just trying to eat my waffles

September 30, 2004

Debate One Deconstruction

Part of blogging for me is honesty. There's no room on my blog for spin, and i hope long time visitors know that about me. So it pains me to say that, in my opinion, President Bush was bad tonight. Not fatally bad, but still bad.

Sure, the president scored some points. His approach to North Korea clearly makes more sense than Kerry's. He was effective in highlighting Kerry's tendency to insult the same allies he says he wants to court. He was reassuring on continuing the all volunteer armed forces. And he struck the right tone when criticizing Putin.

But the president was also repetitive, hesitant, and defensive. He slouched, his ears seemed to stick out more than i remembered, and he pounded the podium too much, which i hate because Hillery does that too. He also missed numerous opportunites to point out major Kerry contradictions, passing them up in favor of repeating the same conclusory slogans.

Why didn't Bush list all the anti-military votes that Cheney reviewed in his convention speech? He should have hammered on Kerry's "87 billion" vote at least two more times. And it still boggles my mind why Bush can't or won't effectively explain the reason why we have to be on offense in the War on Terror (like Giuliani did so beautifully at the convention) and why Kerry's plan is solely and dangerously defensive.

(And why did the president have to buy into Kerry's "war should be the last resort" bullshit. After 9/11, the last resort is too late. Isn't that part of the Bush Doctrine? Yeah, yeah, i realize that Bush has to agree with that "last resort" line for political reasons, but in this new world of terrorist sleeper cells on our soil, i'd much rather have war be the third or fourth from the last resort.)

i cringed a number of times watching the president search for words. But i do that every time he speaks formally. He doesn't do that on the stump, so i can't understand his difficulty in debates, speeches and press conferences. The truth is that the president is just not the best spokesman for himself. In fact, i think i could have done a better job tonight than he did.

But tonight i also realized that this election is more of a battle of surrogates than any other election i can recall. The greatest vulnerabilities of both candidates are things that neither candidate can talk about.

Bush couldn't talk about Kerry's betrayal of this country while he was in uniform. He couldn't bring up the questions about Kerry's medals. He couldn't equate Kerry with the loony America-hating left that supports him. He couldn't put down Teresa.

Kerry couldn't accuse Bush of having been AWOL. He couldn't accuse Bush of being a religious fanatic, like so many of his supporters do. He couldn't call Bush evil, or Hitler, or even use the word "liar." And because Kerry still has to win over pro-war voters, he had to straddle the fence on Iraq.

Actually, i thought Kerry's reconciliation of his various Iraq policies was rhetorically pretty effective - at least on the surface. As i understand it, Kerry now says he is for the war, wants to win the war, but thinks that Bush is doing it all wrong and he'd do it better. The problem is, Kerry's new position still contradicts his many old positions, and maybe even some new ones too.

The blogosphere is already compiling a pretty good list of Kerry's contradictions. Right on Red names a few:

He said Saddam was a threat, but the war was a mistake, we shouldÂ’ve brought allies on board, but the allies we did bring were not enough. He said that he would never ask permission to defend the country, but then later said that any preemptive action must pass 'the global test'. He said he would increase troop strength but would decrease it in Iraq. He said that something must be done about Darfur, including possible deployment of some kind I suppose, but criticized the President for over-committing troops!

At any rate, i still think Bush could have done a better job of confronting Kerry on his record. Kerry sidestepped Bush's repeated "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" attacks. But i would have asked rhetorically why Kerry voted for the 2003 war, when we didn't have France and the UN on our side, yet he voted against the 1991 war, when the UN approved and the French contribution was considerable.*

As for Kerry's performance, i was impressed. If one ignores every contrary thing Kerry has said in the past, and his lackluster political career, and his demonstrated arrogance and unlikeability, you might almost think he looked presidential tonight. He certainly gave the impression that he was the more knowledgeable and relaxed candidate.

However, the biggest flaw in Kerry's perfomance to me was one that might not be obvious to the casual debate observer (by that i mean, those idiots who still, for some insane reason, have not yet made up their minds). It's one thing for Kerry to insist that he has a plan. But i still need to hear what that plan is. Kerry couldn't tell us. i guess you could call it the six million dollar man plan: "better, stronger, faster." But when Lehrer asked Kerry to be more specific, he wasn't.

The bottom line is this: Kerry didn't lose tonight. He stayed alive by exceeding expectations. Bush didn't lose tonight either. He kept Kerry alive by reminding us all that we should not have high expectations of Bush in a debate. i only hope people remember that debating skills are not necessarily reliable predictors of presidential leadership. And i expect Bush will watch the tape, cringe like the rest of us, hopefully work on his presentation, and show some improvement next time.

* In 1991 the French sent their 6th Armored Division and two regiments of Foreign Legionnaires (their only really badass troops), among other forces.

Posted by: annika at 08:44 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 1007 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Annie, I'm less pessimistic about Bush's perfomance tonight than you are. He stayed the course. He ummed and ahhed much more than Kerry did. He slouched. He stammered. He banged the podium. (So I heard driving from work at the beginning. So I saw later on TV when he visibly came to the word "nuclear" and froze.) Kerry sounded great on the radio. Kerry looked great on TV. He is the best polished turd I have seen in a long time. He flippered all over that debate. At one point he called Bush reckless for invading an Iraq lead by a non-threatening Saddam. Later, he called Saddam a threat. I'll leave the detailed fisking as an exercise for the experts. When asked to clarify why he in effect called Bush a liar, he said he never called him a liar, just that Bush "misled" the American people. "Let's talk about those Nigerian reports ..." It depends on what the meaning of "is" is. The arguments were "fake but accurate". The biggest sidesplitter in my mind was the notion that Kerry will be better at diplomacy -- at alliance building than W. Bush pointed out that 30 other countries signed up to the war in Iraq. Kerry's reply: they were either second bananas or Johnnie-come-lately's. Wow! So some British family or some Polish family or ... etc ... who just buried a cherished loved one can rest assured that the United States appreciates their loss. Oh, and then Kerry says he'll build a better coalition? Hard to do given that he already blew off Kalawi's speech to a JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS. And then has Lockhart dissmiss Kalawi as, literally, a puppet. Some rhetoric from an alleged master diplomat! Need I even mention that the French and Germans have exlpicitly stated that they will never commit troops to Iraq. Even is Kerry is elected! --HH

Posted by: go 4 TLI (formerly HH in Hollywood) at September 30, 2004 11:28 PM (MngVr)

2 Annie: Your assessment is hypercritical. remember, the masses of people are trying to figure out WHO THEY TRUST and WHO THEY LIKE. John Kerry did nothing to win the trust of the people last night; nor did he do anything to make people like him. He is still the Boston Brahmin with the unmistakable air of a privileged class snob. He still pounds the podium also (but escapes your critical eye, while Bush gets it) with his hand and slips and uses the pointing finger despite his handlers' instructions to not use it, using his hands incessantly and keeping his hands clenched and showing the thumb. I wondered if he was Italian, he used them so much. But, Bush spoke to the people directly on several occassions, connecting solidly; Kerry never connected. These things take a few days to settle, but I'm betting that Kerry did not connect and the polls will not improve for him...if anything, he'll be lucky to stay where he is, in my opinion. Remember, he needed to knock it out of the park, while Nush just needed to make contact. Bush will still be at leat 5 or 6 ahead in the real polls, not the spinners' contests.

Posted by: shelly s. at October 01, 2004 01:09 AM (s6c4t)

3 I hate to say it, but I think Annika is correct on this one. Maybe I had higher expectations for the President, but I felt he didn't come back hard enough at Kerry. Frankly I wish he had taken some shots at Kerry. Bush had better be ready to unleash his ownership concept at the domestic policy debate. I think ironically, Bush might do best in the Town Hall debate.

Posted by: Ag at October 01, 2004 07:22 AM (AuGkz)

4 shrubs all done! we finaly got the goods on him! any reich wingers go here! i dare you!

Posted by: Um Yeah at October 01, 2004 07:49 AM (SZgv8)

5 LOL That's pretty funny. Huh? You were serious? I heard Senator Kerry admit that he shot a man in the back.

Posted by: Ted at October 01, 2004 08:11 AM (blNMI)

6 I'm pretty much with you on this, Annie. I expected some ums and ahs, because that's just the way Bush is. He's not as polished a speaker as Kerry is (and it is possible to be polished and still convey warmth and folksiness). He's not The Great Communicator. We know that. What bothered me was that, to my mind, he pulled his punches during several counterattacks that could have been more productive for him. Kerry seemed more in command of the facts, and only a couple of times did Bush challenge him on the facts. I hope Bush doesn't hold back like that on the domestic policy debate. I'm afraid that debate is going to play to to his weaknesses and Kerry's strengths, and Bush is going to need to be really on the ball to do an effective job. Most importantly, I think, he's got to be prepared to counter with hard, detailed facts when Kerry starts unloading propaganda about how bad the economy is, how "outsourcing" and free trade are hurting America, etc. What I saw tonight didn't fill me with confidence that he'll be able to do that effectively. (Of course to tell the truth, I'm not at all sure how much of our economic performance, good or bad, can be attributed to the president. It depends on such a huge variety of variables, many of which the president seems to have little or no influence over. But that's irrelevant for purposes of the debate, as long as a significant number of Americans think the president somehow controls the economy.) That said, let me say for the record that I don't think Bush blew it last night. I think he lost a little ground, but it wasn't a route.

Posted by: Matt at October 01, 2004 08:21 AM (SIlfx)

7 Our friend still isn't taking his antipsychotics, I see. That's OK. His defective psyche just provides additional justification for sending him to the camps. On that note, if any fellow VRWC members need the secret web address for the concentration camp guard and/or secret police job applications, please let me know. We start rounding up the lefties on January 21, 2005. Halliburton is already building the camps in secret desert locations, under the personal supervision of Reichsmarschall Cheney. The pay is really good and you get a plunder quota, too, so you can keep part of the assets of any lefties you arrest. The policy on the use of deadly force is extremely relaxed. It's a great deal.

Posted by: Matt at October 01, 2004 08:33 AM (SIlfx)

8 I largely concur with your analysis, Annika. Check my blog.

Posted by: roach at October 01, 2004 11:16 AM (DHoAQ)

9 I agree with you Anni, Bush didnÂ’t show nearly as well as I would have liked. Way too many UhÂ’s, UmÂ’s and too repetitive to my overly-sensitive, political-geek ears. Bush swallowed his tongue - and only barely recovered - at least three times and boy, CNBC and CNN wasted no time in rolling out those hi...erÂ…lowlights. And similar to you, I sat there thinking, Â“Man, I would absolutely cream Kerry in this debate.Â” (Of course every Sunday I think I can out-coach half the NFLÂ’s head coaches. The losing half.) I think Jim Geraghty over at Kerry Spot said it best, Â“Every time Kerry opened his mouth, conservatives thought of the eight different responses and attacks that they wanted to see, and Bush mostly didn't use them.Â” I would like to have seen Bush take the word Â“summitÂ” and that asinine Â“global testÂ” line and spin donuts with them on Kerry for the rest of the debate. I watched most of it twice (IÂ’m a glutton, I know) and it struck me that maybe the Bush camp didnÂ’t anticipate this format allowing for the type of exchanges that occurred. Or maybe they didnÂ’t think Cicero would leave the openings that he did Â– Bush genuinely seemed surprised at a few of the Kerry gaffes. In any event, for all his lows, I felt his highs were much higher than KerryÂ’s, and of an emotional nature that I think appeals to people. Kerry appeared polished and ***aaack*** presidential. But Bush connected, which is what he does best. Overall, a draw, I think.

Posted by: Kurt at October 01, 2004 11:27 AM (/7AX2)

10 Annie: Check with Rush today, he's on track. Yes, we all wished for a little more polished effort, but W made the points he needed to make, and Rush has counted over 50 wrong statements of fact by Kerry. Some of them big enough to drive a truck through, especially the "global" permission thing, Trebklinka instead of Lubyanka, etc.. If it were Bush, they'd say he was lying and misleading them, but Rush just calls it the way it is, mistakes of fact. Kerry is also walking the line with his base, 70% want him out of Iraq NOW. Those lines will run good in future commercials by the RNC. The market is up over 100 points, so the smart money says Bush is still way ahead. Put away the poison and wait for the Monday and Tuesday polls. Betcha we're still ahead by at least 5. The folks in the flyover states like straight talk, not Senatorial gobbledegook.

Posted by: shelly s. at October 01, 2004 12:06 PM (s6c4t)

11 Yeah, sKerry was smoother, but I really LIKE the fact that Bush is a WYSIWYG kind of guy. I know where he stands, I know he won't wobble and waver when the wind blows from a different direction. I can depend on him. I may not always agree with him - I think he's entirely too liberal on a number of issues - but I admire his staunchness, his honesty, and his steadfastness. And I admire his faith and the fact he is not ashamed of it! Elizabeth, the sinner and Perennial Student

Posted by: Elizabeth at October 01, 2004 01:13 PM (psR4n)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Keys To The Debate

It is a cliché, but worth repeating: A candidate can't win the election with a debate, but he can lose it. The only exception to that rule i can think of was Ronald Reagan, but he was exceptional in so many ways.

Tonight, watch for Kerry's zinger. i'd be very surprised if he didn't work in a Bentsenesque sound bite, hoping it will become water cooler talk tomorrow. He has to try, he's losing the election and his only chance to turn things around is to be aggressive.

But Kerry, and his team, are also desperate. And desparation breeds disorganization, which breeds failure. Look at Gore in 2000. Remember how he had a different persona for each debate? There was "sighing Al," and "friendly Al," and "macho Al." None of them worked, and he ended up looking silly, like he was trying too hard.

Bush needs to simply stick to his game plan and let Kerry self destruct. i hope Bush doesn't do anything out of character because he doesn't need to. He just needs to hammer the same points he's been hammering on the stump for the last month, and Kerry should start to come apart.

Look at the Superbowl Raiders of two years ago, if you like sports analogies. Or this week's Cowboys - Redskins game. Or any Muhammad Ali fight. When you got your opponent on the run, he tends to fuck up more.

You like war analogies? Patton knew this trick, as did Guderian. And Napoleon was a master of the rout. So was Schwarzkopf in 1991. But these men kicked ass by careful planning and a wise reliance on the incompetence and/or unpreparedness of their opponents.

Tomorrow, if all goes well, try to resist the temptation to boast that Bush won the debate. In presidential debates, it's the loser that matters. If Kerry looks silly, or arrogant, or desperate, or if he tells a whopping lie a la Al Gore, emphasize that aspect to your co-workers during your lunch break.

Keeping my fingers crossed.

Posted by: annika at 10:50 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 347 words, total size 2 kb.

1 What about the Raiders i did not get it?

Posted by: Dex at September 30, 2004 12:12 PM (Z0iXs)

2 Annie: You need not cross your fingers, because George W. Bush is nothing, if not consistant. You can count on him to stay the course, and be the same person tomorrow as he was yesterday and today. Bet the house on this; it is a surer thing than any Monday night football game you can think of.

Posted by: shelly s. at September 30, 2004 12:25 PM (s6c4t)

3 You've got a really good analogy about letting your opponent make mistakes, and then compound their mistakes. Bobby Knight and Bill Parcells coached at West Point during the same time period. They were enthusiastic young coaches, they became close friends, and they spent time discussing coaching philosophy. The cornerstone of their philosophy is to be fundamentally sound and not beat yourself-- let your opponents beat themselves. Mike Kryzewski coached with Knight, and invited Knight to speak to Duke before and NCAA Final. Knight's message: Don't let adrenaline induce you to make spectacular yet unaccustomed plays. Play within yourself. Do what you know you can do well. George Bush would be well advised to follow this dictum.

Posted by: gcotharn at September 30, 2004 01:45 PM (AaBEz)

4 A teacher in the Barpassers study course has a great piece of advice. He says "Don't go doing anything weird on the bar exam!" To Kerry I would say "Don't go doing anything weird in the debates." That was Al Gore's big mistake.

Posted by: Francine at September 30, 2004 02:01 PM (zAOEU)

5 Jeez you people are full of advice. My favorite aphorism is one from old BF "Be cherry about giving advice. A fool won't listen, and a wise man doesn't need it" Seems to me that we're going to watch a perfect example of it tonight. John Kerry's weakness is the weakness of the rich and stupid, hubris. He doesn't know HOW to take advice. W might be a lot of things, but one of them isn't stupid.

Posted by: Casca at September 30, 2004 05:57 PM (Y671w)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 24, 2004

Who Said It?

Update: The following post is apparently fake, and not so accurate either. Sorry.

Who said the following quote:

We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians . . . We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest.

If you guessed George W. Bush, you are wrong.

If you guessed Dick Cheney, you are wrong.

If you guessed Don Rumsfeld, you are wrong.

If you guessed Condi Rice, you are wrong.

If you guessed Colin Powell, you are wrong.

If you guessed Paul Wolfowitz, you are wrong.

In the words of THK, wrongk, wrongk, wrongk.

It was the Democratic candidate for president, John Kerry, who said it way back in 1997 on CNN's Crossfire.

You anti-war liberals, i've said it before, Nader is still your best option.

Via Powerline

Posted by: annika at 01:08 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.

September 20, 2004

Ra^ther Caves

Now that CBS News and Dan Rather have accepted the obvious, i think its an excellent time to hit them with another round of e-mails calling for Rather's resignation. Throw Mapes in there too, for good measure.

In case you haven't seen it, here's the statement:

STATEMENT FROM DAN RATHER:
Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a 60 MINUTES WEDNESDAY story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in questionÂ—and their sourceÂ—vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.
Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point whereÂ—if I knew then what I know nowÂ—I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.
But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.
Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully.

