Mona Charen has a good, short piece (click title) on how Rather and Kerry have done a hatchet job on Vietnam veterans. She relates how the Rather-led 1988 CBS special "The Wall Within" smeared Vietnam vets viciously using interviews--including one with a 16 year old Navy SEAL who claimed to HAVE burned a village for propaganda purposes--that turned out to be wretched canards (a 16 year old Navy SEAL!!!?!). CBS stonewalled and got away with it. The folks at Free Republic, Power Line and LGF made sure he didn't this time.
hat-tip: Neal Boortz
Friday, September 24, 2004
John Kerry's flip-flops documented
John Hawkins details John Kerry's flip-flops on Iraq through the years. And he does it with the most devastating evidence he can cull -- Kerry's own words.
As I said here (and other places), Kerry is the new Jimmy Carter; and the US cannot afford four more years of Carterian decline.
As I said here (and other places), Kerry is the new Jimmy Carter; and the US cannot afford four more years of Carterian decline.
What to do with Iran
Stephen Green, the Vodkapundit, has an interesting screed on Iran that makes many of the same points as (although earlier and separate from) Michael Ledeen's column in NRO today.
Here's the crux of the Vodkapundit's argument:
Beyond the government itself . . . there's little wrong with Iran in need of fixing. Prior to the Khomeini Revolution, Iran was a mostly-functional member of the Semi-Decent Nations of the World. It can be again.
* * *
Yet, Iran, our seemingly easiest problem, remains our most intractable. [snip] Iran is ripe for revolution. And, as we learned last year in Fallujah, Iran is already waging war against us (directly and by proxy) in Iraq. So what, exactly, is Bush waiting for – an Iranian-sponsored 9/11-style attack on us in Iraq? We've had those already.
Iran doesn't need fixing. It just needs a good shove. And since Iran is already pushing us, why isn't Bush pushing back?
* * *
In fact, Bush has done worse than nothing. By failing to stand up against Iran's mullahs in Fallujah, he has actively discouraged Iranians from standing up against their hated government.
Green is essentially correct. Bush has repeatedly called for freedom in Iran, but never acted in concert with that call. He has fiddled with constructive engagement while Iranian influences in Iraq get stronger or more entrenched. Bush is semi-paralyzed to a degree that prevents him from acting on his instincts to cause the overthrow of Iran's theocracy, and not just because of troop commitments to Iraq.
There are two key reasons underlying Bush's semi-paralysis. First, the dishonorable Democrats and their amen-chorus in the media have accentuated the negatives in Iraq whilst completely overlooking the positives (go to Chrenkoff's site and look at his "Best of" links for good, and underreported, news from Iraq). Kerry is the biggest disgrace of the bunch because he has a mini-bully pulpit as a presidential candidate and uses it to undermine the US efforts in Iraq. Thus, between media carping and Kerry's rubbish, Bush has to concentrate on his re-election to a degree that ensures that he will not be able to take bold action before Election Day.
Second, the Bush Administration made an historic mistake when it took office (and again after 9-11-01) by failing to purge the State Department, CIA and Defense Department of Clintonist and Bush-41 realpolitikers who valued the stability of tyrannous regimes in the Middle East that hate America quietly over the broader thinkers like Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith who can recognize the virtues of a progressive instability that would lead to democratic change. The State Department, Defense Department and CIA rank-and-file has ACTIVELY worked against Bush for 3.5 years in ways that are anything from disgraceful to treasonous. Once again, a problem that cannot change until after Election Day and until Bush is able to institute reforms in the civil service.
There are other reasons, of course, that Bush has not done to Iran what he did to Iraq. Green touches on some of them and does not discuss others. Hopefully much more will change with a Bush re-election; as Mark Steyn noted, the alternative does not bear thinking about.
Here's the crux of the Vodkapundit's argument:
Beyond the government itself . . . there's little wrong with Iran in need of fixing. Prior to the Khomeini Revolution, Iran was a mostly-functional member of the Semi-Decent Nations of the World. It can be again.
* * *
Yet, Iran, our seemingly easiest problem, remains our most intractable. [snip] Iran is ripe for revolution. And, as we learned last year in Fallujah, Iran is already waging war against us (directly and by proxy) in Iraq. So what, exactly, is Bush waiting for – an Iranian-sponsored 9/11-style attack on us in Iraq? We've had those already.
Iran doesn't need fixing. It just needs a good shove. And since Iran is already pushing us, why isn't Bush pushing back?
* * *
In fact, Bush has done worse than nothing. By failing to stand up against Iran's mullahs in Fallujah, he has actively discouraged Iranians from standing up against their hated government.
Green is essentially correct. Bush has repeatedly called for freedom in Iran, but never acted in concert with that call. He has fiddled with constructive engagement while Iranian influences in Iraq get stronger or more entrenched. Bush is semi-paralyzed to a degree that prevents him from acting on his instincts to cause the overthrow of Iran's theocracy, and not just because of troop commitments to Iraq.
There are two key reasons underlying Bush's semi-paralysis. First, the dishonorable Democrats and their amen-chorus in the media have accentuated the negatives in Iraq whilst completely overlooking the positives (go to Chrenkoff's site and look at his "Best of" links for good, and underreported, news from Iraq). Kerry is the biggest disgrace of the bunch because he has a mini-bully pulpit as a presidential candidate and uses it to undermine the US efforts in Iraq. Thus, between media carping and Kerry's rubbish, Bush has to concentrate on his re-election to a degree that ensures that he will not be able to take bold action before Election Day.
Second, the Bush Administration made an historic mistake when it took office (and again after 9-11-01) by failing to purge the State Department, CIA and Defense Department of Clintonist and Bush-41 realpolitikers who valued the stability of tyrannous regimes in the Middle East that hate America quietly over the broader thinkers like Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith who can recognize the virtues of a progressive instability that would lead to democratic change. The State Department, Defense Department and CIA rank-and-file has ACTIVELY worked against Bush for 3.5 years in ways that are anything from disgraceful to treasonous. Once again, a problem that cannot change until after Election Day and until Bush is able to institute reforms in the civil service.
There are other reasons, of course, that Bush has not done to Iran what he did to Iraq. Green touches on some of them and does not discuss others. Hopefully much more will change with a Bush re-election; as Mark Steyn noted, the alternative does not bear thinking about.
Come down from the ledge?
The Monk's favorite bird this week is the Oriole. A small flitting featherhead that is slightly larger than the average sparrow and found on the east coast of the US. Most notable incarnation = a baseball team in Baltimore (of all places) that hits RedSux pitching like it's BP.
Yesterday the O's beat the RedSux to split a four-game series and help restore the 4.5 game lead the Yanks had after Sunday. Now the RedSux can't get into a loss-column tie with the Yanks by sweeping this weekend. Hopefully, the Wongdoer's equilibrium is somewhat restored now.
Then again, the RedSux pitchers this weekend are their Nos. 1A, 3 and 1 starters: Pedro, Wakefield (Yankee-killer alert) and Schilling against Moooooooooooooosina, Vazquez and _____ respectively. Yick. If the Yanks don't sweep, this will be the first time since 1999 that the RedSux win the season series; if the Yanks do sweep, they clinch the division. It's all fun and games until The Monk throws stuff at his TV.
Yesterday the O's beat the RedSux to split a four-game series and help restore the 4.5 game lead the Yanks had after Sunday. Now the RedSux can't get into a loss-column tie with the Yanks by sweeping this weekend. Hopefully, the Wongdoer's equilibrium is somewhat restored now.
Then again, the RedSux pitchers this weekend are their Nos. 1A, 3 and 1 starters: Pedro, Wakefield (Yankee-killer alert) and Schilling against Moooooooooooooosina, Vazquez and _____ respectively. Yick. If the Yanks don't sweep, this will be the first time since 1999 that the RedSux win the season series; if the Yanks do sweep, they clinch the division. It's all fun and games until The Monk throws stuff at his TV.
Friday's breakfast reading
Some key items to read with your morning coffee.
First, the Wall Street Journal explains how petty John Kerry is, and how that pettiness is proportional to his ignorance, as Iraqi PM Allawi set the record straight yesterday in his speech to Congress.
Second, CNN is reporting that Bush has leads in state-by-state polling worth 301 electoral votes -- 23 more than the 278 he would get just by winning the same states he won in 2000 and 31 more than he needs to for winning reelection. [HT: Cap'n Ed]
Third, Mark Steyn cuts Kerry to shreds for his British audience in The Spectator. Always worth a read.
First, the Wall Street Journal explains how petty John Kerry is, and how that pettiness is proportional to his ignorance, as Iraqi PM Allawi set the record straight yesterday in his speech to Congress.
Second, CNN is reporting that Bush has leads in state-by-state polling worth 301 electoral votes -- 23 more than the 278 he would get just by winning the same states he won in 2000 and 31 more than he needs to for winning reelection. [HT: Cap'n Ed]
Third, Mark Steyn cuts Kerry to shreds for his British audience in The Spectator. Always worth a read.
