Portrait of a Dinosaur
Want to get a sense of the cluelessness of Big Media? Be sure to read David Broder's piece in this morning's Washington Post. Ostensibly, it is a piece of self-criticism, but get a load:
When the Internet opened the door to scores of "journalists" who had no allegiance at all to the skeptical and self-disciplined ethic of professional news gathering, the bars were already down in many old-line media organizations. That is how it happened that old pros such as Dan Rather and former New York Times editor Howell Raines got caught up in this fevered atmosphere and let their standards slip.
This is just more of the same excuse-making that "pros" like Tina Brown made this past week; that you can't blame the Big Media shills for letting their standards "slip" because of the commercial competition involved. I'm not such a polyanna that I don't know that mainstream news isn't driven by money, but neither am I so jaded that I would deny, as Broder seems to, the potential of non-commercial news to provide me with a guide to the truth. Therefore, the blogosphere.
But how is the blogosphere able to compete with Big Media? It isn't because it's displacing it, really, because much of what the blogs do is react to the official line from the major networks and papers. In that sense, Big Media still enjoys its primacy ---if by no other virtue than its scale and scope. But where Big Media is losing its place is as a conscience or guide to the public's politics. That's because more and more people are coming to regard institutions like CBS and the New York Times as fallible and biased to the point of propagandism. It is at that point that the blogosphere comes along and declares itself openly as what it is: partisan, relatively non-commercial, and vastly more self-critical and self-correcting. The blogs literally represent individual voices ---unfiltered and uncompromised by editors and sponsors. How such a democratic movement in the dissemination of information can be dismissed by the old dinosaurs ---especially liberal ones--- in Big Media is not a mystery, but even more of a reason to continue to turn away from their brand of wisdom. They don't want you to stop listening to their spin because they see themselves as entitled to their power as opinion-makers. After all, they're journalists without the quotation marks.
Smash it all. Get your information where you want. Online, you can actually read legislation, transcripts, court decisions, expert findings, and anything else for yourself. If you have to, you can dress up in a coat and tie and sit in front of a camera while you're at it.
Courtesy of the InstaPundit, read this brief condemnation of Kerry's "final, fatal mistake" from Ann Althouse. It was:
criticizing and contradicting Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi when he was visiting the U.S. Kerry is in a very difficult position needing to criticize Bush's handling of the war, because the criticism itself seems damaging to the war effort. Bringing Allawi to the U.S. and linking him to the Bush campaign message was a powerful political move by Bush, but it was not a checkmate. Yet it forced Kerry into a terrible blunder.
Absolutely. What Kerry did in not even coming to Washington to pay his respect to Iraq's leader is incomprehensible. Who the hell is he to say what life is like in Iraq and what our chances of success there will be? He thinks he is above it all.
"Some people lead dangerous lives."
The "Zionist Mossad" has exterminated Hamas leader Izz el-Deen al-Sheikh Khalil with a car bomb ---in Damascus. Hmmm.
A spokesman for the militant Palestinian group in Gaza said the killing was "a cowardly crime by the Zionist Mossad," Israel's intelligence agency.
Note the use of the term militant instead of something more appropriate like murdering or terrorist. Reuters are a lot of pussies.
Israeli officials declined comment on possible Israeli involvement. "Some people lead dangerous lives," one of the Israeli officials said.
The bomb appeared to have been hidden under the driver's seat of Khalil's car and went off shortly after he started the engine, witnesses said. Blood was splattered on the back seat.
This is very interesting. Mossad is letting these Car Swarmers know that they can't hide across the border.
The anti-Israeli/anti-war Left will call this murder and warn us that such operations are as futile as cutting the heads off of the hydra. Maybe they're right. But shouldn't we and the Israelis give it a try first (and a few thousand more times) before the [critics] declare it a failure?
Naomi Wolf, a beautiful woman who talks like an ugly one, pretty much nails the Ter-AY-zuh Drag Co-efficient on the Kerry campaign. Of Ms. Heinz's nauseating and egocentric performance at the Democratic National Convention, Wolf writes:
Unfortunately, Teresa Heinz Kerry's speech, which all but ignored her husband, did more to emasculate him than the opposition ever could. By publicly shining the light on herself rather than her husband, she opened a symbolic breach in Kerry's archetypal armor. Listen to what the Republicans are hitting Kerry with: Indecisive. Effete. French. They are all but calling this tall, accomplished war hero gay.
