Kitty Kelley and Factcheck.org & a minor rant

[TryingToWarnYou]

As some here may know, Im highly critical of Kelley and her 'investigative technique'. I contacted Factcheck.org and asked that they review her latest book for accuracy and truthfulness. If they do it, it will be interesting either way.

Im sorry, but I find it really hard to believe some of the stuff being mentioned here that she alleges. I hate the Bush clan more than most people I can assure you, but I think theres a limit to what can be reasonably believed without any supporting evidence. I feel that this book is hurting and will continue to hurt the Democratic party and their election efforts. It will be seen as a partisan attack on Bush regardless of KK and her lack of party affiliation. People dont think like that. They equate; Hate + Bush = Left. And need I suggest what the RW talking point sources (of which there are far more than progressive) will do with the information? Do you really think they will simply limit their attacks to KK or do you think they will manage to wrangle the Left in on the attacks too? Gee, can you guess where I might be placing my bets?

In my discussions with other members here, Ive come across blatant disregard for the truth while embracing the fact that we are playing tit for tat with the conservatives on trashtalking. Ive seen people swallow KK allegations without question (how is this any different than the Kool Aid vendors and their customers at FR?) Of course, not being the most popular position, Ive been personally attacked. Hell, one idiot even called me "Karl" as in Karl Rove. Alas, differing opinions are not easily tolerated here, and I accept that as a fact now. At least I wasnt called a "Freeper" this time.

My point...my only point throughout this whole ordeal with questioning KK and her book derived from my own research as to how she gathered her information. Having experience in dealing with evidence and proof of matters from a legal standpoint, I can say that her methodology is flawed from a factual perspective. Its great if you want tattletale literature though. It is flawed in some very simple, but very serious ways:

Those interviewed for her latest book were not tape recorded/video taped so that there would be an unquestionable record of statements. I would think that with the claims being made, this would be the most damning evidence to have. Instead, she relied upon note taking and having 'witnesses' present. Thats all fine and good, but the simple fact is that people cannot be trusted and will lie for a myriad of reasons, especially if they do not have to identify themselves and refuse to go on record officially. They risk nothing. This is why taped interviews and testimony carry the weight that they do.

You can believe what you want and I admit, its fun to think that some of the stuff alleged might be true, but when I think about it a bit more and recognize that KK offers no real proof or facts, one is left to simply believe or not, the statements she puts forth, its clear that to call this anything other than rumormongering is giving it credit it doesnt deserve and didnt earn.

Does anyone understand what Im saying?

[Burma Jones]

1. I understand and concur

I didn't like her before, and I don't like her now.

This shite doesn't help us get rid of Chimp and his gang.

[papau]

15. I understand and disagree - Kitty's facts have held up over time - she

doesn't need to video tape anything.

As she says - if it is good enough for a Court of Law - perhaps it is more credible than a Bush assertion.

:-)

[TryingToWarnYou]

24. Court of law would have her "witnesses" on the stand...

What court of law is she in?

I guess staying just this side of malice is proof she is telling the truth. :eyes:

[Media_Lies_Daily]

72. I'm beginning to think that you're just trying to be disruptive...

...because kelly has had her book throughly fact-checked before it got to the publisher.

Maybe you should do a little more checking on this subject before you make yourself look much worse that you already have.

[TryingToWarnYou]

76. ..sigh... Every book goes through vetting by attorneys.

The attorneys were keeping her out of libel trouble (that whole icky 'with malice' issue). That doesnt mean her 'facts' are unquestionable.

Maybe YOU should do some checking on what people allege before just swallowing it like a fish on a hook.

http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2106746&

[blm]

84. I know firsthand that Bushes used callgirls from LA

Some of my friends were callgirls and, on occasion, I dropped them off at the airport. Lay was bringing them in.

None of them would go on record.

[TryingToWarnYou]

88. Must be true then..

Great example.

[blm]

90. Whether you like it or not, I can't change the truth I know.

I also know that James Bath hired callgirls for the Saudi royals, the Sultan of Brunei and his entourage and various sheiks in and out of LA. One of the former callgirls is now a major film star.

[Gawdfrey]

94. LOL. Beautiful

Touche

[jumpstart33]

96. If you heard her explain her fact-checking, witnesses etc. you would

know there is much more fact than fiction in the Bush book.

[Burma Jones]

100. It doesn't help beat Chimpy

It doesn't help beat Chimpy
It doesn't help beat Chimpy
It doesn't help beat Chimpy


Whenever the discussion veers away from the Chimp's Dismal record AS PRESIDENT, it helps the Chimp.

[Cocoa]

2. factcheck.org will gladly do this

they enthusiastically defend Bush.

They will take this on, despite their mission of addressing statements and ads by candidates.

[shraby]

5. I really don't understand why you are upset

about Kitty Kelley's book. She commissioned to write it 4 YEARS ago, long before we had a candidate to run. Doubleday vetted it with 4 TEAMS of lawyers. Doubleday is a prestigious company and has published it. She did multiple interviews for all the points she makes in the book. The Democrats have nothing to do with her research OR the publishing of the book.
The only reason I can think of why you would be upset about it is that you favor Bush's election.

