Virginia Patriots

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

2004-10-14T01:21:00.000-04:00

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!

Media Let You Know Who 'Won' the Debate

2004-10-13T23:40:00.000-04:00

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."

Freedom Wins. Terrorists Lose. (MSM Snoozes)

2004-10-12T21:07:00.000-04:00

"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!

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

2004-10-06T00:08:00.000-04:00

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?

The End of the World As They Know It

2004-10-03T14:30:00.000-04:00

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.

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

2004-10-01T13:31:00.000-04:00

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.

Kerry Declares Himself 'Brave' For Dishonoring America

2004-09-30T11:30:00.000-04:00

As JohnKerry.com 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

2004-09-30T09:51:00.000-04:00

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.

Allah's Wrath Is Upon Them

2004-09-29T10:44:00.000-04:00

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!

2004-09-29T10:21:00.000-04:00

MoveOn.org 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 RestoreHonesty.com -- and now if you click on it it redirects to JohnKerry.com! 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'

2004-09-29T09:35:00.000-04:00

From NRO's Kerry Spot and RatherBiased.com:

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.

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

2004-09-28T13:40:00.000-04:00

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.

Michael Moore's 'Fahrenheit' Follies

2004-09-24T14:15:00.000-04:00

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

2004-09-24T13:49:00.000-04:00

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!

2004-09-24T09:03:00.000-04:00

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!

Democrats' Strategy for Losing the Election, Continued

2004-09-23T09:26:00.000-04:00

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%."

Clinging to Conspiracy Theories

2004-09-22T09:50:00.000-04:00

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.

As If CBS Would Blame Dan Rather

2004-09-21T21:43:00.000-04:00

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

2004-09-21T18:51:00.000-04:00

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

2004-09-21T10:43:00.000-04:00

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.

Dan Rather: 'We Made a Mistake in Judgment'

2004-09-20T13:25:00.000-04:00

A statement from Dan Rather of CBS News:

"Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a 60 MINUTES WEDNESDAY story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question -- and their source -- vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.

"Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where -- if I knew then what I know now -- I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.

"But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.

"Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully.

I will give CBS credit for not trying to reiterate their "but the story is really about President Bush" line in the statement. But fact it, this falls well short of what CBS would need to say in order to rebuild its credibility -- that statement would have read, "Dan Rather fired, and the memos are fake. Sorry." It might be all we can get out of CBS, but it's just not good enough.

Even the Washington Post couldn't let Rather off scot free:

"There was no immediate explanation of how CBS was "misled" by its source, whose identity the network did not disclose. However, Rather plans to air as soon as today parts of an interview with Bill Burkett, a former Guard official, who is widely believed to have played a role in providing CBS with the memos. Burkett, who has urged Democratic activists to wage "war" against Republican "dirty tricks," has refused in the past to comment in an e-mail to The Washington Post on whether he had been CBS's confidential source."

So is CBS going to blame it all on Burkett? Or, let me guess: Dan Rather is going to try to refocus attention on the content of the docs, even if the docs themselves are fake.

Oh, this is going to be so humiliating for CBS! They've finally had to admit the docs are fake, and now Dan Rather is going to dive back into the Bush/TexANG story as if nothing ever happened? They're going to let that old man single-handedly sink their network news.

Democrats Refine Their Strategy for Losing the Election

2004-09-20T10:42:00.000-04:00

Washington Post:

With some Kerry advisers convinced he cannot win a debate over whether the United States should have gone to war, given Bush's relentless attacks on Kerry for shifting his positions on the war, the Massachusetts senator has settled on a two-phase plan to refocus the debate. Aides say he will first challenge the president's optimistic assessment of conditions in Iraq and then draw a sharp contrast with Bush over getting the United States out of the country within four years.

Now, the Democrats want to play up bad news about Iraq. Their line is that it's bad now, and it's getting worse. That begs the question: What alternative does Kerry offer? Phase down and withdraw in four years, regardless of what the situation is like on the ground. Abandon a fledgling democracy, an ally that we've armed and trained, whose soldiers and police officers are out getting killed for the cause -- just cut them loose, just like South Vietnam.

What the Democrats are missing is this: The perceived political weakness of President Bush on Iraq can only be turned into an advantage for John Kerry if he can offer a viable alternative. This isn't an issue like the economy. September 11, 2001 is still fresh in Americans' minds and they want victory, not pessimism, appeasement and internationalism.

Compare the things Kerry has to say about Iraq to what President Bush says:

Freedom equals peace. Listen, we've done the hard work, and there's more hard work to do. But I want you to know that we're headed for a peaceful world. That's my hope. My hope is that young children can grow up in a peaceful world. My hope is that we never have to live another day like we did on September the 11th.

And you achieve peace by spreading freedom. That's what America believes. And that's hard work. Free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations, nations that listen to the aspirations of their people, are nations in which it's hard to recruit people willing to kill themselves for a radical philosophy. That's what Americans believe. We believe that freedom is the Almighty God's gift to every man and woman in this world.

CBS Admits Defeat?

2004-09-20T09:54:00.000-04:00

Could it be true? USA Today says: CBS News plans to say it was misled on the purported National Guard memos that were the source of its report that President Bush received favored treatment 30 years ago.

Does this mean CBS is going to tell us who the source is? Capitol Hill Blue says there's going to be an official statement today from CBS.

CBS's spin is that they were "deceived" as to the "origins" of the documents. I don't believe that for a second. CBS is the one who has done the deceiving here.

Where 'Dissent' Becomes Treason

2004-09-18T21:11:00.000-04:00

"We've had presidents who have served in the military. We've had presidents who have never served in the military. But we've never had an American president who met with the enemy in a time of war while a naval officer in reserve status. Inconceivable," said John O'Neill, of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

So what's worse? Lt. Bush may or may not have showed up for a flight physical in 1972. But Naval Reserve Lt. Kerry for sure showed up for a meeting with North Vietnamese Communists, in Paris. Maybe more than once.

America, meet the real John Kerry.

Democrats' Strategy for Losing the Election, Continued

2004-09-18T12:52:00.000-04:00

Has Kerry come unhinged? Now he's saying that President Bush Is "hiding a plan to mobilize more National Guard and Reserve troops after the election while glossing over a worsening conflict in Iraq."

"He won’t tell us what congressional leaders are now saying, that this administration is planning yet another substantial call-up of reservists and Guard units immediately after the election," Kerry said. "Hide it from people through the election, then make the move."

It's almost as though Kerry isn't sure he has the support of the Michael Moore crowd -- because they're the only ones who would want to hear a prospective commander in chief float a conspiracy theory like that. This is the sort of thing you'd expect to read on some liberal blog, not coming out of the mouth of the candidate himself. What are swing voters supposed to think about wild accusations like that?

And it would be one thing if this were just an isolated incident -- just one, off-the-cuff remark. But Kerry's also trying to sell the Dick Cheney/Halliburton conspiracy theory as well. This is nothing more than liberals' paranoid fantasies, and the Democratic candidate for president is aligning himself with it. All these "big brains" the campaign has brought in, and they can't manage to just say no to the Michael Moore conspiracy theories.

'Buckhead' Unmasked!

2004-09-18T12:41:00.000-04:00

World's biggest non-story: "Buckhead," who said CBS memos were forged, is a GOP-linked attorney

Please. Even if 'Buckhead' was really Karl Rove -- the memos are fakes!

The conspiracy theory: Buckhead's freerepublic.com posts were written less than four hours after the CBS report was aired -- how did he know so fast?

Buckhead knew for the same reason that everyone else knew, and knows now! He was just one of the first ones to open up the *.pdf files that CBS posted and recognized the same Times New Roman type he looks at every day of the week when he opens up Microsoft Word. So where does this conspiracy theory go from here? Is Lt. Col. Burkett really some kind of 'Manchurian Candidate' who thinks he's a Democrat but who really does Karl Rove's bidding?

Democrats' Strategy for Losing the Election

2004-09-17T16:52:00.000-04:00

Apparently, the new Kerry campaign strategy is to "step up" the arguments that the Iraq war is a failure and has hurt the war on terror. If you peruse the usual leftie blogs, you'll see much more of the same. But as Charles Krauthammer points out, Kerry has already "taken every possible position on the war, there is nothing he can now say that is even remotely credible."

The only position left for Kerry to take is full-on, Howard-Dean-and-Michael-Moore-style opposition to the Iraq war. And to do that, he will have to try to take back all the statements he made in support of the war, and he will have to do things like call for immediate withdrawal, and he will guarantee that he loses the election.

The partisans of the left do not seem to understand this. There is still this "conventional wisdom" floating around that President Bush is "weak" on the war in Iraq. It's his soft spot, and Kerry should attack, they say. But this isn't an issue like the economy, like taxes, like unemployment. If Kerry is against what President Bush has done and is doing in Iraq, voters are going to expect a solid alternative, not "I'd do it differently."

And we're another week closer to the election.

Is This 'Difinitive Evidence,' Dan?

2004-09-17T16:36:00.000-04:00

Well, Dan Rather said that if there any definitive evidence to the contrary of their story is found, CBS would report it. ("The story," as far as Dan Rather is concerned, is that President Bush received preferential treatment in the Texas Air National Guard.) ABC has got some "definitive evidence," and they didn't have to look too hard -- they just asked the guy mentioned in the memos as having exercised influence to favor Lt. Bush:

The man cited in media reports as having allegedly pressured others in the Texas Air National Guard to help George W. Bush is speaking out, telling ABC News in an exclusive interview that he never sought special treatment for Bush.

Retired Col. Walter Staudt, who was brigadier general of Bush's unit in Texas, interviewed Bush for the Guard position and retired in March 1972. He was mentioned in one of the memos allegedly written by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian as having pressured Killian to assist Bush, though Bush supposedly was not meeting Guard standards.

"I never pressured anybody about George Bush because I had no reason to," Staudt told ABC News in his first interview since the documents were made public.

So the man the dummied-up docs say was "pushing to sugarcoat" Lt. Bush's military record says that's not the way it happened. How hard was that? Shouldn't CBS have interviewed this guy in the first place?

You know, throughout the Rathergate saga, ABC News has distinguished itself. And they've picked apart aspects of the forged documents without going over the top and slamming CBS. They've given CBS plenty of cover, if only CBS had taken them up on it and admitted the documents were fake. ABC has managed to report the story quite fairly, in my opinion.

CBS Has More Docs?

2004-09-17T09:21:00.000-04:00

Kerry Spot @ NRO has this from one of CBS's document experts, James J. Pierce, who has been hounded by the media since CBS, inadvertently or not, put out his home address and phone number:

The key point: Pierce seemed upset that CBS is using his ‘Professional Opinion’ memo of 9/14 to prop up their defense about the Killian memos being authentic. Pierce said “CBS is wrong, CBS is wrong” to portray it that way, saying it twice for emphasis. He said that his PO memo was only a preliminary judgment, “not a final conclusion” on all the documents.

The (for me) stunner: Pierce said that the reason he hadn't rendered a final conclusion yet was that he was only “midway through his analysis” of all the documents - speaking as though there were many docs. CBS gave you other documents besides the four that 60 Minutes used in the story? “Lots more documents” were his exact words.

Kerry Spot speculates that CBS has other docs from its "source" and was planning a follow-up story. It's hard to believe that, if CBS had other documents that could corroborate its story, they would already have launched their counter-offensive.

A simple suggestion

2004-09-17T08:24:00.000-04:00

Jonah Goldberg, at NRO, refers to this story, about Kerry supporters ripping up the Bush/Cheney sign held by a 3-year-old girl at a Kerry rally in West Virginia. Jonah says that Karl Rove should have the President send her something. Can I make a suggestion?

An auotgraphed copy of "My Pet Goat."

What If Burkett Is The Source? What Next?

2004-09-16T15:02:00.000-04:00

Allah throws some gas on the Burkett fire, noting that the Rathergate memos use Army conventions for rank abbreviation and signature block (Burkett was Army National Guard.) The Creator of Worlds asks:

Here's my question to the rest of the 'sphere. Let's say it is Burkett. Now what? Unless Burkett turns around and accuses Terry McAuliffe or some Democratic playmaker of having put him up to it, where exactly does the story go from here? The fact that, according to Newsweek, Burkett is a "disgruntled" Guardsman who's had two nervous breakdowns has no effect on the credibility of Rather's report because Rather's report has no credibility left to lose. The memos are bogus, they're relying for their facts now on an 86-year-old woman who thinks Bush was "selected, not elected" and is "unfit for command" (not that you'd know that from watching 60 Minutes II), and they're standing by the story anyway. For Christ's sake, their own press release describes Ben Barnes as "a Democrat and current fundraiser for John Kerry". So what's the big deal? What's one more Bush-hater on the pile? Explain it to me because I think we're nearing the end of the road.

