|
Kerry Campaign Calls For Book Ban
|
View this Thread in Original format
| imokruok |
From Salon.com as reported via Drudge this morning - full story to appear later in the day:
| quote: |
Friday August 20, 2004
The Kerry campaign calls on a publisher to 'withdraw book' written by group of veterans, claiming veterans are lying about Kerry's service in Vietnam and operating as a front organization for Bush. Kerry campaign has told Salon.com that the publisher of UNFIT FOR COMMAND is 'retailing a hoax'... 'No publisher should want to be selling books with proven falsehoods in them,' Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton tells the online mag... Developing...
|
Is it not the job of the public to decide on the facts or the lack thereof? That is the essence of free speech and debate. If there are "proven falsehoods," by all means John, take the authors to court and prove that their allegations are wrong. Win your libel case, and then the publisher will withdraw the book.
Welcome to the 2004 Democratic Party.
 |
|
|
| Shakka |
| I'm heading to Salem, MA later on this month for some good ole fashion witch hunting if you care to join me!:D |
|
|
| ResonantDrag |
http://www.noapologiespress.com/new...ks042104-1.html
sorry for the comedic interlude:
| quote: | | White House immediately pounced on Wahlegh and Burning Bush, denouncing the former-official-turned-author as a "out of the loop and uninformed" during his tenure at the Pentagon. |
| quote: | | Later in the book, Wahlegh reports of meetings with Rove and representatives of Clear Channel to organize burnings of anti-Bush books, including Paul Krugman's The Great Unraveling and Al Franken's Lies & the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. |
http://www.angelfire.com/vt2/United...hoistrying.html |
|
|
| tathi |
| didn't a certain book detailing the facts on George Bush's antics with Cocaine also get banned? :conf: |
|
|
| Renegade |
So you're equating John Kerry's request to a publisher to withdraw a book (with demonstrable falsehoods) from the printing press with Nazism? I just really don't understand people like you sometimes - if you really supported free speech, open, truthful government and the right to protest outside of "free-speech zones" or without being spied on by the feds, then you wouldn't be voting Republican.
Kerry has the right to oppose the publication of any book that uses inaccurate material purely to sully his character for political gain. If George Bush wasn't interested in playing dirty politics, he would have denounced these muckraking fanatics long ago. If the Bush re-election campaign strategy consists primarily of implicitly supporting the character assissination of Kerry undertaken by right-wing, grudge-holding extremists (whose accounts of the events differ greatly from those who actually knew and served under Kerry during the Vietnam war), then Kerry has every right to defend himself in this way. Why should he stand idly by and allow false, unsubstantiated "information" to be published with the sole intention of sabotaging his political aspirations?
So you can make all the Nazi allusions you want, but we all know who the real far-right, imperialistic, liberty-trampling authoritarians are here.... ;) |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
If George Bush wasn't interested in playing dirty politics, he would have denounced these muckraking fanatics long ago. If the Bush re-election campaign strategy consists primarily of implicitly supporting the character assissination of Kerry undertaken by right-wing, grudge-holding extremists (whose accounts of the events differ greatly from those who actually knew and served under Kerry during the Vietnam war), then Kerry has every right to defend himself in this way. Why should he stand idly by and allow false, unsubstantiated "information" to be published with the sole intention of sabotaging his political aspirations?
|
Pot meet kettle. Kettle meet Moveon.org and Michael Moore. Cry me a ing river.:rolleyes: |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
So you're equating John Kerry's request to a publisher to withdraw a book (with demonstrable falsehoods) from the printing press with Nazism? I just really don't understand people like you sometimes - if you really supported free speech, open, truthful government and the right to protest outside of "free-speech zones" or without being spied on by the feds, then you wouldn't be voting Republican.
Kerry has the right to oppose the publication of any book that uses inaccurate material purely to sully his character for political gain. If George Bush wasn't interested in playing dirty politics, he would have denounced these muckraking fanatics long ago. If the Bush re-election campaign strategy consists primarily of implicitly supporting the character assissination of Kerry undertaken by right-wing, grudge-holding extremists (whose accounts of the events differ greatly from those who actually knew and served under Kerry during the Vietnam war), then Kerry has every right to defend himself in this way. Why should he stand idly by and allow false, unsubstantiated "information" to be published with the sole intention of sabotaging his political aspirations?
So you can make all the Nazi allusions you want, but we all know who the real far-right, imperialistic, liberty-trampling authoritarians are here.... ;) |
I think you've mistakenly switched all the instances of "Bush" with "Kerry", "Republican" with "Democrat", and "right" with "left" in that post.
Seriously man - you're accusing the *Republicans* of basing their campaign on "character assassination?" Have you LOOKED at the Democrat campaign recently? It has no underlying philosophy or political policy whatsoever - it's merely based on claiming that everything Bush did in his term was wrong. Ask your average Liberal/Democrat if Bush has done ANYTHING right - I'll bet they won't be able to give you a concrete answer. |
|
|
| Renegade |
Firstly, I never said that Democrats don't engage in dirty politcs. Politicians of all persuasions do, that's a fact of life certainly not restricted to the GOP.
Secondly, I was referring to character assissination (i.e. a sustained barrage of ad hominem attacks, employed only to damage the reputation of the intended target) not criticism of governmental policy. As an opposition party challenging the incumbency of the current government, of course the Democrats are going to need to take up a contrary position to that of the Republicans, which does require them to be "negative" in their appraisal of the government. Claiming that "everything Bush did in his term was wrong" is different from implicitly supporting the character assissination of Kerry undertaken by bitter veterans. The way that I see it, there's nothing wrong with being vitriolic towards political policy (which, as you point out, is where most of the Democrats efforts have been focused) but head-hunting political opponents by exploiting non-political flaws in their personality or personal lives (that needn't be true to be effective) is unjustifiable.
This method, of course, manifested itself most strikingly during the Clinton years. Why bother to engage your opponents in issue-based debate when you can just destroy them by dragging their personal lives into the public arena?
| quote: | | Ask your average Liberal/Democrat if Bush has done ANYTHING right - I'll bet they won't be able to give you a concrete answer. |
Says a lot about Bush's policies then, doesn't it? I know that I'd have to think about it for a while before I could come up with anything positive that he's done in the past four years... |
|
|
| JM |
i call for a Kerry ban. he too, just like the book, is full of
>JM< |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by imokruok
Welcome to the 2004 Democratic Party.
|
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Pot meet kettle. Kettle meet Moveon.org and Michael Moore. Cry me a ing river.:rolleyes: |
| quote: | Originally posted by JM
i call for a Kerry ban. he too, just like the book, is full of |
See what I mean? Nothing but baseless, vitriolic ad hominems.
So, so angry... :( |
|
|
| Q5echo |
it would only be baseless if Kerry himself hadn't made his Vietnam record his criteria for election.
i realize that you may not be exposed to the same media scrutiny thats here in the states, but nothing, zero, nada has been said of his 25 year record as Senator of Massachusettes. not in the primaries. not at the convention. nowhere. a product of his own strategy, not anyone elses.
Why? because its utter fluff. it is not a leg he wishes to stand on and that is an undisputable fact.
i say let the guy's whom he discredited and dishonored 30 yrs. ago discredit him as he stands on the verge taking the highest office in the world. he chose this battle, let him fight it. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| sorry double post...again |
|
|
|
|
