signed the necessary forms to release all his military records.

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/military_records.html

What else would you like him to release?


The evidence is being examined and the lies they told are being exposed. The SBVT refuse to release ANY information on their military records so it takes some time, but slowly the truth is coming out every day.

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

 

[EsmeraldaX]

NO book should be banned.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by bsnyder
Oh please....how do you know the evidence backs up Kerry's version of events? The evidence has never been examined in detail. Never. Kerry hasn't even signed the necessary forms to release all his military records.

Kerry has released nearly ALL his records, and these jerks refuse to release ANYTHING...and since the Washington Post found that one of them was blatantly and obviously lying based on his records that they DID manage to get, it's no wonder that they are hiding.

And as for military records, am I honestly hearing a supporter of the draft-dodger in the white house...that valiant protector of Alabama from the Vietcong (when he could be bothered to show up)...complaining about someone not releasing their military records ? That's rich...lol