Somehow, I don't think the left is going to have trouble swallowing Dan Rather's logic. The crowd that gave a standing ovation to "Fahrenheit 9/11" isn't going to blink at the idea that Dan rather knows the story is true, even if the evidence is fake.

If the MSM can't find a dead-bang, gotcha piece of proof (the "P.O. Box 34567," for example, or maybe Burkett left his disk at Kinko's), does the MSM plow back into the Bush/TexANG story? Remember, in the before-time, when the CBS story first came out, the MSM outlets dutifully reported all of the allegations (favored status to get in, missed his physical, etc.). Does that "story," such as it is, regain momentum because Dan Rather wants it to? Harping on the TexANG story is getting the Democrats nowhere.

Decline of the Democratic Party, Continued

2004-09-16T11:43:00.000-04:00

The Democrats had four years to sort out how they were going to defeat President Bush, and now it's the eleventh hour and they appear to everyone -- particularly their own supporters -- to be utterly disorganized. Rudderless. Without a plan.

In recent interview, Tony Coelho let slip this key tidbit: "..in the Democratic Party the consultants get paid for the creation and the placement. Republicans only pay you for the creation." He's talking about TV advertising. Apparently, the big strategy guns of the Democratic party traditionally get a cut of their own media buys -- up to 15 percent! I'll let Daily Kos take it from here:

Democratic media consultants take a percentage of their media buys, up to 15 percent in many cases. Given the multi-million ad buys in Presidential, Senate, Governor and even some House races, and you can see these media consultants clean up.

What's more, the media consultants occupy exhalted spots in most campaigns (like Bob Shrum, Joe Trippi, Steve Murphy). They get to map out strategy. And guess where they argue money should be spent? On ground organizing? Yeah, right. Internet? Hardly. Polling? Nope. They push for television and more television. The conflict of interest, or even the appearance of conflict of interest, is obvious. It continues to sour many Dean people on Joe Trippi to this day, but the same could be said about Shrum or Murphy, Gephardt's campaing manager.

Now, I always assumed this was a reality of politics, that Republicans played by the same rules. But if Coelho is right, that's not the case. That means that Republicans, already at a financial advantage the vast majority of the time, have MORE MONEY TO SPEND ON WINNING, paying less for their consultants.

But our consultants don't really care about winning. For Republicans, ideology is a driving force. For our side, it's commerce. It's the almighty dollar. And if their guy loses? Who gives a shit? There are plenty of new clients available next cycle.

Isn't it a little late for the Democrats to be figuring this out? With Kerry's campaign losing momentum after the Republican convention, what did they do? Bring in more consultants! And there is apparently an ongoing battle between the Ted Kennedy alumni nominally in charge of the Kerry campaign, who have roots going back to McGovern, and the Bill Clinton alumni that have been brought in.

Maybe lots of liberals will read Kos' post and vote for Nader.

More Double Talk From Dan Rather

2004-09-16T08:51:00.000-04:00

Dan Rather on '60 Minutes II:' "But on a personal note, I believe it is important to remember that those who have criticized aspects of this story have never criticized the heart of it, that George W. Bush got special treatment."

That just about sums it up. Clearly, Dan Rather and CBS were hoping for vidication from Lt. Col. Killian's former secretary, and didn't get it. Their problem was that others had interviewed her first. Rather sprinkled some doubt over the memos, just enough to make himself look like a journalist instead of a partisan attack dog, and fell back on the "preponderance of the evidence" defense.

Unfortunately for Rather, that's just not good enough. The forgeries long ago overwhelmed "the story." Now Dan Rather is the story.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post says there's evidence that the docs weer faxed to CBS from the Kinko's in Abilene, Texas, coincidentally the home of Lt. Col. Bill Burkett. Read more at NRO's Kerry Spot and Allah Is In The House.

UPDATE: Read the CBS Statement.

The editorial content of the report was not based solely on the physical documents, but also on numerous credible sources who supported what the documents said. Through all of the frenzied debate of the past week, the basic content of the 60 MINUTES Wednesday report – that President Bush received preferential treatment to gain entrance to the Texas Air National Guard and that he may not have fulfilled all of the requirements -- has not been substantially challenged.

To recap, CBS is going to continue to stonewall and continue to carry water for the DNC. Why not just put Michael Moore on 60 Minutes?

CBS: 'Recreations' Are Not Forgeries

2004-09-15T17:03:00.000-04:00

Still waiting for the announcement to come from CBS. Guess I'll have to actuall watch the program tonight. Good thing there's not a football game on.

We might be entering the endgame on this, and Josh Marshall might have it right this time:

The word is out and about now that the CBS Bush National Guard memos are not forgeries but rather recreations of actual documents authored by Lt. Col. Killian. ...

There's a word, though, for these sorts of recreations, if that's what they are: forgeries.

There's no sense or possibility of getting around that.

Agreed. Just from scanning the blogs and news sites today, the popular theory seems to be that CBS is trying to build just such a defense. This would be a long way from earlier claims that the docs are "genuine," but also an equally long way from saying "we're liars."

prediction on cbs statement

2004-09-15T16:58:00.000-04:00

Trying to get this in before they release it (if they don't go past this newest given time)--

My prediction is that they stonewall. Rather's got his reputation on this story now, and that's no small deal. I think the number of hours this statement is past due are an indication that there is internal resistance to the idea of not coming clean, but that in the end, they'll decide acknowledging they were taken in (or committed fraud) would be too damaging, and they've calculated that the 'bloggers and partisans' won't have the ability to hurt them or keep the story alive.

Racist Waste of Taxpayer Dollars

2004-09-15T14:53:00.000-04:00

To follow is the letter I wrote to the Superintendent of Schools in Fairfax County on October 9, 2003. The response was discouraging and dismissive, and the event is planned again for this year under the same parameters. Nobody will claim ownership of this event.

Dr. Domenech:

I am the parent of three FCPS students, attending Robinson High School, Woodson Center and Terra Centre Elementary. I am very concerned that in its effort to promote higher college attendance among Hispanics/Latinos, the school system is excluding other students based solely on race. I have had many conversations with officials from both FCPS and GMU, and I will attempt to distill the information I've gathered, as well as my concerns, briefly in this message. I would be more than happy to discuss the situation with you in-depth.

I received a Woodson Email that included an announcement about Alcanza beginning with, "All students of Hispanic descent are invited..." I called the school and spoke with the principal, who reviewed the school's policy with regard to announcing opportunities available to its students. He said that Alcanza is a GMU event, and I should contact GMU,

I have gotten different answers from GMU. One person told me that this event is for Hispanics/Latinos only, and when asked, confirmed that my white son and his African-American friend and his Asian friend are not welcome. When I contacted other GMU officials, in Admissions and the PIO, they back-pedalled on that assertion. At GMU, they said it's an event planned by area high schools. When pressed on that point, since the school had told me that it was a GMU event, Ms. Amy Takayama-Perez informed me that Alcanza is planned by a committee with no chair, but that she could give me the FCPS contact name for the event.

Meanwhile, I learned that the schools were not only announcing this event, they were handling registration/reservations and providing transportation---apparently to Hispanic/Latino students, who are invited. In the dozens of documents and announcements I've reviewed about this event, there is no mention that everyone is welcome.

My concerns are:

1) FCPS and GMU are both publicly funded educational institutions, but neither can tell me who is ultimately responsible for an event in which both are actively participating. In effect, members of your staff are puppets, with no clear identification of the puppetmaster.

2) Students are being excluded from this event based solely on race. That is both illegal and repugnant. If the event is truly inclusive, it is only the message that requires correction, and FCPS should ask for an extension for submitting their attendance numbers so that other students will have an opportunity to obtain information and submit paperwork.

3) Hispanic/Latino students are not excluded from other opportunities to meet with college representatives. The playing field is completely level in that regard. Why do we need a separate college fair for Hispanic/Latino kids? They are not excluded from any other event.

4) If I were to suggest a college fair only for Caucasians, or Caucasian boys only, that would not be accepted by the school system.

5) If Alcanza is not an FCPS-sponsored event, putting students on school busses to attend is, indeed.

In short, I'm tired. I'm tired of being told, through words or actions, that my children do not need extra encouragement and support to attend college because they are white. I'm tired of policies that, in their effort to be "politically correct," cross the line into what is commonly called "reverse discrimination." "No child left behind" includes mine and others like them.

I am seeking accountability for these actions. Additionally, I am seeking a change in the way such events are promoted within the schools (this week's Woodson Email contains the same verbage as the last), and equal opportunity for all students to attend this event. I have asked my sons and their friends, and none of them ever even considered that inclusion was an option because the notices all specify that Hispanic/Latino students are invited.

If we, as a community, are truly to eradicate racism and segregation, we have to start by eliminating these definitions. On any given day in my home, you will find kids of many races and religions---welcome and comfortable.

I think that's 'nuff said.

My sympathies to Eleanor Holmes Norton

2004-09-15T14:27:00.000-04:00

Not that I'm a fan, but I have to feel a little sorry for Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, as her push for D.C. Statehood was backhanded in the face by Marion Barry and his League of Idiot Voters.

Marion Barry is an embarassment to himself---while many consider his great disgrace to be the infamous drug sting that exposed him as a cocaine addict, savvy observers will understand that his real disgrace is the dysfunctional, derelict District government that has yet to recover from his administration more than a decade after his last stint as mayor.

Barry's overwhelming victory in the Council primary against encumbent Sandy Allen proves that the District is not capable of the demands of statehood. In fact, the District should be grounded and sent to bed without any supper for even considering Barry's candidacy. Forget statehood---D.C. has failed miserably at home rule, finding its agencies constantly in receivership and its coffers constantly empty.

Anticipating CBS' Next Move

2004-09-15T14:18:00.000-04:00

Everyone was expecting an announcement around noon today from CBS News, but it hasn't come yet. NRO's Kerry Spot says CBS is planning to talk to 86-year-old Marian Carr Knox, former secretary to Lt. Col. Jerry Killian. She's no fan of President Bush, but she has all but confirmed finally for sure that the docs are fake. Maybe CBS decided not to tip their hand.

See if you can find the announcement first. Be a blog star! Go to PR Newswire and enter "CBS" in the search box.

And while you're waiting: Linda Chavez piles on, comparing Rathergate to the Hitler diaries case in 1983.

Can it be? O'Reilly Missed the Point!

2004-09-15T13:49:00.000-04:00

Fox news analyst Bill O'Reilly atypically missed an important point made by a caller on Monday's Radio Factor. While the caller failed to drive the point home, I was disappointed when the ususally astute analyst failed to extrapolate it for her.

The caller's story is this: through marriage, she is related to people who came into the US illegally from Mexico 30 years ago. Through marriage, amnesty programs and eventually naturalization, these people became legal American citizens, productive and prosperous. Her issue, and mine, is that they availed themselves of virtually every public assistance program available, but returned their wealth to their native Mexico and plan to retire there, having amassed land holdings there.

O'Reilly missed the point, stressing that everyone has the right to retire to the locale of their choice and that as citizens, they had paid their taxes on their earnings here---but he ignored important economic factors.

An illegal immigrant being paid under the table pays no taxes on his income, draws benefits for which he might not be eligible if his income were documented. He spends little money here, sending most of it back to Mexico---negating any positive impact his earnings might have on the American economy . His food and possibly his rent might be paid by for you and yours truly through government programs.

Legal or illegal, immigrants pose other problems not offset by their participation in the economy. Education expenses are huge---free ESOL, translation services and foreign language textbooks are just the tip of the iceberg. For instance, the public George Mason University is the home of ALCANZA!, a college fair for hispanic students. Public school systems in the area participate, and provide transportation for, this event at taxpayer expense.

Social security dollars will also find their way into the Mexican economy, and not because American seniors are vacationing in Cancun.

By investing their money in Mexico, rather than the U.S., these formerly illegal immigrants have bitten the hand that fed them. By moving back to Mexico with half a million U.S. dollars in the bank, they have ensured that they will be among the wealthier Mexicans, still enjoying the protections of U.S. Citizenship.

Kerry: Stop Asking Me to Explain My Views on Iraq!