Contact CBS News by clicking here.

More: Why does it take "extensive additional interviews" (presumably referring to CBS's upcoming Burkett interview) for Rather and company to discern what anyone else can see, simply by looking at the documents for five minutes.

That's the problem with "journalists." They don't have the brainpower to understand technical issues (which the bloggers grasped immediately), so they rely on hearsay almost exclusively. They would make horrible lawyers.

He that liveth by hearsay, must perish by hearsay.

Send those e-mails, please.

Update: A rather amusing poem by Smallholder at Nakedvillainy.com.

Posted by: annika at 09:40 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 377 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Dan Rather certainly got snookered. Just goes to show that relying on your employees to figure things out for you can be disastrous if you are not paying attention. Does anybody have any evidence that he participated in this fraud, or do you think it was so obvious a fraud that he must have known? I've been writing letters to the White House asking Bush to resign, too. He either got really snookered by the intelligence community, otherwise know as his employees, or he was in on the fraud all along. Nothing he presented as evidence turned out to be true either! I guess I better start writing to CBS too, but I fear the same outcome as my letters to the WH. What to do!!

Posted by: mike at September 20, 2004 10:15 AM (0ZdtC)

2 Please do write to CBS, Mike. Your analogy is interesting, but unsound. You make the mistake of so many others, by focusing entirely on WMD as the justification for the war in Iraq. It's understandable that you would make that mistake, since the administration has done such a piss poor job of explaining why the Iraq War was necessary. But it's clear to me, and to anyone who had done the necessary analysis, that the War was and is justified as part of the "War on Terror." i've posted on this extensively, so i won't repeat my arguments in this comment. But i would add that Krauthammer's AEI speech is a good place to start your research, if you're really open-minded on the issue, which i doubt.

Posted by: annika! at September 20, 2004 10:43 AM (zAOEU)

3 If you read between the lines, you'll notice subliminal messages in the statement........ "It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting WITHOUT FEAR or FAVORITISM." Translation: ......in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of courageously making reports that depict conservatives unfavorably. Now, where's my tin foil hat?

Posted by: reagan80 at September 20, 2004 11:48 AM (O7itv)

4 I tried to converse with folks on the Kerry blog and they kicked me off. They don't want to hear that the docs were fake.

Posted by: Paul at September 20, 2004 12:29 PM (9/Szu)

5 Yah Paul. It reminds me of the days before Clinton admitted to the Lewinsky thing, when everybody was saying they believed him. Then they all had egg on their faces after Clinton admitted it.

Posted by: annika! at September 20, 2004 12:44 PM (zAOEU)

6 Thank God for these media outlets (like this one), kicking butt and dispelling rumors. No longer can the mainstream media have a field day with their own liberal agenda. Oh well, have a good day. - Paul

Posted by: Paul at September 20, 2004 12:55 PM (9/Szu)

7 It's too bad CSI, I mean CBS, is keeping him on the air, this was a golden opportunity for them to shake things up. I'll send another email, I hope it does the job.

Posted by: Scof at September 20, 2004 02:09 PM (XCqS+)

8 I want DubYuh to do an interview with him, and when Dan gets snotty as he surely will, look him in the eye and say, "Dan, what did you know, and when did you know it?"

Posted by: Casca at September 20, 2004 06:49 PM (Y671w)

9 Let's see ... Rather used information he thought was accurate and reported on it. He was mistaken, the information was wrong. The potential damage-- possibily a slight blemish on President Bush. Now consider this. Bush used information he thought was accurate and acted on it. He was mistaken, the information was wrong. The potential damage-- tens of thousands of people are dead. So based on this logic shouldn't they both resign?

Posted by: thebigo at October 10, 2004 05:00 PM (IwZ9f)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 16, 2004

Updated Thoughts On E-mailing CBS News

On Friday, i began my crusade to get people to e-mail CBS News and ask for Dan Rather's resignation. i also think it's a good idea to demand that CBS release the name of the person who gave them the forged memos.

The issues that arise from this scandal are too big and too far-reaching to ignore, and that is why i'm so passionate about this. Thank you for the sincere concern of those of you who e-mailed me, reminding me not to neglect the demands of my first year law courses. i know you are right. But i also know that i have built a small reservoir of goodwill among the few readers of this blog, and if i can multiply that goodwill for this important purpose, i see it as my duty to do so.

My own e-mails to CBS have evolved with the story, and as CBS's stonewalling has progressed. Here is my latest version, which i sent after reading CBS News President Andrew Heyward's long awaited, and anti-climactic press release:

I eagerly awaited CBS News President Andrew Heyward's press release regarding last week's 60 Minutes II program and the Killian memos. When the three sentence statement was finally released, I was left with the impression that CBS's news division is in disarray.
It is now beyond doubt that all of the memos disclosed by CBS News on the 60 Minutes II program are forgeries. It is also beyond doubt that Dan Rather, his producer and the staff of 60 Minutes II failed to exercise even the most rudimentary journalistic neutrality or judgment concerning the use of these forged memos.
Accordingly, I cannot see any reason for Dan Rather to remain employed as anchorman of the Evening News, or in any capacity at CBS. His continued evasions and denials contradict reality and reflect badly on your organization's public image.
Every day that Mr. Rather remains as the face of CBS News brings further lost credibility to your once great news department. Please forward this message to the appropriate person, as my request that Mr. Rather resign immediately.
In addition, there is no longer any reason to protect the identity of the person or persons who transmitted the forged documents to CBS News. In fact there is ample reason to disclose that information immediately.
I'm sure you will agree that manipulation of a presidential election through deceit and fraud is a serious matter. I'm sure you will also agree that CBS News should not appear to be tolerant of such acts, and certainly should not be seen as an abettor to fraud. Yet, unless CBS News discloses the name of the person or persons responsible for the forgeries, your organization will suffer a loss of prestige and credibility that may take generations to rebuild.

CBS is still entrenched. The emergence of the secretary will probably prevent Rather from being fired, which is unfortunate. But one thing is clear. CBS News has no intention of doing the right thing. They had plenty of chances to do that already, and they went in the opposite direction. i think their lawyers may have had something to do with that, and Rather probably begged them to give him one more chance to buttress his story. He outfoxed everyone with this latest coup, but it doesn't change the fact of his egregious breach of journalistic ethics. Nor does it absolve the mysterious forger of any wrongdoing.

Regardless of whether Rather resigns, or CBS discloses the forger, i remain convinced that people should continue to e-mail CBS News with their opinions. If there are Congressional hearings, someone is going to ask the CBS representatives how many complaints they received concerning this whole scandal. And i want their response to be as large a number as possible.

Contact CBS News by clicking here.

See also: Kevin at Wizbang has background on how CBS developed the National Guard story. And Val Prieto at Babalu Blog has a link for you to contact your local CBS affiliate too.

Posted by: annika at 12:24 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 681 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Be careful what you wish for. Every Democrat I talk to has no interest in any of this b.s. that distracts everybody (voters, press, bloggers) from the real issues that need to be addressed in this election. From everything I read it's the Republicans that stand to gain by the release of this memo. Be careful what you wish for. This could be very embarrassing for the G.O.P.!!

Posted by: Dave Diamond at September 16, 2004 05:58 AM (Bmhbf)

2 Dave Diamond, with a name like that you should go into the moives ....pron movies. I am just kidding. If CBS is baised and the souces of the memos would hurt the GOP, i would think that they would have been released a long time ago. So i have to conclude the oppiste of what you conculded, the release of the source can only hurt the democrats

Posted by: cube at September 16, 2004 07:30 AM (nyNr0)

3 Hey Annika, http://rathergate.com has a link to contact all of CBS' sponsors at once. FYI.

Posted by: Johnny Walker Red at September 16, 2004 11:57 AM (j5kv4)

4 I'm sorry, I misstated it - it's not the sponsors, it's the shareholders.

Posted by: Johnny Walker Red at September 16, 2004 12:02 PM (j5kv4)

5 Hey Dave Diamond, Oh contraire monfrair......ol' Hillary has something to gain from the Dems losing this election: she doesn't have to put on her sh*t-eating grin and smile for the next (potentially) 8 years while she supports other people running for the presidency

I know, conspiracy theory....the Clintons would never keep a secret.

Posted by: Pete at September 16, 2004 01:08 PM (wYmSF)

6 I emailed CBS and my local affiliate. Strangely enough, last night the local affiliate ran an editorial on Kerry and the Winter Soldier Investigation from a website www.newscentral.tv It's been so long since I watched anything on network tv that I was shocked that they ran a conservative piece.

Posted by: irishlass at September 16, 2004 08:17 PM (tlO6y)

7 Has anyone had a response from CBS? Me, neither. So I typed up a note, congratulating them on "finding proof of the President's dereliction of duty." Yes, I had my fingers and toes crossed while I typed that up because I recall seeing on another blog how notes of support are getting responses. The blog included a cut-and-paste of CBS's response. I'll let you know what happened.

Posted by: LCVRWC at September 17, 2004 05:52 AM (L3qPK)

8 That is a fantastic idea, LCVRWC! Let us know what happens.

Posted by: annika! at September 17, 2004 08:50 AM (zAOEU)

9 Your wisdom astute Deserves a tribute On source revelation We have a peroration On Nakedvillainy.com It won't take you long To laugh at amateur verse Of our Dan Rather curse Seriously, the poetry is bad but I think you'll be amused.

Posted by: smallholder at September 20, 2004 10:13 AM (EKkB8)

10 Actually, it is rather amusing.

Posted by: annika! at September 20, 2004 09:33 PM (mGLSq)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 15, 2004

The Secretary

Am i the only one who saw 60 Minutes II tonight?

i think CBS rushed the interview with the secretary onto the West Coast broadcasts only, because there's no word of it on any of the blogs i've checked.

She was probably well coached beforehand. She agreed with all the allegations raised by the forged memos, while at the same time denying their authenticity.

Her demeanor seemed credible, but i have to ask. With this lady out there, why did anyone feel the need to pull such a clumsy forgery stunt?

Score one point to CBS, apparently.

By the way, Rather was positively disgusting. He visibly sighed with relief after one of the secretary's statements. And he did his best to keep spinning this story in his favor.

So now we're supposed to forget about the forgery and talk about Bush? i ask again, if this lady was out there, why the forgery?

And despite the secretary's comment that Killian's son "wouldn't know nothin'" there's still the matter of Killian's wife and son.

Posted by: annika at 07:30 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 177 words, total size 1 kb.

1 yes, you are the only one.

Posted by: d-rod at September 15, 2004 07:47 PM (vOlam)

2 If CBS wanted to get at the truth, the why didn't they have Killian's wife and son on, as well as the secretary? Why haven't they interviewed experts who challenge the authenticity of the memos, as well as those who defend them? It seems to me that they have positioned themselves as stakeholders and participants in this issue, rather than as journalists reporting on it.

Posted by: David Foster at September 15, 2004 08:09 PM (XUtCY)

3 Chuckle, that's the drowning man bobbing for the second time. I couldn't possibly contrive prolonging such a weak stupid subject into sucking all of the media oxygen out of the campaigns. Folks, it aint gonna be close.

Posted by: Casca at September 15, 2004 08:41 PM (q+PSF)

4 Here's an obvious thing that is bugging me. The secretary is on the record(Houston Chronicle- I think) saying she used an Olympia typewriter, then switched to an IBM Selectric in the early 1970's. She DID NOT use an IBM Selectric Composer, which would've been neccessary to produce the proportional spacing. The IBM Selectric DID NOT produce proportional spacing. How long is Dan Rather going to play dumb? He's giving credence to the secretary's story about Colonel Killian's private thoughts, but not giving credence to her story about the typewriter she used??? I hope the Abilene Kinko's lead breaks this story wide open. I hope the FBI gets search warrants for Burkett's computer, and charges him with several felonies. Off with Dan Rather's head! I'm feeling carnivorous. VERY. Its time for real men to stand up and establish some Old Testament law and order- along with women who know how to stand up like men. Gary Cooper in High Noon. Wyatt Earp. Karen Seymour- the Martha Stewart prosecutor, and my home-girl from Ft. Worth Southwest High School. Karen Seymour knows how to establish law and order. We need Karen to take a bite out of Dan Rather's backside.

Posted by: gcotharn at September 15, 2004 11:25 PM (AaBEz)

5 I'm on the East coast and saw it, and thought it pathetic. Rather's somber, serious attitude as if this once and for all answered the question was ridiculous. What bothered me was his insistence that while "these" documents were forged, the assurance that there were "real" ones typed by the secretary that were "just like" them. What the hell does that mean? Why don't they produce those instead then? It was a farce. Even if the secretary is being truthful--which she "sounds" like she is, it's again, an undocumented, hearsay kind of thing that's being passed off as proof. To go to these lengths over a possible Bush military career of favoritism and laxness in both his following orders and the military's non-reaction to it (sounded like this kind of thing happens all the time, just pisses people off, but not disciplinary action) is silly.

Posted by: susan at September 16, 2004 12:55 AM (MgAjn)

6 For crying out loud, the woman is 86 years old and has a crystal clear memory of something that happened when she was about 50? My parents are in their mid 70's and sometimes can't remember what I told them last week. How much coaching did she get to "remember"? How much money did Rathergate operatives pay her or her family?

Posted by: Outlaw3 at September 16, 2004 07:29 AM (L9niM)

7 One other thing. If John Edwards can channel aborted fetuses, why can't Dan Rather channel dead TANG Colonels?

Posted by: Outlaw3 at September 16, 2004 07:31 AM (L9niM)

8 "while 'these' documents were forged, the assurance that there were 'real' ones typed by the secretary that were 'just like' them. . . . Why don't they produce those instead then?" i predict that CBS and Burkett will say the real ones were "sanitized" by Bush operatives, and don't exist anymore.

Posted by: annika! at September 16, 2004 07:36 AM (E4a1o)

9 Amazing how Rather delusionally believes doing that segment (i did reluctantly watch it later) in his best BabaWawa voice will absolve him in the eyes of his viewers. What hubris.

Posted by: d-rod at September 16, 2004 08:37 AM (BJJ8+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Question

Which organization is in greater disarray at the moment: CBS News or the Kerry Campaign?

i realize it may be hard to distinguish between the two.

Now seems like an excellent time to e-mail CBS News again!

Posted by: annika at 03:27 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.

Where's My Check?

Ra^ther says:

. . . powerful and extremely well-financed forces are concentrating on questions about the documents because they canÂ’t deny the fundamental truth of the story . . .

i agree i'm powerful, but where's my money?

Have you e-mailed CBS News Today?

Posted by: annika at 02:16 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.

September 14, 2004

Realize Your Womanly Qualities Through Better Handwriting

So when Sister Mary Margarita kept smacking my knuckles with that ruler in first grade, she was really only trying to help me fully realize my womanly qualities.

The "top" expert who examined CBS and Dan Ra^ther's forged documents -- the only document expert they have identified, who has said that he cannot authenticate the memos without examining the originals, who never saw any originals because even CBS doesn't have the originals, and who has since been told by CBS to stop talking to the media -- is not even an expert on the very issues that prove the documents are forgeries.

[I]n a 1995 California court deposition obtained by The Post, Matley acknowledged that he had no formal training in a document lab, in identification of papers, inks or "machines, typewriters, photocopies." He also acknowledged he'd had no training from the U.S. Secret Service, FBI, U.S. Army, California Department of Justice or any other law-enforcement body.

Instead he's apparently some sort of New Age handwriting guru.

Have you emailed CBS News today?

Posted by: annika at 09:40 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 185 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Clearly, all bloggers...or at least the female ones...must start putting up handwritten posts, so that readers gave a chance to evaluate the appropriate qualities. Do you think the qualities vary, depending on whether one is blogging in pajamas or not?

Posted by: David Foster at September 14, 2004 09:22 AM (XUtCY)

2 Actually the quality does vary with attire, so it would be best to put up a pic of the blogger in question as she is writing the handwritten note to post. Sveral pics actually as the cut of the "jammies" as well as the material can influence the penmanship to varying degreees. (I believe the experts say a clingy silk allows for the best evaluation of handwriting, but I'm not sure why the experts have to be wearing a clingy silk set of jammies to make such determinations) "...Matley said he could analyze a woman's handwriting 'to show her how she can have her womanly qualities fully realized." Now I've used some pretty messed up lines in my day to attempt to eagage both inebriated & sober ladies in conversation, but I've never even contemplated stooping that low. Maybe its just the clubs I was in when I was younger,or perhaps the quality of women I encountered, but any talk that included the phrase "womanly qualities fully realized" would have resulted in having my "masculine qualities completely questioned & degraded". I don't know why they picked him (though I have a few speculations) but one thing is for damn skippy: Matley will not be appearing at this years Players' Ball.

Posted by: Publicola at September 14, 2004 11:30 AM (Aao25)

3 Something tells me this pajama meme isn't going away anytime soon.

Posted by: annika at September 14, 2004 11:46 AM (zAOEU)

4 I am a man who works by day I still wear pajamas the old fashioned way I put them on one leg at a time And then go to my blog to begin to opine Stonewalling old scum still dominate these days Spinning their tales from scandalous fakes They cite their experts with incredible zeal Ending their legacy with stupidity for real

Posted by: d-rod at September 14, 2004 01:32 PM (CSRmO)

5 What did I come here to say?

Posted by: Casca at September 14, 2004 04:04 PM (q+PSF)

6 Xrlq said to come by and say "hi". So, welcome to the Bear Flag League!! Please enjoy this lovely fruit and cheese basket

Posted by: Ith at September 14, 2004 05:37 PM (nfIuH)

7 Annika, where's that quote from? I can't find it in the WashPost article you've linked to, or in today's Rathergate article.

