Book Publishers Refused Bowe Bergdhal Book Because It Would Hurt Obama

Once again we get to see the how the powers that run our media establishment are sold out to the far left with this story of how some of Sgt. Bowe Bergdhal’s platoon mates were blocked from selling a book they’d written because it might make President Obama look bad.

We know the allegations about Sgt. Bergdahl, of course. We know that some of his fellow soldiers think he is a deserter, not a POW. We know that there were charges that he and his wacko father have been excusers of Islamist terrorism and critics of the United States. We hear that several American soldiers died trying to gain this guy’s freedom. And it appears that some of Bergdahl’s fellow platoon mates tried to write a book about their own experiences with Bergdahl.

A former team leader of Bergdahl’s platoon and one of those trying to shop the book said, “There was no way we were going to sit down and be quiet while Obama was calling him a war hero.”

The retired Sergeant, Evan Buetow, went on saying, “We’re just trying to tell the truth. It’s not my fault this would make Obama look bad.”

But why their book was turned down time after time is telling. Because it would hurt Obama.

“I’m not sure we can publish this book without the Right using it to their ends,” Sarah Durand, a senior editor at Atria Books, a division of Simon & Schuster, wrote in an email to one of the soldiers’ agents, Yahoo News reported.

“[T]he Conservatives are all over Bergdahl and using it against Obama,” she wrote, also comparing the book to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a veterans group that raised questions about John F. Kerry’s Vietnam record during his run for president in 2004.

But the authors insist they don’t have a political end like the Swift Boaters had.

“We didn’t politicize this,” said Bergdahl’s former roommate, Sgt. Cody Full. “They brought his parents out at a White House Rose Garden ceremony and presented him as a hero. Why wouldn’t you just have a quiet press release? Why do you have to have a big parade? You don’t do that for the parents who have kids who have died in Afghanistan.”

But the book is being refused time and again by publishers because they don’t want to hurt Obama just ahead of the 2014 midterm elections.

The book industry is mostly sold out to the far left and refuse to allow any contrary opinion to make the market.

This Is Leadership?
NJ Town Suing Homeowners to Fix Own Sidewalks or Face Fines
  • jim_m

    Leftism means sacrificing all in the name of advancing the agenda. If you debase yourself and your morals and violate any sort of ethical standard your profession has, it is OK as long as it was done in the name of seizing or holding on to power for the sake of holding that power.
    “The only unethical use of a means is the non-use of means” – Saul Alinsky

  • GarandFan

    With libs, the end justifies the means. “Truth” is an orphan no one wants.

  • Brucehenry

    This story gives exactly ONE example of a publisher rejecting the book because they didn’t want to help conservatives smear Obama. ONE.

    Besides, don’t publishers have the right to publish or reject whatever they wish? What do you have against the right of a business owner to conduct his business as he sees fit?

    • Brett Buck

      No one is saying they don’t have a right to decide what they publish. Of course they have a right. But it does reveal in stark terms that they are attempting push a leftist political agenda. Something that in most case, they are vehemently denying. That even one of them admitted it is surprising.

      • Brucehenry

        In other words let’s find a reason to be butthurt about something — anything.

        Do you think Regnery Press would publish a book by Cindy Sheehan? Should they be criticized if they rejected one?

        This is America. Why do you hate freedom?

        • Texas_Accountant


          I don’t believe anyone is saying that S&S does not have the right to refuse to publish. It is “news” or “interesting” that they were dumb enough to be that explicit in an email. Quick question, Regnery is known as a conservative publisher. Are you saying that Simon & Schuster should be known as a liberal publisher?

          • Brucehenry

            LOL apparently they already are known as liberals — if you ask a wingnut.

        • Brett Buck

          Another bizarre strawman argument from Bruce, why am I not surprised.

          • Brucehenry

            Apparently you don’t know the difference between a “strawman argument” and an “analogy.”

            You criticize this division of Simon and Schuster because they didn’t want to publish a book critical of Obama. I ask if you would criticize Regnery if they refused to publish a book critical of Bush. That’s not a strawman, genius.

  • yetanotherjohn

    Give them props for being honest about it. Most of the left can’t even acknowledge their prejudice, ignorance or the fact that they subvert truth to advance the agenda of the left.

  • Mjolnir

    Well, even publishers have the right to refuse books for whatever reason suits them. At least the Simon & Schuster editor was honest about the decision to pass on publishing the book.
    And I’m OK with that. It’s a free country… for now.
    At least we no longer have the specter of the FEC preventing books from being published, which so many on the left inherently support (via their opposition to the Citizens United decision).

  • ohio granny

    I hope they find and independent publisher to publish their book. The public needs to know the truth even if it does hurt Obama. I seem to remember that was never an issue when President Bush was in office with books or movies. Guess it all depends on whose goose is being cooked.