Thursday, September 23, 2004
Kerry without grace
Kerry, in his desperation to revive his campaign, brusquely dismissed statements made by Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi on Capitol Hill: "I think the prime minister is, obviously, contradicting his own statement of a few days ago, where he said the terrorists are pouring into the country. The prime minister and the president are here, obviously, to put their best face on the policy."
Kerry is, naturally, out of context. What Allawi said was:
In front of Congress Allawi was forthright, optimistic (with examples) and graciously thanked the United States. Read it here. He also issued a warning that Kerry would do well to heed:
Kerry is, naturally, out of context. What Allawi said was:
"Foreign terrorists are still pouring in, and they're trying to inflict damage on Iraq to undermine Iraq and to undermine the process, democratic process in Iraq, and, indeed, this is their last stand," "So they are putting a very severe fight on Iraq. We are winning. We will continue to win. We are going to prevail."
In front of Congress Allawi was forthright, optimistic (with examples) and graciously thanked the United States. Read it here. He also issued a warning that Kerry would do well to heed:
We Iraqis are aware how international this effort truly is. But our opponents, the terrorists, also understand all too well that this is an international effort. And that's why they have targeted members of the coalition. I know the pain this causes. I know it is difficult but the coalition must stand firm. When governments negotiate with terrorists, everyone in the free world suffers. When political leaders sound the siren of defeatism in the face of terrorism, it only encourage more violence. [emphasis added.] Working together, we will defeat the killers, and we will do this by refusing to bargain about our most fundamental principles.
That's my girl
The Monkette2B says it all, from her email to me:
Have you seen where Kerry suddenly knows more about what is going on in Iraq than the Iraqi Governing Council? What a horse's ass.
Ah, 'tis a wise man who obtaineth the hand of a wiser woman.
Have you seen where Kerry suddenly knows more about what is going on in Iraq than the Iraqi Governing Council? What a horse's ass.
Ah, 'tis a wise man who obtaineth the hand of a wiser woman.
Backing In
The Yankees hit a putrid 1 for 7 with runners in scoring position against Toronto last night narrowing their lead over Boston to 3.5. Down a run the Yanks failed to deliver with the bases loaded and one out in the 7th, wasted a Matsui leadoff double in the eighth with Tony Clark looking like Aaron Boone vs. Braden Looper, and the top of the order went down in the 9th w/o a fight. Meanwhile the Crimson Pantyhose had ANOTHER stirring comeback against Baltimore.
The Enemy are going into the playoffs with excellent momentum believing once again they are the AMAZING TEAM OF DESTINY.
Someone cheer me up.
The Enemy are going into the playoffs with excellent momentum believing once again they are the AMAZING TEAM OF DESTINY.
Someone cheer me up.
Kerry -- a national security risk
Andy McCarthy has a new column up on NRO. It's eminently sensible and well-done. Have you read it yet? Why not? Get going.
Government in the bedroom
In response to the relatively minimal threat of AIDS/HIV transmittal through unprotected heterosexual sex (studies indicate only a 1/300 to 1/500 chance that the woman will get AIDS from an infected male through regular unprotected coitus), the authors of the article cited above have drafted a model statute that would criminalize random sexual encounters where a condom was not used. Here are the elements of their proposed crime of "reckless sexual conduct":
In other words, the authors are trying to legislate sexual behavior through the criminal code and would allow any first-time sexual encounter (sans condom) to become a potential crime. This is a heinous use of governmental power -- a 1984 for the bedroom.
A new crime of “reckless sexual conduct” should target unprotected first encounters. To convict, prosecutors would need to show beyond a reasonable doubt (i) a first-time sexual encounter between the defendant and the victim; and (ii) no use of a condom. The defendant would then have the opportunity to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the victim consented to the unprotected sex.
In other words, the authors are trying to legislate sexual behavior through the criminal code and would allow any first-time sexual encounter (sans condom) to become a potential crime. This is a heinous use of governmental power -- a 1984 for the bedroom.
John Kerry, terrorist ally
Check out Captain's Quarters for a letter from an army captain who is in Iraq. The letter was forwarded to Captain Ed by the captain's dad. Here is the salient point:
When Senator Kerry said that, if elected, he would pull us out of here in four years, the insurgent leadership had a rousing round of celebratory automatic weapons fire . . . they know that a massive upswing in violence with resulting casualties will make President Bush look really bad and increase the Senator's chances of election.
John Kerry, continuing to give aid and comfort to the enemy.
When Senator Kerry said that, if elected, he would pull us out of here in four years, the insurgent leadership had a rousing round of celebratory automatic weapons fire . . . they know that a massive upswing in violence with resulting casualties will make President Bush look really bad and increase the Senator's chances of election.
John Kerry, continuing to give aid and comfort to the enemy.
Jayson Blair, liar
Check out this quote from Jayson Blair on Instapundit.
Blair's book must not have sold well.
Blair's book must not have sold well.
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
What speech were they listening to?
The NYTimes staff editorial blasted President Bush's speech to the United Nations as a "lead balloon" and accused him of wasting a "golden opportunity" to ask for help in Iraq. According to the NYT the President was "inexplicably defiant" and "scolded" the United Nations. It paints a vivid picture. Unfortunately one deeply tinted (tainted?) by the pervasive bias of the New York Times.
Read the full text of the speech here
The President drew a parallel between the Declaration of Independence and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights making a case for freedom and dignity compared with terror and oppression. He reminded the UN of ten years of Saddam's defiance: "...the Security Council promised serious consequences for his defiance. And the commitments we make must have meaning (emphasis added)"
He spoke of the US contribution to the war on AIDS and poverty and highlighted the genocide in Darfur. He congratulated Iraq for rejoining the community of nations and emphasized that "the UN and its member nations must respond to Prime Minister Allawi's request and do more to help build an Iraq that is secure, democratic, federal and free."
Finally, the President affirmed that the proper response to difficulty was not to retreat but to prevail. "And today I assure every friend of Afghanistan and Iraq and every enemy of liberty, we will stand with the people of Afghanistan and Iraq until their hopes of freedom and security are fulfilled."
That's an invitation for any true friend of liberty to step forward. If the French, the Germans and similar fellow travelers need to be begged to do the right thing or refuse to do the right thing of simply of pique what kind of allies will they be?
Read the full text of the speech here
The President drew a parallel between the Declaration of Independence and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights making a case for freedom and dignity compared with terror and oppression. He reminded the UN of ten years of Saddam's defiance: "...the Security Council promised serious consequences for his defiance. And the commitments we make must have meaning (emphasis added)"
He spoke of the US contribution to the war on AIDS and poverty and highlighted the genocide in Darfur. He congratulated Iraq for rejoining the community of nations and emphasized that "the UN and its member nations must respond to Prime Minister Allawi's request and do more to help build an Iraq that is secure, democratic, federal and free."
Finally, the President affirmed that the proper response to difficulty was not to retreat but to prevail. "And today I assure every friend of Afghanistan and Iraq and every enemy of liberty, we will stand with the people of Afghanistan and Iraq until their hopes of freedom and security are fulfilled."
That's an invitation for any true friend of liberty to step forward. If the French, the Germans and similar fellow travelers need to be begged to do the right thing or refuse to do the right thing of simply of pique what kind of allies will they be?
Kerry is so very . . . Kerry
This is a don't miss column from Mark Steyn. From the 9-13 issue of National Review (his Happy Warrior column is republished on his website about 7-10 days after the issue date by contractual arrangement with NR), Steyn's evaluation of Kerry the candidate, the man, the archetype.
And this excerpt is top-notch:
. . . Groucho Marx once observed that an audience will laugh at an actress playing an old lady pretending to fall downstairs, but, for a professional comic to laugh, it has to be a real old lady. That’s how I feel about the Kerry campaign. For the professional political analyst, watching Mondale or Dukakis or Howard Dean stuck in the part of the guy who falls downstairs is never very satisfying: they’re average, unexceptional fellows whom circumstances have conspired to transform into walking disasters. But Senator Kerry was made for the role, a vain thin-skinned droning blueblood with an indestructible sense of his own status but none at all of his own ridiculousness. If Karl Rove had labored for a decade to produce a walking parody of the contemporary Democratic Party’s remoteness, condescension, sense of entitlement, public evasiveness and tortured relationship with military matters, he couldn’t have improved on John F Kerry.
And this excerpt definitely rings true:
. . . Americans do not begrudge a man making great wealth or inheriting it. But there is something vaguely icky about living the high life off the money of your wife’s first husband, especially when you give off the air that the good things that flow therefrom – the private jets, the luxury vacations homes, the $8,000 bicycle – are essential to your sense of yourself. Bush is rich but no-one would have a home in Crawford, Texas unless it really was his home: you don’t go there for haute cuisine or the jet set. If you prefer a less partisan comparison, take Governor Dean, a Park Avenue blueblood who found love, happiness and fulfillment in a materially modest life in Vermont. But Kerry’s expensive tastes seem central to his identity. And his preferred formulation for detaching his policy positions from his lifestyle is especially feeble: “That’s not my SUV, that’s the family’s SUV” – as if Teresa’s his Halliburton and he just happens to be enjoying some windfall profits, which, come to think of it, seems pretty much the case.
It's classic Steyn.