2004-09-15T11:32:00.000-04:00

It's starting to show. John Kerry's frustration with the American people, that is. Despite his endless harping on Iraq, voters still seem to want him to come up with an alternative. Check it out:

"What you ought to be doing, and what everybody in America ought to be doing today, is not asking me. They ought to be asking the president, what's your plan?" Kerry told [cadaver-like alleged radio personality Don] Imus. "What's your plan, Mr. President, to stop these kids from being killed?"

Clearly, Kerry wants his leftie base to think he is totally anti-war. And he wants the swing voters to think that he's responsible enough to not do what the anti-war nutjobs want him to do. That does not leave much wiggle room.

All across the left you hear unsolicited advice from the left for Kerry, on how he ought to attack, attack, attack President Bush on Iraq. And he has followed that bad advice. He's gone as far as he can go on that line of argument.

'Open Warfare Within the Halls of CBS News'

2004-09-15T09:20:00.000-04:00

The Spectator's Prowler is on the story:

According to a CBS News producer operating out of the network's 57th Street facilities, Rather and his supporters now believe the controversy surrounding the four discredited Texas National Guard memos has been engineered by the Bush campaign.

"All you have to see to understand this is the report that John Roberts did on Bush's appearance at the National Guard convention Tuesday," says a CBS News producer. "Rather's guys are now going after the president of the United States in a way probably no news organization has ever done before. This is now deeply personal to them."

The Siege Continues

2004-09-15T09:12:00.000-04:00

Michelle Malkin: "Rather and his geriatric empire are combating these powerfully persuasive blogs with anemic smears and sneers. And they are losing so very, very badly that they can't keep on top of their own spin."

Bernard Goldberg tells CNSNews.com: "If the source ends up having a connection to the Democratic National Committee or to the Kerry campaign, it will be the biggest story of the year: "It not only sinks John Kerry's candidacy, but it is 'lights out' for CBS News as we know it."

CNSNews.com on the possible source: "Retired Texas National Guard Lt. Col. Bill Burkett has been identified by Newsweek magazine as a "principle source" for the Sept. 8 segment that purportedly showed National Guard records casting a negative light on Bush's performance with the Guard in the early 1970s."

CBS ignored the document experts they consulted: "I told them that all the questions I was asking them on Tuesday night, they were going to be asked by hundreds of other document examiners on Thursday if they ran that story," [forensic document expert Emily] Will told ABC. "I did not feel that they wanted to investigate it very deeply."

Arizona Republic takes a swipe: "The network couldn't announce its indifference to public opinion more clearly than if Rather himself began concluding his newscasts with the declaration, "Arrogance!"

The CBS defense appears to be falling back on 1) arguing minutae about the memos back and forth, and 2) the "gist" of the memos is probably accurate. Dan Rather is trying to ride this one out like that hurricane in Houston that started his career.

The Endgame Nears for Dan Rather

2004-09-14T21:45:00.000-04:00

Captain Ed comments on ABC News' reporting on Rathergate:

Up to now, we assumed that CBS ran with the forgeries not out of malice as much as avarice and ignorance. Now that view may turn out to have been too charitable. Far from failing to properly vet the documents, CBS knowingly moved forward with these forgeries, only stopping long enough to shop for a couple of supporting opinions from people who turned out to be unqualified to authenticate them.

This goes far beyond journalistic malpractice and could go as far as libel (or slander). Dan Rather and CBS knowingly broadcast a story they knew to be based on documents that could not be authenticated and were most likely forgeries, advice they received from their own experts.

The opportunity for CBS to claim a "we were duped" defense seems to have passed. That window probably closed on Saturday.

Now the question seems to be, will Dan Rather fall on his sword? Or will he just retire and turn into an angry Al Gore-like figure, loudly proclaiming himself "right" on the "larger story" about President Bush even if there were "questions" about his documentation? Importantly, is a mea culpa from Dan Rather enough without divulging the source of the memos (MoveOn.org?)

At the Kerry Spot, Jim Geraghty reports that "the head of a CBS affiliate in a large East Coast city is telling viewers who call in that he wants Rather to apologize on 60 Minutes and then resign." No doubt there are more.

Will CBS Play Another Round?

2004-09-14T16:24:00.000-04:00

Jim Geraghty @ NRO's Kerry Spot expertly dissects the latest "defense" of the Rathergate docs. Check out this line from the transcript:

RATHER: CBS News relied on an analysis of the contents of the documents themselves to determine the contents' authenticity.

This came after Dan's lame defense of the docs (see Geraghty's blog) and seems to clarify the whole "preponderance of the evidence" excuse that CBS has put forward.

If this line is true, why would CBS say it? Dan, what you said is the opposite of credible. That sentence is the closest we'll ever come to a major network admitting its liberal bias.

"We want to believe that these bad things about President Bush are true, people who don't like President Bush say that these things are true, therefore memos containing the bad things must be true." That's about how smart Dan Rather thinks you are.

Ranting Raven had the bright idea of asking the opinion of Frank Abagnale, Jr. the real life master forger behind the movie "Catch Me If You Can" (I highly recommend his autobiographical book of the same title). The e-mail reply:

Thank you for your e-mail. Though Mr. Abagnale has not personally seen the documents or copies of the documents, from what he has seen on television he believes the documents are forgeries. He feels this should be evident to anyone of any knowledge of forged documents.

I can tell you that he sent an e-mail to Neil Cavuto of Your World on Fox News Network (he knows him personally) that stated: "If my forgeries looked as bad as the CBS documents, it would have been "Catch Me In Two Days."

Tuesday Roundup on Rathergate

2004-09-14T10:42:00.000-04:00

I agree with his sentiments, but Jonah Goldberg goes too far:

I love the CBS News forged-document story. To paraphrase the abominable snowman from the Bugs Bunny cartoons, I want to hug it and squeeze it and name it George. Okay, I don't want to name it George, but you get my drift. If this story were hot fudge, I would smear it all over my body and then roll around in nougat.

New York Post editorial asks Dan to "stop the stonewall." Fat chance.

Even the MSM can't keep quiet about this one: The document expert cited by CBS in defense of the docs said yesterday that he examined only Killian's signature and made no attempt to authenticate the documents themselves.

Allah is tracking both the new angle about the "OETR" acronym mentioned in the doctored memos. He's also got the goods on CBS's "typewriter expert." Others are looking into the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron's supposed address "P.O. Box 34567," and it's only a matter of time before that turns up fake, too.

Keep up with the whole story at Rather Biased. If you're sure CBS is telling the truth, there's some easy money in it for you. At DefeatJohnJohn.com they're offering $37,900 to the first person who could exactly (and reasonably) reproduce the memos on technology available in 1972. That site has since spunoff stop60minutes.com which has echoed Michelle Malkin's call for an anti-CBS boycott. (I won't be backing the boycott because I will not give up college and pro football. Sorry.)

I think today we'll start to see whether "media fatigue" has set in on this story. Will the MSM keep following up, or will they capitulate? CBS has had to issue apologies and retractions in the past, but only when forced to do so by a court. That's not going to happen in this case. CBS is riding the storm out, it seems. Today we'll start seeing whether this situation is about to get better for CBS, or worse.

Now, does CBS start constructing a "we were duped, too" defense? They could claim they were taken in by forgeries, and there were misunderstandings with some sources, and the while the docs are probably fake, President Bush is still unfit to serve another term because he didn't take a flight physical in 1973. That seems like the only way to save face, but only if they do it sooner rather than later and only if they divulge the source of the memos. Alternatively, if CBS continues to stonewall, it could go down like this: the "P.O. Box 34567" is shown to be phony, which would mean that Lt. Col. Killian could not have produced the docs, it's too late for CBS to save face and then the entire focus of the story becomes -- "Where did the docs come from?"

Kerry Campaign Flames Out

2004-09-13T15:43:00.000-04:00

Eject, Lt. Kerry! Eject!

If these reports are true, strategic decisions have been made by the Democrats that will almost certainly throw the election to President Bush. Not that I'm disappointed, mind you.

And for all those lefties who are looking for Karl Rove's fingerprints on the CBS-doctored-docs, the behind-the-scense mastermind you should be looking for is Bill (and Hillary) Clinton.

Besides taking us inside the CBS newsroom, American Spectator's "Prowler" also shares a look at the troubled Kerry campaign:

"[On a conference call with worried staffers, Kerry] actually said that he felt the campaign had turned the corner," says a Washington-based staffer. "Some of us couldn't help but laugh given that he's made fun of Bush for saying the same thing. You hear stuff like that and you just feel sick. You look over at people like [Joe] Lockhart and Cahill and they seem to understand it too."

Kerry further undercut his own efforts, when he hung up his side of the call before any questions could be asked by staff members.

"[Kerry] doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that he has problems," says the staffer. "I'm low level, but there are a few people here who have stopped coming in to work or to volunteer. We've got some issues, and the guy who should be trying to help fix it doesn't seem to care."

And then this from Drudge: The Kerry campaign is launching "Operation Fortunate Son" to get President Bush once and for all!

Candidate Kerry apparently has rejected former President Clinton's advice not to get further locked in a 2004 Vietnam quagmire.

"George W. Bush's campaign literature claimed that he 'served in the U.S. Air Force.' The only problem? He didn't," slams a new DNC press release set for distribution.

Does the DNC not understand that there is now no way to separate the Bush TexANG story from the larger CBS forged docs story? It's just no longer possible. If any only if CBS issues a full retraction and admits the docs are fake, and then only following a day or so of flogging Dan Rather, could more "questions about President Bush's past" be made into news.

Prowler also noted: "Kerry advisers have been furiously holding focus group meetings in an attempt to find some issue of national concern that might cut their way in the coming weeks. But nothing they've looked at seems to be working."

So is the TexANG story all that the Kerry camp has to run on? We might be about to find out. Here's the news release from the DNC. I guess the "operation" has begun.

MORE FUN: Joe Klein of Time Magazine gets frustrated with candidate Kerry:

"Democrats were perplexed, depressed and awestruck. How could Cheney get away with saying, in effect, that a vote for Kerry was a vote for terrorism? More to the point, how could Bush get away with, well, everything: a misspent youth, a lifetime of insider trading on the family name, a misfought war, a misleading inference that the invasion of Iraq had some vague relevance to 9/11, a presidency marked by rampant corporate cronyism at home and abroad? "If we can't beat this guy, with this record ..." a prominent Democrat said to me. He was unable to finish the sentence."

Clearly, these Democrats are still hopelessly mired in the "anybody but Bush" mentality. It's 50 days until the election, and they don't have a clue.

STILL MORE FUN: Josh Marshall laments that "President Bush has been able to mobilize his manifest failure as a political asset, and the Kerry campaign has allowed him to do so:"

Recently, President Bush has sought -- with real success -- to edge Iraq out of the campaign dialogue by putting the issue back on to Kerry, asking what he would do differently and how it would produce a better result.

This puts Kerry in a bit of a bind because the politically-unspeakable answer here is that there are no good solutions anymore. A year ago, even six months ago, there were. Now, there really aren't.

President Bush at least has a straightforward approach: denial. Pressed to come up with a soundbite-able and practical policy, Kerry is, well ... hard-pressed.

And there you have it in a nutshell. Kerry wants to "blast" Bush on the war in Iraq.. and then not comment any further. And it's not working. I love how Talking Points has it that it's somehow Bush's fault that Kerry is (politically or otherwise) unable to articulate a contrary position on Iraq.

Deconstructing CBS' Defense

2004-09-13T14:20:00.000-04:00

No one does it better than the Kerry Spot @ NRO.

Read that, then read "The Prowler" for what's going on inside CBS.

Monday Roundup on Rather-Gate

2004-09-13T10:01:00.000-04:00

USA Today's bizarre headline: Memos debate eclipses content. Say what?

USA TODAY obtained copies of the documents independently soon after the 60 Minutes segment aired Wednesday, from a person with knowledge of Texas Air National Guard operations. The person refused to be identified out of fear of retaliation. It is unclear where the documents, if they are real, had been kept in the intervening three decades. ...

No matter how it turns out, for now the controversy over the documents has blunted criticism of Bush's Guard record, which has been a persistent irritant for Bush since he first campaigned for the White House. It has sapped the power from an issue that had appeared to be a weapon for the Democrats against Bush."

Did USA Today have suspicions about the memos' authenticity and chose to let CBS get out in front? This person "with knowledge" of TexANG operations fears retaliation? Please.

And USA Today in its summary story gives us this nugget:

The controversy also renews questions about whether the media are more vulnerable to being manipulated by partisans seeking to influence the presidential campaign.

"Everything just goes so much faster" in the age of the Internet and cable news networks, says Charlotte Grimes, professor of political reporting at Syracuse University. "It's very hard for the media to find a firm place to stand and sort facts from reality."

