Kerry's Exchange with Diane Sawyer Yesterday

DIANE SAWYER: Was the war in Iraq worth it?

JOHN KERRY: We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today.

DS: So it was not worth it.

JK: We should not — it depends on the outcome ultimately — and that depends on the leadership. And we need better leadership to get the job done successfully, but I would not have gone to war knowing that there was no imminent threat — there were no weapons of mass destruction — there was no connection of Al Qaeda — to Saddam Hussein! The president misled the American people — plain and simple. Bottom line.

DS: So if it turns out okay, it was worth it?

JK: No.

DS: But right now it wasn’t [ … ? … ]–

JK: It was a mistake to do what he did, but we have to succeed now that we’ve done what he’s — I mean look — we have to succeed. But was it worth — as you asked the question — $200 billion and taking the focus off of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? That’s the question. The test of the presidency was whether or not you should have gone to war to get rid of him. I think, had the inspectors continued, had we done other things — there were plenty of ways to keep the pressure on Saddam Hussein.

DS: But no way to get rid of him.

JK: Oh, sure there were. Oh, yes there were. Absolutely.

DS: So you’re saying that today, even if Saddam Hussein were in power today it would be a better thing — you would prefer that ...
JK: No, I would not prefer that. And Diane — don’t twist here.

I'm speechless.

Food for Thought

Because dems usually beat reps by large margins in the women's vote, and reps always beat the dems in the male vote, doesn't that necessarily make the democratic party more womanly?

The most recent polls have Bush up by a larger margin in Florida (around 5%) than in Ohio (now less than 3%!). Overall that is good news though as Florida commands 27 EV votes to Ohio's 20. C'mon MC I thought you had Ohio under control! More good news is coming from Pennsylvania, where the two polls released today had Bush up 3 and Kerry up 1. On average though, Kerry probably still retains the slightest of leads (1%). If Bush takes Pennsylvania, it'll be lights out. (Ed. Note: especially to The Moderate, it's stories like this that give me so much faith in Bush taking Pennsylvania. This has been his #1 target for the last four years!) More good news out of Michigan. The latest poll gave Bush a 2 pt lead, although on average Kerry maintains about a half point lead there. Like Pa, if Bush takes Mich, see ya! (Btw, is it a coincidence that as soon as Kerry cheered for the Buckeyes in Michigan his numbers started to drop, and as soon as he called Lambeau field "Lambert field" his lead in Wisconsin turned into an 11 pt deficit?) (Ed. note: MC is a huge OSU fan. VLWC is a big Mich fan. I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.) Also, Bush remains tied in Minnesota, which may be the tightest race in the country. Kerry would have a tough time if he can't hold Minnesota. Finally, Bush seems to be solidifying Colorado, and remains within a point and a half in New Jersey!!

Btw, for those of you that don't already do so, I suggest that a daily visit to realclearpolitics.com becomes part of your routines.

One more note, does anybody really, and I mean honestly, think that John Edwards is qualified to be the president?

Several Points

First, let me say i thought the President performed magnificently in his interview with Bill O'Reilly. I also thought that was one of the best interviews I have ever seen O'Reilly give. While keeping to a certain parameters of political rhetoric that are necessary (despite my ideaology wanting just straight answers). Anyway, he was very.......well Bush. That's why I like him, don't necessarily agree with EVERYTHING he does, but I like him. So maybe that is the ultimate test of a candidate, likeability sprinkled with a few tax cuts and toughness!

Second, this is just absolutely ridiculous. Excuses, excuses, excuses.........

And finally two posts from the Talkmaster, Neal Boortz:

ANOTHER WHOPPER FROM THE POODLE

The Poodle has really taken a beating in the polls over his flip-flopping. One of his most often-cited gems is that when it came to funding the war in Iraq, he "actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it." This has become and absolute bonanza for the Bush campaign, who has used it to great effect. So what is The Soufflé to do?

Well, he figures it's time to respond. Time to address the issue. It's really too late...people already perceive him as a flip-flopper. So in an interview yesterday on 'Good Morning America,' Kerry was asked about his classic remark. "No, it wasn't classic at all. It just was a very inarticulate way of saying something, and I had one of those inarticulate moments late in the evening when I was dead tired in the primaries and I didn't say something very clearly." We've all had those "inarticulate moments," haven't we? Maybe people really are being too hard on The Poodle.

