Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
But Did Obama's Madrassa Teach Him That Fire Has Never Melted Steel?
The Barack Obama campaign doesn't usually come off as a bunch of generals fighting the last battle, so it's surprising that they're blasting Jerome Corsi as hard as they are. Unless you're one of the lucky people who hired Lacuna Inc. to erase the 2004 prez campaign from your memory, you remember Corsi as the co-author (with John O'Neill) of Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry.
But if you've paid attention to Corsi since then, you've watched him transmogrify into a laughable kook. First there was his abortive run-for-revenge, when he planned to challenge Kerry for his Senate seat.
The co-author of the Swift Boat veterans' book that attacked Sen. John F. Kerry plans to move to the Bay State this year so he can challenge Kerry for his Senate seat in 2008.
"I'm going to do it,'' said Jerome Corsi, 58. "I've got serious political aspirations now.''
Obviously, he chickened out and wrote Atomic Iran, a scare-em saga that hit when fear about Iran was peaking. He penned fairly mainstream conservative books until late 2006, when he got entangled with the immigration restriction movement. As far as I can tell, something snapped. In May he quit World Net Daily to explore a bid for president.
Corsi, who resigned as a WND staff reporter Monday, said he has joined the Constitution Party and is willing to explore a serious pursuit of the nomination.
"The issues that concern me the most are the need to secure our borders and the increasing pace with which North American economic and political integration are taking place under the Security and Prosperity Partnership," Corsi told WND.
He was working on
The Late Great U.S.A.: The Coming Merger With Mexico
(which Amazon is selling with The True Story of the Bilderberg
Group), which came out months later. Corsi never actually ran
for president, but about half of his reporting when he re-joined
WND (I'm not counting his "futures market predicts Romney win in
Florida" stuff) was North American Union scaremongering. Such
as:
2/1/08 -
Resolution fights North American Union: Urges U.S. to withdraw from
Security and Prosperity Partnership
2/17/08 - 'Hola! Mexico!' says the Fed in Dallas
3/13/08 -
Inside the hush-hush North American Union confab
3/18/08 -
Mexican official says NAFTA includes superhighways
5/28/08 -
'North American Parliament' under way
And did I
mention his comments about 9/11? Ah, yes.
The fire, from jet fuel, does not burn hot enough to produce the physical evidence that he’s produced. So when you’ve got science that the hypothesis doesn’t explain–evidence–then the hypothesis doesn’t stand anymore. It doesn’t mean there’s a new hypothesis you’ve validated. It just means the government’s explanation of the jet fuel fire is not a sufficient explanation to explain the evidence of these spheres–these microscopic spheres–that Steven Jones has proved existed within the W.T.C. dust.
Corsi's of a piece with the PUMAs and Larry Johnson: a
shit-flinging lunatic who discredits actual lines of attack on
Obama whenever he sidles up near them. On balance it's good for
Obama that our shiny-object-loving press has this to cover instead
of McCain's subtle attack on him for not being hawkish enough on
Georgia.
On second thought, the Obama campaign isn't fighting the last
campaign. It evolved! Corsi sent a 5 mph pitch across the plate,
and they took a swing at it.
Elemenope|8.15.08 @ 12:14PM|#
Joe, he *couldn't* be the Lonewacko. Corsi is just too well put
together. Lonewacko rates, *at best*, as Corsi's research
monkey.
And what a splendid job he did.
Nigel Watt|8.15.08 @ 12:16PM|#
While I'm laughing at joe's comment, does anybody know Lonewacko's rationale for his UnusualSpacing?
|8.15.08 @ 12:18PM|#
We keep asking him, and he won't tell us.
It's gotta be to facilitate searches.
|8.15.08 @ 12:32PM|#
you remember Corsi as the co-author (with John O'Neill) of Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry.
But if you've paid attention to Corsi since then, you've watched him transmogrify into a laughable kook.
I was and am no fan of Kerry (or Bush) but I don't think Corsi
turned into a kook after the book.
|8.15.08 @ 12:34PM|#
Elemenope,
It was really more of an alley-oop. I couldn't have done it if joe
hadn't got it up to the backboard.
