This is interesting,I wonder why the Kerry camp said no.

What is interesting is that you you would expect us to believe anything from Brian Bozell's Blog has any truth to it. The lying liar even had to change the name of his propaganda site.

I guess that means that if you dont like the source,it is automatically a lie?

Why dont you comment on the article,and the issues it raises?
If the article had attacked Bush,then it would be a legitimate site,right?

I don't comment on non-credible sources. Next, you will be linking from newsmax or worldnet. Now I know why your view of the world is so skewed.

Then define "credible source"

You tell us all exactly what sources are to be accepted,and those that are not.
That way,when I find a similiar article in your source,you have to accept it.

So,give us a list of the sources you will accept,and I will use those against you,ok.

Cool.

Credible sources are CNN, Reuters, ABC/CBS/NBC, Fox to an extent, The Observer, BBC, NYT (though I am sure you will object to that last one).

Newsmax, Drudge, Worldnet, NY Post etc. are rumor mongers with no accountability for the accuracy or veracity of their stories. I don't care what the slant is so much; mostly, oversight and responsibility to accuracy of reporting are the key to credibility.

Cycloptichorn

Then you should believe a link to the Media Matters group.
After all,they are not unreliable,are they?
Here is the link...
http://mediamatters.org/items/200408200003

And here is the letter they sent...

MMFA sends letter to Wal-Mart, Amazon.com, and Barnes & Noble asking these top booksellers to review policies on selling Unfit for Command



Dear CEO:

In light of an August 19 report in The Washington Post (titled "Records Counter a Critic of Kerry") proving that a key allegation in the new book Unfit for Command by John E. O'Neill and Jerome R. Corsi is fraudulent, I'm writing to express my concern that by continuing to sell Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry as a work of nonfiction, prominent book retailers are complicit in a literary hoax.

The Post reported on August 19 that "[n]ewly obtained military records of one of Sen. John F. Kerry's most vocal critics, who has accused the Democratic presidential candidate of lying about his wartime record to win medals, contradict his own version of events." This is but the latest in a long line of evidence that Unfit for Command is a fraud, with no basis in reality and no attempt to convey the truth. Slate.com editor Jacob Weisberg has described the book as a "scurrilous book accusing Kerry of being a war criminal and faking his injuries in Vietnam"; it's important to keep in mind that official military records (as well as the statements of all but one of Kerry's crewmates) flatly contradict the lies in Unfit for Command.

With the revelations of August 19, it's clear that Unfit for Command is the Hitler Diaries of the current political season -- a complete fraud. As you know, and as Salon.com reported on August 19, "[T]here is a long-standing tradition by reputable publishers of withdrawing titles that prove to be hoaxes or frauds." I would hope that in the case of Unfit for Command, Regnery, the book's publisher, would do the right thing and withdraw it from publication. However, given Regnery's history as an irresponsible publisher, I have no expectation, nor should you, that it will act responsibly with respect to this deeply flawed book.

I therefore ask you to consider what is the responsibility of a bookseller when a prominent work of nonfiction is found to be based on false information. As the president and CEO of Media Matters for America, a nonprofit organization that seeks to rid the U.S. media (including book publishing) of conservative misinformation, I ask you to consider taking some action on Unfit for Command -- if not simply pulling it from the shelf -- to alert your customers that this book is a paid political hatchet job, full of false allegations and lies. One way you could do so is to prominently place on your Unfit for Command product page a link to -- and excerpt from -- one of the many refutations of Unfit for Command and the organization behind it.

In addition to the August 19 Washington Post report, I'd also like to draw your attention to my organization's website, www.mediamatters.org, where we have documented, since Unfit for Command's publication, several false and grossly contradictory statements made by the so-called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Of particular interest may be the bigoted and hate-filled prior writings of Unfit co-author Jerome Corsi, for which he has publicly apologized. Other resources you may wish to consider making available to your customers include FactCheck.org, a project of the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center, which has debunked Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and the August 18 Slate.com piece titled "Unfriendly Fire: Liar vs. coward in the Vietnam ad war," by William Saletan and Jacob Weisberg.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

David Brock

Now,tell me that there isnt an attempt to ban the book?

nimh and soz have posted several times about Kerry condemning third party anti-Bush ads. I'm surprised you haven't noticed any of those posts, mysteryman.

here's are a couple of quick references to "Kerry condemns anti-Bush ad"

link



link

Reclassifying a book from non-fiction to fiction is NOT the same as banning it.

Factcheck.org is an interesting source of information.

Beth,
Bush has also comdemned them,burt the left seems to ignore that part.
The Kerry camo is demanding that Bush MAKE the SBV's stop,forgetting that Bush CANT make them stop.

I just posted the story,and the actual letter demanding that booksellers stop selling the book.
That sounds like censorship to me,telling a book store they cant sell a book.

Media Matters can't control what stores sell. I'm pretty sure you know that.

I'd recommend a registration with factcheck.org to everyone. Interesting stuff pops up.

Bush, through a bushinc puppet organization, tells the jury that Kerry is a liar and a coward......he gives it some time to sink in......then magnaminously and out of concern for fair play....tells the jury to disregard those remarks.......a large percentage of dumbasses buy that crap.......but not everyone.....not near everyone......

I know they cant,I was just pointing out that an ADMITTED LIBERAL GROUP is trying to ban a book.Isnt it the liberals that always trumpet "free speech"?

I find it strange that a liberal group is trying to ban a book.

Read what YOU posted.
They are not trying to ban the book.
That is a very different process.