Posted by: Chuckg at September 15, 2004 07:02 AM (atuJu)

8 Rather interesting, trying to figure out how long Rather can hang on, Rather than resign. : )

Posted by: J Thomas Lowry at September 15, 2004 07:21 AM (PBdpb)

9 Chuck, check the NY Post article i linked to in the first paragraph. Or google the quote.

Posted by: annika at September 15, 2004 07:42 AM (NwgJx)

10 Thanks!

Posted by: Chuckg at September 15, 2004 07:48 AM (atuJu)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 13, 2004

"But These Go To Eleven"

Does it make you mad that Dan Rather and CBS still insist that the Microsoft Word created forgery is not a forgery? Does it make you mad that they think they can so easily lie to America and get away with it?

Look at this animated gif file, created by the folks at Little Green Footballs, showing the CBS forgery and a Word document that you can create for yourself in just a few minutes.* As you can see, they are identical.

Now here's a detailed post at The Shape of Days, which shows the unsuccessful attempt to reproduce the memo on an early 70's IBM Selectric Composer, a typewriter that featured superscript and proportional font capabilities. The most interesting information is at the bottom of the post, regarding the difficulty in centering text on a 70's era machine.

[C]entering type is hard on the Selectric Composer. Two of the memos, May 4 and August 1, 1972, feature a three-line centered head. Each of those lines of type had to be centered by measuring it carefully, doing some math, then advancing the carrier to just the right point on the page. The margin for error would be pretty wide because type can be off by a few points in either direction and still look pretty well centered. It wouldn't be objectionable unless you went looking for it. So it wasn't necessary for Lt. Col. Killian Â— or his typist Â— to be millimeter-precise.
And yet Â… he was.

Contrast that with the ease and duplicability of the same task using Microsoft Word.

If Rather and CBS News are not liars and crooks, then they are morons and incompetents. Either way, their attempt to slander the President and to influence an election during wartime is so despicable that i think it's almost treasonous.

It takes only two seconds to click on the "Contact Us" link at CBS's website and demand that 1) Dan Rather resign and 2) CBS disclose who gave them the forged documents. If you have already done so once, it certainly wouldn't hurt to keep at it.

Please join me in this crusade. Click here to learn how.

Update: Bill at INDC Journal has information on how to let the Boston Globe know what you think of them, too.

* i've done this myself, on my own computer, using the default settings on Microsoft Word 2000. i now have in my possession an exact duplicate of the CYA memo. Perfectly congruent down to the tiny superscript characters. Try it on your own computer, it's fun.

Only a supreme fool or a liar would say that the CBS memos are not forgeries after having done this simple experiment. It is obviously impossible for Killian to have made the exact same mental choices about tab settings, and carriage returns on an analog mechanical typewriter as a digital computer program that had not yet been invented. Unless Killian was a time traveller, which according to the logic of CBS and Rather, is remotely possible and therefore a rational explanation.

Posted by: annika at 12:53 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 516 words, total size 3 kb.

1 He's toast.

Posted by: Scof at September 13, 2004 08:35 AM (XCqS+)

2 Annika, All trees you see are trees. I agree. All forged document you see are forged. I agree. No problem Annika. Just tell me what to say up front so I can be sure to please you and I will do my best to stay on topic as well. I have no interest in a blog of my own. Preaching to the choir has no appeal. However, talking to the choir about the merits of another conductor is more challenging Now let me ask you why in the time of an undeclared war is it treasonous to try an influence an election? I though everybody was trying to influence the election? It seems to me that slander is the natural order of things. Truth is, of course the real defense against slander. If the WH would produce all the documents related to W's time in the guard, all this squabbling would end. His press sec. did not say he was not called for a physical, just that he completed his service and was discharged. Why doesn't McClellan simple say there is no truth in the memos? On the other hand, if they prove to be forgeries, which they certainly look as if they may, it will be interesting to see how CBS handles it. And how the voters handle it. I think you all will be glad that this episode took place. It gave you plenty of opportunity for moral outrage, eas evidence of the LW bias of the press and it will assuredly give the Bush team more votes than the Kerry clan. In fact, if Karl didn't plant them, he wishes he did. CBS and D. Rather may take the Bush approach to fallacious reoportage. They may very well claim DR was misled, not intentionally of course, by his trustworthy but inept staff. How can we say Dan lied if the people who work for him just didn't have it quite together? If Dan Rather, in all good faith, delivered his report based on faulty intelligence why should we hold him to a higher standard then the one Mr. Bush has set for himself and you have agreed to uphold. Maybe the folks who think Mr. Bush should not be re elected are just like you? The buck has to stop somewhere? Right? If not with George or Dan, then who?

Posted by: mike at September 13, 2004 11:47 AM (0ZdtC)

3 Found this on redstate: http://www.rathergate.com/

Posted by: Scof at September 13, 2004 04:15 PM (XCqS+)

4 Mike: The lady has asked you to leave. Don't go away mad; just go away.

Posted by: shelly s. at September 13, 2004 07:23 PM (PcgQk)

5 ShellyS. Shelly? Shelly who? Shelly the enforcer? Shelly the what? It looked as if I was given an ultimatum in the last post-"stay on topic, don't accuse "the lady" as you defer to her, of being a tautologist, and refrain from indulging sophistry. You know as well as I how easy it is to block or delete a post, right? Well, you read the above post, did you not? I almost agreed that the memos are forgeries, today I am agreeing even more. I politely asked what the effect on voters would be and how responsibility might be accepted. I made a fair, I thought, analogy to the President and his intelligence service giving him bad data and how he responded. Or rather how you responded. Did you write letters about the non existent yellow cake purchase or the stockpiles of WMDÂ’s, or the assertion that within 15 min a gas or bio-weapon attack could be launched, or that there was a demonstrable and substantial connection between Iraq and the 911 attack, or that after successfully demolishing the Taliban in Afghanistan, we have let much of the country fall back into their hands so they can raise poppies, make heroin and collect vast sums to help in their quest to kill us? How many angry emails did this prompt? And where is that MFÂ’er OBL?? I want him dead, donÂ’t you? He tore down my skyline, killed 3000 my fellow NYers, made me walk through a city that looked and smelled like a war zone, nearly bankrupted my business and has gotten away scott free! I am pissed. Now, why would you like to see a different point of view leave rather than discussing the important points I have raised? I am curious as to why Bush is allowed to go on Governing after accepting bad intelligence, more than once, from his staff and passing it to the American public as truth and never apologizing once it was shown to be un -truth. You think Dan Rather must be pilloried. Is this not a double standard? Would our previous congress have let Bill Clinton stay around if he, on three or four occasions, grinned and shuffled about how he could not be held accountable for the work product of his intelligence services and a thousand dead soldiers had come home in boxes from a conflict that seemed now, in the light of day, to have been a clever ruse?

Posted by: mike at September 14, 2004 07:58 AM (0ZdtC)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 10, 2004

Take It One Step Further

Please, i have a suggestion for all of you outraged, as i am about the fraud perpetrated by Dan Rather and CBS News.

Go to the CBS News website, at:

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/home/main100.shtml

Scroll all the way to the very bottom and click on the "Contact Us" link. A simple form will appear in a pop-up window.

Write a very short, polite expression of your opinion and request that Dan Rather resign as anchorman of CBS News.

i would suggest being very brief, and polite. Don't label the message as a complaint, instead use the comment, suggestion or request button, as i did.

i wrote this:

I have been following the CBS News coverage of the Killian memos with interest.
Now that it is clear that most if not all of the memos are forgeries, I cannot see any reason for Dan Rather to remain employed as anchorman of the CBS Evening News.
Every day that Mr. Rather remains as the face of CBS News brings further lost credibility to your once great news organization. Please forward this message to the appropriate person, as my request that Mr. Rather resign as soon as possible.

I would also suggest that you tell your friends to also send similar messages to CBS News. Copy and paste this post into an email if you want.

It only takes two seconds, and even if it doesn't work, it made me feel good doing it.

Update: Rather isn't going easily. He's dug in his heels. We can do this. Keep up the e-mails.

Update 2: Now CBS News has stupidly dug in its heels with Rather. It reminds me of Clinton's famous line, when he had decided not to admit the truth about Monika: "We'll just have to win then."

(CBS) EDITOR'S NOTE: For the record, CBS News stands by the thoroughness and accuracy of the 60 Minutes report this Wednesday on President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard.
This report was not based solely on recovered documents, but rather on a preponderance of evidence, including documents that were provided by unimpeachable sources,

If they're so unimpeachable, CBS should name them. Otherwise why should anyone take their word for it?

interviews with former Texas National Guard officials and individuals who worked closely back in the early 1970s with Col. Jerry Killian and were well acquainted with his procedures, his character and his thinking.

Here, CBS is making the incredible claim that Killian's widow and son, who both doubt the authenticity of CBS's memos, are somehow less familiar with the late Colonel's procedures, character and thinking than the mysterious "deep throat" sources cited by CBS.

In addition, the documents are backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic document experts

A lie. No handwriting expert contacted by anyone in the blogosphere or the media thinks the memos are authentic. And some very highly qualified forensic examiners are on record as saying they are probably forgeries.

but by sources familiar with their content. Contrary to some rumors, no internal investigation is underway at CBS News nor is one planned.

Why the hell not? Have they even tried this simple experiment? Can they possibly be that stupid at CBS?

We have complete confidence in our reporting and will continue to pursue the story.

As will the blogosphere, you idiots.

Posted by: annika at 01:37 AM | Comments (73) | Add Comment
Post contains 552 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Does "put the rabid dog down already!" apply? Of course, in Texas, where Danny boy's ass first caught air, he'd just be left on the door stop with a nice jalepeno dip shoved down his throat.

Posted by: TC-LeatherPenguin at September 10, 2004 02:25 AM (kiH79)

2 Good idea and done. This might be a way to drive home the point that the traditional media has a new babysitter, one that won't be ignored.

Posted by: Ted at September 10, 2004 04:40 AM (blNMI)

3 Dan is just the face of CBS, and probably had nothing to do with creating the story. Some producer did that. The REAL culprit is Don Hewitt, the creator of 60 Minutes, AND the fucker who produced the Nixon Kennedy debates in 1960. These fucks have been in the tank for the D's since they first discovered that mass media broadcasting could influence public opinion. It's time to fisk 60 Minutes' 35 years of gossipy bullshit.

Posted by: Casca at September 10, 2004 04:51 AM (q+PSF)

4 Oops, sorry I all ready fired off 3 different scathing memos before I read your suggestion about being nice. I did however suggest that their name CBS News should be changed to reflect their content - BS News.

Posted by: Gary B. at September 10, 2004 06:17 AM (dt5pj)

5 what do the MSM like better than a political scandal, a scandal involing one of their compeitiors. I have a feeling that Glenn is right, Karl rove is behind this one. cube

Posted by: cubicle at September 10, 2004 06:59 AM (nyNr0)

6 Lets hit them where it hurts. If rather is not removed I have warned CBS that I will oppose their stations licesne renewal by the FCC. No one ever goes to those hearings, so if I can get about 10 people to write letters and show up at the next hearing, it may delay their renewal enough to put them off the air for a while. This website contains the instructions (scroll down a good bit) for petitioning the FCC. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/video/renewal.html

Posted by: John at September 10, 2004 07:27 AM (870vv)

7 Be nice? Rather not.

Posted by: d-rod at September 10, 2004 09:04 AM (jT4qC)

8 Make Flopsy (Kerry) answer for this.

Posted by: Paul at September 10, 2004 09:21 AM (9/Szu)

9 Good idea. Here's what I posted as a suggestion: I think you need to have Dan Rather resign from CBS news. Everyone is biased and allowed their opinions. But when a person of his position (objective news person?) flagrantly USES his employer (CBS) to epouse his or her personal beliefs through slanted or even worse, FABRICATED 'News' stories, they ARE NO LONGER TRUSTWORTHY and have shamed themselves and their employer with their DECEIT (OF BEING 'UNBIASED'). My father watched CBS news when he was alive and I, as of last night, USED to watch CBS evening news too. He in now rolling over in his grave and I am now getting my news from elsewhere unless Rather either apologizes for his smear or is fired. Dan's ego won't allow the apology and CBS doesn't have the balls to fire him (why?). So, I will NEVER WATCH CBS NEWS AGAIN or consume any media that ANYTHING to do wtih CBS. David Acree

Posted by: GoodOldDave at September 10, 2004 09:31 AM (kPy5/)

10 Surprised no one added this yet: There's no BS like CBS

Posted by: Mike D in SC at September 10, 2004 09:32 AM (+jHpQ)

11 Done. There is yet one other person CBS needs to relieve of his duties: Andrew Heyward, who has been president of CBS News for ten years. My note said Heyward's second to last act should be to fire Rather. Of course, his last should be to resign.

Posted by: LCVRWC at September 10, 2004 09:45 AM (L3qPK)

12 You morons. Nothing is conclusive other than your wishes. " He didn't usually make copioue notes" this is evidence?? I don't know the answer yet, but soon we may.

Posted by: mike at September 10, 2004 09:54 AM (0ZdtC)

13 Here's mine. I am writing to add my voice to those who are complaining about the memos from the 60 Minutes report. Shame on 60 Minutes and shame on CBS for allowing it. They are not even convincing forgeries. Dan Rather has done his best to hurt your credibility in his obvious, partisan attempt at discrediting President Bush. This is only the latest and most blatant in a long sting of such attempts. I can't believe that you are allowing your credibility to be destroyed in this manner. And in what appears to be a losing cause. Why are you attacking the Swift Boat Vets instead of researching their claims? Why are you promoting an obviously forged document without researching it? I think I know the reason. It's really too bad. I used to trust CBS. Ahhh, the folly of youth.

Posted by: Veeshir at September 10, 2004 09:58 AM (mkVlM)

14 I'm from Massachusetts and have been subjected to that idiot, Flopsy(Kerry) my whole life. Let him squirm over this.

Posted by: Paul at September 10, 2004 10:06 AM (9/Szu)

15 Main Entry: flip-flop Pronunciation: 'flip-"flÃƒÂ¤p Function: noun 1 : the sound or motion of something flapping loosely 2 a : a backward handspring b : a sudden reversal (as of direction or point of view) 3 : a usually electronic device or a circuit (as in a computer) capable of assuming either of two stable states 4 : a rubber sandal loosely fastened to the foot by a thong - flip-flop intransitive verb

Posted by: Paul at September 10, 2004 10:10 AM (9/Szu)

16 Mike, do me a favor. Go to a computer. There should be one at the public library near the freeway overpass under which you sleep. Click on Microsoft Word. Type the text of one of the letters in verbatim. Then compare what you typed to the "original" memo put out by CBS. Then come back here and apologize for calling us morons.

Posted by: annika! at September 10, 2004 10:13 AM (zAOEU)

17 See B.S. Dan Blather. Made for each other.

Posted by: Don at September 10, 2004 11:02 AM (Pbs6a)

18 my dearest annika, where does one find a computer? Down here on the river bank nobody seems to know what they are. One fellow thinks he remembers something about a word program on his son's computer and the fact that his sons computer had over three hundred type faces on it and the screen had something called margin settings and other do dads that made the letter look however you wanted, but the drink got to him and even the liberal friends he had threw him out, so he maybe not remembering too clearly. Could you be more specific? And explain the rules of evidence ot me as opposed to the wishes of the faithful?

Posted by: mike at September 10, 2004 11:12 AM (0ZdtC)

19 I'm so tired of all of this. And now they're coming after another GW: http://www.rowboatvets.com/intro.htm Will it all never end? ;-)

Posted by: Hugo at September 10, 2004 11:26 AM (yrUsn)

20 Tried several times unsuccessfully to "contact" them to post a comment--or email--on CBS News, and tried a variety of approaches, not just the Contact Us, which never worked. Do you think they've shut it down?

Posted by: kelsey bush nadeau at September 10, 2004 11:32 AM (fpAJM)

21 Another suggestion: People should write CBS per Annika's instructions above, but add that unless Rather goes, the consuming public will contact all ADVERTISERS on CBS "news" shows to recommend that they disassociate themselves from this muck or face a boycott on their products.

Posted by: Tman at September 10, 2004 11:40 AM (LzNZL)

22 Kelsey, i just tried it again, and it worked. Could be a problem with the computer settings on your end.

Posted by: annika! at September 10, 2004 12:00 PM (zAOEU)

23 Mike: You are the moron if you believe the attack against the current adminstration by Dan Rather hasn't gotten personal.

Posted by: GoodOldDave at September 10, 2004 12:06 PM (kPy5/)

24 I also called CBS - the number to call is 212-975-4114. I respectfully requested that they make public a review of the memo by official document experts - at least 3 - I suggest being REALLY nice but firm - I suggested that in order to maintain their reputation - they need to do this

Posted by: Dorothy at September 10, 2004 12:12 PM (tqMDs)

25 Casca, you couldn't be more wrong. If you've read anything at all about CBS news, the one thing you'd know is that Rather IS the editor across the board. He runs CBS news with an iron fist. And yes, he runs CBS news... he's not just the face man.

