Linda Eddy (Freeper IPWGOP) cartoonist censored by Minneapolis Star Tribune editor Jim Boyd!

Beautiful work.

Way ta go Linda...The louder they squeal...the harder they must be feeling the darts..

Ya gotta love these "New Age" Propganda Ministers...

The Great American Left comes out of the closet and reveals itself for exactly what it is...

The UNION BOSSES of Information....CENSORSHIP their brick bats....
The Constitution is their worst nightmare....which is why they hate the internet and free speech so much...

The minons of the newspapers, radio, and TV stations seized by the Socialist Big Businesses are merely the mouth pieces of the information (propaganda) ministers...and they cant stand any competition...

The truth is not in them....

They are coming undone....

imo

Just e-mailed the audio link

Anybody know if the transcript of that audio is online anywhere? (I would think that'd help Linda out a lot! She could then compare the transcript by reading along while listening to the audio so she KNOWS that the part she chooses to quote is verbatim.)

Again, the issue here is that I have been forbidden to SUBMIT editorials. That is censorship.

I must have missed that part. What I read was where the editor asked to be taken off the mailing list. Again, unless I missed something (and please set me straight if I have), that doesn't mean you can't ever write that address again; just that he doesn't want to be part of a mailing list.

I'm only drawing this fine line because censorship is a very powerful charge and not one to be made lightly. God knows I've cracked enough skulls on the opposition's side every time they cry censorship.

I just don't want to see your otherwise fine work get sullied with a tarbaby issue like this one. Besides, I've read the Star Tribune. That they won't give an audience to your work is definitely their loss. : )

I doubt they would keep an artist that showed babies dripping from the bloody mouth of GW Bush with some reference to Hitler either.

While I pretty much agreed with the bulk of your post.....I wouldn't be too sure about that last sentence.

Paging Rush, Sean, Brit, Drudge! 1st Amendment salvo!

Just to be clear on this, when did John Kerry try to "silence" a veteran in 1971? If he did not in fact try to "silence" veterans, than Boyd is right and you should apologize for attributing to Kerry something he did not do. Boyd is right to demand a basic level of accuracy.

At best, you might be able to show that he demands accuracy from conservatives but allows leftist cartoonists to draw whatever they want. But that still doesn't make him wrong for denying your cartoon.

SUPER JOB, LINDA!

Dude, it's coming. I have to get off of this thread and get my work load done

I figgered it would be. Keep us updated. We're all rabid fans.

I didn't realize until after I hit 'post' that you were the one who posted the email.

Why don't you quit spending so much friggin time sniping back and forth with me and just answer the guy's question.

I already did. See post #112.

Way to stand up to these liberal creeps. We are all proud of your work

Wow. Well said to the lovely Mr. Boyd!! I salute you.

Eddy, you sweetheart ... couldn't help but stick up for you. After reading about your problem with this leftest, and then seeing another site having similar problems, I dropped the attached email. Keep up the good work!!!

Dear Mr Eric Ringham:

It seems, based on the below recap as recorded at http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007565.php, that your editor Jim Boyd is going out of his way to support a singular presidential candidate, facts be damn.

I have also noted that Mr Jim Boyd is doing likewise in outright 'censoring' any political cartoons (attached that he refused acceptance of) that do not favor his preferred candidate, via communication he is having with Linda Eddy of IowaPresidentialWatch.com.

http://www.iowapresidentialwatch.com/Righties/LindaEddyCaricatures.htm

Mr Boyd's 'censurship' email discussion captured at: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1199345/posts?page=1,50

Anyway, seems like you are really not representing your reader well with this sort of biased editorializing and censorship. Based on the blog traffic as well as freerepublic traffic this is getting, I can imagine that you will continue to paint yourself as very left leaning without some acceptance of the clear facts that the 'other side' is putting forth. Your readers have a right to know ... This is not North Korea, so let's try a little freedom of the press rather than 'censor what I don't like'.

Regards,
William Silverthorn
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA

--------------------------------------
In today's Minneapolis Star Tribune, Strib editorial board member Jim Boyd writes that our analysis of John Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia fable was "fraudulent." He also calls us "smear artists," and the Strib's headline on his article says our analysis "can't stand up to the facts." When someone uses language that strong, you'd naturally expect him to have the facts to back up his words. Yet, for someone who purports to "fact-check" our article, Boyd's tirade is remarkably fact-free.

