Should this book be banned?

[bsnyder]

Still doesn't work, can you cut and paste it?

 

[peachgirl]

"In 1999, St. Martin's Press published a book by author James H. Hatfield called Fortunate Son: George W. Bush and the Making of an American President. The book, which contained allegations that then-candidate George W. Bush had used cocaine in the 1970s, received barely any media coverage -- until Hatfield's own past came into question, at which point Hatfield, not the allegations in his book, became the media's primary discussion topic during the story's short life.

Fortunate Son, like Unfit for Command, contained false and unverifiable claims about a presidential candidate. Fortunate Son's author, like Unfit for Command's co-authors John E. O'Neill and Jerome R. Corsi, had serious credibility problems.

While the media virtually ignored Fortunate Son (other than to condemn the book and its author), the Bush campaign was quick to threaten legal action, and many in the media suggested the press had a responsibility to either ignore the book altogether or to debunk its claims. When St. Martin's eventually suspended publication and recalled the book, the Bush campaign lauded the decision as "the right thing to do." "


Dawn you said:
"Don't recall the Bush Team demanding a recall or banning of the Michael Moore movie.....Now lets all just imagine the hue and cry if President Bush called on Joe Wilson's book, which is proven to be a pack of lies to be "withdrawn". We would have pictures of nazis burning books from the 1940's with the head line, NOT AGAIN!!!"

Looks like you were wrong...Is Bush guilty of book banning???


Maleficent13-
You said:
... 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

Knowing that Bush threatened legal action and was successful in getting a book "banned", does this give you reason to not vote for Bush?


monarchsfan16-
You said:
... if Kerry is so intent on banning this book I think that tells us something about his true colors

What does Bush's legal threats and success in getting a book banned tell us about his true colors?


Just wondering...

 

[Disney Doll]

I don't think any book should ever be banned.

 

[LittleMissMickey]

No books should ever be banned. We have a lot of freedoms in this country. One is to write down whatever we want. Another is to pick up and read whatever we want. People need to start being grown ups and realize that we have the Constitution for a reason.

There is lots of bad stuff out there written about most people in politics. Instead of trying to hide the information from people or declare it as "LIES," why don't they just try to put on a better display of character. Hmm... Perhaps they don't have one?

I disagree with banning any books, but on books such as this, especially. We have no proof to whether it is fact or creation by the author, so it should not be pulled away from the voting public.

Just my opinion. Things like this (people trying to use their way too much money to paint a radiant image of themselves) really get me heated.

Ashley

 

[ErikdaRed]

Uh we don't have the freedom to write whatever we want. We can't libel anyone, which I assume this book is doing to Kerry, or he wouldn't be calling for the publisher to pull it.

 

[jennyanydots]

I am a great believer in the First Amendment.

I am also a great believer in laws that protect against defamation.

with the freedom to express oneself comes the responsibility to be truthful and honest, and to be accountable for what one says.

a wise publisher woould withdraw the book to insulate itself from a defamation claim. let Thurlow publish the book with his own money, then he and he alone can be held accountable for its mistruths and lies.

the difference between the Swift Vets and Moore -- Moore presents information and puts a spin on it that leads you to a certain conclusion -- one that supports his opinion. nothing he presents as fact is a lie, though he does present factual information in a light that favors his view of the world. he doesn't SAY "the Saudis control the White House because of their friendship with the Bush family" but he presents information that would lead the viewer to that conclusion -- he discusses the relationship between Bush and members of the Saudi family, he discusses the interplay between Texas oil companies and Saudi oil comapnies, and you're left with an impression that the two are somehow related.

what the Swift Vets do is challenge the validity of factual information, as contained in Navy records. Thurlow was awarded a Bronze Star for the same operation as Kerry -- an operation in which thurlow presumably came under enemy fire. yet he says in a public forum that Kerry did not come under fire. if kerry's medal is fraudulent, doesn't that make Thurlow's invalid too?

if the Swift Vets want to challenge Kerry on his anti war stance after he left the service, let them do so. right now they're becomeing the buffoons of the tv talk show world.