The charges are sticking because of Teresa Heinz Kerry. Let's start with "Heinz." By retaining her dead husband's name--there is no genteel way to put this--she is publicly, subliminally cuckolding Kerry with the power of another man--a dead Republican man, at that. Add to that the fact that her first husband was (as she is herself now) vastly more wealthy than her second husband. Throw into all of this her penchant for black, a color that no woman wears in the heartland, and you have a recipe for just what Kerry is struggling with now: charges of elitism, unstable family relationships, and an unmanned candidate.
Like I say, Ter-AY-zuh strikes me as a kook. Maybe she's not, but she absolutely exhibits all the traits of super-wealth and privilege that stinks in the nostrils of people like me. I can't stand the idea that she might come into power along with her lying hypocrite of a consort. She would make Hillary look like an overachieving June Cleaver by comparison.
Posted by Toby Petzold
at 1:58 PM CDT
Post Comment |
Updated: Saturday, 25 September 2004 2:01 PM CDT
Friday, 24 September 2004
I retract the quotes I quoted in the post previous. Looks like I should have adopted the caution that the Power Line was advising, but I didn't. And I regret it.
In fact, Crossfire transcripts are available through Lexis back to 1990. Of course, that's not available to me (whereas Google News is, which is where I scraped out the McCaslin piece from in the first place).
On 12 November 1997, John Kerry, who was a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had an exchange with Crossfire co-host John Sununu. The following quotes should be accurate and true (with emphases added):
SUNUNU: Senator Kerry, in fact, in spite of the administration claiming it has restored unanimity, that has not occurred. All the strength of this resolution had to be pulled out of it get any votes at all other than our own. Isn't this exercise actually counterproductive in sending a signal to Iraq that the coalition still remains frayed?
KERRY: Well, John, you're correct that this resolution is less than we would have liked. I don't think anybody can deny that we would have liked it to have threatened force and we would have liked it to carry the term serious consequences will flow. On the other hand, the coalition is together. I mean, the fact is there is a unanimous statement by the security council and the United Nations that there has to be immediate, unrestricted, unconditional access to the sites. That's very strong language. And it also references the underlying resolution on which the use of force is based. So clearly the allies may not like it, and I think that's our great concern -- where's the backbone of Russia, where's the backbone of France, where are they in expressing their condemnation of such clearly illegal activity -- but in a sense, they're now climbing into a box and they will have enormous difficulty not following up on this if there is not compliance by Iraq.
As you can see, Kerry puts great store by the authority of the United Nations, even though that authority is undercut when "allies" insist on watering down the language of these resolutions to such a point that they become almost meaningless.
It's also important to point out, as will become clear below, that Kerry recognizes this weakness and he recognizes that it was the economic aspects of the relations with Saddamite Iraq that made France's and Russia's participation in the military enforcement of the UN sanctions extremely unlikely. Kerry next tells Sununu:
Well, John, there's absolutely no statement that they [France, Russia, and China] have made or that they will make that will prevent the United States of America and this president or any president from acting in what they believe are the best interests of our country. And obviously it's disappointing. It was disappointing a month ago not to have the French and the Russians understanding that they shouldn't give any signals of weakening on the sanctions and I think those signals would have helped bring about this crisis because they permitted Saddam Hussein to interpret that maybe the moment was right for him to make this challenge.
And what challenge was that? Blocking UN inspectors from doing their job of checking up on Saddam's weapons of mass murder. So, even in 1997, Kerry understood that these allies were pains in the ass who had their own reasons for sending those mixed signals to Saddam. And those reasons were?
I mean, the fact is that over a period of time France and Russia have indicated a monetary interest. They on their own have indicated the desire to do business. That's what's driving this. I mean, as Tom Freedman said in a great article the other day, France, Inc., wants to do business with oil and they are moving in the exact sort of opposite direction on their own from the very cause of the initial conflict, which was oil.
And it was about this same time that the UN succeeded in getting the Oil for Food program started. And Kerry must have known that the French and Russian "desire to do business" was what was "driving" their policy towards Saddam. They wanted to make money off of the sanctions while we were trying to enforce them. Could it be that the degenerate Europeans and Russians couldn't have given less of a shit about WMD when there was money to be made?