The MSM have always been manipulated by partisans, and manipulated easily because within the MSM is a large contingent of like-minded partisans. How hard do you think it was for the ultimate source of these memos to pitch this story to CBS? Notice that CBS continues to preach its "preponderance of the evidence" line -- the memos confirmed everything they believed about President Bush, so they must be authentic. And this idea that the world moves too fast for news operations to report fairly? No "firm place to stand?" Then why does CBS present its story as gospel truth? Without even a hint of objectivity or doubt. No, it's "records obtained by CBS prove.."

Check out the outstanding Cox & Forkum cartoon.

ChronWatch floats the idea that the docs are such obvious forgeries that "one begins to believe that they were intentionally planted to add to the implosion of Kerry’s credibility and campaign." That might be a bit much for me to swallow. I think if the source of these memos was someone who could be discredited as a Republican operative or someone "out to get" Kerry, CBS would have exposed the source to save Dan Rather's ass.

Media Matters cranks up the ad-hominem defense -- the people saying these docs are fake trend toward conservative, so that proves they're true! Media Matters then goes on to address a few specifics, hoping that you haven't read the full dissections of the letter available elsewhere, and then saps their own credibility with this line:

The Democrats' suggestion that the Republicans may be behind the documents is not outlandish when considering that Karl Rove, chief political aide to Bush, was suspected of bugging his own office during the 1986 Texas gubernatorial race in an effort to smear Democratic Governor Mark White (the opponent of the candidate for whom he was working, Bill Clements).

However, their conspiracy theory relies primarily on the idea that certain anonymous bloggers had an advance look at the docs -- so they could immediately start calling them fakes. Too much. Not everything is a conspiracy, guys.

CBS' Unblinking Eye

2004-09-11T22:21:00.000-04:00

CBS stands by its "story," repeating that "preponderance of the evidence" line. We know the things in the documents are true, so that means the documents are genuine, and they prove the things that we already know. And the Boston Globe says so.

Read InDC Journal exposing the Boston Globe lie.

Riddle me this: If CBS in all honesty acquired Lt. Col. Killian's "private file," is there not another document in there that could be used to authenticate the four CBS docs? The fact that CBS has steadfastly refused to discuss the manner in which the documents were 'obtained' has become the key issue.

My guess, they're going to claim the four docs came in "over the transom," meaning someone (plausibly) unknown to CBS just sent them in. Anonymous do-gooder, having the key pieces of evidence to prove President Bush was no good, faxed them to CBS News -- that sort of thing. Any Kerry campaign connection, if there ever was one, has already been accounted for with an alibi. CBS will then wriggle off the hook, saying they were just doing their journalistic job and were taken in by a hoax. Naughty anonymous source!

Googling the story shows that the Sunday Herald in the UK has just published the entire CBS pre-debunked version. And the Washington Post just minutes ago published a story that, while acknowledges that the authenticity of other documents are "hotly disputed," says "gaps in his service record" continue to "dog" President Bush. Is this a signal that the mainstream media isn't going to deal with this further? CBS is going to get by on professional courtesy?

The Arrogance of Dan Rather

2004-09-11T01:02:00.000-04:00

You could hear it in his voice. Dan Rather resented the hell out of having to defend his story -- and this is his story -- against the bloggers. "Partisan political operatives," he sniffed, were behind this. How dare they doubt the word of Dan Rather and CBS News? CBS News!

After presenting his weak defense, Rather gave us a good get-over-it scolding: "The 60 Minutes report was based not solely on the recovered documents but on a preponderance of evidence including documents that were provided by unimpeachable sources and interviews with former officials of the Texas National Guard. If any definitive evidence to the contrary of our story is found, we will report it. So far, there is none."

Quite simply, Dan Rather still believes that CBS News retains the kind of credibility and authority that would lead the American people to believe whatever he says. He looked right into the camera and told all of us who dare question him to stuff it. He didn't produce the source of the documents, because, well, why should he? He said that last line and projected a sense of satisfaction that he would never again have to answer a single question about those documents.

He thinks that the dinosaur media still has the final word.

I caught just a bit of Jonathan Klein and Stephen Hayes on Fox this evening, but Klein tossed out a line about how "bloggers have no checks and balances," and they're just some guy "sitting in his living room in his pajamas." And that's who the traditional media types, the Dan Rathers, think they're up against -- mere individuals, not professional journalists.

This Rather-gate story is something that no traditional newsroom could have handled with the speed and thoroughness of the blogosphere, assuming for a moment that a mainstream media news staff would be tasked to debunk something that CBS News reported. In fact, lots of dinosaur news media outlets are still trying to catch up to the story, and the blogosphere will have Dan Rather's "defense" battered to the ground before these newspapers even hit the ground on Saturday. Dan Rather's whole paradigm of who he is and why his opinion matters has been overtaken, but he doesn't know it yet. Or he doesn't accept it. Just about 20 years ago, the three network anchors were the most powerful humans on the planet. Not anymore.

GAME OVER

2004-09-11T00:36:00.000-04:00

Remember today's Washington Post story? Unnamed "senior CBS official" said one of their backup sources was retired Major General Bobby W. Hodges, Killian's immediate superior. Supposedly, a CBS reporter read the documents to Hodges over the phone, and Hodges replied that "these are the things that Killian had expressed to me at the time," the Post reported Friday.

Bad news, Dan. This just out from ABC News:

HODGES SAID HE WAS MISLED BY CBS: Retired Maj. General Hodges, Killian's supervisor at the Grd, tells ABC News that he feels CBS misled him about the documents they uncovered. According to Hodges, CBS told him the documents were "handwritten" and after CBS read him excerpts he said, "well if he wrote them that's what he felt."

Hodges also said he did not see the documents in the 70's and he cannot authenticate the documents or the contents. His personal belief is that the documents have been "computer generated" and are a "fraud".

Holy crap! Just found this:

Man named in Bush memo left Guard before document was written

AUSTIN, Texas - (KRT) - The man named in a disputed memo as exerting pressure to "sugar coat" President Bush's military record left the Texas Air National Guard a year and a half before the memo was supposedly written, his own service record shows.

An order obtained by The Dallas Morning News shows that Col. Walter "Buck" Staudt was honorably discharged on March 1, 1972. CBS News reported this week that a memo in which Staudt was described as interfering with officers' negative evaluations of Bush's service, was dated Aug. 18, 1973.

And it continues. Shape of Days debunks the IBM-Selectric-Composer-could-have-made-the-'th' defense, and presents a definitive piece of forgery evidence -- the perfectly centered letterhead.

Dan Rather to Blogosphere: 'Shove It'

2004-09-10T19:36:00.000-04:00

If what was broadcast on CBS tonight constitutes the full extent of Dan Rather's defense of the Bush documents, he's toast. The documents may even be genuine, but he ducked the hard questions about how the documents were acquired and, most importantly, he pretty much declared the case closed.

The superscript: Rather said some models did have it, and that other Bush military records released by the White House show "the same" superscript. All other issues, igored.

Times New Roman: "The owner of the company that distributes this typing style says it has been available since 1931." For typesetting into a book, yes -- but for an office typewriter? No further evidence.

A handwriting expert: Looked at the signatures, said they matched up. And certainly no one could have cut-and-pasted them or Photoshopped them in. No testimony offered from a forensic document specialist who could address the kerning issue. None.

'Preponderance of the evidence' line: Dan, this is about forged documents. No matter how much you want this to be about President Bush, it's about CBS News foisting phony documents on us!

Bottom line: No word on how CBS got the docs. No offer to let independent experts examine the primary evidence. No comment on the other problems with the docs (kerning, etc.) Topped off by Dan Rather's snide remark about their being no further credible evidence to discredit the docs.

Hey, Dan. Just watch the evidence pile up.

UPDATE: Rather didn't even manage to refute the criticism of the docs made in today's Washington Post! Check it out:

William Flynn, a forensic document specialist with 35 years of experience in police crime labs and private practice, said the CBS documents raise suspicions because of their use of proportional spacing techniques. Documents generated by the kind of typewriters that were widely used in 1972 space letters evenly across the page, so that an "i" uses as much space as an "m." In the CBS documents, by contrast, each letter uses a different amount of space.

While IBM had introduced an electric typewriter that used proportional spacing by the early 1970s, it was not widely used in government. In addition, Flynn said, the CBS documents appear to use proportional spacing both across and down the page, a relatively recent innovation. Other anomalies in the documents include the use of the superscripted letters "th" in phrases such as 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron, Bush's unit.

"It would be nearly impossible for all this technology to have existed at that time," said Flynn, who runs a document-authentication company in Phoenix.

CBS: 'Who Are You People to Question Us?'

2004-09-10T14:02:00.000-04:00

CBS News: "Bush Guard Memos Questioned"

"This report was not based solely on recovered documents, but rather on a preponderance of evidence, including documents that were provided by unimpeachable sources, interviews with former Texas National Guard officials and individuals who worked closely back in the early 1970s with Colonel Jerry Killian and were well acquainted with his procedures, his character and his thinking," the statement read.

"In addition, the documents are backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic document experts but by sources familiar with their content," the statement continued. "Contrary to some rumors, no internal investigation is underway at CBS News nor is one planned."

And there you have it. CBS News' word is as good as gold. Plus, Democrats I've been reading are absolutely furious that this hoax story has detracted from their non-stop bombardment of President Bush.

UPDATE: Power Line -- Dan Rather personally vouching for the documents means he and CBS are walking the plank for the Kerry campaign

UPDATE UPDATE: CBS NEWS STATEMENT --

NEW YORK, Sept. 10 /PRNewswire/ -- Later today, CBS News will address on the air and in detail the issues surrounding the documents broadcast in the 60 MINUTES report on President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard. At this time, however, CBS News states with absolute certainty that the ability to produce the "th" superscript mentioned in reports about the documents did exist on typewriters as early as 1968, and in fact is in President Bush's official military records released by the White House. This and other issues surrounding the authenticity of the documents and more on this developing story will be reported on tonight on THE CBS EVENING NEWS WITH DAN RATHER.

If CBS doesn't name names -- if it does not produce the full chain of evidence, or if it relies on "you so totally could make a superscript 'th' with a 1972 typewriter" -- they're sunk. We will all be able to tell our grandchildren that we were there the day the dinosaur media died.

As Allah points out: Again, no one's suggesting that there weren't typewriters capable of producing the "th" superscript in 1968. The contention is that there was no typewriter capable of producing the "th" superscript in a font identical to Times New Roman, with letters pair kerned, that was so widely available that it would have been reasonable to expect it to show up in a National Guard officer's office in 1968.

On the Left: Keep Hope Alive

2004-09-10T13:31:00.000-04:00

Kevin Drum:

"For what it's worth, I spoke to someone a few minutes ago who's familiar with how the documents were vetted, and the bottom line is that CBS is very, very confident that the memos are genuine. They believe that (a) their sources are rock solid, (b) the provenance of the documents is well established, and (c) the appearance of the documents matches the appearance of other documents created at the same place and time. In addition, people who knew Killian well have confirmed that the memos are genuine."

Maybe. But now it's up to CBS to a) produce those sources, b) show how the documents were obtained, when and from whom, and c) show us some other similar-looking, 100% authentic documents.

Dan Rather: 'There Will Be No Retraction'

2004-09-10T12:33:00.000-04:00

Latest from Jim Geraghty of NRO's Kerry Spot:

Media source in New York says Rather just did an interview with CNN on the street: "I know this story is the truth...There will be no retraction...When people talk about where we got the story they're only doing it because they don't like the story..."

Rather arrogant, no? But with only flat statements of "we stand behind our story" coming out of CBS, you now have to be nothing more than a hardcore Bush-hater to give CBS's reporting on President Bush's Air National Guard record any credibility at all.

Could you imagine for one second the firestorm that would erupt from the discovery of Fox News using fake documents to attack Kerry?

MSM Form Human Shield to Protect Kerry

2004-09-10T09:34:00.000-04:00

Dead-on analysis from Powerline, reviewing last night's ABC Nightline:

Koppel returned to the forgery issue late in the show during an interview with former Gore operative Chris Lehane. This was the damage control segment but, significantly, the damage being controlled was not that inflicted on CBS, but rather the potential damage to the Kerry campaign. Koppel and Lehane agreed that the campaign almost certainly was not responsible for the forgery because the consequences of being caught are too high. (Lehane even floated the idea that the Bush campaign might have been responsible). Under this analysis, the Nixon campaign couldn't have been behind the Watergate break-in either — it must have been the work of Democrats or the CIA. But, again, the real point is that the MSM and the Democrats have figured out that CBS and its report are probably lost causes, and that the key thing now is to protect the Kerry campaign. It looks as if the campaign that wants so desperately to go back on the offensive after weeks of being pounded may have to play some serious defense for a while longer.