BDB|8.15.08 @ 12:43PM|#
What kind of jackass puts special tags in his own threads so he can google them and read them to himself later? WTF?
|8.15.08 @ 12:46PM|#
While I'm laughing at joe's comment, does anybody know
Lonewacko's rationale for his UnusualSpacing?
When words are a pair, there's danger in the air!1!
|8.15.08 @ 12:47PM|#
And SugarFree steals joe's thunder.
He trk r thundr!
It was really more of an alley-oop. I couldn't have done it if
joe hadn't got it up to the backboard.
He trk r Chrklte Thrndr!
Orange Line Special|8.15.08 @ 12:47PM|#
In an attempt to portray Corsi in a bad light, the Obama
"refutation" misquoted him, omitting a whole sentence from a
paragraph. They didn't even use ellipses as other "creative
editors" have done. Very, very dishonest.
As for the rest of Weigel's Kochtopus ramblings, perhaps he'd care
to do some journalism for a change and tell us exactly what he
finds inaccurate or objectionable about the linked Corsi articles.
Aren't they true? Isn't asking LarrySinclair a question the closest
he's come to pressing a newsmaker on something?
Episiarch|8.15.08 @ 1:00PM|#
He fucking shows up on a thread on which every single post is mocking him. You are some serious OCD, LoneJerkoff.
BDB|8.15.08 @ 1:01PM|#
To take the basketball analogy further, aren't you guys playing against the drooling retarded kid?
Naga Sadow|8.15.08 @ 1:04PM|#
LoneWacko reminds of a bum from my old job at the Island View casino. This bum would terrorize the staff by talking endlessly about politics unless you gave him a drink.
Elemenope|8.15.08 @ 1:05PM|#
LONEWACKO!!!!
*shakes fist in air*
Now what did I tell you about the Lonewacko and
fists?!
|8.15.08 @ 1:06PM|#
This is not fighting the last battle. This book is out there,
it's on the NYT bestseller list (wingnut welfare at it's finest --
the 'book clubs' buy conservative tomes in bulk and give copies to
their membership, and then burn the vast majority of them).
Therefore, the traditional media is going to cover the book, and
low-info voters are going to seek it out.
The press isn't going to touch the Georgia hawk issue because they
then have to address McCain's loonball pretense that he's
already the president.
|8.15.08 @ 1:07PM|#
BDB,
He keeps suiting up and getting on the paint. In these parts, not
everyone gets a first place trophy just for playing.
Naga Sadow|8.15.08 @ 1:08PM|#
It's not like I'm gonna do the fisting. I'm just giving him a
threatening gesture.
*looks at hands*
Don't worry, lefty and poncho, I wouldn't let anything happen to
you.
Episiarch|8.15.08 @ 1:12PM|#
aren't you guys playing against the drooling retarded
kid
So? It's not like he's Sloth.
Do you want a Baby Ruth, LoneDouchebag?
Naga Sadow|8.15.08 @ 1:14PM|#
Must . . . resist . . . temptation . . . oh the hell with
it!
Heeeeeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyyyyyyyoooooooooooooouuuuuuuuuuggggggggggggguuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyys!!!
|8.15.08 @ 1:26PM|#
Corsi is a lunatic, but he was a lunatic when he helped with the
Swift Boats Veterans. I know people who still believe that crap
about Kerry. (not a fan of Kerry but I still get irate when I see
the purple band aids at the GOP convention).
Obama is right to go for this guy, nip that crazy in the bud. Not
just for him, but for elections in general...because obviously the
press won't do it.
|8.15.08 @ 1:36PM|#
I want to know why Reason is to afraid to tackle the most
important news story of lives.
Bigfoot
Corpse Found in Georgia
Naga Sadow|8.15.08 @ 1:37PM|#
I'm bringing out the big guns now Epi.
