Should this book be banned?

[wvrevy]

So, because he offered his service to his country as a reason he would make a good, strong commander in chief, that is free license for any group with a grudge to get financing from the friends of the Bush campaign to fabricate anything they want about him ? When the president is leading us into war after war (Iran is next, and not that far off if you watch the news), you don't think that his commitment to serving his country is something that should be brought to the forefront ? Kerry didn't just talk about serving his country, he DID it. Where was Bush ?

Oh, and by the way...the only other vet to receive a commendation for the events the day that Kerry pulled Rassman out of the water has had his records requested under the FOIA, and big surprise, they support everything Kerry has said. Face it, EVERY piece of hard evidence supports Kerry's version of events. These men are lying. Period.

Oh, and another person has now come forward and said that the Swifties are lying.....an article in the Chicago Tribune, written by the commander of one of the other two boats on the river that day has an article in today's paper condemning the lies being told about Kerry. You have to register (free) to read the article, but you can do so at this link .

 

[bsnyder]

wvrevy, I've already read the Chicago Tribune piece.

We can play dueling links, but I'm really not interested in wasting your time or my time. For everything you link to that shows an inconsistency in the Swiftvets story, I can point you to another one that shows an inconsistency in Kerry's version of events.

My biggest beef is with the double standard that's being applied. Kerry's running almost exclusively on his Vietnam hero record. Bush is running on his record as President for the last three years...that record has received intense scrutiny from the mainstream press, as well it should. Kerry's Vietnam record had, up until the last few weeks, received a complete pass with the mainstream media, even though there are plenty of inconsistencies that reporters would normally be salivating to explore.

 

[bsnyder]

From the NYT:

Stephanie Cutter, the Kerry campaign's communications director, said Mr. Kerry decided Wednesday night to respond to the attacks, hours after receiving a mixed reception at a convention of Veterans of Foreign Wars. Many veterans interviewed there parroted the charges from the Swift boaters' group.

"When somebody's attacking your military record, you reach a boiling point, and he reached a boiling point last night," Ms. Cutter explained. "When you go and fight in a war, when you spill blood for your country, your instinct is to fight back and defend your record."

Seems to me she's just given us perfect insight into the motivation of the Swiftvets.

 

[JPN4265]

Originally posted by 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.

NO BOOK SHOULD EVER BE BAND IF IT WAS LEGALLY PUBLISHED!

If you don't agree with the book or its message, don't buy it. If you band one book, you could be opening up one big can of worms for other books.

 

[ErikdaRed]

Legally published is the key phrase there. Libel isn't legal, and if it can be proven, neither is the book.

 

[jennyanydots]

This was mentioned earlier on the thread but without a link.



Bush and Rove got a booked banned back in the 2000 election. See http://mediamatters.org/items/200408200006



In light of the relentless media coverage of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth [sic] and their thinly sourced, consistently contradicted-by-official-documents attacks on Senator John Kerry (D-MA) -- most notably in the new book Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry -- it's worth revisiting how the media covered another controversial book with a controversial author.

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."

 

[bsnyder]

It seems to me the standard here is totaly up to the individual being written about.

I'm curious about the legal aspects, Jenny. And it's an area I know nothing about, so I'd appreciate your opnion. If someone (anyone, not just a political figure) truly believes they are being liabled, don't they have a legal right to threaten the publisher, and/or the author with a lawsuit?

I wouldn't find fault with John Kerry if he felt strongly enough that he filed suit against the publisher, in this case.

 

[bsnyder]

Another legal question. Would the person doing the suing try to get an injunction, to stop the book, while the whole thing went through the legal process. And if so, what's the burden of proof, to get an injunction?

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by jennyanydots
This was mentioned earlier on the thread but without a link.



Bush and Rove got a booked banned back in the 2000 election. See http://mediamatters.org/items/200408200006




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.

Hatfield had serious credibility problems because he was a convicted felon serving time and had no facts, no witnesses,etc to back up his fictional story. The press withdrew the book because of that. John O'Neill not only has documentation and witnesses but he has Kerry's own words to support his story.

 

[Pugdog007]

Originally posted by bsnyder
CNN is reporting that the Kerry campaign is filing a lawsuit with the FEC charging the Bush campaign with violating campaign laws in connection with the Swiftvets ads.

An act of desperation.

 

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by DawnCt1
The press withdrew the book because of that.

No, that is not the only reason, although I'm sure you know that.

First of all, the publisher of the Bush book was a mainstream publisher. The swift liar's publisher is a right wing conservative publishing house. They're not near as likely to care if the book is accurate.

If you'll take a look at some of trash they publish, they really aren't much above the National Inquirer level.

http://www.regnery.com/

Secondly, Bush threatened legal action and since this was a reputable publishing house, they did what I consider to be the right thing.

The recall was made after St. Martin's Press,worried that Bush might sue , confirmed that the author had served a prison sentence for attempted murder.

So, no it wasn't a simply voluntary withdrawal. And, had the swift liars tried to peddle their garbage to a mainstream, reputable publisher, they might never had gotten it into print.