Besides that, if you had told Kitty Kelley what you know about the Bush family, would you be willing to be taped, video'd, or named in the book as a source knowing the track record of the BFEE? I certainly would not!!!!


edited to add.

[TryingToWarnYou]

7. From what I have seen, they appear quite fair.

Can you show me some examples of them enthusiastically defending Bush?

[Cocoa]

13. here's one

there's no excuse for the atrociousness of their original article on Bush AWOL.

Starting with the "calm down, Michael" in the title. :puke:


http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=131

[TryingToWarnYou]

22. I dont see much bias.. I see them with old facts..not the new stuff

Also, at the bottom of that page is some other, not so friendly Bush flattering information.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?DocID=140

All this can be seen which ever way it can be twisted. While your link seems rather Bush friendly, mine seems pretty fair even if it is old information. I would like to see an update.

[Cocoa]

27. I see tons of bias

also unprofessionalism, and irrelevancies, and basically the article just sucks.

[TryingToWarnYou]

32. Well, you seem to be basing your judgement on one article....

Thats not really representative of how they work. They are great at pointing out inconsistencies with the truth from both Bush and Kerry. I see an awful lot of equal time devoted to it.

[Cocoa]

35. I've been following them from day one

and corresponding with them regularly.

It's becoming clearer and clearer that factcheck.org is in business to cloud the dishonesty of the Bush administration. They do obviously make an attempt to appear "balanced" but it's pretty transparently bogus.

[TryingToWarnYou]

38. Ok, but I dont see it. From what I read just yesterday, they seem

to be comparing whats said with reality and showing how the two differ.

Is that wrong somehow? Last time I checked, that seemed like the honest thing to do.

[piece sine]

3. good gosh a'mighty!

somebody actually taling sense in the heat of battle. Thanks for trying to warn us!

[The_Casual_Observer]

4. Does anyone understand what Im saying?

Sure, you would like to see the BFEE absolved of all of this by some halfassed freeper "investigation" site. The BFEE doesn't need your help, they have plenty of lawyers, including James Baker to give them a hand.

[TryingToWarnYou]

11. ..sigh... more crap.

Show me where they are a halfassed freeper investigation site. Ive seen quite a bit of balance there. Or are we just saying all this because they condemn innaccuracies from the Kerry camp too?

[merh]

21. Do you know what a grape says when you step on it?

It doesn't say anything - it just gives out a little "whine".

Would you like some cheese with your whine?

:boring:

[Pallas180]

26. Great line Merh. May I use it in the future ? lol

[merh]

33. Be my guest -

I have bored with the cry babies that wah, wah, wah all the time.

[TryingToWarnYou]

29. Wow, I havent heard that since 5th grade. FR is ---->

[merh]

34. Apparently you should know how to find FR

from your post, is appears you hang out there an awful lot!

Feel free to not buy KK's book and to visit that silly RW fact site all you like. WGaF!

:cry: :boring:

[TryingToWarnYou]

39. Just helping you find like minded people... petty kiddie attacks are their

speciality.

Hey, I heard that the Bush twins are secret porn stars. Someone told me that the other day. (must be true)

[merh]

49. Me thinks your constant reference to FR (and familiarity with

their style) only indicates your purpose and where your heart belongs.

[TryingToWarnYou]

51. DU and FR are at opposite ends of the spectrum

and are naturally compared here all the time.

Please try to keep up.

[merh]

54. and you are at the wrong end --

catch on!

[TryingToWarnYou]

59. Yeah, having a differing opinion is a bitch huh?

[merh]

63. Difference of opinion is one thing - defending RW sites as

the "keepers of the truth" and dogging a book that has been fact checked by more lawyers than in the Rhode Island bar, gives one the impression that you are here to spew your twisted version of the world. Return from where you came and you can have all the happy negative posts you want.

[TryingToWarnYou]

67. Show me where I said they were "keepers of the truth".

You are quoting so show me where I said it.

All books are checked by attorneys before release..thats SOP.

This link will tell you a lot about Kelley and her 'research'.
http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2106746&

Return from where I came from? I came from here.

So, just so Im clear; I have to accept what Kelley says or be labled as some sort of disruptor?

I have to swallow whatever shit comes down the pike about a candidate whether I think its true (as long as they are Republicans of course)?

I have to support every good thing about our candidate and subsequently never find fault with him?

[merh]

77. The poster doth protest too much!

"I contacted Factcheck.org and asked that they review her latest book for accuracy and truthfulness."

[TryingToWarnYou]

79. Ok, I dont see where I said they were the keepers of truth...

They claim to evaluate claims made by both campaigns. Nowhere do they or I project them to be keepers of truth. I would appreciate a retraction from you.

[merh]

80. And I would appreciate it if the media would report the

truth about the weed that would be king and would stop taking his side. I also would appreciate world peace, an end to hunger in the world and justice for all, but . . .

