35 children were killed and many more injured by Zarqawi for accepting candy from soldiers. No word on when MooreOn's movie will be coming out so he can rake in cash off the bodies of dead children. What? It isn't like he hasn't done it before. No word from the Iraq Body Count people yet on whether they have found a way to blame the US for this and thus add it to their total. I'm too mad to talk about this anymore right now. Michele at A Small Victory has more.

update: Wow, I was wrong. Legacy media really does have amazing powers of observation that are far beyond that or mere bloggers. Check out this report on tonight's debate (you know, the one that hasn't happened yet) for proof. I am in awe.
(hat tip vodkapundit)

While the legacy media types keep slagging bloggers for having the audacity to fact check their lazy, biased, condescending asses, we get another example why the professional media should be held in high esteem. Two New York Times reporters are being investigated for tipping off an alleged terrorist funding charity that it was about to be raided. Isn't that nice? It isn't like we are at war or anything. Oh, wait...

(hat tip, Captain's Quarters, Drudge)

update: Oh, this is rich, too. CBS is at it again, this time using phony documents to argue that the draft is making a comeback. I wonder why Fox has such high ratings these days and why blogs have become so popular?

I hope some friends of mine up north have had a chance to read this review (there is even a short version for Jon Stewart fans). From the reviews, Michael Wilson's impetus for making this movie exemplifies much of my outlook on life - that America is a place where you have opportunity - where we strive for equality of opportunity instead of guaranteeing equality of outcome regardless of level of striving.

excerpts:

Wilson: Basically, I made this movie because I wanted to stick up for my mom. Remember that scene in Bowling for Columbine where [Moore] tells you about Tamarla Owens? That she was in Michigan's Welfare to Work program, that she had to work two full-time jobs, that she had to travel by bus to get to them, and that she couldn't spend enough quality time with her six-year-old kid, so [her kid] acted out and shot a little girl? It was a national story. But no one in the media went, "Hey, wait a minute--what about this other stuff?" The other stuff was that the kid was living in a crack house because his mother had moved them there; that the gun was stolen; that the gun was traded to the kid's uncle for drugs; that the mother had been in trouble for child abuse and drug abuse; that the kid was extremely aggressive because he had learned in that environment that violence was the answer. Moore ignored all of that. He just cut right to what he wanted for his movie: Welfare to Work--bad. 'Cause Mom can't spend enough time with her kid.

CP: And that offended you.

Wilson: On a very personal level. My mom worked two full-time jobs when I was growing up--and she went to school full-time. And I never shot anybody, you know? We were poor. I grew up in Missouri in a house that was right between the projects and the trailer court. My mom worked really long hours, but she put her job as a mother first, you know? And to me, that's what you do as a parent: You make choices, you're accountable. And [Owens's] accountability is something that Michael Moore just took away. He said, "Nope--you don't have this. It's not your responsibility. Don't worry about it." I started looking at the rest of [Moore's] work, and I discovered that it's a really common theme: He sees America as this shithole full of rich guys and dark, shadowy figures--a place where the chips are always stacked against you. And to me that's the antithesis of America. I see America as a place where anything is possible--because of my mom's hard work and ambition, her drive, her success.

The file is also reviewed at National Review Online. Excerpt:

Wilson treads some of the same turf as Roger and Me, both thematically and physically, when he takes his camera to Flint. But Wilson spotlights the hope and promise in Flint's people, which he argues more truthfully reflects the spirit of America than Moore's wallowing in despair and powerlessness.

Instead of finding a crumbling, blighted city, Wilson sees hopeful signs of urban revival. Wilson juxtaposes these scenes of economic vitality with a shot of Moore from just about a year ago, sadly shaking his head as he writes off Flint: "It's a dead city."

According to Wilson, Moore's message to America is that if success doesn't come easily to you - if you can't make it - it isn't your fault. It's the fault of those fat-cat corporations and the politicians in their pocket. You are helplessly trapped by the grip of forces beyond your control. Moore's is a self-defeating message that doesn't empower people, but hobbles them.

Wilson couldn't disagree with that message more. Through interviews and examples (including his own Midwestern blue-collar background), he illustrates his belief that in America, through hard work and optimism, you can achieve anything. Ironically, nothing makes that point clearer than the careers of Michael Moore and, hopefully, Michael Wilson.

Can't wait to see it. Might even have to gift a copy to some of those friends up north! Which reminds me, I need to ask one of them what they thought of a certain book I sent. Actually, I don't need to ask - I am sure I already know. But it amused me to send it, and in the end, that's what matters, right?

Bwahahaha - this is wickedly funny. Click the picture. Background information here.

update:The Temptations lyrical take, it they had one: "I've got sunshine on a cloudy day with my girl."

And before any Donkeys get their panties in a wad, need I remind you of this? Now STFU.

update: J. Quinton at Backcountry Conservative has this update - the attacker has been arrested. Roy Edroso took exception to the original reporting of this story, questioning certain aspects of it, such as "why hasn't the assailant been arrested?" and some of his commenters implied that Barton set this up himself somehow to avoid going back to Iraq. Asshats. Of course, they doubted this story as well. Can't blame them - I imagine I would be so embarassed by such antics of those whose side I am on that I would have to sink into denial as well. update: I realize that not all, and in fact, probably very few, on the left endorse this kind of non-sense, as commenter Andy points out. This snarky attack should have been more directly aimed at Roy Edroso and his commenters who show obvious disdain for soldiers and anyone on the right. update: reviewing further, Roy is not nearly as deserving of attack as some of his commenters were. Note to self - don't post drunk or tired. [so much for blogging then, huh? -ed.]

original post:
Rall says that the whole "babykiller" treatment that returning vets got was a myth - it never happened. It is merely a tragic cliche used to suppress anti-war sentiment..

Apparently, the 6 assailants, who are no doubt peace loving anti-war loyal oppositionist fans of Rall, and who attacked this soldier at a concert, didn't feel to surpressed. The soldier's crime? Wearing an Iraqi Freedom T-shirt.

At least they weren't ripping campaign signs from a 3 year old engage in peaceful assembly at a political rally (this time).

Nice.

(via Drudge)

After Rathergate, I don't know how anyone can say that Fox is the Faux News Channel. Apparently, millions of viewers agree. Fox beat all of its competitors - COMBINED. Things that make you go hmmm...

update: Hindrocket of Powerline fame also notices the surge in support among younger voters:

Interesting. In some ways, the President whom Bush most resembles is Ronald Reagan. Young people were always Reagan's strongest demographic. In this election, it may be that young people, who tend to be optimistic and confident by nature, are turned off by John Kerry's defeatism. It may be, too, that young people have less solid connections to either party than older voters, and so view Kerry (and Bush too) more objectively.

I think these are good arguments for why younger voters are supporting Bush. Another may be that many young people know some soldiers that were classmates who are now serving in the military. Soldiers and their supporters alike are sick of hearing the smears made against the military by those who claim Abu Ghraib was the norm and are cognizant of the claims by the SBVT that Kerry is one who has slimed the military before.

update: More interesting analysis here and here. Even Teresa can't spin this as good news.

original post:
CNN/Gallup shows Bush opening an 8 point lead among likely voters. Even more interesting, it is showing him with a 13 point lead among registered voters. Why is that interesting? Well, it reverses last weeks results, which showed a 13 point lead among likelies and an 8 point lead among registereds. That 13 point lead among likelies last week was dismissed by Michael Moore:

The polls are wrong. They are all over the map like diarrhea. On Friday, one poll had Bush 13 points ahead -- and another poll had them both tied. There are three reasons why the polls are b.s.: One, they are polling "likely voters." "Likely" means those who have consistently voted in the past few elections. So that cuts out young people who are voting for the first time and a ton of non-voters who are definitely going to vote in THIS election. Second, they are not polling people who use their cell phone as their primary phone. Again, that means they are not talking to young people. Finally, most of the polls are weighted with too many Republicans, as pollster John Zogby revealed last week.You are being snookered if you believe any of these polls.