CBS 'Suckered by the Kerry Campaign?'

2004-09-10T09:21:00.000-04:00

Drudge picked up this story on the Spectator, and now that site is jammed, but Daily Recycler had it, and I'm reposting it here:

Anatomy of a Forgery
By The Prowler
Published 9/10/2004 12:09:06 AM

More than six weeks ago, an opposition research staffer for the Democratic National Committee received documents purportedly written by President George W. Bush's Texas Air National Guard squadron commander, the late Col. Jerry Killian.

The oppo researcher claimed the source was "a retired military officer." According to a DNC staffer, the documents were seen by both senior staff members at the DNC, as well as the Kerry campaign.

"More than a couple people heard about the papers," says the DNC staffer. "I've heard that they ended up with the Kerry campaign, for them to decide to how to proceed, and presumably they were handed over to 60 Minutes, which used them the other night. But I know this much. When there was discussion here, there were doubts raised about their authenticity."

The concerns arose from the sourcing. "It wasn't clear that our source for the documents would have had access to them. Our person couldn't confirm from what file, from what original source they came from."

The documents that CBS News used were not documents from any of Bush's personnel files from his time in the National Guard. Rather, CBS News stated that they were documents uncovered in the personnel files of Killian. That would explain why the White House or the Pentagon had never before released or even seen them.

According to a Kerry campaign source, there was little gossip about the supposedly hot documents inside the office of the campaign on McPherson Square. "Those documents were not something anyone was talking about or trying to generate buzz on," says the staffer. "It wasn't like there were small groups of people talking about this as a bombshell. I think people here weren't sure what to make of it, because provenance of these documents was uncertain."

A CBS producer, who initially tipped off The Prowler about the 60 Minutes story, says that despite seeking professional assurances that the documents were legitimate, there was uncertainty even among the group of producers and researchers working on the story.

"The problem was we had one set of documents from Bush's file that had Killian calling Bush 'an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot.' And someone who Killian said 'performed in an outstanding manner.' Then you have these new documents and the tone and content are so different."

The CBS producer said that some alarms bells went off last week when the signatures and initials of Killian on the documents in hand did not match up with other documents available on the public record, but producers chose to move ahead with the story. "This was too hot not to push. If there were doubts, those people didn't show it," says the producer, who works on a rival CBS News program.

Now, the producer says, there is growing concern inside the building on 57th Street that they may have been suckered by the Kerry campaign. "There is a school of thought here that the Kerry people dumped this in our laps, figuring we'd do the heavy lifting on the story. That maybe they had doubts about these documents but hoped we'd get more information," says the producer. "If that's the case, then we're bigger fools than we already appear to be judging by all the chatter about how these documents could be forgeries."

ABC News' political unit held a conference call at 7:00 p.m. Thursday evening to discuss the memo and its potential ramifications should the documents turn out to be a forgery. That meeting took place around the time that the deceased Killian's son made public statements questioning the documents' authenticity.

According to one ABC News employee, some reporters believe that the Kerry campaign as well as the DNC were parties in duping CBS, but a smaller segment believe that both the DNC and the Kerry campaign were duped by Karl Rove, who would have engineered the flap to embarrass the opposition.

First MSM Takes on Forged-Memo-Gate

2004-09-09T23:43:00.000-04:00

Tomorrow's Washington Post will carry on page one: 'Some Question Authenticity of Papers on Bush.' The very diplomatic headline gives CBS a significant benefit of the doubt. The key passage:

A senior CBS official, who asked not to be named because CBS managers did not want to go beyond their official statement, named one of the network's sources as retired Maj. Gen. Bobby W. Hodges, the immediate superior of the documents' alleged author, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian. He said a CBS reporter read the documents to Hodges over the phone and Hodges replied that "these are the things that Killian had expressed to me at the time."

"These documents represent what Killian not only was putting in memoranda, but was telling other people," the CBS News official said. "Journalistically, we've gone several extra miles."

The official said the network regarded Hodges's comments as "the trump card" on the question of authenticity, as he is a Republican who acknowledged that he did not want to hurt Bush. Hodges, who declined to grant an on-camera interview to CBS, did not respond to messages left on his home answering machine in Texas.

A bit more blunt is the ABC News website's 'False Documentation?' story.

More than half a dozen document experts contacted by ABC News said they had doubts about the memos' authenticity.

"These documents do not appear to have been the result of technology that was available in 1972 and 1973," said Bill Flynn, one of country's top authorities on document authentication. "The cumulative evidence that's available … indicates that these documents were produced on a computer, not a typewriter."

MORE FUN: Read the glum 11 p.m. entry from Atrios. Glancing at the liberal blogs, the spin seems to be: 1) We didn't need documentation to say Bush is a liar; and 2) if they were fakes why did the White House hand copies to reporters -- unless the White House knew that the information they contained was true!

And in a related development: Ben Barnes' 'Daughter': My Dad Lied About Bush

The Fraud: Don't stop there

2004-09-09T23:07:00.000-04:00

Captain Ed can't wait to watch the CBS meltdown as they try to explain just how they bought the Killian documents that seem to assert pressure to approve Bush's NG record:

This fraud will have a dual effect of keeping every news organization from touching the TANG story again, and CBS will have to fire someone with a high profile to save face. Pull up a chair, get yourself some popcorn, and watch the meltdown continue.

I agree, but we can't let it stop there. I want to know who gave them these documents. I want to know what experts said these were real. And I want to know who paid their salaries. We deserve to know who started this: was it CBS, or did it go to Kerry or his surrogates?

I hate Bush, but I don't really care for Kerry

2004-09-09T17:52:00.000-04:00

The good news for the President that's on the face of this
new Washington Post/ABC News poll is that it's the first fully post-convention poll and the President is ahead 52-43 among likely voters. There's a lot of interesting information packed up in the results, though.

The main caveat is that this is post-convention, and these numbers are likely to change; how dramatic the change is still to be determined, of course.

What the numbers show me is that Kerry's support is mobilized against Bush, not for him. Consider Question 4, which asks if a candidate's supporters will definitely vote for him. 88% of Bush's supporters say yes, while 81% say the same for Kerry. Or Question #5, asked of Strong (i.e. Unleaned) Bush and Kerry Supporters, if they support their candidate strongly or not strongly; the split for Bush is 90-9, but for Kerry it's 70-20.

While Kerry's supporters don't seem to be as motivated on his behalf as the President's are for him, Kerry supporters do dislike the President. Only 41% of Kerry's supporters say their vote is for him, while 55% say that their vote for Kerry is a vote against Bush. (Contrast that with 84% of Bush's supporters voting for him and only 14% against Kerry.)

Parenthetically, I'm amazed as well that Cheney's favorable/unfavorable ratings are better than Kerry's.

Here are some thoughts:

1) Kerry is an astoundingly bad candidate. It's probably impossible to know if the anti-Bush coalition could ever have found a candidate that was both negative towards the president and captured the change movement in a positive fashion (not Dean), but Kerry isn't that guy at all.

2) Kerry's got to agree with the President less in order to drive up his vote. Even if it makes sense to agree in order to try to capture swing voters.

3) Can Kerry motivate the anti-Bush vote sufficiently when it counts? If the margin in the polls hold, will some elements of his coalition decide the struggle is futile?

IF TRUE, THE WORST JOURNALISM SCANDAL EVER

2004-09-09T15:29:00.000-04:00

Remain calm. Reserve judgment. Deep breaths.
Just out from CNSNews.com:

The 32-year-old documents produced Wednesday by the CBS News program "60 Minutes," shedding a negative light on President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard, may have been forged using a current word processing program, according to typography experts.

Three independent typography experts told CNSNews.com they were suspicious of the documents from 1972 and 1973 because they were typed using a proportional font, not common at that time, and they used a superscript font feature found in today's Microsoft Word program.

The "60 Minutes" segment included an interview with former Texas lieutenant governor Ben Barnes, who criticized Bush's service. The news program also produced a series of memos that claim Bush refused to follow an order to undertake a medical examination.

The documents came from the "personal office file" of Bush's former squadron commander Jerry B. Killian, according to Kelli Edwards, a spokeswoman for "60 Minutes," who was quoted in Thursday's Washington Post. Edwards declined to tell the Post how the news program obtained the documents.

Jim Geraghty of NRO's Kerry Spot earlier today said: "If [CBS] ran with a story based on a forgery (and a forgery that the blogosphere managed to check out in just a few hours) this report will join Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, and Janet Cooke in journalism's hall of infamy."

This would be a thousand times worse. All Janet Cooke did was fabricate a tear-jerker story to win a Pulitzer -- if she had done the legwork, she could have found a true story to tell just as easily. Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair were just a couple of lazy plagarists.

If these documents were forged, this is about a major American network trying to throw the results of a presidential election. It's almost too huge to comprehend.

Maybe it's not faked. I think, given the expert testimony already produced, that CBS needs to find a way to convincingly support its documentation. (The media have been flogging President Bush all day over the ANG memos.) And over at Daily Kos, liberal readers are working their own angles.

What a day.

What Mrs. Kerry Thinks of You

2004-09-09T14:16:00.000-04:00

Teresa Heinz Kerry, commenting on her husband's health care proposal: "Only an idiot wouldn't like this. Of course, there are idiots."

But That Was The Only Reason to Buy the Book!

2004-09-09T13:28:00.000-04:00

Washington Post:

"Sharon Bush, who is divorced from the president's brother Neil, said in a statement: "I categorically deny that I ever told Kitty Kelley that George W. Bush used cocaine at Camp David or that I ever saw him use cocaine at Camp David. When Kitty Kelley raised drug use at Camp David, I responded by saying something along the lines of, 'Who would say such a thing?'

"Although there have been tensions between me and various members of the Bush family, I cannot allow this falsehood to go unchallenged."

And it's up to No. 4 on Amazon! I wonder if those people can get their $20.37 back ...

Dan Rather's Smoking Gun?

2004-09-09T11:59:00.000-04:00

Documents "obtained" by "60 Minutes" might not be all that they appear? (Read the full post on Power Line, which I found through Allah.)

"The "Memo To File" of August 18, 1973 also used specialized typesetting characters not used on typewriters. These include the superscript "th" in 187th, and consistent ’ (right single quote) used instead of a typewriter's generic ' (apostrophe). These are the sorts of things that typesetters did manually until the advent of smart correction in things like Microsoft Word."

UPDATE: See the results of Little Green Footballs' MS Word test.
UPDATE: Pacetown tried it too! -- retyping the "18 August 1972" memo in MS Word, 12pt. Times New Roman, default settings, produces a suspiciously similar copy of the memo.
AND MORE: INDC takes the memo to a forensic document examiner who says it just might be fake!

The Depth to Which '60 Minutes' Has Sunk

2004-09-08T16:23:00.000-04:00

CBS's 60 Minutes is trumpeting a Dan Rather interview to be broadcast tonight with "former Texas House Speaker and Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes, a Democrat, about the role Barnes says he played in getting President George W. Bush into the Texas Air National Guard -- and why he now regrets it." You can read the quotes from Rather's interview with Barnes on CBS's website.

Oops.

"Trouble is, George W. Bush began the first of six years’ service in the National Guard in 1968, but Barnes did not become Lt. Governor of Texas until 1969. Barnes has acknowledged that no member of the Bush family sought his help, but claims he was approached by a Bush family friend (who died three years before Barnes began telling his self-serving story).

Read the rest of Lowell Ponte's article at FrontPage Magazine. After reading Ponte's column in advance of the "60 Minutes" piece, I might watch that show for the first time in many years, just to see how Rather tries to spin it. In particular, I'd like to see if the piece mentions that Barnes is a "vice-chairman" ($100,000 and up fundraiser) for the Kerry campaign.UPDATE: Media Research Center analysis of the mainstream media coverage:

"If there were any lingering doubts about whether the mainstream media are in the tank for John Kerry, Wednesday's news judgments put them to rest as a media which ignored the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth for months and then fretted about their connections to the Bush campaign, demanded the group's free speech "loophole" be plugged and that President Bush condemn their anti-Kerry TV ads, pounced in seeming unison on supposed "new questions" about Bush's Air National Guard service forwarded by the AP, Boston Globe and CBS News, a record already dissected for more than a week last February."

