Res Publica 2005

From the NYT:
Congressional investigators say that France, Russia and China systematically sabotaged the former United Nations oil-for-food program in Iraq by preventing the United States and Britain from investigating whether Saddam Hussein was diverting billions of dollars.

In a briefing paper given yesterday to members of the House subcommittee investigating the program, the investigators said their review of the minutes of a United Nations Security Council subcommittee meeting showed that the three nations "continually refused to support the U.S. and U.K. efforts to maintain the integrity" of the program.

The Templar Pundit talks more about it here, as well. But it has been known for awhile that France was a big player in the money to be made off of the program - wonder how much this played a part? Who gained to benefit by starving the women and children in Iraq?

Blogs for Bush is running this (about the NYT scandal story about the WMD story they are headlining tomorrow)



CALL SUN at NOON: NEW REPORT - What President Bush Really Knew About Iraq's WMD Programs Before the War

For Immediate Release

October 2, 2004
Contact: Chad Clanton or Phil Singer, 202-464-XXXX

***Conference Call Sunday at 12:00 PM***

NEW REPORT: What President Bush Really Knew About Iraq's WMD Programs Before the War

Washington, DC - On Sunday, October 3 at 12:00 PM ET, Florida Senator Bob Graham will hold a conference call with reporters to discuss reports out today about what President Bush really knew about Iraq's WMD programs before the war.

Once upon a time there were reputable press outlets and then there was yellow journalism. We see which one the battle.

AT GeorgeWBush.com

See if you can play the game and keep straight all Kerry's flipflops!

Kevin McCullough at Crosswalk Reports:

BROKAW DEFENDS RATHER, COMPARES BLOGS TO TERRORISTS: Given all that has transpired between CBS and blogs in the last few weeks - you would think that the other anchormen at major broadcast networks would have learned something about blogs and the internet. They demonstrated today - right here in New York City that they remain clueless to the media revolution that is occurring.

Their arrogance proves they just don't get it...

It is unlikely that Brokaw or Jennings have cried a tear about the treatment of Dan Rather. He has tanked in the ratings since the scandal. But that didn't keep them from saying ludicrous things about bloggers while sitting beside him today...

First Brokaw...

"The criticism...goes well beyond any factual information."

"What I think is highly inappropriate is what is going on across the internet, a kind of political jihad...and that is quite outrageous," said Brokaw.

And not content to let Brokaw and Rather be the only two disgraced anchormen in the room Canada's boy wonder spoke up as well...

"I don't think you ever judge a man by only one event in his career," said Jennings.

If it weren't for the pajama-wearing-jihadists the public still wouldn't know that Dan Rather purposefully used documents he knew to be false. (Two of his own authenticators told him so.) If it weren't for these sub-human creatures called bloggers - no one would have raised the questions about the curious timing of the "Fortunate Son" story and its correlation to CBS' airing of the original falsified piece. If it weren't for bloggers who would have found out that CBS' "expert witnesses" on the Bush documents were a "handwriting soothsayer", and a type-writer repairman? And it was THIS blogger that discovered that the source of the documents had a standing account at the Kinkos where they were faxed from.

What drives your political decisions? Is it just about power? Is it about approaches to governemental involvement? Or is it about issues of right and wrong?

If you said the latter, you are part of a growing group of voters who think that morals and values issues like abortion, euthanasia, the role of gay rights and such are some of the most important reasons for voting.

From the Weekly Standard:
New polling by Time and MSNBC/Knight-Ridder suggests that all this has changed. The proportion of voters who say they are keying their vote on "moral values issues like gay marriage and abortion" has gone up sharply--to a level of 15 to 18 percent, according to five national polls commissioned by Time and conducted by Schulman, Ronca, and Bucuvalas since July. More important, the profile of such voters is no longer definable in the vocabulary of polarization and divisiveness. The most recent Time poll (taken September 21-23) has George W. Bush winning socially driven voters by a lopsided 70 to 18 percent. If not for these voters, according to the poll, Bush would be trailing John Kerry by 5 pointsinstead of leading by 4.

From the Washington Post:

WE RECEIVED THE following letter from a woman in Yonkers, N.Y.: "Dear editor: This debate made it clear: John Kerry is a leader we can trust to tell us the truth when it comes to our nation's security. George Bush has had his chance; I'm ready for a new direction."

Cogent, succinct, personal -- everything we look for in a letter. So why are we writing about it here, instead of publishing it in the columns to the right? Unfortunately, the letter, perfect in every other way, arrived in our electronic in-box Thursday afternoon, four hours and 14 minutes before debate moderator Jim Lehrer posed his first question.

Sometimes, we need to remember that ends are shaped by the means...dark means twists things away from the standards. And even in little things like this, it shows the enthusiasm to not play within the rules. Larger examples are the people who deface other people's political signs or harrass or injure people at political events, or even the recent break in to the Washington Republican campaign headquarters. Doing this shapes the doer, and leads to believing that right is whatever their side espouses, and left unchecked, leads down the dark paths that involve terror and death in the name of a cause.

Blogs for Bush talks about this article in more detail. Worth a read.

Right Voices is running the following story:

Secretary of State Glenda Hood said some groups registering voters are turning in application forms missing information, such as unchecked boxes asking whether applicants are citizens, mentally incompetent or felons.

Also, she said the Florida Department of Law Enforcement is investigating claims that some groups turned in fraudulent application forms or switched people’s party registration without telling them.

A group seeking copies of the incomplete applications in an effort to help people complete them said some counties turned over thousands of forms until Hood’s office informed supervisors state law prohibits them from handing out copies of voter records except to specified groups, such as political committees and parties. Now the Washington-based Advancement Project isn’t receiving any of the forms and fears thousands of people won’t be able to vote.

In all the clamour about the debate, a very sad story is taking place in England. No doubt stories like this abound, and don't make the press at all, especially if it doesn't go to court. Charlotte Wyatt is a desperately ill 11-month-old baby in a court battle between her parents and doctors. The court is considering denying her the right to be put on a ventillator if she has another crisis that calls for it. To me, she is a pawn in a culture that considers some people's life as worth less than others, similar to the case of Terry Schiavo, a culture that seems to think that death is preferrable to life, and that "damaged goods" people just aren't wanted, and ought to be gotten rid of.

Slobokan's Site O'Schtuff carries a good story about her.

Blogs of War is running a nice piece on the Iraqi security forces, 164,000 strong, frequently ignored by the press, many of which have paid the ultimate price, and yet still volunteer. We need to celebrate these heros, because heros they are.

From the Seattle Times:

The Washington state headquarters for the president's re-election campaign was broken into last night, and police are investigating the theft of three computers from the Bellevue office.

Missing are laptop computers used by the campaign's executive director, the head of the get-out-the-vote effort and one that had been set for delivery to the campaign's Southwest Washington field director, said Jon Seaton, executive director of the state's George W. Bush campaign.

Seaton said data on the computers was backed up and available elsewhere. But, he said, the loss creates a potential security breach about the campaign's so-called 72-hour plan, the Bush get-out-the-vote effort.