Posted by: Jake at September 10, 2004 12:25 PM (idKK6)

26 Goog ole dave- So what? the Bushies attack everything that moves in a very personal way ( just ask John McCain, Max Cleveland, Richard Clarke, etc.), so it is not surprising that a lot of people are pissed off. It is very personal stuff. Ask the 15000 dead iraqi's or the relatives of the 1000 dead Americans how personal it is. THe man is running this country down the fucking drain and even "OBJECTIVE" news journalists are frightened and feel the compelling need to be rid of this dangerous, ignorant dolt. It is a very serious moment in American history. If I thought he could even read the constitution I would be even more afraid. The RW bends the rules and lies at every turn, too fucking bad that this guy is coming at you. Boo fucking hoo!! You've got Fox, an unabashedly RW mouthpiece, but you don't scream and squeel like a stuck piglet about that, do you? So, shut up, run on your sterling record of debt production, job loss, God, partial birth abortion, tax brakes for the wealthy, snowmobiles in national parks, mercury polution and criminal wars and if this stuff is sad old news, which you keep saying his ANG record is, you have nothing to worry about. But as Will S. said "me thinks the lady doth protest too much"

Posted by: mike at September 10, 2004 12:42 PM (0ZdtC)

27 Mike likes to french kiss Michael Moron.

Posted by: Paul at September 10, 2004 12:52 PM (9/Szu)

28 Here is how this whole thing is going to play out: CBS will claim that their "Sources" and their forensic investigators stand by their claim that the documents are authentic(all the while keeping their name from the public). Other News organizations and the blogsphere will parade their experts showing that they are forgeries. We now have a stalemate and it is up to the public to decide which experts to believe, kind of like how a Jury decides whether to believe the plaintiff's expert or the defense's experts in a liability case. The problem is, the issue will soon become muddled with so many opinions that public will not care and a resolution will never come about. I did not expect a CBS admission, even if they are fake, because they loose more from that admission then if they fight it and confuse the public so that it will go away. The ONLY way this thing will be resolved is by a Criminal investigation.

Posted by: Lawguy at September 10, 2004 12:56 PM (Gh9FQ)

29 I reworded some, and sent the following. It did make me feel good.................NPR is still reporting the reports as fact. " I have been following the CBS News coverage of the Killian memos with interest. Now that it is clear that most if not all of the memos are forgeries, I cannot see any reason for Dan Rather to remain employed as anchorman of the CBS Evening News, or for those who allowed these lies to remain. Every day that that these people remain with CBS News brings further lost credibility to your ONCE great news organization. Please forward this message to the appropriate person, as my request that Mr. Rather and his cronies resign as soon as possible. Good reporting does NOT include lies, but substantiated truths, of which CBS seems no longer capable of doing. "

Posted by: rmcclain at September 10, 2004 01:03 PM (SGsOs)

30 Lawguy, what you say might be true in the old days, except for this: Anyone who has ever used Microsoft Windows can instantly and easily recognize that the document was forged on a computer. The fact that the document is easily available on the web for all to examine should tip public opinion. In the old days, the media would have just controlled access to the documents and hid behind the controversy, like you're saying. Now they can't hide. And the memo's are so obviously fake, you don't even need to be an expert to have an opinion. Just looking at the signatures is enough.

Posted by: annika! at September 10, 2004 01:05 PM (zAOEU)

31 Mike, I know this is going to be difficult, but stop thinking of this in terms of kerry v. bush. Think of it in terms of the mainstream media being not nearly as reliable as we had once believed. Think of it in temrs of a new form of media beginning to supplant the old form. Then look at the facts presented by both sides. If you disagree with one side or the other simply provide your reasons for the disagreement. The partrisan thing... I'm no Bush fan by a long shot. Neither am I a Kerry supporter. The thing syou pointed to as examples of why Bush is bad - let's just say you misundertsand the issues. Presidents aren't supposed to create jobs - the government isn't supposed to interefere with the economy any more than it has to, if you want to bitch about the national debt then let's revisit the source of most of our econmic woes - that socilaist bastard FDR. By the time we work our way to clinton or bush they'll seem like saints. & again the pres doesn't answer for the debt - that's congress. As for tax breaks for the wealthy - put down Robin Hood, okay? stealing from the rich to give to the poor is a distortion of what he did. He stole form the rich who stole from the poor & returned said money to said poor. Think of it more like Batman & less like Marx. as for snowmobiles in national parks - humanoid please! I won't bring up that cars in national parks generate more of that nasty pollution that has the greens so freaked out. I'll just ask who the hell are you or anyone else to tell me I cannot use a vehicle to traverse public land? The problems I have with Bush are many - & the one thing I agree with you on is that the ability to read, comprehend & act upon the Constitution is a very scarce talent in the white house. & in Vongress. & in the judiciary. But this isn't Bush-specific. what you're doing it hitting all the soclialist talking points as if they were fact - what relevance do they have to the issue of documents being forged or not? Objectively look at the evidence & if you disagree explain why. We're all reasonable people round here & will be happy to discuss things. Using the generalized insults (i.e. morons) does little to convince anyone of anything other than you're intelectual skills probably aren't capable of handling an adult conversation. Remember - you (as am I) are a guest on Miss Annika's site. Be civil, as you won't convince anyone of your point by being rude. Besides, I'm probably not the only redneck round here & you don't want to play the dozens with us. Trust me.

Posted by: Publicola at September 10, 2004 01:41 PM (Aao25)

32 mike: wah, wah, wah. as far as attacking goes, i'd like to know when any RW attack in this campaign was a COMPLETE FABRICATION. since you are so f------ smart and seem to know everything, maybe you could enlighten me. if you think anything would be different or better under kerry you are smoking the same s--- as he is...the reason you spineless, immoral LW f---s don't like GWB is because you are afraid that he might actually lead this country out of the self-serving, if-it- feels-perverse-do-it morass that we are sliding into. your soul-less kind doesn't want that. as one of your spokepersons Sam Donaldson said on Hannity and Colmes on Wednesday, "The people of this country don't want a LEADER who is going to impose a sense of morality upon them. That's what they are AFRAID of." Seems you are too. i actually feel sorry for you and your pathetic kind.

Posted by: GoodOldDave at September 10, 2004 02:36 PM (kPy5/)

33 .....guys like Mike still like to french kiss Michael Moron (Foolishhype 911)

Posted by: Paul at September 10, 2004 02:42 PM (NEQC1)

34 Publicola: good stuff, there are more of us than them - it's just they are noiser. Paul: true story.

Posted by: GoodOldDave at September 10, 2004 02:47 PM (kPy5/)

35 I live in Massachusetts, it's INFESTED and OVERRUN by liberals. Flopsy and Uncle Ted are adored here. I HOPE AND PRAY that Flopsy loses on 11/02!!

Posted by: Paul at September 10, 2004 03:00 PM (NEQC1)

36 Publicola, Yes, there is at times great virtue in civility. And other times not. When I see the picture in the paper this morning of a Bush supporter yanking the hair of a heckler at the Christmas ornament factory I get impulses that suggest civility is foolish and bomb throwing may be a more appropriate action. As for your historical prospective on the roll of gov. we have very different points of view. Your park land as you call it is not yours, my friend. It is an asset of our government that gov. extends to you as a privilege of citizenship (yes, tourists of any and all nationalities may visit but you know what I mean). Just as a helmet law, or a seatbelt law are restrictions imposed by gov. for the greater good, banning snowmobiles is also supposed to be to protect the land, air, animal habitat etc, for the greater good. The gov. limits your personal freedoms every min of every day for the greater good. This is not news. It is not meant to be fair and the pollution created by cars is bad too, but last I looked two wrongs don't make a right. So letÂ’s cut the sophomoric libertarian "freeman on the range" bullshit. Those days are long gone never to return. We live in a complex society that requires a great deal of compromise on all of our parts to succeed. And no where does the constitution mention that life shall be fair. Bush's tax breaks did not give back to the poor nor did they steal from the rich (which I am all in favor of doing). They ignored the poor and gave the rich some serious dough. The deficit is the result of the disparity between spending and revenue. He lowered revenue and increased spending. His congress, can't blame Clinton for spending. AS to the documents. I think the jury is still out. Annika's insistence that since the documents look as if they were created in Word, they were created in word is a tautology not proof of anything. I am sure that we will hear from a gaggle of so called unbiased experts this coming week who will all give their opinions. I will listen and try to determine the credibility of each. To insist this is dirty tricks politics right out of the box is childish and shrill. I, too, am no great fan of JK's but I am a truly repulsed by GB. He has IMHO nothing to recommend him. No heart, no soul, no education, no insight into history or human affairs, constricted in his world view, never traveled, basically a shallow simple guy who fronts for a nefarious group of neocons with a world view I despise. And a world view Bush cannot comprehend which is why if he ever looses his place while speaking he cannot make two extemporaneous sentences that stay on topic. Kerry is not a charismatic guy, not a great thinker but is, I think, decent and thoughtful and will not do much harm. He will not appoint a judge like Thomas or Scalia, he will not repel out allies in Europe and elsewhere where GB is a laughing stock. He can read and comprehend the constitution and I think will respect it. He will rid us of the influence of the religious right and their witchcraft. He will not insist that Evolution is just a theory and the verdict is still out. He may comprehend more science and certainly will not mispronounce nuclear to show what a regular beer drinking kinda guy he is. BTW what does "play the dozens with us meanÂ” IÂ’ve never heard this expression.

Posted by: mike at September 10, 2004 03:01 PM (0ZdtC)

37 .....guys like Mike still like to french kiss Michael Moron (Foolishhype 911)

Posted by: Paul at September 10, 2004 03:05 PM (NEQC1)

38 mike: how can you say a person is a 'decent' guy when he's been PROVEN to be LIAR and threatens people with legal action when they are proving his deceit to be true? just curious. GWB is a laughing stock in europe, but it's a elitist nervous laugh my friend. if anyone practices witchtcraft, it's the withered LW, baby-killing hags of your party, who are on their knees s------ the d--- of the devil; who, by the way, will be laughing at all of you on your way to hades when you realize you are wrong. by then it will be too friggin' late my friend. get a grip now before it's too late - you are an intelligent person, it's a shame to lose you to the dark side.

Posted by: GoodOldDave at September 10, 2004 03:22 PM (kPy5/)

39 Hi Paul, As you seem to be one of the real intelligent voices around here let me ask you this: when you visulize my tongue in MM mouth how do you feel? Get wood? What? It seems to concern you and I would like to know why? Really, Paul, how about his cock? In my mouth? or yours? Or your's in his? Mine in your's? What Paul? Do you like it when I talk dirty to you, Paul? Hard yet? Ok, that was fun.... Now Ole Dave-Morality? You know what it is? Tell me. Please. I need some, really bad. Acting in a moral fashion would preclude killing 15000 iraqi's because they are in the way of our misplaced rage about 911. So tell me how that is giving the country a lesson in morals?

Posted by: mike at September 10, 2004 03:39 PM (0ZdtC)

40 mike: you're not worth it. lucky for you though, i'm not in charge of where you end up at life's end. you are. but i'll tell you what - you do make for good sport. i'm done with you - hope all goes well for you in your life.

Posted by: GoodOldDave at September 10, 2004 03:47 PM (kPy5/)

41 Let's hope Mike doesn't choose a career writing erotica.

Posted by: d-rod at September 10, 2004 03:56 PM (Ic4zA)

42 d-rod: that's funny. pity the poor [you-fill-in-the-blank].

Posted by: GoodOldDave at September 10, 2004 04:05 PM (kPy5/)

43 Hey mike, I know your type. You're just a prick that likes to argue and try to stir things up. Why don't you piss off and go suck up to your good 'ol Lib elitist jerk-off buddies, like that traitor Kerry?

Posted by: Patrick at September 10, 2004 04:12 PM (Dw5Tj)

44 Yes Dave the dark side........OOOOOOOO!!!! Are you some closet Star Wars junkie? What are you ten years old? Hades? Control of my life? This place is really fun. An amusement park full of rides to stupidity and religious dogma. Nobody even makes a pretense of discussing the issues. I enter the site let my views be known and all you guys can talk about is me kissing MM or my soiled soul. Traitor Kerry? what does that make Bush, who ducked the service altogether? Oh, he flew some jets over Texas but would not answer the draft when his number would have been called and canÂ’t produce the proof that he finished his service. Chain knee got his five deferments. Hey did you here Hastert got out for a bad shoulder and then wrestled in college for four years? But, you should know this; if Kerry died tomorrow and the Dem's ran a ferret I would still not vote for W. because this election is not about the Right and the Left, the DemÂ’s, liberals, republicans or neocons. It is about stupid and smart and an understanding of the world and that we are a nation of laws and that bill of rights is immutable and the constitution rules the land, ALL THE FUCKING TIME! Not just when things are going smoothly. That god is not present and caring. That war is the wrong solution to the problems at hand and it is the easy choice for the intellectually bankrupt. All life is precious, and as less than 5% of the earthÂ’s population we donÂ’t get to make all the rules all the time. 5% never forget that. America is 225 years old and if it wants to last another 200 years it better give up the notion that it can beat up everybody on the block and learn to play nicely because if you think about where the Chinese will be in 100 years you ought to be very concerned. Bush is not what this country needs. He cannot think 10 feet ahead of himself so what makes you think he has a plan that will help keep America in an advantaged position? Iraq is a debacle, there seems to be no way to get out and leave a stable country behind. We have lost control of a third of the country, as we have in Afghanistan. More heroin is being produced now than under the Taliban and the money it earns is funding out enemies.

Posted by: mike at September 10, 2004 05:21 PM (0ZdtC)

45 Mike, "playing the dozens" is what the common, ordinary, hard working people of the world call a contest of wits where insults are traded in turn. Perhaps if you stop whining about the tax cuts not going to the poor & start hanging out wtht the poor you'll hear that & many other expressions you've never heard before. As for sometimes there not being virtue in civility - I disagree. Even when you're about to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite. The park land - it's public land. The government is not the proprietor; rather it is a custodian that holds it in trust for us. The idea that the government owns property that the people doesn't is contrary to our system of government. "Of the people, by the people, for the people" - does that ring a bell at all? Now yes, the government in its role of custodian is responsible for seeing that the land is not squandered & is available for all. But to claim that snowmobiling or using any other form of transport is so destructive that the government must forbid it in all areas is the height of a Green's crack dream. Bottom line though: the governemnt's job is to protect us (in part) & our property from harm unduly caused by others, especially other governments. I see nothing anywhere that leads me to believe that government is a surrogate parent that is supposed to direct our behavior for our own good. As for the "sophomoric libertarian 'freeman on the range' bullshit" - if that's how you view freedom then it's no wonder you'd be more content if we were all sucking the tit of the nanny state as hard & often as you seem to be. Look, at one point you claim that two wrongs don't make a right, but the majority of your justification for government control of our lives is based on the fact that government has always operated that way. Do you understand the logical disconnect involved with that? On the microcasm you're saying that principle overrides tradition, but on the macrocasm you're saying that tradition overrides principle. Please, choose one & be consistent. Now I never claimed that Bush's tax cuts effected the poor one way or the other. Please re-read. The part about misunderstanding Robin Hood was meant to counter what I correctly assumed was your misguided ideas about property rights being subordinate to your class warfare agenda. The rich as you'd call them obviously have a talent for making money. The poor do not. You think it's right to steal from the rich to give to the poor? Let's rephrase the concept so you can see how foul the principle behind your view is: Let's say a guy has 5 girlfriends that he sees on a semi-regular basis. He obviously has a talent for attracting members of the oppostie sex. Now let's say there's a guy who has 1 girlfriend he sees on a sporadic basis. He obviously doesn't have a talent for attracting members of the opposite sex. What you propose is for the government to step in, through the threat or use of force, & take away X number of girlfriends from the first guy & compel them to start seeing the second guy. All in an effort to make the results of life fair, even though you yourself said that nothing in the constituton says life isn't fair. & in that process you'll give government more power to tramp on individual liberties which you probably don't want to be trampled. That's the problem with Marxism; it seeks to appease the tiger by helping it grow bigger & hungrier. As far as Bush expanding government - you're right. He did that & he shouldn't have. The deficit doesn't bother me as it's not that big a deal, but a bigger government does. Ya see bigger governments tend to favor people like you who want socio/economic programs that increase the government's power. Governments love power perhaps even more than it loves the misinformed fools who see that they get it. As for Kerry - you bought the jumbo rocks didn't ya? You're seriously telling me that Kerry is decent. thoughtful & won't do much harm? Again, I repeat, humanoid please! Kerry is of the Antoinette mold, minus the good intentions. If he could get away with it, "let them eat cake" would be his slogan. They boy has no clue about what the ordinary people are like; he just operates on talking points that his elites tell him are important to the common people. But specifically, about our allies in europe; fuck them. They are not our concern. If they approve of us or not it makes no difference. That's cause we are not a european country - we're a republic comprised of American States. The rets of the world can literally go to hell if they so choose - it concerns us not in the least, nor should it. The judges Kerry would appoint would be no better than the ones Bush appoints - that is they won't be justices who can discern waht "congress shall make no law..." means, nor will they stand up for the constitution when faced with a compelling government interest. But odds are Kerry's picks would be slightly more adept at choosing which parts of the constitution they like & don't like. As for Kerry reading & comprehending the constitution - which constituton are you talking about? Sure as hell ain't mine. Remember that pesky litle thing called the Bill of Rights? I know for a fact Kerry has voted for several laws that are a bitchslap to the notion of at least two of those amendments. Bush ain't much better, but to say that Kerry will respect anything other than his own lust for power is laughable. To claim he has read the constitution & acts in accordance with it is foolishness. As for evolution being a theory & the verdict still being out - I think you've made that case fine all on your own. Look, you want a socilaist America where the government dictates our behavior for our safety. That's fine. Have at it. But first you'll have to kill off all the people like me, & we're damned stubborn about such things as living. As to the documents that were the original topic of these comments - look around. Make a case in opposition to Miss Annika's if you wish. From what little I've seen I happen to think she's correct, but make an intelligent argument to the contary & I'm sure she or any one of us will be happy to discuss the issues you bring up.