My Opinion on Presidential Debates

2004-09-08T15:40:00.000-04:00

The plan right now is for three 90-minute presidential debates (one on foreign policy, one on domestic issues and one a "town hall" session with "undecided" voters) along with a vice presidential debate. My problem with the televised debates is twofold: the choice of "journalists" to lob questions, and the inclusion of a live audience.

Let's once and for all give up on the notion that the debate commission is going to pick out "objective" journalists. Let's just forget it. It's insulting to our intelligence. Instead of "Miss America" style Q&A, let's pick a broad topic of importance and have more than one round of back and forth. Let's have some real discussion instead of trying to set up the next "You're no Jack Kennedy" moment.

And what purpose does the live audience serve? Seriously. I don't need to hear their applause to cap off what a candidate said. We certainly do not need to hear from another red-faced, screeching protester. And we don't need "Maury" and "Springer"-style hooting -- which we're probably going to get.

A final note, on the "town hall" debate format: Why? Are these people really "undecided?" How could we possibly know that? Why would their questions be of more relevance -- simply because they're "undecided?" Joe Twelve-Pack here is going to speak for all undecided voters? I'm not interested in one side or the other setting up a "gotcha" moment. Real discussion -- between the candidates themselves -- or nothing at all, please.

When You're Right, You're Right

2004-09-08T15:08:00.000-04:00

Vice President Cheney:

"I feel very strongly that it's important that we adhere for the long haul, for the future to the kinds of policies George Bush has put in place in the post-9/11, and that we not fall back to the trap of looking at the world through those lenses of pre-9/11, when we tended to treat each one of these terrorist acts as an individual criminal enterprise, sort of a turn the other cheek, don't go after the states that sponsor, don't take action against those who provide support to terrorists. That way was tried. We did it for years. It didn't work. All the terrorists took away from that was the conviction that they could strike us with impunity because they did repeatedly.

"And secondly, if they hit us hard enough, they could change our policy -- because they did, for example, in Somalia in 1994, when they killed 19 of our guys, and within weeks, we had pulled everybody out of Somalia. So the choice we're going to make is absolutely essential, and I feel especially strongly about it. I think everybody does. When you start to think about the kind of decision we're going to make now, if you put it back into that late 1940s, early 1950s time frame and think about how long those policies were place, and how vital they were to our success in the Cold War, and to our emerging from that period of time without all the potential, the negative effects that could have emerged from it. And remember, the decisions we're going to make this year will probably set the terms and conditions for our kids and grandkids in terms of what kind of world they're going to inherit, whether or not we'll be safe and secure here in the United States -- or whether or not we're going to be faced once again with a series of terrorist attacks the kind that we've seen around the world since 9/11.

"And remember we're not the only ones who have been hit. We've seen attacks in Madrid, in Casablanca, in Riyadh, in Mombassa, in Istanbul, in Jakarta, in Bali -- most recently in Russia, in Beslan, where they this week killed hundreds school kids.

"And we don't know yet exactly who was behind that attack, but we do know this resort to terror and that kind of assault, bloody assault on civilians -- innocent men, women and children -- to achieve political aims has become all to prevalent around the world. And we have to deal with it. We have to deal with it where we find it. We have to be on offense, as well as defense, and we have to reelect George Bush President of the United States on November 2nd. (Applause.)"

Hugh Hewitt puts it this way:

"Memo to Fallujah terrorists: If Kerry wins, all you have to do is endure at most four years, then you can have another Afghanistan. If Bush wins, you will die in Fallujah or give up your war."

Media Shy Away From Kitty's Book

2004-09-08T14:22:00.000-04:00

Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post: Media View Kitty Kelley's Bush Book With Caution

"The book did not pass muster at Newsweek, however. Editor Mark Whitaker said his magazine was given an advance copy for a possible story "and we passed. We weren't comfortable with a lot of the reporting. We will write about it if it becomes a phenomenon and looks like it will have some impact on the campaign debate, not to further publicize the reporting in it."

Huh? So if "everyone's talking about it," then the lies become reportable?

"Time Managing Editor Jim Kelly said he had not gotten an advance look at the book but "you obviously would have to fact-check the hell out of it." Excerpting a book "by Kitty Kelley is a problematic proposition," he said."

Wow. Kitty Kelley is that much less credible than Michael Moore.

Liberal Ghouls Celebrate U.S. Military Deaths

2004-09-07T16:39:00.000-04:00

The Kerry campaign and the mainstream media have lived down to my expectations today:

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on Tuesday called U.S. military deaths in the Iraq conflict passing 1,000 a "tragic milestone."

...

The Associated Press tally includes 998 U.S. troops and three civilian contractors killed while working for the Pentagon. The tally was compiled by the AP based on Pentagon records, AP reporting from Iraq, and reports from soldiers' families.

The "tally?" Tally?? That's just breathtakingly insensitive. Remind me again why it's a "milestone?" Why it's news? Because the mainstream media says it's news? Or because Kerry put out a self-serving statement, taking advantage of others' tragedy and loss for no good reason other than his own political gain, and that makes it news?

Let the Whining Commence!

2004-09-07T11:28:00.000-04:00

Kitty Kelley = Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?

Wonkette: "We have no idea if these allegations are true or not. We really don't care. But let's say that they're probably as true as, dunno, the Swift Boat Vet ads. Let's just hope the media treats them that way."

Counterspin: "Incidentally, Dubyah' "asked" for all this scrutiny by making character and sound decision-making the conerstone of his campaign. Plus, the Boston Herald and the Chicago Sun Times give nasty anti-Bush rumors a smattering of equal time."

Washington Monthly: "Bush supporters have already answered the question by pushing unfounded allegations of misconduct during John Kerry's service in Vietnam. Will Kerry supporters demand the same level of scrutiny regarding George Bush's supposed cocaine use?"

Does Kitty Kelley alone have enough credibility left for the mainstream media to put her book on the same level as the Swift Boat Vets? The Democrats certainly hope so. They are absolutely frothing to get President Bush on the defensive, and on a character issue. But didn't we hear all these stories in 2000? And the Swiftvets all spoke on the record -- decorated veterans, signed affidavits, etc.

The book's already at sales rank #6 on Amazon ("Unfit for Command" is #1), and Kelley's book is not due out until September 14. A look inside the mind of the people who have preordered would suggest that they're not exactly swing voters:

Customers who bought this book also bought:

Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush by John W. Dean
Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President by Justin A. Frank
Bushworld: Enter at Your Own Risk by Maureen Dowd
American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush by Kevin Phillips
The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity: A Diplomat's Memoir by Joseph Wilson

UPDATE: Frank Rich of the New York Times has gone bonkers. Enjoy!

Making the Election a Referendum on Iraq

2004-09-07T10:49:00.000-04:00

This is what I've been waiting for:

"[Kerry] called the invasion "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time," and said his goal was to withdraw U.S. troops in a first White House term. Kerry later issued a statement calling Iraq a "quagmire" created by Bush's "wrongheaded, go-it-alone" policy."
.......
"Bush turned from his tax reform proposals to shoot back at Kerry during a rally in Poplar Bluff, Missouri. He accused the Massachusetts senator of vacillating on Iraq after bringing in new advisers.

"My opponent woke up this morning with new campaign advisers and yet another new position," Bush said. "Suddenly he's against it (the war) again."

"No matter how many times Sen. Kerry changes his mind, it was right for America then and it's right for America now," he told the crowd, which chanted back, "flip-flop, flip-flop."

Smells Like Desperation to Me

2004-09-06T14:48:00.000-04:00

This from James Carville, who helped to foist Bill Clinton upon us all (apparently for no other reason than his own self-aggrandizement):

"Mistakes were made," James Carville, Democratic strategist, said of the campaign's August operations.

Mr. Kerry "is not satisfied with the state of his campaign" and will retool it this week, Mr. Carville told NBC's "Meet the Press."

Tad Devine of Kerry's campaign added:

"We're going to be able talk about issues like jobs and health care and the fact that John Kerry wants to take this nation in a new direction," Mr. Devine said. "And I think he's going to win the election because he's right on the issues and he has a very powerful message."

But Kerry has been talking about those things.. just in very vague generalities. Kerry says he would "do better" on the economy, somehow. Kerry keeps saying he would do things differently -- as if that by itself were enough reason to vote against President Bush.

What do the Democrats really have in mind? Just the sort of non-stop sleaze you would expect.

This from Susan Estrich, mastermind of the Dukakis '88 campaign:

"A forthcoming book by Kitty Kelly raises questions about whether the president has practiced what he preaches on the issue of abortion. As Larry Flynt discovered, a million dollars loosens lips. Are there others to be loosened?

"Are you shocked? Not fair? Who said anything about fair? Remember President Dukakis? He was very fair. Now he teaches at Northeastern University. John Kerry has been very fair in dealing with the Swift Boat charges. That's why so many of my Democrat friends have decided to stop talking to the campaign, and start putting money together independently."

Now That's a Bounce!

2004-09-05T17:05:00.000-04:00

From al-Reuters: Bush Takes 11-Point Election Lead Over Kerry -Poll

Compare this to Bloomberg on Friday: Bush, Kerry Tied in Race for U.S. Presidency, New Poll Shows

Michael Moore, Campaign Strategist

2004-09-03T13:33:00.000-04:00

Michael Moore (writing in USA Today -- how much do you suppose that little stunt cost Gannett?) tells the Democrats to buck up:

"I can't believe all of this whimpering and whining. Kerry has been ahead in many polls all summer long, but the Republicans come to New York for one week off-Broadway and suddenly everyone is dressed in mourning black and sitting shivah?"

That's right, Donkeys. There's really no need to worry about President Bush winning re-election. All John Kerry has to do is take Michael Moore's campaign advice:

"[Kerry] must realize that he faces Al Gore's fate only if he fails to stand up like the hero he is, only if he sits on the fence and keeps justifying his vote for the Iraq war instead of just saying, "Look, I was for it just like 70% of America until we learned the truth, and now I'm against it, like the majority of Americans are now."

Except Kerry is not against the war -- at least not in the way that the America-hating left is against the war. Even House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said she "can't understand" Kerry's position on Iraq. There's still time left for one more major flip-flop, Mr. Kerry...

The Over-Run

2004-09-03T09:18:00.000-04:00

The Baseball Crank feels that the president's speech went on too long.

I had heard earlier in the day that the speech would be around 43 minutes long, and when he began speaking around 10 minutes after 10 eastern, I figured he'd be done right around 11. But then he went into the next hour, and I think it was on purpose.

Only two or three minutes after 11, Bush began the portion of the speech where he talked about his flaws. It was self-deprecating and amusing, and hit the idea the way you have to in a job interview- here are some things I know that are flaws, but here's why they aren't. Not only did the jokes humanize him even more as he headed toward the emotional ending, I think it was part of a belief that some unknown population of television viewers, who would have otherwise not have watched the president's speech, flipped over to watch their late local news and kept it on thinking he'd be finished soon. If so, what they saw was him getting a laugh or two at his own expense, which can be very effective and winning if delivered the right way, and that carried into a solemn reminder that he understands the impact of the events of the last three years.

Not a bad few minutes to emphasize to people who might otherwise have no interest in him.

Now The Real Campaign Begins

2004-09-03T08:45:00.000-04:00

Last night, President Bush delivered the speech of his political career. (John Derbyshire in NRO: "If not a home run, certainly a double. John Kerry has a mountain to climb.")

Gen. Tommy Franks, in his speech, which I missed because I was watching the lopsided Utah-Texas A&M game:

Lincoln once said, "Character is like a tree and reputation is like its shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing.

"Citizens and friends, I've been with this president in tough, uncertain times. George W. Bush is "the real thing."

.. and John Kerry isn't! So Kerry hit back, with a midnight speech:

"Misleading our nation into war in Iraq makes you unfit to lead this nation. Doing nothing while this nation loses millions of jobs makes you unfit to lead this nation. Letting 45 million Americans go without health care makes you unfit to lead this nation. Letting the Saudi royal family control our energy costs makes you unfit to lead this nation. Handing out billions of government contracts to Halliburton while you're still on their payroll makes you unfit. That's the record of George Bush and Dick Cheney, and it's not going to change."

So this is the defining moment for the Democrats. Kerry reiterated the list of charges: Bush supposedly "misled" the nation into war in Iraq; economy's okay but not good enough; need more health care; and then the conspiracy theories. But is it enough? I haven't seen any reason to believe that the things Kerry talked about are sufficient to change voters' minds. Partisans on the left want Kerry to attack, attack, attack -- but he's been doing that, and it doesn't seem to be getting him anywhere.