Wonder if this is another case of the ends justifying the means?

John Kerry said:

"No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when I do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

But who judges the global test results? Algeria? Benin? Nepal? Whatever countries are in the security council that month? The entire UN?

I like President Bush's response: "My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this secure."

Terrence Jeffries, writing for Human Events, notes:

So, what "test" of any kind ought to be imposed on a U.S. President when he uses military force, preemptively or otherwise? There is only one test and Bush passed it in the case of the Iraq War.

It is called the Constitution--Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of which says: "The Congress shall have power . . . to declare war."

On October 10, 2002, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 296 to 133 for a resolution authorizing the President to use force in Iraq. On October 11, 2002, the Senate approved the resolution, 77 to 23. John Kerry voted in the affirmative.

If you read Mr. Kerry's long list of Yes, buts, too much of it reads like he wants to sell American sovereignity to the UN. I am not sure if the American people are ready for that.

Debra Saunders wants to know:
Why did Kerry vote for the war resolution?

But when Kerry attacked Bush on Iraq, he unwittingly crafted a grand argument against himself. Either Kerry voted for a war that, by his own lights, he should have seen as wrong, or if he knew it was wrong, he voted for it anyway.

The more Kerry argues that Bush should have known better than to go to Iraq, the more the latter scenario seems the more likely case.

Mr. Kerry, doing what the thinks will keep in him in power

Captain's Quarters has a piece about who wrote the after action report that led to Kerry's bronze star and third purple heart, and leads credence to the things the Swifties have been telling us.

Thomas Lipscomb writes a fascinating article about his clever piece of detective work which demonstrates that John Kerry wrote the after-action report that led to his Bronze Star for an engagement that almost all witnesses claim never involved enemy fire. Lipscomb uncovered a 35-year-old operations order which narrows down the source of the story Kerry denies inventing:

A faded 35-year-old operations order recovered from the Naval Historical Center in Washington bears directly on the ongoing dispute between Sen. John Kerry and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth about who wrote the key after-action report that ended Kerry's service in Vietnam. The report appears in the official Navy records and is posted on Kerry's presidential campaign Web site.

Read it !

Via Free Republic from a Polish Language website, and this was the only translation I have found yet:

In an interview for a Polish TV channel, the president of Poland, Alexander Kwasniewski made the following comments:

“I find it kind of sad that a senator with 20 year parliamentary experience is unable to notice the Polish presence in the anti-terror coalition.”, Kwasniewski commented John Kerry’s stance.

“I don’t think it’s an ignorance.”, said Kwasniewski. “Anti-terror coalition is larger than the USA, the UK and Australia. There are also Poland, Ukraine, and Bulgaria etc. which lost their soldiers there. It’s highly immoral not to see our strong commitment we have taken with a strong believe that we must fight against terror together, that we must show our strong international solidarity because Saddam Hussein was dangerous to the world.

Seems that Kerry once again decided the ends justify the means when he claimed:

"The President made the judgement to divert forces from under General Tommy Franks from Afghanistan before the Congress even approved it, to begin to prepare to go to war in Iraq."

General Michael Delong, when asked about this assertion, said: It's completely untrue, what happened is...The way we went to war in Afghanistan, first of all was different than the Soviets. We used Afghan forces with our ground forces on purpose so that they'd be the heroes of the war. So that they would feel good about themselves in the end, and be able to have a country united. We never had more than around 9000 soldiers there at any one time and today there is 10,000. So I can say unequivocally not one single troop, nor airplane, nor piece of equipment left Afghanistan to go to Iraq. It was a conscious decision on General Franks, the President and Sec. Rumsfelds part to insure that the war on terrorism not only stayed at its current rate but accelerated because going into Iraq, we did not know how that would make the terrorists react. So we went overboard. And the same day we went into Iraq we carried out a huge, huge operation in Afghanistan. So it (the statement by Kerry) is NOT correct.

General Tommy Franks has also reiterated this as well.

Playing with the truth. The ends justify the means. This is the man who wants us to trust him.

Victor Davis at NRO has written a good analysis of Kerry's reactive politics. Here is a piece:

There is a logic to Senator Kerry's flip-flopping that transcends his political opportunism: He is simply a captive of the pulse of the battlefield, without any steady vision or historical sense that might put the carnage of the day into some larger tactical, strategic, or political framework. As was true over a decade ago during Gulf War I, he contradicts himself when good news from the front makes his prior antiwar stance look either timid or foolhardy. But when the casualty rate rises or CNN is particularly vivid in airing the latest beheading or car bomb he returns to his shrill pessimism and denounces the war.

This is Kerry's true problem, you see. He doesn't have a true vision outside of Kerry the Powerful. He reacts to the events around him, and tries to become everyman to those listening to him until you agree to back him. But when push comes to shove, few things are clear except that he speaks smoothly, he misses many votes in the Senate, unless it's for things like abortion rights, and he admires John F. Kennedy.

But unlike his hero Kennedy, he reacts. Kennedy, for right or wrong, had a vision for America, and set a generation of Americans on fire to DO SOMETHING positive. Kerry, on the other hand, is spokesman for the dissatisfied. He encourages those who want to complain. He discourages our allies. He talks about a plan for America and only gives criticism.

I am still waiting to know what he can do positively.

John Kerry, during the debate said:

"I'm going to immediately set out to have bilateral talks with North Korea."

Of course, this is the man who on one hand says we have to shore up our diplomacy and get consensus before taking various types of action.

But his desire to do this means we turn our backs on several of our allies or fellow nations: China, Japan, South Korea and others. As President Bush noted: Again, I can't tell you how big a mistake I think that is, to have bilateral talks with North Korea. It's precisely what Kim Jong Il wants. It will cause the six-party talks to evaporate.

This is the man who says he will get more countries involved in Iraq, even though France and Germany say, "Don't look my way," and then he insults other allies such as Italy and Poland by calling them bribed and coherced.

Then in the Pacific, he wants us to turn our backs on those who are our friends.

His current policy seems to be:

1) insult those who have stood by you (Poland, Italy Japan, many other countries.
2) rely on those who refuse to stand by you (call in France and Germany for help they won't give).
3) deny the truth of those who are on the ground (such as testimony by Allawi and General Franks)
4) demand that the UN sanctions our actions ( even when we already have UN agreements that give us the right to act, and it's in the defense of the US).

And you say he's a candidate for president? Not an insurgent trying to harm our country?

Cal Thomas Writes:

The traditional media in this country is in tune with the elite, not the people.
— Rupert Murdoch, chairman, the News Corp., in the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 26.

That sums up public perception of the definers and disseminators of what is called "news" in this country. The media perform mostly for themselves and their elite friends, not the people they presume to serve. This attitude is responsible for the loss of viewers and readers. The media appear willing to go down with the ship, rather than let someone throw them a lifeline.

Read the rest. It's an interesting analysis of how we perceive the media. Interesting tidbit is that the less educated you are, the more you are likely to trust MSM...so who is the MSM complaining about when they diss all the people who flock to alternate media? Not the people they think!