OK! I'll talk! In third grade, I cheated on my history exam. In
fourth grade, I stole my uncle Max's toupee and I glued it on my
face when I was Moses in my Hebrew School play. In fifth grade, I
knocked my sister Edie down the stairs and I blamed it on the
dog... When my mom sent me to the summer camp for fat kids and then
they served lunch I got nuts and I pigged out and they kicked me
out... But the worst thing I ever done - I mixed a pot of fake puke
at home and then I went to this movie theater, hid the puke in my
jacket, climbed up to the balcony and then, t-t-then, I made a
noise like this: hua-hua-hua-huaaaaaaa - and then I dumped it over
the side, all over the people in the audience. And then, this was
horrible, all the people started getting sick and throwing up all
over each other. I never felt so bad in my entire life.
|8.15.08 @ 1:42PM|#
Even crazies are right once in a while. Richard Nixon was a
crook but that doesn't mean he wasn't right about Alger Hiss.
All I would like to know is what does the book say and is any of it
true? I really don't care who wrote it. The fact that this guy is a
kook just gives people like Weigal and excuse to be lazy and not do
any reporting.
Episiarch|8.15.08 @ 1:47PM|#
I can't top that, Naga. All I can do is quote some Mouth:
"Your looks are kinda pretty, when your face isn't screwing it
up."
|8.15.08 @ 1:58PM|#
I have an idea. Why doesn't some reporter read the book and then go out and find out if anything in it is true and to what extent it is true if at all and then write a story explaining why the book is or is not acurate? No, that would actually require thought and effort. Much better to troll the internet for a few crazy quotes by the author and call it a day.
|8.15.08 @ 2:03PM|#
John,
The Obama campaign released a 40-page report on false statements in
the book yesterday.
|8.15.08 @ 2:05PM|#
The Obama campaign released a 40-page report on false
statements in the book yesterday.
Well, then, our intrepid reporter can investigate and evaluate the
competing claims. Let's be smart, and not take either side at face
value, yes?
|8.15.08 @ 2:07PM|#
Corsi thinks 9/11 was an inside job and that the NAU is real. And LoneWacko wonders why we find him objectionable? The guy's a fruitcake!
|8.15.08 @ 2:08PM|#
"The Obama campaign released a 40-page report on false
statements in the book yesterday."
Good for him. Then the media should be reading that to and doing
their own reporting and reporting on the results. Just because the
Obama campaign says it is false, doesn't mean that it is. That is
why we have a media; to try to get to the bottom of these things.
But, they are not interested in doing that. They are both too lazy.
They would rather make it a credibility contest because that is
easier to report and takes less effort than finding out the
truth.
Further, if it is all false, I fully expect Obama to be filing a
libal suit in the near future.
|8.15.08 @ 2:10PM|#
"That is why we have a media; to try to get to the bottom of
these things. But, they are not interested in doing that. They are
both too lazy."
Don't forget stupid too.
|8.15.08 @ 2:11PM|#
Yes. By all means, reporters, or even ordinary people, can read
the report and evaluate it.
As a matter of fact, quite a few have. Corsi's book is getting
trashed by said intrepid reporters throughout the media as we
speak.
|8.15.08 @ 2:11PM|#
Off-Thread: I just started that Bilderberg book this morning.
Pretty good so far. I like big-picture stuff. Anybody else read
it?
And no, I'm not a "truther"
|8.15.08 @ 2:11PM|#
Investigate the competing claims? Hows about you folks do
that.
I'm sure you have the same opinion of anything the Discovery
Institute puts out about evolution. Just because the Discovery
Institute are pushing Creationism in a lab coat doesn't mean they
might not have valid points that the old grey dude up there did
it.
Shannon Love|8.15.08 @ 2:12PM|#
I am interested in how many people can answer this
question:
Kerry claimed that he ran a covert mission into Cambodia during
Christmas of 1967. He claimed the memory was "seared" into his
mind. The Swiftboaters claimed he was lying as their first attack
against Kerry.
Now True or False: Kerry eventually admitted he did not run the
mission at that time or any time.
It is interesting the number of people who think the Swiftboaters
(22 surviving of 28 peer officers plus the entire 6 officers of the
chain of command) where all complete liars when in fact those
people never read the Swiftboaters claims.
|8.15.08 @ 2:14PM|#
"Corsi's book is getting trashed by said intrepid reporters
throughout the media as we speak."
No, they are trashing Corsi. I haven't seen anything evaluating the
claims and doing any real reporting on their varacity. An
opinionated book review doesn't cut it.
|8.15.08 @ 2:15PM|#
Just because the Obama campaign says it is false, doesn't
mean that it is.