The only problem with his explanation is that it's not true. Kerry didn't make his stupid remark in the late evening. The lie was exposed almost immediately. As has been pointed out by the Republican National Committee and others, the now-famous remark was made at a noon appearance before a group of veterans at Marshall University. In other words, Kerry lied. Do I sense a pattern here?

When John Kerry is up against the wall, or when he is caught in a lie by the media, he just makes something up to cover his tracks. This is the second time he has done it on ABC, the first being when he said he did actually throw away his medals. This lie was exposed when those medals showed up on a wall in his Senate office. It was then that we learn that Kerry actually threw away someone else's medals.

Or, maybe it was because (as the RNC said) Kerry's watch was on Paris time (six hours ahead.) Why do you think I call him The Poodle?

• He's French
• He has a Poodle haircut
• He's a rich woman's pet
• He operates on France time (also known as Weasel Standard Time)

CBS DOES IT AGAIN

You would think that with all of the heat CBS is getting over their bogus forged-documents story, they would have the sense to not do it again. You would be wrong. Unbelievably, CBS News is once again serving their masters at the Democratic Party in a very obvious way. Here's the latest.

CBS ran a story about the possibility of the draft returning. The only problem? There is zero chance of the draft returning. The only people that have brought it up are Democrats who are trying to invent a mythical issue to bash President Bush with. Anyone who says the draft might return is lying. There will be no return of the draft. The administration, the Pentagon...all have said it clearly: no draft.

So, since they sensed and opportunity to spread a lie in order to defeat the president, CBS and Dan Rather decided to report on "draft fears," and profiled an ignorant woman (no doubt educated at a government school) who said she was worried about the draft.

In their report, CBS reporter Richard Schlesinger used discredited hoax e-mails that are circulating around the Internet. Also, the supposedly concerned mother is actually the head of an interest group called People Against the Draft. It turns out this group has leftist Democratic ties. Surprised? Me neither.

No matter what happens, CBS will never waver from its sole mission: defeat George Bush and elect John Kerry.

Some Thoughts

Nice posts by Garence. Those are good pics. I especially like the pyramids, of course.

As an initial matter, I'm begining to think that having three debates maybe isn't a concession at all. On a previous post, I referenced a graph that demonstrated the inverse relationship between Kerry's share value at Tradesports.com and the major stock indexes. I also observe that Kerry, who criticized Bush for not having enough press conferences and who promised to have monthly press confereces if president despite going 42 days between press conferences during a critical portion of the campaign, is like kryptonite when the American public gets to take a good hard look. Further evidence of this is the fact that the daily tracking polls showed that Kerry actually lost ground when he spoke at the dem convention.

In other words, maybe the Bush team used the third debate as a bargaining chip but really wanted the third debate anyway. Maybe they think that the more people see Kerry, the more they don't like him. I'm interested to read about the strategy after the election.

I should also note that today we received our first comment from a complete visitor! Look at the comments under the post "This is from SQ - the source is unkown." I don't know about ya'll but I think that's pretty cool. If you're out there 10573, kudos to you and keep coming back.

Also, I would love to get some feedback on yall's thoughts about the Bush interview on O'Reilly. Maybe one point that each of you took from it. I thought that the personal part was very moving. It is clear that he is a religious man and that he uses prayer to help him make the best decisions for this country.

This is From SQ - Source is Unknown

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good...
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...

Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists- good...
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...

Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good...
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...

Clinton commits felonies while in office - good...
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...

No mass graves found in Serbia - good...
No WMD found Iraq - bad...

Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...
Economy on upswing under Bush - bad...

Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...

Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good...
Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad...

Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good...
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...

Milosevic not yet convicted - good...
Saddam turned over for trial - bad...

Ahh, it's so confusing!

Every year an independent tax watchdog group analyzes the average tax burden on Americans, and then calculates the "Tax Freedom Day". This is the day after which the money you earn goes to you, not the government.

This year, tax freedom day was April 11th. That's the earliest it has been since 1991. It's latest day ever was May 2nd, which occurred in 2000. Notice anything special about those dates?

Recently, John Kerry gave a speech in which he claimed Americans are actually paying more taxes under Bush, despite the tax cuts. He gave no explanation and provided no data for this claim.