And this excerpt is top-notch:
. . . Groucho Marx once observed that an audience will laugh at an actress playing an old lady pretending to fall downstairs, but, for a professional comic to laugh, it has to be a real old lady. That’s how I feel about the Kerry campaign. For the professional political analyst, watching Mondale or Dukakis or Howard Dean stuck in the part of the guy who falls downstairs is never very satisfying: they’re average, unexceptional fellows whom circumstances have conspired to transform into walking disasters. But Senator Kerry was made for the role, a vain thin-skinned droning blueblood with an indestructible sense of his own status but none at all of his own ridiculousness. If Karl Rove had labored for a decade to produce a walking parody of the contemporary Democratic Party’s remoteness, condescension, sense of entitlement, public evasiveness and tortured relationship with military matters, he couldn’t have improved on John F Kerry.
And this excerpt definitely rings true:
. . . Americans do not begrudge a man making great wealth or inheriting it. But there is something vaguely icky about living the high life off the money of your wife’s first husband, especially when you give off the air that the good things that flow therefrom – the private jets, the luxury vacations homes, the $8,000 bicycle – are essential to your sense of yourself. Bush is rich but no-one would have a home in Crawford, Texas unless it really was his home: you don’t go there for haute cuisine or the jet set. If you prefer a less partisan comparison, take Governor Dean, a Park Avenue blueblood who found love, happiness and fulfillment in a materially modest life in Vermont. But Kerry’s expensive tastes seem central to his identity. And his preferred formulation for detaching his policy positions from his lifestyle is especially feeble: “That’s not my SUV, that’s the family’s SUV” – as if Teresa’s his Halliburton and he just happens to be enjoying some windfall profits, which, come to think of it, seems pretty much the case.
It's classic Steyn.
Kerry and the PRG
Look at Jim Geraghty's Kerry Spot entry on Kerry's meeting with reps of the PRG (Vietnamese Commies) in 1970 (the WaPost article he quotes says 1971 but Captain Ed has the correction in his post that links the article).
The real issue is that Kerry violated US law by meeting with the PRG. His actions did not skirt the "'borderline' of what was permissible under U.S. law" as his campaign claimed; instead they broke this law (18 USC 953), which has been on the books since 1948:
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who,
without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly
commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any
foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to
influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of
any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or
controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of
the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than three years, or both.
That "intercourse with any foreign government" etc. with intent to "influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States" is exactly what Kerry engaged in when he met with the VC and PRG in 1970.
In other words, his actions were traitorous.
The real issue is that Kerry violated US law by meeting with the PRG. His actions did not skirt the "'borderline' of what was permissible under U.S. law" as his campaign claimed; instead they broke this law (18 USC 953), which has been on the books since 1948:
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who,
without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly
commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any
foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to
influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of
any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or
controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of
the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than three years, or both.
That "intercourse with any foreign government" etc. with intent to "influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States" is exactly what Kerry engaged in when he met with the VC and PRG in 1970.
In other words, his actions were traitorous.
Dan Rather, hack
Tim Graham gives some insight on Dan Rather's more recent partisanship -- fawning interviews with Democrats, sycophantic treatment of the Clintons, softball questions to Kerry, Edwards, etc.
Arafat must go
The latest outrage by the Palestinians -- a suicide bombing in Jerusalem. Luckily the preliminary report indicates only one other person died, a small mercy.
Israel should have annexed Judea and Samaria after the 1967 war, just as it later annexed Golan.
Israel should have annexed Judea and Samaria after the 1967 war, just as it later annexed Golan.
The Swift Vets' New Ad
Check it out. The Swifties back up the ad with Chapter 7 from Unfit for Command, which is viewable on their website.
HT to Captain Ed, who has additional details about Kerry's activities in meeting with the Vietnamese Commies in Paris in 1970.
HT to Captain Ed, who has additional details about Kerry's activities in meeting with the Vietnamese Commies in Paris in 1970.
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Claudia Rosett: How Kofi helped Saddam starve Iraqis
When is Claudia Rosett up for her Pulitzer? The link above is her latest expose (which includes information from the piece she co-wrote for Fox News). Rosett has been carrying the reportorial load on this story, a story of UN corruption, political failure, ineptitude and colluding with dictators that deserves much more press than it has received. The Oil for Food scandal is just another mark against the UN on a slate that is far from clean.
And be sure to read Robert Conquest's eulogy of Nikolai Getman, who portrayed the depradations in the Gulag system that Saddam's idol, Josef Stalin, created. See here for a funny anecdote about Conquest.
And be sure to read Robert Conquest's eulogy of Nikolai Getman, who portrayed the depradations in the Gulag system that Saddam's idol, Josef Stalin, created. See here for a funny anecdote about Conquest.
Powerline 2, CBS 0
Check out these two transcripts: John Hindraker kicking Jon Klein of CBS News six ways til Sunday and Scott Johnson of Powerline cutting CBS a new one on NPR over the Rathergate episode.
For additional perusal, Bryan Curtis runs down Rather's history as a nutter in this Slate article.
For additional perusal, Bryan Curtis runs down Rather's history as a nutter in this Slate article.
Kerry = Carter III
Yes, I've been banging this drum for months and maybe Kerry's appeasement at all costs speech yesterday should support more of a Kerry = McGovern line, but the fact is that Kerry's preposterous declarations show that the spirit of Jimmy Carter is alive and well in the Democratic party.
Kerry said that he would not have removed Saddam from power. Therefore, Kerry would never have been able to ensure that Iraq would comply with the 16 existing resolutions against it at the time of the US invasion in 2003 (all of which were violated). Why? Because Saddam was the root of the problem in Iraq, thus Kerry wanted no solution. Saying that Iraq is worse without Saddam is the functional equivalent of Carter's laudatory words for such luminaries as Brezhnev, Ceausescu, Ortega, Castro, Chavez and Kim Jong-Il.
Moreover, Kerry claims that Iraq was not a terrorist magnet before the war, now it is. There are two responses to this: (1) Zarqawi fled to Iraq from Afghanistan (and gained Saddam's succor) after the Taliban was overthrown, combine that with Iraq's housing of Abu Nidal and its $25k rewards for Palestinian suicide bombers and Kerry's claim is completely rubbished; (2) Iraq as a terrorist magnet is a GOOD THING because the more who go there openly (or in identifiable clumps, even if they try to remain secret), the fewer we need to worry about in the rest of the world and the more convenient they are for killing. Kerry does not understand that the point of finding terrorists in Iraq is to kill them. Period.
Finally, this UN fetishism and "Iraq is the world's responsibility" is rank idiocy. After the past three years of French perfidy, UN dawdling, Oil-for-Food scandal, Syria and Libya on the UN Human Rights Commission, Darfur, and vacillation in the face of the Iranian nuclear weapons program, the notion that the UN can or will do ANYTHING of substance or utility that is morally good and operationally difficult is pure fantasy, and anyone who believes it has lost his/her grip on reality.
Kerry said that he would not have removed Saddam from power. Therefore, Kerry would never have been able to ensure that Iraq would comply with the 16 existing resolutions against it at the time of the US invasion in 2003 (all of which were violated). Why? Because Saddam was the root of the problem in Iraq, thus Kerry wanted no solution. Saying that Iraq is worse without Saddam is the functional equivalent of Carter's laudatory words for such luminaries as Brezhnev, Ceausescu, Ortega, Castro, Chavez and Kim Jong-Il.
Moreover, Kerry claims that Iraq was not a terrorist magnet before the war, now it is. There are two responses to this: (1) Zarqawi fled to Iraq from Afghanistan (and gained Saddam's succor) after the Taliban was overthrown, combine that with Iraq's housing of Abu Nidal and its $25k rewards for Palestinian suicide bombers and Kerry's claim is completely rubbished; (2) Iraq as a terrorist magnet is a GOOD THING because the more who go there openly (or in identifiable clumps, even if they try to remain secret), the fewer we need to worry about in the rest of the world and the more convenient they are for killing. Kerry does not understand that the point of finding terrorists in Iraq is to kill them. Period.
Finally, this UN fetishism and "Iraq is the world's responsibility" is rank idiocy. After the past three years of French perfidy, UN dawdling, Oil-for-Food scandal, Syria and Libya on the UN Human Rights Commission, Darfur, and vacillation in the face of the Iranian nuclear weapons program, the notion that the UN can or will do ANYTHING of substance or utility that is morally good and operationally difficult is pure fantasy, and anyone who believes it has lost his/her grip on reality.
Dangerous, Irresponsible, Inconsistent ... liberal
John Kerry unveiled his true colors yesterday with a 47 minute diatribe against President Bush at NYU. Desperate to gain traction in a race where he appears to be losing on nearly all fronts Kerry grasped at the Deaniac mantle and came out squarely against the war. His prescription: repair alliances, train Iraqi security forces, improve reconstruction and ensure elections. Points 2-4 are ALREADY being done today as efficiently as possible. Point 1 is the ancient liberal shibboleth of 'bring it to the UN'. According to Kerry, "The principles that should guide American policy in Iraq now and in the future are clear: we must make Iraq the world's responsibility, because the world has a stake in the outcome and others should share the burden."