 

[wvrevy]

LOL... ...LOL

Bush actually did the EXACT same thing that Dawn and some others were oh-so-indignant about Kerry doing, and suddenly they're nowhere to be found when it's pointed out...LOL

Too funny Not surprising, but still....

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by wvrevy
LOL... ...LOL

Bush actually did the EXACT same thing that Dawn and some others were oh-so-indignant about Kerry doing, and suddenly they're nowhere to be found when it's pointed out...LOL

Too funny Not surprising, but still....

I disagree, as I said in another thread.

There's been a double standard applied all along, in the mainstream press. Accusations against Bush are given intense scrutiny. Kerry's war record, and particularly his activities after the war have not received the same investigation by the mainstream media.

Fortunately, the voters no longer have to rely soley on the mainstream press. If they did, we wouldn't even be talking about this right now. But the internet has allowed people to get information from a variety of sources without the ideologicial filters.

 

[jennyanydots]

wvrevy -- you are so right.

hey pot, this is kettle. guess what?

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by jennyanydots

if the Swift Vets want to challenge Kerry on his anti war stance after he left the service, let them do so. right now they're becomeing the buffoons of the tv talk show world.

The second ad does exactly that. And I think it gets to the heart of the issue, for the 250 vets who are opposing Kerry.

 

[faithinkarma]

Considering that every day more comes out to prove these allegations are lies, the publishers are leaving themselves wide open.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-040821kerry,1,7582568.story?coll=chi-news-hed

Swift boat skipper: Kerry critics wrong
Tribune editor breaks long silence on Kerry record; fought in disputed battle

By Tim Jones
Tribune national correspondent
Published August 21, 2004

The commander of a Navy swift boat who served alongside Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry during the Vietnam War stepped forward Saturday to dispute attacks challenging Kerry's integrity and war record.

William Rood, an editor on the Chicago Tribune's metropolitan desk, said he broke 35 years of silence about the Feb. 28, 1969, mission that resulted in Kerry's receiving a Silver Star because recent portrayals of Kerry's actions published in the best-selling book "Unfit for Command" are wrong and smear the reputations of veterans who served with Kerry.

Rood, who commanded one of three swift boats during that 1969 mission, said Kerry came under rocket and automatic weapons fire from Viet Cong forces and that Kerry devised an aggressive attack strategy that was praised by their superiors. He called allegations that Kerry's accomplishments were "overblown" untrue.

"The critics have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us. It's gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come from people who were not there," Rood said in a 1,700-word first-person account published in Sunday's Tribune.

Rood's recollection of what happened on that day at the southern tip of South Vietnam was backed by key military documents, including his citation for a Bronze Star he earned in the battle and a glowing after-action report written by the Navy captain who commanded his and Kerry's task force, who is now a critic of the Democratic candidate.

Rood's previously untold story and the documents shed new light on a key historical event that has taken center stage in an extraordinary political and media firestorm generated by a group calling itself the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

 

[jennyanydots]

so, if the "facts" of Kerry's record are untrue, bsnyder, does that mean thurlow's medal is fraudulent too? and if he's scrupuulously honest, shouldn't he give that medal back?

for crying out loud, the man still has scrapnel in his leg...

but then again, weren't the Republicans the ones who questioned Max Cleland's patriotism?

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by bsnyder
The second ad does exactly that. And I think it gets to the heart of the issue, for the 250 vets who are opposing Kerry.

The second ad is LYING...It takes Kerry's comments completely out of context, as has already been shown ad nauseum. Are you seriously saying that that is honest ? Kerry was repeating things that other soldiers had told him...NOT accusing them of these crimes, as the ad and some people here suggest. The ad is DISHONEST, plain and simple.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by jennyanydots
but then again, weren't the Republicans the ones who questioned Max Cleland's patriotism?