So what to make of this? Why despite having larger number of registered votes in his party is Kerry farther behind among registered voters than likely voters? I think the answer is obvious - Democrat voters are realizing that Moore was right about one thing:

Dammit, of COURSE Kerry's [he's] a lousy candidate -- he's a Democrat, for heavens sake! That party is so pathetic, they even lose the elections they win!

It seems to me that the discrepancy of numbers of registered voters by party compared to these poll results is best explained by large numbers of registered Democrats who don't intend to vote at all. They used to be anybody but Bush voters until the Kerry campaign started to implode, now they will just sit this one out. Moore's assertion that the polls are wrong because young people aren't being counted, shows how out of touch with reality he is - young voters are supporting Bush. Furthermore, given that Kerry is disillusioning even his own base, it is unlikely that he is going to inspire some illusory hoard of non-voters, that apparently only Michael Moore is aware of, to go out and vote. Lastly, he fails to account for something about those other polls showing a smaller lead - they overcounted Democrats and they failed to take into account the fallout of Rathergate. Mickey Kaus didn't miss it though:

One obvious possible way to half-reconcile the divergent polls, suggested by Rasmussen's robo-survey. Wednesday 9/15, when the probable Danron forgery began to sink in, was a gruesome day for Kerry. The Harris poll (Kerry up 1) stopped Monday. The Pew poll (Kerry down 1) stopped on Tuesday. Gallup (Kerry down 14) includes Kerry's bleak Wednesday.

Obviously if the polls are still divergent, that would shoot down this last argument regarding the impact of Rathergate. Time will tell.

Ok, that is one of his song titles and not a quote from this article. Here is a real quote from the article:

"Who would you trust to make your decisions, (Secretary of Defense) Donald Rumsfeld or the Dixie Chicks?"

Cowboys know the answer to that question.

(hat tip to NE Republican)

Some of us understand that Abu Ghraib was an aberration and that you are laying your lives on the line fighting the global war on terror.

We Support You.

update: NE Republican has more on "Shameful Politics."

update: This link to a piece by Christopher Hitchens is buried below, but it deserves special attention. RTWT.

original post:
Who do our "allies (France and German)" fear winning?

Allah has an indepth look at this issue.

Not only is terrorism a political issue, it's a political issue that's killing the Democrats, and if you want to know why, look no further. You can't spend three years telling people George Bush is a bigger villain than Osama bin Laden and then, come election time, expect them to take your approach to terrorism seriously

Read it all. Follow the links.

Starting to understand how hypocritical and disingenuous this McCarthy-ite whining from the Democrats is? For yet another example, refresh your memories about this Teresa Heinz Kerry financed group that has politicized 9/11.

Now go out and punish the candidate that puts personal and party ambition above the national interest. Punish the candidate that insults and undermines our true allies while courting those that say they will never help us. Punish the party that thinks clever gotchas are more important and profound than actual ideas if those ideas are expressed in garbled syntax. Punish the party that latches onto things like a banner that said "Mission Accomplished" as proof that Bush doesn't get it, all the while presenting no plan to accomplish the mission.

Send a message that political ambition should never be more important that national security. That there is a way to express dissent without demonization and division, especially during war time. That while other issues are not unimportant, preventing terrorism is the most important issue facing us. It isn't without precedent. Republicans voted for Clinton because of the economy. Democrats voted for Reagan because of his vision for America. Bush is flawed but workable, the alternative is beyond repair. If you don't want to take my word for it, and I don't blame you, listen to what self described former-Trotskyite Christopher Hitchens has to say. More from Hitchens here:

What will it take to convince these people that this is not a year, or a time, to be dicking around? Americans are patrolling a front line in Afghanistan, where it would be impossible with 10 times the troop strength to protect all potential voters on Oct. 9 from Taliban/al-Qaida murder and sabotage. We are invited to believe that these hard-pressed soldiers of ours take time off to keep Osama Bin Laden in a secret cave, ready to uncork him when they get a call from Karl Rove? For shame.

Dissent is a healthy part of democracy. Blind loyalty to a party isn't. War has been declared on us, and only one of the candidates appears to understand the gravity of the situation. The Bush Doctrine encompasses is the only way this war will be won by our side - the side of civiliation. It is working for Israel, and it will work for us, if we have what it takes to stay the course. Bush has what it takes, Kerry doesn't.

update: Outstanding news - CNN is reporting that the two women hostages pictured below were not beheaded as claimed by a previously unknown Islamofascist group, and have in fact been freed. Not so good news is the unsubstantiated as of yet reports that there was a million dollar ransom paid.

orginal post:
The people that sick fuck Michael Moore roots for have beheaded another hostage, reports Fox News. In Michael Moore's world, these men are apparently heroes - while his fellow Americans are the evil ones.

update: A look into the mindset of the "revolutionaries" that Moore glorifies:

Now, you have people who love death just like you love life. Killing for the sake of God is their best wish, getting to your soldiers and allies are their happiest moments, and cutting the heads of the criminal infidels is implementing the orders of our Lord.

For more, see this post.

update: Looks like Michael Moore's revolutionary minute men, the ones he says should not be described in Orwellian terms such as terrorist, may have now taken to beheading women. Pray it isn't true and that these women who were there as charity workers and who had openly criticised the U.S. invasion of Iraq are still alive.

(hat tip to Dr. Rusty Shackleford)

Did you see Part 1 of the interview? Parts 2 and 3 air tonight and tomorrow night. What do you notice? I am sure Bush haters took nothing more from it than how much they can't stand that goofy facial expression that they call a smirk - the one he has as he listens to a question. Imagine that, listending to a question thoughtfully so one can answer it. I honestly believe that that is one of the reasons BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) sufferers hate him. It is typical of their criticisms, which are all style and no substance.

What I was impressed with was the obvious convictions he has. Agree or disagree, he knows what he believes and that is why he can articulate it with confidence. Unlike Kerry, who is still searching for a message that will resonate with voters and has to try to formulate answers that aren't further examples of him flip flopping. That says about everything you need to know right now - Kerry is saying stuff that he hopes will get him elected instead of speaking from conviction. That leads to his plodding, verbose, incomprehensible style of speaking. Kerry keeps getting compared to Dukakis, but one thing different about Dukakis was that he stuck to what he believed, regardless of the popularity of his positions.

update: Now one of Bush's former commanders has come forward on his own with information that Bush did, in fact, volunteer for Vietnam service. Isn't it ironic that the man who didn't campaign on Vietnam is the only one getting any benefit from all the Vietnam talk? Maybe this is a hint for candidate in future elections that they should focus in current issues instead of divisively rehashing the past? Oh, and that it might be useful to not have spent your time badmouthing your "band of brothers", meeting with the enemy in Paris, and throwing away your medals. (via InstaPundit, who also points out that this information was known and published at least as far back as February.)

original post:
Bill Archer had this comment on my The Unimpeachable Source post. It provides some answers to those who think that President Bush should have to answer the substance of the charges presented in the forged memo smear job. Thank you, Bill, for taking the time to provide this information.

First, his reference to George Bush's "gaps in service" is a non-sequiter. After flight training, which involved upwards of two years on essentially active duty, the only requirement for "service" was the yearly accumulation of 50 service points.

There is no "you must show up every other weekend" type of arrangement involved here. The left keeps finding new ways to imply otherwise (deserter, AWOL etc.) but however they want to phrase it, the truth is that they're just wrong.

If you completed your requirements by showing up every day for a month and then didn't come around again for a year, there was no problem. It would be nice if the left would even TRY to get their heans around this concept, but they simply can't seem to do it.

