Thursday, October 14, 2004

If Desperate Dems' Mouse-Clicks Could Elect Kerry ...

Daily Kos directs his readers to this list on Democratic Underground, saying "DU has a constantly updated list of polls to freep. Use it."

Why should they bother? Like schoolkids stuffing the ballot box for class president, the legions of bored, lonely Kool-Aid-drinkers out there have already pumped up the numbers for Kerry on the online "polls" to Stalin-like effect. Even Fox News' "poll" showed Kerry up 60-39 at midnight. CBS "News" had Kerry winning the debate by 85.18%-14.26%. Puh-lease!

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

Media Let You Know Who 'Won' the Debate

Wise County, Virginia's "My Wise County" wins the Google sweepstakes as the first media outlet to declare Wednesday's final debate a victory for John Kerry. It's unbiased editorial voice notes: "No incumbent president has been viewed as loosing consistently loosing [sic] debate appearances with his challenger and subsequently winning the election."

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

Freedom Wins. Terrorists Lose. (MSM Snoozes)

"The Taliban burned my house, they kicked us out of (Raban). Now I have freedom. I'm standing in front of you and voting. Of course my life has been changed."

I hear voter turnout was high -- for Afghanistan's first election in 5,000 years!

Wednesday, October 06, 2004

Dems' Risky 'No Saddam-Al Qaeda Connection' Strategy

Is anyone outside of the Hate-Bush crowd buying the Democrats' talking point about there being absolutely no connection whatsoever between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda? Read this excellent piece in the Weekly Standard and then decide. I've heard liberals over and over again say that the 9/11 Commission report concluded that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks -- but the report itself cites contacts between Iraqi intelligence and Al Qaeda.

Now, we'll never know the true extent of the coordination between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden in the years and months leading up to the 9/11 attacks. But it seems reasonable to conclude that, since we know there were contacts between the two groups, that their common enemies -- the United States and Israel -- were discussed. So what political advantage is there to drawing the opposite conclusion -- that the contacts between Saddam and Al Qaeda amount to nothing and Saddam was somehow an innocent victim of imperialist America?

The Democrats are advancing the Hate-America position: Saddam didn't do anything to hurt us; President Halliburton was after the oil; now Kerry has to clean up the mess in Iraq. My question is: Don't you have to already hate President Bush in order to buy that line of argument?

Sunday, October 03, 2004

The End of the World As They Know It

Tom Brokaw on Rathergate: "What I think is highly inappropriate is what going on across the Internet, a kind of political jihad ... that is quite outrageous."

It's possible that Rather, Brokaw and Jennings greatly resent the fact that they have gone from being the country's most influential opinion leaders to being largely irrelevant. Their own arrogance led them to fill their newsrooms with unapologetically leftist producers and reporters, and then to scoff at any suggestion that they might be biased, has led them to this. Now, in the twilight of their careers, they can only sit helplessly and watch Fox News' ratings steadily improve and watch their own networks' slanted reporting being brutally fisked by the blogosphere.

Friday, October 01, 2004

If You're Against the War, Then Kerry 'Won' the Debate

The W re-election site has the full breakdown on Kerry's statements. My biggest concern with President Bush's performance last night is that I wish he hadn't allowed Kerry to drive a wedge between the war in Iraq and the wider war on terror. The new Democrat talking points has the war in Iraq as a "distraction" from "bringing Osama bin Laden to justice." I would have liked to see that line of reasoning challenged more directly.

Now, I don't want Osama "brought to justice." I want him to wind up a greasy spot on a mountainside in Afghanistan. I want there to be a smoking hole in the ground where he once stood. But, more importantly, it is unthinkable that we should elect a President who doesn't understand the fundamental truths about the war we are engaged in. We are not undertaking a simple operation to find Osama. We are engaged in a war against Islamofascism in all of its forms. We must eliminate those who support it. We must deny it sources of recruitment and supply, we must attack it militarily and ideologically. Oh, there will be those who hate us, and they must be taught the hard way to keep their heads down and their mouths shut.

Consider what the world might be like today if the strategic thinking of John Kerry and Michael Moore had been in place since September 11. Let's say that the entirety of our war on terror was simply the hunt for bin Laden. (And put aside for a moment the fact that those against the war were certain that we would be bogged down in an Afghan quagmire -- they won't ever admit it but they were wrong, and there's no point in debating it further.) At this point in time Saddam Hussein would be the focal point of the anti-American world. His regime would be the most visible, standing in defiance of the United States. He would be many times more powerful than he ever was, and his support for Al Qaeda and every other group of terrorists would be solidified. State-sponsored terrorism would have advanced to an entirely new level.

