Political commentary from a conservative ideologue deep in the heart of Texas. Member: Jewish-Crusader Alliance, Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Saturday, September 18, 2004
WHAT DID MAX CLELAND KNOW AND WHEN DID HE KNOW IT?!
i love throwing that idiotic line back into the faces of self-righteous democrats.
From the Washington Post via Allah is in the House and Ace of Spades HQ:
In e-mail messages to a Yahoo discussion group for Texas Democrats, Burkett laid out a rationale for using what he termed "down and dirty" tactics against Bush. He said that he had passed his ideas to the Democratic National Committee but that the DNC seemed "afraid to do what I suggest."
Apparently Dan Rather wasn't quite so shy. But the bigger news is here:
In an Aug. 21 posting, Burkett referred to a conversation with former senator Max Cleland (D-Ga.) about the need to counteract Republican tactics: "I asked if they wanted to counterattack or ride this to ground and outlast it, not spending any money. He said counterattack. So I gave them the information to do it with. But none of them have called me back."
Cleland confirmed that he had a two- or three-minute conversation by cell phone with a Texan named Burkett in mid-August while he was on a car ride. He remembers Burkett saying that he had "valuable" information about Bush, and asking what he should with it. "I told him to contact the [Kerry] campaign," Cleland said. "You get this information tens of times a day, and you don't know if it is legit or not."
You don't think Max Cleland would be involved in a cheap attempt to smear Bush do you? Oh wait,he already did.
I think you are going to eventually find Terry McAuliffe's fingerprints on this somewhere. Burkett's contacts with Cleland provide the missing link to a true DNC link and the Kerry campaign. What Cleland should be asked now is who in the Kerry campaign did you refer him too?
CBS probably got the documents directly from Burkett but it looks like the DNC knew about them before hand and had a coordinated attack ready including one from proven "liar about his record" Tom Harkin:
REPORTERS ARE ALSO LOOKING at staff and associates of Sen. Tom Harkin, who enthusiastically held a press conference on Thursday morning using the forged documents as the tent pole for attacks against President Bush. Harkin called Bush a "liar."
"Harkin has been pushing this story for a while," says the CBS producer. "Not this specific story, but the 'Bush is a liar about his record' story. His people seemed particularly interested in making sure they could keep their boss up to date on what was going on."
That Harkin was the individual selected to be the attack dog on this particular issue was an interesting one, give (sic) that Harkin himself has a checkered history about telling the truth about his involvement in the Vietnam War.
There are too many ties between the DNC, its operatives, and Burkett to be a coincidence. Terry McAuliffe had the "Bush Lied about his Guard service" campaign all ready to go and continued to run with it days after the memos had been thouroughly discredited. This story still has a ways to go before we understand the full involvement of the Democrats. But it certainly doesn't look good for Kerry.
Thursday, September 16, 2004
HE WHO LEARNS NOTHING FROM HISTORY...
Nothing like quoting Nixon to get a liberal's panties in a wad:
"In the 1988 campaign we saw a striking example of how helpful an enemy can be. Nothing did more to eliminate George Bush's wimp image than his televised confrontation with Dan Rather. The media should have learned a lesson from the same event. When a commentator wants to hurt a candidate, he should not take him on frontally. A fight draws an audience and the audience usually backs the candidate or official under attack rather than his interrogator. A better way to hurt a candidate is to make the programs as dull as possible."
--Richard Nixon in his 1990 book, In the Arena.
Thanks to Ratherbiased.com.
SUPRISING NEW POLL NUMBERS
The Kerry campaign must be in full panic mode (if they weren't aready)over this.
Are "independent" voters breaking? I think it's too early to say that prior to the debates but with Bush now ahead in New Jersey and close in New York Kerry is inching closer to the edge of a hole that he won't be able to dig out of.
Via Drudge - THK from Mars Apparently!:
Teresa Heinz Kerry, encouraging volunteers as they busily packed supplies Wednesday for hurricane relief efforts in the Caribbean, said she was concerned the effort was too focused on sending clothes instead of essentials like water and electric generators.
"Clothing is wonderful, but let them go naked for a while, at least the kids," said Heinz Kerry, the wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites). "Water is necessary, and then generators, and then food, and then clothes."
Is Karl Rove running Kerry's campaign?
Yes..LET THEM EAT CAKE!
SULLIVAN GETS IT, WHY NOT CBS?