Will you also admit that groups like Moveon.org are Kerry puppets?
If you arent willing to apply the same standards to the liberal groups,then you are a hypocrite of the biggest order.
You claim that the SBV's arer a Bush group,with NO evidence,other then the fact that a republican bankrolled them.
Now,since a democrat (George Sorros) has publicly stated that he is willing to spend his ENTIRE fortune to defeat Bush,and since he is funding many of the anti-Bush groups,you must admit that those groups are Kerry puppets.
If you wont admit that,then you must also be willing to admit that SBV is NOT a Bush "puppet"
Either both groups are "puppets",or neither group is.

Beth,
How do you know the book is fiction?
Were you there? Did you SEE the events the book speaks about?
Since the answer to those questions is NO,and since these vets were there,then we have to let them speak and tell what they know.
Even if you think they are wrong,you DONT KNOW,because you WERENT THERE.

I'm just quoting what you posted, mysteryman.

Your right,lets look at factcheck.org.
On another campaign statement that the dems have made about Bush losing manufacturing jobs. But,the left might not like it...

http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=234

As the announcer says "millions of good jobs lost to plant closures and outsourcing," the video shows the words "2.7 million manufacturing jobs lost."

That's true as far as it goes. The Bureau of Labor Statistics indeed reports that payroll jobs in the manufacturing sector went from nearly 17.1 million at the time Bush took office to just over 14.4 million in June, a decline of very nearly 2.7 million.

But -- as a look at the chart below will show -- US manufacturing employment was in decline for nearly three years before Bush became President. It actually declined by 544,000 between the peak reached in March, 1998 and when Clinton left office, even as the economy added nearly 7.8 million jobs in all categories during the climax of a roaring economic boom that ended a few weeks after Bush was sworn in. In fact, 238,000 of those manufacturing jobs were lost in Clinton's last six month alone, showing that the decline was well-established even before Bush had spent a day in office.

So,if you really want to look at factcheck.org,you wont like the results.
Here is another one...

http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=236

An ad released by the Media Fund Aug. 11 is targeted to Ohio, featuring Ohio residents criticizing the President for loss of jobs overseas. In it, one of them says, "When President Bush says he's going to help companies outsource jobs, it's infuriating."

Maybe it would be infuriating if Bush really had said that, but he didn't.

What Bush has actually said is this: "The best way to deal with job creation and outsourcing is to make sure our businesses are competitive here at home."


Analysis


This ad is just the latest in a steady drum-beat of Democratic attacks blaming Bush for job losses overseas. In this one, a man identified as Louis Russo, a Cleveland resident, says, "When President Bush says he's going to help companies outsource jobs, it's infuriating." The fact is, Bush never said that.

http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=228

In his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention July 29 Kerry repeated a claim that the economy is creating jobs that pay $9,000 a year less than those they replace. He bases that on disputed analysis from a liberal think tank.

In fact, economists disagree about whether jobs are getting worse or better. As we said before, there's evidence both ways. Even some Democratic economists say the economic numbers are simply too rough and contradictory to allow any conclusion about the direction of change, let alone about how much less or more the new jobs pay.

Kerry also said "wages are falling" when in fact they are increasing. It's true wages haven't kept up with inflation for the past several months. But even after adjusting for inflation they're still higher than when Bush took office.

Here is another one...
http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=162

A Democratic National Committee Internet ad falsely states as "fact" that Bush "cuts key education programs by 27%." Actually, the budget for the Department of Education has grown 58% under Bush, and he's proposing another 5% increase next year, including sizeable increases in spending for children from low-income families and for special education for disabled children.

The ad also falsely claims Bush "slashes job training by 24%." Actually, Bush is proposing to roll most of that money to a new job-training initiative at 2-year community colleges.

The DNC ad also flunks the logic test, criticizing Bush both for increasing the federal deficit and also for not spending more -- which of course would increase the deficit even more.

Do you want me to keep going?

No! It gets tiresome.



You don't need quotes by Bush to show that he supports outsourcing - he never approaches it as a problem (Kerry mentions it almost every speech), he doesn't talk about limiting business' ability to do it, he doesn't talk about closing the tax loopholes that allow corporations to effectively pay no taxes, in large part by allowing them to pay no taxes on foreign employees, he refuses to consider tarriffs that would make US-manufactured products much more competitive.

What DID Bush say about the problem of outsourcing? "The best way to deal with job creation and outsourcing is to make sure our businesses are competitive here at home." How exactly do we make sure our businesses are competitive? For some reason, I bet 'giving them more money and bigger tax breaks, while relaxing those pesty environmental laws' is not too far off of the mark.

It's what Bush DOESN'T say that shows his position on Big Business and outsourcing.

Give me a break. You act like both sides don't do this, like every presidential campaign in history hasn't manipulated the numbers to make the other guy look bad. Your Boy Bush is just as guilty of it - remember the 'Kerry voted to raise taxes 350 times' line not only used by advertising, but by Bush himself? Here's a link you might want to look at(I'm sure you'll trust the site):

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=159



Straight from the horses' mouth. Now, can we get back to debating policy?

Cycloptichorn

Neither were you, so how do you know it isn't?
How do you know they ARE telling the truth, especially given the fact that several of them have praised Kerry in the past?
There is as much evidence that it is fiction as there is that it is truth; the most telling evidence is that according to the U.S. gov't, it is fiction. Bush was just on TV yesterday saying he didn't support what the SBVfT were claiming.

Cycloptichorn