So why is it that, when we were doing the responsible thing in keeping the Middle East safe from another outburst from Saddam ---and our allies were just in it for the money--- Kerry still thinks that these cheese-eating fuckers have our interests at heart? Is he that naive? Listen to him in 1997:
The administration is making it clear that they don't believe that they even need the U.N. Security Council to sign off on a material breach because the finding of material breach was made by Mr. Butler. So furthermore, I think the United States has always reserved the right and will reserve the right to act in its best interests. And clearly it is not just our best interests, it is in the best interests of the world to make it clear to Saddam Hussein that he's not going to get away with a breach of the '91 agreement that he's got to live up to, which is allowing inspections and dismantling his weapons and allowing us to know that he has dismantled his weapons. That's the price he pays for invading Kuwait and starting a war.
So, where the fuck did this John Kerry go? (Or this one?) He knew it was important that the United States reserve the right to enforce the sanctions against Saddam regardless of whether the Security Council said it was okay. So why is this Francophilic idiot droning on and on about how we need our "allies"? We have allies. And they have sacrificed their young men to liberate Iraq! Does he not know that? Does he think it's wise to call the British and the Italians and the Poles and the Australians the "coalition of the bribed and coerced"?
Every time John Kerry opens his mouth about how we have failed to enlist our "allies" in the fight for Iraq, remember a few things. One, he has known for a long time that the French and the Germans and the Russians had an economic interest in keeping Saddam in power. You can thank goddamned Kofi Annan and the UN's Oil for Food program for that. Two, Kerry has known for just as long that these same countries never intended and never will intend to help us in Iraq militarily. Kerry is lying when he claims that George W. Bush failed to enlist the military support of countries that were never going to send troops in any event. Third and finally, despite the fact that he is a lying sack of shit, John Kerry knows that it is up to the United States and a few other honorable allies to keep the peace in this world. We can't count on countries like France, which are already well on their way into the grave of Islamist repression and disease. He knows that we have done the right thing under President Bush to begin the political transformation of the Middle East.
And John Kerry should know that he himself is the ultimate mixed message to the Islamofascist hordes. The man must never become President. Ever.
Posted by Toby Petzold
at 10:56 PM CDT
Post Comment |
Updated: Friday, 24 September 2004 11:05 PM CDT
An Observation of More Recent Vintage
In today's "Inside the Beltway" column of the Wasington Times, John McCaslin reminds us of what Nantucket's Most Desperate Sack of Shit said only seven years ago (emphases mine):
During a 1997 debate on CNN's "Crossfire," Sen. John Kerry, now the Democratic presidential nominee, made the case for launching a pre-emptive attack against Iraq.
So reveals Rep. Peter King, New York Republican, who appeared with Mr. Kerry on the program.
Mr. King says the U.N. Security Council had just adopted a resolution against Iraq that was watered down at the behest of the French and the Russians. Yet the candidate who now criticizes President Bush for ignoring French and Russian objections to the Iraq war blasted the two countries, claiming that they were compromised by their business dealings with Baghdad.
Yep. The guy is a total fucking worm.
"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians," said Mr. Kerry. "We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest."
Got that, comrade? The only thing more interesting to me than the neurological disorder that causes assholes to think that John Kerry's views on Iraq are actually knowable is the strategic and rhetorical phenomenon Kerry must be witnessing right now in which he knows that what he actually says is irrelevant to his political appeal. What a liberating sensation that must be! To know that, no matter what sort of ignorant, droning, hypocritical, or deceitful shit climbs out of your pie-hole, you cannot lose roughly half of the votes in this country! The pressure's off. Be the self-serving treasonous asshole you've always been, lieutenant! And vive le France!
UPDATE: The guys at the Power Line are not too sure about this quote from Kerry. Maybe I've been hoodwinked by the Moonies. If so, I'll apologize after I stonewall for a week and half. And, then, I'll say the quote was inaccurate, but true.
UPDATE to the UPDATE: Let me just say that somebody ---McCaslin or Peter King or one of their aides--- is a sack of shit for putting out what might, charitably, be called a poor paraphrase of Kerry's words in that Crossfire appearance. It's shit like that that makes dumbasses like me look bad. We've had enough lately of liars in the media and I don't want to track that stuff into my little blog. Thanks.
