Thanks for the Memory to reader 51st State for this from the Ashbrook Center.
The Liberals’ Creed
by Robert Alt
We believe in the United Nations, and Kofi Annan, the maker of international legitimacy.
We believe that the UN inspections worked.
We believe that SCUD missiles fired at U.S. troops minutes after the war began don’t change anything;
We believe that 3 liters of sarin gas used against U.S. troops doesn’t change anything;
We believe that finding evidence of mustard gas doesn’t change anything.
We believe that the war in Iraq conducted by a Republican president was unjustified because it lacked UN approval;
We believe that the "military action" in Kosovo conducted by a Democratic president was justified without UN approval.
We believe that the Iraq war was unilateral.
We believe that the participation of Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Thailand, United Kingdom, and Ukraine does not change the fact that the war was unilateral;
We believe that multilateralism can only be achieved with the participation of France and Germany;
We believe in multilateralism.
We believe that this war was motivated by greed and oil;
We believe that when France, Germany, and Russia opposed the war, they were motivated by principle, and not by sweetheart oil deals or Oil-For-Food kickbacks;
We believe that US oil prices are too high, and that the administration failed in its responsibility to do something about it.
We believe that the U.S. may only legitimately use force for humanitarian ends in one place if it does so in all places where aid might be needed;
We believe that the U.S. may not quell threats in places where the cost is relatively low unless it is willing to use force in places like North Korea, where the cost in lives would likely be very high;
We believe that a humanitarian action is only truly humanitarian if there are no strategic interests to muddle the altruism.
We believe that President Bush lied.
We believe that Prime Minister Blair lied.
We believe that when Hillary Clinton and Dick Gephardt voted for the war based on the same intelligence relied upon by Bush and Blair, they made reasonable decisions based on the intelligence available at the time.
We believe that the administration did not make the case for war;
We believe that the administration offered many different reasons but could not offer a coherent message explaining the need to go to war;
We believe that the administration made perfectly clear that the only reason we were going to war was because of the threat from WMDs.
We believe that there were no WMDs.
We believe that finding sarin gas is 14th page news;
We believe that if the sarin gas is old, then it really isn’t a WMD we were looking for;
We believe that it wasn’t really sarin gas;
We believe that sarin gas isn’t necessarily a WMD.
We believe that there was no terrorist connection to, or threat from, Iraq.
We believe that members of Abu Nidal in Iraq would not have committed terrorist acts if we had not invaded;
We believe that al Qaeda operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would not have committed terrorist acts if we had not invaded;
We believe that Saddam’s terrorist training camp at Salman Pak—complete with a Boeing 707 plane used for hijacking drills—did not exist or posed no real threat;
We believe that it was merely a coincidence that the pharmaceutical factory bombed by President Clinton in Sudan was using al Qaeda funds and a uniquely Iraqi formula to produce VX gas;
We believe that we are responsible for bringing terror on ourselves.
We believe that the prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib is widespread and is probably the tip of the iceberg;
We believe that Abu Ghraib proves that the America’s occupation is no different than Saddam’s tyranny;
We believe that any attempt to suggest that there is a moral difference between a regime which systematically killed 300,000 people and tortured countless others and a regime which punished the acts of Abu Ghraib is illegitimate.
We believe that soldiers deliberately target women and children;
We believe that the soldiers abuse and kill Iraqis because they are racists;
We support our troops.
We believe that no one should question our statement that we "support our troops;"
We believe that the best thing that could happen for this country would be for Bush to lose in November;
We believe that the best way for Bush to lose in November is for the Iraq effort to go poorly, even if that means that more Iraqis and troops will die;
We believe that most of the troops are minorities and the poor;
We believe that when the word "heroes" is used to describe our troops, it should always be enclosed in scare quotes.
We believe in quagmire.
We believe that when fringe Iraqi groups attack hard targets and are soundly defeated with relatively low Coalition casualties, that this is inescapable evidence of crisis;
We believe that Iraq is Bush’s Vietnam.
We believe that Vietnam is the lens through which all wars should be viewed.
We believe that soldiers in Vietnam were baby killers;
We believe that John Kerry is a hero for his service in Vietnam.
We believe that because John Kerry is a hero, he necessarily has the national security expertise necessary to be commander-in-chief.
We believe that any attempt to question his national security expertise based on his voting record, including his decision to vote against a supplemental bill used to buy the soldiers body armor, is an unfair attack on the patriotism of a hero, who by virtue of this honorific has the expertise to be commander-in-chief.
We believe in the trinity: NPR, CNN, and the New York Times. We believe in Ted Kennedy, Tom Harkin, John Kerry, and all the DNC, and we look for President Clinton yet to come. Amen.
Thursday, September 23, 2004
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
Blue Collar Academia
Thanks for the Memory to Dr. Bauman at In Extremis.
With Sincere Apologies to Jeff Foxworthy: You Might be a Liberal If . . .
By: Dr. Michael Bauman
Even though some liberal politicians don’t like using the "L" word, it’s still possible to know who’s a liberal and who is not.
You might be a liberal if . . .
You think that consenting adults can engage freely in every activity except capitalism.
You think the really alarming violence takes place outside the abortion clinic.
You’ve ever referred to the “root cause” of something.
You pray to “The Woman Upstairs.”
You think we never gave peace a chance.
You had to be told that “Manhattan,” “menopause” and “boycott” were not sexist words
You begin sentences with the words “I feel.”
Your driver’s license has a hyphen because, for you, one last name just isn’t enough.
You think OJ is out looking for the real killers.
You don’t know that you see B.S. when you watch CBS.
You think Fox News is faux news.
You get your economic theory from John Mellencamp and your foreign policy from Sean Penn.
You think it takes a village.
You think higher education is about diversity, not excellence.
You think that the words “to promote the general welfare” in the Constitution mean to promote welfare generally.
You think that conservatives, like preservatives, ought to be federally regulated.
You ever wore earth shoes.
You have ever wondered out loud, “Why can’t we all just get along?”
You think the New York Times prints all the news that’s fit.
You think that Bill O'Reilly is just an entertainer.
You spent Columbus Day reading Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee.
You reach the limits of your talent and then complain that you ran into a glass ceiling.
You wear more ribbons on your lapel than in your hair.
You think that the really dangerous McCarthy was Joe, not Eugene.
You blame the Unabomber’s parents.
You fail to see the connection between Lenin and Lennon.
You have ever agreed with Alec Baldwin.
Seriously, if you haven't been to In Extremis, GO NOW!!!!! Bauman and Oren are two of the most underrated bloggers I've read!
With Sincere Apologies to Jeff Foxworthy: You Might be a Liberal If . . .
By: Dr. Michael Bauman
Even though some liberal politicians don’t like using the "L" word, it’s still possible to know who’s a liberal and who is not.
You might be a liberal if . . .
You think that consenting adults can engage freely in every activity except capitalism.
You think the really alarming violence takes place outside the abortion clinic.
You’ve ever referred to the “root cause” of something.
You pray to “The Woman Upstairs.”
You think we never gave peace a chance.
You had to be told that “Manhattan,” “menopause” and “boycott” were not sexist words
You begin sentences with the words “I feel.”
Your driver’s license has a hyphen because, for you, one last name just isn’t enough.
You think OJ is out looking for the real killers.
You don’t know that you see B.S. when you watch CBS.
You think Fox News is faux news.
You get your economic theory from John Mellencamp and your foreign policy from Sean Penn.
You think it takes a village.
You think higher education is about diversity, not excellence.
You think that the words “to promote the general welfare” in the Constitution mean to promote welfare generally.
You think that conservatives, like preservatives, ought to be federally regulated.
You ever wore earth shoes.
You have ever wondered out loud, “Why can’t we all just get along?”
You think the New York Times prints all the news that’s fit.
You think that Bill O'Reilly is just an entertainer.
You spent Columbus Day reading Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee.
You reach the limits of your talent and then complain that you ran into a glass ceiling.
You wear more ribbons on your lapel than in your hair.
You think that the really dangerous McCarthy was Joe, not Eugene.
You blame the Unabomber’s parents.
You fail to see the connection between Lenin and Lennon.
You have ever agreed with Alec Baldwin.
Seriously, if you haven't been to In Extremis, GO NOW!!!!! Bauman and Oren are two of the most underrated bloggers I've read!
When They Call it "Last Comic Standing," I Don't Think They Mean the Host
I watched "Last Comic Standing" last night, and only have one piece of advice for host Jay Mohr:
Dude, your guest stars were Carrot Top and Louie Anderson.
That's "Dial Down the Center" Carrot Top and Louie "Just When You Thought Family Feud Couldn't Get More Pathetic" Anderson!
FIRE
YOUR
AGENT
!!!!!
You're this close to Hollywood Squares status!
Dude, your guest stars were Carrot Top and Louie Anderson.
That's "Dial Down the Center" Carrot Top and Louie "Just When You Thought Family Feud Couldn't Get More Pathetic" Anderson!
FIRE
YOUR
AGENT
!!!!!
You're this close to Hollywood Squares status!
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Gore Campaign: More Journalistic Integrity Than CBS?
Thanks for the Memory to Drudge.
Gore campaign rejected allegations similar to CBS report, former campaign chief says
- MATT KELLEY, Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
(09-21) 15:54 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --
Former Vice President Al Gore's presidential campaign heard but did not pursue allegations about George W. Bush's Air National Guard service, similar to the information in discredited documents aired by CBS News this month, a former campaign official said Tuesday.
Tony Coelho, who ran the campaign for several months in 2000, said he did not follow up on the claims because they were not serious enough to demand further attention.
"Of everyone I talked to, no one had anything that rose to the level that we should get ourselves into," Coelho said.
CBS and anchor Dan Rather apologized Monday for a "60 Minutes" segment that quoted documents purported to be from one of Bush's commanders in the Texas Air National Guard. The documents say the commander, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, ordered Bush to take a medical exam, which he did not, and felt pressured to sugarcoat an evaluation of then-1st Lt. Bush.
Rather said the network could not determine if the memos were authentic.
White House officials and other Republicans suggested that Democrat John Kerry's presidential campaign was behind the CBS report. Kerry campaign officials denied that.
Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart said he spoke with Bill Burkett, who gave CBS the documents, after a network producer suggested it. Lockhart and Burkett said they only discussed how Kerry could respond to a group of Republican veterans who accuse Kerry of exaggerating his Vietnam War record.
Coelho said he remembered taking phone calls in 2000 from several Texans with allegations about Bush's Guard service. He said he did not remember if any were from Burkett, a former Texas Army National Guard officer and longtime Bush critic.
"I never felt there was anything substantive for us to try to deal with or not, so we never pursued it," Coelho said. "We never had any documents given to us. That would have been something different. We would have had to check it out."
I'm not sure I completely believe Coelho -- there's a lot of "CYA" going on in leftist circles these days.
If he's lying (plausible), it's one more example of rats abandoning a sinking swift boat. If he's telling the truth, it speaks volumes that CBS was eager to jump on a story that even the avowed nemesis of the story's target wouldn't touch.
Gore campaign rejected allegations similar to CBS report, former campaign chief says
- MATT KELLEY, Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
(09-21) 15:54 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --
Former Vice President Al Gore's presidential campaign heard but did not pursue allegations about George W. Bush's Air National Guard service, similar to the information in discredited documents aired by CBS News this month, a former campaign official said Tuesday.
Tony Coelho, who ran the campaign for several months in 2000, said he did not follow up on the claims because they were not serious enough to demand further attention.
"Of everyone I talked to, no one had anything that rose to the level that we should get ourselves into," Coelho said.
CBS and anchor Dan Rather apologized Monday for a "60 Minutes" segment that quoted documents purported to be from one of Bush's commanders in the Texas Air National Guard. The documents say the commander, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, ordered Bush to take a medical exam, which he did not, and felt pressured to sugarcoat an evaluation of then-1st Lt. Bush.
Rather said the network could not determine if the memos were authentic.
White House officials and other Republicans suggested that Democrat John Kerry's presidential campaign was behind the CBS report. Kerry campaign officials denied that.
Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart said he spoke with Bill Burkett, who gave CBS the documents, after a network producer suggested it. Lockhart and Burkett said they only discussed how Kerry could respond to a group of Republican veterans who accuse Kerry of exaggerating his Vietnam War record.
Coelho said he remembered taking phone calls in 2000 from several Texans with allegations about Bush's Guard service. He said he did not remember if any were from Burkett, a former Texas Army National Guard officer and longtime Bush critic.
"I never felt there was anything substantive for us to try to deal with or not, so we never pursued it," Coelho said. "We never had any documents given to us. That would have been something different. We would have had to check it out."
I'm not sure I completely believe Coelho -- there's a lot of "CYA" going on in leftist circles these days.
If he's lying (plausible), it's one more example of rats abandoning a sinking swift boat. If he's telling the truth, it speaks volumes that CBS was eager to jump on a story that even the avowed nemesis of the story's target wouldn't touch.
The Enemy of His Enemy is His... Enemy?
Thanks for the Memory to Drudge.
One of the criticisms of President Bush leveled by the Left is that he's "a Divider, not a Uniter." They are, of course, referring to the current polarization of the electorate, both to the left and the right.
Given that criticism, and the fact that he represents the left, don't you think Kerry should refrain from Dividing the Left Itself?
Nader Blames Kerry for Ballot Access Fight
By Sue Pleming
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader accused his Democratic rival Sen. John Kerry on Tuesday of being responsible for a campaign to try and keep him off the Nov. 2 ballot.
Seen by many Democrats as the "spoiler" in the 2000 election that elected Republican George W. Bush as president, Nader's campaign said it was fighting 21 legal cases in 17 states in a bid to get the consumer advocate on the ballot.
Nader pointed the finger at Kerry and Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe for being behind what his campaign says is a program of harassment, intimidation and phony lawsuits that are costing tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
"The ballot access has drained our time and our resources," Nader told a news conference. "I have to hold Sen. John Kerry and Terry McAuliffe directly responsible."
The Kerry campaign did not immediately return phone calls asking for a response.
Nader's campaign played a tape they said was testimony by the head of the Democratic Party in Maine who is heard saying that the Democratic National Committee is paying for her time and expenses related to trying to keep Nader off the ballot.
The Nader campaign said that kind of coordination appeared to be illegal and should be investigated by the Federal Elections Commission.
His campaign said Nader was on the ballot in 29 states.
Nader called the Democrats "gutless, spineless, clueless and hapless" and said their gamble that people would vote for anyone but Bush was misguided and would make them lose the election.
Democrats around the United States have been challenging Nader's presence on the ballot, fearing he will again boost Bush's re-election chances by drawing votes that would otherwise go to Kerry.
Polls indicate the 2004 election may be as close as the one in 2000 when the Supreme Court ruled on the Florida recount to hand Bush victory over Democrat Al Gore.
Last week, Florida's Supreme Court ordered Nader could be allowed to compete in the state and a judge also ordered that he be included on the ballot in Colorado.
Judges in New Mexico and Arkansas have denied Nader access to the Nov. 2 ballot, but he did win a spot on the ballot in Maryland.,
And in Oregon, I think she meant to say. I've blogged on the whole Nader issue before, specifically because of his influence here in Oregon.
The irony here is delicious. As I've stated, being the Not-Bush has been such a huge part of Kerry's appeal to the left. Yet in the way he's dealt with Nader, he is alienating the extreme left -- the one group of people who most often take up the "Anybody but Bush" battlecry.
One of the criticisms of President Bush leveled by the Left is that he's "a Divider, not a Uniter." They are, of course, referring to the current polarization of the electorate, both to the left and the right.
Given that criticism, and the fact that he represents the left, don't you think Kerry should refrain from Dividing the Left Itself?