[TryingToWarnYou]

83. Nope, I still dont see where I claimed they were the keepers of truth...

It takes balls to retract a statement but only a yellow stripe to make an accusation.

[merh]

97. Your posts speak for themselves --

that you think one internet site that has repuke leanings will be able to "fact check" a book that has been analyzed by several attorneys for a reputable publishing house that doesn't want to be sued, then your reliance on that website leads one to believe that you think they are more credible than those working for the publisher and that they can discover the truth.

[EST]

99. Hey, TTWY

May I interject?
A suggestion or two:
Your devotion to rigorous fact checking and investigation are truly admirable, however, you are fighting an uphill battle. Most people don't have the time or inclination for taking apart every claim or insinuation to see if it matches all the requirements for court evidence or scientific experiment; if they did, scientists would occupy the positions of power and trials would always convict the guilty and never the innocent. Unfortunately a "preponderance of evidence" is about as close as we will ever get to truth, especially with the emotion involved in a political campaign wherein people are feeling threatened and powerless.

There is an overwhelming need for folks such as yourself, as well as for those who are willing to go into battle without necessarily having to know the exact details of the fight or the principles involved. Most people take positions on an issue from an emotional motivation or need and a willingness to trust in the motivations of a purported leader, thus the popularity of such powerful, descriptive phrases as, "Ours not to reason why. ours but to do or die." The problem with demanding that every detail of any issue has to meet a particular level of testing for veracity is that everybody would be too wrapped up in sitting around, discussing the relative merits of every piece of information, and nothing would get done.

Does Ms. Kelley's book meet all the standards of proof in every item? Of course not! But she has been proven right more often than wrong, and when the dust clears, her judgments about people and whether or not they they operate form an evil mindset (meaning a casual disregard for the welfare of others and a willingness-nay, eagerness-to sacrifice other's well being for selfishness and greed) have proven unerringly accurate. The same principle applies, for instance, to John Kerry. During the primary, I saw him deliberately misunderstand a statement by one of his opponents, and then spin(lie) about what the person meant and then state his opposition to it!

Does this mean that John is not a man of principle and thoughtfulness? No, it does not. Does it mean he won't follow through on the promises he has made and the causes that we demand he take up? Again, no. All it means is that he, perforce, must operate in an arena where the rules of decency and "correctness" that we apply to ourselves and our neighbors just don't apply. Regrettably, we must get him elected in order to start the battle for those principles and if we don't, the chance of having that ideal which we all want will move even further away.

The people whom we oppose do, in fact, view us as evil, because our ideals of truth, value, tolerance, respect for the individual, regardless of circumstance, and generosity, are totally foreign to their own notions of ownership (I worked hard for it, I earned it, I'm therefore entitled to it, and I will fight to keep it), power (some people are just better, smarter, and more deserving), and principle (holier than thou), and since they regard us as evil and the antithesis of all they believe in, they are justified in resisting us in any way necessary, no matter the cost or pain!

Will Kitty Kelley's book help us or hurt us? Overall, probably it will help more than hurt, although this is, and will continue to be, debatable. She simply confirms the trash that we already knew to be true, so it won't hurt much with like minded associates, and the lack of definitive proof is not much of an issue to many. On the other hand, the embracing of her book by the majority who accept the truth of arguments because they appear in print or on other media is quite frightening to those who don't want to believe the worst about their champion. They may not accept that the lying, thieving, murderous Bushco are such cads, but they will fear that others most certainly will! (advantage-Kerry)

The reason your arguments are often resisted with such vigor is not that they are fundamentally wrong, but people are scared and desperate (just like suicide bombers) and any sign of weakening resolve or sympathy for the enemy will be regarded with deep suspicion and understandable angry confrontation.

There is room for all of us in the social war we are winning, and all must contribute as they are capable and willing to do.

Don't sweat it. In this case, everyone is right.

[kskiska]

6. Why stop with this book?

Why not fact check them all, including those written by right-wing authors who may also not have audiotapes of all their interviews?

[TryingToWarnYou]

8. Agreed! Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

SBVT needs to be factchecked first and foremost.

[Pallas180]

hmmm. like perhaps Ann Coulter's off the wall accusations in her books?

[TryingToWarnYou]

40. Perfect! Yes. We know Coulter lies like a rug.

[Bridget Burke]

9. I haven't read the book yet.

In fact, I may not get around to it for some time.

Since you've already done so, please detail the specific parts to which you object.

[meti57b]

10. I glanced through KK's book ... it's old stuff and overly long ....but

are you saying that with all the liars and their lies against our candidate, John Kerry, ... that you are going to spend your time getting upset if even so much as anything is said against bush that is not scrupulously true?

[TryingToWarnYou]

14. No, what Im saying is that many here are swallowing it without checking it

I cant make the Republicans tell the truth any more than I can make some people here not swallow everything KK has said as fact.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pallas180]

41. Gee. Did Ann Coulter say that too?

bad Ann,

bad Ann

[UdoKier]

12. The book may have some inacccuracies, but look at it this way...

If you ask me whose word I believe, Bush, Cheney and Rummy, or Kitty Kelley's, I'll take Kelley's.