And then the kicker: If all that happened, Mr. Kerry said, "we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer, and realistically aim to bring our troops home within the next four years."
Dump it at the UN's door and then bug out. Wasn't this what made Dean unelectable?
Here's David Brooks' fisk-ing
And then the kicker: If all that happened, Mr. Kerry said, "we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer, and realistically aim to bring our troops home within the next four years."
Dump it at the UN's door and then bug out. Wasn't this what made Dean unelectable?
Here's David Brooks' fisk-ing
CBS -- tool of the Democrats
It's official, CBS is a tool of partisan Democrat nutters. CBS revealed that its "unimpeachable" source was none other than Bill Burkett -- the Democratic hit man who has made it his life's work to defeat the President. Thus, the false memos are no less a hatchet job than the revelation of Bush's drunk driving arrest three days before the 2000 election by a Maine Democrat who had sat on that information for seven months.
The proof? CBS' unquestioning acceptance of the SIX fake memos from Burkett (of which they only used FOUR, remember) after PERSISTENT HOUNDING by Mary Mapes, Rather's producer for the memogate story. See this USA Today interview with Burkett to obtain a good feel for his pathological behavior.
As White House spokesman Scott McClellan noted:
Bill Burkett, who CBS now says is their source, in fact is not an unimpeachable source as was previously claimed. Bill Burkett is a source who has been discredited, and so this raises a lot of questions. There were media reports about Mr. Burkett having senior level contacts with the Kerry campaign. That raises questions. What were those contacts and what was discussed with Bill Burkett? Who was the original source of these documents and who was responsible for forging these documents?
Here's the proof of the senior level contacts with the Kerry Campaign McClellan mentioned. [Hat-tip].
But as the Media Research Center notes, CBS isn't asking those questions. Instead, its apology really smacks of the second-grader apology -- I'm sorry only because I got caught. That's why Andrew Heyward doesn't admit the memos were forged, he only admits that CBS cannot verify their authenticity. Nor does it admit that the whole story was wrong, it just says the memos should not have been used. But the only probative proof is that Bush was a qualified pilot who did NOT get preferential treatment in joining the Texas Air National Guard.
Footnote: Captain Ed analyzes the USA Today report on Burkett.
The proof? CBS' unquestioning acceptance of the SIX fake memos from Burkett (of which they only used FOUR, remember) after PERSISTENT HOUNDING by Mary Mapes, Rather's producer for the memogate story. See this USA Today interview with Burkett to obtain a good feel for his pathological behavior.
As White House spokesman Scott McClellan noted:
Bill Burkett, who CBS now says is their source, in fact is not an unimpeachable source as was previously claimed. Bill Burkett is a source who has been discredited, and so this raises a lot of questions. There were media reports about Mr. Burkett having senior level contacts with the Kerry campaign. That raises questions. What were those contacts and what was discussed with Bill Burkett? Who was the original source of these documents and who was responsible for forging these documents?
Here's the proof of the senior level contacts with the Kerry Campaign McClellan mentioned. [Hat-tip].
But as the Media Research Center notes, CBS isn't asking those questions. Instead, its apology really smacks of the second-grader apology -- I'm sorry only because I got caught. That's why Andrew Heyward doesn't admit the memos were forged, he only admits that CBS cannot verify their authenticity. Nor does it admit that the whole story was wrong, it just says the memos should not have been used. But the only probative proof is that Bush was a qualified pilot who did NOT get preferential treatment in joining the Texas Air National Guard.
Footnote: Captain Ed analyzes the USA Today report on Burkett.
Monday, September 20, 2004
Who is the source?
Jeff Goldstein, who has been one of the bloggers out in front on the Rathergate memo fiasco, adds some interesting conjecture to the mix. Who was the source and why did CBS think it was reliable?
One of the main targets of source speculation is Democratic operative Bill Burkett, but he's a known nutter too partisan and previously unreliable to be the sole source for something of this magnitude. Thus, Goldstein surmises that Ben Barnes, the former Texas House Speaker who claimed he pulled the strings to get Bush into the National Guard (a story uncovered as a lie by his own daughter) is the source who tipped CBS to the documents and that Burkett is the forger. Check out his whole post (ignore the weird stuff, Jeff seems a little self-indulgent in strange ways) and his links.
Meanwhile, the NYT reports that CBS claims it was misled.
One of the main targets of source speculation is Democratic operative Bill Burkett, but he's a known nutter too partisan and previously unreliable to be the sole source for something of this magnitude. Thus, Goldstein surmises that Ben Barnes, the former Texas House Speaker who claimed he pulled the strings to get Bush into the National Guard (a story uncovered as a lie by his own daughter) is the source who tipped CBS to the documents and that Burkett is the forger. Check out his whole post (ignore the weird stuff, Jeff seems a little self-indulgent in strange ways) and his links.
Meanwhile, the NYT reports that CBS claims it was misled.
CBS's verdict
CBS factcheckers have reached a decision on whether the infamous memos are legit. Click the link.
John Kerry's latest outrage
The Kerry campaign is dishonest, dishonorable and intellectually diseased. The latest outrage: sending KERRY's SISTER to Australia to tell Australians that "'Australia has kept faith with the US and we are endangering the Australians now by this wanton disregard for international law and multilateral channels,' she said, referring to the invasion of Iraq."
This is a heinous and blatant attempt to meddle in the INTERNAL POLITICS of an ally. The Kerry campaign, and Diane Kerry are completely reprehensible.
Moreover, is this how the Kerry clan builds coalitions? Denouncing the US actions, denouncing the actions of AN ALLY THAT IS A CORNERSTONE OF THE US LED COALITIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS, and openly trying to influence the pending election in a fully operational democracy is morally disgraceful and politically heinous (Aussie PM John Howard must call an election this year, his opponent is Australia's version of Jose Zapatero -- a socialistic appeaser).
Thankfully, John Howard is both resolute and clear-headed. Here is his latest proclamation:
Howard said he would not hesitate to launch a pre-emptive strike on a terrorist base overseas if it was necessary, repeating a threat made two years ago after the Bali bombings killed 202 people including 88 Australians.
"I've said that if there were no alternative other than to do something ourselves to prevent an attack on Australia from a terrorist group, I would do it," Howard told national radio.
Of course, Latham responded that Aussies would be upset if a neighbor launched unilateral strikes in Australia -- a statement that encapsulates the intellectually vapid and morally brainless mindset of the Left. Why? BECAUSE AUSTRALIA DOES NOT HARBOR AND SUCCOR TERRORIST GROUPS.
Aussies have the choice between Australia's Churchill and its Jimmy Carter. Hopefully, they won't f--k up.
Hat-tips: Captain Ed twice.
This is a heinous and blatant attempt to meddle in the INTERNAL POLITICS of an ally. The Kerry campaign, and Diane Kerry are completely reprehensible.
Moreover, is this how the Kerry clan builds coalitions? Denouncing the US actions, denouncing the actions of AN ALLY THAT IS A CORNERSTONE OF THE US LED COALITIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS, and openly trying to influence the pending election in a fully operational democracy is morally disgraceful and politically heinous (Aussie PM John Howard must call an election this year, his opponent is Australia's version of Jose Zapatero -- a socialistic appeaser).
Thankfully, John Howard is both resolute and clear-headed. Here is his latest proclamation:
Howard said he would not hesitate to launch a pre-emptive strike on a terrorist base overseas if it was necessary, repeating a threat made two years ago after the Bali bombings killed 202 people including 88 Australians.
"I've said that if there were no alternative other than to do something ourselves to prevent an attack on Australia from a terrorist group, I would do it," Howard told national radio.
Of course, Latham responded that Aussies would be upset if a neighbor launched unilateral strikes in Australia -- a statement that encapsulates the intellectually vapid and morally brainless mindset of the Left. Why? BECAUSE AUSTRALIA DOES NOT HARBOR AND SUCCOR TERRORIST GROUPS.
Aussies have the choice between Australia's Churchill and its Jimmy Carter. Hopefully, they won't f--k up.
Hat-tips: Captain Ed twice.
Sunday, September 19, 2004
Yankees-RedSawx, what did we learn?
After shouting myself hoarse in anger Friday, and missing yesterday's game because my local FOX channel didn't cover the game. So I was able to watch, sweat through (5+ innings) and then enjoy today's whupping, especially because that SOB Pedro was the victim (I expect he'll come back to his normal self Friday night).
But the real question is what have the Yanks and RedSawx learned in their 16 games to date?
Regardless of what Gammons chirped about in late July, it is clear that in the nine games since the Yanks' two April debacles, the Yanks have been the superior team head-to-head. They've won 6 of the 9 and TWO of the losses were because Rivera honked (something the RedSux cannot count on in the postseason -- Rivera's postseason numbers against the redfooties = 2-0, 12.1 IP, 10H, 1 ER, 0 BB, 9 K, 4/4 SV). Note also that the RedStiffs have a 9-7 series lead, but the Yanks have honked 4 games they should have won, the Sawx have only honked one that should've been a gimme.
