Replies

The point is the press is hailing the book as a tell all from a Bush insider. The press is saying the book reveals what they were saying all along. It validates the left wing view and people at large will believe it. That is the big deal. It is presented as the true insider story from a Bush loyalist. That is what makes propaganda effective.

When you look into who published the book and who edited the book and find out it is published and edited from far left sources, that is pertinent. When you find out the money is coming from far left sources, that is pertinent. When you find out the company is owned by George Soros, that is pertinent. All call into question the books validity.

When Ari Fleischer says he talked to Mclellan on and off and for the last year it was a pro Bush book, but was lately ‘edited’ and now pops out an anti-Bush book, it is pertinent.

The question isn't is it published by a liberal publisher. Almost all publishers are liberal. The question is, is the book a hit piece and was the book done as propaganda.

Hope that explains it.

The point is the press is hailing the book as a tell all from a Bush insider.

That's what it is.

The press is saying the book reveals what they were saying all along.

Apparantly it does.

It validates the left wing view and people at large will believe it.

Apparantly so.

That is the big deal.

This week. It's another one on the pile.

It is presented as the true insider story from a Bush loyalist.

That's what it is.

When you look into who published the book and who edited the book and find out it is published and edited from far left sources, that is pertinent.

Why? The accuracy of the book does not rely on the motives of the publisher. It's totally irrelevant. If the book is inaccurate, let that be brought to light.

When you find out the money is coming from far left sources, that is pertinent. When you find out the company is owned by George Soros, that is pertinent. All call into question the books validity.

None of that calls into question the book's validity. Of course a liberal publisher will want to publish a book he agrees with. Doesn't mean it isn't true. That has to be shown. Just impugning motives is lame. When Ari Fleischer says he talked to Mclellan on and off and for the last year it was a pro Bush book, but was lately ‘edited’ and now pops out an anti-Bush book, it is pertinent. The question isn't is it published by a liberal publisher. Almost all publishers are liberal. The question is, is the book a hit piece and was the book done as propaganda. Hope that explains it.