Posted by Toby Petzold
at 9:13 PM CDT
Post Comment |
Updated: Friday, 24 September 2004 11:14 PM CDT
A Contemptible Man Mood:
I will ask again: what the hell is John Kerry doing? Bill Kristol would like to know, too:
Less than an hour after President Bush finished speaking in New York, Kerry was criticizing his remarks in Jacksonville, Florida: "At the United Nations today, the president failed to level with the world's leaders. Moments after Kofi Annan, the secretary general, talked about the difficulties in Iraq, the president of the United States stood before a stony-faced body and barely talked about the realities at all of Iraq. . . . He does not have the credibility to lead the world."
So Kerry credits Kofi Annan--who a few days before had condemned the "illegal" American war in Iraq--as a more accurate source of information on the subject than the president of the United States. Kerry also seems to think it significant that the General Assembly sat "stony-faced" while the president spoke. Would the applause of delegates from China, Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and, yes, France, have made the president's speech more praiseworthy in Kerry's eyes?
I can't fucking stand Kerry. Not only does he not have the sense to come and be present at Allawi's address, but he permits shithooks like Joe Lockhart to make this statement about Allawi:
"The last thing you want to be seen as is a puppet of the United States, and you can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips."
That's an outrageous thing for the campaign of a possible President to say. But Kerry's judgement has been absolute shit for months now. Why should this week have been any different?
There's no way that Lurch and his sugarmomma have any business being in control of the White House for the next four years. They must be defeated.
Posted by Toby Petzold
at 8:47 PM CDT
Post Comment |
Updated: Friday, 24 September 2004 8:49 PM CDT
Betrayal of One's Genius for the Sake of a Delusion
The recent deportation of the Muslim once known as Cat Stevens and his vow to fight for re-entry in the courts is pretty sad. I don't yet know why he was turned back at our borders, and he claims he doesn't, either. I read somewhere that he had visited the States back in May, but maybe something has happened since then. Maybe he wrote one check too many to Hamas. I don't know.
But the man has been a huge disappointment to me as a lover of his music and as someone who is hostile to Islam. Cat Stevens was a musical genius, both as a songwriter and a vocalist. I have been singing his songs since I was a little boy. His 1970 album Tea for the Tillerman is one of the greatest masterpieces I know of; it is a work of art that has made my life better. Thus, I cannot respect what he has done to himself. Any religion that requires someone like Stevens to pull a Prospero and break his staff and drown his book is a regressive religion. He killed his music for whom? The God of Submission? The Lord of Enslavement and Murder?
I can only shake my head.
Monsoor Ijaz is shaking his own head over this case for another reason, and maybe he should. Writing in today's Christian Science Monitor, Ijaz declares:
For Muslims like me who have worked tirelessly to bring moderate voices forward as our religion is seized by extremists from within and put under siege by Islam's detractors from without, the Yusuf Islam episode is mostly counterproductive because it not only increases the rage in rational segments of Muslim society, it violates the fundamental principles by which America holds itself out as a beacon of freedom and liberty to the rest of the world.
The only problem with all that is that the "rational segments of Muslim society" are so cowed and, evidently, so timid to speak out against Islamofascist violence, that their contributions to the political climate are negligible and, frankly, dismissible. Are we to believe that the former Cat Stevens is a part of that "rational segment"? It may be unfair, but I reject that. If the man were a moderate Muslim, he wouldn't continue to stand by the annihilation of his own genius like some sort of goddamned eunuch or spiritual invalid. The longer boats came and won him over ---and I think it sucks.
Posted by Toby Petzold
at 7:30 PM CDT
Post Comment |
Updated: Friday, 24 September 2004 7:32 PM CDT
Thursday, 23 September 2004
More Ass-Kicking Goodness
With a tip of the hat to Dr. Reynolds, try out this post from Jason van Steenwyk. It's a whole bowl full of sucker-punch:
You stand with a straight face and tell nations like the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Italy, who have each shed blood for the freedom of Iraq as part of the coalition, that they're members of "a fraudulent coalition."
You can't even be bothered to leave Ohio to speak with Allawi when he comes to the US to say "thank you." But you don't hesitate to all but brand this man--who lives in Iraq every day--a liar, and then have the chutzpah, the gall, the arrogance to tell him from afar that he's out of touch with the reality on the ground.
And he's just getting warmed up, folks.
The choice isn't between Bush and better leadership. The choice is between leadership and you.