Or, rather, they simply don't want to.

Secondly, could we please stop conceding the "of course Bush got preferential treatment and people pulled strings to get him into the guard blah, blah, blah" line?

The fact is that, apart from the testimony of this Barnes guy, the major Kerry fundraiser whose own daughter says he is lying about the whole thing (and who, at any rate, told Rather thay he pulled strings for Bush while serving as Texas Lt Governor, but in fact did not assume that job until several months AFTER Bush entered service) there is no evoidence of this whatever.

It is simply an ASSUMPTION. The press, most of whom was not even around back then, refers to this as a "coveted National Guard spot" and others refer to the "long waiting lists" which Bush clearly leapfrogged.
But in fact, an examination done in 1999 by a Dallas newspaper proved that, in fact, Bush signed up to fill one of many empty slots.

For while it is true that, Nationally, one of the favored methods of avoiding the draft was to get into the Guard, these "coveted" spots were for positions like "clerk-typist" which required only a three month active duty trainng period.

On the contrary, becoming an F102 pilot, as Bush did, required an intial two-year active duty traing committment, and these spots went begging.

Furthermore, at the time Bush enlisted in the 111th, the unit was ACTIVELY SERVING IN VIETNAM.

Johnson later brought them home, as he did most Guard units, as a political sop, but neither Bush nor anybody else knew this would happen.

In any case, the unit Bush joined, at the time he joined it, had an authorized roster of over 900 men, but had over 100 vacancies. Nobody had to pull any strings to get him in.

Indeed, even as late as 1970 the the unit had under 50% of the "Lt. Grade" positions (ie. Bush's job) filled. They would have been glad to take, say, Bill CLinton or anybody else who had an interest.

Now as the war wound down the Air Force had a glut of pilots. Many were being assigned to desk duty. Guard officers were routinely granted early outs if they had an acceptance in hand from a graduate school. (My own brother was a Naval Reserve officer on active duty on the FOrrestal around the same time. He got accepted to law school and they let him go 10 months early. The war was over and they just didn't need the manpower)
So this whole thing about Bush getting one of these "coveted" spots is, essentially, a myth, and I'd like to see it get challenged once in a while instead of "Bush got favors because he was well-connected" being the default starting position for the whole discussion.

Read this article over at Junkyard Blog discussing how Michael MooreOn is undermining troop morale to line his oversized pockets as they fight what he calls the revolutionary minutemen who are now beheading women in Iraq.

If this makes you mad as hell, then join in to help counter the Big Fat Stupid White Man by buying a copy of Farenhype 9/11 (available here for $9) - a movie that debunks Moore's insidious bullshit - and sending it to the troops in Iraq. Go to the Junkyard Blog link at the top for more details on how to help. Then go buy a soldier a beer.

update: Sure enough, Burkett is so loony and hard to understand, that the source for the story about Lockhart begging for the memos, the Fort Worth Star Telegram, realized only after several reviews of its interview with him that he was referring to CBS. Showing once again how implausible it was that CBS honestly believed this guy was an unimpeachable source - the guy seemingly makes crap up, is indecipherable, and like Kerry is willing to say anything to hurt Bush.

update: We already know that Burkett is probably batshit and we can't put much stock in anything he says, but watch as Legacy Media launches a Kerry-esque flip-flop and begins smearing their once unimpeachable and well regarded Texan. INDC Journal feels we are rapidly approaching the end game on this.

update: Drudge is reporting the following, no links yet, says the story is developing:

CONTROVERSIAL TEXAS RANCHER SAYS LOCKHART WANTED DOCUMENTS // The source of a disputed CBSNEWS report claimed Thursday that Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart tried to "convince me as to why I should give them the documents." Texas Army National Guard Lt. Col. Bill Burkett tells the FORT WORTH STAR-TELEGRAM that he has suffered four seizures since being identified as CBS' source and dogged by the media... Developing...

The tireless Allah adds some thoughts and speculation on Burketts motives for this statement.

original post:
Burkett claims to have given the bogus documents to Max Cleland. How long until the really big other shoe drops and we find out that the Kerry Campaign and CBS orchestrated this attack? Isn't it obvious? How did the Fortuanate Son campaign ad, which not so coincidentally aired the day after the 60 II minutes piece, have footage from the Dan Rather smear in it? Are we honestly supposed to believe that Joe Lockhart talked to Bill Burkett and the subject of these memos never came up? Burkett has been trying like hell to get ahold of the campaign and he didn't mention it? Of course he did - that is why he wanted to talk to them. Are we then expected to believe that while Kerry was getting battered in the polls, Lockhart and Cleland ignored this explosive new "evidence" that Bush didn't meet his obligations to the TANG? This from the people who so desperately want to believe that the SBVT guys, all 200+ of them, are Bush puppets.

It will be fun to watch all the Kerry supporters squirm as they desperately try to change the subject now. They are almost as big of flip floppers as their candidate. Kerry brought up Vietnam to make up for not having a record and to show he would be tough in the war on terror. Along come the swifties, and we are told that Vietnam isn't the issue. The Kerry-ites change their tune almost immediately when the forged documents surface - now Vietnam is an issue and Bush should explain what he was doing while Kerry was off being a war hero. Oops, the docs are forgeries, and there are links between the source and the Kerry campaign. Time to spout the new old party line - we need to talk about issues, not Vietnam (but Bush should still answer these serious questions!). Kerry supporters got the candidate they deserve - too bad the rest of us have him has one of two choices on such an important ballot.

update: Jim Geraghty of the Kerry Spot at NRO noticed this bombshell in the making being reported by the RNC:

9 HOURS BEFORE THE CBS REPORT: "Democratic Party chairman Terry McAuliffe said, 'George W. Bush's cover story on his National Guard service is rapidly unraveling. ... George W. Bush needs to answer why he regularly misled the American people about his time in the Guard and who applied political pressure on his behalf to have his performance reviews 'sugarcoated.'" (Terence Hunt, "Questions Raised About Bush Guard Service," The Associated Press, 9/9/04)

There is a complete timeline of events at the GOP site with interesting questions that seem to answer the question in the title of this article. RTWT.
(hat tip to Allah)

update: Geraghty is retracting portions of the claim above. A DNC spokesman explains this particular "coincidence" but I would submit that the evidence is still pretty strong that somebody in the campaign new something, as evidenced by all the other "coincidences" in the timeline link and based on the fact that it strains credulity to believe that Lockhart and Burkett didn't discuss these memos.

The Belmont Club has an interesting analysis of the relationship between the size of a group and its effectiveness. It makes a good case for the Bush Doctrine by showing that eliminating regimes that harbor terrorists, like the Taliban, makes it impossible to maintain the discipline required to form larger, more effective groups.

Next up at the Belmont Club is an analysis of how Israel has defeated the Intifada, and how it provides yet another endorsement of the Bush Doctrine. In this article, is part of a quote from Shakespeare's MacBeth, which to me sums up the current direction of Senator Kerry and his campaign:

...a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

LGF notices Teresa getting in on the act, while also engaging in some draft scaremongering and conspiracy theorizing that makes it sound as if she hopes Bin Laden is not caught before the election lest it hurt her husband's chances at getting elected.

Captain Ed has received an email from a soldier's father yesterday with some choice words for Senator Kerry regarding one of his numerous positions on Iraq - his plan to cut and run in two years in one year in six months in four years soon:

I also wonder if Senator Kerry realizes that he is partially responsible for the recent upswing in violence. This, by the way, is not speculation... this is straight from one of my interpreter's mouth.