No, but the fact that the regularly quote Corsi making claims about
Obama's book, then quote the passages that prove those claims
false, means they are false.
Further, if it is all false, I fully expect Obama to be filing
a libal suit in the near future.
Remind me to take the bar exam in Texas if I ever go into law. Even
I know that public figures have significantly-reduced protection
from libel, and that "My intent was to influence the election" is
an accepted refutation of the element of "actual malice" necessary
to prove libel.
Les|8.15.08 @ 2:16PM|#
Further, if it is all false, I fully expect Obama to be
filing a libal suit in the near future.
Well, from what I've read, the book is constructed in a way to
automatically defend against that. Obama could sue for libel if the
book said, "Obama's a terrorist sympathizer," but he can't if the
books says, "Is Obama a terrorist sympathizer? Some people say he
is."
And I think it's perfectly reasonable to dismiss the claims of
someone like Corsi, just as it's perfectly reasonable to dismiss
the claims of someone like Michael Moore.
|8.15.08 @ 2:20PM|#
"Even I know that public figures have significantly-reduced
protection from libel, and that "My intent was to influence the
election" is an accepted refutation of the element of "actual
malice" necessary to prove libel."
If you make a false claim knowing that it is false, then you are
guilty of liable public figure or not. For example, it is my
understanding that this book says that Obama's relationship with
Ayers and his wife goes back years and is much closer than Obama
has ever admitted to. That is an objective fact. The book says that
the Ayers babysat Obama's kids and the two couples were very close
for years in Chicago. You can check that. If that is not true and
the Ayers are just Obama's neighbors who happened to serve on a few
of the same committees as Obama claims, Obama has an air tight case
for lible given the fact that the Ayers are unrepetent terrorists
and associating with them damages his reputation.
I am sure there are tons of other factual statements in the book
that can be checked out and if false could be the basis for a
liable suit.
|8.15.08 @ 2:21PM|#
Now True or False: Kerry eventually admitted he did not run
the mission at that time or any time.
False. Kerry acknowledged that the event couldn't have happened in
1967, and that he must have mixed up two episodes, but that the
mission occurred as described in his Chirstmas 1967 journal entry -
ie, the trip up the river to drop someone off, being shot at by
Khmer Rouge rebels, thinking how stupid and dishonest it was, then
coming back and spending the evening at base.
It's interesting the number of people who think John Kerry's claims
were disproven, when they never read those claims to begin
with.
BDB|8.15.08 @ 2:21PM|#
Well, the swiftboating has begun.
August is usually when Dem candidates begin to tank from attacks.
Ask Presidents Dukakis and Kerry.
|8.15.08 @ 2:28PM|#
According to Amazon, the book has over 600 footnotes. Why hasn't
the media checked everyone of those footnotes? Here is what Amazon
says the claims of the book are
Barack and Michelle's 20-year-long religious affiliation with the
black-liberation theology of former Trinity United Church of Christ
Reverend Jeremiah Wright, whose sermons have always been steeped in
a rage first expressed by Franz Fanon , Stokely Carmichael and
Malcolm X, a rage that Corsi shows has deep meaning for
Obama.
That is old news and pretty well known.
-Obama's continuing connections with Kenya, the homeland of his
father, through his support for the candidacy of Raila Odinga, the
radical socialist presidential contender who came to power amid
Islamist violence and church burnings.
Is that true? Does he support this woman? What are his ties to her
if any? How did she come to power and who is she? Those are all
questions that any good reporter could answer.
-Obama's involvement in the slum-landlord empire of the Chicago
political fixer Tony Rezko, who helped to bankroll Obama's initial
campaigns and to purchase of Barack and Michelle's dream-home
property.
Again, all of those things are verifyable. What was his
relationship to Tony Rezko and how did they get the house? Those
are facts that can be found out.
The background and techniques of the Obama campaign's cult of
personality, including the derivation of the words "hope" and
change"
-Obama's far-left domestic policy, his controversial votes on
abortion, his history of opposition to the Second Amendment, his
determination to raise capital-gains taxes, his impractical plan to
achieve universal health care, and his radical plan to tax
Americans to fund a global-poverty-reduction program.