Although I violently disagree with Andrew Sullivan's opposition to President Bush (does he really support Kerry for president?) he hits the nail directly on the head with this post:
"How do I put this to Rather: it doesn't matter if the underlying story is true. All that matters is that CBS's evidence is fake. Get it? End of story. For what it's worth: I believe Bush got into the Guard because of his dad's connections. (although not proven I agree-ed). I believe he probably didn't perform his duties adequately in his final two years (perhaps but still no proof-ed.). When I first read the CBS story, I thought the docs were "devastating." (I don't agree here because I saw nothing new in them...the electorate had already been exposed to this and had already formed the basic opinion that Andrew has snd I share) .I'm not backing this president for re-election. (I am.) But all that is completely beside the frigging point. Journalists are supposed to provide accurate evidence for their claims. CBS didn't. And its response to the critics is to stonewall and try and change the subject. The correct response - the one they'd teach you in kindergarten journalism class - is immediately to check the authenticity of the documents as best you can, and if the doubts persist, to apologize immediately and yank the story. Can you imagine what CBS News would do if a government official found to be peddling fake documents refused to acknowledge it? And kept repeating his story nonetheless? They'd be all over it. But, you see, they are above politicians. They are above criticism. And they are stratospheres above bloggers who caught them red-handed.
Arrogant tools...all of them.
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
THE CORPSE IS ROTTING
CBS is dead. They are trotting out Wyatt Andrews to try and cover Dan Rather's ass. The story needs no recapping - I'm not going to spend the time to create all the links that everyone following this story has already visited and has bookmarked, especially while blogging here in my underwear (that's right Dan-0 I don't wear pajamas....asshole).
But...Killian's son says the story is false, Killian's widow says the story is false, the base secretary says the documents are fake but that the sentiments accurately portray Killian's (contradicted by the wife and son). Every document expert on earth has concluded that the "evidence" produced by CBS is false or, in the case of their own expert (Emily Will) questionable. Yet Dan Rather and CBS have the audacity not only to defend their second rate research but to further smear President Bush:
But he (Rather) also delivered a message to "our journalistic competitors," including The Washington Post and rival networks: "Instead of asking President Bush and his staff questions about what is true and not true about the president's military service, they ask me questions: 'How do you know this and that about the documents?' "
Come again? The story would not have been aired without the supporting evidence that Rather claimed the now discredited documents provided. So now he asks us to take his story seriously based on a woman in her eighties who acknowledges her distaste for the president (and claims that the documents are forgeries), Ben Barnes (a Kerry donor who has also contradicted himself on the subject) and (apparently the unnamed source) whack-job, Bill Burkett. Very convincing, a preponderance of the evidence I'd say old boy!
So Rather's position is that the people criticizing CBS are partisan, pajama-wearing, conservative funded wing-nuts (jeez, who forgot my CHECK!) whose relentless fact checking requires no response but the president of the United States should answer questions on whether or not he skipped a physical 30 years ago because of allegations based on forged government documents? Apparently this is what Brave Dan calls speaking truth to power:
"Look, we have accumulated a body of information based on some long reporting that lays out a different picture of then-Lieutenant Bush’s service," he said, "and we now have documents which to our own satisfaction we believe to be authentic, we believe to be true …. These are unpleasant truths. But they are truths. There was and is no joy in reporting them. But part of what reporters are supposed to do is ask questions, dig for facts and, when truths are found, share them with the public and, when called upon to do so, speak truth to power. This we did."
The important phrase here is "dig for facts and, when truths are found share them with the public..." - funny he didn't mention anything about fabricating or, as some apologists are speculating, re-creating evidence or passing on false documents without proper vetting as part of a reporter's duty. But apparently this issue is important enough for CBS News to spend FIVE YEARS...yes FIVE YEARS trying to coax these forgeries from a Bush-hating nut-job:
"Mr. Rather said that he and his longtime CBS producer, Mary Mapes, had investigated the story for nearly five years, finally convincing a source to give them the National Guard documents."
This is simply the story of an obsession gone bad. Rather and CBS wanted so badly to dig up a sensational story along the lines of "Bush was AWOL" that they sacrificed their journalistic integrity to do so. What I have a hard time understanding is why the executives at CBS don't throw Rather overboard in order to salvage a part of their reputation. Smart money bets that he doesn't last until election day.
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
NUTS IN VISE
Dan Rather, who if he had one ounce of integrity would have resigned by now, unbelievably continues the below the belt smear campaign against the president (from NRO via Allah). The segment, unmatched in its dishonesty, suggests that Laura Bush for some reason needs to provide evidence to support her opinion that the documents that CBS used to back the stories were forgeries (watch the video here):
ROBERTS: The president has yet to weigh in on new documents about his National Guard record made public last week by 60 minutes. But in a radio interview, First Lady Laura Bush became the first White House insider to publicly doubt their authenticity.
LAURA BUSH (From radio interview): You know, they probably are altered and they probably are forgeries.
ROBERTS: However, Laura Bush offered no evidence to back up her claim...
When the "preponderance of the evidence" suggests that they are forgeries why in the hell should Laura Bush have to offer the partisan hacks at the CBS/DNC any evidence? Just check with ABC News or the Washington Post. NO ONE with any shred of objectivity believes that CBS' documents supporting its charges are authentic - not even their own document examiners. The BALLS of Dan Rather must be enormous...and aching right now from the vise that is slowly tightening around them.