Posted by: Publicola at September 10, 2004 05:28 PM (Aao25)

46 A nit-picking but important point (for the people who mentioned license renewal issues)--I'm pretty sure that FCC licenses are issued only to individual stations, not to the network as a whole. If I were the owner of a CBS affiliate station, I would not be very happy with the way this has been handled so far by CBS.

Posted by: David Foster at September 10, 2004 05:38 PM (XUtCY)

47 Publicola- I gotta go home and start the weekend. Its 9 and I'm still in the office. I'll get back to you tomorrow.

Posted by: mike at September 10, 2004 05:49 PM (0ZdtC)

48 Mike, I didn't expect to see you here too. Well, I have to respond to a couple of your comments: [Acting in a moral fashion would preclude killing 15000 iraqi's because they are in the way of our misplaced rage about 911.] and........ [It is very personal stuff. Ask the 15000 dead iraqi's or the relatives of the 1000 dead Americans how personal it is.] I know that they are both pretty much the same thing, but I need to point out the Left's consistency in their logic to blame Bush first and America second. True, there are over a thousand dead American GI's, but Bush didn't kill them. The Iranian- and Syrian-funded Islamafascists that are trying to take advantage of the post-Saddam power vacuum did. Misplaced rage about 9/11? Where should it go then? Towards Israel? What was the alternative to removing a member of the Axis of Evil? Invading Saudi Arabia perhaps or maybe Pakistan? I doubt the Left would even support invading Iran instead of Iraq. Am I right? 15,000 dead Iraqis...... That is tragic, but there are questions to be asked about that toll. How many of those dead Iraqis are innocent civilians? How many of those dead Iraqis were killed in terrorist attacks? How many of those dead Iraqis were killed ACCIDENTALLY by our troops? How many of them were really terrorists? How many of them were helping or sheltering the terrorists? Why should I believe those numbers anyway? The anti-gun groups use junk data to forward their agenda by inflating their statistics with suicides and accidents in addition to the crimes. I've heard stories about how the militants have been using children as couriers and ammo suppliers during skirmishs with our troops. The terrorists are taking advantage of our restrictive rules of engagement because they know we won't intentionally kill the terrorist-assisting kids. There were also stories in Somalia that the militants would hide behind groups of unarmed women while shooting at our troops because we couldn't shoot back due to the same restrictive rules of engagement. I find it odd that the Left goes batshit over the deaths of Iraqis during the Bush-led occupation due to the terrorists and insurgents, but the Left didn't shriek their opposition as much over the thousands that died under Saddam's reign. FIN See you at Moxie's.......

Posted by: reagan80 at September 10, 2004 06:22 PM (hlMFQ)

49 patrick/reagan80/publico: on the money. mike is only capable of regurgitating sound bites from the left vs. discussing the FACTS which history lays out before us. i admire your attempts to mentor him, but most likely it fruitless to engage in rational discussion with him unless it is for yor amusement. the reason you can tell he is not a true lw independent thinker worthy of the attempt at reason (NOT conversion, although it would be to his benefit) is that once you lead him down the path of fact,reason and rationale and he understands what's happening, he comes unraveled. i'll have to admit, though, he has provided lively, easy sport and generated some lively exchanges. kudos to mike! thanks for the sport. as long as we can realize that he is what the new lw typifies, i have no worries about this country's future. just give the junkies their dope (a forum to spout their idiotic rhetoric on) and they will be content not to try and actually think and act on their own. THAT Would be unnerving! mike, if you see this post, thanks, you've been a real gem.

Posted by: GoodOldDave at September 10, 2004 07:26 PM (gyYgq)

50 Hi Reagan80 and others- I think the basic misunderstanding here is you believe that the invasion of Iraq had something to do with the "WAR AGAINST TERRORISM" as established by you president and his henchmen. I don't. Therefore all the carnage IS the responsibility of Bush et al., not the outcome of Islamofacists as you say. There really is nothing to say to one another after that. I believe you have swallowed a bunch of lies that depict the world in a false light and then a policy developed and then action. It is NOT the ONLY way it could have gone. And that is why I am so distressed about all the killing which I think is/was needless. 3000 dead in NY is an earth shattering tragedy and it should have inspired action. I have great concern about the Islamic fundamentalist movement. They are a monstrous group and I am searching for a solution to this long term problem. However, I also can distinguish it from the serious anger that inhabits millions of Muslims toward America because of our inconsistent and hypocritical policies through out the world. These are two very different sets of people. Most of the people fighting against our "liberation" or "Occupation" of Iraq are of the later variety. They are more akin to you folks and myself as well, if we were in our homes basically having a decent or even not so decent life, maybe our brother-in-law was falsely imprisoned or had his hand cut off by the secret service. But other than stories about the repressive government we had a life, ran a small spice business in the market and our two kids were in school. Then, after reading about the US and the 911 attack we hear that our some Americans suspect we are to blame and that our country is planning to attack America. Everyday in the newspapers we read the story and there appears to be an escalating frenzy about our country until the day comes when rockets and planes are overhead and life as we know it is over. No market, no schools, no government, no electricity, no telephone, no water. Now Reagan, and the rest of you, would you go dancing into the streets? Or might you take you AR-15's and AK's and colts and s&w's and fight back? Would you be angry that an invader took away everything you had? YouÂ’re Iraqi or your Precious American way of life? Do you think only Americans have a way of life worth protecting or defending from an invader? It is the war on this level that I think you all fail to understand. There are 15 million people in Iraq. How many in their day to day life gave a ratÂ’s ass about Saddam? They got up in the morning had a meal sent their kids to school and went to work. Road crews paving or pouring concrete, shop owners putting their goods on the racks, dress makers sewing, bakers making bread, insurance adjusters looking over dented cars, accountants doing some companies books, lawyers trying to get a clients son out on bail. These everyday people have had their country decimated by us and you expect them to be grateful? They are concerned about their childrenÂ’s education and how, now that the schools are closed they will make up the work, get into high school or go to college. America's arrogance and hubris is monumental. We expect to kill thousands to set them free and be praised. If you read it in a book of fiction you would laugh, but you read it in the newspapers everyday and you gloat and get put out because they "don't understand" what we are trying to do and that they are shooting back in the only effective way they can, guerilla warfare, like the first years of our "revolution" against superior firepower. Please tell me how this invasion was a good thing first, for America, and second for the people of Iraq?

Posted by: mike at September 11, 2004 08:47 AM (0ZdtC)

51 I have been following the CBS News coverage of the Killian memos with interest. Now that it is clear that most if not all of the memos are forgeries, I cannot see any reason for Dan Rather to remain employed as anchorman of the CBS Evening News. If you have control or access to such a large number of the masses, your research team or you must deal with facts. Every day that Mr. Rather remains as the face of CBS News brings further lost credibility to your once great news organization. I can no longer trust what you report as truth, please forward this message to the appropriate person, as my request that Mr. Rather resign as soon as possible

Posted by: R Newfield at September 11, 2004 10:21 AM (PcgQk)

52 "Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president." John F. Kerry, 12/16/03 If Kerry were decent or thoughtful, he might realize he fucked himself.

Posted by: d-rod at September 11, 2004 10:29 AM (xDJHO)

53 Mike...if the US were ruled by an indigenous dictatorship that behaved like the Saddam Hussein regime...and if another nation invaded with the credible intent of overthrowing the regime and establishing a democracy..I'd be fighting on the side of the invader. Wouldn't you? Isn't the idea that a dictatorship if OK as long as it's people of *our* nationality a rather extreme form of nationalism? The idea that ordinary people aren't affected by the regime is, I believe, quite incorrect. How about the hundreds of thousands who were drafted and killed in the war against Iran, or the others killed in the war against Kuwait? How about the Kurds that were gassed, or the Marsh Arabs who had their environment deliberately destroyed for political reasons? Don't they count?

Posted by: David Foster at September 11, 2004 10:43 AM (XUtCY)

54 David, Those people surely count and all wonton killing is a tragic. The problem is that you ask would I join the forces of a trusted liberator. What makes you so sure we are a trusted liberator with good intentions? Our history is that we support dictators when it suites us and not when it doesn't. Did we not overthrow the elected Chilian president and install a military dictatorship? How about our support for the religious dictators in Saudi Arabis, did we do nothing to stop Idi Amine (sp), Suharto in Indonesia, Batista in Cuba, Syria, N. Korea, and dozens of others. Do you really think the Bush Cabal just got up one day and started thinking about the poor folks in Iraq and how nice it would be to set them free? If you do there is this beautiful bridge outside my window ..... And the affected by the dictator ship issue-How affected have you been by various repressive conditions that exist in the USA? I'll assume for the moment that you are white and middle class. How many times have you been stopped and frisked for no reason? Pulled over by a cop for no reason. Known someone killed by the police for no reason. How often have you had the FBI come to you door because of the literture you checked out of the library? How many of your friends are in prison for 5-10 years because of a 1.5 gram cocane bust or an once of pot? How many people do you know who were leaving work duing the RNC and were swept up with some protesters and kept in jail for 72 hours? How many people do you know that had a cop draw his gun on them, point it at their back and yell stop or I'll shoot, when no crime had been committed? (the last was me) How many of the Kent state students killed by the NG did you know? How many of the Black Panthers murdered by the police did you know? What I'm pointing out is that its a big country and the stuff of Dictatorship goes down every day. But few people actually know about it or care about it since their family is there in the morning when they get up and the food is in the fridg and the car in the driveway. In Iraq it was more wide spread for sure, but I don't see that many people ready to surrender their homeland to the USA. I think you would be far less willing to do so than you seem to think. What if the Russians made noises about invading in the 30's because 12 million african americans were being repressed, lynched, segregated, imprisoned, denied services and the vote. WOuld you have joined them in storming the capital? Would the black population joined them in overthrowing of the repressive regeme of Hoover who turned the fire hoses on GI's gathered in Washington DC? D-ROD- In my mind Kerry is going to persue a policy in Iraq not much different than Bush, and for that I am saddend, he would do better to cut himself off from this diasterous adventure and pledge to remove the army in 12 months. Too bad I don't think he will.

Posted by: mike at September 11, 2004 11:27 AM (0ZdtC)

55 Well then, anti-war leftists like you should be campaigning for Nader. The Germans and French would be better off under the Nazis, the Iraqis were happier being fed into wood chippers - right.

Posted by: d-rod at September 11, 2004 11:57 AM (xDJHO)

56 D-rod, I am not anti- war only anti dumb war. Making careless analogies doesn't make points. The Nazi's crossed their borders to attempt european domination and occupation. Iraq did in 91 and was severly beaten. They did nothing of the sort in 2002.

Posted by: mike at September 11, 2004 12:41 PM (0ZdtC)

57 Hi, it's Paul. ,,just checking in. "Mike" was fun yesterday ..typical liberal - can't take a punch. This is a cool site to have stumbled upon.

Posted by: Paul at September 11, 2004 01:17 PM (gxn9H)

58 Mike? That was a funny (Filthy!) post you left yesterday .......un-liberal How's it goin? Do you think Kerry's still got a chance?

Posted by: Paul at September 11, 2004 01:27 PM (gxn9H)

59 Hi Paul, I really don't know. ANd liberal used to be something I considered a very unappealing label. It was way too mainstream.

Posted by: mike at September 11, 2004 01:32 PM (0ZdtC)

60 i value freedom of speech and the marketplace of ideas. Like Reagan, i don't believe in suppressing wrong opinions, because i know that free people, when given the chance will always recognize bullshit when they see it. But i also value intellectual honesty. And i regret it when i see my comments section hijacked by people who lack intellectual honesty, and refuse to stay on the topic, and ignite flame wars that eat up the bandwidth of my gracious mu.nu benefactor. These people should get their own blog. It's quite telling that trolls almost never have their own blog. Why is that? i'm not home this weekend and i can't monitor things like i would normally. Have fun with this flame war, but don't forget about the original topic of my post either.

Posted by: annika! at September 11, 2004 01:34 PM (9rqvs)

61 If that's true Mike, you should be anti-Kerry. He voted for the Iraq war and has stated he wants to increase the size of the military.

Posted by: d-rod at September 11, 2004 01:37 PM (xDJHO)

62 Annika, You think, that without the evidence fully debated nor you seeing any of the actual paperwork, just coppies, it is appropriate to begin a compaign (one that inevitably will fail) to have Rather fired? You think we should spend time thinking about that? The horribly left wing biased media is at your throat once again, is that it? You can defend a man who given the opportunity and the mood of his pug Ashcroft, would steal that right from you in a NY minute. I don't think you know who these people really are.

Posted by: mike at September 11, 2004 01:41 PM (0ZdtC)

63 Paul, I am not pro Kerry. He is the candidate of the democratic party, which is, simply the left wing of the same party the republicans belong to. The single party american system which continues to elect lawyers who are fatting up their resume's waiting to join the real corridors of power in the corporate world. I rarely talk Kerry up. I always talk Bush down in the hope that he will not be re-unelected. I know people like to say it is a intellectually bakrupt position, the anything but Bush posture, but it is all I've got. The devil I know v. the devil I don't.

Posted by: mike at September 11, 2004 01:47 PM (0ZdtC)

64 Miss Annika, My apologies for straying off the main subject of this post. Mike, It's not about left v. right - It's about the accuracy of the press in relation to their bias. In other words, it's yet more proof that the press will disregard facts, or at the least not adequately check those facts, if it furthers their agenda. In this case it would seem to be to slam Bush but that's a symptom of the disease - not the disease itself. The disease that Miss Annika & so many others are raising hell about is that the mainstream media will further its agenda even if sloppy & perhaps dishonest methods have to be used. I've been aware of this tendency fo rmany years, as have most politically aware gun owners. Long before Bush bashing was fashionable the press routinely committed erros of fact & logic when reporting news abour firearms & firearms laws. So I & many other gun nuts are glad to see that non-gun nuts are catching on to the idea that the mainstream press is not trustworthy. Although at its root it's still disturbing that such tactics are used to further any agenda on the part of the press. For the evidence - I think it merits enough to question whether Rather is reliable. His responses that I've seen so far have been less than re-assuring that there either was no mistake or it was na honest one. As far as firing him goes, that's something CBS should decide. I don't wacth t.v. (remember, I stopped relying on the mainstream media long ago) so I have no dog in this one so to speak. But if I were a CBS viewer or had any control over their programming I'd call for a thorough investigation into this matter with all documents available for independent review & if Rather was found to be less than honest or competent, then firing him wouldn't be something I'd shy away from.

Posted by: Publicola at September 11, 2004 02:20 PM (Aao25)

65 Hi Publicola, I agree with you nearly entirely. I have no use for guns and think they should be tightly controlled. I do not interpret the 2nd. Amendment ( A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ) to mean anything more than raising a militia. But we can leave that for another time. The most distressing aspect of the media on this planet is that every year there are fewer players. I detest the lack of enforcement of the monopoly statutes. As a result, the corporate influence in our government is truly depressing. I did not hear a confirmation but there were reports that on Sunday during the 60 min. show, Direct TV (a Murdoch company) had signal problems in many areas that just happened to be closely contested states. Pretty scary. I am not terribly concerned about the individual "talents" in the news rooms but rather the vice presents of network affairs and their ilk. They set the tone and overlay the filters that constitute the biases we see, and as you say they are not just left-right but more far reaching. The entertainment component of the news is a terrible trend. The cross linking of the media's movie, television, newspaper, publishing business is a real threat. Did you ever see the movie Bulworth? It has a wonderful scene of the candidate, Warren Beatty, in an interview with a news woman where he harangues her for being unable to ask him important questions since they essentially work for the same man. He, the big donors to his campaign and she, the same men, who are directors of the media conglomerate that owns her station. This is an encapsulation of the state of our free press and news services. And it gets worse each time the FCC relaxes the rules on ownership in the marketplace.

Posted by: mike at September 11, 2004 03:16 PM (0ZdtC)

66 "The most distressing aspect of the media on this planet is that every year there are fewer players." You say that as the 65th comment on a blog post with trackbacks from five other blogs and yet don't see ANY irony there?

Posted by: Dave J at September 11, 2004 08:33 PM (GEMsk)

67 i suggest you resign from your blog.

Posted by: lehi at September 12, 2004 08:25 AM (158pW)

68 CBS could at least show as much class as the BBC in February when chairman Gavyn Davies resigned after being exposed for willfully sexing up British Intelligence on IraqÂ’s WMD capabilities. BBC director general Greg Dyke was also forced to resign for what was described as defective editorial systems and allowing Radio 4 Today reporter Andrew Gilligan to broadcast unfounded and grave allegations without checking the facts. The new acting BBC chairman, Lord Ryder, issued an unreserved apology.

Posted by: d-rod at September 12, 2004 09:09 AM (K9CER)

69 Mike...seems to me that you are arguing that, since America is not a perfect society, nothing we do could be good, and no one in other countries should seek or accept out help. If you had lived in occupied Europe, would you have refused the help of British forces on the grounds that Britain's policies have not always been wise and humane? (And, more specifically, on the grounds of Churchill's support for an imperial policy in India?)

Posted by: David Foster at September 12, 2004 09:44 AM (XUtCY)

70 Also--Mike--"..there were reports that on Sunday during the 60 min. show, Direct TV (a Murdoch company) had signal problems in many areas that just happened to be closely contested states. Pretty scary." If the thought is that this were done deliberately, I don't see how it would be technically possible. Direct TV is a satellite service, and I'm quite sure that broadcast satellites don't have separate antennas (antennae?) for each state they serve.