Nader Blames Kerry for Ballot Access Fight
By Sue Pleming
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader accused his Democratic rival Sen. John Kerry on Tuesday of being responsible for a campaign to try and keep him off the Nov. 2 ballot.
Seen by many Democrats as the "spoiler" in the 2000 election that elected Republican George W. Bush as president, Nader's campaign said it was fighting 21 legal cases in 17 states in a bid to get the consumer advocate on the ballot.
Nader pointed the finger at Kerry and Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe for being behind what his campaign says is a program of harassment, intimidation and phony lawsuits that are costing tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
"The ballot access has drained our time and our resources," Nader told a news conference. "I have to hold Sen. John Kerry and Terry McAuliffe directly responsible."
The Kerry campaign did not immediately return phone calls asking for a response.
Nader's campaign played a tape they said was testimony by the head of the Democratic Party in Maine who is heard saying that the Democratic National Committee is paying for her time and expenses related to trying to keep Nader off the ballot.
The Nader campaign said that kind of coordination appeared to be illegal and should be investigated by the Federal Elections Commission.
His campaign said Nader was on the ballot in 29 states.
Nader called the Democrats "gutless, spineless, clueless and hapless" and said their gamble that people would vote for anyone but Bush was misguided and would make them lose the election.
Democrats around the United States have been challenging Nader's presence on the ballot, fearing he will again boost Bush's re-election chances by drawing votes that would otherwise go to Kerry.
Polls indicate the 2004 election may be as close as the one in 2000 when the Supreme Court ruled on the Florida recount to hand Bush victory over Democrat Al Gore.
Last week, Florida's Supreme Court ordered Nader could be allowed to compete in the state and a judge also ordered that he be included on the ballot in Colorado.
Judges in New Mexico and Arkansas have denied Nader access to the Nov. 2 ballot, but he did win a spot on the ballot in Maryland.,
And in Oregon, I think she meant to say. I've blogged on the whole Nader issue before, specifically because of his influence here in Oregon.
The irony here is delicious. As I've stated, being the Not-Bush has been such a huge part of Kerry's appeal to the left. Yet in the way he's dealt with Nader, he is alienating the extreme left -- the one group of people who most often take up the "Anybody but Bush" battlecry.
Secret Service Hunting for Man Intending to Assasinate President Bush.
MAJOR UPDATE:
Also credited to Ace.
The suspect has been found and questioned by the Secret Service.
URGENT UPDATE:
Thanks for the Memory to Ace of Spades HQ:
The latest regarding this story from the Washington Times is that they still haven't caught him: He's completely disappeared!
U.S. law enforcement officials have been unable to locate an upstate New York man wanted for questioning regarding threats to President Bush.
Original Post, 21 September 2004:
Thanks for the Memory to Drudge.
City alert in threat to Bush
BY MICHELE McPHEE and LEO STANDORA
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
Lawrence Ward
The Secret Service clamped down on midtown last night to protect President Bush from a possible assassin armed with a hunting rifle.
Lawrence Ward, 59, left his upstate New York home Wednesday with a .30-30 lever-action hunting rifle in the trunk of his car, telling a neighbor, "I'm not coming back."
Inside his house in Bainbridge was a picture of Bush with the words "Dead Man" spray-painted near it, law enforcement authorities said.
Bush was in town for a fund-raiser at the Sheraton New York before speaking today at the UN General Assembly.
The Secret Service deemed Ward, a software engineer, such a "credible threat" that a three-square-block chunk of midtown was cordoned off.
Secret Service agents and city cops patrolled the area looking for anything suspicious.
Ward's ex-wife, Judith Ward, 59, who lives in Connecticut, told the Secret Service she thinks her former husband "is very dangerous and capable of killing someone and/or committing suicide."
She said Ward "is obsessed with weapons, [Oklahoma City bomber] Timothy McVeigh and the book 'The Dead Zone' - a novel about the stalking and attempted assassination of a presidential candidate," according to a Secret Service document.
The document, reviewed by the Daily News, said Ward sent his ex-wife a CD that mentions killing both Bush and Democratic rival John Kerry.
He also was said to be "obsessed" with his 19-year-old daughter, Priscilla Jane.
Judith Ward told The News she divorced her husband four years ago after 18 years of marriage because "he was a wife-beater and other things I don't want to talk about."
Authorities said Ward has a criminal past dating to 1991, including an indecent sexual proposal charge.
The neighbor in Bainbridge, a community about 40miles northeast of Binghamton, told authorities that Ward "frequently spoke of 'fighting the system' and other anti-government topics."
The neighbor said Ward gave him his house keys and told him to help himself. He then drove off in a blue 1997 Toyota sedan with the New York license plate BRF-6546.
Two days later, the neighbor went into the house, found the photo of Bush and called police.
Please pray for the safety of the President, the Secret Service agents, any innocent bystanders, and even this man. He's obviously mentally disturbed, and the ideal outcome would be that he spends a long, long time in a secure facility.
Also credited to Ace.
The suspect has been found and questioned by the Secret Service.
URGENT UPDATE:
Thanks for the Memory to Ace of Spades HQ:
The latest regarding this story from the Washington Times is that they still haven't caught him: He's completely disappeared!
U.S. law enforcement officials have been unable to locate an upstate New York man wanted for questioning regarding threats to President Bush.
Original Post, 21 September 2004:
Thanks for the Memory to Drudge.
City alert in threat to Bush
BY MICHELE McPHEE and LEO STANDORA
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
Lawrence Ward
The Secret Service clamped down on midtown last night to protect President Bush from a possible assassin armed with a hunting rifle.
Lawrence Ward, 59, left his upstate New York home Wednesday with a .30-30 lever-action hunting rifle in the trunk of his car, telling a neighbor, "I'm not coming back."
Inside his house in Bainbridge was a picture of Bush with the words "Dead Man" spray-painted near it, law enforcement authorities said.
Bush was in town for a fund-raiser at the Sheraton New York before speaking today at the UN General Assembly.
The Secret Service deemed Ward, a software engineer, such a "credible threat" that a three-square-block chunk of midtown was cordoned off.
Secret Service agents and city cops patrolled the area looking for anything suspicious.
Ward's ex-wife, Judith Ward, 59, who lives in Connecticut, told the Secret Service she thinks her former husband "is very dangerous and capable of killing someone and/or committing suicide."
She said Ward "is obsessed with weapons, [Oklahoma City bomber] Timothy McVeigh and the book 'The Dead Zone' - a novel about the stalking and attempted assassination of a presidential candidate," according to a Secret Service document.
The document, reviewed by the Daily News, said Ward sent his ex-wife a CD that mentions killing both Bush and Democratic rival John Kerry.
He also was said to be "obsessed" with his 19-year-old daughter, Priscilla Jane.
Judith Ward told The News she divorced her husband four years ago after 18 years of marriage because "he was a wife-beater and other things I don't want to talk about."
Authorities said Ward has a criminal past dating to 1991, including an indecent sexual proposal charge.
The neighbor in Bainbridge, a community about 40miles northeast of Binghamton, told authorities that Ward "frequently spoke of 'fighting the system' and other anti-government topics."
The neighbor said Ward gave him his house keys and told him to help himself. He then drove off in a blue 1997 Toyota sedan with the New York license plate BRF-6546.
Two days later, the neighbor went into the house, found the photo of Bush and called police.
Please pray for the safety of the President, the Secret Service agents, any innocent bystanders, and even this man. He's obviously mentally disturbed, and the ideal outcome would be that he spends a long, long time in a secure facility.
No Moore, No Less
I received the following email, and thought it was a great idea!
PUBLISHER SPONSORING "DVD BUY-BACK" PROGRAM TO KEEP AMERICAN HOMES SAFE FROM MICHAEL MOORE'S DANGEROUS PROPAGANDA
Similar to Gun Buy-Backs, World Ahead Publishing Exchanges "Fahrenheit 9/11" for Copies of THANK YOU, PRESIDENT BUSH
LOS ANGELES, September 17, 2004 - In an effort to ensure the safety of American homes, World Ahead Publishing, publisher of THANK YOU, PRESIDENT BUSH, announces its Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD Buy-Back program for U.S. purchasers of Michael Moore's documentary. In urban areas, city leaders periodically sponsor gun "buy-back" programs to help reduce gun violence. Similarly, the Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD Buy-Back program is designed to protect Americans from harm, especially young children who might accidentally slip this dangerous propaganda into the living room DVD player.
Beginning October 5th, the day Moore's documentary goes on sale, World Ahead Publishing will offer citizens the opportunity to exchange their copies of Fahrenheit 9/11 for THANK YOU PRESIDENT BUSH: REFLECTIONS ON THE WAR ON TERROR, DEFENSE OF THE FAMILY, AND THE REVIVAL OF THE ECONOMY, with no questions asked.
Unlike Moore's film, which deceptively splices film footage to score its points, Thank You, President Bush discusses the facts. This book's all-star list of contributors includes Art Laffer, the father of supply-side economics; George Shultz, former Secretary of State; James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family; and Bill Bennett, former Secretary of Education. Vice President Dick Cheney also contributes a chapter on foreign policy, and the President's brother, Gov. Jeb Bush, pens a moving and personal introduction. All 29 writers are experts in their
topics, addressing such important issues as national security, the economy,
and social policy in straightforward language.
"Moore's work isn't a documentary. It's a dangerous weapon that shouldn't be left lying around the house," says Aman Verjee, co-editor of the anthology. "Send us Moore's lies and we'll give you the truth on President Bush's record and policies. We want to give people who unsuspectingly buy Moore's propaganda a chance to trade it in for a book that's positive and insightful," added Verjee. "This book sets the
record straight: George W. Bush deserves more than another term in office; he
deserves our gratitude."
For the mailing address and the terms and conditions of the buy-back program, go to www.worldaheadpublishing.com.
ABOUT WORLD AHEAD PUBLISHING
World Ahead Publishing is a privately-held, California-based corporation with a growing coterie of authors who advocate individual liberty and free markets. World Ahead believes that freedom is the inalienable right of all human beings but the spread of liberty is by no means a foregone conclusion-individual freedom and the institutions that make it possible, including capitalism itself, face risks from
reactionary and powerful interests. To that end, World Ahead Publishing seeks to publish thought-provoking nonfiction books exploring the significant economic, political, and security issues facing the nation and the world. Two other titles will debut in the second half of 2004, and seven new books are planned for 2005-2006.
For more information: www.worldaheadpublishing.com
When I read the gun buyback comparison, I couldn't help but think, DVDs don't deceive people, Michael Moore deceives people!
PUBLISHER SPONSORING "DVD BUY-BACK" PROGRAM TO KEEP AMERICAN HOMES SAFE FROM MICHAEL MOORE'S DANGEROUS PROPAGANDA
Similar to Gun Buy-Backs, World Ahead Publishing Exchanges "Fahrenheit 9/11" for Copies of THANK YOU, PRESIDENT BUSH
LOS ANGELES, September 17, 2004 - In an effort to ensure the safety of American homes, World Ahead Publishing, publisher of THANK YOU, PRESIDENT BUSH, announces its Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD Buy-Back program for U.S. purchasers of Michael Moore's documentary. In urban areas, city leaders periodically sponsor gun "buy-back" programs to help reduce gun violence. Similarly, the Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD Buy-Back program is designed to protect Americans from harm, especially young children who might accidentally slip this dangerous propaganda into the living room DVD player.
Beginning October 5th, the day Moore's documentary goes on sale, World Ahead Publishing will offer citizens the opportunity to exchange their copies of Fahrenheit 9/11 for THANK YOU PRESIDENT BUSH: REFLECTIONS ON THE WAR ON TERROR, DEFENSE OF THE FAMILY, AND THE REVIVAL OF THE ECONOMY, with no questions asked.
Unlike Moore's film, which deceptively splices film footage to score its points, Thank You, President Bush discusses the facts. This book's all-star list of contributors includes Art Laffer, the father of supply-side economics; George Shultz, former Secretary of State; James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family; and Bill Bennett, former Secretary of Education. Vice President Dick Cheney also contributes a chapter on foreign policy, and the President's brother, Gov. Jeb Bush, pens a moving and personal introduction. All 29 writers are experts in their
topics, addressing such important issues as national security, the economy,
and social policy in straightforward language.
"Moore's work isn't a documentary. It's a dangerous weapon that shouldn't be left lying around the house," says Aman Verjee, co-editor of the anthology. "Send us Moore's lies and we'll give you the truth on President Bush's record and policies. We want to give people who unsuspectingly buy Moore's propaganda a chance to trade it in for a book that's positive and insightful," added Verjee. "This book sets the
record straight: George W. Bush deserves more than another term in office; he
deserves our gratitude."
For the mailing address and the terms and conditions of the buy-back program, go to www.worldaheadpublishing.com.
ABOUT WORLD AHEAD PUBLISHING
World Ahead Publishing is a privately-held, California-based corporation with a growing coterie of authors who advocate individual liberty and free markets. World Ahead believes that freedom is the inalienable right of all human beings but the spread of liberty is by no means a foregone conclusion-individual freedom and the institutions that make it possible, including capitalism itself, face risks from
reactionary and powerful interests. To that end, World Ahead Publishing seeks to publish thought-provoking nonfiction books exploring the significant economic, political, and security issues facing the nation and the world. Two other titles will debut in the second half of 2004, and seven new books are planned for 2005-2006.
For more information: www.worldaheadpublishing.com
When I read the gun buyback comparison, I couldn't help but think, DVDs don't deceive people, Michael Moore deceives people!
Monday, September 20, 2004
CBS: As Impartial as a Russian Olympic Judge
Thanks for the Memory to Luciane Via Ace of Spades HQ.
Kerry Aid Contacted Burkett on CBS' Advice
Associated Press
NEW YORK - At the behest of CBS, an adviser to John Kerry said he talked to a central figure in the controversy over President Bush's National Guard service shortly before disputed documents were released.
Do tell.
Joe Lockhart denied any connection between the presidential campaign and the papers. (Uh huh. The way things have been going in this case, buddy, you might understand if we view this claim... skeptically.)Lockhart, the second Kerry ally to confirm contact with retired Texas National Guard officer Bill Burkett, said he made the call at the suggestion of CBS producer Mary Mapes.
It's a good thing the media is so unbiased, or we might think Mapes was trying to help Kerry.
"He had some advice on how to deal with the Vietnam issue and the Swift boat" allegations, Lockhart said Monday, referring to GOP-fueled accusations that Kerry exaggerated his Vietnam War record. "He said these guys play tough and we have to put the Vietnam experience into context and have Kerry talk about it more."
You're sure he didn't saying anything about "fighting fire with fire, even if you have to start the fire yourself?
Lockhart said he thanked Burkett for his advice after a three to four minute call.
Lockhart said he does not recall talking to Burkett about Bush's Guard records. "It's baseless to say the Kerry campaign had anything to do with this," he said.
Then why are we talking to you? The fact that you called him, on CBS' advice, right in the middle of the whole mess, you don't consider that a bit... suspicious?
CBS News apologized Monday for a "mistake in judgment" in its story questioning Bush's Guard service, claiming it was misled by the source of documents that several experts have dismissed as fakes.
Burkett admitted this weekend to CBS that he lied about obtaining the documents from another former National Guard member, the network said. CBS hasn't been able to conclusively tell how he got them, or even whether they're fakes or not.
Kerry ally Max Cleland, a former Georgia senator, also said he had a brief conversation last month with Burkett, who told him he had information about Bush to counter charges against Kerry's Vietnam War service. Cleland said he gave Burkett's name and phone number to the campaign's research department.
But... but... I thought it was "...baseless to say the Kerry campaign had anything to do with this"! What is this your telling us?
Kerry spokesman David Ginsberg said nobody in the campaign's research department followed up on Burkett's offer of information.