I wasn't intending to write about this tonight but I was so stunned by the continuing coordinated attack between CBS and the DNC:
TERRY McAULIFFE (Chairman, Democratic National Committee): If he lies about his military record, he's going to lie about his health care plan, his education leave no child behind, he's going to lie about job creation.
But what if it is Terry McAuliffe and CBS who are lying about Bush's military record? Does that then mean that everything else they say is untrue? And of course, McAuliffe is the same lunatic who suggested that the administration decided to attack Afghanistan because they wanted to build a pipeline across the country, not because al-Qaida was based there (what a genius).
Watch the video - does this appear to be a news organization that is defensive and on the brink of collapse? No. They are still full bore on the attack. Either they are the dumbest people this side of the Kerry campaign (a distinct possibility) or they know something we don't (I bet on the former).
Sunday, September 12, 2004
THE COFFIN NAILED SHUT AND DIRT PILED ON TOP
Captain Ed is really on top of it with a post quoting the Decatur (Alabama) Daily's investigative work that uncovered two men who have a little better memory (or a little more integrity) than "Texans for Truth":
Retired Master Sgt. James Copeland does not care so much whether people think President Bush went absent without leave in 1972, but one thing he hears bothers him plenty.
"Maybe the Bush family was well known in Texas, but we didn't know who he was here. He was just another guy in a flight jacket," Copeland said Sunday.
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.
Rumors say Bush went AWOL while assisting Winton "Red" Blount in an unsuccessful campaign for U.S. Senate focus on 1972 and 1973.
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.
Joe Holcombe, 71, of Joppa worked with Bush on the Blount campaign. He told THE DAILY last week that he remembers Bush missing at least one campaign meeting because of his National Guard drills.
If Dan Rather thinks that this story is important, as he obviously does since he decided to first air it and then stake his credibility (what little he previously had) on it, then why do we have to get interviews with people who could corroborate Bush's story from the Decatur Daily? Because this is a hatchet job attempted by CBS that's why.
I don't have any doubt that the documents in question are fakes. The question know is how deeply is the Kerry campaign involved and how badly will it hurt Kerry's already flagging election hopes.
MORE GOOD NEWS ON A SOMBER DAY
More good news for Bush in the latest Time polling:
Bush’s ratings on three key questions tied to electability have risen in recent weeks, but Bush still gets tentative scores on two of the three.
Job rating: Bush is now at 56% approve – 41% disapprove, solidly above the 50% historical threshold for re-electing incumbents. A month ago, he was up only 5 points, with his favorability just at 50%.
Deserves re-election?: Bush has cracked the 50% mark for the first time in recent Poll history, with 52% saying he deserves re-election, while 45% saying it’s time for someone new. Just a month ago, Bush was down by 12 points on deserving re-election.
Right Direction?: Voters are now almost evenly divided on whether the country is headed in the right direction or on the wrong track, 46% - 49%. However that’s up from 44% right direction – 51% wrong track in early August.
It is important to note that the polling was performed between September 7th and 9th, Tuesday through Thursday of last week, after the Dan Rather/60 Minutes smear job. Perhaps there wasn't enough time for the public's reaction to be assimilated into the numbers but my hunch is that the electorate was unmoved by the new "revelations" even before it was revealed that CBS was relying on documents of questionable origin.
Meanwhile the Kerry campaign continues its bizarre strategy of running to the left. During a speech to the Congressional Black Caucus on September 11 (which genius scheduled that, James Carville or Paul Begala?) Kerry continued the "Republicans are racists" meme that is red meat for his far left base but a lead albatross for his hopes to capture moderate voters:
"We are not going to stand by and allow acts of voter suppression, and we're hearing those things again in this election."
From whom are we hearing about acts of voter suppression? Maybe he's referring to Ralph Neas.
Kerry has a team of lawyers to examine possible voting problems to try to prevent a repeat of the 2000 election disputes. He also has said he has thousands of lawyers around the country prepared to monitor the polls on election day.
"What they did in Florida in 2000, some say they may be planning to do this year in battleground states all across this country," Kerry said. "Well, we are here to let them know that we will fight tooth and nail to make sure that this time, every vote is counted and every vote counts."
Well, it would be nice if the votes that are counted are limited to registered voters. And I suppose this means that the Kerry campaign will not repeat the efforts of Gore/Lieberman to challenge the ballots of overseas serviceman?
A really great theme to drive home on the third anniversary of the most devastating attack on our homeland since the British burned Washington in 1812. On a day when he should have been respecting the fallen and vowing to hold strong in prosecuting the war against Islamic Fascism across the globe, Kerry and his handlers decided to visit a group where he would be expected to hammer Bush along racial lines.
Keep up the good strategery boys!