The Discerning Texan
All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.
-- Edmund Burke
-- Edmund Burke
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Massive Democrat Voter Fraud underway
In the past week I have posted two reports here detailing voter fraud that is allegedly going on in the battleground states of Ohio and Wisconsin, and in both cases the investigations are centering around Democrat voter registration efforts. Unfortunately, this only appears to be the tip of the iceberg.
Michelle Malkin has a column up that is our first stop on the "crooks for Kerry" tour. In addition to the Ohio and Wisconsin cases, she also cites reported fraudulent efforts that are allegedly underway in Tennessee, Michigan, and West Virginia. ALL involving Democrats, of course... (in West Virginia, Republicans investigating the charges there have received death threats...) She also links to a Deroy Murdock column which cites fraud issues in so-called "motor voter" legislation.
Also worthy of note is this column in NRO. The Michigan and Wisconsin cases are mentioned, and Nevada is added to the list.
Not to be outdone, the American Mind has an interesting report up entitled "The Fix is In". And here is yet another story on different irregularities in Michigan.
Also, be sure to keep an eye trained on Bill Hobbs' site. He is working to compile a list of all of the reported trouble spots in one place. He has other links to Ohio and Wisconsin, and also Florida, San Francisco, Colorado, and Tennessee.
Bottom line: this is out of control folks. If you thought 2000 was bad, get ready. Hugh Hewitt was right: it needs to be a blowout or else it is going to be really ugly.
Frankly, I have a hard time understanding why this is so hard. Is it so damn difficult to ask for a proof of identity at the polling places?? Has our society degenerated to such a point that we are "humiliating" someone if we ask for ID?? What rocket scientist was it that came up with this grievance. "Hurt feelings?" This is the most important office in the world. The least we can do is ask for frigging ID.... (and we wonder why our electoral system is so wide open to fraud...) What kind of confidence does this give us as we go to the polls to cast our one vote?
Now one begins to see why the Kerry campaign is reportedly paying for 50,000 lawyers to deploy on election day... there are going to be a lot of voter fraud cases to litigate! To call this outrageous is the understatement of the millennium.
Michelle Malkin has a column up that is our first stop on the "crooks for Kerry" tour. In addition to the Ohio and Wisconsin cases, she also cites reported fraudulent efforts that are allegedly underway in Tennessee, Michigan, and West Virginia. ALL involving Democrats, of course... (in West Virginia, Republicans investigating the charges there have received death threats...) She also links to a Deroy Murdock column which cites fraud issues in so-called "motor voter" legislation.
Also worthy of note is this column in NRO. The Michigan and Wisconsin cases are mentioned, and Nevada is added to the list.
Not to be outdone, the American Mind has an interesting report up entitled "The Fix is In". And here is yet another story on different irregularities in Michigan.
Also, be sure to keep an eye trained on Bill Hobbs' site. He is working to compile a list of all of the reported trouble spots in one place. He has other links to Ohio and Wisconsin, and also Florida, San Francisco, Colorado, and Tennessee.
Bottom line: this is out of control folks. If you thought 2000 was bad, get ready. Hugh Hewitt was right: it needs to be a blowout or else it is going to be really ugly.
Frankly, I have a hard time understanding why this is so hard. Is it so damn difficult to ask for a proof of identity at the polling places?? Has our society degenerated to such a point that we are "humiliating" someone if we ask for ID?? What rocket scientist was it that came up with this grievance. "Hurt feelings?" This is the most important office in the world. The least we can do is ask for frigging ID.... (and we wonder why our electoral system is so wide open to fraud...) What kind of confidence does this give us as we go to the polls to cast our one vote?
Now one begins to see why the Kerry campaign is reportedly paying for 50,000 lawyers to deploy on election day... there are going to be a lot of voter fraud cases to litigate! To call this outrageous is the understatement of the millennium.
Justice Dept: NY Times reporter tipped off Islamic charity before FBI Raid
In a stunning story, even for a blatantly partisan media, the Justice Department today announced that a veteran New York Times correspondant tipped off an Islamic charity suspected of funding terrorism in advance of an FBI Raid. Ace of Spades HQ has the scoop on this sizzling hot story:
Not anti-war, just on the other side?:
The Justice Department has charged that a veteran New York Times foreign correspondent warned an alleged terror-funding Islamic charity that the FBI was about to raid its office — potentially endangering the lives of federal agents.
The stunning accusation was disclosed yesterday in legal papers related to a lawsuit the Times filed in Manhattan federal court.
The suit seeks to block subpoenas from the Justice Department for phone records of two of its Middle Eastern reporters — Philip Shenon and Judith Miller — as part of a probe to track down the leak.
Hold off-- it's not Judith Miller, as the article makes clear, shortly.
The Times last night flatly denied the allegation.
U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago charged in court papers that Shenon blew the cover on the Dec. 14, 2001, raid of the Global Relief Foundation — the first charges of their kind under broad new investigatory powers given to the feds under the Patriot Act.
"It has been conclusively established that Global Relief Foundation learned of the search from reporter Philip Shenon of The New York Times," Fitzgerald said in an Aug. 7, 2002, letter to the Times' legal department.
...
"I would posit that the circumstances here — the decision by the reporter to provide a tip to the subject of a terrorist fund-raising inquiry which seriously compromised the integrity of the investigation and potentially endangered the safety of federal law-enforcement personnel — warrant such cooperation in full," Fitzgerald said.
The Times, and Shenon's lawyer, deny the charge.
And yet they're none to willing to disclose the evidence that might exculpate him.
Can I ask a question?
What the hell does the press think it's doing?
Update: Mark from Rational Explications points out that TimesWatch has a nice digest of Philip Shenon's oevure. ("Oevure" is French for "partisan hatchet-jobs.")
Sweet Irony Update: I don't understand how this is all connected, but the prosecutor here seems to be the same man working on the Valerie Plame case.
Of course, the New York Times, which wants Fitzgerald to dig like there's no tomorrow on the Plame matter, seeks special special protections for itself in court.
That last link thanks to Michelle Malkin.
Update: Ace has more information about Shenon up now. A big fan of Michael Moore...go figure.
Not anti-war, just on the other side?:
The Justice Department has charged that a veteran New York Times foreign correspondent warned an alleged terror-funding Islamic charity that the FBI was about to raid its office — potentially endangering the lives of federal agents.
The stunning accusation was disclosed yesterday in legal papers related to a lawsuit the Times filed in Manhattan federal court.
The suit seeks to block subpoenas from the Justice Department for phone records of two of its Middle Eastern reporters — Philip Shenon and Judith Miller — as part of a probe to track down the leak.
Hold off-- it's not Judith Miller, as the article makes clear, shortly.
The Times last night flatly denied the allegation.
U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago charged in court papers that Shenon blew the cover on the Dec. 14, 2001, raid of the Global Relief Foundation — the first charges of their kind under broad new investigatory powers given to the feds under the Patriot Act.
"It has been conclusively established that Global Relief Foundation learned of the search from reporter Philip Shenon of The New York Times," Fitzgerald said in an Aug. 7, 2002, letter to the Times' legal department.
...
"I would posit that the circumstances here — the decision by the reporter to provide a tip to the subject of a terrorist fund-raising inquiry which seriously compromised the integrity of the investigation and potentially endangered the safety of federal law-enforcement personnel — warrant such cooperation in full," Fitzgerald said.
The Times, and Shenon's lawyer, deny the charge.
And yet they're none to willing to disclose the evidence that might exculpate him.
Can I ask a question?
What the hell does the press think it's doing?
Update: Mark from Rational Explications points out that TimesWatch has a nice digest of Philip Shenon's oevure. ("Oevure" is French for "partisan hatchet-jobs.")
Sweet Irony Update: I don't understand how this is all connected, but the prosecutor here seems to be the same man working on the Valerie Plame case.
Of course, the New York Times, which wants Fitzgerald to dig like there's no tomorrow on the Plame matter, seeks special special protections for itself in court.
That last link thanks to Michelle Malkin.
Update: Ace has more information about Shenon up now. A big fan of Michael Moore...go figure.
Hitting Bottom
With all of the allegations of voter fraud, the constantly changing positions of the Kerry campaign, and the scandal of CBS coordinating false stories with the DNC, one would think the Democrats could not get any more sleazy. Power Line begs to differ, arguing that with their circulation of blatantly false allegations that Bush intends to reinstate the draft, the Democrats have hit rock bottom.
And now it appears that the mainstream media is playing along with this too. The only thing more scandalous to me than the criminal behavior of the Democrats is the press either looking the other way or going along with the charade.
In the meantime, Kerry is on the record (for whatever that's worth...) as favoring mandatory National Service for all Americans. Of course you won't hear about that on CBS...
And now it appears that the mainstream media is playing along with this too. The only thing more scandalous to me than the criminal behavior of the Democrats is the press either looking the other way or going along with the charade.
In the meantime, Kerry is on the record (for whatever that's worth...) as favoring mandatory National Service for all Americans. Of course you won't hear about that on CBS...
New Swift ad out...from the wives of former POW's
Here is the latest Swift Vet ad, which will begin running in selected battleground states.
Ressemblez à vous vont windsurfing chaque jour!
CIA sabotaging the President
Disturbing article in the Wall Street Journal that details how the CIA has tried to sabotage President Bush every step of the way. Hopefully Porter Goss can clean house over there.
Iraq and Al Queda: some "inconvenient" facts
Stephen Hayes lists some facts that are decidedly inconvenient for those trying to deny any ties between Saddam's Iraq and Al Queda.
CBS uses MORE fake documents to discredit Bush
Power Line has this interesting tidbit: apparently CBS is using yet another forgery to cast dispersions at the President.
And if that wasn't enough, check out this CBS "News" story. Wow...
Is this the Letterman show or a "news" network?
And if that wasn't enough, check out this CBS "News" story. Wow...
Is this the Letterman show or a "news" network?
CBS/Rather complicity: Bush Guard story part of larger picture
The American Thinker has a story up today about the connections between Dan Rather, Mary Mapes and the purposefully partisan release of the Abu Grahib story.
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
click to enlarge
Bush Administration warns Syria
According to the World Herald-Tribune, the Bush Administration is preparing plans for economic and even military intervention if Syrian support for Iraq-related terror does not stop. If American soldiers really are dying because of actions the Syrians are taking, it is time to bring that activity completely to a halt, even if it takes airstrikes to do so.
Sometimes modern evil calls for a medieval response
John O' Sullivan writes in the Chicago Sun-Times that an appropriate response to the gruesome events like the beheadings we have recently been subjected to might warrant the use of equally brutal overwhelming force on the part of those trying to eradicate that evil. He argues that being too "civilized" about such matters is not in the interest of true civilization:
In fact, to be overcivilized is to be less civilized because genuine civilization includes a robust willingness to enforce its order and truths on anarchy, violence, murder and superstition.
This is similar to the point we attempted to raise on Monday with the post "When Law is Not Enough". A society and a media which spends weeks upon weeks gnashing its teeth over unsupervised soldiers' non-lethal humiliation of Iraqi terrorist prisoners in Abu Grahib, but which does not apply the same intensity of coverage and emotion on the barbarism and murderous acts of our enemies, is a society in danger of being overrun by those evil people who are willing to do "whatever it takes" to impose their way of life upon us.
This war is a war between two very distinct world views: one medieval, repressive, and based on an outdated and sick fundamentalist vision; the other based on freedom of thought and speech, democracy, and respect for all men. But the other side of this coin is: to preserve our way of life and to win this war, it will likely require leadership with strong moral convictions AND strong will: the will to do "whatever it takes" to defeat this enemy. And the leader must have both. The strong center of moral clarity is necessary so that we do not become that which we detest. If we must make difficult decisions about the loss of innocent human life, let those decisions only be made when it is absolutely necessary, not as a matter of course. The fine line between barbarians and civilized men may lie in a very grey area. And that grey area is where moral clarity is critical. Whereas a leader with no moral center is more likely in those circumstances to become a barbarian, or worse, a coward who does not have the will to take the actions necessary to defend freedom.
In this upcoming election, I do not believe it could be any clearer which candidate has both the will and the moral conviction that we need, and which candidate is sorely lacking on both counts.
In fact, to be overcivilized is to be less civilized because genuine civilization includes a robust willingness to enforce its order and truths on anarchy, violence, murder and superstition.
This is similar to the point we attempted to raise on Monday with the post "When Law is Not Enough". A society and a media which spends weeks upon weeks gnashing its teeth over unsupervised soldiers' non-lethal humiliation of Iraqi terrorist prisoners in Abu Grahib, but which does not apply the same intensity of coverage and emotion on the barbarism and murderous acts of our enemies, is a society in danger of being overrun by those evil people who are willing to do "whatever it takes" to impose their way of life upon us.
This war is a war between two very distinct world views: one medieval, repressive, and based on an outdated and sick fundamentalist vision; the other based on freedom of thought and speech, democracy, and respect for all men. But the other side of this coin is: to preserve our way of life and to win this war, it will likely require leadership with strong moral convictions AND strong will: the will to do "whatever it takes" to defeat this enemy. And the leader must have both. The strong center of moral clarity is necessary so that we do not become that which we detest. If we must make difficult decisions about the loss of innocent human life, let those decisions only be made when it is absolutely necessary, not as a matter of course. The fine line between barbarians and civilized men may lie in a very grey area. And that grey area is where moral clarity is critical. Whereas a leader with no moral center is more likely in those circumstances to become a barbarian, or worse, a coward who does not have the will to take the actions necessary to defend freedom.
In this upcoming election, I do not believe it could be any clearer which candidate has both the will and the moral conviction that we need, and which candidate is sorely lacking on both counts.
Democrat partisans: rooting for an American disaster
Reading Christopher Hitchens' latest column in Slate, I was barely able to contain myself. He starts off talking about Tay-ray-za's ridiculous prediction that Bush will pull an October surprise and announce the capture of Bin Laden. The implications of this statement alone are infuriating, but it was this part of Hitchens' piece that really struck me:
A few pin a vague hope on the so-called "debates"—which are actually joint press conferences allowing no direct exchange between the candidates—but most are much more cynical. Some really bad news from Iraq, or perhaps Afghanistan, and/or a sudden collapse or crisis in the stock market, and Kerry might yet "turn things around." You have heard it, all right, and perhaps even said it. But you may not have appreciated how depraved are its implications.
If you calculate that only a disaster of some kind can save your candidate, then you are in danger of harboring a subliminal need for bad news. And it will show. What else explains the amazingly crude and philistine remarks of that campaign genius Joe Lockhart, commenting on the visit of the new Iraqi prime minister and calling him a "puppet"? Here is the only regional leader who is even trying to hold an election, and he is greeted with an ungenerous sneer.
The unfortunately necessary corollary of this—that bad news for the American cause in wartime would be good for Kerry—is that good news would be bad for him. Thus, in Mrs. Kerry's brainless and witless offhand yet pregnant remark, we hear the sick thud of the other shoe dropping. How can the Democrats possibly have gotten themselves into a position where they even suspect that a victory for the Zarqawi or Bin Laden forces would in some way be welcome to them? Or that the capture or killing of Bin Laden would not be something to celebrate with a whole heart?
I think that this detail is very important because the Kerry camp often strives to give the impression that its difference with the president is one of degree but not of kind. Of course we all welcome the end of Taliban rule and even the departure of Saddam Hussein, but we can't remain silent about the way policy has been messed up and compromised and even lied about. I know what it's like to feel that way because it is the way I actually do feel. But I also know the difference when I see it, and I have known some of the liberal world quite well and for a long time, and there are quite obviously people close to the leadership of today's Democratic Party who do not at all hope that the battle goes well in Afghanistan and Iraq.
When the prospects of a national party only improve if there is some sort of disaster that impacts us all; and then when you hear of persons "close to the party leadership" who are rooting for such a catastrophe to occur, you have crossed the line into seditious behavior. Of course when you have a willing mainstream media who is simultaneously attempting to paint as dire a picture of actual events as possible, you basically have the press and opposition party rooting for America to fail, and aiding that process wherever possible. It is enough to make my blood boil. Hopefully anyone who is reading these words will do what needs to be done about this on November 2.
A few pin a vague hope on the so-called "debates"—which are actually joint press conferences allowing no direct exchange between the candidates—but most are much more cynical. Some really bad news from Iraq, or perhaps Afghanistan, and/or a sudden collapse or crisis in the stock market, and Kerry might yet "turn things around." You have heard it, all right, and perhaps even said it. But you may not have appreciated how depraved are its implications.
If you calculate that only a disaster of some kind can save your candidate, then you are in danger of harboring a subliminal need for bad news. And it will show. What else explains the amazingly crude and philistine remarks of that campaign genius Joe Lockhart, commenting on the visit of the new Iraqi prime minister and calling him a "puppet"? Here is the only regional leader who is even trying to hold an election, and he is greeted with an ungenerous sneer.
The unfortunately necessary corollary of this—that bad news for the American cause in wartime would be good for Kerry—is that good news would be bad for him. Thus, in Mrs. Kerry's brainless and witless offhand yet pregnant remark, we hear the sick thud of the other shoe dropping. How can the Democrats possibly have gotten themselves into a position where they even suspect that a victory for the Zarqawi or Bin Laden forces would in some way be welcome to them? Or that the capture or killing of Bin Laden would not be something to celebrate with a whole heart?
I think that this detail is very important because the Kerry camp often strives to give the impression that its difference with the president is one of degree but not of kind. Of course we all welcome the end of Taliban rule and even the departure of Saddam Hussein, but we can't remain silent about the way policy has been messed up and compromised and even lied about. I know what it's like to feel that way because it is the way I actually do feel. But I also know the difference when I see it, and I have known some of the liberal world quite well and for a long time, and there are quite obviously people close to the leadership of today's Democratic Party who do not at all hope that the battle goes well in Afghanistan and Iraq.
When the prospects of a national party only improve if there is some sort of disaster that impacts us all; and then when you hear of persons "close to the party leadership" who are rooting for such a catastrophe to occur, you have crossed the line into seditious behavior. Of course when you have a willing mainstream media who is simultaneously attempting to paint as dire a picture of actual events as possible, you basically have the press and opposition party rooting for America to fail, and aiding that process wherever possible. It is enough to make my blood boil. Hopefully anyone who is reading these words will do what needs to be done about this on November 2.
Debunking the Florida myth
The Wall Street Journal has a wonderful article today that completely shatters any partisan Democrat claims that voters were disenfranchised in Florida in 2000:
In a May 2002 letter to Democratic Senator Pat Leahy of Vermont, who at the time headed the Judiciary Committee, Assistant Attorney General Ralph Boyd wrote, "The Civil Rights Division found no credible evidence in our investigations that Floridians were intentionally denied their right to vote during the November 2000 election."
Peter Kirsanow, a Republican member of the Civil Rights Commission, told us in an interview that "the press has tried to spin what happened in Florida into something sinister. But there's a disconnect between what was actually found [in these various investigations] and how it's been portrayed."
Senator Corzine's letter references the New York Times, where heavy-breathing columnists are trying to link a routine investigation of voter fraud in an Orlando mayoral election with a statewide effort by Governor Jeb Bush to intimidate blacks into staying home in November. Elsewhere, the NAACP and People for the American Way have issued a report claiming that "intimidation" led to racially motivated voter disenfranchisement in Florida. These and other left-wing groups are planning to dispatch 5,000 lawyers nationwide on Election Day in the name of "voter protection," presumably to prevent a "repeat" of something that didn't happen the first time.
Another prong of the attack on the legitimacy of the Florida outcome, at least as it pertains to the notion the black voters were intentionally disenfranchised, is the number of black voters whose ballots were spoiled. The Civil Rights Commission concluded that blacks were more likely to spoil their votes than whites by a factor of 10 to 1. Other investigations put that ratio closer to 3 to 1. In any case, the numbers are educated guesses extrapolated from sample precincts because ballots don't record the race of the voter.
But the idea that racial animus rather than all-around incompetence produced higher spoilage rates for blacks, or accounted for their misplacement on the infamously inaccurate "felon purge list," is fanciful at best. In Florida, as in many other states, the manner in which elections are conducted, including all of the essentials of the voting process, is determined at the county level.
Which leaves the "stolen election" crowd with these inconvenient facts: In 24 of the 25 Florida counties with the highest ballot spoilage rate, the county supervisor was a Democrat. In the 25th county, the supervisor was an Independent. And as for the "felon purge list," the Miami Herald found that whites were twice as likely to be incorrectly placed on the list as blacks.
The real spectacle here is that some Democrats are only too willing to exploit the painful history of black voter disenfranchisement for some short-term partisan advantage. And it just might backfire. Democrats played up the Florida fiasco in the 2002 midterm elections, repeatedly telling blacks that their votes hadn't been counted in 2000. Rather than being riled up, many black voters believed what they were told and stayed home.
This raises another interesting question: how long are black and other ethnic voters willing to allow themselves to be used as a crutch for political gain by Democrats who could care less about them, except as a means to power?
In a May 2002 letter to Democratic Senator Pat Leahy of Vermont, who at the time headed the Judiciary Committee, Assistant Attorney General Ralph Boyd wrote, "The Civil Rights Division found no credible evidence in our investigations that Floridians were intentionally denied their right to vote during the November 2000 election."
Peter Kirsanow, a Republican member of the Civil Rights Commission, told us in an interview that "the press has tried to spin what happened in Florida into something sinister. But there's a disconnect between what was actually found [in these various investigations] and how it's been portrayed."
Senator Corzine's letter references the New York Times, where heavy-breathing columnists are trying to link a routine investigation of voter fraud in an Orlando mayoral election with a statewide effort by Governor Jeb Bush to intimidate blacks into staying home in November. Elsewhere, the NAACP and People for the American Way have issued a report claiming that "intimidation" led to racially motivated voter disenfranchisement in Florida. These and other left-wing groups are planning to dispatch 5,000 lawyers nationwide on Election Day in the name of "voter protection," presumably to prevent a "repeat" of something that didn't happen the first time.
Another prong of the attack on the legitimacy of the Florida outcome, at least as it pertains to the notion the black voters were intentionally disenfranchised, is the number of black voters whose ballots were spoiled. The Civil Rights Commission concluded that blacks were more likely to spoil their votes than whites by a factor of 10 to 1. Other investigations put that ratio closer to 3 to 1. In any case, the numbers are educated guesses extrapolated from sample precincts because ballots don't record the race of the voter.
But the idea that racial animus rather than all-around incompetence produced higher spoilage rates for blacks, or accounted for their misplacement on the infamously inaccurate "felon purge list," is fanciful at best. In Florida, as in many other states, the manner in which elections are conducted, including all of the essentials of the voting process, is determined at the county level.
Which leaves the "stolen election" crowd with these inconvenient facts: In 24 of the 25 Florida counties with the highest ballot spoilage rate, the county supervisor was a Democrat. In the 25th county, the supervisor was an Independent. And as for the "felon purge list," the Miami Herald found that whites were twice as likely to be incorrectly placed on the list as blacks.
The real spectacle here is that some Democrats are only too willing to exploit the painful history of black voter disenfranchisement for some short-term partisan advantage. And it just might backfire. Democrats played up the Florida fiasco in the 2002 midterm elections, repeatedly telling blacks that their votes hadn't been counted in 2000. Rather than being riled up, many black voters believed what they were told and stayed home.
This raises another interesting question: how long are black and other ethnic voters willing to allow themselves to be used as a crutch for political gain by Democrats who could care less about them, except as a means to power?
Elections in Iraq and Afghanistan: hold them no matter what
David Brooks has a nice column in the New York Times that makes the case for holding elections, no matter how much violence is going on; violence certainly didn't prevent Abraham Lincoln from holding elections in 1864, even though the Southern states did not participate...
The Ultimate Flip-Flop
Real Clear Politics has an op-ed up called "The 1997 Speech that Damns John Kerry". Last week we learned that in 1997 on CNN's Crossfire Kerry had this to say about Iraq:
"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians," said Mr. Kerry. "We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest."
There was some controversy about whether or not he actually said this on the show, but in a review of the show tapes it has subsequently been shown that this is the gist of Kerry's intent. But if there is any doubt where Kerry stood on this issue, one should refer to a speech he gave on the Senate floor, also in 1997.
Does anyone on planet Earth really know where John Kerry stands on Iraq? And, given that his position on the subject has changed more often than the weather, does anyone have any confidence whatsoever that it won't change again?
"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians," said Mr. Kerry. "We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest."
There was some controversy about whether or not he actually said this on the show, but in a review of the show tapes it has subsequently been shown that this is the gist of Kerry's intent. But if there is any doubt where Kerry stood on this issue, one should refer to a speech he gave on the Senate floor, also in 1997.
Does anyone on planet Earth really know where John Kerry stands on Iraq? And, given that his position on the subject has changed more often than the weather, does anyone have any confidence whatsoever that it won't change again?
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Bin Laden chief aide reportedly captured in Pakistan
The Jerusalem Post is reporting that senior Al Queda member Ayman al-Zawahri has been caught in Pakistan. If this pans out it will be HUGE blow against Al Queda. This is a perfect opportunity to consider the moral dilemma I proposed yesterday; this man may very well know where the next terrorist attacks against the US are supposed to occur. We must take whatever actions necessary to ensure we find out everything that he knows.
Iraq Smuggled WMD's to Syria
Hat tips to Wizbang via Kevin McCullough for the heads-up on this. It appears we now have intel that Iraq did indeed smuggle many of its WMD's to Syria (and some to Lebanon). I know I must sound like a broken record, but where is the mainstream on this?
What is going WELL in Iraq
Arthur Chrenkoff has another article on "good news" from Iraq over the last couple of weeks in today's WSJ. Lengthy but well worth the read.
And Mrs. Greyhawk, whose husband is over in Iraq, writes in the Mudville Gazette that she is really sick and tired of reading the mainstream media's skewed and biased reporting of the situation over there, and is asking her fellow bloggers to do something about getting the truth out.
And Mrs. Greyhawk, whose husband is over in Iraq, writes in the Mudville Gazette that she is really sick and tired of reading the mainstream media's skewed and biased reporting of the situation over there, and is asking her fellow bloggers to do something about getting the truth out.
Mexico's aim: "open" borders a la Europe
It would seem that the United States and Mexico are on a collision course over the issue of controlling our borders from illegal immigrants. At least they had better be....
New York Times: still burying stories and defending the indefensible
Just One Minute has a list of the latest "sins of omission" from the New York Times. When what used to be the most respected newspaper in the country becomes a talking points laundry list for the left wing, and buries any big news that contradicts this point of view, we are in real danger. Even the Washington Post at least has given the Rather story some relatively independent reporting.
Meanwhile, over at Wizbang, we get to see a breakdown of the NYT's latest lame defense of CBS over Rathergate. Do they think we can't see through this garbage?
Meanwhile, over at Wizbang, we get to see a breakdown of the NYT's latest lame defense of CBS over Rathergate. Do they think we can't see through this garbage?
Debunking the Bush TANG "AWOL" myth
Here is an interesting story which quotes several officers who were there along with Lt. Bush in the Air Guard. How odd that CBS was able to find faked documents, yet couldn't even find any of these highly credible sources to interview; sources who would have completely torpedoed its story before it ever aired. And where were the other networks, either before or after the CBS story aired? The case against big media grows stronger by the day...
"Just say 'the election in Venezuela was fair', and we'll call it even..."
Earth to Jimmy Carter: will you please just shut up?
Roger Simon echoes my sentiments exactly upon learning that Jimmy Carter is "worried" there may be voting irregularities in Florida. Funny, he didn't get to bent out of shape when the Venezuelan election was stolen under his nose...
INDC Journal weighed in on this also.
INDC Journal weighed in on this also.
Oregon in play?
The Captain gives us good news this morning about the traditionally liberal stronghold of Oregon: it appears that Kerry may have to devote some resources to defending his turf there.
Journalism Professor goes ballistic on CBS/Rather
Thanks to PrestoPundit for pointing me to this story about a Boston University journalism professor who feels betrayed by CBS/Rather.
And another CBS employee, correspondent David Dick fears that the damage caused by this scandal may be irreparable.
And another CBS employee, correspondent David Dick fears that the damage caused by this scandal may be irreparable.
Female swing voter on why she will vote for Bush
Ann Althouse, who voted in the Democratic primary (for Edwards) describes on her blog why she will not be pulling the Democratic lever in November. (hat tip Glenn Reynolds).
Monday, September 27, 2004
Gary Varvel, The Indianapolis Star-News
More Democrat voter fraud: Wisconsin
Saturday we posted a story about suspected Democratic voter fraud that was already under way in Ohio. Well, not to be outdone, it looks like the leftists in Wisconsin are poised to commit fraud on a massive scale:
An outfit called the "New Voter Project" claims to be nonpartisan but is being bankrolled and staffed by leftists. The organization is already active in Wisconsin and already involved in trouble. Thousands of "voters" registered by this group in the last few weeks have submitted registration forms without the legally required proof of identification. This has forced village and city clerks all over the region to send out notices asking for the information. Why would so many of these forms be filled out without identification?
You tell me.
There’s more. The director of the Wisconsin branch of the New Voter Project is Jessy Tolkan. She’s already been involved in election fraud! Tolkan ran for the Madison Common Council in 2001 and was elected. She gave up the seat under pressure and a pending investigation after allegations were made that she lied about her address on her nomination papers and was not a resident of the district in which she ran. Tolkan’s father, an attorney, has threatened to sue me in a lame attempt to get me to stop reporting on his daughter and the slimy activities of the New Voter Project.
Virtually none of the forms sent out by the local clerks to the shady registrants have been responded to. The only plausible explanation for that is that the "voters" not only aren’t voters but aren’t real people, either.
Here’s the method to the New Voter Project madness. In Wisconsin, you can register to vote at the polls on Election Day. You have to produce identification when you register. But sending in a phony registration in advance puts you on the voter list before the election. Already-registered voters don’t have to show any identification. By putting perhaps thousands of fake names on the voter lists, it will be possible for fraudsters to show up at the polls and simply claim to be the person who was already "registered."
One former employee of the New Voter Project has told me that many staffers simply took names out of the telephone book to fill out their daily quotas. He quit his job in fear there’d be a criminal investigation.
Other than me, there isn’t anybody in the media digging into the New Voter Project. My guess is that they don’t want to find the truth about this group, just as they tried to pretend that the 2000 "smokes for votes" operation was isolated, that the thousands of absentee ballots requested en masse by organizations were legitimately filled out, that the hundreds of people who showed up at Milwaukee polling places in 2000 after 8 p.m. closing time were legitimate voters etc.
Maybe the blogosphere can change all that...
[…] Several leaders of a Milwaukee voter operation known as "ACE" are in jail for submitting false absentee ballots in the race involving Milwaukee County Board Chair Lee Holloway. The recording secretary of the Milwaukee County Democratic Party, Fidelis Omegbu, was also sentenced to jail for vote fraud. A New York multimillionaire was caught on videotape bribing street bums with cigarettes to cast absentee ballots for Al Gore. The list of left wing election cheating in this state just goes on and on.
Now, the New Voter Project is turning in thousands of dubious voter registration forms and the organization is run by a woman who has already been linked to election fraud. Bush better get 52 percent of the actual vote in Wisconsin because at least 2 percent of the Kerry vote is going to come from cheaters.
This from the party of “count every vote”. Are you outraged yet?
An outfit called the "New Voter Project" claims to be nonpartisan but is being bankrolled and staffed by leftists. The organization is already active in Wisconsin and already involved in trouble. Thousands of "voters" registered by this group in the last few weeks have submitted registration forms without the legally required proof of identification. This has forced village and city clerks all over the region to send out notices asking for the information. Why would so many of these forms be filled out without identification?
You tell me.
There’s more. The director of the Wisconsin branch of the New Voter Project is Jessy Tolkan. She’s already been involved in election fraud! Tolkan ran for the Madison Common Council in 2001 and was elected. She gave up the seat under pressure and a pending investigation after allegations were made that she lied about her address on her nomination papers and was not a resident of the district in which she ran. Tolkan’s father, an attorney, has threatened to sue me in a lame attempt to get me to stop reporting on his daughter and the slimy activities of the New Voter Project.
Virtually none of the forms sent out by the local clerks to the shady registrants have been responded to. The only plausible explanation for that is that the "voters" not only aren’t voters but aren’t real people, either.
Here’s the method to the New Voter Project madness. In Wisconsin, you can register to vote at the polls on Election Day. You have to produce identification when you register. But sending in a phony registration in advance puts you on the voter list before the election. Already-registered voters don’t have to show any identification. By putting perhaps thousands of fake names on the voter lists, it will be possible for fraudsters to show up at the polls and simply claim to be the person who was already "registered."
One former employee of the New Voter Project has told me that many staffers simply took names out of the telephone book to fill out their daily quotas. He quit his job in fear there’d be a criminal investigation.
Other than me, there isn’t anybody in the media digging into the New Voter Project. My guess is that they don’t want to find the truth about this group, just as they tried to pretend that the 2000 "smokes for votes" operation was isolated, that the thousands of absentee ballots requested en masse by organizations were legitimately filled out, that the hundreds of people who showed up at Milwaukee polling places in 2000 after 8 p.m. closing time were legitimate voters etc.
Maybe the blogosphere can change all that...
[…] Several leaders of a Milwaukee voter operation known as "ACE" are in jail for submitting false absentee ballots in the race involving Milwaukee County Board Chair Lee Holloway. The recording secretary of the Milwaukee County Democratic Party, Fidelis Omegbu, was also sentenced to jail for vote fraud. A New York multimillionaire was caught on videotape bribing street bums with cigarettes to cast absentee ballots for Al Gore. The list of left wing election cheating in this state just goes on and on.
Now, the New Voter Project is turning in thousands of dubious voter registration forms and the organization is run by a woman who has already been linked to election fraud. Bush better get 52 percent of the actual vote in Wisconsin because at least 2 percent of the Kerry vote is going to come from cheaters.
This from the party of “count every vote”. Are you outraged yet?
When Law is not Enough
The American Thinker has a thoughtful column written by Bob Wier of Houston, which argues that sometimes boundaries have to be stretched when dealing with Islamist zealots who would gladly die while killing us all:
We’re dealing with a well-trained group of suicidal zealots who have been indoctrinated to believe that they will go to Heaven if they murder “the American infidels.” In their unilateral view of the world, Western civilization must be destroyed. Indeed, if they had the wherewithal to blanket our country with neutron bombs today, we’d very likely soon have the odor of decomposing flesh in our nostrils, if we were alive to smell it.
So, with all of that said, what would the average citizen be willing to do to rid us of this deadly infestation? Suppose you knew for a fact that your family were in imminent danger of being murdered by allies of the terrorists we currently have in our jails. Suppose, further, that you knew a confession from the prisoners would save the lives of your family. Would you be willing to have the authorities use torture to force confessions?
Leave aside the controversy over whether or not torture works at extracting the truth, and assume that certain techniques do. If your answer is no, then you evidently think it’s more noble to allow your family to suffer and die, than it is to inflict pain upon your enemies. As far as I’m concerned that’s not nobility, it’s stupidity. Worse, it’s a flawed philosophy that jeopardizes our attempts to withstand the threat to our survival.
Certainly not the kind of moral dilemma that we face every day. But in fighting a war for the very survival of our way of life, it is important for we Americans to have this perspective when it comes to news reports such as Abu Grahib (you will remember, this story was also broken by Mary Mapes...). The fact that a few individuals made some people put panties over their heads does not quite equate to crashing a jetliner into the World Trade Center and killing thousands. We do not want to turn into a nation that condones barbarianism; but neither do we want to become a nation that allows others to murder indiscriminately or allows the media to make a huge PR mess of our war effort and cause us to lose this war on the home front because we did not have the collective will to do “what is necessary.” We must not let the liberal elites in this country prevent us from doing whatever is necessary to win this war. Mr. Wier concludes:
In other words, it’s easy to be generous with your sympathy toward the arsonist when the other guy’s house is on fire. Picture this: there’s a guy in police custody who knows the location of a bomb that’s set to explode in an elementary school building that holds 500 children. Threats and intimidation have failed to make him reveal the address of the school and the location of the device. You think that a certain interrogation technique defined as torture would loosen his tongue and save all those innocent lives. What would you do? C’mon, the clock is ticking. Make a decision.
Five hundred little helpless children against the life of some murderous creature who corrupts the atmosphere of life with every breath he takes. Should you think lofty thoughts about the slippery slope toward totalitarianism, should you quote the Constitution, chapter and verse, or should you beat the bejeebers out of the scumbag until he fesses up? Which course of action is most noble? You decide.
The man has a point…
We’re dealing with a well-trained group of suicidal zealots who have been indoctrinated to believe that they will go to Heaven if they murder “the American infidels.” In their unilateral view of the world, Western civilization must be destroyed. Indeed, if they had the wherewithal to blanket our country with neutron bombs today, we’d very likely soon have the odor of decomposing flesh in our nostrils, if we were alive to smell it.
So, with all of that said, what would the average citizen be willing to do to rid us of this deadly infestation? Suppose you knew for a fact that your family were in imminent danger of being murdered by allies of the terrorists we currently have in our jails. Suppose, further, that you knew a confession from the prisoners would save the lives of your family. Would you be willing to have the authorities use torture to force confessions?
Leave aside the controversy over whether or not torture works at extracting the truth, and assume that certain techniques do. If your answer is no, then you evidently think it’s more noble to allow your family to suffer and die, than it is to inflict pain upon your enemies. As far as I’m concerned that’s not nobility, it’s stupidity. Worse, it’s a flawed philosophy that jeopardizes our attempts to withstand the threat to our survival.
Certainly not the kind of moral dilemma that we face every day. But in fighting a war for the very survival of our way of life, it is important for we Americans to have this perspective when it comes to news reports such as Abu Grahib (you will remember, this story was also broken by Mary Mapes...). The fact that a few individuals made some people put panties over their heads does not quite equate to crashing a jetliner into the World Trade Center and killing thousands. We do not want to turn into a nation that condones barbarianism; but neither do we want to become a nation that allows others to murder indiscriminately or allows the media to make a huge PR mess of our war effort and cause us to lose this war on the home front because we did not have the collective will to do “what is necessary.” We must not let the liberal elites in this country prevent us from doing whatever is necessary to win this war. Mr. Wier concludes:
In other words, it’s easy to be generous with your sympathy toward the arsonist when the other guy’s house is on fire. Picture this: there’s a guy in police custody who knows the location of a bomb that’s set to explode in an elementary school building that holds 500 children. Threats and intimidation have failed to make him reveal the address of the school and the location of the device. You think that a certain interrogation technique defined as torture would loosen his tongue and save all those innocent lives. What would you do? C’mon, the clock is ticking. Make a decision.
Five hundred little helpless children against the life of some murderous creature who corrupts the atmosphere of life with every breath he takes. Should you think lofty thoughts about the slippery slope toward totalitarianism, should you quote the Constitution, chapter and verse, or should you beat the bejeebers out of the scumbag until he fesses up? Which course of action is most noble? You decide.
The man has a point…
Kerry campaign would have been "treason" in 1944
Ralph Peters compares the events of today and 1944. And it is difficult to argue with his logic:
Imagine if, in the presiden tial election of 1944, the can didate opposing FDR had in sisted that we were losing the Second World War and that, if elected, he would begin to withdraw American troops from Europe and the Pacific. We would have called it treason. And we would have been right.
In WWII, broadcasts from Tokyo Rose in Japan and from Axis Sally in Germany warned our troops that their lives were being squandered in vain, that they were dying for big business and "the Jew" Roosevelt.
Today, we have a presidential candidate, the conscienceless Sen. John Kerry, doing the work of the enemy propagandists of yesteryear.
Is there nothing Kerry won't say to win the election? Is there no position he won't change? Doesn't he care anything for the sacrifices of our troops in Iraq?
And if he does care about our soldiers and Marines, why is he broadcasting remarks that insist — against all hard evidence — that the terrorists are winning?
[...]
Above all, he could see the magnificent performance of our troops, their dedication and professionalism. And their humanity, their goodness.
But Kerry doesn't want to see those things. He's reverting to form. Just as he lied about our troops three decades ago, encouraging our enemies of the day and worsening the suffering of our POWs in North Vietnam, today he's pandering to a new enemy.
Imagine the encouragement the terrorists, insurgents and global extremists draw from Kerry's declarations of defeat, from his insistence that our efforts in Iraq and in the War on Terror have failed.
As for involving the French and Germans, the truth is that they'd do more harm than good. These are the corrupt cynics who made billions from the U.N. Oil-for-Food program while the Iraqi people suffered. The French kiss up to every dictator willing to wink in their direction. The German military barely exists — it's just an employment agency for uniformed bureaucrats — and the French military's sole competence lies in slaughtering unarmed black Africans.
As for the United Nations, any day now we'll see a huge banner hanging from its Manhattan headquarters: Dictators For Kerry.
Even if I detested everything about President Bush, I'd vote for him just to rub it in the faces of the Germans, the French and all of the tyrants rooting for the Iraqi people to slip back into despotism. We Americans choose our own presidents, and we don't take orders from Europeans or from any of Kerry's other Swiss boarding-school pals.
[...]
There was a wartime election in 1864, too. The Democratic Party's candidate, former Gen. George McClellan, ran on a platform that declared President Abraham Lincoln's policy a failure. The price of McClellan's rhetoric was a prolonged war and tens of thousands of dead Americans.
In 1864, the citizens of the North were steadfast. They rejected the Democratic Party's warnings of defeat and saved the Union. In 2004, the American people, North and South, East and West, need to reject the cynical lies of John F. Kerry and vote to support our troops and save Iraq.
Imagine if, in the presiden tial election of 1944, the can didate opposing FDR had in sisted that we were losing the Second World War and that, if elected, he would begin to withdraw American troops from Europe and the Pacific. We would have called it treason. And we would have been right.
In WWII, broadcasts from Tokyo Rose in Japan and from Axis Sally in Germany warned our troops that their lives were being squandered in vain, that they were dying for big business and "the Jew" Roosevelt.
Today, we have a presidential candidate, the conscienceless Sen. John Kerry, doing the work of the enemy propagandists of yesteryear.
Is there nothing Kerry won't say to win the election? Is there no position he won't change? Doesn't he care anything for the sacrifices of our troops in Iraq?
And if he does care about our soldiers and Marines, why is he broadcasting remarks that insist — against all hard evidence — that the terrorists are winning?
[...]
Above all, he could see the magnificent performance of our troops, their dedication and professionalism. And their humanity, their goodness.
But Kerry doesn't want to see those things. He's reverting to form. Just as he lied about our troops three decades ago, encouraging our enemies of the day and worsening the suffering of our POWs in North Vietnam, today he's pandering to a new enemy.
Imagine the encouragement the terrorists, insurgents and global extremists draw from Kerry's declarations of defeat, from his insistence that our efforts in Iraq and in the War on Terror have failed.
As for involving the French and Germans, the truth is that they'd do more harm than good. These are the corrupt cynics who made billions from the U.N. Oil-for-Food program while the Iraqi people suffered. The French kiss up to every dictator willing to wink in their direction. The German military barely exists — it's just an employment agency for uniformed bureaucrats — and the French military's sole competence lies in slaughtering unarmed black Africans.
As for the United Nations, any day now we'll see a huge banner hanging from its Manhattan headquarters: Dictators For Kerry.
Even if I detested everything about President Bush, I'd vote for him just to rub it in the faces of the Germans, the French and all of the tyrants rooting for the Iraqi people to slip back into despotism. We Americans choose our own presidents, and we don't take orders from Europeans or from any of Kerry's other Swiss boarding-school pals.
[...]
There was a wartime election in 1864, too. The Democratic Party's candidate, former Gen. George McClellan, ran on a platform that declared President Abraham Lincoln's policy a failure. The price of McClellan's rhetoric was a prolonged war and tens of thousands of dead Americans.
In 1864, the citizens of the North were steadfast. They rejected the Democratic Party's warnings of defeat and saved the Union. In 2004, the American people, North and South, East and West, need to reject the cynical lies of John F. Kerry and vote to support our troops and save Iraq.
Jewish leaders meet with President Bush: one Rabbi’s story
Thanks to Power Line for this powerful story by the Rabbi Jonathan Ginsburg (of St. Paul's Temple of Aaron) about the president's private meeting on September 30, 2003 with leaders of the Jewish faith.
Daschle on the ropes
Tom Daschle is in for the run of his career in South Dakota. Thune has a real chance to take him down this time around. Nice article in the WSJ today about this.
“Texans for Truth” broke campaign laws
The Houston Chronicle is running a story that the pro-Kerry group “Texans for Truth” has violated campaign finance laws:
A group of watchdog organizations charged Friday that Texans for Truth, whose TV ads question President Bush's service in the Air National Guard during the Vietnam War, has violated campaign fund-raising laws.
The Washington-based watchdog organizations, Democracy 21, the Campaign Legal Center and the Center for Responsive Politics, made the allegation in a complaint to the Federal Election Commission.
The complaint says Texans for Truth is accepting contributions and running advertisements to influence the presidential race and therefore comes under campaign finance limits, which cap individual contributions at $2,000 from an individual and $5,000 from a political committee.
Texans for Truth has reported a $100,000 contribution from Daniel O'Keefe, a California television producer.
A group of watchdog organizations charged Friday that Texans for Truth, whose TV ads question President Bush's service in the Air National Guard during the Vietnam War, has violated campaign fund-raising laws.
The Washington-based watchdog organizations, Democracy 21, the Campaign Legal Center and the Center for Responsive Politics, made the allegation in a complaint to the Federal Election Commission.
The complaint says Texans for Truth is accepting contributions and running advertisements to influence the presidential race and therefore comes under campaign finance limits, which cap individual contributions at $2,000 from an individual and $5,000 from a political committee.
Texans for Truth has reported a $100,000 contribution from Daniel O'Keefe, a California television producer.
Iran breaks up pro-democracy demonstrations
Hats off to our brave Iranian brothers and sisters in the struggle for freedom and democracy. Do not fear, your time is coming soon.
Big Bust in London
A suspected Al Queda cell was disrupted when the London newspaper News of the World went undercover and alerted police to the presence of the terror cell. The result: the arrest of four men who were trying to buy material for a dirty bomb.
Over 100 dead from Fallujah strikes
Over 100 followers of Abu Masab al Zarqawi have now been killed in this month’s airstrikes. Hoo-ah.
Sunday, September 26, 2004
courtesy Allah is in the House
Insulting a friend
Continuing the story about John Kerry’s open disrespect for our allies, the Investor’s Business Daily recalls the recent words of Zell Miller:
"Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief."
Portions of the IBD story:
What might Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and our other enemies make of such comments? Kerry and Lockhart have played into their hands. To the extent that the Kerry campaign's view of Allawi gets around in Iraq, it will weaken the prime minister's government. It's never helpful to a leader to be seen as anyone's puppet, yet here's Kerry and his crew calling Allawi just that.
Are we saying that the Kerry campaign is deliberately seeking to undermine Allawi, destabilize Iraq, embolden terrorists and bring about a U.S. defeat?
No. But Kerry's insulting treatment of a key ally shows him to be irresponsible, graceless and obsessively bent on winning office at all costs.
Three little words come to mind: unfit to serve.
When considering this against the backdrop of DNC ethics that have been absolutely in the gutter, it becomes clear that John Kerry places his own personal destiny far ahead of his regard for his country. This would seem to me to be an excellent reason to give Kerry the next several years to windsurf to his heart’s content.
"Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief."
Portions of the IBD story:
What might Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and our other enemies make of such comments? Kerry and Lockhart have played into their hands. To the extent that the Kerry campaign's view of Allawi gets around in Iraq, it will weaken the prime minister's government. It's never helpful to a leader to be seen as anyone's puppet, yet here's Kerry and his crew calling Allawi just that.
Are we saying that the Kerry campaign is deliberately seeking to undermine Allawi, destabilize Iraq, embolden terrorists and bring about a U.S. defeat?
No. But Kerry's insulting treatment of a key ally shows him to be irresponsible, graceless and obsessively bent on winning office at all costs.
Three little words come to mind: unfit to serve.
When considering this against the backdrop of DNC ethics that have been absolutely in the gutter, it becomes clear that John Kerry places his own personal destiny far ahead of his regard for his country. This would seem to me to be an excellent reason to give Kerry the next several years to windsurf to his heart’s content.
Kerry and the mainstream media: American failures
Mark Steyn has yet another “must read” column in the Chicago Sun-Times that discusses the mightiest efforts of both Kerry and the press to paint America as a “failure” in Iraq. Only Steyn turns the focus around to those trying to perpetrate this miserable outlook on the rest of us. I thought it was good enough to warrant posting the whole thing here:
Before John Kerry, the only alumni of Swiss finishing schools I'd ever met (in my younger days) were a certain type of lively English girl, a couple of minor princesses from Gulf emirates and a charming young Iranian lady whose family had been forced to flee after the shah fell. Collectively, they all fell into the category the British call ''posh totty.'' And, although they were way out of my league, the one thing I noticed was their impeccable carriage -- they'd done all the walking-around-with-books-on-your-head stuff -- and how exquisitely well-mannered they were. Even when giving you the brush for being a broke loser, they were very nice about it.
In this respect, John Kerry isn't exactly the best advertisement for his Swiss finishing school. Forget the impeccable carriage -- if you imagine you're watching streaming video on a slow dial-up connection, his gait seems perfectly natural. But the manners thing seems to have passed him by entirely. His decision to break the time-honored tradition of keeping out of the way during the other guy's convention by rushing on the air within an hour of President Bush's speech to give an instant response was boorish and petty. But, given that his ''midnight rambler'' routine in Ohio was a disaster, there didn't seem much point dwelling on it.
But last week he did it again. Ayad Allawi, the first prime minister of post-Saddam Iraq, was in Washington to give a joint address to Congress. A tough, stocky, bullet-headed optimist, Iraq's interim leader delivered a simple, elegant and moving speech, which made three basic points:
''First, we are succeeding in Iraq. [Applause] It's a tough struggle with setbacks, but we are succeeding . . .
''The second message is quite simple and one that I would like to deliver directly from my people to yours: Thank you, America [Applause] . . .
''Third, I stand here today as the prime minister of a country emerging finally from dark ages of violence, aggression, corruption and greed . . . Well over a million Iraqis were murdered or are missing . . .''
Kerry didn't show up for Allawi's visit to Washington -- he was in Ohio again, which is evidently becoming the proverbial Vietnam-type quagmire for him. Nonetheless, barely had the prime minister finished than the absentee senator did a daytime version of his midnight ramble and barged his way onto the air to insist that he knew better than Iraq's head of government what was going on in the country. One question from his accompanying press corps was especially choice:
''Prime Minister Allawi told Congress today that democracy was taking hold in Iraq and that the terrorists there were on the defensive. Is he living in the same fantasyland as the president?''
It would be nice to think this was a somewhat crude attempt at irony, but given America's Ratherized media this seems unlikely. Just for the record, Allawi is not living in a fantasyland. He's living in Iraq, and he begins his day with a dangerous commute across Baghdad's ''Green Zone.'' John Kerry's regular commute, by contrast, is from his wife's beach compound at Nantucket to his wife's 15th century English barn reconstructed as a ski lodge in Idaho. Nonetheless, he's the expert on Iraq and the guy living there 24/7 is the fantasist, and he's happy to assure us the prime minister doesn't know what he's talking about. It's all going to hell, forget about those January elections, etc.
What a small, graceless man Kerry is. The nature of adversarial politics in a democratic society makes George W. Bush his opponent. But it was entirely Kerry's choice to expand the field, to put himself on the other side of Allawi and the Iraqi people. Given his frequent boasts that he knows how to reach out to America's allies, it's remarkable how often he feels the need to insult them: Britain, Australia, and now free Iraq. But, because this pampered cipher has floundered for 18 months to find any rationale for his candidacy other than his indestructible belief in his own indispensability, Kerry finds himself a month before the election with no platform to run on other than American defeat. He has decided to co-opt the jihadist death-cult, the Baathist dead-enders, the suicide bombers and other misfits and run as the candidate of American failure. This would be shameful if he weren't so laughably inept at it.
Still, you can understand why, inside the Democrat-media cocoon, the senator's bet on the collapse of a free Iraq doesn't sound quite as revolting as it does to the average Iraqi. On Thursday, President Bush held a press conference at the Rose Garden with Allawi. You know the way these things go. The Norwegian prime minister happens to be visiting Washington and they hold a joint press conference and Norwegian issues aren't terribly pressing at the moment so the press guys ask Bush about prescription drug plans for seniors and increased education funding while the visitor from Oslo stands there like a wallflower at the prom. But Iraq's the No. 1 issue in American right now, and they've got the go-to guy right in front of them, and what do the blow-dried poseurs of the networks ask:
''Mr. President, John Kerry is accusing you of colossal failures of judgment in Iraq...''
NBC guy: ''A central theme of your campaign is that America is safer because of the invasion of Iraq. Can you understand why Americans may not believe you?''
CNN: ''Sir, I'd like you to answer Senator Kerry and other critics who accuse you of hypocrisy or opportunism …''
They're six feet from Iraq's head of government and they've got not a question for him. They've got no interest in Iraq except insofar as they can use the issue to depress sufficient numbers of swing voters in Florida and Ohio.
Who's living in the fantasyland here? Huge forces are at play in a world of rapid change. As the prime minister said, ''We Iraqis will stand by you, America, in a war larger than either of our nations.'' But the gentlemen of the press can barely stifle their ennui. Say what you like about the old left, but at least they were outward-looking and internationalist. This new crowd -- Democrats and media alike -- are stunted and parochial, their horizons shriveling more every day.
So for Kerry the new world war is just a wedge issue. After their schooling in Switzerland, those well-mannered English gels used to describe themselves as ''finished.'' If he wasn't ''finished'' after graduating from the Institut Montana in Zug in 1955, this week John Kerry is looking finished in a far more American sense.
Before John Kerry, the only alumni of Swiss finishing schools I'd ever met (in my younger days) were a certain type of lively English girl, a couple of minor princesses from Gulf emirates and a charming young Iranian lady whose family had been forced to flee after the shah fell. Collectively, they all fell into the category the British call ''posh totty.'' And, although they were way out of my league, the one thing I noticed was their impeccable carriage -- they'd done all the walking-around-with-books-on-your-head stuff -- and how exquisitely well-mannered they were. Even when giving you the brush for being a broke loser, they were very nice about it.
In this respect, John Kerry isn't exactly the best advertisement for his Swiss finishing school. Forget the impeccable carriage -- if you imagine you're watching streaming video on a slow dial-up connection, his gait seems perfectly natural. But the manners thing seems to have passed him by entirely. His decision to break the time-honored tradition of keeping out of the way during the other guy's convention by rushing on the air within an hour of President Bush's speech to give an instant response was boorish and petty. But, given that his ''midnight rambler'' routine in Ohio was a disaster, there didn't seem much point dwelling on it.
But last week he did it again. Ayad Allawi, the first prime minister of post-Saddam Iraq, was in Washington to give a joint address to Congress. A tough, stocky, bullet-headed optimist, Iraq's interim leader delivered a simple, elegant and moving speech, which made three basic points:
''First, we are succeeding in Iraq. [Applause] It's a tough struggle with setbacks, but we are succeeding . . .
''The second message is quite simple and one that I would like to deliver directly from my people to yours: Thank you, America [Applause] . . .
''Third, I stand here today as the prime minister of a country emerging finally from dark ages of violence, aggression, corruption and greed . . . Well over a million Iraqis were murdered or are missing . . .''
Kerry didn't show up for Allawi's visit to Washington -- he was in Ohio again, which is evidently becoming the proverbial Vietnam-type quagmire for him. Nonetheless, barely had the prime minister finished than the absentee senator did a daytime version of his midnight ramble and barged his way onto the air to insist that he knew better than Iraq's head of government what was going on in the country. One question from his accompanying press corps was especially choice:
''Prime Minister Allawi told Congress today that democracy was taking hold in Iraq and that the terrorists there were on the defensive. Is he living in the same fantasyland as the president?''
It would be nice to think this was a somewhat crude attempt at irony, but given America's Ratherized media this seems unlikely. Just for the record, Allawi is not living in a fantasyland. He's living in Iraq, and he begins his day with a dangerous commute across Baghdad's ''Green Zone.'' John Kerry's regular commute, by contrast, is from his wife's beach compound at Nantucket to his wife's 15th century English barn reconstructed as a ski lodge in Idaho. Nonetheless, he's the expert on Iraq and the guy living there 24/7 is the fantasist, and he's happy to assure us the prime minister doesn't know what he's talking about. It's all going to hell, forget about those January elections, etc.
What a small, graceless man Kerry is. The nature of adversarial politics in a democratic society makes George W. Bush his opponent. But it was entirely Kerry's choice to expand the field, to put himself on the other side of Allawi and the Iraqi people. Given his frequent boasts that he knows how to reach out to America's allies, it's remarkable how often he feels the need to insult them: Britain, Australia, and now free Iraq. But, because this pampered cipher has floundered for 18 months to find any rationale for his candidacy other than his indestructible belief in his own indispensability, Kerry finds himself a month before the election with no platform to run on other than American defeat. He has decided to co-opt the jihadist death-cult, the Baathist dead-enders, the suicide bombers and other misfits and run as the candidate of American failure. This would be shameful if he weren't so laughably inept at it.
Still, you can understand why, inside the Democrat-media cocoon, the senator's bet on the collapse of a free Iraq doesn't sound quite as revolting as it does to the average Iraqi. On Thursday, President Bush held a press conference at the Rose Garden with Allawi. You know the way these things go. The Norwegian prime minister happens to be visiting Washington and they hold a joint press conference and Norwegian issues aren't terribly pressing at the moment so the press guys ask Bush about prescription drug plans for seniors and increased education funding while the visitor from Oslo stands there like a wallflower at the prom. But Iraq's the No. 1 issue in American right now, and they've got the go-to guy right in front of them, and what do the blow-dried poseurs of the networks ask:
''Mr. President, John Kerry is accusing you of colossal failures of judgment in Iraq...''
NBC guy: ''A central theme of your campaign is that America is safer because of the invasion of Iraq. Can you understand why Americans may not believe you?''
CNN: ''Sir, I'd like you to answer Senator Kerry and other critics who accuse you of hypocrisy or opportunism …''
They're six feet from Iraq's head of government and they've got not a question for him. They've got no interest in Iraq except insofar as they can use the issue to depress sufficient numbers of swing voters in Florida and Ohio.
Who's living in the fantasyland here? Huge forces are at play in a world of rapid change. As the prime minister said, ''We Iraqis will stand by you, America, in a war larger than either of our nations.'' But the gentlemen of the press can barely stifle their ennui. Say what you like about the old left, but at least they were outward-looking and internationalist. This new crowd -- Democrats and media alike -- are stunted and parochial, their horizons shriveling more every day.
So for Kerry the new world war is just a wedge issue. After their schooling in Switzerland, those well-mannered English gels used to describe themselves as ''finished.'' If he wasn't ''finished'' after graduating from the Institut Montana in Zug in 1955, this week John Kerry is looking finished in a far more American sense.
Another vacation “seared” in Kerry’s memory?
Get a load of this over at Captain’s Quarters. Apparently Cambodia is not the only place Kerry lied about visiting.
DNC’s false draft story
Yesterday I talked about the travesty of Kerry and the DNC making false accusations about Bush having a “secret plan” to reinstate the draft; So I am heartened to see that Wizbang is all over this story as well. Or course in light of the plummeting Democratic ethics revealed here, I suppose it can be explained away as par for the course. A couple of choice snippets:
Lie, cheat, twist, slant, forge -- whatever it takes. Bush must be stopped. So today's Democrats seem to believe. Law professor Susan Estrich -- her law school ethics classes apparently but a distant memory -- expressed the sentiment when she offered fellow Dems this election advice: "You have to fight fire with fire, mud with mud, dirt with dirt." Lie about anything and everything, because "lies move numbers." Time Magazine's Joe Klein agrees. He defends John Kerry's tendency to play loose with facts as a matter of entitlement. "Kerry has a right to exaggerate with impunity," he writes, overlooking the public's right to scorn serial liars. His advice to Kerry and implicitly to all Dems is "to do much more of that."
With standards like these, it ought to be no surprise to see the Democrats attempting to perpetrate such a shameless and irresponsible lie on an unsuspecting public. But the sheer gall and audacity to suggest that it is the Repbulicans who want to reinstate the draft, when it reality all of the efforts to date to reinstate the draft have been sponsored by Democrats, is maddening indeed...
Lie, cheat, twist, slant, forge -- whatever it takes. Bush must be stopped. So today's Democrats seem to believe. Law professor Susan Estrich -- her law school ethics classes apparently but a distant memory -- expressed the sentiment when she offered fellow Dems this election advice: "You have to fight fire with fire, mud with mud, dirt with dirt." Lie about anything and everything, because "lies move numbers." Time Magazine's Joe Klein agrees. He defends John Kerry's tendency to play loose with facts as a matter of entitlement. "Kerry has a right to exaggerate with impunity," he writes, overlooking the public's right to scorn serial liars. His advice to Kerry and implicitly to all Dems is "to do much more of that."
With standards like these, it ought to be no surprise to see the Democrats attempting to perpetrate such a shameless and irresponsible lie on an unsuspecting public. But the sheer gall and audacity to suggest that it is the Repbulicans who want to reinstate the draft, when it reality all of the efforts to date to reinstate the draft have been sponsored by Democrats, is maddening indeed...
Bush visits with the troops
Between the sleaziness and dishonesty of the Kerry campaign, the illegal collaboration between the DNC and CBS, the forgery of federal military records, and the horrific beheadings in Iraq, it becomes easy to focus only on these stories to the exclusion of positive news. But when President Bush made an impromptu visit to a troop transport plane in Maine, shortly before the plane was to take off for a deployment to Iraq, it not only lifted the spirits of all the soldiers on the plane, but it lifted mine as well. It is so wonderful to have a President who is so loved and respected by our fighting men and women. This is a great story.
photo courtesy of Power Line blog
Buy a round for our fighting men/women
Wallace over at Streams found this great link to a site that provides beer for our soldiers abroad. Follow the link to donate!
Saturday, September 25, 2004
Robert Ariail, The State (SC)
DNC’s false draft story
Yesterday I talked about the travesty of Kerry and the DNC making false accusations about Bush having a “secret plan” to reinstate the draft; So I am heartened to see that Wizbang is all over this story as well. Or course in light of the plummeting Democratic ethics revealed here, I suppose it can be explained away as par for the course. A couple of choice snippets:
Lie, cheat, twist, slant, forge -- whatever it takes. Bush must be stopped. So today's Democrats seem to believe. Law professor Susan Estrich -- her law school ethics classes apparently but a distant memory -- expressed the sentiment when she offered fellow Dems this election advice: "You have to fight fire with fire, mud with mud, dirt with dirt." Lie about anything and everything, because "lies move numbers." Time Magazine's Joe Klein agrees. He defends John Kerry's tendency to play loose with facts as a matter of entitlement. "Kerry has a right to exaggerate with impunity," he writes, overlooking the public's right to scorn serial liars. His advice to Kerry and implicitly to all Dems is "to do much more of that."
With standards like these, it ought to be no surprise to see the Democrats attempting to perpetrate such a shameless and irresponsible lie on an unsuspecting public. But the sheer gall and audacity to suggest that it is the Repbulicans who want to reinstate the draft, when it reality all of the efforts to date to reinstate the draft have been sponsored by Democrats, is maddening indeed...
Lie, cheat, twist, slant, forge -- whatever it takes. Bush must be stopped. So today's Democrats seem to believe. Law professor Susan Estrich -- her law school ethics classes apparently but a distant memory -- expressed the sentiment when she offered fellow Dems this election advice: "You have to fight fire with fire, mud with mud, dirt with dirt." Lie about anything and everything, because "lies move numbers." Time Magazine's Joe Klein agrees. He defends John Kerry's tendency to play loose with facts as a matter of entitlement. "Kerry has a right to exaggerate with impunity," he writes, overlooking the public's right to scorn serial liars. His advice to Kerry and implicitly to all Dems is "to do much more of that."
With standards like these, it ought to be no surprise to see the Democrats attempting to perpetrate such a shameless and irresponsible lie on an unsuspecting public. But the sheer gall and audacity to suggest that it is the Repbulicans who want to reinstate the draft, when it reality all of the efforts to date to reinstate the draft have been sponsored by Democrats, is maddening indeed...
Democratic voter fraud already under way?
Remember Florida? Get ready. The Cleveland Plain-Dealer has a very interesting story up about over 1,000 suspected cases of illegal voter registration in Ohio:
Elections officials have said hundreds of absentee ballot applications and dozens of voter registration cards are in question. Lake County Prosecutor Charles Coulson, also involved in the probe, said the problems are more significant than originally thought.
"We've seen voter fraud before, but never on this level," Coulson said Thursday. "I grew up in Chicago and this looks like the politics of Mayor Daley in the '50s and '60s."
Lake election and law enforcement officials said their investigation is centered on absentee registration attempts by the nonpartisan NAACP's National Voter Fund and an anti-Bush, nonprofit group called America Coming Together, or ACT Ohio.
You might recall America Coming Together from the discussions about Democrat soft-money 527’s a few weeks back. This one is funded by filthy rich Democrat donors to the tune of over $26 MILLION dollars. Some examples of what this money appears to be buying:
Several registration applications submitted by campaign volunteers for a candidate are also being scrutinized, Lake elections board Director Jan Clair said. None of the officials would identify the candidate, however.
Dunlap said the probe will include visits from detectives to addresses of the voters in question.
In one other instance, an elderly nursing home resident who usually signs with an "X" appeared to have a firm, cursive signature when she registered. "We are going to have to see who's alive and who's well," Dunlap said. "We're going to have to burn up some shoe leather."
In Summit County, meanwhile, the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation has agreed to assist the Sheriff's Department in the examination of 803 suspect voter registration applications. Bryan Williams, director of the Summit County Board of Elections, said high interest in this year's presidential election has resulted in unprecedented numbers of voter registrations, absentee ballot requests and irregular voter applications.
Williams said the suspect voter registration applications include some with nonexistent addresses while others from the same street all have the street identically misspelled. Williams said that usually people applying to vote fill out their own cards before signing them, drawing attention to the odd fact that the street name is not spelled correctly.
Still other voter registration cards bear strikingly similar handwriting, suggesting one person submitted a group of fraudulent voter registration cards. "We are not certified handwriting experts, but we believe that these were common looking signatures," Williams said.
This is just what has been discovered so far. There are 50 states in the Union, and $26 mil will buy a lot of registration cards. Stay tuned…
Elections officials have said hundreds of absentee ballot applications and dozens of voter registration cards are in question. Lake County Prosecutor Charles Coulson, also involved in the probe, said the problems are more significant than originally thought.
"We've seen voter fraud before, but never on this level," Coulson said Thursday. "I grew up in Chicago and this looks like the politics of Mayor Daley in the '50s and '60s."
Lake election and law enforcement officials said their investigation is centered on absentee registration attempts by the nonpartisan NAACP's National Voter Fund and an anti-Bush, nonprofit group called America Coming Together, or ACT Ohio.
You might recall America Coming Together from the discussions about Democrat soft-money 527’s a few weeks back. This one is funded by filthy rich Democrat donors to the tune of over $26 MILLION dollars. Some examples of what this money appears to be buying:
Several registration applications submitted by campaign volunteers for a candidate are also being scrutinized, Lake elections board Director Jan Clair said. None of the officials would identify the candidate, however.
Dunlap said the probe will include visits from detectives to addresses of the voters in question.
In one other instance, an elderly nursing home resident who usually signs with an "X" appeared to have a firm, cursive signature when she registered. "We are going to have to see who's alive and who's well," Dunlap said. "We're going to have to burn up some shoe leather."
In Summit County, meanwhile, the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation has agreed to assist the Sheriff's Department in the examination of 803 suspect voter registration applications. Bryan Williams, director of the Summit County Board of Elections, said high interest in this year's presidential election has resulted in unprecedented numbers of voter registrations, absentee ballot requests and irregular voter applications.
Williams said the suspect voter registration applications include some with nonexistent addresses while others from the same street all have the street identically misspelled. Williams said that usually people applying to vote fill out their own cards before signing them, drawing attention to the odd fact that the street name is not spelled correctly.
Still other voter registration cards bear strikingly similar handwriting, suggesting one person submitted a group of fraudulent voter registration cards. "We are not certified handwriting experts, but we believe that these were common looking signatures," Williams said.
This is just what has been discovered so far. There are 50 states in the Union, and $26 mil will buy a lot of registration cards. Stay tuned…
Kerry shows the world his “coalition building” skills
I was stunned yesterday when I heard what John Kerry had to say about Prime Minister Allawi. Our key strategic partner in Iraq, the man we need to work with in order to win the war there might as well have been called a Bush puppet. Bill Kristol put it very well, in an article titled “Disgraceful”:
Two days later, Iraqi prime minister Ayad Allawi spoke to a joint meeting of Congress. Sen. Kerry could not be troubled to attend, as a gesture of solidarity and respect. Instead, Kerry said in Ohio that Allawi was here simply to put the "best face on the policy." So much for an impressive speech by perhaps America's single most important ally in the war on terror, the courageous and internationally recognized leader of a nation struggling to achieve democracy against terrorist opposition.
But Kerry's rudeness paled beside the comment of his senior adviser, Joe Lockhart, to the Los Angeles Times: "The last thing you want to be seen as is a puppet of the United States, and you can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips."
And obviously, other people are thinking along these same lines as well:
That’s not the conclusion you would draw from the behavior of the Kerry campaign. The Senator himself has referred to the allies fighting and working with the U.S. in Iraq as a "fraudulent coalition," a "trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and extorted" (Detroit Debate, 10/26/03 and Des Moines Register, 3/9/03). I wonder what British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his colleagues from Poland (Marek Belka), the Netherlands (J.P. Balkenende), Italy (Silvio Berlusconi), the Czech Republic (Stanislav Gross), and Australia (John Howard), among others, think of this characterization. Last I heard, you attracted more flies with honey than with vinegar. How eager will they be to partner with President Kerry (I had a hard time typing that)?
Oh, but maybe they won’t have to! John Howard, for example, is locked in a contentious election campaign with Mark Latham, his Labor Party challenger, who has promised to bring Australian forces home by this Christmas. After the bombing of the Australian Embassy in Djakarta, Indonesia earlier this month, Diana Kerry, chair of Americans Abroad for Kerry, told an Australian reporter that his country’s support for the U.S. in Iraq made it more vulnerable to international terrorism. From where I sit, this sounds like music not only to Latham’s ears, but to the ears of the terrorists who are seeking precisely to influence elections.
Are these the skills of a man who will supposedly charm the pants off of Monsieur Chirac and Herr Schroeder…enough so that they will send tens of thousands of troops to Iraq??
Finally, we have Charles Krauthammer’s piece about Kerry’s unbelievable alienation of our Australian allies. Among the points Krauthammer makes:
The terrorists' objective is to intimidate all countries allied with America. Make them bleed and tell them this is the price they pay for being a U.S. ally. The implication is obvious: Abandon America and buy your safety.
That is what the terrorists are saying. Why is the Kerry campaign saying the same thing? "John Kerry's campaign has warned Australians that the Howard Government's support for the US in Iraq has made them a bigger target for international terrorists." So reports the Weekend Australian (Sept. 18).
Kerry’s entire campaign has been about as devoid of actual policy content as is humanly possible. About the only thing that one can make out of the wealth of mixed signals coming from Kerry is that he somehow thinks he can do “better” at building coalitions. If the last two days are any indication, Kerry would not only be a miserable failure at winning new friends, he is also likely to horribly alienate our existing allies.
Two days later, Iraqi prime minister Ayad Allawi spoke to a joint meeting of Congress. Sen. Kerry could not be troubled to attend, as a gesture of solidarity and respect. Instead, Kerry said in Ohio that Allawi was here simply to put the "best face on the policy." So much for an impressive speech by perhaps America's single most important ally in the war on terror, the courageous and internationally recognized leader of a nation struggling to achieve democracy against terrorist opposition.
But Kerry's rudeness paled beside the comment of his senior adviser, Joe Lockhart, to the Los Angeles Times: "The last thing you want to be seen as is a puppet of the United States, and you can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips."
And obviously, other people are thinking along these same lines as well:
That’s not the conclusion you would draw from the behavior of the Kerry campaign. The Senator himself has referred to the allies fighting and working with the U.S. in Iraq as a "fraudulent coalition," a "trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and extorted" (Detroit Debate, 10/26/03 and Des Moines Register, 3/9/03). I wonder what British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his colleagues from Poland (Marek Belka), the Netherlands (J.P. Balkenende), Italy (Silvio Berlusconi), the Czech Republic (Stanislav Gross), and Australia (John Howard), among others, think of this characterization. Last I heard, you attracted more flies with honey than with vinegar. How eager will they be to partner with President Kerry (I had a hard time typing that)?
Oh, but maybe they won’t have to! John Howard, for example, is locked in a contentious election campaign with Mark Latham, his Labor Party challenger, who has promised to bring Australian forces home by this Christmas. After the bombing of the Australian Embassy in Djakarta, Indonesia earlier this month, Diana Kerry, chair of Americans Abroad for Kerry, told an Australian reporter that his country’s support for the U.S. in Iraq made it more vulnerable to international terrorism. From where I sit, this sounds like music not only to Latham’s ears, but to the ears of the terrorists who are seeking precisely to influence elections.
Are these the skills of a man who will supposedly charm the pants off of Monsieur Chirac and Herr Schroeder…enough so that they will send tens of thousands of troops to Iraq??
Finally, we have Charles Krauthammer’s piece about Kerry’s unbelievable alienation of our Australian allies. Among the points Krauthammer makes:
The terrorists' objective is to intimidate all countries allied with America. Make them bleed and tell them this is the price they pay for being a U.S. ally. The implication is obvious: Abandon America and buy your safety.
That is what the terrorists are saying. Why is the Kerry campaign saying the same thing? "John Kerry's campaign has warned Australians that the Howard Government's support for the US in Iraq has made them a bigger target for international terrorists." So reports the Weekend Australian (Sept. 18).
Kerry’s entire campaign has been about as devoid of actual policy content as is humanly possible. About the only thing that one can make out of the wealth of mixed signals coming from Kerry is that he somehow thinks he can do “better” at building coalitions. If the last two days are any indication, Kerry would not only be a miserable failure at winning new friends, he is also likely to horribly alienate our existing allies.
John Deering, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
Kerry misleading public about Bush reinstating the draft
To say the Kerry campaign is misrepresenting the truth to the American public in suggesting the Bush Administration wants to reinstate the Draft would be an understatement. Even to call this simply a bald faced lie is not enough to really describe how egregious this is. This one hits about every aspect of sleaze a politician can possibly stoop to. It takes advantage of war and death; it uses a mother’s fear for her children as a campaign prop to perpetuate and disseminate a lie; it lowers morale both at home and abroad. And it is a lie, a complete fabrication. Talk about fear-mongering at its worst; I have rarely seen anything lower in the history of politics. This is nothing short of reprehensible.
Chip Bok, Akron (OH) Beacon-Journal
A walking train wreck
John Podhoretz, writing for the New York Post, discusses John Kerry’s brilliant idea to go windsurfing, the Bush ad that took advantage of this “photo op”, and the incredibly juvenile response by the Kerry campaign. He argues that watching Kerry is analogous to watching a Ben Stiller movie. I can see his point:
The tough, clever ad capitalizes on Kerry's foolish decision to let himself be photographed on a windsurfer during the Republican Convention. Instead of hitting back with a comparable lightness of touch, the Kerry people went berserk. Mike McCurry, Kerry's spokesman, called it a "shameful advertisement that shows a disturbing disregard for those fighting and sacrificing in Iraq."
So…let me make sure I understand here… they are saying that an advertisement showing Kerry windsurfing shows a “disturbing disregard” for our troops in Iraq?? Did anyone else in their right mind actually have that reaction when they first saw the ad? Podhoretz continues:
Then the Kerry campaign offered up a counter-ad with an American flag in the background making the same point: "In the face of the Iraq quagmire, George Bush runs a juvenile and tasteless attack ad."
So the Kerry camp is trying to argue with a straight face that because there is horrible news from Iraq, Bush has no right to tease or make fun of Kerry. In this vein, McCurry told reporters, "People do not want to see lighthearted advertising when families are very heavy-hearted about what's happening to their loved ones." Such a complaint seems to draw a parallel between the campaign hardships of John Kerry and the personal hardships of military families, which is frankly a pretty stupid direction to go in for a struggling presidential campaign. It seems far more plausible that the heavy-hearted families to whom McCurry is actually alluding bear the surnames Kerry, Heinz and Edwards. Political ads that complain about other political ads are rarely very effective. They're a tricky proposition because they threaten to make the complainer sound, well, more like a complainer than a leader.
Worse still, all they do is serve to call attention to the original attack itself. Most people who see the Kerry ad won't know what it's whining about, but the whining may make them curious about the supposedly offending ad.
He's right; we can do better.
The tough, clever ad capitalizes on Kerry's foolish decision to let himself be photographed on a windsurfer during the Republican Convention. Instead of hitting back with a comparable lightness of touch, the Kerry people went berserk. Mike McCurry, Kerry's spokesman, called it a "shameful advertisement that shows a disturbing disregard for those fighting and sacrificing in Iraq."
So…let me make sure I understand here… they are saying that an advertisement showing Kerry windsurfing shows a “disturbing disregard” for our troops in Iraq?? Did anyone else in their right mind actually have that reaction when they first saw the ad? Podhoretz continues:
Then the Kerry campaign offered up a counter-ad with an American flag in the background making the same point: "In the face of the Iraq quagmire, George Bush runs a juvenile and tasteless attack ad."
So the Kerry camp is trying to argue with a straight face that because there is horrible news from Iraq, Bush has no right to tease or make fun of Kerry. In this vein, McCurry told reporters, "People do not want to see lighthearted advertising when families are very heavy-hearted about what's happening to their loved ones." Such a complaint seems to draw a parallel between the campaign hardships of John Kerry and the personal hardships of military families, which is frankly a pretty stupid direction to go in for a struggling presidential campaign. It seems far more plausible that the heavy-hearted families to whom McCurry is actually alluding bear the surnames Kerry, Heinz and Edwards. Political ads that complain about other political ads are rarely very effective. They're a tricky proposition because they threaten to make the complainer sound, well, more like a complainer than a leader.
Worse still, all they do is serve to call attention to the original attack itself. Most people who see the Kerry ad won't know what it's whining about, but the whining may make them curious about the supposedly offending ad.
He's right; we can do better.
Friday, September 24, 2004
Eric Allie, The Pioneer Press (IL)
Bill Burkett meets the press
Dan Rather, Mary Mapes, Max Cleland, and Joe Lockhart had to have been incredibly desperate to even have given the time of day to this guy. And, much to the chagrin of CBS and the DNC, Burkett has been talking in the last couple of days to Knight-Ridder and CNN. Some highlights:
"They [Lockhart & DNC] tried to convince me as to why I should give them the documents."
"The documents have not been conclusively proven false," Burkett said. "Neither have they been proven authentic. That jury is still out.
…"the central part of my agreement with CBS was that they use their massive and superlative abilities to authenticate and verify the documents prior to broadcast in order that I and my source not have to be identified."
"CBS came to me, I did not go to them. It was in no interest of mine to be involved with this. Certainly as a source, I demanded confidentiality both for myself and my source."
Some eyebrow-raising comments (and food for thought)...
"They [Lockhart & DNC] tried to convince me as to why I should give them the documents."
"The documents have not been conclusively proven false," Burkett said. "Neither have they been proven authentic. That jury is still out.
…"the central part of my agreement with CBS was that they use their massive and superlative abilities to authenticate and verify the documents prior to broadcast in order that I and my source not have to be identified."
"CBS came to me, I did not go to them. It was in no interest of mine to be involved with this. Certainly as a source, I demanded confidentiality both for myself and my source."
Some eyebrow-raising comments (and food for thought)...
How involved was Robin Rather?
There are many theories going around to explain why Dan Rather continues to stonewall and be so secretive about the sources of the forged National Guard documents. One thing that is becoming increasingly obvious, though, is that major aspects in the story all lead back to one place: the Travis County (Texas) Democratic Party.
This chart shows us the connections between CBS, the story, and the DNC. This chart and discussion explains who some of the prominent players are. And at the center of this pie is none other than Dan Rather's daughter, Robin.
Obviously, Robin Rather is very involved in Travis County Democratic politics; she is an official in the "Austin for Kerry" campaign, she reportedly has been considering running for Austin Mayor, and her father Dan caused quite a stir a couple of years back when he spoke at a Democratic fundraiser in Austin...which was organized by Robin Rather.
Another big player in the Travis County Democratic Party is Ben Barnes, the scandal-ridden former Texas Lt. Governor. He also is a major player in the Kerry campaign, having donated $500,000. Robin and Ben know each other well.
Robin also just so happens to be the next door neighbor of David Van Os, candidate for the Texas Supreme Court and until this week Bill Burkett's lawyer. And is it a coincidence that according to Dan, Burkett did not approach CBS but rather CBS approached Burkett? Why?
We also know that Newsweek reporter Isikoff interviewed Burkett back in February. This begs the question: how did CBS know to contact Burkett in the first place? And how is it that almost everyone involved in this story is somehow connected to the Travis County Democratic party?
At this writing, there is no proof that Robin Rather was a key player in the connection between CBS/Rather and the DNC/Kerry. But she is a partisan Democrat, she is his daughter, and she did get him to do that fundraiser against his better judgement (assuming that exists...).
If I were a prosecutor who was interested in investigating felony forgeries designed to fix a Presidential election, I know where I would start asking questions...
This chart shows us the connections between CBS, the story, and the DNC. This chart and discussion explains who some of the prominent players are. And at the center of this pie is none other than Dan Rather's daughter, Robin.
Obviously, Robin Rather is very involved in Travis County Democratic politics; she is an official in the "Austin for Kerry" campaign, she reportedly has been considering running for Austin Mayor, and her father Dan caused quite a stir a couple of years back when he spoke at a Democratic fundraiser in Austin...which was organized by Robin Rather.
Another big player in the Travis County Democratic Party is Ben Barnes, the scandal-ridden former Texas Lt. Governor. He also is a major player in the Kerry campaign, having donated $500,000. Robin and Ben know each other well.
Robin also just so happens to be the next door neighbor of David Van Os, candidate for the Texas Supreme Court and until this week Bill Burkett's lawyer. And is it a coincidence that according to Dan, Burkett did not approach CBS but rather CBS approached Burkett? Why?
We also know that Newsweek reporter Isikoff interviewed Burkett back in February. This begs the question: how did CBS know to contact Burkett in the first place? And how is it that almost everyone involved in this story is somehow connected to the Travis County Democratic party?
At this writing, there is no proof that Robin Rather was a key player in the connection between CBS/Rather and the DNC/Kerry. But she is a partisan Democrat, she is his daughter, and she did get him to do that fundraiser against his better judgement (assuming that exists...).
If I were a prosecutor who was interested in investigating felony forgeries designed to fix a Presidential election, I know where I would start asking questions...
Updated Rathergate timeline: clear coordination is indicated
We already reported at length here and here on the CBS/DNC timeline. But now Clarice Feldman has another really interesting take. After reading this, can any reasonable person believe that there has not been continued collusion and coordination between CBS and the DNC, with one goal: to defeat an incumbent President? Almost as egregious: these facts are out there for all to see and are not in dispute; so where is the rest of the mainstream media in connecting these dots? This isn't rocket science...
A major US news organization is caught using the public's airwaves coordinating and orchestrating with the DNC a hit piece against the President, using manufactured evidence, including pre-broadcast press "leaks", etc. Felonies have been committed here. This is a bigger story than Watergate! So why do I still have to click to the Blogosphere in order to read about it? This is every bit as outrageous as is CBS' reprehensible performance.
A major US news organization is caught using the public's airwaves coordinating and orchestrating with the DNC a hit piece against the President, using manufactured evidence, including pre-broadcast press "leaks", etc. Felonies have been committed here. This is a bigger story than Watergate! So why do I still have to click to the Blogosphere in order to read about it? This is every bit as outrageous as is CBS' reprehensible performance.
Kerry's left turn on Iraq: a losing proposition
Former Clinton advisor Dick Morris correctly argues that Kerry's decision to placate his hard left Democratic base by going firmly anti-war (for today, anyway...) will cost him in the center and with Reagan Democrats.
But even more telling is Mark Steyn's latest piece in the UK Spectator. Some highlights (read the whole thing here):
Kerry has spent two months doing everything wrong, beginning with his choice of running mate. His Vietnam nostalgia-night ‘reporting for duty’ convention speech was described by yours truly in the Telegraph as ‘verbose, shapeless, platitudinous, complacent, ill-disciplined, arrogant and humourless’. But most observers seemed to think it was a stroke of genius, and attributed the unprecedented lack of a post-convention poll bounce to the fact that Kerry was so good and so ahead of the game he’d gotten his post-convention bounce before the convention. This is an example of a phenomenon I’ve noted for a couple of years: the principal effect of America’s so-called ‘liberal media bias’ is that the Democratic party and the pro-Democrat press sustain each other’s delusions.
It happened again a week after the convention. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth began their anti-Kerry campaign. The senator’s people assured the media that the charges were all false, the media assured the senator’s people that nobody in the press was going to go near the story. Partly as a result of this insulation from reality, by the end of August the underfunded veterans had driven Kerry’s numbers down, extracted crucial retractions of many of his most celebrated war stories, and forced the candidate into hiding, unable to risk giving an interview even to sympathetic TV softballers.
Desperate for payback for his month of SwiftVet hell, the thin-skinned Kerry demanded that his campaign went on the attack about Bush’s fitful National Guard service back in the Vietnam era. Nobody cares. But Dan Rather and CBS did a big story on whether Bush failed to show up for a physical in the War of 1812, and the Kerry campaign promptly lost most of September because Dan’s case had been built on laughably fake memos supplied as part of a convoluted deal involving the network, a man of dubious mental stability and key Kerry campaign contacts including Joe Lockhart, the former Clinton press secretary who was brought on board to get Kerry out of last month’s mess, not land him in this month’s.
[...] There is an attack dog on the Kerry team. Unfortunately, it’s his wife, and folks don’t like that in a prospective First Lady. Teresa Heinz Kerry dismisses her husband’s critics as ‘idiots’ and ‘scumbags’, and Kerry’s new advisers seem eager to limit her visibility. I’ve lost count of the number of Democrat women who’ve said to me that they can’t stand her.
So that was the state of play in mid-September: a candidate in hiding, a lightweight running-mate way out of his league, and a motor-mouth wife duct-taped and tossed into the cellar.
But October looms and now we’re told Kerry is back in the game, thanks to his bold new stand on Iraq. It contradicts several previous stands, but don’t worry: he plans to hold this one for at least a week or two. ‘Finally, Kerry Takes a Stand,’ cooed an approving headline in the New York Times. The fact that he’s taken a clear stand seems to be more important than the stand he’s taken. But, if you’re interested, his new stand on Iraq is that it’s a disaster and he’ll pull out, beginning next summer.
[...] So, as a crude way of casting a pall over Bush’s optimism, the Kerry tack might be effective. But I can’t see the message itself — ‘We’re losing anyway, so I’ll surrender faster’ — having much appeal to the American people. ‘We must make Iraq the world’s responsibility,’ he says. But, if it’s an American quagmire, why should anyone else get stuck in it?
Even if Kerry’s deft nuanced touch with the Franco-German outreach is as effective as he insists it is, it’s asking a lot to expect them to pick up the slack for what he calls ‘the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time’. ‘Why, Jean, you’re right, mon brave,’ Mr Chirac will say. ‘Your men have died in vain there. It’s only fair that ours should, too.’ And, even if you accept the dubious logic that Franco-German troops would be less provocative to Baathist dead-enders than Anglo-American ones, has Kerry done the math?
Say there are 140,000 US troops in Iraq when he takes office. He announces plans to bring home 10 per cent within two months. By what stretch of the imagination does he think the French and Germans are capable of producing 14,000 troops to replace them? I wrote a column the other day saying the glass in Iraq is about two thirds full. It’s not great, but it’s not as bad as the naysayers suggest.
The bulk of the violence is confined to one province and parts of Baghdad. The majority of Iraq’s provinces are calm. Many have functioning local government, under mainly secular or moderate representatives. There is no ‘civil war’. If there was, the Kurds would already be on their way out the door, since they’ve the most to lose by sticking with a non-functioning Iraq.
If there were 100,000 people agitating against Allawi’s government, CNN and the BBC would be showing it. But there aren’t, so they can’t.
[...] Kerry himself has held every conceivable position on Iraq. His current line is that he wouldn’t have gone near the joint: ‘Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war.’ A year ago, it was: ‘It was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the President made the decision, I supported him.’ Who knows what Kerry really thinks about Iraq? I don’t think he thinks about it much at all. I think he thinks about John Kerry most of the time. That’s one reason he’s such a bore.
But, in so far as one can divine anything from his thin Senate record, it’s a 20-year aversion to the projection of American power in America’s interest. I don’t reckon this is the man, temperamentally or intellectually, to finish the job in Iraq and to face down Iran and North Korea.
[...] And, just in time for the change of policy, comes a new ad from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth focusing on another cheery snapshot from the John Kerry scrapbook of 35 years ago.
This one is about Kerry’s trip to Paris to meet negotiators from the North Vietnamese communist government and the south’s Provisional Revolutionary government. He was a Naval Reserve officer at the time, and many of my correspondents regard it as treason.
I’m not in favour of having Senator Kerry put on trial and executed; soccer moms and other swing voters may see that as over-reaching. But John O’Neill, the Swiftees’ spokesman, says, ‘It would be like an American today meeting with the heads of al-Qa’eda.’
Even if that line doesn’t catch on, the ad is nicely timed with Kerry’s Iraqi withdrawal strategy to paint the senator as the candidate of American defeatism, then and now.
I don’t think there’s a majority for that position in the country or in any of the battleground states. But, if you’re John Kerry’s campaign staff, what else is there?
The Boston Globe had a story this week with the sub-headline: ‘Advisors Strategize To Boost His “Likability”.’ Good luck with that one.
But even more telling is Mark Steyn's latest piece in the UK Spectator. Some highlights (read the whole thing here):
Kerry has spent two months doing everything wrong, beginning with his choice of running mate. His Vietnam nostalgia-night ‘reporting for duty’ convention speech was described by yours truly in the Telegraph as ‘verbose, shapeless, platitudinous, complacent, ill-disciplined, arrogant and humourless’. But most observers seemed to think it was a stroke of genius, and attributed the unprecedented lack of a post-convention poll bounce to the fact that Kerry was so good and so ahead of the game he’d gotten his post-convention bounce before the convention. This is an example of a phenomenon I’ve noted for a couple of years: the principal effect of America’s so-called ‘liberal media bias’ is that the Democratic party and the pro-Democrat press sustain each other’s delusions.
It happened again a week after the convention. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth began their anti-Kerry campaign. The senator’s people assured the media that the charges were all false, the media assured the senator’s people that nobody in the press was going to go near the story. Partly as a result of this insulation from reality, by the end of August the underfunded veterans had driven Kerry’s numbers down, extracted crucial retractions of many of his most celebrated war stories, and forced the candidate into hiding, unable to risk giving an interview even to sympathetic TV softballers.
Desperate for payback for his month of SwiftVet hell, the thin-skinned Kerry demanded that his campaign went on the attack about Bush’s fitful National Guard service back in the Vietnam era. Nobody cares. But Dan Rather and CBS did a big story on whether Bush failed to show up for a physical in the War of 1812, and the Kerry campaign promptly lost most of September because Dan’s case had been built on laughably fake memos supplied as part of a convoluted deal involving the network, a man of dubious mental stability and key Kerry campaign contacts including Joe Lockhart, the former Clinton press secretary who was brought on board to get Kerry out of last month’s mess, not land him in this month’s.
[...] There is an attack dog on the Kerry team. Unfortunately, it’s his wife, and folks don’t like that in a prospective First Lady. Teresa Heinz Kerry dismisses her husband’s critics as ‘idiots’ and ‘scumbags’, and Kerry’s new advisers seem eager to limit her visibility. I’ve lost count of the number of Democrat women who’ve said to me that they can’t stand her.
So that was the state of play in mid-September: a candidate in hiding, a lightweight running-mate way out of his league, and a motor-mouth wife duct-taped and tossed into the cellar.
But October looms and now we’re told Kerry is back in the game, thanks to his bold new stand on Iraq. It contradicts several previous stands, but don’t worry: he plans to hold this one for at least a week or two. ‘Finally, Kerry Takes a Stand,’ cooed an approving headline in the New York Times. The fact that he’s taken a clear stand seems to be more important than the stand he’s taken. But, if you’re interested, his new stand on Iraq is that it’s a disaster and he’ll pull out, beginning next summer.
[...] So, as a crude way of casting a pall over Bush’s optimism, the Kerry tack might be effective. But I can’t see the message itself — ‘We’re losing anyway, so I’ll surrender faster’ — having much appeal to the American people. ‘We must make Iraq the world’s responsibility,’ he says. But, if it’s an American quagmire, why should anyone else get stuck in it?
Even if Kerry’s deft nuanced touch with the Franco-German outreach is as effective as he insists it is, it’s asking a lot to expect them to pick up the slack for what he calls ‘the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time’. ‘Why, Jean, you’re right, mon brave,’ Mr Chirac will say. ‘Your men have died in vain there. It’s only fair that ours should, too.’ And, even if you accept the dubious logic that Franco-German troops would be less provocative to Baathist dead-enders than Anglo-American ones, has Kerry done the math?
Say there are 140,000 US troops in Iraq when he takes office. He announces plans to bring home 10 per cent within two months. By what stretch of the imagination does he think the French and Germans are capable of producing 14,000 troops to replace them? I wrote a column the other day saying the glass in Iraq is about two thirds full. It’s not great, but it’s not as bad as the naysayers suggest.
The bulk of the violence is confined to one province and parts of Baghdad. The majority of Iraq’s provinces are calm. Many have functioning local government, under mainly secular or moderate representatives. There is no ‘civil war’. If there was, the Kurds would already be on their way out the door, since they’ve the most to lose by sticking with a non-functioning Iraq.
If there were 100,000 people agitating against Allawi’s government, CNN and the BBC would be showing it. But there aren’t, so they can’t.
[...] Kerry himself has held every conceivable position on Iraq. His current line is that he wouldn’t have gone near the joint: ‘Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war.’ A year ago, it was: ‘It was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the President made the decision, I supported him.’ Who knows what Kerry really thinks about Iraq? I don’t think he thinks about it much at all. I think he thinks about John Kerry most of the time. That’s one reason he’s such a bore.
But, in so far as one can divine anything from his thin Senate record, it’s a 20-year aversion to the projection of American power in America’s interest. I don’t reckon this is the man, temperamentally or intellectually, to finish the job in Iraq and to face down Iran and North Korea.
[...] And, just in time for the change of policy, comes a new ad from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth focusing on another cheery snapshot from the John Kerry scrapbook of 35 years ago.
This one is about Kerry’s trip to Paris to meet negotiators from the North Vietnamese communist government and the south’s Provisional Revolutionary government. He was a Naval Reserve officer at the time, and many of my correspondents regard it as treason.
I’m not in favour of having Senator Kerry put on trial and executed; soccer moms and other swing voters may see that as over-reaching. But John O’Neill, the Swiftees’ spokesman, says, ‘It would be like an American today meeting with the heads of al-Qa’eda.’
Even if that line doesn’t catch on, the ad is nicely timed with Kerry’s Iraqi withdrawal strategy to paint the senator as the candidate of American defeatism, then and now.
I don’t think there’s a majority for that position in the country or in any of the battleground states. But, if you’re John Kerry’s campaign staff, what else is there?
The Boston Globe had a story this week with the sub-headline: ‘Advisors Strategize To Boost His “Likability”.’ Good luck with that one.
Ann Coulter on Dan Rather: Fairly Unbalanced
As usual, Ann does not mince words. Her biting, hilarious sarcasm takes no prisoners. Some highlights:
[...] A basic canon of journalism is not to place all your faith in a lunatic stuck on something that happened years ago who hates the target of your story and has been babbling nonsense about him for years. And that's true even if you yourself are a lunatic stuck on something that happened years ago (an on-air paddling from Bush 41) who hates the target of your own story and has been babbling nonsense about him for years, Dan.
CBS' sole source authenticating the forged National Guard documents is Bill Burkett, who's about as sane as Margot Kidder was when they dragged her filthy, toothless butt out of somebody's shrubs a few years back. Burkett has compared Bush to Hitler and Napoleon, and rambles on about Bush's "demonic personality shortcomings." (This would put Burkett on roughly the same page as Al Gore.)
According to USA Today, an interview with Burkett ended when he "suffered a violent seizure and collapsed in his chair" – an exit strategy Dan Rather has been eyeing hungrily all week, I'm sure. Burkett admits to having nervous breakdowns and having been hospitalized for depression.
[...] Whoever forged these documents should not only be criminally prosecuted, but should also have his driver's license taken away for the stupidity of using Microsoft Word to forge 1971 documents.
And yet this was the evidence CBS relied on to accuse a sitting president of a court martial-level offense 50 days before a presidential election.
As of Sept. 20, Dan Rather says he still believes the documents are genuine and says he wants to be the one to break the story if the documents are fake. (Dan might want to attend to that story after his exclusive report on the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.) Rather is also eagerly awaiting some other documents Burkett says he has that prove Bush is a brainwashed North Korean spy.
[...] Liberals keep telling us to "move on" from the CBS scandal – which means we're really onto something. They act surprised and insist this incident was a freak occurrence – an unfortunate mistake in the twilight of a great newsman's career.
[...] CBS was attempting to manipulate a presidential election in wartime. What if CBS had used better forgeries? What if – like Bush's 30-year-old DUI charge – the media had waited 72 hours before the election to air this character assassination?
[...] Even the New York Times had to stop ignoring the No. 1 book on its own best-seller list, "Unfit for Command," in order to run front-page articles attacking the Swift Boat Veterans.
The "Today" show has given Kitty Kelley a chair next to Katie Couric until Election Day. (It's now Day Seven of Kelley's refusal to produce records concerning charges that she is in the final stages of syphilitic dementia.) At least they're more likely to get the truth in Kitty Kelley's book than in Doug Brinkley's "Tour of Duty." But Katie hasn't had time to interview the Swift Boat veterans.
CBS showcased laughable forgeries obtained from a man literally foaming at the mouth in order to accuse the president of malfeasance. But CBS would never put a single one of the 264 Vietnam veterans on the air to say what they knew about Kerry.
[...] A basic canon of journalism is not to place all your faith in a lunatic stuck on something that happened years ago who hates the target of your story and has been babbling nonsense about him for years. And that's true even if you yourself are a lunatic stuck on something that happened years ago (an on-air paddling from Bush 41) who hates the target of your own story and has been babbling nonsense about him for years, Dan.
CBS' sole source authenticating the forged National Guard documents is Bill Burkett, who's about as sane as Margot Kidder was when they dragged her filthy, toothless butt out of somebody's shrubs a few years back. Burkett has compared Bush to Hitler and Napoleon, and rambles on about Bush's "demonic personality shortcomings." (This would put Burkett on roughly the same page as Al Gore.)
According to USA Today, an interview with Burkett ended when he "suffered a violent seizure and collapsed in his chair" – an exit strategy Dan Rather has been eyeing hungrily all week, I'm sure. Burkett admits to having nervous breakdowns and having been hospitalized for depression.
[...] Whoever forged these documents should not only be criminally prosecuted, but should also have his driver's license taken away for the stupidity of using Microsoft Word to forge 1971 documents.
And yet this was the evidence CBS relied on to accuse a sitting president of a court martial-level offense 50 days before a presidential election.
As of Sept. 20, Dan Rather says he still believes the documents are genuine and says he wants to be the one to break the story if the documents are fake. (Dan might want to attend to that story after his exclusive report on the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.) Rather is also eagerly awaiting some other documents Burkett says he has that prove Bush is a brainwashed North Korean spy.
[...] Liberals keep telling us to "move on" from the CBS scandal – which means we're really onto something. They act surprised and insist this incident was a freak occurrence – an unfortunate mistake in the twilight of a great newsman's career.
[...] CBS was attempting to manipulate a presidential election in wartime. What if CBS had used better forgeries? What if – like Bush's 30-year-old DUI charge – the media had waited 72 hours before the election to air this character assassination?
[...] Even the New York Times had to stop ignoring the No. 1 book on its own best-seller list, "Unfit for Command," in order to run front-page articles attacking the Swift Boat Veterans.
The "Today" show has given Kitty Kelley a chair next to Katie Couric until Election Day. (It's now Day Seven of Kelley's refusal to produce records concerning charges that she is in the final stages of syphilitic dementia.) At least they're more likely to get the truth in Kitty Kelley's book than in Doug Brinkley's "Tour of Duty." But Katie hasn't had time to interview the Swift Boat veterans.
CBS showcased laughable forgeries obtained from a man literally foaming at the mouth in order to accuse the president of malfeasance. But CBS would never put a single one of the 264 Vietnam veterans on the air to say what they knew about Kerry.
Robert Ariail, The Slate (SC)
Viacom CEO: CBS "Consequences will be appropriate"
The CEO of Viacom, the parent company of CBS weighed in today on Rathergate.
The Hypocrisy of the Mainstream Media
Ross Mackenzie offers us a brilliant illustration of the double standards of the mainstream:
Let us count the ways.
Kerry, medaled several times over, made his service in Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign. By contrast, Bush's Guard service has been held up as somehow deficient, the consequence of rich-boy favoritism that kept him out of the Vietnam action. Though Bush was honorably discharged, his Guard service has been a factor in all his political campaigns, yet never more than in this one. Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe - appointed to the post by Bill Clinton - insists Bush has lied about his Guard years and served dishonorably.
With Kerry heading toward the Democratic nomination, the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was launched. Many Swiftees who served at the time Kerry served have taken issue with not only his military record but also his highly visible peacenik activities beginning in the early 1970s. Swift Boat commander John O'Neill has written a bestselling book (Unfit for Command) about Kerry's war and postwar activities. Recently, American POWs have told how Kerry, Jane Fonda, and others extended both the war and the POWs' time in the camps.
How odd, though, that what the Swiftees and POWs have said has been accorded little credence, and correspondingly little serious attention, in the mainline press - especially by network television. For instance, Kitty Kelley's disastrous book about the Bush family received lengthy coverage by, especially, NBC while O'Neill's book, at least until recently, received practically none.
Bush's Guard records have been the subjects of consuming mainline-press attention, while Kerry's largely unseen records have been accepted on faith. And Kerry's refusal to sign military form No. 180, authorizing release of perhaps 100 pages of his military records, encounters little objection. Why?
Questions about those records abound. What's the truth about the Purple Hearts? Former Navy Secretary John Lehman says he never saw, approved, or signed the Silver Star citation that appears over Lehman's signature on the Kerry Website. Kerry claims to have a Silver Star with combat V - a medal not in the Pentagon inventory of military decorations, a medal the Navy insists it never has issued to anyone. Moreover, if that and his other medals are so important to Kerry, then why did he throw them away (or did he?) at about the time he was calling American service in Vietnam "criminal"?
To such entities as CBS, why are Bush's service records so important when Kerry's evidently are not?
Then there's the 527 tie. When the Swiftees, with almost no money, started making waves, the Kerry campaign, seemingly in tandem with the mainline press, charged the Swiftees were but a front-group for the Bush campaign. Yet curiously, until this week - with suggestions of an incestuous relationship between CBS and the Kerry campaign (through Clintonite Joe Lockhart) - little coverage or attention has been given to the possible links between the Kerry campaign and Texans for Truth. It is a 527 group possibly linked to the Rather memos and apparently funded by George Soros and viciously anti-Bush leftist lobbies.
The Rather memos are but the latest example of operative double standards greatly harsher toward Bush than Kerry. They raise the question: Is the name CBS News or CBS Sabotage? Has Rather's ideology killed his objectivity, and along with it the credibility of CBS?
The mainline, usually leftist, press is being upended by the very press freedom it purports to espouse. That freedom has led to an exploding alternative press, particularly on the Internet, often rife with rumor but now serving as a check on the mainline press with news mainline reporters cannot ignore.
Beyond Internet bloggers, press freedom has forced a greater ideological honesty on the part of mainline outlets through fractionalization elsewhere. Examples: talk radio (where leftists cannot seem to get even a toehold), cable television (Fox News lopes well ahead of its rivals), and book publishers publishing titles that formerly never would have seen daylight now on bestseller lists. (Why is there so little outrage that Clintonite Kerry advisers Paul Begala and James Carville are continuing as mainstays on CNN? How is it that refugees from Democratic administrations routinely land as stalwarts on network news shows?) Dan Rather's outrageous display of ideological irresponsibility has highlighted yet again the double standards and has driven yet another - the final? - nail into the coffin of the once-proud mainline press.
Let us count the ways.
Kerry, medaled several times over, made his service in Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign. By contrast, Bush's Guard service has been held up as somehow deficient, the consequence of rich-boy favoritism that kept him out of the Vietnam action. Though Bush was honorably discharged, his Guard service has been a factor in all his political campaigns, yet never more than in this one. Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe - appointed to the post by Bill Clinton - insists Bush has lied about his Guard years and served dishonorably.
With Kerry heading toward the Democratic nomination, the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was launched. Many Swiftees who served at the time Kerry served have taken issue with not only his military record but also his highly visible peacenik activities beginning in the early 1970s. Swift Boat commander John O'Neill has written a bestselling book (Unfit for Command) about Kerry's war and postwar activities. Recently, American POWs have told how Kerry, Jane Fonda, and others extended both the war and the POWs' time in the camps.
How odd, though, that what the Swiftees and POWs have said has been accorded little credence, and correspondingly little serious attention, in the mainline press - especially by network television. For instance, Kitty Kelley's disastrous book about the Bush family received lengthy coverage by, especially, NBC while O'Neill's book, at least until recently, received practically none.
Bush's Guard records have been the subjects of consuming mainline-press attention, while Kerry's largely unseen records have been accepted on faith. And Kerry's refusal to sign military form No. 180, authorizing release of perhaps 100 pages of his military records, encounters little objection. Why?
Questions about those records abound. What's the truth about the Purple Hearts? Former Navy Secretary John Lehman says he never saw, approved, or signed the Silver Star citation that appears over Lehman's signature on the Kerry Website. Kerry claims to have a Silver Star with combat V - a medal not in the Pentagon inventory of military decorations, a medal the Navy insists it never has issued to anyone. Moreover, if that and his other medals are so important to Kerry, then why did he throw them away (or did he?) at about the time he was calling American service in Vietnam "criminal"?
To such entities as CBS, why are Bush's service records so important when Kerry's evidently are not?
Then there's the 527 tie. When the Swiftees, with almost no money, started making waves, the Kerry campaign, seemingly in tandem with the mainline press, charged the Swiftees were but a front-group for the Bush campaign. Yet curiously, until this week - with suggestions of an incestuous relationship between CBS and the Kerry campaign (through Clintonite Joe Lockhart) - little coverage or attention has been given to the possible links between the Kerry campaign and Texans for Truth. It is a 527 group possibly linked to the Rather memos and apparently funded by George Soros and viciously anti-Bush leftist lobbies.
The Rather memos are but the latest example of operative double standards greatly harsher toward Bush than Kerry. They raise the question: Is the name CBS News or CBS Sabotage? Has Rather's ideology killed his objectivity, and along with it the credibility of CBS?
The mainline, usually leftist, press is being upended by the very press freedom it purports to espouse. That freedom has led to an exploding alternative press, particularly on the Internet, often rife with rumor but now serving as a check on the mainline press with news mainline reporters cannot ignore.
Beyond Internet bloggers, press freedom has forced a greater ideological honesty on the part of mainline outlets through fractionalization elsewhere. Examples: talk radio (where leftists cannot seem to get even a toehold), cable television (Fox News lopes well ahead of its rivals), and book publishers publishing titles that formerly never would have seen daylight now on bestseller lists. (Why is there so little outrage that Clintonite Kerry advisers Paul Begala and James Carville are continuing as mainstays on CNN? How is it that refugees from Democratic administrations routinely land as stalwarts on network news shows?) Dan Rather's outrageous display of ideological irresponsibility has highlighted yet again the double standards and has driven yet another - the final? - nail into the coffin of the once-proud mainline press.