Yes, and this was a Karl Rove special...They painted Cleeland as anti-Amurcan for voting against the initial bill that formed the Homeland Security department, leaving out his reasoning fo doing so, of course. The initial bill would have stripped civil service protections from over 160,000 workers, and Max saw no reason to put those jobs in jeopardy to pass the bill. He objected, and for that, the slime in the Rove camp managed to paint a man that lost three limbs defending his country as somehow unpatriotic.

Nauseating.

 

[jennyanydots]

I agree, nauseating. and when Kerry is elected in November, i hope he appoints Cleland to a good post...maybe tom ridge's job?

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by wvrevy
The second ad is LYING...It takes Kerry's comments completely out of context, as has already been shown ad nauseum. Are you seriously saying that that is honest ? Kerry was repeating things that other soldiers had told him...NOT accusing them of these crimes, as the ad and some people here suggest. The ad is DISHONEST, plain and simple.

Sorry, that dog won't hunt!

So what exactly WAS Kerry's point in testifying before the Senate, and repeating things that other soldiers had told him?

So if someone tells me that wvrevy is a secretly a Bush-loving Republican, and I post that someone told me that on the Community Board, you wouldn't accuse me of misrepresenting you?

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by jennyanydots
I agree, nauseating. and when Kerry is elected in November, i hope he appoints Cleland to a good post...maybe tom ridge's job?

Now there's an idea I can get behind I seriously doubt that he would politicize the office the way Ridge has...I think he has too much respect for this country to do that.

I'd also like to see him put in John Shalikisvili as Secretary of Defense. He was VERY well respected as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and again, I think he'd treat the office with the respect it deserves, rather than using it to stump for the president the way Rummy does.

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Yes, and this was a Karl Rove special...They painted Cleeland as anti-Amurcan for voting against the initial bill that formed the Homeland Security department, leaving out his reasoning fo doing so, of course. The initial bill would have stripped civil service protections from over 160,000 workers, and Max saw no reason to put those jobs in jeopardy to pass the bill. He objected, and for that, the slime in the Rove camp managed to paint a man that lost three limbs defending his country as somehow unpatriotic.

Nauseating.

Have you actually seen the ad in question?

I have, and it doesn't pain Cleland as anti-American at all. The Democrats just can't accept the fact that he lost because he was far too liberal for his own consituency. So they have to blame the Republicans for their own mistakes.

Same thing is happening now. Ya'll nominated a very weak candidate, who's had to play up his 4 month Vietnam service in order to have something to run on. But that's opened up a can of worms for him and his opposition has ever right to question and criticise him, particularly his anti-war record. Kerry's trying to have it both ways, and I don't think that's going to fly with a majority of the voters.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by bsnyder
Sorry, that dog won't hunt!

So what exactly WAS Kerry's point in testifying before the Senate, and repeating things that other soldiers had told him?

So if someone tells me that wvrevy is a secretly a Bush-loving Republican, and I post that someone told me that on the Community Board, you wouldn't accuse me of misrepresenting you?

No...though I might accuse you of being a just a tad bit gullible

Kerry's point was that the actual fighting of the war had gotten out of hand, and that neither the soldiers fighting it (those that had told him those stories) nor the ones directing the fighting (those that had created "free fire zones" and such) were any longer in control of what was going on. He even went a step further on the talk shows that have been referenced here, taking culpability on himself for participating in "atrocities" such as "burning villages in order to save them".

Kerry has NOT tried to hide from anything he did during OR after the war, while Bush has hidden from his record at every turn. Again, I think it's completely dishonest to question Kerry when you give Bush a free pass.

 

[bsnyder]

I'm absolutely not giving Bush a free pass.

If he was running on his National Guard record, as Kerry is doing on his Vietnam record (you DID watch the DNC Convention, didn't you?) then he'd be inviting us to scrutinize that record in great detail.

If he hadn't mentioned Vietnam in every single speech and every single interview, and if he hadn't made it the cornerstone of his "introduction to the American voters" at the convention, most people (including me) would be saying "so what, that was 30 years ago" to the Swiftvet story.

I know you don't want to face the fact that your candidate brought all of this on himself, but that's exactly what has happened.