Who has more credibility? I can count the number of times the Bush administration has been truthful about AN YTHING on one hand. Kelley has no personal axe to grind, as far as I know, and she has NEVER murdered thousands of people on a whim and a lie as Bushco have done.

Until each accustation in the book is disproven, I will believe every single one, ESPECIALLY the ones from Sharon Bush, who, after here divorce from the Thailaind Child Molester Neil Bush, vowed to write a tell-all book, but then abruptly changed her mind. I believe she has been "pressured" by the BFEE to STFU.

If you think the BFEE has more credibility than Kelley - that's your prerogative. I'm not going to compare her to Edward R. Murrow, but a gossip writer is still higher on the respectability scale than a mass murderer and war profiteer.

And does it hurt the democratic party? Did her book on Reagan in the 80s hurt the party then? I doubt it. Kelley is her own phenomena. She does NOT work for us. Also, I assume she will be bringing up some of the FACTS about the Bushes, like Prescott's dealing with the Nazis and subsequent punishment under the Trading with the Enemy Act. Anything that gets that little-known story out into the public conscciousness can only be good. It's baffling that this family, in spite of generations of sleaze, is widely thought to be the Ivy-League version of Ozzie and Harriet, whhen nothing could be further from the truth. They are no better than gangsters.

[TryingToWarnYou]

20. Thanks for the oasis of rational thought....

If you ask me whose word I believe, Bush, Cheney and Rummy, or Kitty Kelley's, I'll take Kelley's.

Do I have to choose? If so, I choose not to believe any of them. We know the Bush track record is shit and Kelley has some issues with facts as well by using word of mouth and notes jotted on paper as "proof".

Who has more credibility? I can count the number of times the Bush administration has been truthful about AN YTHING on one hand. Kelley has no personal axe to grind, as far as I know, and she has NEVER murdered thousands of people on a whim and a lie as Bushco have done.

Right now, IMO, neither of them have very much credibility. The only thing that Kelley has going for her is the fact that she does not appear to have an axe to grind. Its her research methodology that I have a problem with as it has little chance of producing facts and truth.

Until each accustation in the book is disproven, I will believe every single one, ESPECIALLY the ones from Sharon Bush, who, after here divorce from the Thailaind Child Molester Neil Bush, vowed to write a tell-all book, but then abruptly changed her mind. I believe she has been "pressured" by the BFEE to STFU.

Eh, when your 'witnesses' and your interviewees (is that a word?) refuse to go on record and you dont record the meetings and interviews, its hard to prove whats fact when its word against word. See, if she offered up real evidence like documents, arrest records, etc. then its pretty hard to disprove. Word of mouth and 3rd hand rumor are her hallmarks and her strength. She knows this. Sharon Bush has completely denied ever saying that Bush used cocaine at Camp David. Theres some more word of mouth for you, but its going against what you want to believe so nobody here wants to believe her *now*. See the problem with that?

If you think the BFEE has more credibility than Kelley - that's your prerogative. I'm not going to compare her to Edward R. Murrow, but a gossip writer is still higher on the respectability scale than a mass murderer and war profiteer.

Ill grant you that I have more respect for her than the BFEE, but as for credibility? I dont think either side has any. Until Kelley can provide some real proof, not unnamed sources, then Im not going to give her work much consideration. I expect evidence and facts from the Right when they make their baseless claims, so it would be a bit hypocritical of me to expect less when its "our side" that is making the wild ass allegations.

And does it hurt the democratic party? Did her book on Reagan in the 80s hurt the party then? I doubt it.

No, but then it was all conservative, all the time. It was the Republican wet dream for 8 years. I wouldnt expect it to hurt him. Would it have hurt him in a really close election on the heels of disasterous foreign policy, abysmal economic performance and other issues? I think it would have.

Kelley is her own phenomena. She does NOT work for us.

Riiiiight, but do you really think that line is going to be made so clear in the media? Or to Ma and Pa voter? I dont.

Also, I assume she will be bringing up some of the FACTS about the Bushes, like Prescott's dealing with the Nazis and subsequent punishment under the Trading with the Enemy Act. Anything that gets that little-known story out into the public conscciousness can only be good.

Agreed. She will actually have to show proof and evidence of that since most everyone that would know anything that could give word of mouth is long dead. There is tons of documentation that show the Bush / Nazi connection.

It's baffling that this family, in spite of generations of sleaze, is widely thought to be the Ivy-League version of Ozzie and Harriet, whhen nothing could be further from the truth. They are no better than gangsters.

Agreed. I also agree with Kelley that this is something that needs to be shown..every family has a good and bad side. My only gripe is that she has no evidence to back up her claims. Interviews with no corroborating evidence = nothing. Unnamed sources and people refusing to go on record do not = facts.