Follow the link to read the rest. Ed also notes who is firmly in Kerry's camp on this cut and run policy - noted military strategist and crisis management expert, Jimmy Carter.

update: Say Anything. That seems to be Kerry's stategy to regain power for the Democrats, which apparently is a more noble aspiration than winning the war we are engaged in with Islamofascism. Powerline, in an article on this topic, links to an editorial from the New York Post entitled "Dead Soldiers" which opens with this paragraph:

IMAGINE if, in the presiden tial election of 1944, the can didate opposing FDR had in sisted that we were losing the Second World War and that, if elected, he would begin to withdraw American troops from Europe and the Pacific.

Isn't that like asking why is water wet or why is the sky blue? It just is. New England Republican found the following in an e-newsletter from the SBVT:

CBS decided to air a report calling into question Bush's truthfulness about his National Guard service. Ignoring the fact that the President has signed the form permitting the release of ALL of his military records and the fact that he has confronted this issue multiple times (in Texas and nationally), the big guys at "60 Minutes," led by their fearless leader Dan Rather, decided to plunge ahead anyway. Interestingly, the evidence for their hit-piece-disguised-as-an-investigative-report has been discredited.

Unlike the way they treated Barnes and the forged memos, Rather and his cronies have not breathlessly pursued interviews with, investigative reports on, or even positive coverage of the anti-Kerry Swiftees or their book Unfit for Command. In fact, the media have done the opposite, ignoring the substance of their charges and negatively reporting on the group itself as a right-wing, Bush propaganda machine. Somehow the press have missed the fact that, unlike President Bush, John Kerry has yet to fully release all of his military records, which is what the Swiftees have been urging all along. In stark contrast to the "60 Minutes" report, the evidence for Unfit for Command has yet to be disproved -- in fact, its veracity continues to be held up.

That is the reaction of one Vietnam veteran to some comments made by Bill O'Reilly in an interview with James Carville, contained in an email I received:

Bill O'Reilly just told James Carville, tonight, that if John Kerry would just apologize to Vietnam vets all this Swift Boat stuff would just go away.

That statement clearly demonstrates the O'Reilly never has had a grasp of the problem that Vietnam veterans have with John Kerry and still does not. O'Reilly is in over his head on this issue but refuses to admit it. He claims he’s been fair to all sides but I was watching the night he dismissed the Swiftees as smear artists.

We need to let O'Reilly know what value we place on a meaningless apology from a serial liar. Please contact Bill at:
oreilly@foxnews.com
and let him know what veterans think about his opinion that our thirty years of anger can be assuaged with more lying words from a turncoat traitor. Go Troops!

Airborne and God bless America.

Russ Vaughn
2d Bn, 327th Parachute Infantry Regiment
101st Airborne Division
Vietnam 65-66

Thank you, Russ, for your service and for your comments.

Can you smell the desperation? Kerry and company are reduced to parroting the draft reinstatement scaremongering ravings from the fever swamps in campaign speeches. This comes on the heel's of Kerry claims that Bush lives in a make believe world and attacks Democrats on phony issues. John Kerry - the say anything candidate. Disgusting and disgraceful.

Instapundit also points out that the only ones talking about reinstating the draft are Democrats.

I mentioned earlier that Drudge was reporting that Bush officials want Bob Schieffer of CBS removed as a moderator for one of the upcoming Presidential Debates. In another post, I asked if the Kerry campaign people will ever tire of getting worked by the Bush campaign.

Apparently not, as this analysis of the brilliance of the Bush campaign points out.

Also, how stupid is Terry Mcauliffe to want to keep this story going by demanding answers from the Republicans about who was behind this?

Turns out that was quite an understatement by Kofi Anan. Claudia Rosett continues to expose the corruption that was Oil For Food.

And oh what a lot of business the U.N. did. Mr. Annan's Secretariat collected more than $1.4 billion in commissions on Saddam's oil sales, all to supervise the integrity of Saddam's $65 billion in oil sales and $46 billion in relief purchases. The official aim of this behemoth U.N. aid operation was solely to help the people of Iraq, while the U.N. waited for sanctions to weaken Saddam enough so he would be either overthrown from within or forced to comply with U.N. resolutions on disarmament. Instead, Saddam threw out the U.N. weapons inspectors for four years, and, by estimates of the U.S. General Accounting Office, fortified his own regime with at least $10.1 billion grafted and smuggled out of Oil-for-Food.

In late 2002, while Mr. Annan was lobbying against U.S.-led removal of Saddam, he was running a U.N. program in which money meant for baby formula, among other goods, was very likely flowing into the pockets of Saddam and his sons and cronies.

Mr. Annan is due to step down next year. If he wants to leave a legacy more auspicious than having presided over Oil-for-Fraud, he might want to devote his twilight time at the U.N. to mending a system in which a U.N. Secretary-General feels free to describe the overthrow of a murderous tyrant as "illegal," but no one at the top seems particularly bothered to have presided over that tyrant's theft of food from hungry children.

Somebody should alert Kerry before he gets too far down this path he is on now of saying that he would have given sanctions and inspections more time to work.

That is the powerful reminder in this flash animation linked to by Powerline this morning. Like the folks at Powerline, my reason for caring so much about this and inspiration for putting in the time it takes to maintain this site, is summed up by this quote:

Thomas Paine: "If there must be trouble let it be in my time, that my child may have peace."

last update to this thread: Here is your unimpeachable source in all his unimpeachable glory.

udpate: Is Sylvia Moreno of the Washington Post Dan Rather's mom or Bill Burkett's? Is she even talking about the same person from this article in the Houston Chronicle? Amazing. Just what is the standard for being a "Well-Regarded Texan?" Judging by the treatment they have received from the legacy media, I think we know - a well-regarded Texan is one that hates Bush and compares him to Hitler. It isn't guys who dislike Kerry for his anti-military comments after he got back from Vietnam. Why in the hell would the WaPo willingly try to jump in the credibility black hole generated by the collapse of CBS? This information on Burkett is not hard to find. Moreno even found some of lunatic Burkett's postings on a web site - she had to have run across the Hitler stuff and the wacko conspiracy theories. Legacy media needs to wake up to the reality that their BS isn't that hard to detect anymore.

update: Things don't get any better. First Rather decided to throw (grand)mama under the train, trying to take the heat from himself by asking her a bunch of leading questions about stuff that last week she said she had no recollection of. Now, even more evidence that the alleged source of these documents is a rabid Bush hating moonbat. Key excerpts:

Even Burkett has admitted some of his allegations are false.

If Burkett is the source of the CBS documents he must have recently obtained them.

In earlier interviews, he described years of fruitless searching.

One month ago, in an essay posted on a progressive Web site, Burkett theorized that Killian would have been a likely person to know more about Bush's service. But, he conceded, "I have found no documentation from LTC Killian's hand or staff that indicate that this unit was involved in any complicit way to ... cover for the failures of 1Lt. Bush ... " Burkett went on to say, "On the contrary, LTC Killian's remarks are rare."

In an article Burkett wrote for the Internet last year he compared Bush to Hitler and Napoleon as one of "the three small men" who sought to rule through tyranny. "Three small men who wanted to conquer and vanquish," Burkett wrote. Burkett confirmed authorship of that article in the February Chronicle interview.

update: Jeff Goldstein has, well, just go there.

original post: It looks like the unimpeachable source is Bill Burkett. The same media types that dismissed the SBVT guys as partisan cranks has been embracing this Bush hating loon who has been discredited by even his own friends. Now Rather wants Bush to answer these charges, saying that even if the documents are false, the story is true. Fact is, this crank has been making these charges for years and they have been answered. No wonder Rather didn't want to give up his source. Now all he has to rely on is the memories of Killian's now 86 year old secretary, another Bush hater, who apparently can recall details of memos she typed 35 years ago. Even if that was believable, which it isn't, why are her recollections given more weight than those of Killian's widow and son? Just last week, Knox had this to say:

Last week, Knox said she had no firsthand knowledge of Bush's time with the Texas Air National Guard, although she did recall a culture of special treatment for the sons of prominent people, such as Bush and others.