Posted by: David Foster at September 12, 2004 09:49 AM (XUtCY)

71 Dave- 1. The analogy to occupied Europe is a not sound. Only believing the total package of American propaganda about Saddam would leave you thinking Iraq was an occupied country. It was not. Don't misinterpret me please, I DO NOT support Saddam BUT I am always suspicious of the black and white depictions that emanate from our government. I know dozens of people that have visited Cuba and found it to be a fine place to live with a populace that appeared relatively content, educated and anxious to enjoy trade and exchange of ideas with America. Remember, Cuba has a higher rate of literacy than America. As did the Soviet Union. As I tried to describe in my previous post, the everyday life of most inhabitants of a country is not affected by the policies of the government. The Iraqi conflict has no impact on my day to day existence. And my argument never used PERFECT to describe anythng. That is the polarizing and fallacious device that you use to argue and make my point appear weaker. I gave specifics. Don't put your ideas in my mouth, call them mine then take a stand against them. Dave J- What we do here is meaningless chatter. 10 companies control 99% (guess) of what is disseminated in the world as news, entertainment, publishing, etc. To think that the internet has made a serious inroad into this is, I think, naive. CBS is still standing behind the memos so how, with the conflicting experts, can you ask that they apologize? I am as I write holding in my hand a selectric type ball that has superscript for the 1/2 and 1/4 keys. Do you swear that there was no technology that could have put the th on a similar ball for a different type face? That is simply wishful thinking. Also, I once owned an IBM executive and it did justified spacing. I donÂ’t recall if mine had a th. subscript key, but there is no reason it could not have Dave- Direct TV does have very narrow broadcast capabilities on its newest satellite that can cove an area as small as a large state. As I said, it could just have been a very rainy night in many areas and the outage was a coincidence.

Posted by: mike at September 12, 2004 10:41 AM (0ZdtC)

72 Mike, Hi there.

Posted by: Tuning Spork at September 12, 2004 06:25 PM (88z1C)

73 Hey Mike, "these go to eleven..." 72 comments? i'd be happy about this new record for one of my posts, if i wasn't so fucking pissed off that there's even a debate about the obvious forgeries being obvious forgeries. If i look outside my window now i can see a tree. You can say that it is not a tree and i will tell you that it is a tree because i know what a tree looks like and it looks like a tree. If you then say to me "Annika's insistence that since the thing outside her window looks like a tree, then it is a tree is a tautology not proof of anything" i'm going to call you a fucking idiot and disregard everything you say from that point on. Get your own blog Mike. You've had your say here. And your sophistry got boring after about three posts. These comments are now closed.

Posted by: annika! at September 12, 2004 09:52 PM (NAs0D)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 09, 2004

Outrageous, Stupid, Fraudulent And Despicable

Laura Ingraham had it right when she said that Dan Rathre has basically signed on as a consultant to the Kerry campaign.

The CBS forgery scandal, and that's what it is, plain and simple, has me absolutely freakin' boiling livid!

Don't know about it? That's understandable. How many people knew about the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth outside regular blog readers and talk radio listeners. How many people knew that Schwarzenegger's main grope accuser had been exposed as a liar by at least two eyewitnesses? How many people knew Jason Blair was lying at the New York Times. How many people know that the same paper distributed a COMPLETELY MADE UP report about Republicans booing Clinton on the day he was hospitalized. The list goes on and on.

The mainstream media will never advertise its incompetence, its ignorance, its foolishness, its astounding errors of judgment, its complete failure to exercise even the most rudimentary skepticism on stories that favor their side of a political fight, or its blatant and obvious pro-Democratic Party bias.

Read this Powerline post from beginning to end. Then you'll be up to speed.

Anyone who has ever looked at documents from the 1970's (and as a former graduate history student, i've seen plenty) knows how crude typewriter print was in those days. Anyone who's ever worked on a military base (as i have, for two months on an externship), knows that the equipment they get often lags behind current technology by a few years, due to the inherent slowness of the procurement contract process.*

But i didn't need to know all that to recognize an obviously MS Word generated document when i see one. Gimme a break.

Whoever did this spent too much time researching the character, to get the tone of the memo to sound just right, and not enough time researching what a document created with 1973 technology should look like. That doesn't surprise me. Our opposition just ain't that bright, look who they nominated.

Of course the forgery was good enough to fool your average journalism school graduate at CBS, but a memo written in crayon probably could have done that much.

What gets me so livid is this: Imagine that CBS had done this kind of sloppy journalism on a consumer fraud story, or a defective product story. You know, the kind of story that built the reputation of 60 Minutes in the first place. Imagine that CBS had slandered a legitimate business, basing its false allegations on a sloppily forged document, as sloppy as these Texas memos.

Do you know what would happen? CBS would be sued. They would be exposed to a multi million dollar lawsuit, including punitive damages, (which by law can't be covered by insurance) for reckless disregard of the truth. Their lawyers would never have let them air the story. But, because this is all about politics, and because the target of CBS's fraud and slander is only the sitting President of the freakin' United States, and because this is just payback for the Swiftboat Vets, we Republicans are supposed to just shut up and take it and CBS will probably never admit they blew it.

Well CBS and Dan fucking Rathre, all you assholes can just kiss my ass. i haven't watched your propaganda for years and it don't look like i ever will.

well that felt good

P.S. The CBS story itself doesn't bother me in the slightest. Last minute hatchet jobs by a desperate press never work (and this wasn't even last minute). It didn't work during the Schwarzenegger election. What gets me is that the LA Times didn't pay enough of a price for trying to throw that election, and CBS won't either.

More: Kevin at Wizbang is also on top of this story. And Paul is pissed too.

More: It keeps getting more and more beautiful.

Update: This has been a wonderful twenty-four hours for anyone associated with the blogosphere. Even somone on the periphery, as i am. Hearty congratulations should go to Bill at INDC Journal, the Powerline and LGF guys, Professors Hewitt and Reynolds, Captain Ed, FreeRepublic and everyone else who investigated this hoax and pushed its disclosure.

* i externed at the DLA, the Defense Logistics Agency. We were in charge of purchasing stuff like typewriters and computers. And i can tell you, even the stuff we had in our office was far from state of the art. What kind of equipment do you think a National Guard base in Texas got in 1973? i'll gaurantee you, it wasn't typewriters with proportional space capabilities.

Posted by: annika at 06:38 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 774 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Annika, The military used courier 12 font in the 70's. That is NOT courier 12 font! Chuck

Posted by: Chuck at September 09, 2004 07:56 PM (I3pTa)

2 Damn near every typewriter used courier 12 in the seventies. Eighties too.

Posted by: annika! at September 09, 2004 08:04 PM (AsB4V)

3 Now miss Annika - I'm sure you didn't mean that. Why, just today I heard Randi Rodes on Air America (not Ozzy's deceased guitarist) explain to us how the media was biased towards the right & it was part of the vast right wing conspiracy. I found this almost as shocking as I did her explaining that we shouldn't allow semi-automatic "assault weapons" to flood our streets when our troops in Iraq don't have any. So surely you didn't really mean that the media would be biased for a socialist &/or against a republican, since it was all expalined how that is just not the case. Honestly, the media has been trying to form opinions for years using less than accurate information. None of this is a surprise to anyone except the media itself - & that's solely because they're being busted for it.

Posted by: Publicola at September 09, 2004 08:42 PM (Aao25)

4 Jeez Anni, let me kiss your ass. We'll KICK his!

Posted by: Casca at September 09, 2004 08:50 PM (q+PSF)

5 Annika, as every Grad student knows, the first lesson you must learn is that one must understand and embrace your biases. That is the only way to avoid writing anything that can be considered bias. The Media has Stopped doing this A LONG TIME A GO. They believe that since everybody they know are for Kerry, then reporting in a pro- Kerry manner is not bias. They refuse to believe that they have a certain point of view that is inconstant with many in this country. If they were consciences that they have this point of view, they can make a concerted effort to avoid bias. OR they are aware of their personal Bias and don't care and want to write advocacy pieces as News. In that case they are just dishonest and deserve to be stoned!

Posted by: Lawguy at September 09, 2004 09:05 PM (NEnHo)

6 The good news is that the media wolfpack has noticed CBS's moment of weakness and is turning on one of their own. ABC and the Washington Post are treating this as a major story.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at September 09, 2004 10:18 PM (kOqZ6)

7 The forged document is a Republican plant!! The scandal is so delicious, the humiliation of Cowboy DRather so great, if the document is not a plant it should be. Inside Texas politics-- in Bush's run for Governor against Ann Richards, some similar thing happened. Can't remember the details, but the massive allegation was that Rove planted something that made it look like Bush was unfairly attacked, then Rove was able to hold a news conference and be outraged about "Democratic dirty tricks." Wish I could remember the exact scenario, but this reminded me of it. Probably not a Republican plant, but it would be so delicious if it was. I predict that the Dem Underground, at least, will allege a Republican plant. Paging Mr. James Carville! Paging Mr. James Carville! Carville- "Theyah probly drugged Dan Rathuh! This is cleahly ah Republican plant!"

Posted by: gcotharn at September 09, 2004 10:22 PM (AaBEz)

8 I just posted an edit of this at Blackfive: Some comments / questions: (1) I remember working as a technical writer while in grad school in 1988. The documents I wrote (spec sheets for electronic components like A/D converters) for the military were on this junky word processer called Multimate. It was light years behind what was commercially available even fifteen years ago. (2) I also remember being assigned the additional duty of OER [Officer Efficiency Report] officer when I was still in the US Army Reserve (USAR ... in Houston, appropriately enough!). Having nobody assigned to me to type up the forms, I did that myself. On a typewriter. In fact, I bought my own electric typewriter so that I could avoid the government issue clunkers at my unit and also so I could work at home. This situation lasted well into the 90's. (3) In all of my military experience ('84 to '98 as an ROTC cadet and in the USAR), I have never dealt with any written correspondence that had a P.O. box as the return address in the letterhead like the one supposedly ordering Bush to submit to a flight physical. Doesn't all such correspondence have the street address of the unit headquarters? And while I'm asking, wouldn't said letterhead also have a unit patch and/or a TXAFNG unit patch or some such? If it's important enough for a letterhead ... (4) Every official letter written by any unit commander I've run into was signed by so-and-so, such-and-such rank, "commanding" or "commanding general". Never "commander". Maybe the TXAFNG was different in the early 1970's, and hopefully Blackfive or one of his readers[Annie?] has better poop on this. Anyway, those are the obvious questions that popped into my head immediately. Maybe it's a good thing I didn't major in journalism in college!

Posted by: Go 4 TLI (formerly HH in Hollywood) at September 10, 2004 12:28 AM (Yq4Qb)

9 This really is a watershed moment I think. Or there's a very good chance that it is--the moment when blogs finally burst in on the Mainstream Media and gave them no choice but to pay attention.

Posted by: Dean Esmay at September 10, 2004 01:19 AM (T7xta)

10 CBS has admitted to the Washington Post that it didn't even bother asking the dead man's relatives what they thought about the supposed memos.

Posted by: RatherBiased at September 10, 2004 03:20 AM (yhnFH)

11 Rather is not just carrying water for the Kerry campaign. He is falling on his sword for the Kerry campaign.

Posted by: Amphipolis at September 10, 2004 07:31 AM (GqewV)

12 What many people are missing about this story is the CRIMINAL aspect: It's a felony to forge US Government documents, it's a felony to "Criminally impersonate someone for the purposes of causing harm to another person" (Forgery in the 2nd Degree). It's a crime to knowingly aid and abet or through willfull negligence allow a crime to occur. This isn't "Silly Season" political fun-and-games, guys; this is "Don't Drop the Soap!" stuff. Somebody's going DOWN for this and anyone who helped him had better sing like canaries or they'll be in the next cell.

Posted by: Orion at September 10, 2004 07:32 AM (IGUkI)

13 Dan Rather should be made to resign, or better yet, be fired immediately in disgrace!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Audrey at September 10, 2004 09:59 AM (BENat)

14 Orion, since the documents were likely faxed across state lines, that would also be federal wire fraud.

Posted by: Dave J at September 11, 2004 08:36 PM (GEMsk)

15 The arrogance of Rather and CBS News Management may momentarily direct some scrutiny from candidate Frenchface, but he will be called to account. Someone has made the decision to persist in claiming the emperor is fully clothed. The pathetically AMATEURISH nature of the episode will be remembered. Any high school newspaper is expected to follow higher standards of scrutiny for their information than CBS has shown. The old institutions are crumbling from internal corruption and decay. The force of gravity is inexorable, even if the blogosphere weren't gnawing at the foundations. People are damn tired of being treated with contempt by bastards that consider themselves to be saviors of the culture, and so relieved of any obligation to follow the rules they would impose upon the peasants. We didn't need the sneering of Tom Oliphant as he dismissed the Swiftboat Vets for not having met his alleged journalistic standards. What journalistic standards? He is himself so blind to his own seething hatreds, biases, jealousies, and vendettas, one only needs to scan his writing as a reality check on what NOT to believe. David March, animator & fiddler http://apsnyblog.blogspot.com

Posted by: David March at September 11, 2004 10:49 PM (XAs9K)

16 Check out the following website. Mr. Flounder is an expert and he will be able to answer any question you may have. regarding the Bush Forged Document. CHECK IT OUT!!!!!!!!!!! http://www.flounder.com/bush2.htm

Posted by: Lena at September 14, 2004 02:56 PM (7ZdUk)

17 Pass this on. Link here to Boycott CBS. http://www.boycottcbs.com/jointhebattle.php All you have to do is call up the form. Fill out your name and email address and your state and zip code. Press I agree. Then Submit. P.Britt

Posted by: P. Britt at September 15, 2004 03:48 AM (7ZdUk)

18 Dan Rather puts the BS in CBS. He needs to be fired immediatly. CBS is terribly biased and should not be considered a news source. If we want lies and propaganda we can listen to Terry McAwful.

Posted by: John Litscher at September 15, 2004 05:43 PM (Pbs6a)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 08, 2004

Al Goer Is A Bitter Man

Not supposed to be posting at school, but i have to call attention to an outrageous statement by Al Goer.

It's so ironic that the Democrats are all bent out of shape about so-called negative campaigning, then Al Goer goes and says this shit in The New Yorker:

'IÂ’m not of the school that questions [President Bush's] intelligence,' Gore went on. 'There are different kinds of intelligence, and itÂ’s arrogant for a person with one kind of intelligence to question someone with another kind.[*] . . . He seeks strength in simplicity. But, in todayÂ’s world, thatÂ’s often a problem. I donÂ’t think that heÂ’s weak intellectually. I think that he is incurious. . . . But I think his weakness is a moral weakness. I think he is a bully, and, like all bullies, heÂ’s a coward when confronted with a force that heÂ’s fearful of. His reaction to the extravagant and unbelievably selfish wish list of the wealthy interest groups that put him in the White House is obsequious. The degree of obsequiousness that is involved in saying "yes, yes, yes, yes, yes" to whatever these people want, no matter the damage and harm done to the nation as a wholeÂ—that can come only from genuine moral cowardice. I donÂ’t see any other explanation for it, because itÂ’s not a question of principle. The only common denominator is each of the groups has a lot of money that theyÂ’re willing to put in service to his political fortunes and their ferocious and unyielding pursuit of public policies that benefit them at the expense of the nation.'

That's pretty brutal rhetoric, even from a career hatchet artist like Goer. It's ironic that his mentor was the man who coined the phrase, in a negative context mind you, "the politics of personal destruction." Even the old Bill Clinton wouldn't have stooped to calling a sitting President "incurious," morally weak, "a coward," a "bully," "fearful," "obsequious," and basically crooked. Does that sound like a man who is at peace with himself, as we are so often told Goer is?

It's also ironic that Goer accuses the President of bowing to special interests when Goer was the man who bought and sold access like he was a ticket counter at Yankee Stadium. Two words: "Buddhist Temple." Three words: "No Controlling Authority."

Link via Llama Butchers.

* Isn't it also arrogant and egotistical to crow about one's own intelligence?

Posted by: annika at 12:15 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 414 words, total size 3 kb.

1 If Gore was anywhere near as smart as he thinks he is, he would say things that might actually convince somebody of something...instead of asserting that Bush is a bully, he would cite evidence and/or syllogisms attempting to demonstrate such a conclusion. But his wing of the Left has become so arrogant that they substitute assertion for argument.

Posted by: David Foster at September 08, 2004 12:52 PM (SpkYG)

2 back on the farm, where i'm from, if your animals go crazy...you got to kill them and cut off their heads. then you have got to send their heads to the county animal inspector general to check 'em out for rabies. gore has gone crazy, that is for sure, but has anyone checked him for rabies.

Posted by: cubicle at September 08, 2004 03:33 PM (nyNr0)

3 LMAO, he's a dumbass! Dubyuh a bully? This from the thugocracy of the century? No bodies dumped in the park yet.

Posted by: Casca at September 08, 2004 05:26 PM (q+PSF)

4 *I have no trouble with arrogance and egotism - when it is earned. In the case of Al Goer's alleged intgelligence - I have trouble.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at September 08, 2004 06:01 PM (U3CvV)

5 As Tim Blair and Bugs Bunny have said on more than one occasion, "What a maroon." (moron) Don't forget--this dip could have been President. Think about where we'd be if Goer was at the helm. Bogles(sp?) the mind, wouldn't you agree?

Posted by: joe at September 08, 2004 07:29 PM (yHmbJ)

6 If he were an honest man, he'd admit that he blew it and move on. I can't even wish him ill. He has to live with himself for the rest of his life, and that is punishment enough.