[Pallas180]

37. "Unnamed sources & people refusing to go on record do not=facts" you mean

the same way your president got the United States to attack Iraq?

[TryingToWarnYou]

52. My president?

Aint nobody my president.

But since you bring up unnamed sources and people refusing to go on record, you bring up a perfect example. We didnt buy it then, so why are we buying this? Oh wait, its because its something against Bush regardless of what it is or if its true, we must support it!

Sheesh...

[chookie]

16. Have any of you actually read her book?

Just asking.

I am about halfway through, and have not found it to be hateful or salacious or meant to destroy the Bush Family. It is hardly one-sided, and is hardly mere rumor-mongering, and in fact can be quite sympathetic to them in parts. It doesn't edit out their accomplishments, their good acts, or their self-perception, but fleshes out their public persona with details of their private lives drawn from a wide variety of sources.

The "rumors" that people seem to be drooling over are in fact (check it) a very very small part of the book, and are never represented as the Undisputed Truth.

The Bushistas should be careful about their blanket caondemnation of this book, because, as I said above, it is full of details which are highly complementary of them. As much as I would wish that nice things about them are "lies", I have to accept that they are not.

The Kelley book shows them to be complex and ruthless and vulnerable human beings, and not simplistic comic book characters. It is far more a traditional biography than many detractors, on both sides, seem to assume.

[Bridget Burke]

18. As I said, I haven't read it yet....

But her books do seem to be "warts & all" biographies, rather than 100% scandal mongering. Most humans just want to hear about the racy bits.

[nostamj]

17. YOUR FIFTH PARAGRAPH IS A LIE!

on edit: changed subject line so that you MIGHT see it and respond... but I won't hold my breath, Karl

in your post:

Those interviewed for her latest book were not tape recorded

flat out wrong as she's pointed out in many interviews already. no, she didn't tape Sharon Bush and stated she doesn't tape--in restaurants. but she has stated that the MAJORITY of her interviews were taped and that over 10,000 pages of transcripts were turned over to the publisher's legal team...

and remember, FOUR teams of lawyers vetted this book.

but, as long as they are fact-checking the Swift Boat Liars, let them check KK too...

[TryingToWarnYou]

42. How strange that the most juicy piece of gossip wasnt recorded...

Wow, such bad luck!

[nostamj]

46. you're really a sad case

in YOUR opinion this was the 'juicy' bit (of a book you haven't read, natch) and you still don't fess up to your LIE in the OP...

<feh>

[TryingToWarnYou]

53. Try reading a bit further down....

You have to admit that Bush doing cocaine or Pickles dealing dime bags is pretty juicy stuff. Or was there something darker I missed?

Either way, a $10 tape recorder would have settled the issue of corroboration.

You also apparently dont understand the difference between making a mistake, which I did, and intentionally trying to decieve people.

Youre a big shot here, ask the mods to unlock the edit feature on my post and Ill be glad to change it.

[leftynyc]

48. Why did she need to tape record when

there is another witness?

[TryingToWarnYou]

50. Because people lie. Tape and video dont lie.

I thought that would be pretty obvious.

And where are these witnesses? They could go a long way to giving KK some credibility.

[Cheswick2.0]

85. Why did Mrs Bush spend 4 hours with Kitty Kelly

if it wasn't to give her information?

Come on, there was a witness. Kelly has never been sucessfully sued. There is a reason for that.

[TryingToWarnYou]

89. The same information she retracted?

Oh she had a witness (wink, wink)? Well then, surely there was no need for actual proof like a recording or anything... Sheesh.

KK has never been successfully sued because her lawyers keep her on this side of the libel/malice line. Its certainly not because whats alleged in her books is factual. If that was the case, she wouldnt have a book at all because it would all be public information and common knowledge.

Im amazed at whats readily accepted as truth here and whats questioned voraciously when not...all depending on whos being attacked of course.

[TryingToWarnYou]

45. Edit period expired... There was no lie.

I was incorrect, but I didnt intentionally try to mislead anyone. Im also willing to admit my mistake. Liars dont do that.

Rove? more petty namecalling? LOL.

[SidDithers]

47. delete

nevermind

Sid

[Junkdrawer]

19. "I hate the Bush, but"....

:eyes:

[TryingToWarnYou]

23. Heaven forbid if someone's opinion should differ from yours huh?

Thanks for addressing my points in an intelligent and well thought out manner. Your contribution is important.

[Mandate My Ass]

30. Karl

you have a campaign to run. You really should stop wasting your time here.

Scoot. :P

[UTUSN]

66. Once Again, Thank You, Monica_L

And yet again, I never thought I would ever say that.

[Mandate My Ass]

73. It's my pleasure

to serve. ;)

[papau]

55. What was your point - that truth about the Bush gang is to be censored?

I am at a loss to find an error in Kitty's research - indeed the sad thing is most of her book was known in DC since the 70's - we just limited to dinner conversations - did not write any books about it.