And as for Kerry's assertion that the 9/11 Commission found no connection between Saddam Hussein and the events of September 11 -- the fact that he is choosing to make it a central point in his foreign policy position makes him all the less suitable to be commander-in-chief. Saddam might not have known what was going down and when, but his connection to and complicity with Al Qaeda and numerous other groups of wild-eyed killers is well established. To say that Saddam was innocent because he didn't know exactly when or how America was going to be attacked is indefensible. Plus, as with other Islamofascist groups, I suppose Democrats consider it to be okay so long as he only supports killing Israeli Jews, and then only a few at a time. Saddam was a sponsor of terrorism, and now he's in a jail cell. Iraqis may grow to love America, or they may hate us forever -- it doesn't matter. We have denied the Islamofascist movement a strategic base. That's why we're there, and why we're not leaving.

Thursday, September 30, 2004

Kerry Declares Himself 'Brave' For Dishonoring America

As will tell you, John Kerry wasn't just brave for fighting in Vietnam, he was brave for 'standing up' against the 'failed' Vietnam War. Kerry's 'Rapid Response' factory says it's dishonorable and dishonest for the Swift Boat Veterans or anyone else to criticize him for 'standing up out of conviction against a war that was wrong.'

Read all that Kerry has to say about his Vietnam protestor days, and you'll never come across his rationale for why the Vietnam War was wrong. No explanation is necessary, it seems. History is written by the victors, and clearly the anti-war left 'won' the war, so why explain?

Apparently, Kerry's primary objections to the war boil down to 1) American servicemen were getting killed there, and 2) American servicemen and their leaders at all levels were complicit in war crimes.

The first rationale gives us great insight into what a nightmare of a commander-in-chief John Kerry would be. Does Kerry believe that World War II was 'wrong' because 1,600 Americans died in the Battle of Guadalcanal? How many casualties does it take to make a war wrong or right, in Kerry's view? Kerry's website repeats his shameful line: "How can you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" But for the Vietnam War to be a 'mistake,' isn't it necessary for the United States to be 'wrong' and the Communists to be 'right?'

As to the second, Kerry brings shame and dishonor on himself for even trying to defend his remarks. See the Winter Solder website for the full story. The point is, Kerry didn't just say that a few bad things happened in Vietnam, he tried to color the entire U.S. military as bloodthirsty murderers. War crimes were the U.S. policy in Vietnam, he said. Now his website cites as proof of his statements a news story in the Toledo Blade that said a few soldiers in Vietnam engaged in atrocities, and some comments by Gen. Tommy Franks that a few soldiers in Vietnam probably engaged in atrocities. Meanwhile, Kerry was a leader, fund-raiser, and spokesman for Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), an organization that staged mock mass murders of civilians to dramatize American atrocities, and handed out flyers that read "if you had been Vietnamese" American infantrymen might have "burned your house" or "raped your wife and daughter" and "American soldiers do these things every day to the Vietnamese simply because they are 'Gooks.'" That's the real John Kerry.

As Panic Sets In, Kos Compares President Bush to an Ape

Daily Kos goes on and on about how President Bush winks on occasion (a "non-verbal tic," the result of him being the "long-term descendant" of an ape). I suppose there's a point to it, other than a good idea for a Presidential Debate drinking game. But what I read into it is the sinking realization that John Kerry has already lost the election.

Kerry has been trying to refine his position on Iraq, and has made quite a mess. In his last big TV interview, he tried to push the idea that, knowing what we know now, invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do. But decisions aren't made in hindsight. Knowing what we knew then, it was the right thing to do, and Kerry has said so! This debate tonight will be Kerry's last real chance to make any progress on the Iraq issue. He's got one shot, that's it.

Wednesday, September 29, 2004

Allah's Wrath Is Upon Them

Saudi TV asks the man in the street, 'Would You, as a Human Being, be Willing to Shake Hands with a Jew?' Unfortunately, you won't be terribly surprised by the answers to that question. (Hat tip to, who else, Allah hisself.)