Moreover, since the RedSux first win at the Stadium (11-2 debacle against Contreras), they've topped 3 runs only twice in 8 games -- once was Saturday when they got 3 runs in the ninth, which they entered trailing 14-1, the other time was a 13-inning game. Aggregate score in those 8, 49-22 Yanks. Last year, Boston won 5 of the 10 games at the Stadium, scored 8, 9, 10, 10 and 11 runs in those wins, and outscored the Yanks in the Bronx. If the RedSkunx go off next weekend, all bets are off.
Other lessons: (1) The RedSawx should not start Derek Lowe over Bronson Arroyo against the Yanks. Lowe is 2-3, 9.28, 34 H and 13 BB in 21.1 IP against the Yanks this year; Arroyo has an ugly 5.25 ERA against the Yanks, but only 3.00 at the Stadium and the RedSkanx have won both his starts in the Bronx. Lowe also gives Boston added depth in the 'pen after losing Scott Williamson. But the only way Arroyo starts in the Bronx in the postseason (assuming he's the #4 starter) is if the Sux need Pedro and Schilling 2x each to win the ALDS or they overtake the Yanks and he's the Game 4 starter in the ALCS (assuming both teams get there).
(2) The Yanks had a definite plan against Pedro -- look fastball early and whack it. Arod took a first-ball fastball for a single, Sheff for a homer and Jeter for a bomb (the only real no-doubter of the three the Yanks whacked against Pedro). Expect lots of curves from Pedro on Friday.
(3) Lieber is two for two in high-quality starts against the Blosox at the Stadium this year. I don't know why, he seems the type of pitcher who would have trouble against the Sawx's righties (soft-pitch bangers) but I guess he does well against their lefties, who tend to like four-seam fastballs on the outside corner. The real whacky trivia is that of the Yanks' three pitchers who qualify for the ERA title (one IP per each game the team has played), Lieber has the best ERA. Yeah, you predicted that entering the season.
(4) Mooooooooooose has intensity and velocity, two things that were missing a month ago. More importantly, he has kept his quality stuff through pitches 75-105, something he failed to do between 6-8 weeks ago (go look at the boxscore from the game he lost to the Tigers at home -- great for five innings, crud for two).
The upshot? If either team loses in the ALDS, the upshot is irrelevant.
But the real question is what have the Yanks and RedSawx learned in their 16 games to date?
Regardless of what Gammons chirped about in late July, it is clear that in the nine games since the Yanks' two April debacles, the Yanks have been the superior team head-to-head. They've won 6 of the 9 and TWO of the losses were because Rivera honked (something the RedSux cannot count on in the postseason -- Rivera's postseason numbers against the redfooties = 2-0, 12.1 IP, 10H, 1 ER, 0 BB, 9 K, 4/4 SV). Note also that the RedStiffs have a 9-7 series lead, but the Yanks have honked 4 games they should have won, the Sawx have only honked one that should've been a gimme.
Moreover, since the RedSux first win at the Stadium (11-2 debacle against Contreras), they've topped 3 runs only twice in 8 games -- once was Saturday when they got 3 runs in the ninth, which they entered trailing 14-1, the other time was a 13-inning game. Aggregate score in those 8, 49-22 Yanks. Last year, Boston won 5 of the 10 games at the Stadium, scored 8, 9, 10, 10 and 11 runs in those wins, and outscored the Yanks in the Bronx. If the RedSkunx go off next weekend, all bets are off.
Other lessons: (1) The RedSawx should not start Derek Lowe over Bronson Arroyo against the Yanks. Lowe is 2-3, 9.28, 34 H and 13 BB in 21.1 IP against the Yanks this year; Arroyo has an ugly 5.25 ERA against the Yanks, but only 3.00 at the Stadium and the RedSkanx have won both his starts in the Bronx. Lowe also gives Boston added depth in the 'pen after losing Scott Williamson. But the only way Arroyo starts in the Bronx in the postseason (assuming he's the #4 starter) is if the Sux need Pedro and Schilling 2x each to win the ALDS or they overtake the Yanks and he's the Game 4 starter in the ALCS (assuming both teams get there).
(2) The Yanks had a definite plan against Pedro -- look fastball early and whack it. Arod took a first-ball fastball for a single, Sheff for a homer and Jeter for a bomb (the only real no-doubter of the three the Yanks whacked against Pedro). Expect lots of curves from Pedro on Friday.
(3) Lieber is two for two in high-quality starts against the Blosox at the Stadium this year. I don't know why, he seems the type of pitcher who would have trouble against the Sawx's righties (soft-pitch bangers) but I guess he does well against their lefties, who tend to like four-seam fastballs on the outside corner. The real whacky trivia is that of the Yanks' three pitchers who qualify for the ERA title (one IP per each game the team has played), Lieber has the best ERA. Yeah, you predicted that entering the season.
(4) Mooooooooooose has intensity and velocity, two things that were missing a month ago. More importantly, he has kept his quality stuff through pitches 75-105, something he failed to do between 6-8 weeks ago (go look at the boxscore from the game he lost to the Tigers at home -- great for five innings, crud for two).
The upshot? If either team loses in the ALDS, the upshot is irrelevant.
Perfidious France -- the Niger Connection
The Daily Telegraph reports that the fake reports that Iraq sought to purchase uranium from Niger were a French setup.
The Italian businessman at the centre of a furious row between France and Italy over whose intelligence service was to blame for bogus documents suggesting Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy material for nuclear bombs has admitted that he was in the pay of France.
* * *
Italian diplomats have claimed that, by disseminating bogus documents stating that Iraq was trying to buy low-grade "yellowcake" uranium from Niger, France was trying to "set up" Britain and America in the hope that when the mistake was revealed it would undermine the case for war, which it wanted to prevent.
Note that MI6 had a second source for that information and stands by its report AND the 16 words of infamy from the President's 2003 State of the Union address were based on the British intelligence belief.
Is there any question that the French are enemies of the US? Not if you're sane.
The Italian businessman at the centre of a furious row between France and Italy over whose intelligence service was to blame for bogus documents suggesting Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy material for nuclear bombs has admitted that he was in the pay of France.
* * *
Italian diplomats have claimed that, by disseminating bogus documents stating that Iraq was trying to buy low-grade "yellowcake" uranium from Niger, France was trying to "set up" Britain and America in the hope that when the mistake was revealed it would undermine the case for war, which it wanted to prevent.
Note that MI6 had a second source for that information and stands by its report AND the 16 words of infamy from the President's 2003 State of the Union address were based on the British intelligence belief.
Is there any question that the French are enemies of the US? Not if you're sane.
Under the radar -- Liberals hate everyone else
Here are a few things of note in the press and blogs today.
First, Opinion Journal republishes an editorial from this week's WSJ about how Democratic officials in various states are challenging Nader's attempts to be listed on the ballot in the 2004 Presidential Election with spurious arguments and baseless claims. Note that it recently took a Florida Supreme Court decision to uphold Nader's ballot access in Florida. (Courtesy Drudge).
Second, CBS is brooking no dissent in its affiliates. Last week a radio anchor at KIRO got the sack for saying Rather should either be fired or forced to resign over his use of the forged memos to slander President Bush. Just like most other media organizations, CBS is more than willing to hide behind the First Amendment to protect its fraudulent sources and journalistic malfeasance, but, unlike Andy Rooney and Bob Schieffer, its low-level talent is not allowed to express opinions that contradict the BIG EYE.
Hat-tip = the Instapundit.
First, Opinion Journal republishes an editorial from this week's WSJ about how Democratic officials in various states are challenging Nader's attempts to be listed on the ballot in the 2004 Presidential Election with spurious arguments and baseless claims. Note that it recently took a Florida Supreme Court decision to uphold Nader's ballot access in Florida. (Courtesy Drudge).
Second, CBS is brooking no dissent in its affiliates. Last week a radio anchor at KIRO got the sack for saying Rather should either be fired or forced to resign over his use of the forged memos to slander President Bush. Just like most other media organizations, CBS is more than willing to hide behind the First Amendment to protect its fraudulent sources and journalistic malfeasance, but, unlike Andy Rooney and Bob Schieffer, its low-level talent is not allowed to express opinions that contradict the BIG EYE.
Hat-tip = the Instapundit.
Friday, September 17, 2004
Report from the Ground in Iraq - MUST READ
The mainstream media is aggressively reporting that an NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) delivered to the White House in July painted a bleak picture of internal events in Iraq. Hit the link above for a report by a USMC Major on the ground in Baghdad. Excerpts:
"Let’s lay out some background, first about the “National Intelligence Estimate.” The most glaring issue with its relevance is the fact that it was delivered to the White House in July. That means that the information that was used to derive the intelligence was gathered in the Spring – in the immediate aftermath of the April battle for Fallujah, and other events. The report doesn’t cover what has happened in July or August, let alone September."
The officer goes on to relate how in the meantime the Mahdi Army has been effectively emasculated in Najaf and Samarra was retaken with nary a shot. He cautions:
"The momentum is moving in our favor, and all Americans need to know that, so please, please, pass this on to those who care and will pass it on to others. It is very demoralizing for us here in uniform to read & hear such negativity in our press. It is fodder for our enemies to use against us and against the vast majority of Iraqis who want their new government to succeed. It causes the American public to start thinking about the acceptability of “cutting our losses” and pulling out, which would be devastating for Iraq for generations to come, and Muslim militants would claim a huge victory, causing us to have to continue to fight them elsewhere (remember, in war “Away” games are always preferable to “Home” games). Reports like that also cause Iraqis begin to fear that we will pull out before we finish the job, and thus less willing to openly support their interim government and US/Coalition activities." (Emphasis mine.)
