Ann Coulter's New Book: Godless: The religion of Liberals

[Dr Grump]

Both sides do it. But liberals are much meaner about it. I disagree with your statement that O'Reilly and Coulter are liars. And opinion is not a lie. Calling someone liar because you disagree with their opinion doesn't wash. But liberals do it all the time. I'm not an O'Reilly fan. I've watched his show maybe 5 times and I can't stand it. But I can't stand any of the news networks anymore. They're too busy. They all look like really badly designed web pages. Split screens, news crawls along the bottom. Stupid music. Every major story has it's own theme and theme music. Remember the tsunami? Wave of Death. Jeez.

I also disagree with your assessment of conservative vs liberal tactics. I read the conservative press all the time and many conservatives criticize the Bush administration. But they don't call him Satan, the Anti-Christ, or compare him to Hitler. Liberals do that. Jesus fucking Christ, when the mans dog died liberals had a field day. I've never read such hateful stuff in my life. I mean, my God, I've read stuff from liberals on message boards and blogs about Bush's twins, his wife. Really, really hateful stuff.

Even the mainstream media does it. How many times have you read about Bush being a draft dodger? Or that he went AWOL? Or that he "didn't serve" at all? The man spent more time in the military than John Kerry did, and yet people still think he didn't serve at all, much less honorably.

It's insane. Sure, the Clintons got a lot of hate thrown at them. But it was always by the fringe. Those people were always seen as right wing nuts with an axe to grind. Spot dies and people still can't help taking a pot shot at GWB. The level of hatred directed at this man is so out of proportion to anything he has ever done that it's just insane.

I am not a George W. Bush supporter. I think he's a lousy president. But I think he's basically a good man. I don't hate him. I don't think he's Evil with a capital E. But, boy, a hell of a lot of liberals do think he's Evil.

You could change the word liberal for conservative in most of your post and I'd feel the same. Fact is, I've seen terrible things said about Kerry and his wife during the election. I must hang out with the wrong people on messageboards because the ones I perused during the election were filled with some of the most mean-spirited right wingers I've ever read.

And at least Kerry went over there, Bush didn't, and right wingers weren't exactly sending condolences when Buddy bit the dust.

I think one of the main problems is that Bush is not just a crappy president he is fucking terrible one. Funnily enough, like you, I think he amiable enough, just not that bright. And when you talk about people being used, I look at Bush and have to physically check him every now and then to see he hasn't got strings attached to his arms and legs, or he ain't sitting on somebody's knee with their hand up his butt....

 

[nt250]

Me thinks I'm being used...

Here is where I'm coming from. I was born 15 years after Vietnam ended. I have no relatives who served in that war, and only know 1-2 people who did. I don't know what the "mood" was like or how John Kerry's statements affected the rest of the country. Basically, I'm not an expert, but my opinions are drawn from the best resources possible.

After looking over factcheck and wintersoldier, I've reached these conclusions:
#1 John Kerry's Medals- The SBV have claimed that Kerry didn't deserve his medals. I disagree. If he didn't deserve the silver star or the purple hearts, then I doubt he would have recieved them.
#2 The Medal Throwing- I don't know
#3 Communist Control of the Antiwar Movement- I highly doubt that John Kerry was a willing pawn of Vietnamese Communists. Although the SBV do offer two documents they claim support this position, I found their conclusion faulty. While the documents claim that the communists will influence the AWM, that is not proof that they dicated all the efforts of the AWM. This is just to far of a jump for me. While the SBV demonstrate that both the Vietnamese and the AWM both had some of the same ideas, they fail to demonstrate that it was not simple to different sets of people having the same idea.
#4 John Kerry's Speech- I am partial to Jillian on this point. She provided the actual speech of John Kerry's testimony, and it supported her position. While nt250 claims that Kerry lied about the Detriot meeting. I found numerous claims (without any support) saying the same on the wintersoldier site. Right now, I lean Jillian, but is nt250 can provide backing for the Detriot lies and that Kerry likely knew, then I will change my position.

It was not my intention to rehash the whole SBVT for truth thing. I was using them as an example of what a "truth" is. You me and Jillian can argue about what was true until the cows come home and it won't matter. There is enough subjectiveness for all of us to claim victory. I did this two years ago during the election and I know it's pointless to argue with someone like Jillian because she doesn't have an open mind about it and refuses to read the other side of the argument. She's admitted that.

So what is the "truth"? My truth or Jillian's? It all boils down to opinion. Opinions are not truth, and therefore opinions cannot be a lie.

BTW, I think the biggest mistake the SBVT made was going after Kerry's record and his medals. That was a huge mistake. Even though he got 5 medals in less than four months and never needed more than a band aid, they should never have done that. They should have concentrated on his anti-war activities. They also should have harped more on the fact that he wouldn't sign the 180. He finally did sign it in June of 2005. But it was very hypocritical of him not to sign it during the campaign when the media poured over GWB's records with such a fine tooth comb. So, yeah, I agree that the Swiftee's accusations about his service were wrong.

 

[nt250]

And when you talk about people being used, I look at Bush and have to physically check him every now and then to see he hasn't got strings attached to his arms and legs, or he ain't sitting on somebody's knee with their hand up his butt....

That's another thing that drives me nuts about liberals and their Bush hatred.

On the board I used to post on the same people would post what an Evil genius Bush is, and how stupid he is. That drove me nuts. Is he an Evil genuis or a moron being controled by Karl Rove? MAKE UP YOUR MIND!

You ever heard of PNAC? Oh, liberals just LOVE PNAC. The thing with most liberals is that they find what they think are these cool websites, but they don't actually bother to READ them. It's hysterical. It's like with Ann. Whenever I post an Ann Coulter column on a message board some idiot ALWAYS replies with her most notorious quotes. They're easy to find and copy and paste. Same with PNAC. There are so many liberal websites that have quotes from PNAC that it only takes a minute to find them, and copy and paste them as proof about the Evil plots of the neocons.

I've spent hours reading the Project for The New American Century. You know what it is? It's a website for out-of-work Republicans who have too much time on their hands. It's got the most boring crap I have ever read in my life on it.

But to liberals PNAC is proof that George W. Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks. Oh, except when they decide he's too stupid, then they blame Karl Rove.

What is more hateful than that? But there are many lunatics out there who think that not only did George W. Bush let 9/11 happen, but that he and his neocon cronies planned it.

That's hate.

 

[Dr Grump]

That's another thing that drives me nuts about liberals and their Bush hatred.

On the board I used to post on the same people would post what an Evil genius Bush is, and how stupid he is. That drove me nuts. Is he an Evil genuis or a moron being controled by Karl Rove? MAKE UP YOUR MIND!

You ever heard of PNAC? Oh, liberals just LOVE PNAC. The thing with most liberals is that they find what they think are these cool websites, but they don't actually bother to READ them. It's hysterical. It's like with Ann. Whenever I post an Ann Coulter column on a message board some idiot ALWAYS replies with her most notorious quotes. They're easy to find and copy and paste. Same with PNAC. There are so many liberal websites that have quotes from PNAC that it only takes a minute to find them, and copy and paste them as proof about the Evil plots of the neocons.

I've spent hours reading the Project for The New American Century. You know what it is? It's a website for out-of-work Republicans who have too much time on their hands. It's got the most boring crap I have ever read in my life on it.

But to liberals PNAC is proof that George W. Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks. Oh, except when they decide he's too stupid, then they blame Karl Rove.

What is more hateful than that? But there are many lunatics out there who think that not only did George W. Bush let 9/11 happen, but that he and his neocon cronies planned it.

That's hate.

You're being a bit OTT there nt250. I have never seen Dubya as a genius on any level and I do believe he is just a puppet. And those who think that George is behind 9-11 are the looney left, not the average Dem - as I say, OTT. 99.99% of dems don't believe for one minute he had anything to do with 9-11...

 

[jillian]

I don't know anyone who thinks the PNAC letter proves Bush was behind 9/11 nor do I think he intentionally allowed 9/11 to happen. If YOU look at the PNAC letter to Bill Clinton in 1998, it simply sets forth the PNAC agenda, which includes deposing Saddam Hussein and invading Iraq. Since people like Rumsfeld and Cheney were signatories to that letter, it proves that their agenda was set even back then and has nothing to DO with 9/11 or any type of "post 9/11 world".

And as for your biased sites on the swifties.... no, wouldn't waste my time, not because I don't have an open mind, but because if your assertions were "fact", they'd be included in factcheck's site. You can look at all the sites you want, but if they are all of the same unreliable ilk, they are all equally unconvincing.

It's not that factcheck is "missing" facts. It's that the facts you assert are NOT fact.

 

[nt250]

You're being a bit OTT there nt250. I have never seen Dubya as a genius on any level and I do believe he is just a puppet. And those who think that George is behind 9-11 are the looney left, not the average Dem - as I say, OTT. 99.99% of dems don't believe for one minute he had anything to do with 9-11...

Sorry, but I have to ask: What's OTT mean?

You'd be surprised how many intelligent liberals think Bush did have something to do with 9/11. It's not just the looney left. Just the fact that he sat there reading My Pet Goat, or whatever that book was called, is proof enough for some of them. Seriously.

 

[nt250]

I don't know anyone who thinks the PNAC letter proves Bush was behind 9/11 nor do I think he intentionally allowed 9/11 to happen. If YOU look at the PNAC letter to Bill Clinton in 1998, it simply sets forth the PNAC agenda, which includes deposing Saddam Hussein and invading Iraq. Since people like Rumsfeld and Cheney were signatories to that letter, it proves that their agenda was set even back then and has nothing to DO with 9/11 or any type of "post 9/11 world".

And as for your biased sites on the swifties.... no, wouldn't waste my time, not because I don't have an open mind, but because if your assertions were "fact", they'd be included in factcheck's site. You can look at all the sites you want, but if they are all of the same unreliable ilk, they are all equally unconvincing.

It's not that factcheck is "missing" facts. It's that the facts you assert are NOT fact.

Whatever. I don't waste my time with people like you anymore.

I've already proved that your "fact" site has some missing facts and you don't care so it's pointless to engage you anymore.

As far as PNAC goes, try posting on some more liberal boards than this one. You'll be surprised at the views of some very intelligent people.

 

[Mr.Conley]

It was not my intention to rehash the whole SBVT for truth thing. I was using them as an example of what a "truth" is. You me and Jillian can argue about what was true until the cows come home and it won't matter. There is enough subjectiveness for all of us to claim victory. I did this two years ago during the election and I know it's pointless to argue with someone like Jillian because she doesn't have an open mind about it and refuses to read the other side of the argument. She's admitted that.

So what is the "truth"? My truth or Jillian's? It all boils down to opinion. Opinions are not truth, and therefore opinions cannot be a lie.

BTW, I think the biggest mistake the SBVT made was going after Kerry's record and his medals. That was a huge mistake. Even though he got 5 medals in less than four months and never needed more than a band aid, they should never have done that. They should have concentrated on his anti-war activities. They also should have harped more on the fact that he wouldn't sign the 180. He finally did sign it in June of 2005. But it was very hypocritical of him not to sign it during the campaign when the media poured over GWB's records with such a fine tooth comb. So, yeah, I agree that the Swiftee's accusations about his service were wrong.

Okay, good to know.
Here is my belief. I don't care about your opinion. I don't care about Jillian's or Dr. Grump's either. You can go on thinking the SBV are right, and Jillian and Dr. Grump can continue thinking they are wrong. I don't care in the least what any of you think. What I do care about is why you belief what you do. What lead you to believe that the SBVs are right? Why does Jillian disagree? What interests me is the scientific truths, the facts, the sources, the links, and the citations you all provided ie. Kerry's testimony and the Vietcong documents about the AWM. If you base your beliefs in already determined truths, you are much more likely to be right then wrong, while I did read all of your posts, what really concerns me are the facts, the things that I can go out and verify on my own. If I want to, I can go out and search for and verify or disprove these claims. After that, I can take your analysis of the facts and see if it confirms with what we know to be true. The key to discovering a greater truth is to build it up from smaller truths, especialy empirical truths. Imagine it like a pyramid. You have you ultimate truth (in you case, John Kerry is a lier) at the top, a single stone supported by ever expanding layers of other, smaller truths until you (hopefully) reach a bed rock of firm scientific theory or moral certainties (ex don't kill people). However, once you get beyond the analysis of the facts, you can move into less certain territory. Then your truth does not become absolute. Then your truth is reduced to possibilities and probabilities. Fortunately, we have ways of analysing facts without falling from certainty, but in politcs they are at best difficult to employ.

 

[jillian]

Whatever. I don't waste my time with people like you anymore.

I've already proved that your "fact" site has some missing facts and you don't care so it's pointless to engage you anymore.

As far as PNAC goes, try posting on some more liberal boards than this one. You'll be surprised at the views of some very intelligent people.

And I've already pointed out that they aren't "facts" if it isn't on factcheck. But thanks.

Whether or not someone is an extremist often has little to do with intellect. So they may be intelligent, but that doesn't mean they are correct. You can think what you'd like about my lack of interest in propaganda sites, but I think extremists on both sides of the political divide are misguided.

Good night.

*Edit* BTW, I've had a couple of years to draw my conclusions on this matter. Re-hashing the stuff from the wintersolders and swifties, which I already know exists, isn't going to be compelling to me.

And OTT means "over the top".

 

[nt250]

And I've already pointed out that they aren't "facts" if it isn't on factcheck. But thanks.

Whether or not someone is an extremist often has little to do with intellect. So they may be intelligent, but that doesn't mean they are correct. You can think what you'd like about my lack of interest in propaganda sites, but I think extremists on both sides of the political divide are misguided.

Good night.

*Edit* BTW, I've had a couple of years to draw my conclusions on this matter. Re-hashing the stuff from the wintersolders and swifties, which I already know exists, isn't going to be compelling to me.

And OTT means "over the top".

Thanks for the explanation.

Do me a favor, next time you are really bored and have some time to kill, go watch the press conference. It is long. It's an hour and a half.

But unless you are willing to watch it, you will never get it.

And if there is one truth, it's that grown men do not have to fight back tears to speak in a room full of reporters because of politics. If you do nothing else, at least grant me that one small truth, and unless you see these men for yourself you will never understand what I mean by that.

They are not liars. They are entitled to their feelings of betrayal for what he did. Watch the press conference. Many of them had forgiven Kerry. Some even supported him in his tough reelection campaign against Bill Weld in 1998. Then he repeated all his lies in his biography "Tour Of Duty".

Try to see it from their side and stop calling them liars. They don't deserve that.

 

[Redhots]

And if there is one truth, it's that grown men do not have to fight back tears to speak in a room full of reporters because of politics. If you do nothing else, at least grant me that one small truth, and unless you see these men for yourself you will never understand what I mean by that.

You remember that N.O. parish guy who was on Meet The Press last year who was crying as he retold his horrible tale of how his boss's mother drowned after being trapped in a nursing home for three to four days... how she would call him every day, and then one day the calls stopped?

Yeah, that was a bunch of political bullshit too.

 

[nt250]

You remember that N.O. parish guy who was on Meet The Press last year who was crying as he retold his horrible tale of how his boss's mother drowned after being trapped in a nursing home for three to four days... how she would call him every day, and then one day the calls stopped?

Yeah, that was a bunch of political bullshit too.

Oh, great, another clueless liberal.

 

[Redhots]

Wow, you've only read one coment by me and already you've already taged me and filed me away under "L".

Your powers of assertion astound me!

 

[sitarro]

After reading how much Jilian thinks that factcheck is the gospel truth I found it hillarious to read the bios of the Democrats that run the place. This was an interesting blog that I found referencing factcheck with ask.com.
This version in the post doesn't have the links that you get if you go to the actual site.


http://qando.net/archives/003752.htmAugust 07, 2004

Fact Checking FactCheck.org
Posted by McQ


The usually reliable FactCheck.org sent out a release concerning the Kerry medal flap which I can only characterize as incomplete, if I chose to be kind about it. It pertains to the ad the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have been playing in battleground states.

FactCheck.org entitles its report "Republican-funded Group Attacks Kerry's War Record" and feels, “there’s reason to doubt the ad”. Their list of reasons include the following:

1. “For one thing, one of the men who appears in it, George Elliott, told the Boston Globe he had made a "terrible mistake" by accusing Kerry of not deserving one of his awards. Elliott appears in the ad saying "John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam."
2. “Another reason for doubt is that the group's financing is strongly partisan.”

3. “The most serious allegation in the ad is that Kerry received both the Bronze Star, his second-highest decoration, and his third purple heart, which allowed him to be sent home early, under false pretenses.”

Let’s deal with number 2 first. Where the financing came from isn’t relevant to whether the facts stated in the ad are correct or incorrect. What is germane is whether what is stated in the ad has factual credibility or not. The premise which FactCheck.org puts forth is if this is financed by Republicans, it must be false or at least must be viewed with a jaundiced eye because its purpose is to destroy Kerry’s credibility, not be factually correct.. Surprisingly, FactCheck.org commits the logical fallacy of guilt by association. Instead of zeroing in on the facts as presented, FactCheck.org infers that because a Republican may have financed the ad, the ad’s facts are in question.

I've always been of the opinion that a fact is a fact and its irrelevant who brings them up or doesn't. They stand on their own. They're either accurate or inaccurate. This was my first disappointment with FactCheck.org's release.

Let’s now look at claim 1. As reported yesterday, in the Boston Globe, by writer Michael Kranish, Elliott allegedly withdrew his claims made in an affidavit about Kerry’s service.

Who is Michael Kranish? He’s a Globe writer with connections to the Kerry campaign. He’s also alleged to be the paid author of the Kerry-Edwards campaign book “Our Plan for America: Strong at Home, Respected Abroad”. He denies this and says Amazon has erroneously listed him as the author (how does that happen and why hadn't he protested it before now?). The Boston Globe also claims in a story yesterday that Amazon has acknowleged this and would revise the listing accordingly. As of this morning, the listed author of the book remains Michael Kranish.

I bring this up for a simple reason. If it was so important for FactCheck.org to tie the ad in question to “Republican financing”, why wasn’t it equally as important to note that the Globe reporter who makes the claim that Elliott has recanted might have a conflict of interest at work here? Also absent from the FactCheck.org report is the fact that Elliott has since said he was “misquoted” by Kranish and has denied his alleged recantation. Of course there’s been more than adequate time to issue an update to the original FactCheck.org release, but to this point it hasn’t been done.

Number 3 goes to the heart of the controversy. Did Kerry, in fact, receive some of his Purple Hearts and other awards under circumstance which didn’t warrant the awards? I’ve pointed out the statements that concern this in numerous posts and you can read the account of his 1st Purple Heart in the chapter posted here from “Unfit to Command”.

In this particular case, though, I’m more interested in looking at the “facts” FactCheck.org uses to make its argument. But in order to understand the argument the context of the dispute is important.

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth further says Kerry didn't deserve his third purple heart, which was received for shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on right forearm. The affidavits state that the wound in Kerry's backside happened earlier that day in an accident. "Kerry inadvertently wounded himself in the fanny," Thurlow said in his affidavit, "by throwing a grenade too close (to destroy a rice supply) and suffered minor shrapnel wounds."
The grenade incident is actually supported by Kerry's own account, but the shrapnel wound was only part of the basis for Kerry's third purple heart according to official documents. The evidence here is contradictory.

Kerry's account is in the book Tour of Duty by Douglas Brinkley, who based it largely on Kerry's own Vietnam diaries and 12 hours of interviews with Kerry. "I got a piece of small grenade in my ass from one of the rice-bin explosions and then we started to move back to the boats," Kerry is quoted as saying on page 313. In that account, Kerry says his arm was hurt later, after the mine blast that disabled PCF-3, when a second explosion rocked his own boat. "The concussion threw me violently against the bulkhead on the door and I smashed my arm," Kerry says on page 314.

And according to a Navy casualty report released by the Kerry campaign, the third purple heart was received for "shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on his right forearm when a mine detonated close aboard PCF-94," Kerry's boat. As a matter of strict grammar, the report doesn't state that both injuries were received as a result of the mine explosion, only the arm injury.

So we have two “woundings” here. One when the bags of rice were destroyed and one when the alleged attack took place on Kerry’s boat later in the day. The allegations from the Swift Boat Vets is that neither injury were a result of “hostile fire” and thus claim the award wasn’t warranted.

Fine. FactCheck.org then points to the following as an argument for Kerry receiving the Purple Heart whether there was hostile fire or not:

In any case, even a "friendly fire" injury can qualify for a purple heart "as long as the 'friendly' projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment," according to the website of the Military Order of the Purple Heart. All agree that rice was being destroyed that day on the assumption that it otherwise might feed Viet Cong fighters.
Well that’s fine as far as it goes, but there are two key things FactCheck.org leaves out of its explanation. First, the entire cite they use to claim "friendly fire" qualifies one as a Purple Heart recipient:

Individuals wounded or killed as a result of "friendly fire" in the "heat of battle" will be awarded the Purple Heart as long as the "friendly" projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment.
Note the key phrase, “in the heat of battle”. Now describe to me how blowing up an abandoned rice cache is “in the heat of battle?” Its not. There was no battle at that point. None. And it is this qualifier that removes the “friendly fire” argument from the table. Additionally FactCheck.org never cited the next paragraph in the regulation which states:

Individuals injured as a result of their own negligence; for example, driving or walking through an unauthorized area known to have been mined or placed off limits or searching for or picking up unexploded munitions as war souvenirs, will not be awarded the Purple Heart as they clearly were not injured as a result of enemy action, but rather by their own negligence.
Emphasis mine.

Note again, that the qualifier "as a result of enemy action" appears in the last cite. In the case of both the 1st and 3rd Purple Heart, witnesses claim there was no enemy action associated with the slight wounds suffered by Kerry.

In the case of his first Purple Heart and possibly his third Purple Heart (if the PH is based on the "shrapnel in the buttocks" claim), a strong and credible argument can be made that he was the victim of his own negligence based on testimony and statements of witnesses.

In the case of his first Purple Heart, FactCheck.org makes the following assertions:

Two who appear in the ad say Kerry didn't deserve his first purple heart. Louis Letson, a medical officer and Lieutenant Commander, says in the ad that he knows Kerry is lying about his first purple heart because “I treated him for that.” However, medical records provided by the Kerry campaign to FactCheck.org do not list Letson as the “person administering treatment” for Kerry’s injury on December 3, 1968 . The medical officer who signed this sick call report is J.C. Carreon, who is listed as treating Kerry for shrapnel to the left arm.
In his affidavit, Letson says Kerry's wound was self-inflicted and does not merit a purple heart. But that's based on hearsay, and disputed hearsay at that. Letson says “the crewman with Kerry told me there was no hostile fire, and that Kerry had inadvertently wounded himself with an M-79 grenade.” But the Kerry campaign says the two crewmen with Kerry that day deny ever talking to Letson.

Letson was the only doctor in the unit. Carreon, according to Letson, was a corpsman who worked for him. He was also told by Letson to fill out the paperwork concerning treating Kerry's wound after Letson completed doing so. There's absolutely no discrepency here at all. Letson treated the wound and had the corpsman who assisted him do the paperwork. That's why doctors have assistants, for heaven sake.

Lastly, Letson isn't referring to his "two crewmates" when he says others told him there was no hostile fire. He's speaking of the people who were there on the Swift boat which was in support of the Skimmer. Kerry likes to tell the story like he was all alone out there, but he wasn't. He was part of a mission which involved a Swift boat and crew. Kerry, for that night, was also a part of that crew and not restricted to the two on the skimmer. In fact after the mission the skimmer was towed by the Swift boat, on which John Kerry rode. It is the crew who remained on the Swift boat, John Kerry's crewmates for the night, who told Letson that there was no enemy fire involved.

This isn't something which hasn't been out there for a while, but FactCheck.org made no attempt to run it down.

FactCheck.org then commits its final disappointment. It includes Sen. McCain’s statement as a “defense” of Kerry and as relevant to the argument. Another logical fallacy, this time known as “irrelevant authority”.

In the past, I’ve found FactCheck.org to produce good and solid arguments which counter much of the spin you’re likely to see on both sides of the political spectrum. I was surprised and disappointed in this particular attempt to analyze the Swift Boat Veteran’s for Truth’s ad.

It appears to be biased, has a very incomplete and inaccurate analysis, commits horrible logical fallacies and frankly was not at all “factual”. If you're going to name yourself "FactCheck.org", you'd better make sure the product you produce lives up to the name.

UPDATE:
Barnes & Nobel also carry the Kerry campaign book (with a different cover than Amazon) and list Michael Kranish as the author. Both the Globe and Kranish, as previously noted, deny he's the author. Looking at the cover, however, it says it has an introduction by Michael Kranish ... right there in black and white. The Globe article, however, has the following quote:

"When PublicAffairs subsequently struck an agreement with the Kerry campaign to do an official campaign book, Kranish's relationship with the project immediately ended," Baron said.
Peter Osnos, publisher of PublicAffairs, said both Drudge and Amazon, the online bookseller peddling the upcoming Kerry-Edwards book, had made a mistake in suggesting Kranish had written its introduction.

"As far as I can tell, if there's any malign intent here, it was someone making Drudge think Michael was somehow doing something for [Kerry's] campaign," Osnos said.

Well then why does the cover of the book, shown on the B&N webiste clearly state "With an introduction by Michael Kranish The Boston Globe"?!

Some silly mistake? It would seem that the Kranish relationship wasn't severed, was it? Or did Osnos forget there was a previous cover out there which had that on it? Who has the "malign intent here", Mr. Osnos?

 

[Dr Grump]

And as she stated Factcheck is the source the King Neocon himself, Dick Cheney, says people should reference when looking into factual outcomes. Go figure.

 

[musicman]

And as she stated Factcheck is the source the King Neocon himself, Dick Cheney, says people should reference when looking into factual outcomes. Go figure.

That's old information, though, isn't it, Dr Grump? I mean, didn't Cheney say that during the debates? In this day and age, it doesn't take information very long to become stale and irrelevant.

No - in light of sitarro's post, I'd have to say that FactCheck is a decided, demonstrable disappointment - to say the least, in the kindest possible way. And, it is a decided, demonstrable disappointment on the matter of the Swiftboat Veterans. So, using them to portray the Swiftboat Vets as liars would appear to be folly.

 

[red states rule]

You have to love the way the tide has turned

Libs are is a state of mouth frothing hysteria as they try and recover from one bodyblow after another

Anns' book shows how liberals CANNOT compete with Conservatives

It can be at the bookstore, talk radio, cable news, or at the ballot box. Everytime libs try to take on conservatism they lose and lose badly

 

[nt250]

That's old information, though, isn't it, Dr Grump? I mean, didn't Cheney say that during the debates? In this day and age, it doesn't take information very long to become stale and irrelevant.

No - in light of sitarro's post, I'd have to say that FactCheck is a decided, demonstrable disappointment - to say the least, in the kindest possible way. And, it is a decided, demonstrable disappointment on the matter of the Swiftboat Veterans. So, using them to portray the Swiftboat Vets as liars would appear to be folly.

The Dick Cheney thing was bizarre. When Jillian used his recomendation for factcheck I just totally knew where she was coming from.

See, that's the thing with liberals. They care much more who says something than what they say. So she threw Dick Cheney at me as a way to "prove" that factcheck was in fact factual. I don't give a flying fuck what Dick Cheney has to say.

I've read all those sites. Factcheck. Spinsanity. They all lean left and they make a point of singling out conservatives like Ann Coulter. Sure, they criticize all news media, but they are very biased when it comes to conservatives. Especially Ann Coulter. I mean, MY GOD, do they not GET it? No, they don't. Sarcasm is Ann's stock and trade and yet these sites will try to evaluate every word she writes as if she was a straight news journalist. It's hysterical.

I was sorry to see Spinsanity give it up. That was a great site and one of the better ones when it came to being the most balanced.

 

[jillian]

That's old information, though, isn't it, Dr Grump? I mean, didn't Cheney say that during the debates? In this day and age, it doesn't take information very long to become stale and irrelevant.

No - in light of sitarro's post, I'd have to say that FactCheck is a decided, demonstrable disappointment - to say the least, in the kindest possible way. And, it is a decided, demonstrable disappointment on the matter of the Swiftboat Veterans. So, using them to portray the Swiftboat Vets as liars would appear to be folly.

Actually, on things like social security and certain other issues that I can't think of right now, factcheck disappointed me, too. That's because it has no ax to grind.

But again, my point, before nt went off on what seems to be a fairly regular rant about "libs", is that it doesn't matter how many sources he reads. If the sources are self-serving or just repeat the self-serving information given it by someone else, then they aren't meaningful. And the reasons for that were much better said by Mr. Conley earlier on in this thread.

 

[nt250]

Actually, on things like social security and certain other issues that I can't think of right now, factcheck disappointed me, too. That's because it has no ax to grind.

But again, my point, before nt went off on what seems to be a fairly regular rant about "libs", is that it doesn't matter how many sources he reads. If the sources are self-serving or just repeat the self-serving information given it by someone else, then they aren't meaningful. And the reasons for that were much better said by Mr. Conley earlier on in this thread.

That's another tactic. Claim all I do is rant about libs.

I'm a she, btw.