Now Liberals Say CBS is Biased -- For Bush! says CBS is "buckling under pressure from the right" by dropping a story based on "new revelations" about the Bush Administration's documentation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger. Daily Kos froths at the mouth over it, and suggests that CBS send the tape to Michael Moore so he can append it to the DVD release of "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Now, if you can stop laughing over the idea that the "right" has any leverage whatsoever over CBS News' coverage, you'll remember that we fought this battle once already. And, no matter what CBS does or doesn't have (more surprise documents?), U.S. and British intelligence reports established that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999, and since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, it isn't hard for reasonable people to conclude what was on the meeting's agenda. Then, the Democrats tried to foist upon us Joseph C. Wilson IV and his "fact-finding" mission to Niger as the "smoking gun" that proved President Bush "lied" about Saddam shopping for yellowcake. That was, until Wilson ran out of credibility. The Democrats even started up a website for Wilson called -- and now if you click on it it redirects to! The summary of the CBS story on Daily Kos has CBS citing Wilson's report as proof there was no Iraqi connection!

What's more likely is that the higher-ups at CBS News pulled the plug on a ham-fisted hatchet-job on President Bush. If what's on Kos is really a summary of the CBS "story," they really should just let Michael Moore run the news for them.

CBS Should Just Let Michael Moore Do The 'News'

From NRO's Kerry Spot and
Last night, [CBS News] reported on the bogus "Bush will restore the draft" rumor. In a story that was a textbook example of slipshod reporting, CBS reporter Richard Schlesinger used debunked internet hoax emails and an unlabeled interest group member to scare elderly "Evening" viewers into believing that the U.S. government is poised to resume the draft.

At the center of Schlesinger's piece was a woman named Beverly Cocco, a Philadelphia woman who is "sick to my stomach" that her two sons might be drafted. In his report, Schlesinger claimed that Cocco was a Republican and portrayed her as an apolitical (even Republican) mom worried about the future. Schlesinger did not disclose that Cocco is a chapter president of an advocacy group called People Against the Draft (PAD) which, in addition to opposing any federal proscription, seeks to establish a "peaceful, rational foreign policy" by bringing all U.S. troops out of Iraq. Like Schlesinger's Cocco, the group portrays itself as "nonpartisan"although its leadership seems to be entirely bereft of any Republicans. The group's domain is registered to a man named Jacob Levich, a left-wing activist who in a 2001 essay compared the Bush Administration to the totalitarian government portrayed in George Orwell's 1984.
Since Viacom isn't even considering lowering the boom on Dan Rather, it's clear that the entirely biased news department at CBS has declared open season on President Bush. "Bias" is too mild a word for it. "Bias" would imply a small degree of favoritism -- this is nothing less than out-and-out partisanship.

Tuesday, September 28, 2004

The Coup That Wasn't, Except In Liberals' Fantasies

Daily Kos is making hay about a Vanity Fair article: Apparently, some anonymous but supposedly authentic former Supreme Court clerks commented on the Bush v. Gore deliberations. The piece (which Kos admits to not having read) "apparently suggests that Scalia, O'Connor and Kennedy were all determined to find a way to get Bush elected, damned be the law." He goes on, of course, to say: "It was a coup. And in such an environment, the American public has a right to know how a group of unelected officials threw away jurisprudence in favor of partisan rationalization to thwart the will of the electorate."

It is disturbing how often this line of reasoning comes up. Mostly, you can find it on liberal blogs and websites, where liberals talk to one another rather than the outside world. There, it's taken as read that President Bush was "selected, not elected" through a Supreme Court "coup."

That begs the question, do liberals really think that a coup occurred, and what do they propose to do about it?

Actually, from reading their blogs and websites, it becomes clear that they're just using the word "coup" to show off and talk tough. Oh, if a mob happened to march up the street, waving the red banner and stringing up Republicans, they might join in. But they're not going to start a riot all by themselves.

And they can't go too far in their criticism, since liberals often find the courts quite useful. After all, when the Florida Supreme Court was rewriting the state's election law after the election, the rule of law was sacrosanct. Hail, Mighty Justice! When things didn't go their way in the U.S. Supreme Court, of course, it was a coup. But there's always tomorrow.

Now, if you would prefer to make up your own mind on this topic, here is the place to conduct your research: in FindLaw's Constitutional Law Center, you'll find the full Supreme Court opinion, the transcripts of the oral argument, the briefs filed by both sides, etc. Scroll down to case 00-949, Bush v. Gore. For a "coup," it was surprisingly well documented.

Friday, September 24, 2004

Michael Moore's 'Fahrenheit' Follies

Wanted to see if the looming likelihood of President Bush's re-election was causing any more psychotic episodes, and found his supposed point-by-point support for the things he said in 'Fahrenheit 9/11.' I figured, okay, let's see your documentation.