That is pretty kooky stuff there. I honestly don't know how you
would investigate that. That is just Corsi's opinion which I don't
care about.
-Obama's naïve, anti-war, anti-nuclear foreign-policy, predicated
on the reduction of the military, the eradication of nuclear
weapons and an overconfidence in the power of his personality, as
if belief in change alone could somehow transform international
politics, achieve nuclear-weapons disarmament and withdrawal from
Iraq without adverse consequences, for us, for the Iraqis or for
Israel.
Again, that seems to be opinion and I don't care about
Corsi's.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1416598065/reasonmagazineA/
The point is that if you think Corsi is a nut and don't want to
believe him, that is fine. But Corsi or not, these allegations are
out there. The media needs to look into the allegations and find
out if they are true or not. If they are not true, then write a
story saying how they are not. Doing that would go a lot further to
putting the things to bed than just talking about what a kook Corsi
is. Doing that and not talking about what the book says just makes
me think there is something to to accusations.
|8.15.08 @ 2:29PM|#
John, you should sue your law professors for negligence.
http://www.writing-world.com/rights/libel.shtml
Public Official vs Public Figure
The same liberal rule applies to both categories: To prevail in a
libel case against you, in addition to showing that your statement
is untrue and caused significant harm, a public official or a
public figure must also prove "malice" -- that you acted in
reckless disregard to the facts known to you and with intent to
harm.
Obviously, because of this stipulation, you enjoy considerable
protection when it comes to public personages, since proving malice
(intent to harm) places a heavy burden on the prosecution.
http://w2.eff.org/Misc/Publications/Mike_Godwin/net_public_figures_godwin.article
In a now-famous opinion by Justice William Brennan, the Court held
that
libel law, as applied by the courts of Alabama, conflicted with the
First
Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press. What, then, should
the
standards of libel law be? Justice Brennan first noted that "we
consider
this case against the background of a profound national commitment
to the
principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited,
robust, and
wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and
sometimes
unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." He
could
easily have been describing Usenet in 1994.
Brennan went on to write that "erroneous statement is inevitable in
free
debate" (reporters and editors are only human, after all), and
that
therefore libel law must accommodate a certain amount of falsehood
"if the
freedoms of expression are to have the 'breathing space'" that they
need
to survive. Since discussion of public officials and their work is
central
to democratic debate, he reasoned, it follows that we should make
special
allowances for debate about such officials. A public official can
win a
libel lawsuit under the First Amendment, wrote Brennan, only if he
or she
can prove "actual malice" on the part of the defendant, where proof
of
"actual malice" is defined as proof that the statement was made
with
"knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether
it was
false or not." (In other words, the term "actual malice" is defined
quite
differently from the older term "malice" mentioned above.)
This rule about public officials was later extended to public
figures in
general--the Court recognized that sometimes news stories about
highly
public individuals is central to democracy even when the
individual
doesn't happen to be a public official.
BDB|8.15.08 @ 2:30PM|#
Who the hell ISNT anti-nuclear?
Seriously, do you think we should start building more nukes
again?
|8.15.08 @ 2:31PM|#
John | August 15, 2008, 2:28pm | #
According to Amazon, the book has over 600 footnotes. Why hasn't
the media checked everyone of those footnotes?
Funny you should mention that. Of the first eleven footnotes in
Corsi's latest book, 9 of them reference...wait for it...Jerome
Corsi's pervious books.
Clearly, a serious work of scholarship.
Elemenope|8.15.08 @ 2:32PM|#
...a rage first expressed by Franz Fanon, Stokely Carmichael
and Malcolm X...
There's something deeply hilarious about this sentence.
Can't put my finger on it.
|8.15.08 @ 2:34PM|#
"To prevail in a libel case against you, in addition to showing
that your statement is untrue and caused significant harm, a public
official or a public figure must also prove "malice" -- that you
acted in reckless disregard to the facts known to you and with
intent to harm."
Joe which part of "it is false and you know it is false" that I
wrote above do you not understand? I said above "If you make a
false claim knowing that it is false, then you are guilty of liable
public figure or not."