Again, we're a bit skeptical, given how many times we've been lied to in this whole mess.
Lockhart said Mapes asked him the weekend before the story broke to call Burkett. "She basically said there's a guy who is being helpful on the story who wants to talk to you," Lockhart said, adding that it was common knowledge that CBS was working on a story raising questions about Bush's Guard service. Mapes told him there were some records "that might move the story forward. She didn't tell me what they said."
That's the part of this story that galls me to no end. Forget the direct link to a Kerry campaign worker. It's possible, but not likely, that he acted independently, and that they really ARE telling the truth (for once) when they claim a lack of collusion.
But the fact that Mapes, the CBS Producer of the story, called a member of the campaign staff of one of the two candidates, with information she thought would help him defeat the other candidate, nails the lid in the coffin of any claims to impartiality on the part of CBS.
I repeat,
This nails the lid in the coffin of any claims to impartiality on the part of CBS.
Oh, THAT media bias.
UPDATE:
Thanks for the Memory to reader Mark at Ace.
Apparently, even Mapes' own FATHER recognizes her as a DNC Shill.
Ouch.
UPDATE 2:
Thanks for the Memory to Random Birkel via Ace of Spades.
Apparently Joe Lockhart isn't the only member Kerry camp talking about contact with Burkett. In an interview on MSNBC's Hardball (the most poorly named program on TV), Tony Coelho claims that the DNC saw the Burkett documents, but suspected they were fakes.
Which raises a couple of questions in my mind: If you knew they were fakes, why didn't you say so when this story first broke? Hoping that little tidbit wouldn't come out? Hmmmm? And if you knew Burnett was passing fake documents, why didn't you warn Kerry's staff not to take his advice on ANYTHING?????!!!!!
In trying to exhonorate themselves, the DNC just sinks deeper into this. A little bit of advice: When you're up to your neck in quicksand, STOP STRUGGLING!
UPDATE 3:
Again via Ace of Spades.
This Article from USA Today is the most damning yet. It implies that Burkett agreed to give CBS the documents only on condition that they arrange a meeting between him and the Kerry camp!
Dan Rather should quit now. Hey, at least he'll have a job as a press aid to Kerry.
Kerry Aid Contacted Burkett on CBS' Advice
Associated Press
NEW YORK - At the behest of CBS, an adviser to John Kerry said he talked to a central figure in the controversy over President Bush's National Guard service shortly before disputed documents were released.
Do tell.
Joe Lockhart denied any connection between the presidential campaign and the papers. (Uh huh. The way things have been going in this case, buddy, you might understand if we view this claim... skeptically.)Lockhart, the second Kerry ally to confirm contact with retired Texas National Guard officer Bill Burkett, said he made the call at the suggestion of CBS producer Mary Mapes.
It's a good thing the media is so unbiased, or we might think Mapes was trying to help Kerry.
"He had some advice on how to deal with the Vietnam issue and the Swift boat" allegations, Lockhart said Monday, referring to GOP-fueled accusations that Kerry exaggerated his Vietnam War record. "He said these guys play tough and we have to put the Vietnam experience into context and have Kerry talk about it more."
You're sure he didn't saying anything about "fighting fire with fire, even if you have to start the fire yourself?
Lockhart said he thanked Burkett for his advice after a three to four minute call.
Lockhart said he does not recall talking to Burkett about Bush's Guard records. "It's baseless to say the Kerry campaign had anything to do with this," he said.
Then why are we talking to you? The fact that you called him, on CBS' advice, right in the middle of the whole mess, you don't consider that a bit... suspicious?
CBS News apologized Monday for a "mistake in judgment" in its story questioning Bush's Guard service, claiming it was misled by the source of documents that several experts have dismissed as fakes.
Burkett admitted this weekend to CBS that he lied about obtaining the documents from another former National Guard member, the network said. CBS hasn't been able to conclusively tell how he got them, or even whether they're fakes or not.
Kerry ally Max Cleland, a former Georgia senator, also said he had a brief conversation last month with Burkett, who told him he had information about Bush to counter charges against Kerry's Vietnam War service. Cleland said he gave Burkett's name and phone number to the campaign's research department.
But... but... I thought it was "...baseless to say the Kerry campaign had anything to do with this"! What is this your telling us?
Kerry spokesman David Ginsberg said nobody in the campaign's research department followed up on Burkett's offer of information.
Again, we're a bit skeptical, given how many times we've been lied to in this whole mess.
Lockhart said Mapes asked him the weekend before the story broke to call Burkett. "She basically said there's a guy who is being helpful on the story who wants to talk to you," Lockhart said, adding that it was common knowledge that CBS was working on a story raising questions about Bush's Guard service. Mapes told him there were some records "that might move the story forward. She didn't tell me what they said."
That's the part of this story that galls me to no end. Forget the direct link to a Kerry campaign worker. It's possible, but not likely, that he acted independently, and that they really ARE telling the truth (for once) when they claim a lack of collusion.
But the fact that Mapes, the CBS Producer of the story, called a member of the campaign staff of one of the two candidates, with information she thought would help him defeat the other candidate, nails the lid in the coffin of any claims to impartiality on the part of CBS.
I repeat,
This nails the lid in the coffin of any claims to impartiality on the part of CBS.
Oh, THAT media bias.
UPDATE:
Thanks for the Memory to reader Mark at Ace.
Apparently, even Mapes' own FATHER recognizes her as a DNC Shill.
Ouch.
UPDATE 2:
Thanks for the Memory to Random Birkel via Ace of Spades.
Apparently Joe Lockhart isn't the only member Kerry camp talking about contact with Burkett. In an interview on MSNBC's Hardball (the most poorly named program on TV), Tony Coelho claims that the DNC saw the Burkett documents, but suspected they were fakes.
Which raises a couple of questions in my mind: If you knew they were fakes, why didn't you say so when this story first broke? Hoping that little tidbit wouldn't come out? Hmmmm? And if you knew Burnett was passing fake documents, why didn't you warn Kerry's staff not to take his advice on ANYTHING?????!!!!!
In trying to exhonorate themselves, the DNC just sinks deeper into this. A little bit of advice: When you're up to your neck in quicksand, STOP STRUGGLING!
UPDATE 3:
Again via Ace of Spades.
This Article from USA Today is the most damning yet. It implies that Burkett agreed to give CBS the documents only on condition that they arrange a meeting between him and the Kerry camp!
Dan Rather should quit now. Hey, at least he'll have a job as a press aid to Kerry.
Rather Ironic
Thanks for the Memory to Little Green Footballs via Ace of Spades HQ.
This is a picture an LGF reader took of a CBS News van in NYC:
The small sign under the CBS News sign reads, "The only bush I trust is my own."
Ha ha ha. How clever. Oh, THAT Liberal Media Bias.
Ironically enough, the only CBS News I trust is... ummm....
This is a picture an LGF reader took of a CBS News van in NYC:
The small sign under the CBS News sign reads, "The only bush I trust is my own."
Ha ha ha. How clever. Oh, THAT Liberal Media Bias.
Ironically enough, the only CBS News I trust is... ummm....
U of O College Republicans Cry "Fowl!" at DeFazio Staffer's Behavior
Thanks for the Memory to to Jim Peterson, local GOP leader, who forwarded this press release from the UofO College Republicans to me:
Media Advisory
September 18,2004
Contact: Matt Lawrence
Chicken Ruffles DeFazio’s Feathers
Albany, OR – Apparently, some people can’t take a joke.
Last month, the Oregon College Republicans began a campaign of sorts against Democratic Congressman Peter DeFazio. Upset over DeFazio’s lack of willingness to debate his opponent, Republican challenger Jim Feldkamp, the CRs began using a chicken suit to try and goad the reluctant Democrat into accepting more debates.
To date, the only debates accepted by DeFazio are scheduled for October 20 – five days after ballots are dropped.
“We felt that Mr. DeFazio was deliberately pushing the debate back as far as he could,” College Republicans Co-Chair Matt Lawrence said. “He claimed his Congressional schedule made it too difficult, but we know that they adjourn in early October.”
Thursday, DeFazio made some appearances in Albany. One of the first was a radio interview at KGAL’s downtown studio.
Unfortunately for DeFazio, The Chicken decided to stop in and watch the interview as it was in progress. The Chicken even had signs with questions written on them that DeFazio had previously refused to answer.
Once the interview was over, DeFazio and his staffers literally manhandled the chicken, threatening him and his family, and displaying the type of conduct not normally expected of statesmen and Congressional staffers.
“DeFazio and his staffers totally snapped,” Lawrence said. “I think it’s safe to say we really ruffled their feathers.”
The Chicken has subsequently reported receiving several prank phone calls at his house. He has been severely traumatized by the whole experience, and is currently seeking therapy as a result.
“I don’t know why Mr. DeFazio and his staffers would threaten me and my family. My little chicks have never done anything to hurt him or anybody else,” The Chicken said. “Cluck, cluck, cluck.”
Now, obviously, there is a bit of tongue-in-cheek humor at the end of the article, but some of it makes some serious allegations. So I called Matt for further details. Here's what I found out:
The incident occurred at an ountdoor event held by KGAL NewsTalk Radio 1580 AM in Albany, outside their studios. The interview is with KGAL host Jim Willhight, and is set to air today at 1:00 PM PDT. The public was welcome, and encouraged to come and ask questions of the congressman. So the CR's sent the Chicken and a few other members to the event. Matt said that DeFazio exited the event looking upset, so I'm looking forward to hearing it.
While they were entering the area where the interview was being held, and again when the left, the CR's were confronted by an individual who seemed quite displeased with his presence, and wanted to know what questions they had to ask (Matt's words were that this individual "got in the face" of one of the CR's). This individual then informed the CR that he would find out who he was, who his family was, and where he lived. He then left with DeFazio, leading the CR's to believe he was a DeFazio staffer. The CR in question has since received several "prank" calls, all of which have been recorded.
According to Matt, no mention of this incident has been made by KGAL or any of the local and state news sources they've sent it to. I doubt it will. Unfortunately, unless they got it on tape or video, it's the CR's word against DeFazio's. But while I'm hesitant to make a "post hoc" leap regarding any connection between the incident and the prank calls (at least not unless I have a chance to hear them), I wouldn't be surprised if there is a link.
More info as available.
Media Advisory
September 18,2004
Contact: Matt Lawrence
Chicken Ruffles DeFazio’s Feathers
Albany, OR – Apparently, some people can’t take a joke.
Last month, the Oregon College Republicans began a campaign of sorts against Democratic Congressman Peter DeFazio. Upset over DeFazio’s lack of willingness to debate his opponent, Republican challenger Jim Feldkamp, the CRs began using a chicken suit to try and goad the reluctant Democrat into accepting more debates.
To date, the only debates accepted by DeFazio are scheduled for October 20 – five days after ballots are dropped.
“We felt that Mr. DeFazio was deliberately pushing the debate back as far as he could,” College Republicans Co-Chair Matt Lawrence said. “He claimed his Congressional schedule made it too difficult, but we know that they adjourn in early October.”
Thursday, DeFazio made some appearances in Albany. One of the first was a radio interview at KGAL’s downtown studio.
Unfortunately for DeFazio, The Chicken decided to stop in and watch the interview as it was in progress. The Chicken even had signs with questions written on them that DeFazio had previously refused to answer.
Once the interview was over, DeFazio and his staffers literally manhandled the chicken, threatening him and his family, and displaying the type of conduct not normally expected of statesmen and Congressional staffers.
“DeFazio and his staffers totally snapped,” Lawrence said. “I think it’s safe to say we really ruffled their feathers.”
The Chicken has subsequently reported receiving several prank phone calls at his house. He has been severely traumatized by the whole experience, and is currently seeking therapy as a result.
“I don’t know why Mr. DeFazio and his staffers would threaten me and my family. My little chicks have never done anything to hurt him or anybody else,” The Chicken said. “Cluck, cluck, cluck.”
Now, obviously, there is a bit of tongue-in-cheek humor at the end of the article, but some of it makes some serious allegations. So I called Matt for further details. Here's what I found out:
The incident occurred at an ountdoor event held by KGAL NewsTalk Radio 1580 AM in Albany, outside their studios. The interview is with KGAL host Jim Willhight, and is set to air today at 1:00 PM PDT. The public was welcome, and encouraged to come and ask questions of the congressman. So the CR's sent the Chicken and a few other members to the event. Matt said that DeFazio exited the event looking upset, so I'm looking forward to hearing it.
While they were entering the area where the interview was being held, and again when the left, the CR's were confronted by an individual who seemed quite displeased with his presence, and wanted to know what questions they had to ask (Matt's words were that this individual "got in the face" of one of the CR's). This individual then informed the CR that he would find out who he was, who his family was, and where he lived. He then left with DeFazio, leading the CR's to believe he was a DeFazio staffer. The CR in question has since received several "prank" calls, all of which have been recorded.
According to Matt, no mention of this incident has been made by KGAL or any of the local and state news sources they've sent it to. I doubt it will. Unfortunately, unless they got it on tape or video, it's the CR's word against DeFazio's. But while I'm hesitant to make a "post hoc" leap regarding any connection between the incident and the prank calls (at least not unless I have a chance to hear them), I wouldn't be surprised if there is a link.
More info as available.
Thursday, September 16, 2004
Another Example of Jackbooted Right Wing Thugs and Their Freedom Loving Leftist Victims
Only, Y'know, Not:
Three-year-old Sophia Parlock cries while seated on the shoulders of her father, Phil Parlock, after having their Bush-Cheney sign torn up by Kerry-Edwards supporters on Thursday, Sept. 16, 2004, at the Tri-State Airport in Huntington, W.Va. Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards (news - web sites) made a brief stop at the airport as he concluded his two-day bus tour to locations in West Virginia and Ohio. (AP Photo/Randy Snyder)
Thanks for the Memory to Curtis at a_sdf.
Update:
As Aaron at Free Will points out, the jerk on their right, the one who seems to be holding remnants of the sign, is wearing a Union shirt -- apparently the IUPAT, the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades. I think it reflects well on their trade, don't you?
UPDATE 1:
Thanks for the Memory to reader Kat in Missouri over at the Rottie.
IUPAT Issues Apology.
Does this mean your thug will be turning himself in to the authorities?
As I've discussed before, this isn't the first time the left has acted like this. I doubt it will be the last.
UPDATE 2:
Amazing how quickly I was proven right.
Thanks for the Memory to Mr. Minority.
UPDATE 3:
Emily at It Comes in Pints? has a different conservative reaction to this, as do several readers over at the Rottie. And upon further reflection, I have to concede their point. The gentleman whose sign was torn up is a known conservative agitator, and this is the third presidential election in a row in which he's been involved in an incident like this. And it WAS irresponsible of him to take his 3-year old into the middle of a hostile crowd. And the Union thug is an aberration. Most people, even rabid supporters of one cause or the other, would not intentionally cause a child harm or trauma.
But just because he's not the norm does not mean he's necessarily the only one of his kind out there. Just look at the incidents I catalog in this post from August, or this post from Michelle Malkin today (some overlap occurs), or the link above in update 2. These "isolated incidents" start to snowball after a while.
I guess what irks me most of all is the hypocrisy of the Left, the blatant, unabashed willingness to accuse the Right of the very things they themselves do. Look at all these incidents. I've had one of my own -- admittedly not violent, but it was definitely the action of someone willing to take unethical action in order to deprive me of my freedom of expression -- and yet the daily rhetoric from the Left is about conservative being Nazis, about the threat to personal freedoms, especially freedom of expression. They do this without any sense of self-irony whatsoever, without shame, without batting an eye.
"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."