Does passing the Global Test mean that if France doesn't approve of what we want to do, even though we have 30 other countries who are happy to help, we can't do it?

Does passing the Global Test mean we have to sit home and let the terrorists come to us if Germany doesn't like what we're going to do?

Check out this graphic. Seems to me that Mr. Kerry might think he needs to ask for one of these.

From the San Diego Union Tribune

A man arrested by U.S. authorities in Iraq had a computer disk in his possession containing a public report downloaded from a U.S. Department of Education Web site on crisis planning in school districts, including San Diego Unified.

The man was described as an Iraqi national with connections to terrorism and the insurgency that is fighting U.S. forces in Iraq. Officials in San Diego said the man's intentions were unknown.

After Beslan, after the death of 35 school children yesterday in Iraq, I don't think you need to be an Einstein to get the idea....

Times against Humanity has run a special edition on Terri Schiavo, with questions to think about, and places to help. Please check it out.

ON the day of the most im portant debate in their political lives, President Bush was in shirt sleeves consoling Florida hurricane victims, patting some on the back, hugging others and shaking hands with the tired relief workers. John Kerry had a manicure.

Character will out.

Truth. Honor. Integrity.

These virtues are evidently considered old-fashioned and only something to be emulated by the Kerry camp.

Of course, this really isn't suprising from a man who has used an "ends justify the means" approach to politics since he was a young man and lied about his experiences in Vietnam, causing grief and sorrow to countless vets, POWs and their families and others touched by that dark time in America (made darker than it had to by the likes of Kerry).

The ends justify the means when he talks about backing the first gulf war, when he voted against it.

The ends justify the means when he talks about throwing his medals away and he didn't.

The ends justify the means when he says he backs the Iraq war when he was campaigning against Dean, but he is against it when he is campaigning against President Bush.

The ends justify the means when he says on national tv that he never said President Bush lied about Iraq, but he said:

"This administration has lied to us. They have misled us. And they have broken their promises to us. The president promised to the people and the Congress that he would build an international coalition, respect the United Nations' process and only go to war as a last resort. I will tell you that from my war fighting experience, I believe there is a test for a president as to how you go to war. And that test is whether or not you can look in the eyes of parents and say to them, 'I did everything possible to avoid the loss of your son and daughter, but we had no other choice in order to protect the security of our nation,' and I know this president fails that test in Iraq." (Sen. John Kerry, Campaign Event, Claremont, NH, 9/20/03)

This is the man who thinks that we should give the UN control of our foreign policy. This is the man who thinks that saying "I have a plan" means he doesn't have to tell us what his plan is.

Truth. Honor. Integrity.

Not in the Kerry Camp.

Seems like as women voters, we've been remembered.

Democrats are scratching their heads and saying: Why aren't all the ladies with us?

There are dark looks of anxiety and whispers of "security moms," spoken like they were traitors to the cause.

Kerry starts to spout an orange skin glow in search of the perfect tan. He hits the daytime women audienced talk shows. He tries to look cool playing soccer and football. His attempt to do the JFKennedy thing is painful in its awkwardness.

NOW members start playing "Women's Rights are in danger" card. Trying to drag women voters back to their proper concerns, NOW's Linda Berg lectures that: "As we enter 2004, few remember a time in our political history where women's rights were more in jeopardy." And speaking at a NARAL dinner last year, Kerry insisted, "Never in my years in the Senate have the rights of women been at such risk ... as they are by this administration."

Although it seems that many pundits and feminist leaders think that women should be free and equal in all ways except having the ability to freely choose their political candidate, women are showing they are not tools to be taken for granted, but each individually have their own motivation.

The old assumptions just aren't as true.

AllahPundit is running a story about Dave Ross, who is running for Congress in Washington State, two different CBS radio affilitates in the Seattle area and the passing of him off as just another CBS radio commentator.

Shame!

Can you imagine what the outcry would be if some conservative candidate tried to do the same thing?

One thing I have noticed about the current crop of left-sided activists: As a group, far too many of them have no sense of right and wrong - the ends, using lies, threats, stealing, cheating, or whatever, justify the means.

Which is another reason I cannot vote in their party.

Martini Pundit says that CBS Should Register as a 527
(and based on their actions lately, I agree!)

The blogosphere was all over CBS News’ latest use of fake documents, shoddy research, and misleading reporting in its latest story about the draft.

(For those unaware: CBS News with Dan Ra^ther reports on a ‘Bush’ supporter worried about her sons being drafted in second term. There is no draft. Bush opposes it. Kerry and his surrogates accuse him of planning to reinstate it with no evidence. The plan to reinstate the draft is actually being pushed by two Democrats Charlie Rangel and Fritz Hollings. It’s deader than Jacob Marley.)

Murrow was always a hero of mine, a journalistic Jedi knight. I remember listening to programs that played his broadcasts of news during the bombing of London, and I thought, this is how you do it. In my mind, at least, he typifies what I thought journalists should be like: searching for the truth, willing to fight the powers that be to get the truth out, and trying hard to be impartial and honest.

CBS, the house that Murrow built, has embraced the Dark Side of theForce.

Blogs for Bush points out typical media bias over at the AP

Stocks End Higher on Latest GDP Reading, Lower Oil Prices; Dow Closes Up 59, Nasdaq Rises 24

Economy Grows at Weakest Rate in Over Year


Doom and gloom, doom and gloom. They just don't get it. The economy's improving, Bush is leading in the polls, and they sit there, scratch their heads, and say, this isn't the way it's supposed to be!

The Opinion Journal has some pointers that Mr. Kerry (and all the other Iraq War mythmakers) ought to be paying attention to.

1)Forget getting France and Germany involved.

Mr. Bush could cite Monday's article in the Financial Times: "French and German government officials say they will not significantly increase military assistance in Iraq even if John Kerry, the Democratic presidential challenger, is elected."

2) The US has born 90 % of the casualties and is providing 90% of the troops.

On Deaths
On the first point, the U.S. has suffered 800 killed in action since the Iraq war began, 1,053 including non-combat deaths. Our uniformed Iraqi allies, however, have already suffered at least 750 combat deaths. And that doesn't include the recruits who've been killed by car bombs as they've waited to enlist in the police or new Iraq army. Even using, er, liberal math, this would put U.S. killed-in-action at about 50% of the total.


On Troop Numbers
100,000 Iraqi police and soldiers have been trained and equipped, in addition to the 74,000 Iraqis who are guarding oil pipelines and the like as part of the country's new facilities protection service. With some 138,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, and another 25,000 foreign coalition troops, that puts the U.S. share at closer to 50%

Not counting the Iraqis who are working and dying for their own country is a ridiculous, stab-in-the-back ploy to dishonor people who are doing something dangerous. What if we only counted French and British troops during the American Revolution?

3) The Gulf War was a true alliance of allies while we are too unilaterial this time.