Posted by: Mark at September 09, 2004 05:07 AM (oQofX)

7 He get crazier by the day. He's a loony loser, and I think even most Democrats can see it now. If only he would just shut up -- but he's way to full of rage. He must be extremely embarrassing to the Dem party.

Posted by: 2flower at September 09, 2004 06:49 AM (N96af)

8 gets and too (I need more sleep)

Posted by: 2flower at September 09, 2004 06:51 AM (N96af)

9 But, but, but if he hadn't invented the Internet, none of you ungrateful peons would even be able to attack him like this! ;-)

Posted by: Dave J at September 09, 2004 11:40 AM (VThvo)

10 A poor, poor rebuttal, Annika. Basically, you didn't refute anything Gore said; instead, you appealed to authority; i.e.; your belief Gore is a bad man. Logical fallacy is not your friend.

Posted by: JadeGold at September 09, 2004 06:53 PM (XFpD9)

11 oh my, i answered Gore's logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem with the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. i feel so ashamed. Can't you just take your dog-eared Logic 101 textbook and just go away Jade Gold.

Posted by: annika! at September 09, 2004 08:00 PM (AsB4V)

12 Well, remember: AL Goer is supposed to have been roommate to celebrated actor Tommy Lee Jones as undergraduates at Harvard. Who the hell did George W. Bush ever room with that was anybody of consequence? I ask you. David March, animator & fiddler http//apsnyblog.blogspot.com

Posted by: David March, animator & fiddler at September 11, 2004 10:57 PM (XAs9K)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 07, 2004

Kerry Is An Idiot

Perhaps you've seen the story about Kerry accepting a shotgun* as a gift, then joking about being unable to bring it to the presidential debates.

You might have also heard that the very same gun he was happy to receive would have been banned if legislation he co-sponsored had become law!

Rush Limbaugh apparently talked about Kerry's Senate Bill 1431 this morning. Drudge also posted about it. Now, i don't entirely trust information i get from either of those guys (i've learned my lesson), so i went immediately to the source: The font of all ballistic knowledge. The man. The legend. The myth. Whom the ancient Greeeks revered as Basilios Ballistikos, the king of ballistics, whom the ancient Romans feared as Dominus Armas, the master of weaponry, the one, the only, and fellow Munuvian . . .

Publicola!

Who, in a nutshell, confirms the story. The shotgun in question, a Beretta A300, violates Kerry's law in at least four ways. Publicola also picks apart Kerry's vague and poorly drafted law.

I see several areas where the shotgun pictured would run afoul of S.1431. For starters it does define pistol grip as simply a grip. It's badly worded in that an english style grip could be considered a pistol grip for the purposes of the bill.
& using the bill's definition of pistol grip (which means any grip at all) we are then confronted with the bill's definition of a forward grip: 'a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip'. Since a pistol grip is defined more or less as any type of grip then the forward stock of any long gun would constitute a pistol grip.
. . .
S.1431 never specifies which length of shell is to be used to determine magazine capacity. It stands to reason that the intent of the writer of this law is to ban as many firearms as possible, so using the smallest shell capable of being fired in a shotgun would be consistent with the legislative intent.

He's for gun control . . . no wait . . . he's a hunter . . . no wait . . . he wanted to ban hunting guns . . . no wait . . . The only thing i can be sure of is . . . Kerry's an idiot.

* You may notice that the geniuses at the Seattle Times don't know the difference between a rifle and a shotgun. Journalists! Continuing to prove my point that they're all idiots too.

Posted by: annika at 08:10 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 429 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Kerry's antics leave us with but one inescapable conclusion concerning him and his team: He, and they, are not ready for prime time. The team is being layered out of the decision making process as we post; will the Clintonistas that replace them do better while WJC calls signals from the hospital bed? How can they do worse? And, if Kerry loses, who is the big winner on the Democratic side?

Posted by: shelly s. at September 07, 2004 08:07 PM (PcgQk)

2 Wouldn't that be basilios ballistikos? I admit my Ancient Greek is fairly rusty. ;-)

Posted by: Dave J at September 08, 2004 06:35 AM (VThvo)

3 i like the alliteration; change made, Dave.

Posted by: annika! at September 08, 2004 09:14 AM (zAOEU)

4 Actually, Publicola's quite mistaken. But that's not new or worthy of attention. After all, it's not surprising since you'd expect someone such as Publicola to have a very tenuous grasp of gun laws. Publicola likes to present himself as a gun expert but he can't back it up.

Posted by: JadeGold at September 09, 2004 06:49 PM (XFpD9)

5 Anyone care to dissect the previous comment for logical fallacies? Nah, its not really worth the time.

Posted by: annika! at September 09, 2004 08:02 PM (AsB4V)

6 Jade, How am I mistaken? & when have I been mistaken in the past on a matter of fact? & when have I ever presented myself as anything other than someone with an opinion, let alone as a gun expert? Finally, when you claim that I cannot back it up, surely you're referring to the ludicrous assaults against my reputation aren't you? Because I would like to hope that even you, whom or whatever you actually may be, aren't foolish or masochistic enough to be challengng me to some sort of a duel? Son/little girl/whatever condescending gender reference would be apprropiate, all I have ever seen form you is a demonstration on logical disconnection form one thought to the next. I fear that comprehension of the subject at hand is beyond you & you're only resort to make yourself feel like you're impressing someone is to use personal assaults in a vain attempt to belittle whomever you feel is your opponent's reputation int he eys of others. Now, before I get very redneck on your pathetic little ignent, two-bit, movin' your lips when you look at pictures, thinkin' safe sex is markin' the sheep that kick, no point having ass - would you mind explaining why I am wrong on my analysis of S.1431 & how it would apply to Kerry's newly gifted shotgun? Miss Annika, Thanks very much for the too kind words. & please forgive my reaction to Jade, but I feel he's trying to insult me & I wasn't raised to have that.

Posted by: Publicola at September 09, 2004 08:53 PM (Aao25)

7 Mr. Kerry is a fool if he thinks that the war on terrorist will end within 6 months. I am currently in the military, and have been overseas(proud to be there). All though the loss of life is tragic, it is something that must be done. We as AMERICANS need to know that we will be safe wherever we go. Not only us, but also the suffering people of IRAQ and AFGANISTAN.

Posted by: chris mills at September 30, 2004 07:06 PM (daAGo)

8 Chris Mills is right in that the "war on terrorism" won't be over in six months, but he is a fool if he thinks the Bush administration is making the world safer for Americans, or anybody. I travel and work internationally way too much. Currently America is the most despiesed country in the world, with the possible exception of Israel, and that's hard to sort out as the two are so linked. If Americans want to be safer in both America and other countries then we need to stop invading other countries, stop supporting oppressive regimes and start contributing to the world. Kerry, if he did nothing, would do a much better job of making America more secure place than Bush has. Bush is pushing his neo-con agenda ahead of national security (why are we in Iraq when Saddam was putting down fundamentalists??). No the fundamentalists are the only stable power source in Iraq, tell me that's not going to breed all kinds of problems. Saddam was a bad man, but there are lots of bad men in the world, it's the United States' job to take them all out. Invading Saudi Arabia would have made a lot more sense, 90 percent of the hijackers were from there! None were from Iraq? Jesus, when are people going to wake up and see through Bush's lies? As for Kerry and gun control, Publico is stretching hard. The grip on the shotgun wouldn't meet any definition of a pistol grip, come on. I use firearms, nothing in the bill contradicts owning the shotgun Kerry is pictured with. Gun violence in the US is totally insane compared to any other country in the world. Banning some weapons would do more our violent crime rate than about anything else, save a lot of lives (know any cops who don't support Kerry's gun control?), etc. Do something good for the US, yourself and the world this Nov: Vote Kerry.

Posted by: Sit Down at October 11, 2004 12:19 PM (SHmUd)

9 bottom line kerry is an idiot...no further comment

Posted by: stfu at October 12, 2004 05:16 AM (XLd7O)

10 Sit Down, It's a pistol grip. Both by the historic definition & the definition used in the bill. The term came about in the 1800's & applies to any grip that is not straight more or less. & a lot in the bill would preclude Kerry from legally owning that shotgun if the bill were passed into law. Re-read my post & feel free to e-mail me with any discrepencies you find between what the bill says & my conclusions. As for our violent crime rate - we're not at the top. Depending on whose stats you trust (& I trust none of them myself) we're in the middle or upper range, but there are countries more violent than the U.S. Mexico has more per capita deaths attributable to firearms to name one. Oh & our rate of deaths attributable to firearms is around 28,000 a year. 16,000 are suicides, 800 are negligent discharges (accidentla shootings is th emore common but incorrect term) & the rest are homicides, both justifable & non-justifable. It's at a pretty low point if you look at the totals for th elast 100 years. & motor vehicles are responisble for around 40,000 deaths per year to put things into perspective. It's really not as bad as you think if you look at things minus the Kerry/Schumer/DiFi/Boxer/Kennedy/Brady kool-aid. But gun control - nope. won't save a life in the U.S. yet. Hasn't to date. But I'll get to how it might in a minute. Now look at D.C. - almost a total ban & yet they are usually in the top 2 for murders per year in the U.S. D.C.'s main competitor? Chicago - another place with assinine gun control laws. & I know a lot of cops who don't support Kerry's or Bush's gun control. You won't hear them cause they're busy walking the beat instead of attending Chief's Association meetings. Most cops (not administrators) aren't enamored with gun control. The exception is the younger cop in an urban area, & if you asked him about banning cars or kitchen knives or baseball bats odds are he'd be inclined to consider it. Now historically gun control has saved a lot of lives, I'll grant that. There are many, many SS, Gestapo, KGB, etc... who are alive only because gun control was implemented before the purges & round ups. So gun control could save live sin the U.S. by keeping the people from being able to effectively resist a tyrannical action by the government. Bottom line: Kerry is a hypocrite & really has no clue about the firearms laws he'd pass. Gun control only saves live snot worth saving. As for the world despising us & we need to contribute more... I'm a North Carolinian & by extension an American. The rest of the world can hate us as they go to hell. What we need to do is back quickly out of the U.N. & NATO, pull all our troops stationed abroad home who aren't in the middle of something (like Iraq) & let the world fend for itself. To give you the level of "I don't give a rat's ass" involved when it comes to the rest of the world, a budyd of mine back home has a big celebration on UN day (sometime in Sept. or Otc. - I forget the exact date). He sets up blue helmets at 200, 300, 400 & 600 yards. It's amazing what a 150 grain FMJ will do to a blue helmet, & blue is such an easy color to pick up in your sights.

Like I said, they can go to hell.

Posted by: Publicola at October 28, 2004 11:27 PM (dZUTp)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 05, 2004

Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself

Bryon at Slings and Arrows is absolutely right when he attrubutes the Bush convention bounce to three things: Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, the wacky protesters, and the Republican Party's forward looking message.

First the Swiftboat ads. Bryon says:

[T]he effect was less a result of people changing their position on Kerry than it was about the Kerry camp's reaction. Kerry went to ground, the media went to ground, everyone went to ground -- except, of course the blogosphere and certain radio personalities. By the time the story filtered into the mainstream media almost every reader already had a sense for it. Whether or not it was the case, the story already felt like a cover-up. And 'cover-up' is not a phrase anyone like to have associated with a presidential candidate.

Here, the left wing media tried to run interference for their boy, by ignoring the story and hoping no one would notice. Kudos to the blogosphere and talk radio for pushing the story until it could no longer be ignored by the left wing media. What killed Kerry is that, by stupidly ignoring the Clinton rule (answer every attack immediately), they allowed us to define the debate for a critical one or two weeks, without any alternate explanation. Kerry still hasn't answered the most serious allegations of the Swiftboat Veterans (except to retract the Xmas in Cambodia story and backpedal on one of the purple hearts), and his defensiveness now seems like guilt.

On the effect of the protesters, Bryon and i are on the same page.

Millions of Americans woke up late, or returned from church on Sunday morning to be greated electronically to images of hundreds of thousands of wacky protesters. . . . Pictures such as these have a markedly greater effect on one's impressions of the goings-on than any verbal commentary. Add to that 900 arrests on a single day and almost two thousand over the four day period of the convention. When viewers see protesters breaking into and disrupting the convention, and even storming the set of Hardball they come to one conclusion: 'I might not be in love with the current president, but the last thing I want is to give these protesters more control over my country.'

i predicted that the effect of the protests would be the exact opposite of what the protesters intended. For that prediction, i became the object of the Democratic Underground's scorn. But i was right. This is not the sixties anymore, despite what the unholy alliance of professors, reporters and entertainers think. Freaks in pink thongs and feather boas are not the best advertisement for any political movement. And when Fox News is getting the ratings it currently enjoys, that means a lot of people like them, including a lot of undecideds. It's therefore probably not a good idea to chant "Fox News sucks!" and "Fox News - Bullshit!"

And on the Republican Party's superior forward looking message, Bryon contrasts the two conventions thusly:

Almosot every DNC speech looked backwards at Vietnam -- a war thirty years in our past about which most of us would much rather not be reminded. . . . Of all the speakers, the DNC only had one, Barak Obama, who gave any hope for the future of the party -- and he almost sounded Republican at many points in his speech.
Contrast that to the RNC convention. Rudy Guliani, John McCain, Arnold Schwarzenegger. None of these men have yet reached the zenith of their political career. Each has bright moments both behind and before them. Each inspire hope and vision for America and the youth and vigor to accomplish it. . . . Each was hopeful and excited about America.

i might add the first lady to the list of hopeful and optimistic speakers.

People may criticize the Zell Miller speech, but in retrospect, it seems to have worked. It wasn't a liability, because of the protesters outside, and three years of over the top rhetoric by the entertainment and academic elites. Zell Miller spoke to the "silent majority" who is tired of the America hating that has been going on unchallenged in this country for too long.

Do i think the "bounce" will hold until November? Barring any intervening events, a trumped-up scandal or another terrorist attack for instance, yes i do. But on the other hand, there's nothing i trust less than a desperate Democrat about to lose an election. There's no telling what they have up their sleeve.

Posted by: annika at 11:54 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 756 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Somewhere out there, Gore is plotting his revenge on the Bush campaign........ http://goresummon.ytmnd.com/

Posted by: reagan80 at September 05, 2004 06:44 PM (IAELU)

2 The have shot all of the bullets they have and nothing is out of reach on what they would do next.

Posted by: Dex at September 05, 2004 07:15 PM (N2BZH)

3 Kerry has brought in some Clinton hit men from the years of slandering bimbos("drag a hundred through a trailer park") Clinton's people cannot be super-hyped about a Kerry victory, as they prefer Hillary in '08, and they can read polls enough to know Kerry is dead as a contender. What does it mean? I expect an insanely slanderous final 8 weeks from the Kerry camp. They will be looking to damage Bush and the Republican Party as much as possible. They will dredge up every rumor and stereotype imaginable, and shout them from every possible direction. At the end of the Civil War, many Confederates urged an extended guerilla warfare campaign, with guerillas based in the Alleghany Mountains, in areas where they could shelter for years without being molested. The Confederate Military Leadership squelched this, bullying their own people into giving up their violent designs. I expect Kerry to embark on the equivalent of that guerilla campaign. Urged on by the Clintonistas, he will draw as much blood as possible. Kerry might still take the high ground, a la Bob Dole in 1996, and save as many down the ballot candidacies as possible for the Democrats. Some Republican, maybe it was Dole, said Kerry was a frequent conciliatory voice in acrimonious Senate debates. But the campaign presence of the Clinton people does not bode well for conciliation. I'm looking for a nasty guerilla campaign right up to election day. Bush will have to drive a stake into these people's heart in order to vanquish them.

Posted by: gcotharn at September 05, 2004 09:13 PM (AaBEz)

4 If you are looking for down and dirty tactics, keep your eyes peeled for James Carville, Paul Begala, Chris Lehane and Mark Fabiani (the latter two refer to themselves as "The Masters of Disaster"). These are the guys you can count on to take it to a new low, if that is possible for the Kerry folks. I doubt that Carville will want to be associated with a big loser here, so he is unlikely to be along, mostly for the same reasons as WJC is suddenly out of the campaign. It's all about Hillary '08. By the way, remember when Kerry said he'd replace Terry McAuliff (#1 Clintonista) as DNC Chair, if he was the nominee? I guess he didn't say when, huh? Sorta like, it depends on what "is" is.

Posted by: shelly s. at September 06, 2004 05:50 AM (PcgQk)

5 Interesting analogy with the mooted Confederate guerilla campaign. But I don't think it will stop on election day. If Bush wins, look for Democrats to challenge ths legitimacy of the victory at every level: voting machines didn't work right, electoral college system bad, evil corporations bought the election, etc etc.

Posted by: David Foster at September 06, 2004 07:46 AM (XUtCY)

6 I quite agree with David. For over forty years, the Democrats, with the assistance of the "Blue Dog" Democrats (so called because of a painting in Rep. Billy Tauzin's office where they used to meet)of the South, ran both houses of Congress. They did so with an iron hand, but the Republicans learned how to survive in the minority and little by little got along and got some of their policies through. But the "Blue Dogs", led by Tauzin, switched, and are now called "Republicans". But make no mistake, the party who wins the first vote each two year session owns every gavel, every committee and subcommittee and sets the agendas. Being in the majority is almost everything. Gingrich brought the South back to the Republican Party and changed the course of history with the Contract with America, and the Democrats have not yet gotten over being out of power. Their long term members are no longer engaged and are retiring and "ranking member" just doesn't sound or feel as good as "Chair". They do not chair a single committee or subcommittee in either house. Thus resentment, vitriol, hate and desperation are the order of the day, viz. Tom Daschle. All they do is obstruct. Now they see their one last chance, the Presidency itself, slipping away from them because they have nominated the wrong candidate. Better them than us.