 

[bsnyder]

Entertainment - Reuters Industry


Barnes & Noble Says 'Unfit' Sellout Not Its Fault

Mon Aug 23, 7:51 PM ET By Bob Tourtellotte

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Controversial book "Unfit for Command," which fires an election-year salvo at Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites)'s war record, has claimed one unintended victim -- bookstore chain Barnes & Noble Inc .



Barnes & Noble, the world's largest bookseller, on Monday issued a statement saying it had sold out of the book and, in effect, held up its hands in surrender to what it called "thousands of complaints" from both supporters and detractors of the book.


Supporters, Barnes & Noble said, are claiming the bookseller has intentionally not stocked the title or is hiding it, while detractors are asking stores to remove it altogether.


"(Complaints) started in the stores, and the home office has been inundated as well," said a company spokeswoman.


She said the company's statement was meant to "set the record straight." It is not Barnes & Noble's fault, she said, but rather small publisher Regnery Publishing who cut the chain's original order in half.


"We've been put in the difficult position of having to defend ourselves over a title we can't seem to get enough copies of from the publisher," Barnes & Noble chief executive Steve Riggio said in the statement.


A spokesman for Regnery was not immediately available for comment.


The book, written by John O'Neill and Jerome Corsi, questions the accounts of an attack on Kerry's swift boat during the Vietnam War, and his actions in the subsequent skirmish that led to his receiving a Silver Star medal.


O'Neill is a member of a group calling itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth which in key campaign states has been placing television advertisements that seek to discredit Kerry's war record.


Many veterans have come forward to support the U.S. Senator from Massachusetts who is running against President Bush (news - web sites), and Kerry has accused the Bush campaign of collaborating with Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.


On Monday, Bush called for the ads to be stopped.


As for the book, Barnes & Noble said it is awaiting additional copies in order to restock its shelves, and it expects more later this week.


But even the new order would not be enough to meet demand, the bookseller said.


Riggio said Barnes & Noble would not remove any title from its shelves, nor does it have any political agenda.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by peachgirl
http://www.regnery.com/
Secondly, Bush threatened legal action and since this was a reputable publishing house, they did what I consider to be the right thing.



So, no it wasn't a simply voluntary withdrawal. And, had the swift liars tried to peddle their garbage to a mainstream, reputable publisher, they might never had gotten it into print.

Kerry is free to sue. The Swift Boat Vets would welcome a law suit, so where is it? All of the proceeds from O'Neill's portion of the book is going to charity, so the motive isn't money, it to get to the truth. Kerry could start by releasing his own biography or at least putting all of the available copies that he bought up, back on the shelves. And releasing his navy records.

 

[peachgirl]

No doubt about it, they are getting rich off this.

 

[Pugdog007]

Originally posted by peachgirl
No doubt about it, they are getting rich off this.

All proceeds are going to charity. Try again.

 

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by DawnCt1
Kerry is free to sue. The Swift Boat Vets would welcome a law suit, so where is it? All of the proceeds from O'Neill's portion of the book is going to charity, so the motive isn't money, it to get to the truth. Kerry could start by releasing his own biography or at least putting all of the available copies that he bought up, back on the shelves. And releasing his navy records.

Do you have any links to back up any of this?

Sure Kerry could sue, never said he couldn't. The point was, you were trying to act as though the book banning that Bush demanded was all the publisher's decision. It was not.

Link for proof that the swift liars would welcome a lawsuit?

Link for proof that O'Neill's entire portion is goint to a charity?

I think Bush should release his records.

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by peachgirl
No doubt about it, they are getting rich off this.

And you don't think a mainstream publishing house would touch it?

 

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by Pugdog007
All proceeds are going to charity. Try again.

All proceeds? As I asked Dawn, can you post a link that would confirm that?

And you don't think a mainstream publishing house would touch it?

Perhaps they may have, but at this point I'd bet they'd be taking it off the shelves just as they did for Bush's.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by peachgirl
Do you have any links to back up any of this?

Sure Kerry could sue, never said he couldn't. The point was, you were trying to act as though the book banning that Bush demanded was all the publisher's decision. It was not.

Link for proof that the swift liars would welcome a lawsuit?

Link for proof that O'Neill's entire portion is goint to a charity?

I think Bush should release his records.

Anyone can sue if they are a victim of libel, which President Bush was in Hatfield's book. It was easy to disprove his book since he was incarcerated during the time in question. He has since committed suicide. I have heard O'Neill on two separate occasions, during radio and television interviews that his entire portion was going to charity; I believe the Marine and Sailors relief Fund, AND that he would welcome a law suit. Bush's records have been released. Kerry could do the same.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by peachgirl
Do you have any links to back up any of this?

Sure Kerry could sue, never said he couldn't. The point was, you were trying to act as though the book banning that Bush demanded was all the publisher's decision. It was not.

Link for proof that the swift liars would welcome a lawsuit?

Link for proof that O'Neill's entire portion is goint to a charity?

I think Bush should release his records.

Anyone can sue if they are a victim of libel, which President Bush was in Hatfield's book. It was easy to disprove his book since he was incarcerated during the time in question. He has since committed suicide. I have heard O'Neill on two separate occasions, during radio and television interviews that his entire portion was going to charity; I believe the Marine and Sailors relief Fund, AND that he would welcome a law suit. Bush's records have been released. Kerry could do the same.