In the first Gulf War he now says he likes, the alliance totaled 34 countries. In the current Iraq conflict, the alliance includes . . . 30 countries.

This complaint is mostly because of French and German disdain, I think. BTW, Mr. Kerry voted AGAINST the Gulf war and FOR the Iraqi war.

4) The Iraq War has cost $200 billion, 90% of the bill in Iraq.

It's true that $200 billion is the amount Congress has approved in supplemental war spending bills, but only $120 billion is for war-fighting in Iraq. The rest is for Afghanistan--a war Mr. Kerry claims to like and wants to spend more on--and economic or reconstruction aid.

Other nations in the Iraq coalition have pledged something like $13 billion. And that doesn't count the contribution that the world has made in promising to forgive upward of $80 billion in Iraqi debt. Even before the Kerry victory it covets, France has said it will write off some 50% of its Iraq debt. Add up all of those numbers (the U.S. has minimal Iraqi debt) and the U.S. share of overall Iraqi costs also looks a lot less "unilateral.

There's a lot of rhetoric, myth and outright lies out there...and they don't deserve to be in a debate. And when they come up, we need to let people know the truth.

Fox News is carrying a story on their website about the CBS memogate documents. More than just an embarrassment, more than just a rush to press, there may be real legal reprocussions here.

In Texas, the state in which Burkett concedes the false National Guard memos originated, it is a felony to make or present two or more documents with knowledge of their falsity and with intent that they be taken as a genuine governmental record. Under the U.S. Code, use of an interstate telephone wire, such as the one used to transmit an image of the forged documents from Texas to CBS headquarters, triggers federal jurisdiction.

Burkett's recent statements are just as amusing as those given by drivers of stolen vehicles, and anyone hearing them could be forgiven for thinking that there really is no source for the memos other than Burkett. (His National Guard background certainly gives him the knowledge to write a memo that might not look convincing, but at least contains the jargon to sound convincing.)

We will probably never know just what Burkett confessed to Rather that weekend, but he said enough for CBS to almost immediately state that it had been "misled" as to the as original source of the documents. Though we don't know the identity of that source, the vast majority of experts agree that it was someone who did his or her typing at a personal computer loaded with Microsoft Word.

Besides Burkett being in trouble, it's not clear that CBS will be off the hook yet, either.

The documents were not just forged; they were obviously forged to the generation over age 40, which has used both a typewriter and a computer to write; CBS did not have to be misled about the source of the documents to be tipped that the documents were not real. While Burkett might have been willfully blind to things that would indicate that the memos were fake, there is mounting evidence that even CBS' experts told producers of 60 Minutes II that they could not verify that the documents were real. The story was aired – or in the terms of the Texas forgery statute, "presented" — in spite of this.

Be interesting to see how this works out.

France said Monday that it would take part in a proposed international conference on Iraq only if the agenda included a possible U.S. troop withdrawal, thus complicating the planning for a meeting that has drawn mixed reactions.

.

Paris also wants representatives of Iraq's insurgent groups to be invited to a conference in October or November, a call that would seem difficult for the Bush administration to accept.

Check out Hard Starboard, which also discusses this one.

Let's see...the country we know screwed around royally with the Food for Oil program and had all sorts of business connections with the Saddam regime, telling us that they won't talk if we don't tlk about withdrawing (is this so they can reestablish the old connections?) and then they want to bring to the table a madman who wants to rule the middle east, various mullahs who want to impose Shia rule ala Iran and old baathists who want to be sure to get a piece of the pie, all of which have been lobbing bombs, some of which have been doing religious courts that we would consider barbarous, and otherwise not being the type of model citizens to build a country with at the table.

I would personally just like to say, Kiss my sweet grits...and one day, if you keep this up, I will return my grandfather's medals that he won for protecting you during WWI, because he wouldn't have wanted to be associated with you.

You'd think they learn. Of course, judging by the collapsing ratings, the only people left watching CBS News are probably fact-checking bloggers. Dan's gotta give them something to keep them tuning in. . . .

At Cox and Forkum, Forkum says about the bad draft story and CBS, that:
I didn't think CBS could sink any lower

Declaring themselves a 527 might actually be a step up the ladder....

The Galvin Opinion notes something I think interesting:

Media's head-scratching: However, the media refuses to believe their own polls indicating the president's strong showing in the electorate. On Monday night, CNN.com published a story with the headline, "Bush apparently leads Kerry in pre-debate poll." The CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows that among likely voters, Bush was the choice of 52 percent, while Kerry was the choice of 44 percent. Apparently? That sounds like a clear answer to me!

This piece is good analysis. Read it all. Amazing. They don't understand why people don't think the way that they do. Have they ever stopped to think that maybe there's something with the way they think? That morality isn't necessarily relative, that issues passed off as civil rights may be issues that tend to destroy social cohesiveness, that secular fundamentalism has as much problems with being able to listen to people as any other fundamentalism?

Character counts. Standing for the good counts. Standing for life and family and truth counts.

The old virtues matter, and Mr. Kerry seems deficient in them, no matter how rich or intelligent or educated he is.

In June 2002, the police say, members of a high-status tribe sexually abused one of Ms. Mukhtaran's brothers and then covered up their crime by falsely accusing him of having an affair with a high-status woman. The village's tribal council determined that the suitable punishment for the supposed affair was for high-status men to rape one of the boy's sisters, so the council sentenced Ms. Mukhtaran to be gang-raped.

She was supposed to kill herself. Raped women are damaged goods and have no place in this culture, even when it's nothing they've done.

Instead, she held on, testified, was given police protection, was awarded money which she used to open a school for girls and a school for boys.

The money is running out, and the police have to be paid, and she and her family may be killed by the other family once the police leave. Yet, she is a light of goodness in a dark situation.

It's also another example of a mindset that we are dealing with. Rape as a judicial sentence.

We need leaders who understand that this is not something you solve by going to the UN and wringing your hands.

I'm not going to cut it an paste it. But it is funny....and visual.

From Johnny Flipper.com

For months now, left-leaning interest groups have been trying to scare America's young people into believing that the Bush Administration is eager to bring back the draft if President Bush is reelected. For the most part, this story has been spread by word-of-mouth and through the internet--rumors in other words. Up until this month, CBS News has shown no interest in a story that has basically no basis in fact

That changed last week after Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry was asked about the rumors. He seemed to give them little credence, but refused to outright disown them, saying only "Is it possible? I can't tell you."

Once again, it seems that the Democratic Party has proven itself more intelligent than its media arm, CBS. Just as it earlier refused to run with Bill Burkett's third-rate forgeries, the Democrats have mostly stayed away from draft speculation. But last night, CBS News once again let its ideological blinders cause it massive embarrassment.

This is from Ratherbiased.com which had server problems, and now is in a temporary location.



(Reminds me of all those nice people who hear something, panic, and email all their mailbox because it's just so awful, without thinking or checking with snopes.com, either! Just got one today about the lead supposed to be in lipstick from a dear lady on one of my mail lists, but that's another story.....But I guess it's too much to ask CBS to stop acting like a computer newbee...)