Remind anyone of a certain presidential candidate and the VAVW??
hat-tip Captain's Quarters
"Let’s lay out some background, first about the “National Intelligence Estimate.” The most glaring issue with its relevance is the fact that it was delivered to the White House in July. That means that the information that was used to derive the intelligence was gathered in the Spring – in the immediate aftermath of the April battle for Fallujah, and other events. The report doesn’t cover what has happened in July or August, let alone September."
The officer goes on to relate how in the meantime the Mahdi Army has been effectively emasculated in Najaf and Samarra was retaken with nary a shot. He cautions:
"The momentum is moving in our favor, and all Americans need to know that, so please, please, pass this on to those who care and will pass it on to others. It is very demoralizing for us here in uniform to read & hear such negativity in our press. It is fodder for our enemies to use against us and against the vast majority of Iraqis who want their new government to succeed. It causes the American public to start thinking about the acceptability of “cutting our losses” and pulling out, which would be devastating for Iraq for generations to come, and Muslim militants would claim a huge victory, causing us to have to continue to fight them elsewhere (remember, in war “Away” games are always preferable to “Home” games). Reports like that also cause Iraqis begin to fear that we will pull out before we finish the job, and thus less willing to openly support their interim government and US/Coalition activities." (Emphasis mine.)
Remind anyone of a certain presidential candidate and the VAVW??
hat-tip Captain's Quarters
Set and match: bloggers beat CBS and ABC provides proof
Whatever else The Monk ever says about ABC News stable of liberals (Peter Jennings, Carole Simpson, George Stephanopoulos), it has done a great job taking the lead in tracking down the FACTS in Memogate, both the facts underlying the memo forging and the inquiry into whether the false memoranda are nonetheless "essentially true." The verdict is in: the memos are false, their essence is false and ABC has the proof through Pres. Bush's own former commanding officer has refuted both the political-connection story AND the unfitness-for-duty story.
Instead, Col. (Ret.) Walter Staudt said Bush was highly qualified and passed all scrutiny and tests.
GAME OVER. Now it's time for Dan Rather, Mary Mapes and Andrew Heyward to get the sack. Period.
Hat-tip: Bill Hobbs who refutes other points by the bushlied crowd. Captain Ed picked up on this.
Instead, Col. (Ret.) Walter Staudt said Bush was highly qualified and passed all scrutiny and tests.
GAME OVER. Now it's time for Dan Rather, Mary Mapes and Andrew Heyward to get the sack. Period.
Hat-tip: Bill Hobbs who refutes other points by the bushlied crowd. Captain Ed picked up on this.
Steinbrenner and the Hall
Buster Olney, former Yankees beatwriter for the NY Times, author of a new book on the Yankees teams of 1996-01 (which is critical of Steinbrenner) and now ESPN correspondent makes the case for voting George Steinbrenner as the fifth baseball owner in the Baseball Hall of Fame.
Two comments to the Wongdoer: Yankees, Kerry
First, Bill Rhoden is a nutter. Doesn't it say in revelations " . . . and the red footwear shall not relish its triumph for the heavens shall fall and the ground tear asunder and the seas shall flood and Four Horsemen shall come to claim the land for the apocalypse. . . "? I'm not Christian, but I recall that something to that effect would occur. Moreover, Rhoden is just ridiculous. The Cubs are much more sympathetic than the RedSawx because their fans are not a group of ignorant dopes from the country's most racist city (a reason in itself that Rhoden should revel in Boston's misery). Moreover, the Yankees exemplify much of what is RIGHT about baseball: an owner who CARES ABOUT WINNING (unlike the reprehensible Carl Pohlad, MLB's richest owner), a manager who exudes class, an organization that usually takes care of its players and former players in the greater Yankee family (see: Dent, Bucky; John, Tommy; Mattingly, Don; Randolph, Willie; Jackson, Reggie) and an overall professionalism from the players. The RedSawx can claim none of this -- they whiffed on an ARod trade over a mere $12 mil over 6 years, they bird-poo'd on Clemens and Garciaparra after they left, their best pitcher is a headhunting, trashtalking whack job, their best player was a serial lollygagger (Manny), its former players are scattered to the winds, etc.
Now that NY is supposedly close (Kerry by 6-8), I wonder if you'll see the liberal dope wearing his Bosux cap during next weekend's games in Fenway.
Second, yes John Kerry does look like a horse but his daughters are worse. Oh, and that Gallup poll may actually be BETTER than its spin because Bush's 55-42 lead is among LIKELY VOTERS a subset of registered voters (52-44 Bush lead) and the likely voter numbers are considered more accurate than registered voter results.
Now that NY is supposedly close (Kerry by 6-8), I wonder if you'll see the liberal dope wearing his Bosux cap during next weekend's games in Fenway.
Second, yes John Kerry does look like a horse but his daughters are worse. Oh, and that Gallup poll may actually be BETTER than its spin because Bush's 55-42 lead is among LIKELY VOTERS a subset of registered voters (52-44 Bush lead) and the likely voter numbers are considered more accurate than registered voter results.
20 million Yankee fans say Pfah
William Rhoden, in his regular article in the NYTimes sports section, opined on how lovely it would be for the Red Sox to win the World Series.
"The Red Sox-Yankees rivalry has been a wonderful story, but I am beginning to feel like my daughter, who says that if I choose "Jack and the Beanstalk" one more time for a bedtime story, she will burn the book. Frankly, I'm ready for a new Red Sox-Yankees story line.
We've written Red Sox futility. The Curse of the Bambino. Red Sox tripping over themselves. We've written every variation of the Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner cartoon. The only thing we have not written is "Red Sox win World Series.''
Any baseball fan with a heart - except for Yankees and Cubs fans - would like to see Boston win the World Series."
Hey Bill, bit of a sweeping, accusatory statement, no? Have you considered writing for the Boston Globe??
By the way, Wile E. Coyote never caught the Road Runner.
"The Red Sox-Yankees rivalry has been a wonderful story, but I am beginning to feel like my daughter, who says that if I choose "Jack and the Beanstalk" one more time for a bedtime story, she will burn the book. Frankly, I'm ready for a new Red Sox-Yankees story line.
We've written Red Sox futility. The Curse of the Bambino. Red Sox tripping over themselves. We've written every variation of the Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner cartoon. The only thing we have not written is "Red Sox win World Series.''
Any baseball fan with a heart - except for Yankees and Cubs fans - would like to see Boston win the World Series."
Hey Bill, bit of a sweeping, accusatory statement, no? Have you considered writing for the Boston Globe??
By the way, Wile E. Coyote never caught the Road Runner.
Kerry looks like a horse???
"Sen. Kerry is like Seabiscuit: He runs better from behind," says Donna Brazile, who was Gore's campaign manager. But she acknowledges that "backbenchers" in the Democratic Party "have begun pushing the panic button."
Brazile was responding to a just released Gallup poll showing Bush increasing his lead over Kerry to 55-42%, 52-44 among likely voters. (Another poll (Pew) has them in a dead heat I'll leave poll veracity to the Monk who knows 'em better)
Leads from behind is more like it.
Brazile was responding to a just released Gallup poll showing Bush increasing his lead over Kerry to 55-42%, 52-44 among likely voters. (Another poll (Pew) has them in a dead heat I'll leave poll veracity to the Monk who knows 'em better)
Leads from behind is more like it.
About the Bush economy . . .
The Federal Reserve said yesterday that the US household wealth reached an all-time high in the second quarter of 2004. The open question is how this relates to the actual number of households -- i.e., is the average household doing better than ever or is just the aggregate (which is the number listed in the Fed report) at a record? The full report is here in PDF format.
Hat-tip: Outside the Beltway.
Hat-tip: Outside the Beltway.
Dots connected: Oil-for-Food --> Saddam --> Al-Qaeda
As I've noted before here, here here, and here, Claudia Rosett has been investigating how Saddam used money he skimmed from the UN Oil-for-Food program (designed to help him FEED HIS PEOPLE) to finance terrorists throughout the world, including direct links to al-Qaeda. The mainstream media has barely touched on this, but Rosett has done Pulitzer-quality (and not Walter Duranty's Pulitzer) work on investigating and uncovering Saddam's connections to al-Qaeda, the uses of the money and the bribes accepted by UN officials in exchange for letting Saddam do as he pleased. The link in the title is her piece (with George Russell of FOX News) on foxnews.com and will be the first in a series.
Hat-tip: Captain Ed.
Hat-tip: Captain Ed.
No more flops?
Charles Krauthammer says that if the election was held today, Kerry would lose because he has nothing else to say about the central issue in the campaign -- the Iraq situation. Why? Because Kerry has done all the flopping he can on this issue.