Nothing you quote disputes that. I know liable law. Stop being a
jerk and hurling out invective. I don't need to sue my law
professors for negligence. I am fully aware of the standard for
liable and you know it.
|8.15.08 @ 2:37PM|#
"Funny you should mention that. Of the first eleven footnotes in
Corsi's latest book, 9 of them reference...wait for it...Jerome
Corsi's pervious books."
What about the other 588 of them Joe? Again, if everything in the
book is a lie, that ought to be easy to show without reference to
the author's crazy views on 9-11 or anything else.
|8.15.08 @ 2:38PM|#
Joe which part of "it is false and you know it is false"
that I wrote above do you not understand?
Nothing. There is NO part of "it is false and you know it is false"
that I do not understand.
Now, let me run that quotte again, and pbold the important part,
the part that is relevant to the point I made, and which proves
your statement false:
To prevail in a libel case against you, in addition to showing
that your statement is untrue and caused significant harm, a public
official or a public figure must also prove "malice" -- that you
acted in reckless disregard to the facts known to you and
with intent to harm."
See it this time?
Sort of like, Even I know that public figures have
significantly-reduced protection from libel, and that "My intent
was to influence the election" is an accepted refutation of the
element of "actual malice" necessary to prove libel.
Your claims about knowing the standard for libel would be more
credible, John, if you demonstrated a modicum of awareness of what
they are, if you didn't make an untrue statement about the
standards being the same for public figures as for everyone else,
and if you realized that "libel" and "liable" and two distinct
legal concepts.
|8.15.08 @ 2:39PM|#
What about the other 588 of them Joe?
Beats me. Not a terribly auspicious start, I'm afraid.
|8.15.08 @ 2:42PM|#
Joe,
If you know it is false and say it anyway and it is something like
"Joe consorts with terrorists" that is obviously harmful to
someone's reputation, the mallace part is pretty much going to fall
into place. If the factual claims in this book like Obama
supporting that woman in Africa are false, Obama can sue and win,
public figure or not.
|8.15.08 @ 2:44PM|#
It is simple Joe. Is the book true or is it not? What about the
woman from Africa? What about Obama's relationship to Ayers and
Dorn? What about his relationship with Rezko?
If those questions were so easy to answer and the book obviously
false, you wouldn't be throwing temper fits about libel law. It is
amazing how angry and insulting you get when you don't have an
answer.
|8.15.08 @ 2:45PM|#
If you know it is false and say it anyway and it is
something like "Joe consorts with terrorists" that is obviously
harmful to someone's reputation, the mallace part is pretty much
going to fall into place.
The case law says otherwise. Check out the links I provided -
costing someone an election is not "harm," and there is a great
deal of lattitude provided to claims with political import, owing
to the Court's respect for the necessity of free and open political
debate. Brennan discussion of this in Sullivan is some
good reading.
Sure, being accused of consorting with terrorists is nasty. So is
being accused of leading a racist mob attempting to lynch black
students - yet the SCOTUS threw out a libel case agaisnt someone
who falsely made that claim, specifically because the target was a
public figure running for office.
|8.15.08 @ 2:46PM|#
"Is this really going to be 2004 all over again?"
Not if Obama is honest and just answers the questions. This stuff
will go away. But when you play the Joe game of "nothing to see
here" then the questions are going to dog him all the way to
November. The media isn't doing Obama any favors by not
investigating the book.
|8.15.08 @ 2:47PM|#
Perhaps it is higher standard for a political figure Joe. It has been 15 years since I read NYT. Fair enough. Unlike you, I will actually admit when someone has a point.
|8.15.08 @ 2:48PM|#
Yes, quite upset I am.
YOU brought up libel law, chief. (Incorrectly, did I mention that
part?) You claimed that failure to file a libel lawsuit would be
evidence that the book is true, because false claims in such a book
would be grounds for libel.
Well, not so much.
Is the book true? It's a big book. There are no doubt truths, lies,
and half-truths. There always are.
|8.15.08 @ 2:52PM|#
John, why don't you read the book and ALSO read Obama's
rebuttal?
The editorial review of ANY Amazon book is not neutral..just so you
know.
Though if you want to go the Amazon route, reading the customer
reviews is just as valid, and far more "entertaining" and
"enlightening".
|8.15.08 @ 2:56PM|#
"John, why don't you read the book and ALSO read Obama's
rebuttal?"