You notice strange things happenng with the Democrats? Ted Kennedy claiming weird things? Jimmy Carter accusing Florida of being a third world dictatorship when it comes to voting? Kerry whispering things about Bush conspiracies regarding milk farmers?

These are not the tactics of confident people, and it's beginning to smack a bit of Baghdad Bob....

At the Reality Check, they have also noticed this, and say:

So it is time for the desperate act for the Democrats. More fear, more smear, more personal attacks and more hyperbole to attempt to sway American voters to abandon common sense and instead opt for flipping, flopping, John Kerry. And trust me here my friends it will not work.

From Regum Crucis:

Let's take this article piece-by-piece:

Over the past 30 days, more than 2,300 attacks by insurgents have been directed against civilians and military targets in Iraq, in a pattern that sprawls over nearly every major population center outside the Kurdish north, according to comprehensive data compiled by a private security company with access to military intelligence reports and its own network of Iraqi informants.

That sounds quite alarmist, no? Yet there is a great deal of information that isn't contained here, such as the number of American or Iraqi troops or civilians killed in these attacks, which isn't anywhere near 2,300. Most of these attacks are IEDs, rocket, and mortar attacks that are as much designed to harass the occupying force as they are to kill them. The Taliban, al-Qaeda, and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's Hizb-e-Islami have been doing much the same in Afghanistan in terms of the number of attacks - the Center for Defense Information has a pretty good break-down of the most recent fighting in Afghanistan and if you applied the same methodology there that the Special Operations Consulting-Security Management Group Incorporated is here you'd pretty much come up with the same statistics, the primary difference in Iraq is unlike in Afghanistan you're seeing these types of harassment strikes launched in concert with guerrilla and mass casualty terrorist attacks that none of those 3 parties are able to carry out in Afghanistan for a number of reasons.

There's a lot more. Read it.

"We will never forgive our parents for having done this to us with their revolution," says Ali, staring at nowhere. This is the words of a refugee from Iran, who knows first hand the evil that men do in the name of God.

Read this disturbing piece from NRO and realize the world view and concepts we are up against, and know why it is important to have a leader who understands the consequences.

<>Bush Served Honorably via Free Republic

(the original site might be hard to get through)

Eye Witness #1

James Anderson was a physician for the Montgomery-based 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group. His son, Montgomery physician Noble Anderson, said his father performed a routine examination on Bush at Dannelly Air National Guard base in 1972.

The military doctor says that Lt. Col. John “Bill” Calhoun brought Bush by his office for an exam, Noble Anderson said. James Anderson could not remember which month he saw Bush, only that it was some time in 1972. (Source: Jessica M. Walker, “Doctor Recalls Treating Bush,” Feb. 15, 2004, Montgomery Advertiser)

Eye Witness #2

Lt. Col. John “Bill” Calhoun that he remembers George W. Bush showing up for duty in Alabama in 1972, reading safety magazines and flight manuals in an office as he performed his weekend obligations.

“I saw him each drill period,” retired Lt. Col. John “Bill” Calhoun said. “He was very aggressive about doing his duty there. He never complained about it. ... He was very dedicated to what he was doing in the Guard. He showed up on time and he left at the end of the day.”

The 69-year-old president of an Atlanta insulation company said Bush showed up for work at Dannelly Air National Guard Base for drills on at least six occasions. Bush and Calhoun had both been trained as fighter pilots, and Calhoun said the two would swap “war stories” and even eat lunch together on base.

“He sat in my office most of the time he would read,” Calhoun said. “He had your training manuals from your aircraft he was flying. He'd study those some. He'd read safety magazines, which is a common thing for pilots.” (Source: Allen G. Breed, “Ex-Guardsman Says Bush Served in Ala.,” Feb. 13, 2004, Associated Press)

Eye Witness #3

Retired Master Sgt. James Copeland, who lives in Hartselle, retired from the Air Force on Jan. 31, 1980. He was the disbursement accounting supervisor, a full-time position, for Dannelly Air National Guard Base in Montgomery from Oct. 28, 1971, to Oct. 27, 1975. His office was less than 100 yards from the hangar where Bush performed drills.

Copeland, 65, remembers meeting Bush on two occasions. He does not remember the precise dates. On one occasion, Copeland said, Bush and Lt. Col. John “Bill” Calhoun came to Copeland's office with a question about Bush’s pay. Copeland is not sure, but he believes the question had to do with where to mail Bush's checks.

“You hear people saying that everybody (at Dannelly) knew the Bushes. Well, that's just a lie,” Copeland said. “He was just another pilot. No one paid any more attention to him than to anyone else. There was no hoopla.” (Source: Eric Fleischauer, “Former Dannelly worker: Bush not AWOL,” Feb. 16, 2004, The Daily Decatur)

Eye Witness #4

Joe LeFevers, a member of the 187th in 1972, said he remembers seeing Bush in unit offices and being told that Bush was in Montgomery to work on Blount's campaign.

"I was going in the orderly room over there one day, and they said, `This is Lt. Bush,'" LeFevers said Tuesday. "They pointed him out to me ... the reason I remember it is because I associate him with Red Blount." (Source: Mary Orndorff & Brett J. Blackledge, “Bush Was At Alabama Base, Says Ex-Guardsman,” Feb. 11, 2004, Birmingham News)

_______________
There are also corroborating witnesses as well. Read the rest, join in the discussion at Free Republic.

I hate to say that I can't even begin to imagine John Kerry doing this, but it is very easy for me to believe of President Bush.

From Pawigoview:

My son worked this summer in Washington, D.C. A friend of his works for Laura Bush in the White House. She planned an event for the award winners of a program called "Preserve America." One of the award winners sent back an email about his experience during the time he was in the Oval Office to be recognized. I would like to share part of his email with you.

"On our way out of the office we were to leave by the glass doors on the west side of the office. I was the last person in the exit line.
As I shook his hand one final time ... I then did something that surprised even me. I said to him, 'Mr. President, I know you are a busy man and your time is precious. I also know you to be a man of strong faith and I have a favor to ask you.' As he shook my hand he looked me in the eye and said, 'Just name it.'

"I told him that my step-Mom was at that moment in a hospital having a tumor removed from her skull and it would mean a great deal to me if he would consider adding her to his prayers that day. He grabbed me by the arm and took me back toward his desk as he said,
'So that's it. I could tell that something is weighing heavy on your heart today. I could see it in your eyes. This explains it.'
From the top drawer of his desk he retrieved a pen and a note card with his seal on it and asked, 'How do you spell her name?'

Read the rest here.

I liked this bit by Michelle Malkin:

A little more than a year ago, John Hawkins listed the most influential center-right bloggers. (He ignored left-of-center blogs and non-political blogs because he was not well acquainted with them.) His list was as follows:

1. Andrew Sullivan
2. Instapundit
3. The Corner
4. The Volokh Conspiracy
5. Little Green Footballs
6. Lileks (James) The Bleat
7. Steven Den Beste
8. Scrappleface
9. A Small Victory
10. Tim Blair

If Hawkins were to create such a list today, I have no doubt we'd see plenty of new names--sites like Powerline, Hewitt, Allah, and perhaps Wizbang and INDC Journal. Not coincidentally, these are among the most consistently interesting and informed sites in the blogosphere.