If the trumpet is uncertain, says the proverb, noone will answer the call. Well, no one's been sounding a more uncertain trumpet than you.
What the hell is John Kerry doing? He missed the Senate confirmation vote on the new DCI, Porter Goss, yesterday and he kept on staying away from Washington today while the Prime Minister of Iraq addressed a joint meeting of the Congress. These are just huge blunders. Where are his priorities? Kerry could have been there today and probably even scored a quick chat with Allawi. But, no: he's been off visiting fire stations in Ohio and letting his wife run her mouth in Arizona when she could be better serving the campaign by taking a Roman holiday for the next several weeks.
Kerry's campaign is a joke. The only reason why the great majority of Democrats are even supporting him is because they hate Bush so much. What a shit rationale.
(Oh, and thanks, Mr. Geraghty, for finally linking your Kerry Spot posts. Guess someone with more stroke than me finally got on your ass about that.)
UPDATE: Bush's campaign chairman Marc Racicot kicks Kerry's ass a little.
Today, John Kerry showed he lacks the judgment and credibility to lead the United States of America to victory in the War on Terror.
Posted by Toby Petzold
at 8:30 PM CDT
Post Comment |
Updated: Thursday, 23 September 2004 9:57 PM CDT
A Clever Prostitute
I don't like Tina Brown. Something about her vaguely reminds me of my ex-sister-in-law ---a grasping, shallow, and ill-informed person too dim to know her own intellectual limitations. Brown evinces all that in her Washington Post column today when she tries to exonerate Dan Rather in this huge journalistic scandal he has started. What else is one to make of this?
For Rather and CBS, all the conflicting tensions that torture journalists and producers day and night came together.
Yep. She's ready to acquit right out of the dock.
The broiling partisan heat,
To which Dan Rather has conspicuously contributed for 40 years!
the pressure to get out of third place with a scoop,
Never mind that what has put CBS News in third place among the Three Dinosaurs is its bald partisan support of the Left, which a few of us are tired of.
the hot breath of cable news,
Before we go any further in this litany of pressures on poor Dan Rather, I guess we should address the fact that Dan Rather and Mary Mapes were not duped on their way to pursuing this story. Every piece of evidence shows the exact opposite: that they deliberately, willfully ignored all the warning signs that they were chasing bullshit ---cleft with a well-ground axe and sporting more red flags than a porcupine in a confetti accident. So fuck Tina Brown and the rest of these apologists for even trying to push the line that Rather was just a victim in all of this. He was the very author of this debacle. Period.
the race to beat all the hacks and scribes who keep nibbling away at the story (your story, the story you've spent five years trying to get right),
No, you meretricious slick-monger; this perennial "story" isn't a scoop or anything important at all. In fact, what this Bush-National Guard story is is the embodiment of the Democrats' stupidity and hypocrisy. It is stupid to attack George W. Bush for his service during the Viet Nam era because ---and I know this is hard to grasp, but try--- the man served. He served when Bill Clinton did not. He trained to fly supersonic combat aircraft when Terry McAuliffe did not. He stood ready for several years of his life to provide for this country's defense in the event he were called. Why is all that less important than denigrating the privilege he earned to be released from his duties early to pursue an education? And why do Democrats not see their attack on Bush's National Guard service as hypocritical? They weren't talking about military service when Bill Clinton was running for the Presidency. So what's changed? Nothing but a mistaken sense of opportunity.
the baying of the bloggers,
Yes, it's rather unsettling, I would imagine, for a liberal used to telling lies uncontradicted to be in the crosshairs of an ombudsmen culture of conservative thinkers. But get used to it, luv. It gets better.
the sick sense of always being news-managed by the White House's black arts,
I don't even know what this means. Is this a Rove-as-Mephistopheles allusion?
the longing to show the Web charlatans and cable-heads that rumpled-trenchcoat news is still where the action is,
Oh, what horseshit. No one's had any notion of Dan Rather as a gumshoe-with-a-fedora in decades, lady. Everyone knows the drill: Big Media is a for-profit enterprise. They depend on ---and exploit--- their traditional reach into everyday Americans' lives and living rooms to sell us shit. Some of that shit is information that they got wholesale from partisans inside (and outside) the Government. And, sometimes, "charlatans" short-circuit that propaganda by coming through without the mask of objectivity or the burden of salesmanship, and inform people who want to know the truth. Without Dan's or Peter's or Ted's fucking commentary.
the pounding inner soundtrack that asks: Am I a watchdog or a poodle? A journalist or an entertainer? A tough newsman or a mouse with mousse?