(emphasis mine - so the new smoking gun is a pool secretary who has more intimate knowledge of Killian than his family and all she has to say is that there was a "culture of special treatment" for people "such as Bush and others" - this is it?!?!)

Those who think Bush should have to answer these charges yet again, in spite of the fact the evidence is manufactured, must believe that the ends justify the means. A friend of mine likes to tell me that he believes that the ends don't justify the means whenever we discuss the liberation of Iraq. I think it is a philosophy that applied to everything for him - in this case I just might agree with him. Dan Rather will, too, by the time this is over.

Watch the video.

It isn't hard to imagine that Saddam and the UN's Oil for Palaces program was diverting money to terrorists. Anyone with intellectual honesty would admit that pretty much everyone agreed that Saddam was a threat before the war, and that if he didn't have WMD, he was trying to acquire them and had possessed and used them in the past. Kerry's stance? Good question.

In his own words, he was for the war before he was against it. Then he was for it again, admitting that he would vote for it knowing what he knows now. Now he says he would have done everything different. In an interview with Don Imus the other day, he couldn't even answer a question about where he stands, instead saying "Ask Bush." Imus, a Kerry supporter, couldn't make heads or tails of Kerry's position either and expressed frustration about that on his show.

Why can't Kerry take a position? Because half of his base is against the war, the other half is for it. He alienates parts of his base no matter what he says. What he apparently fails to understand is that pandering to the anti-war crowd is why he won't get any crossover votes - there aren't many anti-war Bush supporters.

In addition to being an unsound strategy, it is also morally bankrupt. The people being catered to are the ones that say that Bush in his zealousness for war in Iraq failed to finish the job in Afghanistan. They don't mention that they were against that war as well. While we have been in Iraq, fighting in a way meant to minimize civillian deaths , this contingent of Kerry's base was busy posting Iraqi Body Counts on their websites, gleefully pouncing on the Abu Ghraib photos, and revelling in every bit of bad news as evidence of a Vietnam quagmire. Now, after tieing the hands of our military and the President, they want to criticize the way Bush has fought the war in Iraq. And Kerry is catering to this crowd talking about his secret plan to get out of Iraq and saying he would have done everything differently without ever getting into details.

There is no way that I trust Kerry to embrace the Bush Doctrine and take the fight to the terrorists. While I don't doubt his patriotism, I don't trust him to fight the war - especially not the way I think it should be fought.

Michelle Malkin has the final word on this incident, where a union activist ripped a campaign sign away from a 3 year old, tore it up, and threw it at her and her father. Moonbats, as they are wont to do, blamed Karl Rove claimed that it was a setup, that the man who did this was the little girl's brother. Never mind the obvious flaw in this theory - that the girl was crying because of actions of her brother, making her one hell of an actress. The leader of the union that the man doing the sign ripping is a member of has identified him and issued an apology.

Now that the truth is known, I will post this picture. Keep this image in mind the next time you hear one of your favorite moonbats talking about Bush's crushing of dissent in America. Also take heed of the moonbats assertion that it would be insane to bring your child to one of their rallies if you don't agree with them. Then realize that they are probably right when you consider that this is much tamer than the behavior of the protesters in NYC at the RNC.

Jonah Goldberg lays out in simple terms the situation in Iraq and the decision we face in the coming election:

So sure, Bush hasn't done everything right - never mind perfectly - in Iraq. Churchill didn't conduct World War II perfectly every time either. Dunkirk wasn't the sort of thing that happens when the war goes swimmingly. But Bush gets all of this. John Kerry doesn't, in my opinion. Or, to be more accurate, John Kerry "gets" everything and therefore nothing. If the choice were between Bush and a better commander-in-chief, I might not vote for Bush. But that's not the choice, now is it?

Iditots. Scumbags. That's what Teresa thinks of anyone critical of her or her husband. She also has pearls of wisdom on children - let them go naked! If they happen to be your stepchildren, treat them like pets! If you don't like her criticism and advice, you can shove it.

What title would she have if someway, somehow, her husband gets elected? First Lady sure doesn't seem to fit, does it?

Mark Steyn, as only Mark Steyn can, hoists JFK with his own petard. Money quote:

Primary season gives the party's electorate a chance to rattle the leading candidate and make him a better campaigner. This time round the leading candidates - Dean, Clark - rattled the electorate and in their stampede to the fire exits they wound up sweeping the quintessential "None of the Above" man to victory. They made a very basic miscalculation: Howard Dean was a dull centrist governor pretending to be nuts, John Kerry is a nut passing himself off as a dull centrist.

RTWT.

O'Reilly keeps talking about right wing bomb throwing bloggers and talk radio personalities being unfair to Dan Rather. He keeps saying that there is no way Rather would go to air with documents he knew were flawed. It has been pointed out to him repeatedly that Rather and Co. ignored their own experts, disregarded sources that contradicted their story, relied on political partisan operatives for basic facts, and stood by the story long after it was discredited. O'Reilly agrees, but then in the next breath says that Rather would never risk his reputation by purposely doing these things - that it is the fault of the producers, Dan just reads the stories. Fine, but they aren't the ones who said they personally stand by this story, that the documents are from an unimpeachable source, that attacked those who exposed the lie as partisan political operatives. Rather did that.

Bill castigated those who called Rather on it. His arrogance in doing so has been stunning - he refused to join "speculation" that the documents were forgeries because he hadn't done his own investigation - apparently the work of forensic document experts wasn't good enough for him. Nor was the word of a guest on his own show - a woman that CBS had hired to authenticate the documents who told both CBS and O'Reilly that she could not do so. But now he says he has been right about this story all along.

So why is O'Reilly being carrying water for Dan? At first, it seemed that it must be out of some sort of Legacy Media stick togetherness and arrogance. No doubt, that is part of it. The rest is either fear or just plain old fashioned ass kissing, which became clear today when Bill announced on his radio show that 60 Minutes is doing a piece on him. Seems like it would be more fair and balanced if this were disclosed in the context of his continuing sycophantic defense of Rather.

update: added some links that were intended to be in the original post, namely the Fat Man's email address and an article debunking his poor boy from Flint bullshit. Also make sure to see the updates.

From another of his self-important rants:

...If I hear one more person tell me how lousy a candidate Kerry is and how he can't win... Dammit, of COURSE he's a lousy candidate -- he's a Democrat, for heavens sake! That party is so pathetic, they even lose the elections they win! What were you expecting, Bruce Springsteen heading up the ticket? Bruce would make a helluva president, but guys like him don't run -- and neither do you or I. People like Kerry run.

Delusional Moore does now put a face on evil, however (no, not here):

Just for me, please? Buck up. The country is almost back in our hands. Not another negative word until Nov. 3rd! Then you can bitch all you want about how you wish Kerry was still that long-haired kid who once had the courage to stand up for something. Personally, I think that kid is still inside him. Instead of the wailing and gnashing of your teeth, why not hold out a hand to him and help the inner soldier/protester come out and defeat the forces of evil we now so desperately face. Do we have any other choice?

Yes, just for good old Michael Moore, who by the way, as even his email address, mmflint@aol.com, falsely attests, is from Flint. Its always about The Big Fat Stupid White Man who's always trying to figure out the riddle "Dude, Where's My Country" isn't it? It's about Michael 3 cheeseburgers Moore, who uses sources like Bill Burkett for movies to make millions of dollars off the corpses of terrorist victims and soldiers.