Posted by: shelly s. at September 06, 2004 09:52 AM (My8fB)

7 Very nice post Annika. I was surrounded by all that filth here last week. The media was doing their utmost to showcase only the least idiotic of them. We kept hearing treachly tales of how the "peaceful and well organized" shitbirds were heroically expressing their 1st amendment duty. Everyone brighter than a tree stump knew that was hogwash and once it got out; fucked their Kerry overlords good. I was encouraging them the whole time to "bring it on." Sensible people (eliminates everyone at Demonic Underground) don't want to be associated with scum like that. -RR ps. Maybe I'm easily amused (OK that's been established) but I always chuckle when you deliberately misspell names of the ridiculous.

Posted by: Radical Redneck at September 06, 2004 10:03 AM (Hn8NG)

8 Shelly: "Now they see their one last chance, the Presidency itself, slipping away from them because they have nominated the wrong candidate." That's so true. Call me crazy, but Kerry is so bad i think even Dean might have had a better chance. Dean was wacked out, but at least he said what he meant, unlike Kerry who changes his positions faster than a hooker on speed. Radical Redneck, you should have made that Rall picture into some t-shirts while you were in New York. The "protesters" would have bought them up like hotcakes!

Posted by: annika at September 06, 2004 10:14 AM (Eh4ka)

9 Radical Redneck, you should have made that Rall picture into some t-shirts while you were in New York. The "protesters" would have bought them up like hotcakes! Especially if they were Scratch n' SniffÂ™!

Posted by: Radical Redneck at September 06, 2004 11:43 AM (Hn8NG)

10 Doh!

Posted by: annika! at September 06, 2004 08:21 PM (nCql9)

11 From the NYT via Hugh Hewitt-- "The installation of former Clinton lieutenants is creating two distinct camps at Mr. Kerry's campaign headquarters on McPherson Square in downtown Washington. The first is the existing Kerry high command, which includes Mary Beth Cahill, the campaign manager; Bob Shrum, a senior adviser; Tad Devine, a senior adviser; and Stephanie Cutter, the communications director. The second is the Clinton camp, which includes Joe Lockhart, a former White House press secretary; Joel Johnson, a former senior White House aide; and Doug Sosnik, a former Clinton political director. And Howard Wolfson, a former chief of staff to Hillary Rodham Clinton, joined the campaign yesterday. Members of both camps played down any suggestion of a Clinton takeover of a troubled campaign and insisted there was no tension between the two groups. Still, these days, Mr. Lockhart is stationed in an office on one side of the campaign war room; Mr. Shrum's office is on the opposite side."

Posted by: gcotharn at September 06, 2004 10:32 PM (PcgQk)

12 I love it when theives fall out. Ain't it cool?

Posted by: shelly s. at September 07, 2004 12:13 PM (PcgQk)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 04, 2004

This Is Despicable

Left wing media bias. Facts=anything they want to believe. Doesn't matter if it's a complete and bald-faced lie. Nor if it's a lie that can easily be caught and exposed.

SpinSwimming Link via Speed of Thought.

More: Hindrocket has more. The AP reporter who filed the false story was wearing earplugs?

Posted by: annika at 08:56 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 57 words, total size 1 kb.

September 01, 2004

What A Speech!

i don't quite know what to make of tonight's keynote speech by Zell Miller. Needless to say, as a Republican, i loved it. i was floored. i was amazed at his zeal, his guts and the guts of the RNC who allowed him to let loose like that. If you missed it, you missed one of the great partisan political speeches of all time. I wish i had taped it.

But as an amateur pundit, student and observer of politics, i'm perplexed. The Republican leadership hinted at a new "kick Kerry when he's down" strategy on Monday night. There were some definite moments in Giuliani's speech that we would call "defining the opposition," and the Democrats would call "negative attacks." But Giuliani delivered the blows with his signature humor and good-naturedness.

Tonight however, and i'm trying to be fair here, Senator Miller's tone matched the anger and vehemence i've been hearing from the left ever since Florida. Part of me wants to say "it's about time the Republicans got some balls and started hitting back." In that sense, if the Democrats are upset by what Zell Miller did, they have Michael More to blame. They had it coming. Senator Miller not only kicked Kerry's ass, he bitch-slapped the entire America-hating left.

A prime example:

[N]othing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.
Tell that to the one-half of Europe that was freed because Franklin Roosevelt led an army of liberators, not occupiers.
Tell that to the lower half of the Korean Peninsula that is free because Dwight Eisenhower commanded an army of liberators, not occupiers.
Tell that to the half a billion men, women and children who are free today from the Baltics to the Crimea, from Poland to Siberia, because Ronald Reagan rebuilt a military of liberators, not occupiers.
It is not their patriotismÂ—it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. They claimed CarterÂ’s pacifism would lead to peace.
They were wrong.
They claimed ReaganÂ’s defense buildup would lead to war.
They were wrong.

All i can think to add to that is . . . Fuck yeah!

Another part of me is reminded that it wasn't a Republican who delivered tonight's scathing keynote. Perhaps because no Republican knows how to fight like that. We are wimps when it comes to the political knife fight. Always have been.

The gamble, as i put my pundit hat back on, is that such strong words, however true, will backfire as they are dissected and spun by the Kerry-leaning media tomorrow. Aaron Brown, interviewing Joe Klein after the convention adjourned, seemed to wonder the same thing. Klein responded that he'd never seen two more divergent strategies from the parties in a presidential race. The Democrats deliberately underplayed at their convention, and it seems the Republicans have decided to overplay.

The conventional wisdom (pun intended) has always been to play to the center at the nominating convention. This late in the game, it's not the time to solidify your base. That's why i gasped a bit when Mike Reagan brought up the A word earlier in the night. But of course you'd have to wire his mouth shut to keep Mike Reagan from speaking his mind, God bless him.

i'm scared though, not because i think the middle 20% was watching, i don't. If they had been, i think they would have enjoyed Zell Miller's show. i'm scared because they're going to hear about the speech through the filter of Chris Matthew and Greta Van Susternernen and the rest of the left leaning media "analysts" who just don't get it.

Speaking of Matthew, i caught the entire interview with Zell Miller afterwards, where the senator challenged that blowhard to a duel, literally. i haven't laughed so hard in ages. Miller was well aware of what Matthew had done to Michelle Malkin, and he clearly was not going to fall for that shit. It was awesome.

So getting back to my punditry, i don't know whether it was a wise move by the Republicans to go so negative tonight, even though i loved it. i'm well aware of the difference between preaching to the choir and converting the undecided.

On the other hand, there's something to be said for setting the record straight on such a big stage. And after enduring four years of irrational Bush hatred it feels good to hear someone finally take the gloves off. Maybe such straight talk on a national platform is the perfect way to counter the unholy left-wing alliance of media, academia and Hollywood and their constant stream of bile.

Only time will tell, and the next eight weeks promise to be the most fascinating political stretch run in my lifetime. And after 2000, that's saying a lot.

Update: The lefty spin has begun, and the talking points are too predictable: Zell Miller is evil. Zell miller is crazy. Zell Miller is Pat Buchanan.

Daily Kos:

Why does he look like he's looking for babies to eat? That's Cheney's job.

Atrios:

Wow, I never thought Zell would be able to improve on the original German version of Pat Buchanan's '92 speech, but he did.

Fat Ollie Wills:

The sight of a rambling old man screaming hate while being cheered on by the party of Bush is doing our job for us.

Andie Sullivan:

Then you see Zell Miller, his face rigid with anger, his eyes blazing with years of frustration as his Dixiecrat vision became slowly eclipsed among the Democrats. Remember who this man is: once a proud supporter of racial segregation, a man who lambasted LBJ for selling his soul to the negroes. His speech tonight was in this vein, a classic Dixiecrat speech, jammed with bald lies, straw men, and hateful rhetoric.

More: Don't you find it ironic that Andie berates Senator Miller for "bald lies, straw men, and hateful rhetoric," at the same time as he calls Miller a racist? Was Senator Miller a racist when he spoke at the Democratic convention and endorsed Bill Clinton? If so, why didn't the left say anything about it back in '92?

i'd be intersted to know if Andie thinks he's more or less of a racist than Sheets Bird.

Bunch of fucking cry-baby liars.

Posted by: annika at 08:42 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 1043 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Please explain negative when talking about how you voted in the senate,maybe iam not smart enough to figure this out but somebody explain this.

Posted by: Dex at September 02, 2004 12:09 AM (nLVch)

2 I think that Zell's speech was exactly what the undecided needed to hear. Although he was angry, it was a controlled anger. I think there are many habitual Democrats who don't realize just how strange their party has become, and the only way to tell them is...just to tell them straight out.

Posted by: David Foster at September 02, 2004 06:38 AM (XUtCY)

3 The whole Pat Buchanan '92 thing is revisionist history. Bush got a big bounce after that convention. He was hurt because he alienated his base with tax increases. If this Bush loses alienating his base will be the same reason--with amnesty, spending, etc.--but will be attributed to Miller's wonderful speech. I have my take on it at my blog.

Posted by: roach at September 02, 2004 08:52 AM (DHoAQ)

4 You're half right Roach. Buchanan didn't lose the '92 election for Bush -- Perot did.

Posted by: annika at September 02, 2004 08:57 AM (zAOEU)

5 Don't worry so much. The MSM will not be able to spin away the D in front of Miller's name. People can not watch that speech and wonder why Republicans are so angry. They must ask themselves why a Democrat is so angry at his own party. If it's one thing the frustrating "undecided voters" love it's when someone is big enough to cross party lines for what he believes in. It's almost the entire reason why so many love John McCain.

Posted by: Me at September 02, 2004 09:27 AM (axk5u)

6 The Dems have always been the party of emotional reaction. They need that to stir up the often-opposing inter-factional rivalry of their own constituency. Sometimes its the only thing that unifies them at any given moment. Hearing Zell last night, I was firstly amazed & impressed. I sat up and hung on every word. Second, on reflection, I think it was completely in the Dem tradition of emotional delivery- even if it wasn't in the typical lockstep of Dem Dogma. And that is exactly what the Dems fear: The emotion-based division of their base. That's their own turf.

Posted by: urthshu at September 02, 2004 10:20 AM (kL+PA)

7 Zell Miller's speech was full of angry rhetoric, empty bluster and nothing else. It has been shown that people are prone to making the worst decisions when theyre angry or emotionally charged. Thank goodness Zell isn't leading the fight against terrorism -- he'll take us all down the toilet. Bill Clinton summed it up for me when he said "Strength and wisdom are not opposing values." I guess some of us prefer ideology over genuine analysis and deliberation. Those of us will also prefer Bush over Kerry. Interestingly enough, with all the talk about terrorism, 9/11 etc in the last couple of days, not a single speaker has uttered the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" or talked about a certain Osama Bin Laden. Then again, why talk about bin Laden? Hasn't the administration shown the links between 9/11 and Iraq ?! ;-)

Posted by: Aanand Krishnan at September 02, 2004 11:28 AM (rtxgE)

8 The hell with the undecided. This is a speech that Republicans needed to hear after two years of left-wing propaganda from the media. Â“Remember who this man is: once a proud supporter of racial segregation, a man who lambasted LBJ for selling his soul to the negroesÂ”. Remember who this man is: Zell Miller is a Democrat and Democrats are flawed people.

Posted by: Jake at September 02, 2004 11:36 AM (h4tU8)

9 Actually G.H.W. Bush lost in '92 cause he alienated his base through his failure on the "no new taxes" promise & through his executive order that forbade the import of certain firearms he deemed to be "assault weapons". Those two things in combination caused the support he needed to either stay home or vote third party. It's not that Perot stole his votes; it's more like Bush drove his base (enough of it to matter) away from voting for him. G.W. Bush is treading the same path, albeit he's using slightly different steps. But I digest. Miller is an old southerner. Nothing can be more terrible & beautiful at the same time than an eloquent southerner who's pissed off. (& if you think Miller did a good job, you should have seen it if a southern woman had been in his position) The theory is that some southerners just cannot bring themselves to join the party that caused Sherman & the rest of those bastards to do what they did to us no matter how much they agree with the party's current platform. I'd assume this applies to Miller to some degree or another. But being southern, even reconstructed southern, means that the racist card will be played early & often despite any lack of actual merit in the claim. As for Miller challenging Matthew to a duel, I don't doubt it. Hell, I'd even put money on Miller; them old southerners may be a bit ragged, but they can make up for a lack of youthful energy by sheer cussedness. Miss Annika, you got to see one of the rare things in politics; a member of the opposing party who is more idealogically grounded in conservative ideas than most people in the GOP. Think Bush agrees with Miller about the repeal of the 17th amendment? Or Miller's healthy respect for the Constitution in general (& the 2nd amendment specifically)? That'd be a resounding "hell no", but Bush will use him as an example of how Bush if a better candidate than Kerry. Miller's very presence should shame Bush into repenting of his quasi-socialist ways, but it won't. Miller is a conservative. Bush is merely a Republican. Do you see the difference? (& by no means is Miller perfect, but in certain veyr important areas he represents conservatism better than most in the Republican party.) Oh, as for Atrios, et al... I wonder how effeminate their excuses would be if Miller took exception to their remarks & called them out? Miller may be up there in years, but I'd lay down good Confederate money on him agin Atrios, Kos, & the rest of those socialized punks even if Miller took them on as a group. (I realize dueling is illegal but I've felt for a while this is a mistake. More duels = less baseless libel & slander.

)

Posted by: Publicola at September 02, 2004 12:26 PM (Aao25)

10 What a fun speech! Different voters look for different reasons to go to the polls on election day. Oddly, Democratic Zell's speech was designed for a section of the Republican base- to give them a reason to go to the polls and not stay home. I wonder about the reaction of the Soccer Moms- anyone have thoughts?

Posted by: gcotharn at September 02, 2004 02:18 PM (AaBEz)

11 Soccer moms aren't that impoertant to the repubs. Here's why: Soccer moms aren't going to vote for Bush no matter how left he leans or how much he alienates his base for their sake. It.Just.Won't.Happen. However there has been a conversion amongst the soccer moms - the term for them is security moms. In essence it's a soccer mom who has realized that the purpose of goverment is national defense as opposed to wealth redistribution. (I speak generally; don't take from this that there's a complete conversion but rather it's a shift in priorities). Those will respond positively to Miller's speech, but then again they were not really part of Kerry's base (anymore) so it's not likely to do anything other than reassure them that abandoning Kerry is best for all concerned. Now don't misunderstand - I think Bush & the Repubs could be doing much, much more for national security w/o endangering our Rights. In fact showing more respect for our Rights would increase dramatically the amount of security we have here at home. But the newly converted (as in since 2001) security moms aren't typically politically aware enough to see beyond the two party system or push for more than the party line. In other words, they see only two options & will go with the one they seem more confident in to protect their kids instead of exploring the idea that they are the only ones really responsible for their & their family's safety. So soccer moms really won't be swayed & someone should imprint that in reverse on a clue bat for the repubs to use on themselves. However the security moms are a growing faction coming out of the of soccer moms group & they won't be scared away by a tough stance on national defense.

Posted by: Publicola at September 02, 2004 03:22 PM (Aao25)

12 I'm not sure "soccer moms" is a particularly useful analytical category. Consider: --soccer mom #1 is an executive at a technology company, raised by parents who were small businesspeople --soccer mom #2 is a stay-at-home mother, Jewish and with a strong committment to Israel --soccer mom #3 is a lawyer in private practice --soccer mom #4 is a screenwriter, raised by parents who were leftist academics What exactly is the reason for thinking that these people would all vote as part of a bloc? Does the condition of (a)being female, and (b)having kids of a certain age trump the whole range of factors including profession, family background, and religion?

Posted by: David Foster at September 02, 2004 03:41 PM (XUtCY)

13 The results are in: Bush 52, Kerry 41 and Nader 3. This too will pass, and at the end, it will narrow. But, is it better than the other alternative? About 60 days out is a serious period. The tendency is to go into a "prevent defense". I have said, for a long time, that a "prevent defense" prevents winning. I hope not. Spending a hour plus with that genius ("Boy Genius" is what GWB calls him) Karl Rove in New York has convinced me that we will not be cocky or stupid. But things happen. Kerry will shake up his team. I pray that James Carville does not come aboard, because he is the only one they have that is a good as Karl. We will see the softer side of Bush soon, I think. By the way, "Boy Genius" has another nickname as well, reserved for when things go wrong, it is "Turd Blossom". I pray I do not hear that particular name again out of GWB's mouth until after January.

Posted by: shelly s. at September 04, 2004 07:08 PM (AaBEz)

14 It is my impression that the Bush campaign, having waited this long to start going after Kerry full throttle (up to now they've relied on surrogates), they will not go into a prevent defense mode. Especially now that they have momentum.

Posted by: annika! at September 05, 2004 09:03 AM (yTcW/)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Russia Under Assault

Remember the Russian people in your prayers today. Even if they haven't been with us as much as i'd like, they are a people of incredible strength and they stand on the front lines of this war too.

Posted by: annika at 09:26 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.

236kb generated in CPU 0.0416, elapsed 0.1274 seconds.
77 queries taking 0.0967 seconds, 404 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 10293
Files: 19
Bytes: 120.3M
CPU Time: 4:37
Queries: 497593

Content

Posts: 2168
Comments: 17090

Feeds

September 30, 2004

September 24, 2004

September 20, 2004

September 16, 2004

September 15, 2004

September 14, 2004

September 13, 2004

September 10, 2004

September 09, 2004

September 08, 2004

September 07, 2004

September 05, 2004

September 04, 2004

September 01, 2004

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds