|
Posted on 10/09/2004 11:06:20 AM PDT by ml/nj
(Not yet posted at nytimes.com)
Target: John Kerry
If John Kerry loses the presidential election, "Unfit for Command," by John O'Neil and Jerome R. Corsi, will go down as a chief reason. The book -- a sort of companion piece to the political attack ad placed by O'Neil's group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth -- is a furious assault on Kerry's character and service in Vietnam. Navy records have discredited the book's claim that Kerry lied to get his Bronze Star and third Purple Heart -- though only after the sensation hijacked cable news for a month.
But for all the impact it's had on the race, the book itself is totally unconvincing. ...
If anyone at the Times wants to know why I no longer take anything I read in their paper seriously they might take a look at this review. Like an addict who cannot break a 40+ year bad habit, I still get the Times delivered daily. But unlike cigarettes which could kill me (if I smoked them), the Times is far more dangerous because it could kill my country.
"Navy records have discredited ..." Really? No kidding? Who wrote the Navy records that have discredited the book's claims? Isn't that what the book is about Ms. Meadows? O'Neil & Co. claim that Kerry probably wrote those Navy records when the people who would have written genuine reports were unaware. So what value would such records have in a Court of Law?
Next to none really, considering all the eyewitness testimony that O'Neil brings forth. There are dozens and dozens of quotes from other Swift Vets about the veracity of these reports. They are obvious frauds, just like the Dan Rather memo; but Times readers wouldn't know that the Rather memo is an obvious fraud either.
The part of the reivew I quoted makes it seem as if only the Bronze Star and the third Purple Heart have been challenged. It has all been challenged; challenged and destroyed, in my humble opinion anyway. The book is really much more devestating than the ads and the Swiftvet talk-radio appearances.
And BTW, the name of O'Neil's group is not "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Close isn't good enough when you want to be the newspaper of record.
ML/NJ
You give them far too much credit.
The only reason the TImes is reviewing it is because the SBV are about to put the dagger in Kerry in the final few weeks. The slimes bags are just trying to get out in front of it.
Wow. The Slimes actually acknowledged that the book exists (and then predictably trashed it of course)? What's up with that?
Then why do you continue to have it delivered to you?
I canceled the LA Times long ago and have lived a better life because of it.
http://www.nytimes.com/top/opinion/thepubliceditor/index.html
July 25, 2004
THE PUBLIC EDITOR; Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?
OF course it is.
Yes, Navy records written by John Kerry.
It took them the better part of THREE MONTHS to get to reviewing the book and you can bet your last dollar the Gray Lady did NOT assign Michio Kakutani to review it.
If you can affford a couple of dollars, please give it to the SBVs. Soros is pouring lots of money into Kerry's final campaign. The SBVs have us to help them. It's not fair but who said life is fair. Anyway, consider giving $5 if you can.
From your post: " I still get the Times delivered daily -"
This line said more than the whole post itself -
in my opinion -
Second sentence in the article and already the first lie. The Navy records have done no such thing. Records show only that paperwork was submitted for the awards. There has been NO confirmation that the after action reports and award citations are true. That is the book's argument, which the Times simply ignores.
Keep trying, though.
Maybe they're gettin' desperate to stoop so low as to review the book. Gotta get in every last opportunity to promote their boy-toy.
A lot has to do with being married. But I do look at the Sports Section sometimes (and the Book Review too). People who suggest that reporters cannot be objective need to look at the sports sections of most newspapers. Reporters may be Jets fans or Giants fans, or whatever, but it's hard to tell when you read their columns.
ML/NJ
What was the NYT review of Kitty Kelly's book like?
I have read and heard numerous reporters and liberal writers say that "the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have been refuted and proven wrong", but I've never seen a scrap of truth to support this assertion. I have, in fact, e-mailed several reporters and editors who made this claim and asked them for proof. Not suprisingly, I haven't received a single reply.
Note to the Staff at the New York Times:
When is spelled W-H-E-N, not I-F, as in: "When President Bush defeats Senator John Kerry..." Have a nice day.
ML/NJ
|
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
I take it Michiko Kakutani liked the book.