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.

Advertisement

NEXT: The New New Deal

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. There isn’t, by any chance, any UnusualSpacing in Corsi’s book, is there?

  2. I hate it when the first post is a threadwinner.

  3. 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.

  4. While I’m laughing at joe’s comment, does anybody know Lonewacko’s rationale for his UnusualSpacing?

  5. We keep asking him, and he won’t tell us.

    It’s gotta be to facilitate searches.

  6. Those dirty Mexicans keep stealing his space bar’s job.

  7. And SugarFree steals joe’s thunder.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. What kind of jackass puts special tags in his own threads so he can google them and read them to himself later? WTF?

  11. 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!

  12. 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!

  13. 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?

  14. Chrklte Thrndr!

    Chocolate Thunder?

  15. Nice catch, Moses Malone.

  16. LONEWACKO!!!!

    *shakes fist in air*

  17. He fucking shows up on a thread on which every single post is mocking him. You are some serious OCD, LoneJerkoff.

  18. To take the basketball analogy further, aren’t you guys playing against the drooling retarded kid?

  19. 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.

  20. LONEWACKO!!!!

    *shakes fist in air*

    Now what did I tell you about the Lonewacko and fists?!

  21. 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.

  22. BDB,

    He keeps suiting up and getting on the paint. In these parts, not everyone gets a first place trophy just for playing.

  23. 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.

  24. 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?

  25. Must . . . resist . . . temptation . . . oh the hell with it!

    Heeeeeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyyyyyyyoooooooooooooouuuuuuuuuuggggggggggggguuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyys!!!

  26. Choc . . . co . . . late?

  27. 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.

  28. Look at the new post. LW’s gonna shit himself.

  29. I want to know why Reason is to afraid to tackle the most important news story of lives.

    Bigfoot Corpse Found in Georgia

  30. 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.

  31. 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.

  32. 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.”

  33. 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.

  34. I had to cheat on that last one so we’ll just call it a draw.

  35. John,

    The Obama campaign released a 40-page report on false statements in the book yesterday.

  36. 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?

  37. 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!

  38. “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.

  39. “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.

  40. 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.

  41. 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”

  42. 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.

  43. 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.

  44. “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.

  45. 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.

  46. 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.

  47. “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.

  48. 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.

  49. Well, the swiftboating has begun.

    August is usually when Dem candidates begin to tank from attacks. Ask Presidents Dukakis and Kerry.

  50. Who bets we see Ayers and Wright ads starting in September?

  51. 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 na?ve, 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-20/

    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.

  52. 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.

  53. Who the hell ISNT anti-nuclear?

    Seriously, do you think we should start building more nukes again?

  54. 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.

  55. …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.

  56. “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.

  57. “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.

  58. 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.

  59. What about the other 588 of them Joe?

    Beats me. Not a terribly auspicious start, I’m afraid.

  60. I know liable law.

    lol.

    Yet…you dont know how to spell it? OK there.

  61. 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.

  62. Is this really going to be 2004 all over again?

  63. 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.

  64. 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.

  65. “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.

  66. 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.

  67. 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.

  68. 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”.

  69. “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?

  70. Michelle Obama has a big butt!

  71. 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.

  72. 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.

  73. 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!

  74. 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.

  75. 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

  76. 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.

  77. 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.

  78. 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.

  79. 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.

  80. 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…

  81. 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!

  82. 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.

  83. In May he quit World Net Daily to explore a bid for president.

    That was our idea, you know…

  84. 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.

  85. 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.

  86. 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.

  87. Ahem.

    That’s “Uncle Joe.”

    Come on, it’s just sitting there.

    Smarter McCarthyites, please.

  88. 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.

  89. I hate conservatives, but I really hate liberals.

    Funny how one often comes to resemble those they most loathe

  90. 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?

  91. “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.

  92. 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.

  93. With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz book series either as collectible or investment at RareOzBooks.com.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.