As clear a case of projection as any psychoanalyst could hope for. Topic A: why is Tina Brown such a shill for Big Media? Oh! Because CNBC cuts her a check every couple weeks. Got it.
Why is John Kerry suggesting that President Bush has a plan to reinstate the draft after the election? Kerry is a despicable sack of shit for raising this phoney issue. Period.
Answering a question about the draft at a forum with voters in West Palm Beach, Fla., Kerry said, "If George Bush were to be re-elected, given the way he has gone about this war and given his avoidance of responsibility in North Korea and Iran and other places, is it possible? I can't tell you."
Of course he can tell you. No one in this Administration or in the Pentagon has advocated the reinstatement of the military draft. On the contrary, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Myers and many other leaders of our armed forces have explicitly made the case against the draft and for the superiority of the all-volunteer military. Kerry knows this, but wants to insinuate to young men in this country that a vote for Bush is a vote for the draft.
During the build-up to the Gulf War, I was a 21 year-old college student. A lot of people in the Congress who were opposed to that war ---like John Kerry, who voted against it--- did everything they could to sabotage Bush the Elder's efforts to evict Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. And one of the spectres they raised was to suggest that we were going to have to reinstate the draft. You know what? Practically every one of those assholes was a Democrat. These assholes knew that there was no chance of that happening, but they wanted to score political points against the President. And guess what? Asshole Democrats are still doing it. Here's Charlie Rangel:
The New York Democrat told reporters his goal is two-fold: to jolt Americans into realizing the import of a possible unilateral strike against Iraq, which he opposes, and "to make it clear that if there were a war, there would be more equitable representation of people making sacrifices."
"I truly believe that those who make the decision and those who support the United States going into war would feel more readily the pain that's involved, the sacrifice that's involved, if they thought that the fighting force would include the affluent and those who historically have avoided this great responsibility," Rangel said.
"Those who love this country have a patriotic obligation to defend this country," Rangel said. "For those who say the poor fight better, I say give the rich a chance."
All Charlie's doing is race-baiting. A real surprise.
But Kerry and Rangel aren't the only ones pulling this stunt. Baghdad Jim McDermott, the ultra-Leftist loser from Washington state, has done the same.
The United States is defended by the greatest military machine in the history of the world. Part of what makes it such a success is the fact that those who serve in our armed forces have chosen to do so out of love of country and a desire to make a real difference in the world and for themselves and their families. Playing politics like this is despicable.
I have no respect for John Kerry or his asshole Democrat friends in Congress who are proposing to reinstate the draft for their own partisan reasons.
Muslims Prefer Kerry 7 to 1
I just caught a glimpse of the results of a recent Zogby poll showing that American Muslims prefer John Kerry to George W. Bush by a ratio of about 7:1. Pretty amazing, huh? What does that suggest? What else should one infer from this but that these Submitters believe that Kerry is going to go soft on the war against Islamofascism and back off of them here at home? Kerry's very candidacy is a not-so tacit promise to them and other fifth columnists in this country that we will not defend ourselves against their machinations and sabotage.
Don't forget: if the Islamofascists attack us again on our own soil, we'll have no choice but to kick all of these bastards out. That we haven't already is a measure of how deeply-rooted the political considerations are. But do you doubt we're "above" that? Try again. Find out.
The chairman of the DNC, Terry McAuliffe, is one of a small number of Democratic operatives I most want to see humiliated come 2 November. There's something about him that pisses me off faster and more completely than almost any other Democrat. But can a bottomless contempt be shorted out a little with the touch of pathos? A fine question.
In response to false Republican accusations regarding the CBS documents, Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe issued this statement:
"In today's New York Post, Roger Stone, who became associated with political 'dirty tricks' while working for Nixon, refused to deny that he was the source the CBS documents.
"Will Ed Gillespie or the White House admit today what they know about Mr. Stone's relationship with these forged documents? Will they unequivocally rule out Mr. Stone's involvement? Or for that matter, others with a known history of dirty tricks, such as Karl Rove or Ralph Reed?"
But the answer is no.