When Kitty's revealing of Reagan's rape of Seleena was confirm by People Mags research and interviews with Seleena and her friens at the time who knew of the rape, and People Mag published the fact that they had confirmed it, was the mainline media censorship of Reagan's chacter flaw a bad thing - as they chased Clinton's pensis -

Is your point the "taste" objection is bias?

Is your point the "amount of proof required for a Dem versus a GOPer" is bias?

[Mandate My Ass]

56. The only "point"

and I use the term loosely in this case because this thread and others by the OP are pure disruption, is that because something unflattering about Bush has come out, the entire Democratic party, which had nothing to do with the book, should rise up en masse and demand proof of every claim KK made or else they're hypocrites.

:dunce:

[papau]

58. Done that -demanded KK proof - and I am satisfied with KK's proof

So on to more interesting things.

[Mandate My Ass]

60. This thing is *really* hitting a major nerve

with the RWers. I've never read KK and I had no intention of buying or reading this one, but I may have to now. :D

[TryingToWarnYou]

64. Monica, Im no RW...

Im simply a person who cannot stand to see hypocrisy.

Its hard for me to accept word of mouth as fact without corroborating evidence.

If you want to just believe any old thing then thats your right, but dont denigrate those of us willing to think about a matter before making up our minds. I need something a bit more substantial than the word of a Hollywood gossip.

[Mandate My Ass]

69. You don't have to accept anything

but you're demanding a Democratic uprising over some cheap Hollywood gossip. Repubs didn't debunk the smear vets lies, Kerry's team did it and it was quite easy. Even though they have been debunked, they're still receiving (R) funds to carry on their lying campaign. In light of that, no Dem can be considered hypocritical for not denouncing KK, because nobody is using her trash talk in the Kerry campaign that I know of. If it's a demand for ironclad proof you want, that's up to the Bush team but somehow they don't seem to be up to the task.

I don't understand why anybody, even the Bushes, would be so incensed over gossip.

Frankly, nobody should be paying attention to this book as long as this is not being reported.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2364198

[TryingToWarnYou]

78. I actually agree with you.

I still think that some are missing the point, but thats ok. Im done trying to get folks to understand it. To many here, its black and white with no shades of gray when the reality is much different (and full of color!)

People get mad over gossip because there isnt much you can do about it. Remember back in highschool how people could spread rumor so easily? This is really no different and if any of the stuff in the book is true (and honestly, Im sure a lot of it is) then who would want that kind of dirty laundry flapping in the breeze?

Your link hits home too btw.

[TryingToWarnYou]

62. Just recall your low burden of proof requirement later when Kerry gets

slimed again.

I dont want to see any of you guys crying about proof of claims. Word of mouth is good enough when its trash talk about Bush, but we cry and bitch about proof and facts when its one of our guys in the crosshairs.

Thats called hypocrisy.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

70. Your comments are nothing but a red herring....

...because she had her book fact-checked to the nth degree before it was allowed to go out the door.

[TryingToWarnYou]

81. Yeah...thats why many 'sources' are unnamed and unwilling to go on record

Like I said before... The attorneys were there to keep Kitty on this side of malice so she cant be sued for libel. I guess Kitty doesnt need to do any of her own research. She can let the lawyers do it all huh?

[TryingToWarnYou]

61. Kitty has been wrong before...

http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2106746&

My point, that folks keep missing, is that without actual facts to back up her claims, we look (well, not we, you guys) look like idiots buying into her gossip. We would no more accept this if it was a slander book on Kerry than the man on the moon, so why are we so willing to buy it because its gossipy crap about Bush?

[Paperchase]

87. Ouch

Tread lightly...you know some people get riled up and hit that alert button..

[Ms. Clio]

91. Yeah, some do, especially when you make it so easy

[chookie]

25. Please read this review

"I am halfway through the amazingly researched book by Kitty Kelley in
the last day. I am very impressed how careful Ms. Kelly, her four
legal teams, and tons of researchers have put together this major
work about the questionable historical machinations of many
generations of the Walker-Bush family who are in complete control of
our troubled times today. No wonder the White House released such a
mean harsh statement about Ms. Kelly’s work, calling her nothing more
than a gossip columnist and her book is, "filled with lies!"

Well folks, I beg to differ with the White House attack already from
my reading thus far. Kelly wrote her book in a long saga story
format with an immense amount of unquestionable information, from
quotes from actual family letters, paragraphs from newspaper articles
of the different family time-frames, to facts from government files.
I cannot figure out how the White House calls her book filled with
lies! But then again, all you have to do is read the first hundred
pages of the ancient Walker and Bush family beginnings, their union
into one rich elitist WASP family, and the Bush-Walker men’s absolute
integration with the Skull and Crossbones secret society at Yale and
you know why. Quickly you can see why both Bush Presidents are
frantically spinning hate-filled wind over this incredible expose by
Ms. Kelly of all their dirty little family secrets through the
generations.