Another interesting fact: Both George Bush and John Kerry are wealthy men. Bush owns only one home, his ranch in Texas. Kerry owns 4 mansions, all worth several million dollars. (His ski resort home in Idaho is an old barn brought over from Europe in pieces. Not your average A-frame).

Bush paid $250,000 in taxes this year; Kerry paid $90,000. Does that sound right? The man who wants to raise your taxes obviously has figured out a way to avoid paying his own.

Good Interview

Found this commentary from Christopher Hitchens as extremely precise and eloquent analysis of the ridiculous nature of their being so much division with respect to the war on terror and even Iraq for that matter:

"The United States was attacked by theocratic fascists who represents all the most reactionary elements on earth. They stand for liquidating everything the left has fought for: women's rights, democracy? And how did much of the left respond? By affecting a kind of neutrality between America and the theocratic fascists." He cites the cover of one of Tariq Ali's books as the perfect example. It shows Bush and Bin Laden morphed into one on its cover. "It's explicitly saying they are equally bad. However bad the American Empire has been, it is not as bad as this. It is not the Taliban, and anybody - any movement - that cannot see the difference has lost all moral bearings….The world these [al-Quadea and Taliban] fascists want to create is one of constant submission and servility. The individual only has value to them if they enter into a life of constant reaffirmation and prayer. It is pure totalitarianism, and one of the ugliest totalitarianisms we've seen. It's the irrational combined with the idea of a completely closed society. To stand equidistant between that and a war to remove it is?" He shakes his head.”

Here is the full interview.

All is well

All is well in my section of Florida. I would say the gusts of wind were a bit stronger with Jeanne but the fact that it moved through in about 12 hours versus over 36 hours made a world of difference in the amount of debris and rain. Lost a second tree and unfortuneately it was the weeping willow in the back. It's truly amazing to watch these trees just fall over roots and all because the gound is so wet.

Also on the all is well front, I think Florida is not lost yet. I mean driving out of my neighborhood I would say 75% of the cars have W 04 stickers on them. Now keep in mind this is consistently one of the top twenty-five most Republican districts in the country but neverthless my faith is strong in my fellow Floridians.

Would Somebody Please Tell Jimmy Carter to Shut Up?

Today, the worst president in the last century made some waves by calling the Florida voting arrangements "fraudulent" and "suspicious." I note that this comes immediately on the heels of the Venezuelan election, wherein Carter was so giddy at the prospects of having their anti-american president, Hugo Chavez, gain reelection, that he rushed to approve the results that showed a Chavez "victory," before independant audits showed a near certainty of voter fraud.

Mr. Carter, whose foreign policy ineptness not only gave rise to the humiliating hostage crisis, but also spurred the birth of islamofascism (the biggest threat to global security of our time), argued that the voting arrangements in Florida do not meet "basic international requirements" and could undermine the US election. You will recall that Carter urged the U.S. to invite an internation team of observers to observe the election. The observers hail from such bastians of freedom as Argentina, Chile, Ghana, India, Nicaragua, Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, and Zambia.

Carter, who heads the Democracy Program at the Carter center, slammed Florida's democratically elected election official for trying to get Nader on the Ballot!! Please try to contain yourselves. This is a true story - Carter is angry because an election official did her job by trying to give a candidate his constitutional right to run for office.

Carter, who invited Michael Moore to sit with him in the presidential box during the Dem convention, accused Florida's elected secretary of state of "bias."

Carter, who broke a centuries-old tradition of former presidents not criticizing sitting presidents on matters of national security, insisted that Jeb Bush had "taken no steps to correct these departures from principles of fair and equal treatment." Here, I think, he was referring to the republican efforts to disenfranchise convicted felons, a core democratic constituency.

This is the grand old man of the democratic party. You can sense his disdain for American strength in just about everything he says. This guy nearly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in the Cold War. This guy addressed the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan by boycotting the Olympics. He is less credible than Al Gore. Every position he takes shows a lack of faith in America and the American system.

I ask you, Mr. Carter, is Florida's election procedure worse than Venezuela's?

UPDATE: Jeb Bush fired back at Carter today. From Drudge:

Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's office yesterday said charges by former President Jimmy Carter that the state is "likely" to have a repetition of the voting problems that plagued the 2000 election are politically motivated by Democrats intent on undermining voter confidence in the state.