Pathetic lying parasitic scum of the earth dirtbag calls fellow Americans evil while the truly evil were busy beheading another civillian today.

update: For some insight into the "progressive mind" and what it considers evil, take a peek here, and don't miss the first comment from Nemesis. To be fair, many other commenters point out what an asshole that commenter is and note the irony of holding up Zarqawi as an arbiter of woman's rights. Some however, seem to do so only because the guy was an ordinary working stiff - if he were a member of the military or burgeousie, apparently beheading would have been to good for him.

Via Drudge:

BUSH OFFICIALS WANT CBSNEWS MODERATOR OFF DEBATE

Just hours after CBSNEWS admitted it cannot prove the authenticity of documents used in a 60 MINUTES story about President Bush's National Guard service, top Bush advisers are recommending a CBS reporter be removed as moderator of a planned presidential debate, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

At question is the approved Oct. 13 debate at Arizona State University in Tempe with Bob Schieffer, chief Washington correspondent for CBSNEWS, moderating.

"Considering the circumstances, we should definitely ask that Schieffer be replaced," a top Bush adviser told the president on Monday, according to a well-placed source.

The well-placed source continued: "Who can trust these CBS people to play it straight [during the debate]? I suspect they will be out for revenge."

The president is said to have not made any decision whether to seek a removal of the planned CBSNEWS moderator.

Meanwhile, a second official associated with the Kerry campaign admits talking to Burkett about the phony baloney documents used in Rather's smear job, at the behest of CBS no less. Of course, the lamestream media at this point accepts at face value from both Max Cleland and Joe Lockhart that the contacts were brief and unmemorable. Of course it was - even though Kerry was reeling after the SBVT ads and a wildly successful Republican convention, they paid no attention to a guy saying he had ammunition they could use to fight back with. Who could doubt that they paid no attention to Burkett?

update: Did I say two big time Democrats? I meant three (hat tip to allah). USA Today is reporting that Burkett also spoke with Howard Dean. It also says the CBS exchanged access to Joe Lockhart for the documents Burkett was holding. I have been saying this from the minute the story broke - since when is it the job of the media to engage in unsubstantiated political smears, the exact thing which they accuse the Swift Boat Vets of.

The story also has this quote from White House spokesman Dan Bartlett:

The White House said CBS' contact with Lockhart was inappropriate. "The fact that CBS News would coordinate with the most senior levels of Sen. Kerry's campaign to attack the President is a stunning and deeply troubling revelation," said Dan Bartlett, White House communications director.

Ya think?

Yet another Kerry flip-flop. He now says that he would not have removed Saddam from power. Which is a flip flop from when he was trying to win the Democratic primaries:

Kerry has sounded more hawkish, as in December when Democratic primary rival Howard Dean said the world was not safer with Saddam out of power. Anybody who believes that, Kerry said, doesn't "have the judgment to be president."

Reading that quote to his GOP crowd on Monday, Bush cracked: "I could not have said it better."

update: Kerry jumps the shark! It is worse than I thought - Kerry actually set a new personal record with 14, count 'em, 14 flip flops in the speech reported on above.

Haven't tweaked the Progressives in awhile. With more evidence of the rise in anti-semitism in Europe Utopia, now seems like as good a time as any. It appears that the noble proletariat, composed mainly of Communists with short memories, is once again appealing to its most base platform in the fight against the evil capitalists, anti-semitism. Too bad the US can't be more like its enlightened counterparts in Europe!

The far right has made startling gains in regional elections in Germany as former communists made advances around Berlin, but parties of the centre clung to power with reduced support.

The anti-immigrant Nationalist Democratic Party (NPD) won 9 per cent of the vote in Saxony, almost equal to the vote for the Social Democrats of the Chancellor, Gerhard Schroder.

The Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS) took 28 per cent of the vote in Brandenburg, its best ever showing in a state election. Eastern German resentment at high unemployment and welfare cuts undermined support for Mr Schroder's Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the main opposition Christian Democratic Union (CDU).

Whereas the CDU has profited from past discontent with Mr Schroder, it too was punished this time for its support for pro-business reforms. The CDU lost its absolute majority in industrialised Saxony.

The gains by the NPD, which had been semi-extinct since its heyday in West Germany 36 years ago, shocked Paul Spiegel, president of Germany's National Council of Jews, who said it was a symptom of the failures of mainstream politicians.

"Memories of the end of the Weimar Republic are awakened," Mr Spiegel said.

"A party that makes anti-Semitic and xenophobic propaganda doesn't belong in any parliament."

It was the first time the NPD had gained seats in a German state parliament since its heyday in 1968, when it was briefly represented in seven state parliaments before a decline set in.

update: Answer the questions, Dan. On your way out the door is fine.

update: The moonbats aren't barking, but the media sharks are starting to smell blood in the water.

CBS has issued an apology and a half-assed "explanation" claiming that they were duped. Considering the damage to their reputation, you would imagine that they would be falling all over themselves to get to the bottom of this - i.e. who is the source of the memos? You would be wrong. Now that we know that Burkett claims only to have been a conduit for these memos, you would think the moonbats would be spouting off their theorie of how Karl Rove must have mailed the documents to Burkett. Again, you would be wrong.

Why isn't CBS screaming bloody murder and burning a source? Why aren't the moonbats driving themselves wild with speculation? Buried deep in this Fox News story, we may have an answer:

Adding more fuel to the fire, Burkett, who lives in Abilene, Texas, has now also said that he passed the documents on to former Sen. Max Cleland, a Georgia Democrat and triple amputee from Vietnam, who is working with the Kerry campaign.

CBS knows how bad it looks that they allowed their own bias and Rather's grudge against the Bush family to overcome what common sense should have told them - that you can't base a hit piece like this solely on the word of political operatives from the other side. Using Ben Barnes, who donated close to half a million dollars to Kerry over the past 5 years was bad enough. Using a nutburger like Burkett was worse. Failing to disclose what role the Kerry campaign might have had would be the nail in both CBS's and Kerry's coffins. As for the moonbats, they just want this to go away now that they realize that they can't blame Rove for this hit piece and it is going to bring down the wrong candidate.

update: Commenter Bill Appel points out something I haven't seen much mention of - Max Cleland was down in Texans engaged in some shenanigans around this timeframe. Max was contacted by Bill Burkett about the availability of information to fight back against the SBVT. Coincidence? Great observation, Bill.

original post:
CBS is preparing to let us in on a poorly kept secret of theirs - turns out those memos Dan Rather used in his 60 Minutes II hit piece may have been forged! Who knew?!?

The question now is how many heads will roll? How many heads should roll? Which heads? They are going to try to pin this on Mary Mapes, and she needs to go, but is that really where the buck stops? Try to understand just how bogus this story is, and then ask yourself how anyone other than a complete partisan hack could have went forward with it.

Consider:

The source (at least to CBS, more on that to follow) of the documents is a bitterly partisan Texas Democrat activist with a grudge against the Bush family. No, not Dan Rather, "well regarded Texan", Bill Burkett. Someone who bragged to his online Democrat fever swamp buddies that he had "reassembled Bush's file" and provided it to the Democrats to use to fight back against the Swift Boat Vets for Truth ads. How could Rather and company so unquestioningly accept these documents?

Consider Rather's description of the group Swift Boat Vets for Truth in answering that:

Playing the Vietnam card. How an experienced and successful Republican operation
made up of veterans is attacking Vietnam war hero John Kerry.

So the SBVT are dismissed as partisan Republican operatives, even though no link to Republicans has been proven, Bush has denounced their ads, and their leader says he voted for Gore and Perot the last 3 elections, but Bill Burkett is an unimpeachable source?

OK, let's just take into account that CBS is biased, that they want Kerry to win, that Rather has a grudge against Bush and his family, that this would have been a huge story if it were true (it isn't) and could be proven. It is just how things are. That would explain rushing forward with this story despite it being backed up by questionalbe sources with questionable motives - they wanted so much to believe it was true. But wanting to believe something doesn't entirely explain the level of stupidity required to actaully believe it.