The other day I mentioned the Bush Dynasty representing the worst
traits of my WASP American tribe, well, after reading two hundred
pages of Kelly’s book, I feel I made an immense understatement. You
will be quite shocked over the integration of the Skull and
Crossbones Society, the old WASP boy’s club of banking, the military,
intelligence work, and government in the history of America since
1832 after its inception at Yale. I particularly liked one later-day
Bonesman’s statement that called the CIA the bonesman’s home away
from the tomb. Ms. Kelly dug up lots of info about the Secret
Society, which I have never known, and well, it gave me more than a
few nightmares last evening.

Caution: This 700 page book is not light reading. If you love
American History and want to understand the shadow power behind major
events we have all lived through in the last few decades then this
book is for you. Personally, I find the book very disturbing, and I
am not a naïve guy politically by any measure. For me being an
artist it may sound quite odd to you, but I have been around
smoke-filled backroom politics my entire life. From my earliest
political training by my big southern daddy in SC in the 1950s, to
working on the Carter Presidential campaign after graduate school in
1976, to knowing many different major business and political
"movers-and shakers" in NYC and Southampton over the years. I find
this book highly disturbing. it backs up so many things we thought
were going on in the Bush Dynasty.

For you other deep-dish political junkies on this list I recommend
reading "The Family.""

[Pallas180]

44. WOW well said, well written.You should make it a separate thread for nomin

nomination.

Thank you again.

I'll definitely buy the book now.

[yardwork]

28. I'm reading it now and it seems very calm and well-researched to me

It was vetted by four separate law firms prior to publication.

Let us know which aspects of the book you believe to be fabricated. I will be interested to hear. I assume that you have read the book, since you are so critical of it?

[Kikosexy2]

43. I say...

the use Repugs method of repeating and repeating allegations until they seem true. Let's keep repeating out there--"Laura sold dime bags and Georgie boy snorted coke--real families values--real dope pushers they are!" Attack their so-called families values!

[UTUSN]

57. Actually, Your Beef(s) Aren't with KK. YOU Haven't BEGUN to "Get" the BFEE

1) "...a limit to what can be reasonably believed without any supporting evidence."

There is hardly anything "new" in her books. As HITCHENS wrote about her "Royals" book, it was a compendium of all the stuff said in a shelf-ful of previous books, allowing for discarding 20 books in favor of one. Beyond that, she documents 2 or more sources for each tidbit. Beyond that, she says TONS of far more inflammatory stuff is on the cutting room floor because sources did not want to go on the record from fear.

Exactly WHAT inspired your deeply held BELIEF that ANY of her allegations lacked "ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE"?

2) "...her lack of party affiliation. People dont think like that." KELLEY is her own thing. Although you say you accept her lack of partisanship, you defy your own acceptance of it. (Some) people will think what they want EVEN IF YOU get factcheck or God to vouch for your belief.

3) You claim that you have researched her methodology and have uncovered it to be flawed in "SOME" (meaning, more than ONE) "WAYS" but the only one you put forward is that she didn't put all her sources on tape. By this reasoning, nobody could ever write history, nothing about people or times past, nothing about anybody DEAD, nothing about anybody or anything unable to BE ON TAPE. You may now proceed to all of the libraries all over the world, one by one, and demand that all books without the tape "methodology" be discarded. And for the ones that are lef, well, surprise, surprise: People can lie on tape.

Actually, your balking at "swallowing allegations" (DOCUMENTED) about the B.F.E.E., reveals that YOU have a threshold of TRUST in the B.F.E.E., despite your professed "hate" for them. YOU haven't begun to ken their nature.

[TryingToWarnYou]

74. Thanks for at least trying to discuss this.

You dont have a clue about me. I dont trust this administration further than I can toss them. I have already said that I dont trust them OR Kelley because I dont believe either one has any credibility. What part of that do you not understand.

Allegations without supporting facts are just bullshit. Im sorry, I simply need more than a Hollywood gossip's word (supported by her witnesses who wont go on record) that Laura Bush was some kind of dope dealer. Thats so far out there, IMO, that its waving at Pluto.

I demand proof of allegations regardless of source or target. When the SBVT were making their BS claims, I was right there asking them to back it up (figuratively, not literally of course). In my opinion, if you are going to make claims about someone or something, you better have something other than word of mouth to back it up. People lie all the time for millions of reasons.

While I didnt dig too deeply into her methodology, I was able to get enough to let me form an opinion for myself. I had previously said that she doesnt record interviews. That was incorrect. She apparently doesnt record some interviews. Unfortunately, in the most recent case, she didnt record an interview that would have given some really good backing to the claim that Bush used cocaine at Camp David (that she wouldnt record that is enough to make me go Hmmm). My remarks about taping the conversations are valid. If you are going to make accusations and claims, recording the interviews is the easy and best way to solidify your source and ensure there is no mistaking what transpired.

Supporting evidence for claims could be something like documents, pictures, admissions from the affected parties etc. Saying such and such is true without backing it up is weak and piss poor research. Having unnamed sources and people unwilling to go on record makes the claims they are involved in highly suspect, IMO. Why should I believe ***ANYONE*** that cannot show me tangible, real evidence of what they claim?