The WASHINGTON TIMES's Joe Curl will report on Tuesday: State officials also said the former president made no attempt to get up-to-date information before writing an opinion piece and never tried to contact the governor's office or that of Secretary of State Glenda Hood.

"This is a shockingly partisan opinion piece and it's unfortunate that a person such as the former president is being used by the Democratic Party for low-level political rhetoric," said Jacob DiPietre, press secretary for Gov. Jeb Bush.

Developing...

The Newt, Garence and Hurricanes

As many of you know, The Newt resides in Florida, which has been averaging like a hurricane every 3 hours or something. Anyhoot, I know Jeanne was in your neighborhood - are you alright? Also, Garence has family in Florida - is everyone okay?

Pic of the Day

The Debates

Well folks, the first debate is right around the corner - unfortunately on Thursday night, which kills any hope of watching Survivor or The Apprentice (the best 2 reality shows). The first debate is probably going to be the most important one, as viewership has historically decreased substantially following the first debate. Also, Bush can deliver a knockout punch, which would allow him to play defense in the last two debates. However, if Kerry commands the first debate, the race could tighten up and make the next two more meaningful.

As expected, the Bush team - led by debate coordinator James Baker (btw, doesn't the Bush administration/campaign have more gravitas than any administration in a long time?) - outmaneuvered the Kerry team - led by Clinton buddy Vernon Jordan - in the format of the debates. Because Bush had such a strong August/September, and by all accounts has an "outside the margin of error" lead over Kerry, he was in a commanding negotiating position. Heck there were even rumours that Bush would not agree to any debates.

The key bargaining chip the Bush team had was, I think, the number of debates. Bush's initial position was two debates, not three. Kerry, being the challenger and a very well-respected debater, needs all the debates he can get to try and turn this thing aroung and finally, if at all, introduce himself to the electorate. With this chip in play, Bush was able to get the first debate (likely the most important one) to be about foreign policy. This is of course where Bush has been bitchslapping Kerry for the entire campaign. Also, with Kerry's latest - and probably final - position on Iraq (basically Howard Dean's position) coming to fruition, Bush can put Kerry away if things go well. See the latest piece by Dick Morris for a good analysis. I know he is one of those "for what it's worth" guys, but sometimes he makes some good points and I think he does here.

Basically his analysis is this: the majority of Kerry supporters support him because they are against Bush, not because they're for Kerry. In contrast, 84% of Bush supporters are voting for Bush, as opposed to against Kerry. Additionally, Kerry supporters are split on whether they agree with him on some major issues - including THE major issue, the war in Iraq. Thus, there is a significant portion of the electorate that currently supports Kerry that is ripe for the taking by Bush. Specifically, those people that neither like Kerry nor agree with his positions (so much for that whole "this is the most energized i have seen the dem party in a zillion years" bologna).

Some of these people will see their president, and remember why they liked him and trusted him so much after 9/11. These people agree with Bush's posture regarding Iraq, not Kerry's, and will realize the Bush ain't so bad after all. Or, as the Newt pointed out, they just may not vote at all.

The way I see it, Kerry cannot win this first debate. Whatever he says will turn off part of his base.

- - - - -

In addition to having the first debate on foreign policy, the Bush team also manages other key concessions. First, there is going to be a light that comes on - for all the viewers to see - when each candidate's time is up. The notorious windbag, Kerry, will undoubtedly go over his time repeatedly, which will annoy the viewers. Also, the lecturns will be more than 10 feet apart, which will minimize the height disparity between the 5'11" Bush and the 6'4" Kerry. Additionally, the follow-up questions and rebuttals are sharply restricted, which allows Bush, whose strength is staying on message, to say what he wants to say, and which restricts Kerry, whose debating techniques are superb, from being able to score points based on how he frames the issues. The Bush team even got a concession on the temperature of the auditorium, which Kerry wanted to be less than 70 degrees because he is a sweater.

Kerry's team of course thinks they got the best of the Bush team because there will be three debates. But if Bush plays his cards right, the third debate will be meaningless anyway.

Pic of the Day (or at least until the next time I post a Pic)

NFL Poll

First off, kudos again to Garence and The Newt. I'm interested to see the comments to the Newt's post concerning McCain's proposed legislation regarding bandwidth. MC, SQ - thoughts?