Because I am not a reporter and don't have the time to actually go
out and talk to the people involved. That is why I buy
newspapers.
As far as Amazon goes, the quoted material is a description of the
books claims and not a editorial review. Furhter, the flame wars
that will go on for ever on there and be of no value. This really
does call for a reporter and some real effort. That is something
that is beyond the media these days.
"Is the book true? It's a big book. There are no doubt truths,
lies, and half-truths. There always are."
But since you have decided that Obama is your guy, you have no
interest in finding out what things really are true or not do you
Joe?
|8.15.08 @ 3:01PM|#
Yes Joe. You were right about something. I will be sure to write it down since it happens so rarely. Also, it is a good thing you don't take it as an excuse to be a prick or anything.
|8.15.08 @ 3:10PM|#
John, the quoted material that is under the heading "Editorial
Review"?
And as long as you wait for someone else to do your leg work, then
you have no bitch when the leg work doesn't meet your
standards.
|8.15.08 @ 3:18PM|#
John | August 15, 2008, 2:56pm | #
"John, why don't you read the book and ALSO read Obama's
rebuttal?"
Because I am not a reporter and don't have the time to actually go
out and talk to the people involved. That is why I buy
newspapers...But since you have decided that Obama is your guy, you
have no interest in finding out what things really are true or not
do you Joe?
Ha ha!
Seitz|8.15.08 @ 3:20PM|#
Well, clearly, John believes the book raises serious issues, and
until these issues are resolved, he will not be voting for
Obama....
...assuming that he's had successful surgery by election day to
remove his lips from dubya's ass.
GILMORE|8.15.08 @ 3:27PM|#
Unlike you, I will actually admit when someone has a
point
I think the media needs to research this assertion to see if it is
in fact true
Trend Leader|8.15.08 @ 3:38PM|#
I'd like to read Corsi's book of lies about Barack Obama but I
understand that it is hard to come by as nearly the entire print
run is slated for bulk sale and burning by conservative groups as
that is the standard policy for getting these tomes on the
NYTs Bestseller list.
Thankfully, the Obama campaign is providing an excellent summary
free of charge complete with suggested criticisms for the harried
reviewer.
JB|8.15.08 @ 4:12PM|#
Yes, Trend Leader, conservatives buy books to burn them. There
is a reason you people are called moonbats.
So many stupid, close-minded liberals in the world.
I'm still waiting for Kerry to release all his military records
like he promised. It's too bad John Kerry is a liar.
I'll give Mr. Hopey-Changey some credit; at least he isn't a
self-described war criminal like John Kerry. Though with his
wafer-thin resume, it's hard to tell what he is.
|8.15.08 @ 4:59PM|#
Of course. There are just a lot of conservative book clubs. It's not like the NYT Bestseller List collects data on book sales, and knows how many are sold in bulk vs. purchases retail. Oh, wait, yes they do.
Trend Leader|8.15.08 @ 5:10PM|#
Yes, Comrade joe. We know most RightWing morons don't really read anything other than the Bible and American Rifleman.The corporations set up wingnut front groups to bulk buy the propaganda, putting it on the bestseller list, then the dumb rednecks are spoon fed the short word talking points via Faux News, Limbaugh, Hannity and the snake-handling preachers.
TallDave|8.15.08 @ 6:39PM|#
Yeah, yeah, and the Swift Vets are never going to have an impact
on the election, it's all lies and eeeeeeevil Republican smears,
etc.
You'd think the Obama camp would have learned by now, you don't
refute "our troops behaved like Jenjis Khan" with "Republican
smear!" You either man up and admit you, for instance, had a long
association with unrepentant terrorists, or you not only get hurt
by it but your evasion makes a lot of people believe even the stuff
that may not be true.
The MSM will try to discredit them just like they did the Swift
Vets, but they've pretty much flushed what credibility they had
left after Rathergate with a year of covering for John
Edwards.
And Rev. Wright starts his book tour in October...
GILMORE|8.15.08 @ 7:25PM|#
When the liberal end of H&R starts niggling with the
My-Blood-Is Redder-Than-Yours end of H&R, shit gets really
really gay.
i mean, seriously. None of you score any points. If anything it's a
net negative on both sides. Kudos!