In essence, Billmon believes the game is rigged. But in blogging, as in life more generally, there is tremendous opportunity for those inclined to seize it.

Right Wing News notes:

As someone who has been running a political webpage since mid-2001 and who has been involved in the blogging community since early 2002, let me say that it has NEVER BEEN EASIER to build traffic and make a name for yourself than it is right now.

I say that because 2 1/2 years ago, just about the only blogger on the right side of the net who could send any significant traffic your way was Glenn Reynolds from Instapundit.

Back then, a link from the Professor was worth around 2k new sets of eyeballs hitting your page tops, 1000 more typically, or only a few hundred if it was part of one of his posts where he linked multiple blogs. There were very few other blogs capable of sending over more than a couple of hundred readers back then and most of them focused more on content than linking.

But today? Although the Instalanches are a lot bigger (I think the last one I got was around 10k daily uniques), there are now dozens and dozens of blogs capable of sending over a few hundred plus sets of eyeballs if they link you.

And from Dust in the Light, note this:

As with everything, one's approach to the experience of blogging will affect one's view of its opportunities. I've been trying to break into relatively creative fields for almost two-thirds of my not-quite-thirty years of life — first acting, then music, then writing — so when I look at the blogosphere, I see tremendous opportunity. Not only is the Internet new, unruly territory, but it's also easier to get somebody to click a link than to read a manuscript. More importantly, it's easier to get an individual to publish a link (with or without a "heh" or "indeed") to content on the author's space than to convince an editor to buy and publish a full piece. In this way, merit really does play a stronger role in blogging, and exposure in that realm increasingly reflects into the "professional" literary world.

But it can't be denied that blogging well can be hard work. In my two years of blogging, I've researched countless issues, developing indepth analyses of some, replete with charts and catalogues. I've rearranged my schedule and cut into my sleep time in order to churn out worthwhile posts at Internet speed. I've even experimented with a whole new medium (digital video) and spent a few days, during a few weeks, making vlogs. These habits can become excessive, to be sure, but I think a portion of the frustration that Billmon expresses is attributable to the balance of demands.

Oh, so much draft hokey is going around. Threshold-55 reviews the latest round of hokey, and notice while the demos are trying to panic people with the draft is coming, the draft is coming, how they are playing political games in the background.

The rhetoric by Kerry and Edwards is part of a wider campaign by the democrats to once again pull the wool over the eyes of the American public. When will these people learn that thinly veiled deceptions will no longer pass muster? This is a new media age where their thin ice monopoly on information management is slipping away.

Once again Kerry and Edwards tell stories as opposed to truths. Snake oil should be sold everywhere they speak. Half truths, false warnings and playing chicken with your children are the best these people have to offer. It is about time they all are voted out of office and replaced with people of integrity.

Read the rest here. Find out who's really doing what.

Dick Morris notes about the first debate:

To win Thursday's debate — decisively — all he has to do is state his position on the issues of terrorism, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran and the myriad threats we face.

Bush enters the debate empowered by three fundamental facts:

* Virtually all of his own voters agree with his positions on these vital issues.

* About one in three Kerry voters also approves of Bush's policy in these regions.

* Kerry, for some inexplicable reason, has chosen to attack Bush on these very issues — his strongest point.

So Kerry endangers his hold on his own voters every time he attacks Bush's conduct of the War on Terror and the battle in Iraq

Looks like a case of painting oneself into a corner and hope you can get someone to help you out the window you just can't quite reach....while Bush just has to go in there and be himself...those who back him agree with him already.

Horns of a dilemna...or maybe this critter has at least 3 horns? Or is he hoping for style over substance?

From Slings and Arrows:

The Kerry campaign wants the voters to believe the Republicans have only one strategy, fear:

Edwards renewed his charge that the Republicans are "fear-mongering" by suggesting that al-Qaida would prefer that the Democrats win.

"Let me say this in very simple language. For them to exploit one of the greatest tragedies in American history for personal gain is wrong."

Meanwhile, Ted Kennedy had this to say:

Meanwhile, he said, the administration continues to insist that the country is safer now because of the war. But Americans "deserve to hear more from our president than happy talk like that," said Kennedy. "The war in Iraq has made the mushroom cloud more likely, not less likely.

And then there is Kerry himself, stirring up fears of a draft under George Bush:

Answering a question about the draft that had been posed at a forum with voters, Kerry said: "If George Bush were to be re-elected, given the way he has gone about this war and given his avoidance of responsibility in North Korea and Iran and other places, is it possible? I can't tell you."

Oh, and let us not forget the Kerry campaign's constant warnings about George Bush's secret plans.

Truth is, I think, is that the more nervous they make the voters, the more they probably push people into voting for Bush, who seems much more like a leader who they can trust and who makes them feel secure than Mr. Flipflop....

From Right Thinking from the Left Coast

Once again we see clearly the uselessness and corruption of the UN, and he complicity of France in its activities.

Congressional investigators examining “a semitrailer truck load” of subpoenaed documents are trying to determine whether lax monitoring at a French bank that held more than $60 billion for the U.N. oil-for-food program facilitated illicit business deals by the former Iraqi government, officials told The Associated Press.

Although BNP Paribas isn’t the target of the probe involving companies and individuals in 50 countries, the documents could provide a road map to alleged corruption at the United Nations (news - web sites) and by politicians from France, Russia, Britain, Indonesia and Persian Gulf states who have been implicated.

The three congressional panels that subpoenaed BNP Paribas documents are looking into whether the bank met minimum standards that require financial institutions to identify customers, partly to prevent money laundering. The committees are among at least five in Congress investigating allegations of U.N. corruption and reports that Iraqis skimmed billions of dollars in kickbacks through deals administered by the United Nations.

And these are the organizations to in which John Kerry places such great importance that he would render American national security impotent and beholden to their will.

One needs to remember that the European countries who most cried out about us going into Iraq tended to be those who had the most fingers in the Oil for Food cookie jar and had lots of trade connections with the Saddam regime.

And these are the people we should join hands with, and sing a secularized version of Kumbaya around the fire of third world misery? Good Lord, Forbid!

The Belmont club takes on NYT about the actual living conditions in Iraq for most people by doing an analysis:

Critics might argue that evidence from the Special Operations Consulting-Security Management Group Inc make it hard to take the claims of President Bush and Prime Minister Allawie seriously. But are they lying? The following table was constructed entirely from data contained in the "Times" article. The population and area of Iraq's provinces are taken from the World Gazeteer and a map of the Iraqi provinces can found at Global Security Org.