The very first 'fact' Moore wants to prove is this statement: 'Fox was the first network to call Florida for Bush. Before that, some other networks had called Florida for Gore, and they changed after Fox called it for Bush.' To back it up, Moore links to this document, which turns out to be CNN's internal report on its election night coverage.

Here's the fun part: Moore's statement is wrong, and the documentation he provides proves it. First, the networks called the election in Florida for Gore (even though the polls were still open in the Panhandle). By 8:02 p.m., all five networks and the AP had called it for Gore. Then more data started coming in, and by 10:16 p.m. all of the networks have retracted their calls for Gore. All five! Then when the numbers show Bush the winner, Fox only beats NBC in making the call by one minute. So the other networks didn't change their calls for Gore after Fox called it for Bush. They had all already retracted their calls for Gore. Some kind of 'warroom' you've got there, Mike!

People who enjoyed 'Fahrenheit' shouldn't read Moore's documentation, because it shows just how much he isn't telling them. Fox, looking at the same Voter News Service data that all the other networks had, merely made the call one minute before NBC. That kind of sticks a fork in Moore's next piece of conspiracy evidence, that Fox News' John Ellis is a Bush cousin. Moore actually wants people to believe that the Bush "coup" was accomplished in one minute, at 2:15 a.m. Moore shouldn't have wasted time and effort on his 'warroom' -- clearly the people who watched the movie don't care, and he doesn't care about the truth, anyway.

Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the Texas Air National Guard

Col. John H. Wambough, Jr. USAF (Ret.) breaks it down, in great detail. Bottom line: Lt. Bush's six-year Guard contract required him to earn 300 points (50 per year). He accumulated 954, and was honorably discharged. Case closed.

In looking at the Rathergate story, you have to ask: Why did CBS think the Bush/TexANG 'story' was newsworthy. After all, there really wasn't much contained in the CBS News story that had not already been 'reported' by Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose in 2000 in 'Shrub : The Short but Happy Political Life of George W. Bush.' All of the 'Bush got special treatment' and 'Where was Bush in 1972?' angles got worked over back then -- what makes them newsworthy now? The only 'news' was the documents, which turned out to be forgeries. Now the journalists who so desperately want to see President Bush defeated are trying to rehash old rumors, and coming up dry. And we'll see just how aggressively they work the Bill Burkett-Joe Lockhart story. In the meantime, read what Colonel Wambough has to say, then decide for yourself whether or not this is a real campaign issue.

Go Cry to Mommy!

Washington Post: 'Tying Kerry to Terror Tests Rhetorical Limits'
President Bush and leading Republicans are increasingly charging that Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry and others in his party are giving comfort to terrorists and undermining the war in Iraq -- a line of attack that tests the conventional bounds of political rhetoric.
Oh, really? It 'tests the conventional bounds of political rhetoric?' The story's author even reaches for comparisons to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 and (naturally) Joe McCarthy. What's really causing the Democrats to get their panties in a wad is the remarks yesterday before Congress by interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, who made it clear that our Islamofascist enemies in Iraq are part of or allied with Al-Qaeda. This runs counter to John Kerry's talking points.

Josh Marshall had this to say about the Post article: "Can we re-check the sprinkler system in the Reichstag?" Puh-lease! In the same post, he first whines that the Republicans are using an unfair argument -- and then he calls them Nazis!

Thursday, September 23, 2004

Democrats' Strategy for Losing the Election, Continued

Big story in the Wall Street Journal today about how John Kerry is shifting the focus of his campaign from the economy to Iraq:
"The Kerry camp will seek to sever the Iraq war in the public's mind from the broader war on terror, where polls give Mr. Bush an edge. And the Kerry camp now sees a need to refurbish the candidate's national-security credentials tarnished during the Swift Boat controversy. In sum, Mr. Kerry is attempting a delicate balance: energizing antiwar voters by criticizing the invasion, while comforting security-conscious voters by arguing he could better manage the fallout."
This will be quite a feat, seeing as how Kerry already came out and said that he agrees it was the right decision to go to war in Iraq. And in the primaries he said: "Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president." Now he's walking a very fine line, indeed. Team Kerry wants to, somehow, narrow the issue down to the management of the post-invasion Operation Iraqi Freedom, and divorce that issue from the war on terror even though we're capturing Al-Qaeda and other Islamofascists there.