How We Know Zell Miller Scored a Critical Hit

2004-09-02T10:09:00.000-04:00

The reactions tell you all you need to know.

Terry McAuliffe: "Let's be crystal clear, [Zell Miller's] not going to switch parties because if he switches parties, he can't sell as many books. I've talked to people who've talked to him, and he goes around the country bragging about how many books he's sold."

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ):"During the time I've served with Zell Miller, he never offered a suggestion as to what to do from a policy standpoint. All he did was cast a vote for the other side. They could count on him every single time. He hasn't brought anything to the Democratic agenda."

John Edwards: "On CNN Thursday morning, Edwards said Miller's speech was 'sad' and devoid of specifics about what the Bush administration would do over the next four years. 'Instead, it was just angry rhetoric about John Kerry,' he said."

BuzzFlash says Zell Miller is the Evil Emperor from Star Wars (and calls it 'analysis').

dailykos.com: "Such anger. Such negativity. The Republicans claim to be "optimistic", then spend the entire convention talking about the inevitable terrorist attacks."

George Stephanopoulos: "I wonder if it was smart to have him out there in such a hot fashion."

Wall Street Journal's John Harwood: "[Miller] looked like a spouse at a divorce proceeding who says, 'Oh yeah, she's a child molester too'."

UPDATE: The spin from the left continues to be -- Zell's a crazy person, and hey, Dick Cheney opposed some Pentagon buys, too. Ad hominem attacks on Miller, nitpicking over this and that, and zero substance. Zell Miller laid down the card -- John Kerry is unfit to be commander in chief -- and so far the Democrats have not picked it up.

Democrats Come Unhinged

2004-09-01T22:14:00.000-04:00

Dr. Evil himself, Karl Rove, made the following comments in an AP interview, regarding John Kerry's anti-Vietnam War activism:

"It was a period of intense feeling on both sides for and against the war, but I think that was painting with far too broad a brush to tarnish the records and service of people who were defending our country and fighting communism and doing what they thought was right."

"I do know that John Kerry has said, 'Judge me by my record' and spent a lot of time talking about his service in Vietnam, which we ought to honor. There are not going to be ads and such by the Bush campaign about this, but it's something that the American people have a right to take into consideration."

Rove specifically said that Kerry "served with valor" in Vietnam. So what has been the Democrats' reaction? Without a word to say in defense of Hanoi John's escapades in 1971, they've gone right for the "Oh, yeah? Well, Karl Rove and Dick Cheney were draft dodgers!" line of argument. Read this "Rapid Response" from johnkerry.com. The Democrats hastily arranged a conference call for reporters, who apparently weren't interested in asking questions like, "What does Dick Cheney's draft status have to do with John Kerry calling American soldiers war criminals?"

"Who in the hell is Karl Rove, talking about John Kerry's war record?" asked retired Air Force Gen. Merrill McPeak.

Huh? And, predictibly, Max Cleland called for Rove to resign because he said something arguably uncritical of the Swift Boat Vets.

Zell Miller Tears the Democrats a New One

2004-09-01T22:13:00.000-04:00

Speaking right now. Cites "Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our commander-in-chief."

"Nothing makes this Marine madder than calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators."

"No one should dare to even think about being the commander-in-chief if he does not believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home. But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking, America is the problem, not the solution."

It just keeps getting better and better. It's the most stirring political speech in years. Decades. Remarks as prepared for delivery, now that the embargo is lifted.

Write Your Own Joke

2004-09-01T21:43:00.000-04:00

Al-Jazeera called it "the highlight of the Republican convention."

Liberal Media Apoplexy Over Bush's 'Winnable' Remark

2004-09-01T16:24:00.000-04:00

At long last, Kerry partisans have an issue they can really sink their teeth into: a single remark made by President Bush in a weekend interview, later clarified by Scott McClellan and then further clarified by President Bush. What he said was:

"I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the -- those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

And what McClellan said was:

"Well, he was talking about winning it in the conventional sense. That's what he was talking about. I mean, this -- you've often heard him talk about how this is a different kind of war. We face an unconventional enemy. And it's -- I don't think you can expect that there will ever be a formal surrender or a treaty signed, like we have in wars past. That's what he was talking about, when he was talking about that. It requires a generational commitment to win this war on terrorism. I think you heard him talk about his two-prong strategy, that we must continue to stay on the offensive and bring the terrorists to justice before they harm us. We also must work to advance freedom to defeat the ideologies of hatred and tyranny. So that's what he was talking about. You can't put a time frame on it, per se."

Just to be clear, President Bush tells the American Legion:

"We meet today at a time of war for our country, a war we did not start, yet one that we will win."

..and other words to that affect. Predictably, the media has gone bonkers over this supposed admission by President Bush that the war against terrorism is "unwinnable." It would help their cause if President Bush had not been saying for the last three years that we can and must win the war on terror. (Just a quick search on the White House website shows President Bush mentioning this in Souix City, Iowa on August 14, on August 5 in Saginaw, Michigan, on July 31 in Canton, Ohio, and so on and so forth.) The media spin, however -- particularly among the America-hating foreign media -- is that President Bush has already wiped out bigtime. The Republican Convention was supposed to "paint" him as a resolute leader, and now he has made these remarks, which cannot be unmade. Tsk, tsk.

Said Sen. John McCain: "It didn't need clearing up."

Lying Liars Who Make Al Franken Angry

2004-09-01T16:17:00.000-04:00

I'd love to know the whole story behind these pictures of Al Franken going batshit. Just goes to show you: it pays to keep that digital camera handy.

Delusional Bolshevik Protesters

2004-09-01T08:59:00.000-04:00

From the "indy media" wrap-up of the "A31" protests:

"Waves of autonomous, well-planned, yet unpermitted direct actions swept the streets of Manhattan today. They stopped traffic, performed street theater and crashed parties, striking fear in the hearts of delegates. While none of the actions today could claim to have brought down the walls of the Empire, they may have, through their boldness and volume erroded some of the layers of its facade."

You know, I was a patriotic American, standing firm on two centuries of freedom and democracy, but that street theater I saw, and that hairy hippie shouting slogans in my face really changed my worldview... Now it's time for you to shut up, junior, and let the adults run the country and win the war.

UPDATE: Here's some more wishful thinking from the bolsheviks.

9/11 families speak out

2004-08-30T22:30:00.000-04:00

There are 9/11 widows speaking at the convention. Right now it's Deena Burnett.

You'd be forgiven if you didn't know that some 9/11 widows and family members supported the president. The MSM seems to have decided you didn't need to know.

John McCain is on

2004-08-30T22:22:00.000-04:00

...and I don't just mean appearing on my tv.

Now, I don't agree with McCain on everything, though I expect he's more conservative than Democrats would wish. But he's right on the war, and that's why he's needed. His speech is articulating why we have to fight, in the changed world after 9/11, and he's doing a wonderful job. Notably- he scores a good one against Michael Moore (though that's certainly an uneven fight), and says that Iraq is "necessary, achievable, and noble." And he says the President was right for the fight, and we owe him our support and gratitude for undertaking it.

As a sidenote, I've been watching the PBS coverage with Lehrer, Shields and Brooks. It's informative and so much more modulated than Chris Matthews' hysteric gyrations.

The Monkey In The Wrench

2004-08-30T15:28:00.000-04:00

I have to admit a certain fascination with keeping an eye on the left-wing fringe. That is, after all, why I wanted to start blogging -- in order to catalogue some of the more outrageous and bizarre goings-on among the lefties. Reading their self-sytled "independent media" pages I found this story: Self-proclaimed "radical" has apparently infiltrated the ranks of Republican Convention volunteers. His bold plan: To politely engage Republicans in conversation, make friends, send them some literature, and maybe score a few points for his side. Yes, you read that correctly. If you remember, back in 2000, gay sex columnist Dan Savage volunteered in Gary Bauer's Iowa campaign--and tried to make him sick. Here's a guy who has gone to ridiculous lengths just to have a dialogue.

This is the point where just to provide an example of how NOT to question beliefs and potentially change people’s minds, I might make up a fictional ‘Goofus’ character and describe his interactions. However, here I don’t have to. There actually was a real honest-to-goodness moronatron, and he turned out to be sitting right next to me!

He introduced himself by tersely declaring to anyone who would listen--"I’m a liberal" I was the only one listening, unfortunately. I thought to myself, "oooh, how shocking!"

He hates liberals, by the way. But he does take a cue from the DLC by trying to get everyone to move to the center.

Inside each Conservative beats the secret heart of a Libertarian. It is to this that one must appeal, and it is by this they can be freed from their slavery to complacent faith and false premises!

He's pretty sure he's a Libertarian, but he's actually a little confused as to what that means, unless it means something completely different to "radicals." (Here's an outstanding piece by P.J. O'Rourke, H.L. Mencken Research Fellow at the Cato Institute, titled "A Message to Redistributionists.") I am, however, encouraged that in one of the comments to his post, someone posted the complete text of the Declaration of Independence.

Edwards: Let's Trust Iran!

2004-08-30T12:19:00.000-04:00

North Carolina being a lot farther away from Iran than Tel Aviv, John Edwards has a bright idea -- Let Iran keep its nuclear power plants in exchange for giving up the right to retain the nuclear fuel that could be used for bomb-making:

"If we are engaging with Iranians in an effort to reach this great bargain and if in fact this is a bluff that they are trying to develop nuclear weapons capability, then we know that our European friends will stand with us."

After all, the shrewd negotiators in the Clinton Administration managed to disarm the North Korean nuclear threat, didn't they? So let's give peace a chance, Neville Chamberlain style, and if the Iranians lob a few missiles at Israel, we'll get the Europeans to heap scorn upon them. (For Shame, Iran! says the Guardian)

Now That's Funny!

2004-08-30T09:22:00.000-04:00

Check it out: Communists for Kerry

In New Republic Online: "The day's most noteworthy street theater wasn't even the creation of leftists; it was the brainchild of a conservative group calling themselves Communists for Kerry. ... Dressed as Lenin, Castro, and Che Guevara, and speaking in appropriate Russian and Spanish accents, they marched up Seventh Avenue waving red flags and calling for revolution. (The fact that their display was satire wasn't immediately obvious to some of their fellow marchers.)"

P.S. Don't forget to clip your "Get Out of Gulag" Card!

What This Is All About

2004-08-27T13:03:00.000-04:00

Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe:

[Kerry] came to prominence as a radical opponent of the war in Vietnam, yet now he runs for president on the strength of his service in that war. He portrayed the men who fought there as unspeakable savages, yet now he surrounds himself with Vietnam vets at every turn. He lent respectability to those who demanded that America cut and run, that it abandon a beleaguered ally, that it drop "the mystical war against communism." Yet now he insists that he would be a tough and vigilant commander-in-chief, one who would never disrespect allies, one in whose hands the security of the United States would be safe.

Liberals Claim Victory Over Swifties.. A Bit Too Soon

2004-08-26T21:28:00.000-04:00

Editorial for Friday in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, titled "Credibility Taking Hits:"

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign is taking on water. Hole after hole has been blown in the group's credibility. We hope the damage is sufficient to finally sink 30-year-old anguish over the Vietnam War as a campaign issue.

Listen up, you no-good Vietnam veterans! Enough already! Specifically, the lefties on the P-I editorial board cite "three more direct hits this week" to the campaign to "smear John Kerry:"

Despite repeated assertions that the Bush campaign had no connection to the anti-Kerry group, the campaign's counsel, Benjamin Ginsberg, resigned, conceding that he'd provided legal advice to the swift boat bunch.

Swing and a miss! Ginsburg didn't do anything wrong, ethically or under McCain-Feingold, and "conceded" nothing. And trust me, you boys do not want to start down this path. Similar "connections" between the Democratic Party, the Kerry campaign, labor unions and liberal 527s are many -- see this piece from Blogs for Bush, for starters.

One of the group's founders was commander at the time of a task force whose report confirmed that on March 13, 1969, Kerry's boat was involved in "an enemy-initiated firefight."

All that digging and what the mainstream media turned up was the weekly report for Task Force 115 from that week in 1969. However, Swift Boat Vet Larry Thurlow stands by his assertion that there was no enemy fire that day, and that the task force commanders probably relied on the initial report of the incident. Thurlow says Kerry wrote that report.

And an Oregon lawyer who appeared in a Kerry-bashing ad faces a state bar association complaint that he was misleading in a sworn affidavit alleging that Kerry had not earned his Purple Heart medals.