How could seemingly intelligent people have looked at this "evidence" and believed it to be credible? Burkett was even't in the Texas Air National Guard - he was in the Army National Guard. Which would explain why the sloppy forgeries more closely resemble, in both form and vocabulary, Army documents than Air Force documents. What would this Burkett know about the inner workings of the TANG? Why didn't CBS talk to actual members of the TANG including ones accused of being influenced by Barnes to accept Bush into the Guard? Why didn't they talk to Killian's relatives? Why didn't they listen to their own document experts who had misgivings about the authenticity of the memos?

Everyone knows that media is biased, but does bias explain the self destructive stupidity involved here? There could be even more yet to be revealed. Burkett has bragged about providing the ammunition to Democrats to fight back against the SBVT. Was the Kerry campaign involved in this? Seems odd that the release of their "Fortunate Son" ad coincided with this story, doesn't it? CBS, in admitting that these documents are bogus, will no longer be under any obligation to maintain the anonymity of their source. That source, possibly facing felony forgery charges, may be inclined to point some fingers of his own. If those pointed at the Kerry campaign, via Barnes, where does this go?

For context on the title, read this. I know this isn't as authoritative of a source as the Daily "screw them" Kos website, but consider this answer to the bogus charges backed by bogus documents about Bush's TANG service. How anyone can believe this is a legitimate campaign issue at this point is baffling, so for those who do, how about a nice glass of STFU?

update: When will the Kerry campaign and his willing accomplices in the media start to realize just how bad this issue makes Kerry look? They are basically equating serving in the TANG with running off to Canada. Every time they talk about this, they show a picture of Bush in uniform, thinking it is somehow mocking. People react favorably to that photograph - unlike to ones of Kerry protesting the war. If the media can't bring itself to do some real investigative reporting and report some facts, such as those in the link above from FactCheck.org and the fact that there was no waiting list for those qualified to get into the pilot program, they ought to at least not be so eager to run with such a loser issue for Kerry. Oh, wait - too late.

update: Captiain Ed has exhumed this from deep inside an AP report - Bush is up 54% to 40% in a Gallup Poll to be released tomorrow. He is now leading in swingstates such as Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Missouri. New Jersey, and dare one even imagine, New York may be in play now as well. Hey Kerry lovers, please disregard the title. Keep it up with this 35 year old nosnsense, Kerry and company, it seems to be working (for someone, anyway)!

update: Ok, time to give it up, fortunate son speculators.

It looks as if France, in an effort to undermine our president, the war effort, and our intelligence, was behind the forged documents indicating the Saddam was seeking yellowcake uranium in Nigeria. As Captain Renault said in Casablanca, "I am shocked, shocked!"

Meanwhile, not content just to belittle our real allies, Kerry is trying to undermine our relationship with one the strongest of them, Australia. How can anyone trust this man to lead our country? The landslide is coming.

Today, Infidel Cowboy had its first 1000 hit day. Hopefully someday that will seem routine, but right now it definitely is not. A big thank you to InstaPundit for the link and to every visitor, commenter, trackbacker, etc. - all are greatly appreciated! Thanks again. Also, I apologize for any slow load times anyone has had to endure today. There appears to be problems with Blogrolling today. If anyone knows anything about the blogroll problem, please leave a comment.

How long until the remake based on memogate? Some suggested minor modifications to the original to make it topical:

Professor Glenn Reynolds as himself (replaces roll of Wilford Brimley): Now I'll blog all day if you want me to. But, come sundown, there's gonna be two things true that ain't true now. One is that the blogosphere is goin' to know what in the good Christ - e'scuse me, Michelle - is goin' on around here. And the other's I'm gonna have somebody's puppy in muh blender.

Professor Glenn Reynolds: What'd you figure you'd do after legacy media, Dan?
Stephen Glass as Dan Rather (replaces roll of Bob Balaban): I'm not quitting.
Professor Glenn Reynolds: You ain't no InstaPundit, Dan. That would be me. You had thirty days to retract. You're finished.

update: more of the script revealed!

Stephen Glass as Dan Rather (replaces roll of Bob Balaban): Do you hear me? Listen to me you little pissant!

Michelle Malkin, replacing Sally Field: As per CBS policy, the truth of your story is irrelevant. We have no knowledge the story is false. Therefore, we're absent malice.

George W. Bush, as himself, replaces Paul Newman: You don't write the truth. You write what people say.

Andrew Heyward (replaces newspaper editor): A lot of news is bad news for the Democrats...After a while, the poll numbers start sliding down.

Eh. Script still needs some fleshing out, but I think it's has possibilities. Welcome InstaPundit readers! Take a look around. And if you think of a quote from the movie and have a blogified version, submit a comment and I will add it to the screenplay.

Drudge has it covered. First, thuggish Kerry supporters make a little girl cry by tearing up her pro-Bush sign. How's that for respect for free speech? Another Kerry supporter goes beserk in a drunken display of stupidity on a flight to Canada. Lastly, Kerry's good friends at MoveOn (looking at the poll's he has to wonder who needs enemies with friends like these) are running an ad showing a defeated American soldier. Maybe Bush should make a follow up ad where that soldier is captured and forced to listen to Kerry telling the world that he is a war criminal. Just remember, these are the kind of people supporting Kerry. Actually they don't support Kerry, they just hate Bush.

Next, the Navy indicates what every one already knows - Kerry has NOT released his records - what is he hiding? By the Dan Rather standard, whatever the SBVT claim about Kerry must be true since he won't release his documents which must be incriminating since he won't release them so if somebody were to forge them to say that he was actually the perpetrator of the Mai Lai massacre it must be true because he isn't denying it. Isn't circular logic fun? Meanwhile the whole mess is dragging down CBS, Rather, Kerry, pretty much everone except Bush. Meanwhile, in an indication of how things that really matter are going, unemployment in NYC is at its lowest since 9/11/01.

The result, according to Gallup? Bush 54% - Kerry 40%:

A Gallup poll being released Friday has Bush up 54-40 in a three-way matchup, with Ralph Nader at 3 percent.

Jonah Goldberg says what I think:

Here's why: For a great many of us -- journalists, bloggers, citizens etc -- this story has absolutely nothing to do with Bush. This is my own personal sense of it, but I don't think very many people who are wading into the Rather story care about what Bush did thirty years ago. I'm sure quite a few of them even dislike Bush a great deal or they aren't supporting him. Andrew Sullivan (who's got a good outraged post today) despises Bush. Howard Kurtz is no partisan. The good folks at ABC News are never at the VRWC bingo night Etc, etc.

This story is fun, important, exciting, fascinating etc. because it's about what Dan Rather and CBS did and are doing in the here and now to report a story they could not prove. I've been on record for a long time: I don't care about the Guard story. I suppose Bush probably didn't conduct himself as honorably and dutifully as he should have during his final two years, but I don't care anymore. I've digested that allegation. That's why I think Kaus is wrong and Rather's (and the Democrats') gamble is foolish; most Americans have digested this info too. The focus on Kerry's behavior 30 years ago hurts Kerry because he's got so much invested in what he did back then. Bush invested some old pennies, a button and some pocket lint on his exploits thirty years ago. That's why Kerry's numbers went down when attention was focussed on his record. Bush's stayed the same or went up. The Bush story is played-out dudes. It's old, it's dull and even if Rather nailed it, it would still be old news to people. The Kerry stuff is fresh and farr more relevant because Kerry's running on his behavior from back then. Thus this tit-for-tat about what the two men did back then is so absurd, a creation of the media's childish obsession with parallelism and the Democrats' silly effort to make this very important election about events which pre-date Watergate.