I think the Kerry camp thinks it's 1971 all over again. They think Americans are weary of war. After all, people hear every day about U.S. casualties, and like Vietnam it's a war in a faraway place. As the anti-war crowd of Kerry's generation liked to say, it's not like the Vietcong are going to invade California. But I think they've underestimated the American public's resolve to win the war on terror. I don't think people have forgotten the sight of bodies being pulled from a smoking hole in the Pentagon.

At the end of the story, the Wall Street Journal says: "Roughly three in 10 Americans staunchly support the Iraq war, and three in 10 consistently oppose it. But on this issue, the views of the largest group -- roughly 40% of the American electorate -- are mixed. That large group with mixed views backs Mr. Bush at the moment, by 48% to 35%."

Wednesday, September 22, 2004

Clinging to Conspiracy Theories

Based on what Lt. Col. Killian's secretary has to say, Daily Kos claims "it is obvious that the disputed documents are based on actual documents typed by Mrs. Knox and that whoever wrote them must have had a copy of what she typed. If that person had been a Democrat wanting to discredit George W. Bush he/she could have just used copies of the official documents instead of going through the elaborate process of creating new ones to pass on to Bill Burkett." He thinks Burkett was "set up" by someone.

With just days left before the election, there are liberals out there clinging to the idea that there is documentation for all of their pet theories about Lt. Bush of 1972. Kos goes on: "If the documents were a dirty tricks plant job we will probably know it sooner rather than later."

Because it couldn't have just been mainstream media bias run amok. That's not possible. Karl Rove must have used the Dark Side of the Force, again.

Meanwhile, there is actual evidence of a conspiracy running in the other direction -- the get-Bush direction. NewsMax is reporting that the Kerry campaign attacked President Bush's National Guard service back in April by citing information contained in the forged 1972 Killian memo.

Tuesday, September 21, 2004

As If CBS Would Blame Dan Rather

Dan Rather is CBS News' managing editor, but don't expect the buck to stop at his desk. They're going to throw producer Mary Mapes overboard.
Mapes, 48, was described by colleagues on Tuesday as a dogged and talented journalist who made no secret of her liberal political beliefs. . . .

Mapes was "quite liberal" and disliked the current President Bush's father, [conservative talk show host John Carlson] said.

"She definitely was someone who was motivated by what she cared about and definitely went into journalism to make a difference," Carlson said. "She's not the sort of person who went into journalism to report the news and offer an array of commentary."
You just wish it was a surprise that CBS News was being run by people who were not quite so transparently partisan.

Michael Moore Tells It Like It Is

And now, we take you inside the fevered mind of Michael Moore:
If I hear one more person tell me how lousy a candidate Kerry is and how he can't win... Dammit, of COURSE he's a lousy candidate -- he's a Democrat, for heavens sake! That party is so pathetic, they even lose the elections they win! What were you expecting, Bruce Springsteen heading up the ticket? Bruce would make a helluva president, but guys like him don't run -- and neither do you or I. People like Kerry run.

Yes, OF COURSE any of us would have run a better, smarter, kick-ass campaign. Of course we would have smacked each and every one of those phony swifty boaty bastards down. But WE are not running for president -- Kerry is.

MSM Dives Back Into The 'Real' Bush Story

Thinking that Dan Rather's 'apology' was good enough, the mainstream media is trying to reopen the Bush/TexANG story and the New York Times leads off with a winding piece about Bush's 'lost' year of 1972: Portrait of George Bush in '72: Unanchored in Turbulent Time.
This year of inconsequence has grown increasingly consequential for President Bush because of persistent, unanswered questions about his National Guard service - why he failed to take his pilot's physical and whether he fulfilled his commitment to the Guard. If anything, those issues became still murkier this past week, with the controversy over the authenticity of four documents disclosed by CBS News and its program "60 Minutes" purporting to shed light on that Guard record.

Still, a wider examination of his life in 1972, based on dozens of interviews and other documents released by the White House over the years, yields a portrait of a young man like many other young men of privilege in that turbulent time - entitled, unanchored and safe from combat, bouncing from a National Guard slot made possible by his family's prominence to a political job arranged through his father.
Unless the MSM can come up with something more, it would seem that all the ammunition against Bush has been expended. Note that the Times couldn't even bring itself to say something stronger about the fake documents except that there is "contrroversity over the authenticity" of the fake documents, which are fake.

Is there anything that would convince a swing voter, who has seen President Bush in action over the last four years, to vote for Kerry instead? This is pretty thin gruel for the Hate-Bush crowd.