Three-year-old Sophia Parlock cries while seated on the shoulders of her father, Phil Parlock, after having their Bush-Cheney sign torn up by Kerry-Edwards supporters on Thursday, Sept. 16, 2004, at the Tri-State Airport in Huntington, W.Va. Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards (news - web sites) made a brief stop at the airport as he concluded his two-day bus tour to locations in West Virginia and Ohio. (AP Photo/Randy Snyder)
Thanks for the Memory to Curtis at a_sdf.
Update:
As Aaron at Free Will points out, the jerk on their right, the one who seems to be holding remnants of the sign, is wearing a Union shirt -- apparently the IUPAT, the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades. I think it reflects well on their trade, don't you?
UPDATE 1:
Thanks for the Memory to reader Kat in Missouri over at the Rottie.
IUPAT Issues Apology.
Does this mean your thug will be turning himself in to the authorities?
As I've discussed before, this isn't the first time the left has acted like this. I doubt it will be the last.
UPDATE 2:
Amazing how quickly I was proven right.
Thanks for the Memory to Mr. Minority.
UPDATE 3:
Emily at It Comes in Pints? has a different conservative reaction to this, as do several readers over at the Rottie. And upon further reflection, I have to concede their point. The gentleman whose sign was torn up is a known conservative agitator, and this is the third presidential election in a row in which he's been involved in an incident like this. And it WAS irresponsible of him to take his 3-year old into the middle of a hostile crowd. And the Union thug is an aberration. Most people, even rabid supporters of one cause or the other, would not intentionally cause a child harm or trauma.
But just because he's not the norm does not mean he's necessarily the only one of his kind out there. Just look at the incidents I catalog in this post from August, or this post from Michelle Malkin today (some overlap occurs), or the link above in update 2. These "isolated incidents" start to snowball after a while.
I guess what irks me most of all is the hypocrisy of the Left, the blatant, unabashed willingness to accuse the Right of the very things they themselves do. Look at all these incidents. I've had one of my own -- admittedly not violent, but it was definitely the action of someone willing to take unethical action in order to deprive me of my freedom of expression -- and yet the daily rhetoric from the Left is about conservative being Nazis, about the threat to personal freedoms, especially freedom of expression. They do this without any sense of self-irony whatsoever, without shame, without batting an eye.
"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."
Another Purple Heart
This Time for Shooting Himself in the Foot.
Thanks for the Memory to Tim Blair via Free Will.
John Kerry talked to Pro-Kerry pundit Don Imus today, and even Imus wasn't impressed:
"I was just back in my office banging my head on the jukebox," Mr. Imus said. "This is my candidate, and ... I don't know what he's talking about."
And the best quote, as pointed out by both my sources, was this exchange:
KERRY: I mean, 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 is your plan? What's your plan, Mr. President, to stop these kids from being killed? What's your plan, Mr. President, to get the other countries in there? What's your plan to have 90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the cost being carried by America?
IMUS: We're asking you because you want to be president.
Finally a Democrat who gets what we Republicans have been saying all along.
Thanks for the Memory to Tim Blair via Free Will.
John Kerry talked to Pro-Kerry pundit Don Imus today, and even Imus wasn't impressed:
"I was just back in my office banging my head on the jukebox," Mr. Imus said. "This is my candidate, and ... I don't know what he's talking about."
And the best quote, as pointed out by both my sources, was this exchange:
KERRY: I mean, 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 is your plan? What's your plan, Mr. President, to stop these kids from being killed? What's your plan, Mr. President, to get the other countries in there? What's your plan to have 90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the cost being carried by America?
IMUS: We're asking you because you want to be president.
Finally a Democrat who gets what we Republicans have been saying all along.
Welcome to Wittenburg
Thanks for the Memory to It Comes in Pints?
The Memogate controversy has garnered attention in Belfast -- and they are paying attention to the fact that it was bloggers who made it happen.
I highly recommend reading the essay. I found the Catholic Church/Printing Press analogy appropriate, but I would go one step further: Blogs have been the MSM's printing press for some time.
This was our 95 Theses.
The Memogate controversy has garnered attention in Belfast -- and they are paying attention to the fact that it was bloggers who made it happen.
I highly recommend reading the essay. I found the Catholic Church/Printing Press analogy appropriate, but I would go one step further: Blogs have been the MSM's printing press for some time.
This was our 95 Theses.
Signs of the Apocalypse
Thanks for the Memory to Sheila via It Comes in Pints?
Apparently plans are in the works to film a new movie version of F Scott Fitzgeralds The Great Gatsby. That's cool, I'm all for a renewed interests in the classics.
Now the bad news.
They're casting Paris Hilton and Lance Bass as Daisy Buchanan and Jay Gatsby.
Really.
I may just have to take a wood burning kit to my occipital lobe.
Apparently plans are in the works to film a new movie version of F Scott Fitzgeralds The Great Gatsby. That's cool, I'm all for a renewed interests in the classics.
Now the bad news.
They're casting Paris Hilton and Lance Bass as Daisy Buchanan and Jay Gatsby.
Really.
I may just have to take a wood burning kit to my occipital lobe.
Shut Yo Mouth
A Shout Out for the Memory to Macktastic Rusty Wicked of Yo! MyPetJawa!
Rusty has suggested that we form a Blog Pimp Alliance. The first step is getting a Fly Pimpafied Name.
Well, considering the way we've made Dan Rather our B*&$#, it does seem appropo. So from now on, you may call me Ghetto Fabulous B. Slick
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get down with my bad self.
Rusty has suggested that we form a Blog Pimp Alliance. The first step is getting a Fly Pimpafied Name.
Well, considering the way we've made Dan Rather our B*&$#, it does seem appropo. So from now on, you may call me Ghetto Fabulous B. Slick
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get down with my bad self.
Greenpeace: Next on the Agenda, converting the Rainbow Warrior Into a Whaler
Thanks for the Memory to Common Sense & Wonder
via It Comes in Pints?
Greenpeace is facing criminal charges for violation of Alaskan state environmental laws.
I think the article speaks for itself. Any further comment would spoil its perfection.
via It Comes in Pints?
Greenpeace is facing criminal charges for violation of Alaskan state environmental laws.
I think the article speaks for itself. Any further comment would spoil its perfection.
Unanswered Questions
I watched the 60 Minutes II interview with Killian's secretary last night, and was amazed at how quickly Dan Rather managed to glaze over the fact that the memos are not authentic. He's still living in the past, thinking he can just slickly move past that, and not get called on it. Hasn't learned much from the last week.
He goes on to argue that regardless of the authenticity of the documents, there are bigger questions that remain unanswered. I agree -- more on that in a moment.
He then claimed that in all the furor over the documents themselves, that his critics and the White House have failed to address the other evidence, or the issues that they raise.
Sorry, Mr. Rather, you're wrong. These allegations have been made for the past 5 years. They've been addressed again and again and again. The more recent allegations, and all of the arguments made in your story, have been equally addressed in the last week by numerous blogs. I am not going to go to the trouble of repeating their efforts, but I'd recommend you start with Ace of Spades or Rathergate (I thought you'd like that one).
But let's consider some other questions this story raised, Mr. Rather.
Why were you and are you still insistent on the authenticity of documents that were so easily debunked so quickly?
If they are forgeries, why are you protecting a source you now know to be unreliable? What are you hiding?
Why have you not interviewed the son and widow of Killian, both of whom deny the veracity of the memos' contents? And why did you ignore Killian's son's advice to talk to several other TANG sources who could provide contrary views?
Why have you failed to address the fact that your main witness, Burkett, is a hardline Democrat with an axe to grindwhose own child says this is politically motivated? Correction -- that's Barnes. Burkett has enough baggage, no need for me to go pulling a CBS. Thanks to reader Merc for the correction.
There ARE plenty of unanswered questions, Mr. Rather, but I believe it is YOU who needs to answer them. Otherwise you continue to look like nothing more than a strident mouthpiece for the Democratic Party.
He goes on to argue that regardless of the authenticity of the documents, there are bigger questions that remain unanswered. I agree -- more on that in a moment.
He then claimed that in all the furor over the documents themselves, that his critics and the White House have failed to address the other evidence, or the issues that they raise.
Sorry, Mr. Rather, you're wrong. These allegations have been made for the past 5 years. They've been addressed again and again and again. The more recent allegations, and all of the arguments made in your story, have been equally addressed in the last week by numerous blogs. I am not going to go to the trouble of repeating their efforts, but I'd recommend you start with Ace of Spades or Rathergate (I thought you'd like that one).
But let's consider some other questions this story raised, Mr. Rather.
Why were you and are you still insistent on the authenticity of documents that were so easily debunked so quickly?
If they are forgeries, why are you protecting a source you now know to be unreliable? What are you hiding?
Why have you not interviewed the son and widow of Killian, both of whom deny the veracity of the memos' contents? And why did you ignore Killian's son's advice to talk to several other TANG sources who could provide contrary views?
Why have you failed to address the fact that your main witness, Burkett, is a hardline Democrat with an axe to grind
There ARE plenty of unanswered questions, Mr. Rather, but I believe it is YOU who needs to answer them. Otherwise you continue to look like nothing more than a strident mouthpiece for the Democratic Party.
The Empress Has No Clothes
Thanks for the Memory to PoliPundit via Ace of Spades HQ.
This seems appropriate, considering she's named after Marie Anoinette's mother. Teesa Heinz Kerry, visiting relief efforts for hurricane victims, said, "Clothing is wonderful, but let them go naked for a while, at least the kids,"
I will repeat that, because, to borrow from Lewis Black, it bears repeating:
"Clothing is wonderful, but let them go naked for a while, at least the kids"
Wow.
According to the AP article, she was concerned the effort was too focused on sending clothes instead of essentials like water and electric generators.
Well, yes, Teraysuh, if that's all any of the relief centers were packing, I'd be concerned too. Of course, I'd ask first how the food and water situation was being handled, and I'd find a more sensitive way to express this concern. You know, one that was a little less reminiscent of "Let zem eat cake."
Furthermore, you might be surprised to learn that clothing is still quite essential, not just "wonderful." Protection from the elements and all that.
Imagine the outrage from Democrats if a Republican said something like that. Look at the way they excoriate the President for his malapropisms. Imagine if it had not been Teresa, but Laura Bush. Except I just can't imagine our First Lady making such an insensitive quip.
Keep talking, Dahling. You're helping our cause.
This seems appropriate, considering she's named after Marie Anoinette's mother. Teesa Heinz Kerry, visiting relief efforts for hurricane victims, said, "Clothing is wonderful, but let them go naked for a while, at least the kids,"
I will repeat that, because, to borrow from Lewis Black, it bears repeating:
"Clothing is wonderful, but let them go naked for a while, at least the kids"
Wow.
According to the AP article, she was concerned the effort was too focused on sending clothes instead of essentials like water and electric generators.
Well, yes, Teraysuh, if that's all any of the relief centers were packing, I'd be concerned too. Of course, I'd ask first how the food and water situation was being handled, and I'd find a more sensitive way to express this concern. You know, one that was a little less reminiscent of "Let zem eat cake."
Furthermore, you might be surprised to learn that clothing is still quite essential, not just "wonderful." Protection from the elements and all that.
Imagine the outrage from Democrats if a Republican said something like that. Look at the way they excoriate the President for his malapropisms. Imagine if it had not been Teresa, but Laura Bush. Except I just can't imagine our First Lady making such an insensitive quip.
Keep talking, Dahling. You're helping our cause.
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Taking Care of Our Own
One misperception that many have of a conservative like myself is that because I oppose huge government-sponsored social programs, I am somehow in opposition to charity. On the contrary, I believe very strongly in giving to worthy causes -- assisting the poor, disaster relief, the arts and sciences, education. What I take issue with is the propriety and ability of the government ot administer such giving properly. I feer the added overhead of government bureaucracy, and prefer to have more say in where my charitable giving goes. But I definitely give when I can, and encourage others to do the same.
Well, now I have a chance to encourage my readers to give to help a fellow blogger. If you've followed any of the links in my entries or at the side of my blog, you'll know I'm a huge fan of Da Goddess. In fact, she's my "Blogmother" -- one of the bloggers who helped me get started when I decided to do this. She's a funny, smart, sweet lady in San Diego who really has some good things to say.
And now she's out of work. She's been that way for 3 weeks or so now, and finances are getting tight. I know her well enough to know she's trying, but the job market is tight in her area, and she hasn't had much luck yet. She's actively seeking. This isn't a case of someone who won't work, it's someone who tries hard but hasn't had much luck. I know the feeling -- I've been there, and may be again soon. Besides, she's a good person, and a damned good blogger.
So I'm asking you to go drop a buck in her tip jar -- pop by her blog, find the "Flag Fund", and hit the "Donate Now" button.
Thanks.
Well, now I have a chance to encourage my readers to give to help a fellow blogger. If you've followed any of the links in my entries or at the side of my blog, you'll know I'm a huge fan of Da Goddess. In fact, she's my "Blogmother" -- one of the bloggers who helped me get started when I decided to do this. She's a funny, smart, sweet lady in San Diego who really has some good things to say.
And now she's out of work. She's been that way for 3 weeks or so now, and finances are getting tight. I know her well enough to know she's trying, but the job market is tight in her area, and she hasn't had much luck yet. She's actively seeking. This isn't a case of someone who won't work, it's someone who tries hard but hasn't had much luck. I know the feeling -- I've been there, and may be again soon. Besides, she's a good person, and a damned good blogger.
So I'm asking you to go drop a buck in her tip jar -- pop by her blog, find the "Flag Fund", and hit the "Donate Now" button.
Thanks.
MY Turn to Question THEIR Timing
It's become a blogosphere cliche joke -- questioning the timing of something. It stems from the tendency of the Left and of the Kerry campaign to respond to any piece of good news or alert in the WoT coming from the White House by "Questioning the timing" of the news, as if the news was released merely to coincide with some even the Left was putting on, in order to steal attention from the Left. They couldn't refute the news itself, so instead, they'd "question it's timing". A new take on an old fallacy.
Now, they've found a new take on THAT new take, questioning the timing of the Freeper post that got the ball rolling on the whole Memogate affair. Unfortunately for the left, even their questioning of the time is in question. But apparently, the Left didn't get the memo, and Susan Esterich continued to bring it up (Thanks for the Memory to Ace of Spades.
Well, now it's MY turn to do some questioning of timing. No, I'm not trying to avoid issues by diverting. I think that the memos have been pretty effectively debunked, and any questions raised by them are only valid if their claims are true, which seems at best questionable, since they're made in forged documents.
No, my questioning of the timing has to do with a question that hasn't been answered yet: Who released these documents to CBS in the first place? I have my opinion, and the timing of the whole story only strengthens that opinion. Ironically enough, it has to do with ANOTHER bit of screeching by Susan Esterich that I commented on a while back. It pretty much summed up the Democrats' battlecry after the RNC -- The Republicans fight dirty, so now we will too. The gloves are coming off, and we're going to dig up as much dirt on Bush as we can.
Well, now a reader over at Backcountry Conservative (read the comment by Gary Maxwell) has expressed a concern that was bothering me last night: In all the hooplah about the veracity of the documents themselves, let's not forget how eerily soon after the RNC this story came out. I have a feeling that it was a Democratic operative who pushed these memos on CBS.
And as I've said before, regardless of the source, CBS' credibility has taken a huge hit. furthermore, the timing of the story so soon after the RNC and comments like those made by Esterich reveal an eagerness on the part of CBS to help the Democrats' cause. Oh, THAT liberal media.
Now, they've found a new take on THAT new take, questioning the timing of the Freeper post that got the ball rolling on the whole Memogate affair. Unfortunately for the left, even their questioning of the time is in question. But apparently, the Left didn't get the memo, and Susan Esterich continued to bring it up (Thanks for the Memory to Ace of Spades.