The first thing to notice is that 2,139 of the 2,300 attacks took place in 6 of the 18 provinces. In the absence of data for the other provinces, I have assigned a uniform number of 13 attacks to the remainder in order to make up the total of 2,300. The real hotbeds are Baghdad and areas to the northwest -- the Sunni triangle. By far the greatest density of violence is in Baghdad, where 1,000 attacks have taken place in 732 kilometers.

See chart here:

But basically, it looks like that outside of Baghdad, as one of his commentors noted:

Assuming 2300 attacks spread across a population of 24,000,000 and you have slightly less than .01% chance of being involved in an attack in any given month, if you are an average Iraqi. So what is that -- a 1 in 10,000 chance each month of being in an attack? I mean, it's not as rare as lightning, but it isn't like every day you're under the gun.

Of course, the attacks are largely concentrated in a few areas, against a few classes of target. If you are an Iraqi National Guard recruiter in the Sunni Triangle, I imagine your life has some fairly substantial risk in it each day.

But I'd have to say that on balance, Allawi looks correct here.

The NYT surely wouldn't want us to believe that! It's just the usual thing...we have a tendency to believe ancedotal evidence more, and the press gives us the impression it's normative...so the Times can really fog it all up. It's like every time I've been in an area that floods (New Orleans and Houston in particular) my relatives call, worried that I am deep underwater...but it's only certain areas involved. Same thing seems to be going on here.

Sometimes Kerry looked like he was able to connect the dots, and other times he gets lost. Too many dots? Too many flips? Doing somersaults can make one dizzy....



From the American Spectator
Colin Powell's pre-war presentation before the United Nations established that Zarqawi received safe haven in Iraq, traveling "to Baghdad in May 2002 for medical treatment, staying in the capital of Iraq for two months while he recuperated to fight another day.…During this stay, nearly two dozen extremists converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there. These al Qaeda affiliates, based in Baghdad, now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network, and they've now been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months."

In other words, the insurgents after the war are terrorists Saddam Hussein harbored before it.

Yet, as Dangerus notes:

Kerry(D) knows better:

“I would disagree with John McCain that it’s the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it’s what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that–that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat.” -- JFKerry(D) 9/15/02

“I believe the record of Saddam Hussein’s ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force if necessary.” -- JFKerry(D) 10/10/02

“Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe we are not safer with his capture, don’t have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president.” -- JFKerry(D) 12/17/03

JFKerry(D) was all for ridding the world of Saddam... before he was against it...

“That means we must have a great honest national debate on Iraq. The President claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight.” -- JFKerry(D) 9/20/04

Ah, now the pattern develops:

Kidnap some hostages, and make recruiting videos of their execution.

Kidnap other hostages, and hold them in cages and let little bits of hope and fear interplay, until you can negotiate the price (which will no doubt be used in part to finance more of the same). This latter thing has an old history, and doesn't surprise me.

Slobokan's Site O' Schtuff discusses the payment of ransom for the two Italian aid workers, and what it can mean for all foreigners in Iraq.

Kerry is finding it's expensive keeping up a losing battle when you flipflop so much....

In a letter to his supporters on Wednesday, Kerry says, "To keep the Democratic Party's essential October activities on track, we have to raise $2 million in less than 36 hours."

The message from Kerry says, "I will carry our values and our determination to lead America in a new, more promising direction into that auditorium in Coral Gables. And I will count on you to help this history-making grassroots campaign meet the biggest deadline it has ever faced."

Read the rest here.

Overtaken by Events really does an outstanding job on taking apart Mr. Coleman's view. Here is a sample. Get over there and read the complete piece!

Look Out, The Reporters Are Pissed!!!

Another "Real Journalist" has his panties in a wad over we unwashed bloggers. Nick Coleman from the Minneapolis Star Tribune is highly agitated.

This just in: I am a very wealthy man, born into privilege and power, and a stooge of the Democratic Party. Oh. That reminds me, Smithers: Bring me the heads of some Republicans, would you? Also, set out the good silver. Fritz is coming over to give me my marching orders. Dad-ums would be so proud, wouldn't he, Muffy?

Nothing in the opening paragraph is true, but bloggers and talk-show barracudas have said so, tossing stuff against the wall to see what sticks. I happen to enjoy the idea of me as to the manor born, so I have taken to wearing an ascot to my corner pizza parlor.

Tossing things against a wall to see what sticks? Sounds a lot like a CBS tactic. Between the TANG story, which only stuck to CBS and the latest story about Bush's secret plan for the draft, what would you call it? If you answered "Murrowesque", please seek professional help.

But this is not about me. It is about the war against the media. A lot of it, we deserve. But a lot of the attack against the mainstream media is coming from bloggers, which is like astronomers being assaulted by people who swear that aliens force them to have sex with Martians. Why don't you admit we are being invaded by Venusians?

Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, Jack Kelley, etcetera, etcetera. Yeah, I'd say you deserve a bit of scrutiny. Of course, we wouldn't be able to complete this paragraph properly without a (not-so) clever and demeaning attack. Now bloggers are the UFO crowd. We live in a pure fantasyland, unable and unwilling to concede the reality that truth can only be known by those with J-school diplomas.

And while we're on this subject, check out the neat job that Kalblog has done on a different, but similar attack:

I think what he's missing here is that even if Cole or Volokh else can never be the "man on the scene," there are people who are. There are Iraqi bloggers. There are Milbloggers. Though in both these cases, they're almost entirely restricted to the right side of the 'sphere.

So yeah, Instapundit doesn't have the same resources as the New York Times, but the blogosphere collectively can do a lot more than Klein suggests.

Add to this the fact that 99% of us are hobbyists who only write when we want to, and do it mostly for the love of it (or attention, even) and not because we're getting paid and feeling the pressure of a deadline. If there's one thing the MSM has more of than the 'sphere, it's laziness, even if there are a lot of really poorly-written posts out there.

And at the end of the day, bloggers edit each other by linking or not linking, and offering criticism or praise, and the major ones serve as gatekeepers to the wider world.

Paul M. Weyrich,chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation, who once worked at a CBS affiliate as political reporter, now has this to say:

The so-called mainstream media, including and especially the CBS Evening News, are in a state of decline. Every single rating book which comes out shows less people watching their newscasts and more people watching cable, especially Fox News.

And then there are those people, now considerable in number, who no longer watch any television news. They have computers. They have their favorite web sites and a host of other conservative sites.

They also surf the newspapers around the country. They can pick and choose the stories and columns they want. They won't have a whole paper shoved down their throats.

It is truly a new world out there. One that I never thought I would live to see. I got tears in my eyes watching Vice President Spiro Agnew attack the major media at a media meeting in Des Moines, Iowa in 1969. I still think his forced resignation was payback time. Anyway, I never ever thought I would see the mighty networks having to fight to survive.

Some analysts are suggesting by the end of this decade there may not be the worldwide network facilities as we know them today. Newspapers for the most part are also in a steep decline. Many won't survive. Others may survive just online.

This is the reason that the liberals are so anxious to shut down talk radio. This is why they curse Fox News and are trying to figure out a scheme to put them out of business.

This is why the liberals are so anxious to tax and regulate the Internet.