First, the basics. We wrote that the Kerry campaign has had to retract Kerry's oft-told tale of being in Cambodia on Christmas, 1968. Boyd does not dispute this. We wrote that there is no record of John Kerry being in Cambodia in December, 1968, or at any other time. Boyd does not dispute this. We wrote that Kerry's commanding officers have emphatically denied that he was ever sent into Cambodia. Boyd does not dispute this. We wrote that not a single crewman who ever served with Kerry has supported Kerry's claim to have been in Cambodia, and several crewmen have specifically denied that their boat was ever, at any time, in Cambodia. Boyd does not dispute this. We wrote that there is no record of Swift boats being used for clandestine missions, like the insertion of special ops, as claimed by Kerry. Boyd does not dispute this. We wrote that Swift boats were singularly unsuited for such secret missions, given their large size and extraordinarily large output of noise. Boyd does not dispute this.

Gosh, for fraudulent smear artists, we're doing pretty well so far. Given that he can't deny any of our main points, what does Boyd have to say? First, and most important, he alleges that Kerry was in Cambodia, but it was in January 1969, not December 1968. Thus, Boyd writes, ours is an "accurate but niggling criticism." Of course, there is no more evidence for Kerry being in Cambodia in January 1969 than in December 1968.

But when Kerry told his famous story to the Senate in 1986--the story that he says was "seared--seared" into his memory, he was very specific about the timing of his life-altering experience. It was Christmas of 1968, and he heard President Nixon denying that we had troops in Cambodia while he himself had been sent there. It was this Christmas Eve experience, he said, that caused him to lose his faith in the American government. Throughout the years, Kerry has been insistent on the "Christmas in Cambodia" theme. In an October 14, 1979 review of "Apocalypse Now" in the Boston Herald, Kerry wrote:

I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real.
If Kerry's Cambodian adventure actually happened in January, why were the South Vietnamese soldiers still celebrating Christmas?

We pointed out that, as everyone in the blogosphere knows, Kerry's account was false on its face, since Richard Nixon was not President in December 1968. In a laughably inept response, Boyd says that Nixon was then President-elect, so Kerry's "discrepancy" was "understandable." Obviously, however, President-elect Nixon was in no position to assure the American people that there were no troops in Cambodia.

There is a far more important point to be made, however. It was not just a slip of the tongue that caused Kerry to refer, repeatedly, to President Nixon's statement that there were no troops in Cambodia. If he had attributed that statement to Lyndon Johnson, who was President in 1968, it would have made no sense. Johnson never said such a thing; the issue never came up during his administration.

But Richard Nixon did say that there were no American troops fighting in Cambodia. Our younger readers may not recall this, but Nixon's statement to that effect was very famous, and very controversial. Richard Nixon said that we had no troops in Cambodia in a press conference on November 12, 1971, two and one-half years after Kerry had left Vietnam.

Q. What assurance can you give the American people that we are not sliding into another Vietnam in Cambodia?

A. ... We have made a conscious decision not to send American troops in. There are no American combat troops in Cambodia. There are no American combat advisers in Cambodia. There will be no American combat troops or advisers in Cambodia.

So Kerry didn't just make an innocent mistake. He referred to a well-known historical event, and he told a perfectly coherent story about a soldier who lost his faith in our government when President Nixon said, falsely, that we had no troops in Cambodia. But the story was a lie. There could have been a soldier who had that experience, but it wasn't John Kerry. He had left Vietnam two and one-half years earlier.

The rest of Boyd's "fact checking" is a combination of dishonesty and ignorance. We made the relatively insignificant point that Kerry's claim to have been shot at by the Khmer Rouge is implausible, since they did not take the field until 1972. Boyd says, with no attribution or support whatsoever, that "The Khmer Rouge, military wing of the Communist Party of Kampuchea, began its armed combat against the government of Prince Norhodom Sihanouk in 1967."

Unlike Boyd, we cite sources. We based our statement on the testimony of Andrew Antippas, the "Cambodia Man" at the United States Embassy in Saigon between 1968 and 1970, who wrote:

[C]oncerning the assertion that Mr. Kerry was shot at by the Khmer Rouge during his Christmas 1968 visit to Cambodia, it should be noted that the Khmer Rouge didn't take the field until the Easter Offensive of 1972. Different sources assign different dates to the beginning of military action by the Khmer Rouge; here, here, here and here are sources that say the Khmer Rouge insurgency began in 1970. By far the most reliable witness, we think, is the Cambodia man at the U.S. Embassy in South Vietnam, but in any event, we've seen no support for the proposition that the Khmer Rouge were in the field (as opposed to existing as a political organization) in January 1969.

Boyd next wanders into the thicket of geography, which for some reason seems to be a difficult subject for liberals. Adopting one of the DNC's talking points, he writes that:

[T]here was no established border. Both Vietnam and Cambodia claimed parts of the Mekong River delta, a watery area of rivers, tributaries and canals. It was quite easy to slip across, especially by boat (whether inadvertently or with a purpose -- perhaps both).

In the first place, the idea that Kerry could have wandered into Cambodia "inadvertently" is utterly inconsistent with the story Kerry told. If he wandered there by accident, he would have had no reason to be disillusioned with the U.S. government. The entire point of Kerry's story was that he was ordered into Cambodia, contrary to President Nixon's assurance that there were no U.S. troops there.

Further, Boyd's geographic musings are plausible only to those who don't own a globe or a map of Southeast Asia. Boyd was echoing Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan, who placed the Mekong River Delta "between Cambodia and Vietnam" in an interview with ABC News. The Mekong Delta is not between Cambodia and Vietnam. Cambodia is north and west of Vietnam, and the Mekong River flows to the southeast. It flows past the Cambodia/Vietnam border and continues on through the delta to the sea. Look at a map.

Boyd's last "fact check" is especially outrageous. Instead of quoting us, he misrepresents what we said. Boyd writes:

H & J claim: Passage by Swift boats into Cambodia through the Mekong Delta from their base at Sa Dec was impossible. Fact: Clearly they have no knowledge of the delta. The Swift boats were stationed at Sa Dec precisely because of easy access to the Mekong River complex and the approaches to Cambodia.
This is just unbelievable. Put aside, for a moment, Boyd's geographic confusion. We did not say that "Passage by Swift boats into Cambodia through the Mekong Delta from their base at Sa Dec was impossible." We wrote: "On Christmas 1968, Kerry was docked at Sa Dec, 50 miles from Cambodia in an area from which the Cambodian border was in fact inaccessible." We would have explained further, had our piece not been limited to 750 words. We based our statement that Cambodia was inaccessible on the testimony of Doug Regelin, who drove a Swift boat in Vietnam for a year (three times longer than John Kerry) in 1969, and who writes:
From the Cat Lo patrol area around Sa Dec, it would have been possible for a boat to enter Cambodia, except there were concrete barriers, river-assault group boats and PBRs guarding the entrance.

To sum up: Jim Boyd does not even attempt to deny any of the significant points we made. He simply assumes as true John Kerry's revised version of his Cambodian fable, without acknowledging the contradictions among the various versions of Kerry's story, and without noting that there is no support for the proposition that Kerry was ever in Cambodia, except for his own ever-shifting word. And where he challenges us on specific facts, Boyd is flatly wrong.

That's a mighty weak basis on which to call us frauds, liars, and smear merchants. The hysterical tone of Boyd's tirade shows, I guess, the desperation that has seized the Kerry campaign as the truth about their candidate finally begins to come out.

I thought all elephants are Republican.

bttt

It's just another media outlet proving that it can't print the truth. Sorry you got banned, sorry for them.

I must be missing something -- how is Kerry accusing vets of war crimes the same thing as silencing them?

Just don't gloat too much when he's sitting there, humming and singing Kumbaya while ignoring your reply.

I bet you are psyched about being censored!

I am very psyched about being censored! Some folks on this thread think it's a 'whine'. Naive, eh? This is far from a whine, and most understand that.

Minneapolis Star Tribune censors IPW cartoonist