As evidenced by the statement above, they don't come any stupider than McAuliffe. What is the purpose of this desperate shaft? Is McAuliffe putting himself in the position of defending the Rather-Mapes Hoax? Is there something to be gained from suggesting that some ancient dirty trickster from the Nixon era has something to do with CBS News' utter disregard for journalistic ethics or with Bill Burkett's very obvious struggle against the demons of his own mind? Everyone knows why hacks like McAuliffe wonder aloud about when so-and-so stopped beating his wife: it's all about the chickenshit. A misdirection play that is going to wind up in a loss of yardage.
I feel pretty sure that, in the next week or so, things will really fall apart ---not only for Dan Rather, but for the Kerry campaign and the DNC in general. They were all working in collusion to roll out this "Operation Fortunate Son" bullshit and hammer on the President some more. But the whole thing has backfired miserably.
And who told the Kerrion to knock off with the Viet Nam-era stuff? None other than Bill Clinton. But they didn't want to listen. And, now, they're stuck with an enormous Big Media scandal on their hands of which they are a part. Asking whether the Godlike Karl Rove had something to do with the Killian Forgeries is just incredibly stupid. It won't keep people from asking why Joe Lockhart and Max Cleland were in communication with a mentally ill hoaxster at the behest of a producer for CBS News. Nor will it give the so-called swing voter any more of a reason to vote for Kerry.
Posted by Toby Petzold
at 3:30 AM CDT
Post Comment |
Updated: Wednesday, 22 September 2004 3:19 PM CDT
A Terrorist by Any Other Name
Courtesy of Little Green Footballs, be sure to read this article discussing why Reuters "isn't comfortable with" using the term terrorist to describe terrorists.
"Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline."
As I often say, it is a hallmark of the degenerate liberal mind to hold that a name is the determinant of the thing it purports to describe. Labels are sacrosanct. If these "internationalist" reporters ---who know more than us American hayseeds--- don't call murderers murderers, then they are not that, but militants or rebels or gunmen.
The day will come when terrorists and all their abetting cocksuckers can dispense with names and belong only to amounts ---great piles of smoldering shit on the edges of free nations.
I Just Can't Stand Him
John Kerry is finally, after seven weeks or so, giving a press conference to real live reporters. And he's just a fucking bore. A nauseating, redundifying, stupefying bore.
Remember: every time Kerry opens his mouth about how President Bush failed to build an alliance for the War for Iraq, he is lying. Why? Because France and Germany never once intended to send troops into Iraq. Never. Why does he think he can get away with such lies? Why does he think he has some magical ability to completely redirect the political sentiments of those and other countries in Europe and elsewhere to move their governments to come and help us in Iraq? It's delusional.
Just listen to this boring bastard. He thinks entirely too much of the moral and actual authority of the United Nations. Where did he pick that up? It's incredibly stupid.
Posted by Toby Petzold
at 2:09 PM CDT
Post Comment |
Updated: Tuesday, 21 September 2004 2:10 PM CDT
Don't Even Front Now Playing: "Makin' with the Freak Freak" by the Beastie Boys
Let's be clear about what Joe Lockhart told the cable news networks this morning about his role in Rathergate: he is lying. He is lying when he says that he took a 4-minute call from Bill Burkett that consisted only of "advice" on how to better combat the Swift Boat Veterans' charges against John Kerry ---yet, somehow, omitted any mention of the bullshit forgeries he was peddling. Gimme a fucking break, you lousy shill!
Lockhart is also lying when he says that he took a call from a CBS News producer ---and he's not too sure about it, but was it, uh, Mary Mapes? (Not too sure about that name...Mapes?)--- who was trying to put "someone" who wanted to provide "some political advice" in touch with the Kerry campaign ---but that these bullshit forgeries were never brought up.
Yeah, well, getting out in front of this huge, slow-motion train wreck seems like the thing to do, but not when your cover story is plainly horseshit. Joe Lockhart is obviously lying. Why would he consent to take a phone call from someone in Burkett's position unless Burkett had something tangible to offer up? Why would Lockhart have consented to making such a connection unless Mapes had assured him that it would be worth his while? After all, she thought it was important enough to whore out her ethics as a professional journalist to make these contacts; why would Lockhart have stuck his dick in the mashed potatoes for anything less than manna from heaven?