[UTUSN]

98. Yes, I DO Have a Clue about You

The clue(s) come from what you say, the responses to your objections that you choose to ignore, and your backtracking.

In my limited experience with internet discussion boards, one of the SOLID things I have learned is to identify a flame thread by how the poster REFUSES to acknowledge when other posters REPLY with REASON to his OBJECTIONS, and he continues to re-post the same fallacious "objections".

You continue to BELIEVE that there is some LIMIT to the BUSH family BEHAVIORS, something that is BEYOND their capacity to DO.

Now you admit you DIDN'T, after all, "dig too deeply into her methodology." While I was away, I was thinking of requesting that you post your much vaunted "research" into said "methodology"---with tapes, of course.

As for the "proof" you demand, a near TOTAL amount (of everything ever written) of substantiating DOCUMENTARY evidence does NOT consist of photographs, much less "ADMISSIONS".

I have concluded, without PROOF, that this thread is flamebait, and will not respond to furthering it since you do NOT acknowledge when others have ANSWERED your high and mighty "objections".

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[buycitgo]

68. I read your screed through the point where you misstated the truth

I saw her National Press Club appearance yesterday, in which she said she turned over TEN THOUSAND PAGES of tape transcripts

she said she taped MOST of her over 900 interviews

you say she taped none

why should we believe ONE thing you say?

if you can't even get that part right, what is the basis for believing anything you say

have fun with your "research"

wouldn't want to have you as my lawyer

[TryingToWarnYou]

75. Right. I was incorrect and tried to correct it, but the edit time passed

I dont give a shit if you believe me or not. Im not trying to convince you or anyone of anything.

The fact still remains that she is using many, many unnnamed sources and people refusing to go on record with their claims. Thats a red flag.

BTW, she has been wrong before so it would be prudent to be somewhat suspicious of her claims until she can provide some backing evidence.

http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2106746&

[UTUSN]

102. The Only "Red Flag" Is YOUR Lying

1) You DO give a shit that anybody believes you, AND WE DON'T.

2) Her "unnamed sources"------She has them. YOU have NONE.

3) "She has been wrong before"---------uh, WHEN???????

4) She's got more ASSHOLE BACKING EVIDENCE THAN YOU WILL EVER PROVIDE.


Go away, FOREVER.

[JSJ]

71. twain and hemingway...

... a couple of outstanding reporters before they started writing novels, didn't need no stinking tape recorders to do their jobs- or to be believed by their readers.

[Cheswick2.0]

82. What are you talking about?

She documents everything in her book. Buy it and read it.

[TryingToWarnYou]

86. Sorry, but thats questionable.

http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2106746&

Her 'documentation' is whats at issue.

She documented having a conversation with someone that refused to go on record or be a named source? Yeah, Im sure Ill believe what they have to say. When you go buy your copy of this book, you can get a second one for me.

[merh]

93. The article you site gives no particulars regarding the

questioned documentation. It just goes into impressions of Kelly's other books. The poster asked you to provide specifics regarding what it is you question relative to Kelly's book and the documentation. Have you read Kelly's book? Do you have any original thoughts or do you just post others concerns?

[Gawdfrey]

92. Well said. I fully agree and the same goes for the memos

CBS needs to clear up the forged memo controversy by providing the original memos or by a general description of the source. (Sources close to... (fill in the blank)). This is done all the time in journalism, yet CBS won't even give us this.

[yodermon]

95. so what do you propose

In a perfect world, where the media is NOT in bed with the RW spin machine, then yes, we'd have no need for KK.

When you say "I feel that this book is hurting and will continue to hurt the Democratic party and their election efforts. It will be seen as a partisan attack on Bush regardless of KK and her lack of party affiliation. People dont think like that. They equate; Hate + Bush = Left." you are ignoring the reality that the media acts as an echo chamber for the RW versions of these exact same tactics and worse.

I say, if they can dish it out, then they damn well better be able to take it. What we don't need are Alan Colmbs-like milquetoasts like you complaining "now, now, children let's all play fair now." Those days are long past. If the KK book helps the cause, and God knows it should, seeing as how the American public laps up gossip, the so much the better. If it is "seen as a partisan attack on Bush" is will only be due to, once again, the media carrying water for the Bush admin. And, if the media can sway opinion that much.. well then we are well and truly fucked, regardless of Kitty Kelly and her little book.

KK writes these books all the time; she is being true to form. If you personally are uncomfortable with her tactics then fine, don't reference her. But it's a little late in the game to whine and moan about her "unfair tactics" when the media's been grossly unfair to a much greater degree, and for a much longer time.

I hate to say it but at this point the high road leads straight back to 4 more years of *.

[sendero]

101. If you think....

.... the actual bona-fide truthfulness of this book is 1) ascertainable or 2) relevant - you have a serious reality deficit that you need to correct.

I hope you are under 30, otherwise I doubt you will ever get it.