Well, now it's MY turn to do some questioning of timing. No, I'm not trying to avoid issues by diverting. I think that the memos have been pretty effectively debunked, and any questions raised by them are only valid if their claims are true, which seems at best questionable, since they're made in forged documents.
No, my questioning of the timing has to do with a question that hasn't been answered yet: Who released these documents to CBS in the first place? I have my opinion, and the timing of the whole story only strengthens that opinion. Ironically enough, it has to do with ANOTHER bit of screeching by Susan Esterich that I commented on a while back. It pretty much summed up the Democrats' battlecry after the RNC -- The Republicans fight dirty, so now we will too. The gloves are coming off, and we're going to dig up as much dirt on Bush as we can.
Well, now a reader over at Backcountry Conservative (read the comment by Gary Maxwell) has expressed a concern that was bothering me last night: In all the hooplah about the veracity of the documents themselves, let's not forget how eerily soon after the RNC this story came out. I have a feeling that it was a Democratic operative who pushed these memos on CBS.
And as I've said before, regardless of the source, CBS' credibility has taken a huge hit. furthermore, the timing of the story so soon after the RNC and comments like those made by Esterich reveal an eagerness on the part of CBS to help the Democrats' cause. Oh, THAT liberal media.
Statement Watch
CBS has said they'll issue a statement regarding MemoGate today. Backcountry Conservative promises to keep us posted.
Reaping the Benefits of Their Own Efforts
Thanks for the Memory to Da Goddess.
Da Goddess has a friend whose publisher is currently offering to ship any donated books to the USO to send to the troops overseas.
What a great idea. Take the fruit of one of our basic freedoms, that of expression, and send that fruit to the troops who are guarding those freedoms.
Besides, anything we can do to help our troops is worth the effort. So I will repeat the link: GO DONATE BOOKS TO THE USO FOR OUR TROOPS!
Da Goddess has a friend whose publisher is currently offering to ship any donated books to the USO to send to the troops overseas.
What a great idea. Take the fruit of one of our basic freedoms, that of expression, and send that fruit to the troops who are guarding those freedoms.
Besides, anything we can do to help our troops is worth the effort. So I will repeat the link: GO DONATE BOOKS TO THE USO FOR OUR TROOPS!
Vichy Redux
Thanks for the Memory to the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.
Apparently the French have been hearing it for their attempts to avoid terrorism by staying out of Iraq. A few of the recent comments from editorials:
"The abduction of the French journalists is a lesson for those who think they can be neutral in the war on terror, or for those who think that it is possible to arrive at a truce with international terror by means of spineless political positions towards terrorism.
"France thought that the terror in Iraq would not reach it because it opposed the war and tried to set itself apart from the American position. As a result, international terror treats [France] like every other [country]. International terror is democratic. It strikes everyone without asking whether the casualties are Muslim or Christian, or supporters or opponents of America. International terror does not differentiate among the civilians of Fallujah, Riyadh, San'aa, Algeria, New York, and Nairobi. There is no differentiation between American and French. The only aim of international terror is to kill."
Amen.
Or how about this:
"Here the 'neutral' countries err in understanding the new developments in the Arab arena by thinking they can remain neutral. This is because the terror groups' true aspiration is to kill the captives in the name of Allah. Neutrality remains something unacceptable today, because these are groups that want to enter Paradise with the greatest quantity of victims' blood, and who are not interested in political or financial negotiations…"
That's what we've been saying on the right for some time.
One last quote:
"Those who claim that there is a 'Crusader war of the West against Islam' are in fact themselves waging 'holy war' against the Western democracies and against democracy and civilization everywhere… France, which deluded itself that it would be spared from the depraved hands of the terrorists because it opposes the war of liberation in Iraq, today faces the truth: The war on terror must be international, and all democratic countries and the United Nations must fight terrorist countries such as Saddam's regime…"
There's plenty more, but you can go read this article to see more.
But be sitting down when you do. you see, all these quotes are from Arab newspapers.
Poor France. When even the Arab Street calls you a wussy in the WoT, you're really and truly a wussy.
Apparently the French have been hearing it for their attempts to avoid terrorism by staying out of Iraq. A few of the recent comments from editorials:
"The abduction of the French journalists is a lesson for those who think they can be neutral in the war on terror, or for those who think that it is possible to arrive at a truce with international terror by means of spineless political positions towards terrorism.
"France thought that the terror in Iraq would not reach it because it opposed the war and tried to set itself apart from the American position. As a result, international terror treats [France] like every other [country]. International terror is democratic. It strikes everyone without asking whether the casualties are Muslim or Christian, or supporters or opponents of America. International terror does not differentiate among the civilians of Fallujah, Riyadh, San'aa, Algeria, New York, and Nairobi. There is no differentiation between American and French. The only aim of international terror is to kill."
Amen.
Or how about this:
"Here the 'neutral' countries err in understanding the new developments in the Arab arena by thinking they can remain neutral. This is because the terror groups' true aspiration is to kill the captives in the name of Allah. Neutrality remains something unacceptable today, because these are groups that want to enter Paradise with the greatest quantity of victims' blood, and who are not interested in political or financial negotiations…"
That's what we've been saying on the right for some time.
One last quote:
"Those who claim that there is a 'Crusader war of the West against Islam' are in fact themselves waging 'holy war' against the Western democracies and against democracy and civilization everywhere… France, which deluded itself that it would be spared from the depraved hands of the terrorists because it opposes the war of liberation in Iraq, today faces the truth: The war on terror must be international, and all democratic countries and the United Nations must fight terrorist countries such as Saddam's regime…"
There's plenty more, but you can go read this article to see more.
But be sitting down when you do. you see, all these quotes are from Arab newspapers.
Poor France. When even the Arab Street calls you a wussy in the WoT, you're really and truly a wussy.
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Worst Case Scenario
Thanks for the Memory to my best friend Brian F.
In the midst of all the controversy surrounding Memogate, one of the options being bandied about, especially on the left, is that the memos are plants by the right -- and of course, top of the suspect list is Karl "Kayzer Soze" Rove. The thought is that the documents were intentionally forged poorly so that CBS and the left would bite, use them to attack the president, then get caught in a political rope-a-dope when they were revealed as forgeries.
Let's address this theory for a moment. Let's ignore the fact that today's latest stories indicate it might have originated elsewhere (personally, I haven't seen enough evidence to trust the rumors regarding the specific source). Let's ignore the fact that once such a plot was uncovered, it would backfire and make the Bush campaign look as evil as the left claims it is, and that Karl Rove is an evil genius, not an idiot. Let's ignore the fact that in order to work, such a plot would rely on an incredible level of gullibility on the part of CBS (ok, let's not ignore that fact, let's just set it aside to pick up again in a moment). Let's play "What If?" What if this theory is true? What if they did originate somewhere in the smoky back rooms of the GOP?
So what?
If the intent was to discredit the media, and specifically CBS, it worked, regardless of who originated it. Yes, it would also completely derail the Bush campaign, who would be viewed as playing just way too dirty. But the one assumption we made above to even consider this option that HAS proven true is an incredible level of gullibility on the part of CBS. As poorly forged as these documents probably are, as much other information as is coming out today, it required an incredible level of willingness by CBS to believe the unbelievable simply because they wanted it to be true in order for this story to proceed. Whether the documents were forged by the left, the right, the Grey Aliens, or the ghost of Howard Hughes, CBS fell for them, and now they have to live with the consequences.
Or die by them.
In the midst of all the controversy surrounding Memogate, one of the options being bandied about, especially on the left, is that the memos are plants by the right -- and of course, top of the suspect list is Karl "Kayzer Soze" Rove. The thought is that the documents were intentionally forged poorly so that CBS and the left would bite, use them to attack the president, then get caught in a political rope-a-dope when they were revealed as forgeries.
Let's address this theory for a moment. Let's ignore the fact that today's latest stories indicate it might have originated elsewhere (personally, I haven't seen enough evidence to trust the rumors regarding the specific source). Let's ignore the fact that once such a plot was uncovered, it would backfire and make the Bush campaign look as evil as the left claims it is, and that Karl Rove is an evil genius, not an idiot. Let's ignore the fact that in order to work, such a plot would rely on an incredible level of gullibility on the part of CBS (ok, let's not ignore that fact, let's just set it aside to pick up again in a moment). Let's play "What If?" What if this theory is true? What if they did originate somewhere in the smoky back rooms of the GOP?
So what?
If the intent was to discredit the media, and specifically CBS, it worked, regardless of who originated it. Yes, it would also completely derail the Bush campaign, who would be viewed as playing just way too dirty. But the one assumption we made above to even consider this option that HAS proven true is an incredible level of gullibility on the part of CBS. As poorly forged as these documents probably are, as much other information as is coming out today, it required an incredible level of willingness by CBS to believe the unbelievable simply because they wanted it to be true in order for this story to proceed. Whether the documents were forged by the left, the right, the Grey Aliens, or the ghost of Howard Hughes, CBS fell for them, and now they have to live with the consequences.
Or die by them.
Betrayed by the Truth
Thanks for the Memories to Ace of
Spades HQ for TWO pertinent articles.
More on MemoGate. and no, I don't blog in my PJ's. I only have access to the internet at work, and that sort of attire will get me fired even in liberal Eugene.
Moving past the whole issue of type and fonts and scripts, another issue that has been plaguing CBS, Dan Rather, and the MSM regarding the memo issue has been the fact that before the story broke, they intentionally ignored warnings from Killian's son that the memos didn't sound like his father, and failed to follow up with several references that Killian the Younger gave them who could give a different perspective on the story. Both Killian's son and widow have claimed this memo doesn't sound like the Colonel, and deny that Killian held the views expressed in the memos.
Well, it gets worse. Even those supposedly on CBS' side are betraying them by telling the truth. Now Killian's secretary is denying she typed the memos.
By PETE SLOVER / The Dallas Morning News
HOUSTON – The former secretary for the Texas Air National Guard colonel who supposedly authored memos critical of President Bush’s Guard service said Tuesday that the documents are fake, but that they reflect real documents that once existed.
Marian Carr Knox, who worked from 1956 to 1979 at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston, said she prided herself on meticulous typing, and the memos first disclosed by CBS News last week were not her work.
“These are not real,” she told The Dallas Morning News after examining copies of the disputed memos for the first time. “They’re not what I typed, and I would have typed them for him.”
Mrs. Knox, 86, who spoke with precise recollection about dates, people and events, said she is not a supporter of Mr. Bush, who she deemed “unfit for office” and “selected, not elected.”
“I remember very vividly when Bush was there and all the yak-yak that was going on about it,” she said.
So this lady who doesn't like the President, still refutes CBS' assertion that the memos are genuine. Not good, Danny.
That's not the whole article. Thanks to Ace, we also get this:
"She also said the memos may have been constructed from memory by someone who had seen Lt. Col. Killian's private file but were not transcriptions because the language and terminology did not match what he would have used."
So she claims they reflect the truth of Killian's opinion, even if they aren't authentic themselves. This despite the claims of Killian's family to the effect that he never expressed such an opinion. Sounds like she's trying to mitigate the damage she herself has just done to the left.
It gets worse still. In an interview with ABC (remember the cannibalism reference I made?), the experts cited by CBS claim they expressed concerns about the documents that were ignored.
Furthermore, the Guard officer quoted in the CBS story feels he was misled, because CBS told him the memos were handwritten, not typed (Killian didn't type).
And now, Dan Rather is defending himself by attacking Laura Bush:
"Laura Bush became the first White House insider to doubt the authenticity of the documents. But she offered no evidence to back up her claim."
How much lower can Dan Rather sink? And how long until he faces the truth and turns himself in to the court of public opinion?
Spades HQ for TWO pertinent articles.
More on MemoGate. and no, I don't blog in my PJ's. I only have access to the internet at work, and that sort of attire will get me fired even in liberal Eugene.
Moving past the whole issue of type and fonts and scripts, another issue that has been plaguing CBS, Dan Rather, and the MSM regarding the memo issue has been the fact that before the story broke, they intentionally ignored warnings from Killian's son that the memos didn't sound like his father, and failed to follow up with several references that Killian the Younger gave them who could give a different perspective on the story. Both Killian's son and widow have claimed this memo doesn't sound like the Colonel, and deny that Killian held the views expressed in the memos.
Well, it gets worse. Even those supposedly on CBS' side are betraying them by telling the truth. Now Killian's secretary is denying she typed the memos.
By PETE SLOVER / The Dallas Morning News
HOUSTON – The former secretary for the Texas Air National Guard colonel who supposedly authored memos critical of President Bush’s Guard service said Tuesday that the documents are fake, but that they reflect real documents that once existed.
Marian Carr Knox, who worked from 1956 to 1979 at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston, said she prided herself on meticulous typing, and the memos first disclosed by CBS News last week were not her work.
“These are not real,” she told The Dallas Morning News after examining copies of the disputed memos for the first time. “They’re not what I typed, and I would have typed them for him.”
Mrs. Knox, 86, who spoke with precise recollection about dates, people and events, said she is not a supporter of Mr. Bush, who she deemed “unfit for office” and “selected, not elected.”
“I remember very vividly when Bush was there and all the yak-yak that was going on about it,” she said.
So this lady who doesn't like the President, still refutes CBS' assertion that the memos are genuine. Not good, Danny.
That's not the whole article. Thanks to Ace, we also get this:
"She also said the memos may have been constructed from memory by someone who had seen Lt. Col. Killian's private file but were not transcriptions because the language and terminology did not match what he would have used."
So she claims they reflect the truth of Killian's opinion, even if they aren't authentic themselves. This despite the claims of Killian's family to the effect that he never expressed such an opinion. Sounds like she's trying to mitigate the damage she herself has just done to the left.
It gets worse still. In an interview with ABC (remember the cannibalism reference I made?), the experts cited by CBS claim they expressed concerns about the documents that were ignored.
Furthermore, the Guard officer quoted in the CBS story feels he was misled, because CBS told him the memos were handwritten, not typed (Killian didn't type).
And now, Dan Rather is defending himself by attacking Laura Bush:
"Laura Bush became the first White House insider to doubt the authenticity of the documents. But she offered no evidence to back up her claim."
How much lower can Dan Rather sink? And how long until he faces the truth and turns himself in to the court of public opinion?
Free Rope With Which to Hang Them
Thanks for the Memory to Michelle Malkin.
Apparently the ever-vigilant folks over at CBS News want to help us expose scams.
What do you think? Can we help them find one to expose?
Apparently the ever-vigilant folks over at CBS News want to help us expose scams.
What do you think? Can we help them find one to expose?
More From the Rumor Mills
And if you think I mean blogs, you haven't been paying attention.
According to NewsMax, Kitty Kelley has admitted on the Today Show that she failed to record the alleged Cocaine Conversation. Immediately after her interview, Sharon Bush, the president's ex-sister-in-law, scorned woman with no love for the Bush family, denied that she ever made the allegations to Kelley.
Right after the RNc, whhen the Democrats were screaming that they were going for blood and they would find dirt on the president, my response was to mock the idea that they could find anything that hasn't already been tried and shot down at least once before in the last 5 years, and that if they haven't found anyhting damning to pin on the president already, there isn't anyhting TO be found.
If this is the best they can do -- a set of forged documents on 60 minutes and a trash book by the National Enquirer of biographers, well, my theory has only been reinforced.
According to NewsMax, Kitty Kelley has admitted on the Today Show that she failed to record the alleged Cocaine Conversation. Immediately after her interview, Sharon Bush, the president's ex-sister-in-law, scorned woman with no love for the Bush family, denied that she ever made the allegations to Kelley.
Right after the RNc, whhen the Democrats were screaming that they were going for blood and they would find dirt on the president, my response was to mock the idea that they could find anything that hasn't already been tried and shot down at least once before in the last 5 years, and that if they haven't found anyhting damning to pin on the president already, there isn't anyhting TO be found.
