The Mediacrats keep saying that Corsi's books about Kerry and now Obama are dishonest. Maybe the MSM should elaborate on that since to date no one has proven that anything Corsi has said was dishonest.  

Truth hurts.

I would've asked Shuster if he condemned Dan Rather's Memo-gate report, which his (Rather's) own network's investigation found to be totally devoid of evidence, and having recklessly violated 10 major principals of journalism. And CBS never did explain why the show's producer -- Maples --- contacted the DNC with a tip three days prior to airing, but never asked the subject of the attack (namely, the President of the US) for comment on the accusations.

If Shuster never condemned Rather and/or the report, no one should feel compelled to condemn anything to Shuster's satisfaction.

slanderous lies......then why didn't Kerry sue?????????????  He didn't because it was ALL true, and he knew it.  Where's your military records you promised to release John????????  Obama and his minions are scared to death because this shines the light of truth that they sought to keep under wraps.  Wheels comin off da bus!!! 

"If a man does his best, what else is there"?

General George S. Patton Jr.

book"

I thought that was the job of a campaign representative?

"I need more cowbell!" SN

Shuster really is a girly "maun"...

The Swiftboat Veterans have nothing to do with this new book. Can these asshats get that fact through their tiny heads?

Why are all conservatives and anti-lefties (not necessarily the same folks) always lumped together?

The Swiftboat Veterans were merely trying to set the record straight about Lurch. This is a different book about a different jerk. So how do the vets get attached to it? Is there any wonder the sheeple are confused?

Corsi wrote a great book. Swiftboating -- Telling the truth about Democrats. Corsi fills in the parts about Obama the drive by media won't dare touch.

So how are the Obama-nauts going to refute with nothing, which is what Kerry did.

Recommend all buy the book, you will be surprised how good it is and complete it is referenced. 

I served in Vietnam, same base, the great island bitch, er beach on the bay,  as Hanoi John and I didn't need Corsi's book to tell me Hanoi John's stories were not made of whole cloth. He accomplished too many 'impossible' feat's and then abandoned his crew. No hint of a man in him.

I have the book "Unfit for Command" right beside me and can't find one lie in it. Hanoi John hired (using his wife's money)  the most expensive lawyers in the country to sue Corsi. They dropped the case like a red hot horse shoe  when they figured out the damage it would to their rep's when they lost big time and a counter suit hit.

 The democrats may as well accept the facts. Hanoi John was and is a liar of gigantic porportions and he and Silky Edwards are cut from the same cloth. When the world knows for a fact your lover (Kerry/Edwards) is a sleeze bag and liar it's time to dump the lover.

Old, Retired and glad of it.

"And why hasn't John McCain condemned this book?"

Has John McCain even read the book, or should he just take Shuster's word for it and commence with the condemning?

By the way, when did reviewing books become a presidential candidate's responsibility?

Does anyone remember how the radical Muslims reacted when the cartoon came out?  That is what I am reminded of when I see Shuster and his brethern vomiting their hatred for anyone who has the audacity to challenge the Annoited One.

"When government and religion are one, breaking the law is a sin and questioning the leader is herasy (not to mention being racist)."  Shuster is just another imam shouting from another MSM minaret.      

Mayhaps I am deluding myself (much like the time that I thought Suzie Morgan liked me in the third grade, until she shoved her butter pecan ice cream cone into my face, and called me "rotten"), but I get the feeling that inch by inch, anybody with half a brain (i.e., Democrats, who are notorious for having half a brain) and anybody else with a sliver more, is coming to accept the oh-so-obvious liberal slant of the MSM ("slant" as in the edge of the Grand Canyon).  Not just liberal, but a promulgation of whatever knee-jerk response the Democratic Party wants to offer in response to the latest Republican salvo.  If this item doesn't add fuel to fire, then NB is just screaming in outer space.

The liberal-leaning public will be slow and loath to admit it to anyone out loud, but one can ignore reality only so much before it beomes a lie.  Will it make a difference in how they vote (there's no "full-brain" requirement to vote, you know)?  That's probably a question for a bigger mind than mine, like say, Dear Abby.  But the MSM keeps it up at their own peril.  Their credibility meter is already red-lining, and every day they just drive themselves deeper into the ground.  The funny (sad?) thing is that they just don't seem to realize it.  I have no problem with someone expressing their political opinion, but to continually cloak it in some kind of objective journalism is a pill that eventually, most folks in this country won't be willing to swallow.  I think we've been seeing that for the last few years, and we'll see a lot more of in the future. 

We'll always have the diehards - on both sides, by the way - that believe they're on a mission to preserve us and protect us from ourselves.  But most folks have a much more rational approach to life, and these are the ones who will slowly but inevitably see that they are being manipulated on a daily basis, and will finally get fed up with it.   You can debate why it hasn't happened sooner, but I'll be charitable here and propose that a lot of people just don't follow politics - and the effects it has on their lives - as closely as do others.

I doubt that guys like Shuster and several others I could mention get that fact.  As I deluded myself with Suzie for my own forgotten reasons, they're content to delude themselves into thinking they still have a monopoly on what is reportable truth and want to make sure you believe what they want you to believe, right up to the time they get an ice cream cone shoved into their face.  The difference between them and me is that the survival of a nation didn't matter as much in my case.

Suzie, for what it's worth - thank you.  You taught me never to delude myself again.  And I was only in third grade.

A friend of mine sent me an e-mail with the link to the letter below: 

Letter from a Cuban

From Richmond Times-Dispatch, Monday, July 7, 2008 ~

 

Dear Editor, Times-Dispatch:

 

'Each year I get to celebrate Independence Day twice. On June 30 I celebrate my independence day, and on July 4 I celebrate America 's.  This year is special, because  it marks the 40th anniversary of my independence.

 

'On June 30, 1968, I escaped Communist Cuba, and a few months later, I was in the United States to stay. That  I happened to arrive in Richmond on Thanksgiving Day is  just part of the story, but I digress.

 

'I've thought a lot about the anniversary this year. The election-year rhetoric has made me think a lot  about Cuba and what transpired there.  In the late
1950s, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, so when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.

 

'When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell  in love with him.  They never questioned who his friends  were or what he really believed in.  When he said he would  help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care  and education to all, everyone followed.  When he said he  would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said,  'Praise the Lord.'  And when the young leader said, 'I will be for change and I'll bring you change,' everyone yelled, 'Viva Fidel!'

 

'But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner's guns went silent, the people's guns had been taken away.  By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed.  By the time everyone received their free education, it was worth nothing.  By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him.  By the time the change was finally implemented, Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status.  By the time the change was over, more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes.  You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the most fortunate Cubans.  And now I'm back to the beginning of my story.

 

'Luckily, we in America would never fall for a young leader who promised change without asking, what change? How will you carry it out?  What will it cost America ?

 

'Would we?'

 

Manuel Alvarez, Jr. SEMPER FI !

We will not elect a president based on his or her CHARACTER or their love of country!

Shuster and his lefty friends seem to have two huge problems; reporting the news & actually reading books they complain about. Hell, Amazon.com has more "reviewers" who've actually read the books they claim to have read than Shuster & Company, and that's not saying much.

Corsi's book is more of a documentation of crap that should be public knowledge; after all we are CHOOSING a president and we should know EVERYTHING there is to know about the CANDIDATES. Much like the media lets us know ALL ABOUT John McCain's past and his rich druggie wife. 

When your role model is psychotic you're in deep doo-doo.

(Why does this remind me of Reverend Wright and Obama?)