What's interesting is that Rather can't see this. He wants Bush to answer the questions his fraudulent report has raised. He thinks people want to hear that stuff. They don't. The Democrats agree not because they need more info before they make up their minds but because they have made up their minds already.

This story is not about Bush. And Dan can click his heels together as many times as he wants saying "It's about Bush" over and over and it won't change that fact.

Update: Sullivan is all over it. And he is not pro-Bush. He just isn't a Bush hater.

Category 5 and spinning your way.

update (livebloggin): Sean Hannity is saying he has an email from an internal source at CBS which says the announcement has been delayed yet again. It is a resource that wants to remain anonymous, so take it for what its worth, but the source is saying that there is much dissension in the office. Rumors are flying fast and furious and cover all possibilities from the extreme - Rather to resign - to the same old - CBS will dig in and try to ride it out. Hannity is saying now that the email indicates that they are waiting for their own newscast before coming out with the statement and that they are going to stick by their story and go on offense, demanding that Bush answer questions raised by the phony documents. Is CBS literally part of the Kerry campaign (it seems obvious that they are figuratively)? I ask because they both seem to be run by fools.

udate: It is now being reported that the announcement will be coming at 3:30. er, make that 5:00. Man, this batch of lies, I mean story, had better be real good.

update: This can't be it, can it? The only thing new here is information by and about Killian's former secretary. CBS questions her credibility as a document expert while at the same time using her statements about Killian's frame of mind to add credibility to their story, apparently believing Killian's secretary has more insight into Killian's frame of mind that his widow and son do.

update: Looks like more spinning than that surrounding the eye wall of Ivan is headed our way. Unbelievable.

update: Backcountry Conservative says Fox is reporting that CBS will be issuing a statement around noon eastern time today. Will they be spinning wildly, or will we be finding out who the fall guy is going to be?

update: via Jim Geraghty who writes the KerrySpot at the National Review:

In another assessment of morale at CBS, I have also heard from one CBS employee, who works outside the newsroom, who has lamented that the memo controversy has left him/her "horribly disappointed, because I truly want to believe we're better than that." (These sources have asked to not be identified, because they would like to keep their jobs.)

I also spent Monday touching base with various reporters and editors at mainstream newspapers and magazines in Washington, and not one would defend CBS's action in this case. One editor at a publication that covers Capitol Hill said, "Anytime a major media outlet leaps to a conclusion on what appears to be highly questionable evidence, we all pay a price in terms of lessened credibility. Bad journalism is like bad anything - lawyers, doctors or apples. One bad one can taint the whole group."

Also, see Donald Sensing's excellent summation of the defense of bloggers credibility vs. that of the lamestream media, and this link rich explanation from Michele of A Small Vicotry of why all this matters, or as I put it, why this is the death of credibility for the MSM.

And don't miss this - more forged evidence discovered!

Wow, sharpmarbles scoops Dan Blather's retirment announcement!

original entry:

Ok, maybe that is overstating it a bit. But I agree wholeheartedly with Rusty Shackleford of mypetjawa. I certainly don't think he needs to be eating any crow; he showed admirable restraint as the story of the forged documents was breaking. He doesn't need to defend himself for that. What really struck me as I read the post was this:

Kuhn, in his famous book, describe the process of scientific revolution as a process by which old paradigms are thrown out and new ones are brought in. I believe we have just witnessed a major paradigm shift. It is the deathknell of the old media, and the ringing in of something completely different. I always looked at my blog as a way of putting out ideas, but that I should have a lot of evidence before putting out anything radically new. The blogosphere was alive today with what seemed like conspiritorial statements, but were really a conversation. The conversation started with a question, leading to more questions, and then we pulled in experts who seemed to concur with many initial suspicions. I still maintain that many of the early bloggers on this jumped the gun in declaring a slam dunk victory, but it seems that most were simply interested in the conversation. Forget the swiftie thing, it took us weeks to get the mainstream press in on the story. This...this took a matter of hours. We are the press now.

Think about that - bloggers took down Trent Lott, made the Swifties famous, are influencing elections, etc. But this, this is something different, something much bigger. First, it is a credit to the blogosphere that there are guys like Rusty that won't settle for innuendo and suspicion. It is an indictment of the lamestream media that they don't have the same standards. It is to the credit of the blogosphere that they discovered the truth through the process Rusty describes - and all in a matter of hours. It is to the shame of the media that they couldn't or wouldn't. To be fair, the diffused nature of the blogosphere puts a lot of resources in play, but the denizens are uncoordinated in any real sense, except one - they informally yet effectively fact check the hell out of each other during the "conversation" Rusty talks about. What to make of an alleged professional media that maybe not only bypassed vetting, but possibly engaged in manufacturing "news" in an attempt to influence the outcome of an election? If it turns out that way, maybe the title isn't overstating the effect of all this.

update, already: Drudge is reporting that CBS has launched an internal investigation. Charles Johnson notes that this comes a mere12 hours after the blogosphere, starting originally with Powerline, jumped on this.

update: first instance of serious coverage by a mainstream media outlet that I have found is up at ABC's web site. The article appears to lean heavily, even exclusively, on facts discovered in the blogosphere. Money quote:

Many Democrats are worried that if they are found to be forgeries, it will be a setback for Sen. John Kerry's campaign to defeat Bush in November.

Gee, ya think?

update: Powerline indulges in some well earned gloating:

Tomorrow morning, dinosaur media across the country will be headlining the 60 Minutes "scoop" as a blow to the Bush campaign. Before their newspapers are even printed, not only is the story obsolete, but CBS is in full retreat. As Stephen Hayes reported earlier today, Power Line "led the charge" against the 60 Minutes hoax today. But the credit really goes to the incredible power of the internet. We knew nothing; all of our information came from our readers. Many thousands of smart, well-informed people who only a few years ago would have had no recourse but perhaps to write a letter to their local newspaper, now can communicate and share their expertise in real time, through sites like this one. The power of the medium is incredible, as we've seen over the last fourteen hours.

update: BeggingToDiffer has some good points about this whole mess. Basically, in a great example of the scientific method in action, the blogoshpere eventually got this story right by getting it wrong. Read the Whole Thing to make sense of that.

update: Stephen Green expands upon all this by dismissing the need for explaining what the documents charge. I agree. I posted one rebuttal of the charges because it does effectively address them, as much as can be done of charges from 35 years ago. But it is a waste of time. The accusations against both Kerry and Bush can no more be proven than disproven at this point, because as Stephen has noted, those who choose not to believe will either keep changing the subject to another unsubstantiated charge, or just plain refuse to accept evidence contradicting their beliefs. It really isn't a road worth travelling.

One of my first posts on this blog was about how I don't really care about what the candidates were doing in the Vietnam era, and how I want to know what they are going to do now. I am not the only one. Attacking a sitting President over what you can't prove he did 35 years ago instead of on his record as President was a loser strategy. Bush is not vulnerable over whether he took a physcial. Clinton proved that Bush couldn't even be vulnerable over allegedly getting special treatment to get into the guard, since Clinton got special treatment to avoid service altogether. Kerry, however, has been vulnerable since he is a challenger with an unknown/unheralded. He was a fool to go down this path - I guess he thought this was his only/best shot.

Kerry was wrong to think this would work, it was unlikely that it ever could have helped him and now it has blown up in his face. Continuing down this path can only make things worse for him, and the Dems would be well advised to stop this nonsense, although it is probably too late.

original post:

The documents backing Dan Rather's hatchet job on President Bush have been exposed as frauds, which you would think would be enough to shame him and the Democrats into shutting the hell up about the trumped up story. Not hardly. Instead, they are trying to redirect the focus from this massive ethical breach by whomever created the documents and from the equally massive breach of professional conduct by Dan Rather. Their new angle - the charges haven't been responded to by Pres