If this is the best they can do -- a set of forged documents on 60 minutes and a trash book by the National Enquirer of biographers, well, my theory has only been reinforced.
Monday, September 13, 2004
Strengthen the Good
I've had a lot of great feedback regarding my post "What's the Font, Kenneth?' regarding the news media, blogs, and accountability. When we talk about the responsibility of accountability, and the ability of blogs to fact check each other, it is important not to neglect another responsibility that comes with influence -- the responsibility of making sure that we use that influence for good.
A while back I joined a network of Bloggers called Strengthen the Good. The idea is that we can use the influence of our blogs not just to decry the evil in this world, but also to do what the name implies. STG highlights small "Micro-charities", organizations that are doing good work helping people, just not on as grand a scale as more well-known charities. By using blogs, we can get the word out to more donors than these charities could on their own.
Well, in light of this weekend's anniversary, STG has come up with a good one. The Brent Woodall Foundation For Exceptional Children offers care and education to autistic children and their parents. This is what STG says about the charity:
The Foundation was created by Tracy Woodall, who lost her husband,
Brent, in the South Tower on September 11th, 2001. Tracy was 5 weeks
pregnant at the time, and she created the foundation as a way of dealing with
her grief and extending his legacy.
We all lost somehting on 9/11/01, but for Tracy, it was a husband and a father for her child. She decided not to let the terrorists win. We can do the same. We can show them, show the world, and show ourselves that we can make something good out of the worst they can throw at us. I would encourage you to do so. Check out Strengthen the Good's site for more information.
A while back I joined a network of Bloggers called Strengthen the Good. The idea is that we can use the influence of our blogs not just to decry the evil in this world, but also to do what the name implies. STG highlights small "Micro-charities", organizations that are doing good work helping people, just not on as grand a scale as more well-known charities. By using blogs, we can get the word out to more donors than these charities could on their own.
Well, in light of this weekend's anniversary, STG has come up with a good one. The Brent Woodall Foundation For Exceptional Children offers care and education to autistic children and their parents. This is what STG says about the charity:
The Foundation was created by Tracy Woodall, who lost her husband,
Brent, in the South Tower on September 11th, 2001. Tracy was 5 weeks
pregnant at the time, and she created the foundation as a way of dealing with
her grief and extending his legacy.
We all lost somehting on 9/11/01, but for Tracy, it was a husband and a father for her child. She decided not to let the terrorists win. We can do the same. We can show them, show the world, and show ourselves that we can make something good out of the worst they can throw at us. I would encourage you to do so. Check out Strengthen the Good's site for more information.
It's About Time II
After the cruel trick they played on me in the Ducks game Saturday, the football gods owed me a little consolation come NFL Sunday.
They did not disappoint.
Having been without a favorite team for several years, I have been following the teams who have drafted recent UO grads -- particularly Joey Harrington. Also, I'm trying to care about the Seahawks, since they ARE in the PNW, and San Diego, since I lived there for 12 years. Not as true favorites, but as teams I like.
Minnesota drafted Keenan Howry and Onterrio Smith. They beat Dallas 35-17.
Seattle also has a former Duck, Maurice Morris. They beat New Orleans 21-7.
San Diego has Justin Peele and Igor Olshansky (watch for that name. He's a rookie, but as he matures, he's going to be a force to recon with on the D-line). They beat Houston 27-20.
And finally, Detroit. Detroit of the 24-game road losing streak. Detroit who recruited my favorite Quarterback. They ended the streak, beating Chicago 20-16.
Not a bad way to start the season. It sure beat all sorts of hell out of Saturday.
They did not disappoint.
Having been without a favorite team for several years, I have been following the teams who have drafted recent UO grads -- particularly Joey Harrington. Also, I'm trying to care about the Seahawks, since they ARE in the PNW, and San Diego, since I lived there for 12 years. Not as true favorites, but as teams I like.
Minnesota drafted Keenan Howry and Onterrio Smith. They beat Dallas 35-17.
Seattle also has a former Duck, Maurice Morris. They beat New Orleans 21-7.
San Diego has Justin Peele and Igor Olshansky (watch for that name. He's a rookie, but as he matures, he's going to be a force to recon with on the D-line). They beat Houston 27-20.
And finally, Detroit. Detroit of the 24-game road losing streak. Detroit who recruited my favorite Quarterback. They ended the streak, beating Chicago 20-16.
Not a bad way to start the season. It sure beat all sorts of hell out of Saturday.
Sunday, September 12, 2004
A Quick Note to the Oklahoma University Sooners
Practice special teams. A lot. If my Ducks play as crappy against you next week in Norman as they did against Indiana yesterday here in Eugene, "Y'all" are going to be spending a lot of time kicking off after scoring.
Saturday, September 11, 2004
It's Been a While
So I thought I'd do a Top Ten List.
Despite the obvious Memogate temptation, I decided not to go for humor. Also, this time I'll be counting up from number 1 to 10.
So without further ado,
My Top 10 Favorite Works of Literature:
1. The Bible
Yeah, cliche. So sue me. It's true. My father was a pastor, so I grew up around the Bible. I studied it in Bible college. As a Christian, I try to continue learning from it and following it.
2. The Chronicles of Narnia
As a child, my mother would read these to me on long trips. She'd always stop reading at a point of suspense. This is what got me hooked on reading from a young age.
3. World Book Encyclopedia
We were poor, so when I became a voracious reader, my father bought an old encyclopedia set at a garage sale, and scrounged up some high school Literature class textbooks for me when I was around 8 or 9. I blame them for my advanced reading skills.
4. Anything Else Written by C.S. Lewis
Starting with God in the Dock, assigned as a college text, and including works such as Mere Christianity, Surprised by Joy, and others, C.S. Lewis became the most influential thinker to shape my view of Christianity, Philosophy, and Reason.
5. Lord of the Rings
Yeah, again, I know. But it really moved me. I read the trilogy for the first time as a young adult having just been forced out of college, unsure of where my life was going. Tolkien became my favorite fiction author just as his friend is my favorite non-fiction writer.
6. The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer
This book had a strong influence on my view of faith, grace, and Christian ethics.
7. Through Gates of Splendor by Elizabeth Elliot
The story of a group of Christian Missionaries who were martyred in South America. A very moving story, and again, one that forced me to examine my commitment to my faith.
8. Between Heaven and Hell by Peter Kreeft
A great book for comparing world views. Admittedly sympathetic to Christianity, as the author is a Christian.
9. The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara
Growing up in the Western US, the Civil War is not as personal as it is for those who grow up in the Eastern US. This was the book that woke me to my heritage.
10. John Adams by David McCullough
This one just joined the list, and I'm currently reading it. A very insightful look at the life of one of our greatest founding patriots, and very relevant to today's political debate.
Honorable Mention: Anything by Ray Bradbury
My second favorite storyteller and favorite Sci Fi author.
Honorable Mention II: I'm Just Here For the Food by Alton Brown
Smart, funny, and a good cook. It's like reading a mirror. Yeah, I wish.
Despite the obvious Memogate temptation, I decided not to go for humor. Also, this time I'll be counting up from number 1 to 10.
So without further ado,
My Top 10 Favorite Works of Literature:
1. The Bible
Yeah, cliche. So sue me. It's true. My father was a pastor, so I grew up around the Bible. I studied it in Bible college. As a Christian, I try to continue learning from it and following it.
2. The Chronicles of Narnia
As a child, my mother would read these to me on long trips. She'd always stop reading at a point of suspense. This is what got me hooked on reading from a young age.
3. World Book Encyclopedia
We were poor, so when I became a voracious reader, my father bought an old encyclopedia set at a garage sale, and scrounged up some high school Literature class textbooks for me when I was around 8 or 9. I blame them for my advanced reading skills.
4. Anything Else Written by C.S. Lewis
Starting with God in the Dock, assigned as a college text, and including works such as Mere Christianity, Surprised by Joy, and others, C.S. Lewis became the most influential thinker to shape my view of Christianity, Philosophy, and Reason.
5. Lord of the Rings
Yeah, again, I know. But it really moved me. I read the trilogy for the first time as a young adult having just been forced out of college, unsure of where my life was going. Tolkien became my favorite fiction author just as his friend is my favorite non-fiction writer.
6. The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer
This book had a strong influence on my view of faith, grace, and Christian ethics.
7. Through Gates of Splendor by Elizabeth Elliot
The story of a group of Christian Missionaries who were martyred in South America. A very moving story, and again, one that forced me to examine my commitment to my faith.
8. Between Heaven and Hell by Peter Kreeft
A great book for comparing world views. Admittedly sympathetic to Christianity, as the author is a Christian.
9. The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara
Growing up in the Western US, the Civil War is not as personal as it is for those who grow up in the Eastern US. This was the book that woke me to my heritage.
10. John Adams by David McCullough
This one just joined the list, and I'm currently reading it. A very insightful look at the life of one of our greatest founding patriots, and very relevant to today's political debate.
Honorable Mention: Anything by Ray Bradbury
My second favorite storyteller and favorite Sci Fi author.
Honorable Mention II: I'm Just Here For the Food by Alton Brown
Smart, funny, and a good cook. It's like reading a mirror. Yeah, I wish.
What's the Font, Kenneth?
A while back, I attempted to fisk a blog post by Tom Humphrey, a newspaper editor from Tennessee. I wasn't the only one. If you'll follow the links to other blogs in my post, the trackback, or the link to Tom's blog where the comments are, you'll see that quite a few of us tore in to ol' Tommie.
While there was plenty to go on in his post, the main reason bloggers went after Mr. Humphrey was due to a comment in his post:
After all, bloggers, I am instructed, do not have to follow those iron clad rules of attribution, fact-checking, logic and such.
Nice, huh? Thanks a lot, Tom. What's sad is, in recent days I've heard the same comments about bloggers AGAIN, thanks to the Memogate controversy.
Dan Rather called us "rumor mills" and "partisan political operatives" (pot and kettle much, Danny Boy?). Last night watching MSNBC, I heard a guest on Scarborough Country accuse bloggers of being rumor mongers, and of not being subject to fact checking.
Let's address quickly the fact that this is an unabashed ad hominem, and then move on. The person that made this comment could not refute the forgery allegations, could not lend any expertise to the discussion of the documents, so they had to assail the bloggers instead. Because we're rumor mongers, then anything we say must therefore be nothing but rumor, with no relevance or basis in fact. Pure ad hominem. As unsophisticated as some people think it is to cite her, I have to say, Ann Coulter was right when she wrote Slander.
Well, I have news for them. If anything, blogs are more closely scrutinized than Mainstream Media sources. Go back to my post on Tom Humphrey. In criticizing him, I made some spelling and grammatical errors myself, and a reader caught me and called me on it. Admittedly, it took a while, but I have a readership of what, 100 people a day or so? I'm nothing. If one of the heavy hitters (The top 100 or so on the TTLB ecosystem) make a mistake, how quickly do they get called on it. If not in their comment sections, you can BET other blogs, especially those of opposing political views, will call them on it.
That's a significant factor in the checks and balances present on the web, among blogs, as opposed to those in the MSM. Let's look specifically at fact checking.
Any time we are presented with an argument and with evidence for a position on any issue, our own opinion and feelings on that issue cloud our judgment of the evidence. That is human nature. Our desire influences our inclination, that is, the more we want something to be true, the more apt we are to believe it. It takes a great deal of intellectual courage to say, "I wish it were thus, but alas, it is not." Some people are more able to do it than others.
We were taught for generations that among those best able to do this were journalists. The dispassionate, impartial observer and reporter who could set aside personal feelings to "Just tell it like it is." But this belief itself was in great part based on our desire to believe. The reality was, sadly, more and more different all the time. Journalists are as fallible as we are. If someone is presented with a story that fits their perception and beliefs and desires, they are going to be more inclined to believe it. They're supposed to exercise caution, but sometimes it can be too tempting to pass up. That's why fact-checking, or some sort of independent review, is important. In the MSM, that's supposed to be the job of fact checkers, editors, and producers. In the blogosphere, it's your readers themselves (who also serve that function for the MSM, but to a lesser degree -- more on that in a bit), and your fellow bloggers.
The problem that the MSM runs into is that over the years, they have grown pretty close to homogeneous in their politics and beliefs. That means that the overseers, the editors, producers, and fact checkers, tend to have the same bias as the reporters, and thus inclined to err in favor of the same view that the reporters do. Whereas in the blogosphere, there are plenty of readers and fellow bloggers who disagree with you on any give topic, and they'll be more than happy to pick at and look as deeply as possible into the claims you present.
Furthermore, as I mentioned, the greater a blogs readership, the more likely and the more quickly will occur an "AHA!" if the blogger missteps. That means the most popular bloggers are held most accountable. In theory, it should be the same in the MSM, but alas, as a journalist becomes more famous, more influential, and more highly regarded, they develop clout that allows them protection from too close a scrutiny. Their mistakes tend to be glossed over and ignored by their peers and superiors, and until recently, the public had little recourse to address their errors. How many letters written to an editor actually get published? And if they don't how else will you get the word out? Go to a cometing journalist? It was doubtful you'd get the time of day unless the charge was highly significant and incontrovertable, and even then it was not guaranteed any attention. Out of professional regard, mutually held opinions, and self-preservation, journalists rarely attack their own. It happens, but not often.
The internet and blogs changed that. Now you have an outlet. Now everyone can have a voice. If that voice is used poorly, you will be ignored, mocked, and refuted. But while it may be small at first, if what your new internet voice has to say is right, and significant, and well said, it will get heard. And listened to. And repeated. And some day, like this week, it may just drown out the old, authoritarian voices of the old media.
While there was plenty to go on in his post, the main reason bloggers went after Mr. Humphrey was due to a comment in his post:
After all, bloggers, I am instructed, do not have to follow those iron clad rules of attribution, fact-checking, logic and such.
Nice, huh? Thanks a lot, Tom. What's sad is, in recent days I've heard the same comments about bloggers AGAIN, thanks to the Memogate controversy.
Dan Rather called us "rumor mills" and "partisan political operatives" (pot and kettle much, Danny Boy?). Last night watching MSNBC, I heard a guest on Scarborough Country accuse bloggers of being rumor mongers, and of not being subject to fact checking.
Let's address quickly the fact that this is an unabashed ad hominem, and then move on. The person that made this comment could not refute the forgery allegations, could not lend any expertise to the discussion of the documents, so they had to assail the bloggers instead. Because we're rumor mongers, then anything we say must therefore be nothing but rumor, with no relevance or basis in fact. Pure ad hominem. As unsophisticated as some people think it is to cite her, I have to say, Ann Coulter was right when she wrote Slander.
Well, I have news for them. If anything, blogs are more closely scrutinized than Mainstream Media sources. Go back to my post on Tom Humphrey. In criticizing him, I made some spelling and grammatical errors myself, and a reader caught me and called me on it. Admittedly, it took a while, but I have a readership of what, 100 people a day or so? I'm nothing. If one of the heavy hitters (The top 100 or so on the TTLB ecosystem) make a mistake, how quickly do they get called on it. If not in their comment sections, you can BET other blogs, especially those of opposing political views, will call them on it.
That's a significant factor in the checks and balances present on the web, among blogs, as opposed to those in the MSM. Let's look specifically at fact checking.
Any time we are presented with an argument and with evidence for a position on any issue, our own opinion and feelings on that issue cloud our judgment of the evidence. That is human nature. Our desire influences our inclination, that is, the more we want something to be true, the more apt we are to believe it. It takes a great deal of intellectual courage to say, "I wish it were thus, but alas, it is not." Some people are more able to do it than others.