The Monk thinks Krauthammer may be underestimating Kerry's ability to find new flops to flip towards. Nonetheless, any time Kerry says in an interview or debate, after rambling in the wilderness for five minutes, that he "cannot be any clearer" about his position, trust him, he cannot.
The Monk thinks Krauthammer may be underestimating Kerry's ability to find new flops to flip towards. Nonetheless, any time Kerry says in an interview or debate, after rambling in the wilderness for five minutes, that he "cannot be any clearer" about his position, trust him, he cannot.
Thursday, September 16, 2004
Andrew Sullivan on Rathergate
Andrew Sullivan calls for the heads of Dan Rather and Andy Heyward. This is worth quoting in full both because Sullivan is accurate AND because Sullivan does not support the President's re-election:
RATHER AND HEYWARD MUST GO: I have to say that the risible statement given by CBS News last night finally did it for me. Who do these people think they are? They have failed to find a single expert who will back the authenticity of the memos; their own experts say they warned CBS not to go with the story; Killian's secretary thinks they're fakes ... and yet Rather and Heyward say they stand by their story and will continue to investigate the provenance and dubiousness of the forgeries! This beggars belief. How do I put this to Rather: it doesn't matter if the underlying story is true. All that matters is that CBS's evidence is fake. Get it? End of story. For what it's worth: I believe Bush got into the Guard because of his dad's connections. I believe he probably didn't perform his duties adequately in his final two years. When I first read the CBS story, I thought the docs were "devastating." I'm not backing this president for re-election. But all that is completely beside the frigging point. Journalists are supposed to provide accurate evidence for their claims. CBS didn't. And its response to the critics is to stonewall and try and change the subject. The correct response - the one they'd teach you in kindergarten journalism class - is immediately to check the authenticity of the documents as best you can, and if the doubts persist, to apologize immediately and yank the story. Can you imagine what CBS News would do if a government official found to be peddling fake documents refused to acknowledge it? And kept repeating his story nonetheless? They'd be all over it. But, you see, they are above politicians. They are above criticism. And they are stratospheres above bloggers who caught them red-handed.
That sounds about right. As does Sullivan's later quote about Kitty Kelley: "I think of her as a slightly less reliable National Enquirer. Which puts her one step above CBS News."
RATHER AND HEYWARD MUST GO: I have to say that the risible statement given by CBS News last night finally did it for me. Who do these people think they are? They have failed to find a single expert who will back the authenticity of the memos; their own experts say they warned CBS not to go with the story; Killian's secretary thinks they're fakes ... and yet Rather and Heyward say they stand by their story and will continue to investigate the provenance and dubiousness of the forgeries! This beggars belief. How do I put this to Rather: it doesn't matter if the underlying story is true. All that matters is that CBS's evidence is fake. Get it? End of story. For what it's worth: I believe Bush got into the Guard because of his dad's connections. I believe he probably didn't perform his duties adequately in his final two years. When I first read the CBS story, I thought the docs were "devastating." I'm not backing this president for re-election. But all that is completely beside the frigging point. Journalists are supposed to provide accurate evidence for their claims. CBS didn't. And its response to the critics is to stonewall and try and change the subject. The correct response - the one they'd teach you in kindergarten journalism class - is immediately to check the authenticity of the documents as best you can, and if the doubts persist, to apologize immediately and yank the story. Can you imagine what CBS News would do if a government official found to be peddling fake documents refused to acknowledge it? And kept repeating his story nonetheless? They'd be all over it. But, you see, they are above politicians. They are above criticism. And they are stratospheres above bloggers who caught them red-handed.
That sounds about right. As does Sullivan's later quote about Kitty Kelley: "I think of her as a slightly less reliable National Enquirer. Which puts her one step above CBS News."
Reprehensible ad -- El Pais
Check out the link in the title. It takes you to Barcepundit's website -- a Barcelona, Spain blogger who despises his country's Socialist-appeaser government. The ad is from El Pais (The Nation), one of the largest daily newspapers in Spain and a mouthpiece for the Socialists. It has two pictures of the Battery Park area of Manhattan: one taken on early morning September 11, 2001, the other taken on September 12, 2001. The first picture has the Twin Towers and the lower Manhattan skyline. The second has the lower Manhattan skyline without the Twin Towers.
The tagline translates to "You can do alot in one day."
Disgusting.
I'm not going to Spain until Aznar is back in power.
The tagline translates to "You can do alot in one day."
Disgusting.
I'm not going to Spain until Aznar is back in power.
John Kerry, wrong, wrong, wrong again
Daniel McKivergan pounds the drum I've been beating for months: Kerry's ineffable ability to be consistently wrong on the major security and defense issues that have arisen during his time in the Senate. Most disturbing is this excerpt from McKivergan's article:
Kerry sponsored the Comprehensive Nuclear Freeze and Arms Reduction Act of 1985, saying, "It is time that we accept the idea that the Soviet Union is not going to bargain with the United States from a position in which we have grabbed the upper hand through the development of some new technology."
WOW. That statement is amazing for its stupidity and its appeasement. Kerry wanted the US to bargain from a position of weakness, not strength! Grovel, beg, bootlick, appease, but don't develop new technologies that will force your enemy's concessions. And of course, Kerry was proven dead wrong when Reagan forced Gorbachev to sign the INF treaty without giving up SDI. And the Soviet fear of SDI forced the Soviets to overspend on defense, neglect the rest of their economy, and ultimately helped the USSR fail.
In another development, Kerry's press lackey Stephanie Cutler made this amazingly asinine statement: "There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war. There is now terrorism there now." As Stephen Hayes shows, only the Kerry campaign seems to believe that, the Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee (which Kerry sits on in the 24% of the time he deigns to do so), the CIA, and the 9-11 Commission all disagree.
Kerry sponsored the Comprehensive Nuclear Freeze and Arms Reduction Act of 1985, saying, "It is time that we accept the idea that the Soviet Union is not going to bargain with the United States from a position in which we have grabbed the upper hand through the development of some new technology."
WOW. That statement is amazing for its stupidity and its appeasement. Kerry wanted the US to bargain from a position of weakness, not strength! Grovel, beg, bootlick, appease, but don't develop new technologies that will force your enemy's concessions. And of course, Kerry was proven dead wrong when Reagan forced Gorbachev to sign the INF treaty without giving up SDI. And the Soviet fear of SDI forced the Soviets to overspend on defense, neglect the rest of their economy, and ultimately helped the USSR fail.
In another development, Kerry's press lackey Stephanie Cutler made this amazingly asinine statement: "There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war. There is now terrorism there now." As Stephen Hayes shows, only the Kerry campaign seems to believe that, the Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee (which Kerry sits on in the 24% of the time he deigns to do so), the CIA, and the 9-11 Commission all disagree.
CBS retreating...
...and hoping it doesn't turn into Dunkirk.
Here is a interesting piece from NY Daily News columnist Zev Chafets on Rathergate. Some interesting background on Rather and skewers Princeton, the Ivy League attitude of the mainstream media and their utter failure to rally to Rathers's aid.
Here is a interesting piece from NY Daily News columnist Zev Chafets on Rathergate. Some interesting background on Rather and skewers Princeton, the Ivy League attitude of the mainstream media and their utter failure to rally to Rathers's aid.
Agenda-setting no more
The Wall Street Journal (link is to Opinion Journal = free) today salutes the death of the liberal media monopoly and its ability to set the nation's political agenda. As CBS retreats somewhat, the WSJ notes that the liberal media's ability to set an agenda and steer the course of public debate is now checked by the ability of bloggers to investigate its claims and the strength of new media outlets (talk radio, FOX News) that do not fit within the liberal media aegis. No longer is dissent only found in the WSJ editorial pages, National Review, Weekly Standard and Commentary; instead, it is widely available and at the fingertips of anyone with a computer.
What the WSJ does not say is what The Monk will claim: the new dissenting voices, and their relative strength, has made the mainstream liberal media MORE strident and open in its partisanship.
Examples:
(1) CNN's transformation into the Clinton News Network in the 1990s as Rush Limbaugh rose to become the #1 radio talk show in the country.
(2) ABC News' handing the reins of its flagship Sunday TV news show This Week from the nonpartisan and studiously professional David Brinkley to liberals Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts and then to George Stephanopoulos who "Prior to joining ABCNEWS, Stephanopoulos served in the Clinton administration as the senior advisor to the president for policy and strategy. He was a key strategist in both Clinton presidential campaigns and was involved in the development of virtually all major policy initiatives during Clinton's first term in office." (see here for the quote's source).
(3) The NY Times' attempts at agenda-setting by continually pumping the story of Augusta National Country Club's exclusion of women from its memberships.
(4) The LA Times' hit pieces against Arnold Schwarzenegger on the eve of the California recall/gubernatorial election.
(5) The media's coverage blasting the Supreme Court after its correct decision in Bush v. Gore (and the media's evasive reporting of the fact that SEVEN justices found a constitutional violation, the 5-4 split was on the remedy).
(6) The media's coverage of Enron, until it became obvious that Bush had nothing to do with Enron's collapse or the conditions that caused it.
(7) The feeding frenzy over Joe Wilson's yellowcake claims (70+ stories) -- compare that to the silence when those claims were ultimately debunked (3 stories, none on the major networks).