These are the gasps of a dying industry. Rather resign? Heck no. He should stay there so he can go down with the ship. Some day, one of my grandchildren, looking at my curriculum vitae will ask, "Grandpa? What is CBS? It says here you once worked for an affiliate."

Nick Coleman as written a screed about bloggers.

This, of course, is getting some excellent attention by some excellent bloggers.

The Captain's Quarters has this reply:

A number of high-profile members of the Fourth Estate have gotten mighty testy about the blogosphere lately, writing poisoned-pen columns about how we have the audacity to write criticisms of professional journalists who write criticisms of everyone else. It was just a matter of time before the third-rate hacks took up the same mission, and as Nick Coleman shows us in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, that time is now.

and

Here are a couple of facts, Nick. CBS News and Dan Rather -- who is their managing editor, a position you claim gives "professional" journalists an advantage over bloggers -- ran a story smearing the President during an election, using forgeries so bad that anyone who spent two minutes in the military could have recognized it. The checks and balances you point to with pride all managed to turn off their hearing aids when their own experts told them the documents were faked. And after they were caught -- by who, Nick? You? -- they spent eleven days emulating the Nixon White House, stonewalling and having Dan Rather tell us he "personally vouched" for the documents' authenticity.

You must read it...there is more

Mr. Kerry is very fond of little white lies. Lies about guns he does (or doesn't) own, for instance. Lies about being in Cambodia. Lies about throwing away his medals. Lies about what he did or didn't believe.

At the Kerry Spot, we have another case of white lies:

IT WAS LATE, KERRY SAID, REFERRING TO NOON [09/29 08:52 AM]

The good news is John Kerry did an interview on Good Morning America, and he was asked about his "I voted for it before I voted against it" comment.

Kerry responded, "No, it wasn’t classic at all. It just was a very inarticulate way of saying something, and I had one of those inarticulate moments late in the evening when I was dead tired in the primaries and I didn't say something very clearly."

Hey, it happens! No big deal. Everybody has made a comment that doesn't make sense late at night... except...

“‘I actually did vote for his $87 billion, before I voted against it,’ he told a group of veterans at a noontime appearance at Marshall University. He went on to explain that he preliminarily backed the request, so long as it was financed not by deficit spending but with a tax surcharge on the wealthy that Bush opposed.”

As Bush spokesman Steve Schmidt suggested, maybe his watch was on Paris time.

Tom Blankely has this neat editorial on the "Melodrama in Miami" at the Washington Times.

This part is particularly worth thinking about:

Presidential debates tend to confirm an election trend — not reverse it. Ronald Reagan had gained steadily all year against the calamitous Jimmy Carter. The debate merely confirmed the public's inclination to kick Mr. Carter out and hire Mr. Reagan.
Jerry Ford's clumsy debate discussion about Poland's alleged liberty only confirmed his image as a stumblebum who regularly fell down stairs, hit golf balls into crowds far from the fairway, and most clumsily of all was Watergate Nixon's selected boy. From the day Nixon resigned in 1974, no serious Republican really expected to hold the White House in the next election. How else could a fool such as Jimmy Carter get elected president, if it weren't preordained?
Even the storied Kennedy/ Nixon debate only confirmed an instinct for change. After eight gray, avuncular Eisenhower/ Nixon years, two recessions and a sense of exhaustion, Nixon's un-made-up gray pallor played right into Kennedy's seeming youthful vigor and call to get the country moving again. Would a lively, cheerful Nixon have made any difference? Would such a thing have been possible?
The trend in this election is clear. Despite (or perhaps, because of) all the great issues facing our weary, bleeding old world, this election is about character. By a small majority, the American public will have considered Mr. Kerry and rejected him for lack of presidential character. They just don't trust him to lead us through the mortal storm in which we are engulfed. Mr. Kerry's measure has been taken, and been found wanting.
No clever, last-minute words can change that national judgment, any more than a woman can be persuaded by strict logical argument to fall in love. It is not open to debate.

There are times in ease and prosperity that humans can play around with alternative things.

The rise of the anti-hero in literature and the media in the 20th century is one such example.

But humanity knows from long experience that countries ruled by the likes of Hitler and Caligula and Pol Pot and even Saddam Hussein don't last. Regimes in time of stress that don't do mostly the right thing don't last.

When crisis comes, Character counts.

The "security moms" should be a sign that we are in one of those times when people are looking for bedrock. They don't want nuance. They want leadership and safety, someone they can trust to protect them. No anti-heros need apply. No waffling.

So the democrats offer up a man who changes position constantly, has told lies regularly to make himself look like Everyman to everybody, but who cannot control his sneering, and who seems to blame everybody but himself. This inabilty to read the Zeitgeist may hurt them more than anything, and has a great chance to leave the party in shambles.

Michelle Malkin writes:

TV cameras are brutally unforgiving-especially during high-stakes election debates. They amplified the angst on Richard Nixon's brow, the inexperience in Dan Quayle's eyes, and the vulgarity of Al Gore's visage.

How will Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry hold up under the spotlight? What will the cameras reveal? Beneath the Christophe-coifed hair, unnaturally taut skin and artificially enhanced tan, there are some naked attributes Kerry cannot conceal: his spite; his haughtiness; his condescending core.

She goes on to describe a number of points why someone might find Mr. Kerry less than perfect....After a long list of things he's waffled on, blamed others on, lied about, and I know most of us could add to - my pet peeve is taking communion in spite of his right to abortion stance, clearly against the teaching of his, and my church, which tells me reams about his morality [self above all else, it looks like] - she asks:

This is the paragon of strong moral leadership who will bring victory in the War on Terrorism and restore America's values? This Botox-ed egomaniac? This serial waffler? This ruthless buck-passer?

Proverbs 18:12 counsels: "Before destruction the heart of man is haughty, and before honor is humility." It's a lesson Mr. Perfect will learn too late.

From Townhall

"When your horse is drowning, it's a good time to change horses in midstream," John Kerry declared this week. Maybe he got this line eavesdropping on his staff. How many strategy meetings are delayed as Kerry consultants daydream about how they'd be knocking down swing states if Dick Gephardt, Howard Dean, John Edwards or even the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man were their boss? By the way, when do the milk cartons with John Edwards' face on 'em start showing up on grocery shelves?

I have a theory to explain why the Democratic presidential ticket is growing lamer by the week. It suffers from a little-understood condition known as the "Kerry Syndrome." This is closely related to Simple Chronic Kerrytosis, a malady that causes poll numbers to drop when the candidate opens his mouth.

The Kerry Syndrome is a rare variant of the Stockholm Syndrome. The latter phenomenon is the condition where hostages - Patty Hearst, for example - grow to sympathize with, and in extreme cases become like, their captors. The Kerry variant, first diagnosed in the junior senator from Massachusetts, works along similar lines, prompting the patient to ape his enemies. The Democratic nominee, for example, seems to have been captured by George W. Bush and, to a certain extent, by Richard Nixon.

Read the Rest Here.