We were taught for generations that among those best able to do this were journalists. The dispassionate, impartial observer and reporter who could set aside personal feelings to "Just tell it like it is." But this belief itself was in great part based on our desire to believe. The reality was, sadly, more and more different all the time. Journalists are as fallible as we are. If someone is presented with a story that fits their perception and beliefs and desires, they are going to be more inclined to believe it. They're supposed to exercise caution, but sometimes it can be too tempting to pass up. That's why fact-checking, or some sort of independent review, is important. In the MSM, that's supposed to be the job of fact checkers, editors, and producers. In the blogosphere, it's your readers themselves (who also serve that function for the MSM, but to a lesser degree -- more on that in a bit), and your fellow bloggers.
The problem that the MSM runs into is that over the years, they have grown pretty close to homogeneous in their politics and beliefs. That means that the overseers, the editors, producers, and fact checkers, tend to have the same bias as the reporters, and thus inclined to err in favor of the same view that the reporters do. Whereas in the blogosphere, there are plenty of readers and fellow bloggers who disagree with you on any give topic, and they'll be more than happy to pick at and look as deeply as possible into the claims you present.
Furthermore, as I mentioned, the greater a blogs readership, the more likely and the more quickly will occur an "AHA!" if the blogger missteps. That means the most popular bloggers are held most accountable. In theory, it should be the same in the MSM, but alas, as a journalist becomes more famous, more influential, and more highly regarded, they develop clout that allows them protection from too close a scrutiny. Their mistakes tend to be glossed over and ignored by their peers and superiors, and until recently, the public had little recourse to address their errors. How many letters written to an editor actually get published? And if they don't how else will you get the word out? Go to a cometing journalist? It was doubtful you'd get the time of day unless the charge was highly significant and incontrovertable, and even then it was not guaranteed any attention. Out of professional regard, mutually held opinions, and self-preservation, journalists rarely attack their own. It happens, but not often.
The internet and blogs changed that. Now you have an outlet. Now everyone can have a voice. If that voice is used poorly, you will be ignored, mocked, and refuted. But while it may be small at first, if what your new internet voice has to say is right, and significant, and well said, it will get heard. And listened to. And repeated. And some day, like this week, it may just drown out the old, authoritarian voices of the old media.
Looking to the Future
2008
Yeah, I know it's a little early to think ahead, but it was on my mind last night.
Most of the talk about 2008 has been about the probable candidacy of Hillary clinton, and hoe Republicans should be preparing for it. A lot of talk has centered around thinking Dick Cheney should step down, clearing the way for a new VP who could then be groomed for 2008. I'm not for it.
Setting aside for a minute the fact that I think Cheney is a good VP, I think it overlooks one important factor. I don't think the 2008 GOP candidate should be perceivable at all as a Bush Camp Protege.
For 5 years now, the left has been focusing all their anger and hatred on George W Bush. While they've played dirty in the past, the level of bile being pumped out now is phenomenal. If the 2008 candidate is associated with Bush too closely, that vitriol will spill over. If the new candidate is viewed as their own person, they'll still have to contend with the typical liberal opposition to a conservative, but without the baggage of 2004.
So what do my conservative friends and readers think? Will the fact that they don't have George W Bush to kick around anymore mean the level of spite on the left subsides in 2008, or not?
Yeah, I know it's a little early to think ahead, but it was on my mind last night.
Most of the talk about 2008 has been about the probable candidacy of Hillary clinton, and hoe Republicans should be preparing for it. A lot of talk has centered around thinking Dick Cheney should step down, clearing the way for a new VP who could then be groomed for 2008. I'm not for it.
Setting aside for a minute the fact that I think Cheney is a good VP, I think it overlooks one important factor. I don't think the 2008 GOP candidate should be perceivable at all as a Bush Camp Protege.
For 5 years now, the left has been focusing all their anger and hatred on George W Bush. While they've played dirty in the past, the level of bile being pumped out now is phenomenal. If the 2008 candidate is associated with Bush too closely, that vitriol will spill over. If the new candidate is viewed as their own person, they'll still have to contend with the typical liberal opposition to a conservative, but without the baggage of 2004.
So what do my conservative friends and readers think? Will the fact that they don't have George W Bush to kick around anymore mean the level of spite on the left subsides in 2008, or not?
Friday, September 10, 2004
Mass Hypoxia at the Democratic Underground
Caused by Memogate giving them all "the Vapors", I suppose.
Thanks for the Memory to the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.
Apparently, the latest Right-Wing Establishment target of DU's ire is NPR.
As in National Public Radio.
The collapse of the left is now in full swing. The revolution will not only be televised, it will be a sitcom.
Thanks for the Memory to the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.
Apparently, the latest Right-Wing Establishment target of DU's ire is NPR.
As in National Public Radio.
The collapse of the left is now in full swing. The revolution will not only be televised, it will be a sitcom.
Word Association
A little game for a Friday afternoon. I say a word or phrase, you say the first name that comes to mind.
Ready?
partisan political operatives
rumor mills
OK, now that you have a mental picture of who those phrases describe, take a guess at who uttered those phrases.
How much ya wanna bet they're the same person?
Thanks for the Memory to Rather Biased.
Ready?
partisan political operatives
rumor mills
OK, now that you have a mental picture of who those phrases describe, take a guess at who uttered those phrases.
How much ya wanna bet they're the same person?
Thanks for the Memory to Rather Biased.
Kerry's Campaign Gets Pulled Over Again
Thanks for the Memory to reader CG at (you guessed it) Ace of Spades.
From the official Bush Blog:
Fraternal Order of Police Endorses President Bush
The largest Police union in the country.
Mr. Kerry, you have the right to remain silent. I suggest you use it.
From the official Bush Blog:
Fraternal Order of Police Endorses President Bush
The largest Police union in the country.
Mr. Kerry, you have the right to remain silent. I suggest you use it.
He's Baaaack....
Good News From the Home Front:
Nader clears ballot hurdle
When Bill Bradbury DQ'ed a bunch of names, I was disappointed, not despairing. But as the article goes on to say:
Nader's name now will appear on the ballot along with the names of President Bush and challenger John Kerry - unless a higher court rules otherwise.
That means we're back in play, baby! Enough of our liberal voters here are hard left enough to vote Nader, even in THIS election.
Next this will go to the Oregon State Supreme Court. The Dems are trying to keep Nader off the ballot. Keep your fingers crossed.
the article has some interesting comments from both the kerry and Nader camps that sum their positions well.
There hasn't been much official comment on this from local GOP leadership. that's pretty smart. We don't want to stir up cries of "Florida 2000!", and any support of Nader in public will tip an already obvious hand. But privately, we're all pulling a Mr. Burns. Eeeeexxxcellleeennnt!
Personally, I think an even craftier tack for the Republican Party to take would be to make statements backing the assertions of the Democrats. This would deflect any Democratic accusations of GOP interference, and would play up the "Everybody's Picking on Nader!" angle, which is likely to swing even more lefties, especially bloody-minded, stubbern, pro-underdog Oregonians, into the Nader camp, almost exclusively to Kerry's detriment.
Between the polling picture, including this little tidbit, the Memogate issue, and an expected next salvo from the USS Swifties, watching the Kerry Campaign fall apart is like watching a car wreck in slow motion -- except replace the sense of horror with one of delight.
Nader clears ballot hurdle
When Bill Bradbury DQ'ed a bunch of names, I was disappointed, not despairing. But as the article goes on to say:
Nader's name now will appear on the ballot along with the names of President Bush and challenger John Kerry - unless a higher court rules otherwise.
That means we're back in play, baby! Enough of our liberal voters here are hard left enough to vote Nader, even in THIS election.
Next this will go to the Oregon State Supreme Court. The Dems are trying to keep Nader off the ballot. Keep your fingers crossed.
the article has some interesting comments from both the kerry and Nader camps that sum their positions well.
There hasn't been much official comment on this from local GOP leadership. that's pretty smart. We don't want to stir up cries of "Florida 2000!", and any support of Nader in public will tip an already obvious hand. But privately, we're all pulling a Mr. Burns. Eeeeexxxcellleeennnt!
Personally, I think an even craftier tack for the Republican Party to take would be to make statements backing the assertions of the Democrats. This would deflect any Democratic accusations of GOP interference, and would play up the "Everybody's Picking on Nader!" angle, which is likely to swing even more lefties, especially bloody-minded, stubbern, pro-underdog Oregonians, into the Nader camp, almost exclusively to Kerry's detriment.
Between the polling picture, including this little tidbit, the Memogate issue, and an expected next salvo from the USS Swifties, watching the Kerry Campaign fall apart is like watching a car wreck in slow motion -- except replace the sense of horror with one of delight.
Harkins Hops in Handbasket
FLASH
See Update # 2 at bottom!
The Old Mainstream Media, Dan Rather, The Kerry Campaign, and now Tom Harkins can all skip merrily to hell, slung snug under Dorothy's arm, ensconced in wicker. All thanks to a set of forged memos.
Thanks for the Memory to Blogfather Rusty at MyPetJawa. Literally, this time. Last night this particular issue had me livid, and thanks to Rusty, I am now remembering to Blog on it.
Last night when I got home, after checking on the Feared Redhead, I was eager to see how the news channels would be handling the Killian Memos:
CNN Headline News, as I've mentioned, was parroting the line from CBS/60 minutes.
Fox's Tim Russert just had to go on about how damaging the memos are to Bush, if they're authentic, before addressing the objections to said authenticity.
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough Was interviewing someone (only caught the tail end, not sure who) who was talking about how these memos are more damaging to Bush than the swifties are to Kerry, because the Swifties have been "disproven," while the memos have not. Try to keep up, joey.
And CNN had the most infuriating coverage of all, airing a press statement by Tom Harkins criticizing Bush's military record, crowing about how these memos prove he's a liar, and demanding the President address the accusations. Rusty has the transcript.
I sat there, seething and chuckling at the same time. It was one more example of Democratic hypocrisy, accusing Republicans of mudslinging when this kind of attack is all too common bt the left. And yet it was amusing, because I knew he had to have made this statement before the forgery issue had come up.
I'm sure when all is said and done, the Democratic spin will try to dismiss this as nothing, and in fact, the true believers will still be quoting the memos, oblivious to their discredit.
But the Old Media in their coverage, the Kerry campaign in passing the memos to CBS, CBS and Rather for running with it, and Democratic leadership for playing it as their trump card even as it was being deconstructed like a house OF cards, took a huge hit to their credibility yesterday.
Update #1
Powerline has a lead on Dan Rather's insistence on staying in the Alamo.
This has Prompted Ace of Spades to start a Dan Rather Retirement Watch.
Update #2
Again, thanks to Ace!
According to the Nashua Telegraph, John Edwards is challenging Bush to address the accusations made in the memos!!!!
President Bush should have to explain newly released records that reveal his former Texas National Guard superior was asked to “sugar coat” performance records after finding Bush failed standards to be a trained pilot, Sen. John Edwards said Thursday.
How about this: THEY'RE FORGERIES, YOU MORON!!!!!!!
The left just isn't getting it.
Already Terry McAuliffe is luanching in on the "Rove Plant Conspiracy" angle. Ace has a great take on this.
Update #3:
Rather Spins
Thanks for the Memory to Ace YET AGAIN
So Rather's story, and he sticking to it (for now), is that even if the source isn't true, the story is!
Dan, Dan, Dan.... if the Source is Lying, the Story is a Lie!
Ace has retracted this story. Apparently Rather is still insisting that the documents themselves are genuine.
At least he hasn't pulled a Clintonesque "Meaning of the word is" moment. But he's still getting burned like a mutha.
Update #3.5
Again, from Ace. The man is ON FREAKING FIRE!
Apparently even the Dems are beginning to understand how bad this is for them.
See Update # 2 at bottom!
The Old Mainstream Media, Dan Rather, The Kerry Campaign, and now Tom Harkins can all skip merrily to hell, slung snug under Dorothy's arm, ensconced in wicker. All thanks to a set of forged memos.
Thanks for the Memory to Blogfather Rusty at MyPetJawa. Literally, this time. Last night this particular issue had me livid, and thanks to Rusty, I am now remembering to Blog on it.
Last night when I got home, after checking on the Feared Redhead, I was eager to see how the news channels would be handling the Killian Memos:
CNN Headline News, as I've mentioned, was parroting the line from CBS/60 minutes.
Fox's Tim Russert just had to go on about how damaging the memos are to Bush, if they're authentic, before addressing the objections to said authenticity.
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough Was interviewing someone (only caught the tail end, not sure who) who was talking about how these memos are more damaging to Bush than the swifties are to Kerry, because the Swifties have been "disproven," while the memos have not. Try to keep up, joey.
And CNN had the most infuriating coverage of all, airing a press statement by Tom Harkins criticizing Bush's military record, crowing about how these memos prove he's a liar, and demanding the President address the accusations. Rusty has the transcript.
I sat there, seething and chuckling at the same time. It was one more example of Democratic hypocrisy, accusing Republicans of mudslinging when this kind of attack is all too common bt the left. And yet it was amusing, because I knew he had to have made this statement before the forgery issue had come up.
I'm sure when all is said and done, the Democratic spin will try to dismiss this as nothing, and in fact, the true believers will still be quoting the memos, oblivious to their discredit.
But the Old Media in their coverage, the Kerry campaign in passing the memos to CBS, CBS and Rather for running with it, and Democratic leadership for playing it as their trump card even as it was being deconstructed like a house OF cards, took a huge hit to their credibility yesterday.
Update #1
Powerline has a lead on Dan Rather's insistence on staying in the Alamo.
This has Prompted Ace of Spades to start a Dan Rather Retirement Watch.
Update #2
Again, thanks to Ace!
According to the Nashua Telegraph, John Edwards is challenging Bush to address the accusations made in the memos!!!!
President Bush should have to explain newly released records that reveal his former Texas National Guard superior was asked to “sugar coat” performance records after finding Bush failed standards to be a trained pilot, Sen. John Edwards said Thursday.
How about this: THEY'RE FORGERIES, YOU MORON!!!!!!!
The left just isn't getting it.
Already Terry McAuliffe is luanching in on the "Rove Plant Conspiracy" angle. Ace has a great take on this.
Ace has retracted this story. Apparently Rather is still insisting that the documents themselves are genuine.
At least he hasn't pulled a Clintonesque "Meaning of the word is" moment. But he's still getting burned like a mutha.
Update #3.5
Again, from Ace. The man is ON FREAKING FIRE!
Apparently even the Dems are beginning to understand how bad this is for them.
Reaping the Whirlwind -- in a Good Way
Wow.
My average traffic has been in the 80-90 visit per day range for a while now. Not impressive, but not bag for a humble little blog.
According to Sitemeter, based on my traffic today, they predict my traffic will climb to 111 visits per day. If the last hour, since I started blogging in earnest on Memogate, is any indication (which it probably isn't), I'm looking at 600 visits/day.
I realize this is a rare spike, and that my average will be nowhere near that. But I'm still seeing a significant climb. And it's readers from all over the place.
Now if this is happening to lil' ol' me, what must it be like for the big boys?
This story is, as Ace said yesterday, the shot heard 'round the blogosphere.
My average traffic has been in the 80-90 visit per day range for a while now. Not impressive, but not bag for a humble little blog.
According to Sitemeter, based on my traffic today, they predict my traffic will climb to 111 visits per day. If the last hour, since I started blogging in earnest on Memogate, is any indication (which it probably isn't), I'm looking at 600 visits/day.
I realize this is a rare spike, and that my average will be nowhere near that. But I'm still seeing a significant climb. And it's readers from all over the place.
Now if this is happening to lil' ol' me, what must it be like for the big boys?
This story is, as Ace said yesterday, the shot heard 'round the blogosphere.