Even if the bar charges stick -- 'That's one Swift Boat Veteran down! Only 254 more to go! But this is really little more than partisan sniping. Read a little closer and you'll see that Alfred French swore an affidavit to information "within my personal knowledge or belief." He didn't say he witnessed everything firsthand. And, I guess he's another one of the decorated Vietnam veterans that it's OK to call a liar.

One man who can -- and should -- blow this nasty campaign out of the water is President Bush. His recent call to ban all campaign advertising by all such outside groups -- known as 527 committees -- is not only insufficiently critical of the swift boat campaign but also restraint of free speech.

President Bush ordering the Swift Boat Vets to stop, and their compliance, would constitute the sort of illegal coordination that the Democrats are wishful for. The Democrats are pretty sure that the rest of us haven't figured that out yet.

The answer, Mr. President, is not to restrict the use of political free speech, but to condemn its abuse.

Newspapers, of course, under McCain-Feingold are free to say whatever they please, for or against a candidate. Translation: MoveOn.org shouldn't have to shut up, but the Swift Boat Vets should be made to.

UPDATE: Bob Herbert in the New York Times today desperately tries to shift the focus onto President Bush's National Guard service. You can feel the desperation setting in.

Al Franken Humiliates Himself

2004-08-26T20:11:00.000-04:00

Too.. many.. jokes.

Hot Damn! We've Got a Reader!

2004-08-26T14:20:00.000-04:00

Our story "More Tall Tales From 'The 'Nam?'," regarding a Kerry comment from a 2003 speech, drew more than one comment from a reader named Jeff. A reader! Hot damn tamale! We've got readers!

First this one:

Research helps.
Navy personnel got the Vietnam Service Ribbon for serving on ships patroling the coast of Vietnam. Kerry's ship even went into the Gulf of Tonkin. It is common to say they were "serving in Vietnam." Kerry did not state that he was "in-country." He served in Vietnam from February of 1968.
Your facts are simply wrong.

Then today he writes:

I gave you concrete facts that disproved your assertion about Kerry. Yet you go on getting it wrong. Well, anybody can set up a blog. Very few can enter into an honest dialogue.

Okee-dokee! I'll bite on that!

In his speech, Kerry was saying nice things about the Rev. Martin Luther King in commemoration of Martin Luther King Day, in Richmond, Va. in 2003. In that speech, Kerry said: "I remember well April, 1968 - I was serving in Vietnam—a place of violence -- when the news reports brought home to me and my crewmates the violence back home." When taken in context, it seems clear to me that Kerry wanted to leave the impression on his audience that he was, in fact, serving in Vietnam at the time that he learned of Dr. King's assassination.

Kerry did, in fact, serve in the United States Navy from February 18, 1966 until April 29, 1970. However, at the time of Dr. King's assassination, he was serving aboard the U.S.S. Gridley DLG/GC-21 on its deployment to the Western Pacific, which did include a period of time in the Gulf of Tonkin off North Vietnam but also included going to Subic Bay in the Philippines and Wellington, New Zealand. According to an article written by the Gridley's executive officer at the time (and also a good read), the WESTPAC deployment did include time on rescue station in the Gulf of Tonkin off North Vietnam, standing by to pick up downed aviators. Fair enough.

Kerry later was deployed to Vietnam -- feet actually on the ground, in the country -- on November 17, 1968. Jeff, I respectfully disagree with you -- No self-respecting sailor who served "in-country" would have considered a stint in the Gulf of Tonkin to be "serving in Vietnam," unless that person was a Navy pilot. (See this piece from a sailor who served with the Mobile Riverine Force in the Mekong Delta.) And I still contend that in his Richmond speech in 2003 Kerry was trying to tell tall tales about his Vietnam service. Something I didn't mention in the post was that, later in the speech, he specifically mentions his African-American gunner among his crew -- whom he did not serve with until at least November of 1968. Now, reasonable people can disagree, but I don't think that my position is indefensible or that I am provably 'wrong.' Is that fair?

Are the Cameras Rolling? Cue the Wheelchair!

2004-08-26T11:59:00.000-04:00

In a made-for-TV moment if there ever was one, the Democrats dispatched former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland (in the wheelchair, at left) and Jim Rassmann, the former Green Beret lieutenant whom Kerry fished from the water in March 1969 after Rassmann fell off Kerry's boat, to deliver a letter to President Bush. Lacking a visual, a phone call would not have sufficed. And so, faced with the choice between joining President Bush in trying to get rid of all 527 ads -- including the big TV push from MoveOn.org expected to launch shortly -- the Democrats would much rather play to the cameras and try to have their cake and eat it too.

Speaking of having one's cake and eating it too, Rich Lowry points out in NRO that Cleland himself is a Bush Administration appointee. President Bush gave him an appointment to a seat on the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank in 2003. Click here to see his bio on the Ex-Im Bank's website. His salary for serving his country thusly: $136,000 a year. Not exactly Heinz-Kerry money, but you would think that anyone so grossly offended by the Bush Administration would resign his cushy job that President Bush provided before pulling a stunt like this.

UPDATE: Nets Jump on Cleland Stunt, Hype Ginsburg Overlap with Swifties, from the Media Research Center

Kerry Wants To Talk About The Issues? Fine!

2004-08-26T10:35:00.000-04:00

If the Democratic candidate would like to discuss issues other than his activities in 1968-1971, then here's a topic to discuss: his new health "plan" with a 10-year cost in excess of $1 trillion.

From the National Center for Policy Analysis:

"Whatever the cost, the plan will almost certainly lead to a new round of health-care inflation. Federal spending alone will increase by more than $100 billion a year. But since there will be no increase in supply, the bulk of this new spending will buy higher prices rather than more health care. ...

"A major problem with the current system is that tax subsidies for health insurance are arbitrary and unfair. But rather than move to a fairer system that treats equals equally, Mr. Kerry would create a slew of new subsidies that would make the system even more arbitrary. People at the same income level would receive vastly different subsidies depending on their age, where they work and how they obtain insurance."

Amazingly, Kerry's plan explicitly rejects national health insurance. Of course, a Kerry victory in November would empower a lot of people with a great admiration for nationalized health care.

Kerry, You Can't Have It Both Ways

2004-08-26T10:25:00.000-04:00

From the letter to Kerry, signed by a number of Vietnam veterans, including several GOP congressmen:

We're proud of our service in Vietnam. We served honorably in Vietnam and we were deeply hurt and offended by your comments when you came home.

You can't have it both ways. You can't build your convention and much of your campaign around your service in Vietnam, and then try to say that only those veterans who agree with you have a right to speak up. There is no double standard for our right to free speech. We all earned it.

You said in 1992 "we do not need to divide America over who served and how." Yet you and your surrogates continue to criticize President Bush for his service as a fighter pilot in the National Guard.

More Tall Tales From 'The 'Nam?'

2004-08-25T15:27:00.000-04:00

From James Taranto's OpinionJournal:

Another Seared--Seared--Memory

From a John Kerry speech commemorating Martin Luther King Day, Jan. 20, 2003:

"I remember well April 1968--I was serving in Vietnam -- a place of violence -- when the news reports brought home to me and my crewmates the violence back home -- and the tragic news that one of the bullets flying that terrible spring took the life of [Dr. King]."

In fact, Kerry did not go to Vietnam until November 1968.

Democrats Won't Take It Unless Michael Moore Is Dishing It

2004-08-25T14:58:00.000-04:00

Thanks to our good friends at Kerry Haters for finding this one -- columnist Tim Chavez in the (Nashville) Tennessean:

I got an e-mail from a person who identified herself as Melissa Salmanowitz with a group called Media Matters for America.

It supposedly is a watchdog on conservatives, and she was wanting me to write about her group's effort to get chain book stores to quit selling Unfit for Command due to accuracy problems.

So I e-mailed Salmanowitz and told her that I'd write about their cause to quash the book's examination of John F. Kerry's military record and anti-war activities if they'd make the same appeal to the movie theaters to stop showing Michael Moore's documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11.

There was no reply.

Someone ought to make a similar proposal to Max Cleland while he visits Crawford, Texas.

Kerry, 'grilled' ever so slightly

2004-08-25T14:20:00.000-04:00

The Professor asks,

Of course, that just makes the press treatment worse. I wonder -- will they use the Daily Show appearance as an excuse to call this "old news?"

Well, if you take today'sWe Watch So You Don't Have To column from the Washington Post as part of the first wave of MSM commentary on Kerry's Daily Show appearance, then it's certainly going to be as though Kerry actually faced and answers tough questions about Vietnam:

Kerry is the first presidential nominee to appear on "The Daily Show." Host Stewart wasted no time grilling him.
"I watch a lot of the cable news shows, so I understand that apparently you were never in Vietnam," Stewart said.
"That's what I understand, too -- I'm trying to find out what happened," Kerry joked.
Kerry also said a lot of stuff about the allegations over his war record being disappointing because he thinks most Americans would like to have a much more intelligent conversation about where the country's going, and that he's seen a "web and network" behind the ads that have attacked his Vietnam War record, and how President Bush doesn't want to talk about the real issues because, after all what's he gonna do, come out and say we've lost 1.8 million jobs and 4 million Americans lost their health care and how we're going backward on the environment and we have angered everybody in the world?

The rest of the article goes on in this fashion, presenting Kerry's views and spin in the context of talking about his appearance.

I realize this is only a slightly tongue-in-cheek column in the Style section, but even here there's absolutely no mention that not only was there no "grilling" during the appearance, Kerry sidestepped the few slightly tougher questions, such as Cambodia, tossed his way. I like the Post and am usually willing to give them the benefit of the doubt given the quality of their reporting and the diversity available on their editorial page, but I wish I could be confident that their news and analyses writers won't take Lisa de Morae's word that Kerry actually responded to the inquiry in a meaningful fashion. Stay tuned.

"we all knew it was going on"

2004-08-25T14:12:00.000-04:00

A DC-area radio call-in show last night was on the topic of "should John Kerry apologize for his post-war statements?" There were plenty of calls on both sides, and many from vets who were in the military in the late 60s and early 70s. I can't say for sure if the majority of calls came down on either side, since I missed several as I can't abide listening to commercial breaks in the car. The host made it a point to ask all those who said Kerry didn't need to apologize if the war crimes he discussed occurred. Many, but not all, of those who felt Kerry had nothing to apologize for said those things did happen, but not a one of them engaged in the activities, saw them happening, or knew anyone who did them or saw them personally. It was a lot of what one caller called 'we all knew it was going on', but not much 'I saw it with my own two eyes.'

I realize this is anecdotal and proves nothing, but I thought it was interesting.

what has been unleashed

2004-08-25T13:45:00.000-04:00

This thoughtful essay by Adeimantus * discusses how John Kerry violated the "Vietnam truce" in American politics. Essentially the American public had decided not decide how America feels about its Vietnam experience, so neither war heros nor war protestors from that conflict were entitled to use to use their experiences against their opponents in campaigns. That hyper-partisans on both sides and the media tried to get voters interested in Clinton and Quayle's records in 1992 only proves the point, as the great mass of voters remained unmoved.

Until now, as Kerry has made his biography the foundation of his campaign. But he's only using part of it, the part that shows him as the gallant hero willing to kill. The other part, where, based on hearsay, he accuses thousands of American servicemen of war crimes, he neither repudiates nor acknowledges. But the servicemen who remember Kerry's statements in 1971 aren't going to let him get away with only acknowledging part of that biography.

Now, several weeks ago, when the SBVfT first began to come forward, one of my initial thoughts was that if Kerry lost over this, the anger we've seen by some on the left and in the Democratic party against Bush will pale in comparison to what we'll see following the election. All those feelings held by those who were against the war, who pioneered the social revolution all that time ago, will become even more expressly bound up in the opposition to George W. Bush should he win the election. The potential damage to public discourse is nearly incalculable.

But now I'm also becoming convinced that the reverse is true, that should Kerry discredit the Swift Boat Vets using his current tactics, by saying they are motivated by lie due to partisanship, then Kerry will face an opposition convinced that he represents the worst of what they remember of the 60's- opportunism riding the back of harmful social disturbances, which hamstrung America for years, as he leads on the basis of a false record.

I can only wonder how the next president will deal with this at the same time he tries to lead the continuing fight against the Islamic fundamentalist threat to America.

*I found this through another blog, but can't remember which one. It's my policy to give credit where credit is due, so a hat tip to the nameless writer who turned me on to this intelligent and observant piece of writing; my promise to you is not to forget others in the future.