GILMORE|8.15.08 @ 7:29PM|#
oh, and it looks like JB and Joe both got baited by a facetious
liberal-troll.
Doesnt anyone here get sick of the fucking hyperbole? I mean
christ. Should anyone even care about this tool Corsi? He's not
exactly a poster boy for anybody. He's an apparent douche. Next
thing you know, someone's going to defend Lonewacko's "detailed
research"
""Hey, you havent DISPROVED him!! give him his say!!""
I personally believe in filtering out the dumbness when possible.
Or at least ignoring it.
|8.15.08 @ 8:29PM|#
In May he quit World Net Daily to explore a bid for
president.
That was our idea, you know...
|8.15.08 @ 10:10PM|#
Yes, Comrade joe. We know most RightWing morons don't really
read anything other than the Bible and American
Rifleman.
No, Trend Leader, we're also aware they read mass quantities of
shit by people like Ann Coulter and Jerome Corsi. They can't get
enough of it.
|8.16.08 @ 12:06AM|#
John wrote: "Because I am not a reporter and don't have the time
to actually go out and talk to the people involved"
So quit asking people with lives to do it because you're too
fucking lazy. I expect you'll spend more time trumpeting these
"questions" you have than it would take to read the book and the
rebuttal.
Oh, also, it's text. You don't have to "go and talk" to anyone.
Just read the fucking words you lazy whining shit.
Most of us know it's bullshit because it's by Corsi, a known
shithead conspiracy theorist and bigot. Everyone reading this will
be solo winners of Powerball before Corsi writes anything that
isn't a mess of lies and distortions.
Anti-Globalism|8.16.08 @ 10:34AM|#
How can ANY book review be neutral?
In the meantime, on the subject of race and genetics:
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/16/1311212
...since that's what this debate appears to be about.
|8.16.08 @ 11:46AM|#
Ahem.
That's "Uncle Joe."
Come on, it's just sitting there.
Smarter McCarthyites, please.
JB|8.16.08 @ 9:40PM|#
Gilmore, it's hard to tell the trolls from the
liberals/socialists/commies. They all tend to sound like irrational
fools to me.
No clue what's in this new book (I probably won't read it), but
some of the criticisms are downright hilarious. "Author claims
Obama didn't dedicate book to his family, but he did!" shouts the
WaPo. I mean if that's some of the best stuff they can throw at
this guy, then maybe he actually is onto something.
Criticism of the Swift Boat efforts is moronic. John "I committed
war crimes" Kerry brought that all on himself with his past
behavior. It didn't help that he was inconsistent if not outright
lying in many statements describing his service. Then he defends
himself by saying he will release all his military records. He
still has not to this day. Do you know what that makes him? A
liar.
For what it's worth, I'm a fairly hardcore libertarian. I hate
conservatives, but I really hate liberals.
GILMORE|8.17.08 @ 12:31AM|#
I hate conservatives, but I really hate liberals.
Funny how one often comes to resemble those they most loathe
GG|8.17.08 @ 11:38AM|#
On second thought, the Obama campaign isn't fighting the
last campaign. It evolved! Corsi sent a 5 mph pitch across the
plate, and they took a swing at it.
The Obama Overreach: Refuting A Few of Corsi's Smears By Re-Writing
History
Yes, the current system is imperfect, but the one Obama and the
Dems favor is even more imperfect.
Isn't that always the way?
|8.17.08 @ 4:56PM|#
"Author claims Obama didn't dedicate book to his family, but
he did!" shouts the WaPo. I mean if that's some of the best stuff
they can throw at this guy, then maybe he actually is onto
something.
If "He didn't dedicate the book to his family," when he actually
did, is the best Corsi can come up with, then maybe he really isn't
onto anything.
|8.18.08 @ 3:52PM|#
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Corsi's belief that oil is
not a "fossil fuel", but the product of some kind of biochemical
processes going on under the earth's crust, and therefore is a
renewable resource, or something like that.
I first read this on DailyKos and didn't believe it until I Googled
"corsi oil" and found the relevant book on WND's web site.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245