This is just a short list. But the fact remains that the media has become more shrill in support of its liberal agenda even as its influence wanes (or perhaps that influence wanes because the liberalism has been exposed by Limbaugh and others).
What the WSJ does not say is what The Monk will claim: the new dissenting voices, and their relative strength, has made the mainstream liberal media MORE strident and open in its partisanship.
Examples:
(1) CNN's transformation into the Clinton News Network in the 1990s as Rush Limbaugh rose to become the #1 radio talk show in the country.
(2) ABC News' handing the reins of its flagship Sunday TV news show This Week from the nonpartisan and studiously professional David Brinkley to liberals Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts and then to George Stephanopoulos who "Prior to joining ABCNEWS, Stephanopoulos served in the Clinton administration as the senior advisor to the president for policy and strategy. He was a key strategist in both Clinton presidential campaigns and was involved in the development of virtually all major policy initiatives during Clinton's first term in office." (see here for the quote's source).
(3) The NY Times' attempts at agenda-setting by continually pumping the story of Augusta National Country Club's exclusion of women from its memberships.
(4) The LA Times' hit pieces against Arnold Schwarzenegger on the eve of the California recall/gubernatorial election.
(5) The media's coverage blasting the Supreme Court after its correct decision in Bush v. Gore (and the media's evasive reporting of the fact that SEVEN justices found a constitutional violation, the 5-4 split was on the remedy).
(6) The media's coverage of Enron, until it became obvious that Bush had nothing to do with Enron's collapse or the conditions that caused it.
(7) The feeding frenzy over Joe Wilson's yellowcake claims (70+ stories) -- compare that to the silence when those claims were ultimately debunked (3 stories, none on the major networks).
This is just a short list. But the fact remains that the media has become more shrill in support of its liberal agenda even as its influence wanes (or perhaps that influence wanes because the liberalism has been exposed by Limbaugh and others).
Johnny Ramone, R.I.P.
Another of the original Ramones died yesterday. Johnny Ramone (ne John Cummings) died in his sleep after ultimately losing a five-year battle with prostate cancer. Two years ago Dee Dee Ramone (Douglas Colvin) died of an OD. In 2001, Joey Ramone (Jeff Hyman) died of lymphatic cancer.
The Ramones are one of rock's great bands. They never reached the commercial success of the Rolling Stones, Beatles or even The Police, but they influenced a generation of hard-rock and punk rock bands and left a stamp on rock that few bands can rival. I saw them in concert once when I was in college: 70 minutes, nearly 30 songs and thrash, thrash, thrash -- great stuff. I also wrote most of my college papers to Ramones Mania and Ramones Greatest Hits vol. 2 -- two compendiums of Ramones songs. That hard-driving rock in the background energized my thoughts.
Rest in Peace, Johnny.
The Ramones are one of rock's great bands. They never reached the commercial success of the Rolling Stones, Beatles or even The Police, but they influenced a generation of hard-rock and punk rock bands and left a stamp on rock that few bands can rival. I saw them in concert once when I was in college: 70 minutes, nearly 30 songs and thrash, thrash, thrash -- great stuff. I also wrote most of my college papers to Ramones Mania and Ramones Greatest Hits vol. 2 -- two compendiums of Ramones songs. That hard-driving rock in the background energized my thoughts.
Rest in Peace, Johnny.
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Thanks
I want to thank the readership for putting up with my pinch-hitting while the Monk was on holiday. I, for one, am thrilled that the Monk is back. My journalistic credentials pale beside those of the Monk's but I can attest that despite CBS' assertions that bloggers are buffoons in pajamas that even trying to keep The Key Monk modestly but responsibly updated requires substantial effort. Monk, thanks for the shot.
And to our friends, L'Shanah Tova Tikateyvu, wishing you peace, health and prosperity.
And to our friends, L'Shanah Tova Tikateyvu, wishing you peace, health and prosperity.
Today's sign of the apocalypse - Marion Barry redux
Marion Barry is back in politics in Washington D.C. Yes, the same fellow who was caught smoking crack on videotape by the FBI, whose peccadilloes are legendary and grasp on reality, hmm, tenuous.
Journalistic Ethics and CBS
The Allahpundit reported that CBS is sticking to its guns on Rathergate -- Dan Rather's baseless expose of Bush's alleged failure to follow orders whilst in the National Guard, which rested upon documents that the blogosphere has conclusively shown were forged.
This is reprehensible. Journalism 101 dictates that when you screw up, you issue a correction. Every newspaper, magazine and network knows this. That's why you see "Homer Nods" on Opinion Journal.com, the NYTimes' Corrections on page 2, the Guardian's Corrections on its edit pages, etc.
Instead, CBS has stuck to its guns even as its story unravels. Thus, the story becomes CBS's failure of integrity. And that story is being picked up not only in the blogosphere (see here, here, here , here and here) but is all over the mainstream press. From the WaPo to the LA Times to the Dallas Morning News to CBS's competitors at ABC News, the mainstream media is reporting on the real issue -- CBS's failures to heed the experts it referred the documents to for forgery analysis who said that the documents were not legitimate in favor of questionable investigative tactics (one person who vouched for the legitimacy of the documents was read portions over the phone and did not see them, CBS never obtained originals, just photocopies, etc.) that supported CBS's agenda to overthrow the President.
The forgeries were so bad that expert ex-forger Frank Abagnale (the subject of the movie [and his autobiography] Catch Me if You Can) said he'd have been caught in two days if his were of similar quality (and considering that Abagnale is one of the preeminent experts in forged documents and runs a consulting business on how to prevent and detect forgeries, it's a wonder CBS didn't contact him immediately).
CBS's reaction has two aspects: (1) the documents are not the only proof of Bush's political influences that allowed him to be in the National Guard and of his questionable conduct (the first concept is unproven and vehemently denied by the Bush family, the second is based solely on the documents with no credible additional evidence) and (2) the gist of the story is true. Neither CBS defense withstands any scrutiny.
First, the only "proof" of Bush political chits that were called in to get the President in the National Guard is the shifting testimony of Ben Barnes a former political opponent of the first President Bush who is now a main fundraiser for the Democrats and Kerry, whose own daughter claims he lied by saying he helped Pres. Bush get in the Guard, and whose story changed so much the NY Times declined to run with it months ago. As noted time and again, the Bush family denies any political string-pulling.
Second, and more devastating, Lt. Col. Killian, the man who supposedly said Bush had failed to follow orders and typed the now infamous CYA memo had agreed with GLOWING reviews of Bush's service. So, quite simply, the gist is not true.
False gist, failure to heed strong evidence that indicates the story your organization is about to run is false -- that's libelous (in writing) and slanderous (when spoken). CBS committed a fraud and deserves every bad consequence.
This is reprehensible. Journalism 101 dictates that when you screw up, you issue a correction. Every newspaper, magazine and network knows this. That's why you see "Homer Nods" on Opinion Journal.com, the NYTimes' Corrections on page 2, the Guardian's Corrections on its edit pages, etc.
Instead, CBS has stuck to its guns even as its story unravels. Thus, the story becomes CBS's failure of integrity. And that story is being picked up not only in the blogosphere (see here, here, here , here and here) but is all over the mainstream press. From the WaPo to the LA Times to the Dallas Morning News to CBS's competitors at ABC News, the mainstream media is reporting on the real issue -- CBS's failures to heed the experts it referred the documents to for forgery analysis who said that the documents were not legitimate in favor of questionable investigative tactics (one person who vouched for the legitimacy of the documents was read portions over the phone and did not see them, CBS never obtained originals, just photocopies, etc.) that supported CBS's agenda to overthrow the President.
The forgeries were so bad that expert ex-forger Frank Abagnale (the subject of the movie [and his autobiography] Catch Me if You Can) said he'd have been caught in two days if his were of similar quality (and considering that Abagnale is one of the preeminent experts in forged documents and runs a consulting business on how to prevent and detect forgeries, it's a wonder CBS didn't contact him immediately).
CBS's reaction has two aspects: (1) the documents are not the only proof of Bush's political influences that allowed him to be in the National Guard and of his questionable conduct (the first concept is unproven and vehemently denied by the Bush family, the second is based solely on the documents with no credible additional evidence) and (2) the gist of the story is true. Neither CBS defense withstands any scrutiny.
First, the only "proof" of Bush political chits that were called in to get the President in the National Guard is the shifting testimony of Ben Barnes a former political opponent of the first President Bush who is now a main fundraiser for the Democrats and Kerry, whose own daughter claims he lied by saying he helped Pres. Bush get in the Guard, and whose story changed so much the NY Times declined to run with it months ago. As noted time and again, the Bush family denies any political string-pulling.
Second, and more devastating, Lt. Col. Killian, the man who supposedly said Bush had failed to follow orders and typed the now infamous CYA memo had agreed with GLOWING reviews of Bush's service. So, quite simply, the gist is not true.
False gist, failure to heed strong evidence that indicates the story your organization is about to run is false -- that's libelous (in writing) and slanderous (when spoken). CBS committed a fraud and deserves every bad consequence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)