Thanks to Hugh Hewitt, I found this latest message from the America-hating bowl of loose stools, Michael Moore. An excerpt:
Look at us -- what a bunch of crybabies. Bush gets a bounce after his convention and you would have thought the Germans had run through Poland again. The Bushies are coming, the Bushies are coming! Yes, they caught Kerry asleep on the Swift Boat thing. Yes, they found the frequency in Dan Rather and ran with it. Suddenly it's like, "THE END IS NEAR! THE SKY IS FALLING!"
What a loaf! And nice Nazi allusion, traitor.
[...]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.
This is what is known as keeping your street creds. Sure, Mike al-Moore, bash the Democrats and Kerry a little because that will help preserve your self-notion as an "independent" ---an independent who has tried as hard as he can to dissuade Ralph Nader from running and Naderites from voting for Nader. How democratic! How independent!
But the terrorist-sympathizer from Flint wants you to "buck up," gang, because
Kerry has brought in the Clinton A-team. Instead of shunning Clinton (as Gore did), Kerry has decided to not make that mistake.
Now, I guess what the Hero of Cannes means is that Kerry has brought on some people like Joe Lockhart to save his campaign. But, after learning what Lockhart has recently done in working with CBS News' favorite hoaxster, I guess the "A-team" has done more to help Hillary in '08 than anything else.
Read the rest of this America-hater's nonsense. His political acumen is stunningly slight and his grasp of the truth is worsened by comparison: "Rallies of angry white people"? Moore is a self-loathing racist. Americans are "appalled that assault weapons are back on the street"? Moore is an ignorant turd who doesn't understand what the ban actually banned. "All [Bush] has delivered to Iraq was that plasticized turkey last Thanksgiving." An easily-disproven lie, but when has that stopped Moore before? Why do dickheads still tell that lie?
Posted by Toby Petzold
at 2:32 AM CDT
Post Comment |
Updated: Tuesday, 21 September 2004 2:36 AM CDT
Monday, 20 September 2004
I just heard on MSNBC that USA Today is reporting more on the connection between Rather, Mapes, and Kerry's new hired gun, Joe Lockhart (emphasis mine):
Lockhart, the former press secretary to President Clinton, said a female producer talked to him about the 60 Minutes program a few days before it aired on Sept. 8. She gave Lockhart a telephone number and asked him to call Bill Burkett, a former Texas National Guard officer who gave CBS the documents. Lockhart couldn't recall the producer's name. But CBS said Monday night that it would examine the role of producer Mary Mapes in passing the name to Lockhart.
Burkett told USA TODAY that he had agreed to turn over the documents to CBS if the network would help arrange a conversation with the Kerry campaign.
That's quid pro quo, jackson. And that makes CBS News a propaganda arm of the Kerry campaign.
I know this has nothing to do with Halliburton or Abu Ghraib, but pay attention, anyway, comrades. Pay lots of attention.
It's getting awfully close now, isn't it? Hear what Joe Lockhart is saying about Dan Rather's hoax (emphasis mine):
At the behest of CBS, an adviser to John Kerry said he talked to a central figure in the controversy over President Bush's National Guard service shortly before disputed documents were released.
Joe Lockhart denied any connection between the presidential campaign and the papers. Lockhart, the second Kerry ally to confirm contact with retired Texas National Guard officer Bill Burkett, said he made the call at the suggestion of CBS producer Mary Mapes.
"He had some advice on how to deal with the Vietnam issue and the Swift Boat" allegations, Lockhart said Monday, referring to GOP-fueled accusations that Kerry exaggerated his Vietnam War record. "He said these guys play tough and we have to put the Vietnam experience into context and have Kerry talk about it more."
Yeah. Kerry needs to talk about Viet Nam even more.
But, how about the money shot? Enjoy:
Lockhart said Mapes asked him the weekend before the story broke to call Burkett. "She basically said there's a guy who is being helpful on the story who wants to talk to you," Lockhart said, adding that it was common knowledge that CBS was working on a story raising questions about Bush's Guard service. Mapes told him there were some records "that might move the story forward. She didn't tell me what they said."
Are we supposed to believe that Lockhart and Cleland didn't know what it was that Burkett was pawning off? Are we supposed to not see that the Kerrion and Rather were in collusion? Horseshit! Scroll down a few entries and re-read what the RNC said this past weekend. These Democrats are dirty.