Semper Fidelis
Just got back from a little jaunt over to Blogmother Da Goddess' blog, where I saw this very moving picture. I suggest you go view her photography, read her moving words. i'm still unsure of how I escaped tears.
I'm not sure the man is a marine and not a soldier, the uniform is't clear enough for a civilian like me to say. Either way, the USMC motto seemed appropriate. Look at the photo. It's the perfect picture of the faithfulness of a family. A man. A woman. a child. Together, linked, one. But there's that uniform, which demands a faithfulness of its own. And like the family bond, the bond to the uniform was made willingly, voluntarily, fully cognizant of the cost, out of love.
Out of love for his country, the man makes a sacrifice. Out of love for the man, the family makes sacrifices. Because of their sacrifice, he knows his will not be in vain.
Faithful. Semper Fidelis. And we're all better off because they are.
I'm not sure the man is a marine and not a soldier, the uniform is't clear enough for a civilian like me to say. Either way, the USMC motto seemed appropriate. Look at the photo. It's the perfect picture of the faithfulness of a family. A man. A woman. a child. Together, linked, one. But there's that uniform, which demands a faithfulness of its own. And like the family bond, the bond to the uniform was made willingly, voluntarily, fully cognizant of the cost, out of love.
Out of love for his country, the man makes a sacrifice. Out of love for the man, the family makes sacrifices. Because of their sacrifice, he knows his will not be in vain.
Faithful. Semper Fidelis. And we're all better off because they are.
Quote of the Day
(During the fourth quarter of last night's Indianapolis Colts vs. New England Patriots football game in Massachussetts, after two Colts possessions and one Patriots possession had ended in turnovers):
John Madden: Boy, this game is a real flip-flop.
Al Michaels: Well, you're in the right state for it!
John Madden: Boy, this game is a real flip-flop.
Al Michaels: Well, you're in the right state for it!
Thursday, September 09, 2004
WHAT THE HELL
Is It With the End of the Week and Stressfull Calls?????
According to my wife over the phone:
The neighbors are being evicted. They have a cat that we've grown fond of, and can't keep her. They asked us to take her. In trying to get the cat IN to our duplex, my wife accidentally let the dog OUT. the dog, a small inside dog, needs obedience training -- she ran off, chasing the cat. Cat and dog were both almost hit by traffic. Wife gave chase. Man on street ignored wife's request for help, did not even respond. Will not go into details of how THAT makes me feel. Wife fell, scraped knee and face, fell partly on tummy, worries about baby inside.
I'm gonna scream!
Everything worked out ok, she feels no abdominal pain. I told her if she feels at all concerned, to got to urgent care. But what really has me shaking and near tears is the thought that with a little less providence, I could have lost 2 pets, a child, and my wife, all in one fell swoop.
According to my wife over the phone:
The neighbors are being evicted. They have a cat that we've grown fond of, and can't keep her. They asked us to take her. In trying to get the cat IN to our duplex, my wife accidentally let the dog OUT. the dog, a small inside dog, needs obedience training -- she ran off, chasing the cat. Cat and dog were both almost hit by traffic. Wife gave chase. Man on street ignored wife's request for help, did not even respond. Will not go into details of how THAT makes me feel. Wife fell, scraped knee and face, fell partly on tummy, worries about baby inside.
I'm gonna scream!
Everything worked out ok, she feels no abdominal pain. I told her if she feels at all concerned, to got to urgent care. But what really has me shaking and near tears is the thought that with a little less providence, I could have lost 2 pets, a child, and my wife, all in one fell swoop.
Memo
From: Blogs
To: Old Media
Subject: See Ya
Update II 9/10/04:
Last night on CNN HN, I kid you not, after all this had broken, at 7 PM PDT, I watched the talking heads parrot the EXACT line spewed by 60 Minutes the day before -- no caveat at all. While over on Fox, Tim Russert had to talk about how bad for Bush this was *IF* the memos were authentic, BEFORE discussing their authenticity. And even then, it only received a cursory explanation. Sheesh. The media is the media is the media.
UPDATE!
Thanks for the Memory to reader LC Christopher at The Rottie.
Even as the Blogs tear into them, the Old Media turn on each other. ABC News is now posting an article in which Killian's Son questions the veracity of the documents.
How beautiful is that?
Original Post:
Thanks for the memory to reader Ken J at Ace's blog.
So I snoozed, I loozed... er... lost... regarding the Killian Memo Controversy. I had a chance to get in on the big wave, but I was influenced by cooler heads. Oh, well. It's better in this case to have been scooped than to have ended up with egg on my face. Maybe CBS should have thought of that too. That's the point of the controversy, isn't it? Vetting your sources before you build your case on them?
Remember this post where I talked about how the ability of the blogosphere to force the Swift Boat Vets issue into the foreground showed how modern forms of communication were storming the gates of the Mainstream Media's hold on information? Well, as Ace points out, THIS STORY BLOW THINGS WIDE OPEN IN WAYS WE ONLY IMAGINED BEFORE.
While Ace may not be right in his assertion that this will end Rathers' career, it certainly tarnishes it. Furthermore, the fact that CBS is guilty of exactly what Rather accuses blogs of, namely being "committed ideologues relying upon 'faulty intelligence' without thoroughly vetting it due to the fact that the dubious 'evidence' supports their preconceived ideological faith," while it was the oft-sneered-upon blogs who caught them with their pants down, is further evidence that blogs are coming into their own and that the Old Media is losing it.
There's plenty of time for me to catch the next wave. The tide's coming in.
To: Old Media
Subject: See Ya
Update II 9/10/04:
Last night on CNN HN, I kid you not, after all this had broken, at 7 PM PDT, I watched the talking heads parrot the EXACT line spewed by 60 Minutes the day before -- no caveat at all. While over on Fox, Tim Russert had to talk about how bad for Bush this was *IF* the memos were authentic, BEFORE discussing their authenticity. And even then, it only received a cursory explanation. Sheesh. The media is the media is the media.
UPDATE!
Thanks for the Memory to reader LC Christopher at The Rottie.
Even as the Blogs tear into them, the Old Media turn on each other. ABC News is now posting an article in which Killian's Son questions the veracity of the documents.
How beautiful is that?
Original Post:
Thanks for the memory to reader Ken J at Ace's blog.
So I snoozed, I loozed... er... lost... regarding the Killian Memo Controversy. I had a chance to get in on the big wave, but I was influenced by cooler heads. Oh, well. It's better in this case to have been scooped than to have ended up with egg on my face. Maybe CBS should have thought of that too. That's the point of the controversy, isn't it? Vetting your sources before you build your case on them?
Remember this post where I talked about how the ability of the blogosphere to force the Swift Boat Vets issue into the foreground showed how modern forms of communication were storming the gates of the Mainstream Media's hold on information? Well, as Ace points out, THIS STORY BLOW THINGS WIDE OPEN IN WAYS WE ONLY IMAGINED BEFORE.
While Ace may not be right in his assertion that this will end Rathers' career, it certainly tarnishes it. Furthermore, the fact that CBS is guilty of exactly what Rather accuses blogs of, namely being "committed ideologues relying upon 'faulty intelligence' without thoroughly vetting it due to the fact that the dubious 'evidence' supports their preconceived ideological faith," while it was the oft-sneered-upon blogs who caught them with their pants down, is further evidence that blogs are coming into their own and that the Old Media is losing it.
There's plenty of time for me to catch the next wave. The tide's coming in.
Get to the Points
Thanks for the Memory to Blogs for Bush.
Ever since the RNC, the baying and howling for blood from the Democratic camp has been deafening. The battle cry has been "The gloves are off!" If you listen to the grating screeches of Susan Esterich, or read the scrawls and scratches from a thousand Liberal "pundits", that's the theme -- we're gonna dig up dirt on Bush, and fight the way the Republicans do.
My first reaction, as I believe I have stated, was incredulity that the left would think that the American public would actually believe them when they say they've been playing nice, given the tone of politics for the last five years. They've been slinging mud and out for Bush' blood since the last election. Nothing they've done has been nice, nothing about their fight has been fair.
My second response was annoyed expectation. LEt them try. They've been trying to nail Bush on something for this whole time. If there was anything valid with which to inmpugn him, we would have heard it by now. I expected rehashing of old lies, and I expected them to fail as miserably as the first time.
With the exception of the new Kitty Kelley book (and anyone who remembers that name knows she has the journalistic integrity of oh, the National Enquirer or the New York Times), the "mud" being slung has been the same as it was in the last election -- draft dodging, string-pulling, AWOL flyboy.
And thanks to the fact that they're pulling the same stunt as last time, we've had time to prepare for it this time. A new article in the Hill points out just how inaccurate the claims against the President are:
First of all, the claim that he failed to fullfil his service IN the Guard:
The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he began an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three weeks of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training.
That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served nearly two years.
Not two years of weekends. Two years.
After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets. As he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service requirements. At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation.
According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in his first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis).
Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first four years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. Did you know that?
But... but... Alabama! AWOL!
Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren’t unusual, says retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971.
....
So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points — not much, but enough to meet his requirement.
Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard Business School, he again started showing up frequently.
In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year.
Then, at his request, he was given permission to go. Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service.
But.... but.... Avoiding Vietnam!
“In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots,” Campenni says. “The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In ’72 or ’73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem.”
There is plenty more to the article, and I recommend you read it. There are several points that have been made in other places that also back up this more positive view of the president's service, but since I don't have the sources, I'm not going to risk misquoting them.
Bush did not make his service a campaign issue. Bush's opponents did. Kerry DID make his OWN record a campaign issue. And that is proving his undoing. And, as the article says, "it should be noted in passing that Kerry has personally questioned Bush’s service, while Bush has not personally questioned Kerry’s."
So the next time the Democrats tell you, "No more Mr. Nice Guy," just tell them we never were fooled by that mask to begin with.
Update (yes, already!):
Thanks for the Memory to Blogfather Rusty at MyPetJawa (ring kissing will commence forthwith).
Still not satisfied that he wasn't AWOL in Alabama? OK, how about an interview with another AANG officer who says Bush showed up?
Ever since the RNC, the baying and howling for blood from the Democratic camp has been deafening. The battle cry has been "The gloves are off!" If you listen to the grating screeches of Susan Esterich, or read the scrawls and scratches from a thousand Liberal "pundits", that's the theme -- we're gonna dig up dirt on Bush, and fight the way the Republicans do.
My first reaction, as I believe I have stated, was incredulity that the left would think that the American public would actually believe them when they say they've been playing nice, given the tone of politics for the last five years. They've been slinging mud and out for Bush' blood since the last election. Nothing they've done has been nice, nothing about their fight has been fair.
My second response was annoyed expectation. LEt them try. They've been trying to nail Bush on something for this whole time. If there was anything valid with which to inmpugn him, we would have heard it by now. I expected rehashing of old lies, and I expected them to fail as miserably as the first time.
With the exception of the new Kitty Kelley book (and anyone who remembers that name knows she has the journalistic integrity of oh, the National Enquirer or the New York Times), the "mud" being slung has been the same as it was in the last election -- draft dodging, string-pulling, AWOL flyboy.
And thanks to the fact that they're pulling the same stunt as last time, we've had time to prepare for it this time. A new article in the Hill points out just how inaccurate the claims against the President are:
First of all, the claim that he failed to fullfil his service IN the Guard:
The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he began an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three weeks of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training.
That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served nearly two years.
Not two years of weekends. Two years.
After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets. As he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service requirements. At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation.
According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in his first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis).
Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first four years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. Did you know that?
But... but... Alabama! AWOL!
Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren’t unusual, says retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971.
....
So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points — not much, but enough to meet his requirement.
Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard Business School, he again started showing up frequently.
In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year.
Then, at his request, he was given permission to go. Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service.
But.... but.... Avoiding Vietnam!
“In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots,” Campenni says. “The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In ’72 or ’73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem.”
There is plenty more to the article, and I recommend you read it. There are several points that have been made in other places that also back up this more positive view of the president's service, but since I don't have the sources, I'm not going to risk misquoting them.
Bush did not make his service a campaign issue. Bush's opponents did. Kerry DID make his OWN record a campaign issue. And that is proving his undoing. And, as the article says, "it should be noted in passing that Kerry has personally questioned Bush’s service, while Bush has not personally questioned Kerry’s."
So the next time the Democrats tell you, "No more Mr. Nice Guy," just tell them we never were fooled by that mask to begin with.
Update (yes, already!):
Thanks for the Memory to Blogfather Rusty at MyPetJawa (ring kissing will commence forthwith).
Still not satisfied that he wasn't AWOL in Alabama? OK, how about an interview with another AANG officer who says Bush showed up?
Toot! Toot!
That's my own horn, folks! When I got back from vacation Tuesday, I learned that I've won a Kerry photo caption contest over at Blogs for Bush! Go check it out!
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
I Love Living in Oregon: Reason #87
Not-quite-Summer-not-quite-Fall September weather. Believe it or not, I missed real seasons and the changes between them when I lived in San Diego. "76 and sunny" gets old after a while.
This weather's perfect -- still warm, but not hot, with just a faint bit of crisp, and the blackberries are still ripe.
This weather's perfect -- still warm, but not hot, with just a faint bit of crisp, and the blackberries are still ripe.
Damned if You Do....
Thanks for the Memory to Rusty at MyPetJawa.
According to Wizbang, the United Nations is all in a tizzy because the US destroyed components of Iraq's WMD programs.
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Less than three months after U.S.-led forces toppled Saddam Hussein, American-appointed Iraqi authorities began shipping thousands of tons of scrap metal out of the country, including at least 42 engines from banned missiles, according to a new report from U.N. weapons inspectors circulated Tuesday.
The scrap exports also included equipment that could be used to produce weapons of mass destruction, said the report, which was to be presented to the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday.
Wait a minute! I thought there weren't and WMD's! Isn't that what the left has been telling us? What is this stuff then? Oh, components and equipment for making WMD's. OK, that makes all the difference in the world!
So if he had this stuff, and we had left him alone, how long until the UN officials receiving bribes had managed to get the embargo lifted? How long would it have taken before he had started using this equipment?
The report criticized "the systematic removal" of items subject to U.N. monitoring from a number of sites.
And we all know how effective than U.N. monitoring was before the war.
The report also said it was impossible to know what happened to U.N.-monitored equipment with the potential for making banned weapons.
You couldn't monitor it effectively before, so I fail to see how this has changed things.
The U.N. is whining because we're not including them in the removal process. But why should we? They couldn't be trusted with it before Hussein was removed, why should we trust them now?
According to Wizbang, the United Nations is all in a tizzy because the US destroyed components of Iraq's WMD programs.
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Less than three months after U.S.-led forces toppled Saddam Hussein, American-appointed Iraqi authorities began shipping thousands of tons of scrap metal out of the country, including at least 42 engines from banned missiles, according to a new report from U.N. weapons inspectors circulated Tuesday.
The scrap exports also included equipment that could be used to produce weapons of mass destruction, said the report, which was to be presented to the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday.
Wait a minute! I thought there weren't and WMD's! Isn't that what the left has been telling us? What is this stuff then? Oh, components and equipment for making WMD's. OK, that makes all the difference in the world!
So if he had this stuff, and we had left him alone, how long until the UN officials receiving bribes had managed to get the embargo lifted? How long would it have taken before he had started using this equipment?
The report criticized "the systematic removal" of items subject to U.N. monitoring from a number of sites.
And we all know how effective than U.N. monitoring was before the war.
The report also said it was impossible to know what happened to U.N.-monitored equipment with the potential for making banned weapons.
You couldn't monitor it effectively before, so I fail to see how this has changed things.
The U.N. is whining because we're not including them in the removal process. But why should we? They couldn't be trusted with it before Hussein was removed, why should we trust them now?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)