Alright, sorry for the light blogging today - hopefully tomorrow will be better. Anyhoot, please send comments regarding which team you think will win the Superbowl and why.

Personally, I think the Eagles are finally going to break through and win it all this year. In the off-season, they picked up Terrell Owens, The Freak, Hugh Douglas and Jeremiah Trotter. This gives them three major weapons offensively (McNabb, Owens and Westbrook) while shoring up their run defense. I think McNabb is too tough, too smart and too much of a gamer for the rest of the league with his new toy T.O.
Editor's Note: this is the third straight year I've picked the Eagles. :)

Grassroots efforts

Kerry is winning this"poll" but at least the Bushies (and some without Bushies) are better looking!

Click here. (warning nudity)

A question for the group......

An article today on Wired's web page discusses the legislation introduced today by John McCain that would allow for the government setting a hard and fast deadline for the recovery of analog spectrum space currently used for TV broadcasts. As an avid TV fan (yes, Guindiblog will want you to know that I own two TiVo's, and if you don't have one, get one), a gadget geek, and a proponent of digitized content for TV, I am very much in favor of this bill. However, on a more ideological (imagine that) side and in the interest of minimal government involvement in the markets, either by law or corporate subsidy ala loan bail-outs for airlines, I am not in favor of this sort of government legislation and its unintended consequences.

I am at an intellectual and practical stalemate on this issue and would like to hear input from all the invited guests and commentators, since I think this issue is a good basis for "libertarian" discussion. What do you think, is this type of legislation a necessary evil or doing more harm than good?

The article can be found here.

Random Thoughts

Nice job by Garence and The Newt. Kudos to you both. A few thoughts that I'd like to get off my chest:

1) The CBS story continues to amaze me. We now know that Burkett spoke with Joe Lockhart, a Clintonista and a senior advisor to Kerry. He also spoke with Max Cleland, an integral member of the Kerry campaign. In fact, the CBS producer for the story, Mrs. Mapes, contacted Burkett looking for information, not the other way around. In doing so, he told her that he would give her information on the condition that she would put him in contact with the Kerry campaign. Presumably, this is how Lockhart spoke with Burkett.

We also know that the DNC's "Operation Fortunate Son" coincided perferctly with the CBS piece. Now, remember all the fuss when it was revealed that the Swift Vets and the Bush campaign had a lawyer in common?! A perfectly legal situation - attorneys are bound by confidentiality laws for christ's sake. Here we have CLEAR indications of coordination between CBS, THE major network on the public airwaves and the DNC. This blows my mind - this is the type of coordination between politicians and the press that existed in the Soviet Union.

Once again, the dems shortsightedness is going to blow up in their face. Here's a good soundbite that Bush should use: "Instead of articulating a clear position on Iraq, Mr. Kerry is having CBS do his DIRTY WORK!"

Btw, did anybody find it odd that as soon as CBS admits the documents were forgeries and say that they were "misled" by their "unimpeachable" source, this source gives an interview to USA Today saying "yeah, it was me. I misled CBS." Hot damn, what a coincidence!! Just after Rather flies to Texas to meet Burkett, they both come out saying that it was all Burkett! Well golly gee.

You know, I believe that, according to Game Theory, all actions are rational (yes, even the actions of democrats). Why then, would CBS do all they can to protect their source, and then when it is clear that the documents were forgeries and that they were given to CBS by Burkett, still say that they don't know where Burkett got the documents? Why would they sacrifice all their credibility, the credibility of Rather, Mapes and the entire network? Why didn't they give a genuine apology, start an independent investigation and move on? The only possible reason is that by revealing the original source of the documents, MORE damage would be done. Given this, in light of what we already know about the discussions between Lockhart, Mapes, Burkett and Cleland, and in light of the timing of the DNC's Operation Fortunate Son, isn't it clear that there is a huge, huge coverup? That there is collaboration between the DNC and CBS?

This stuff makes you wonder about all the media coverage before the internet, radio talk shows and Fox news. This is a bigger scandal than Watergate. Watergate was a "third-rate" burglary that was done by a party that was already in control of the White House and was on their way to a huge electoral victory. It had almost no political significance in and of itself. The coverup was the entire story. Here, we have an attempt to perpetrate a fraud on the public by the use of clearly forged documents in an attempt to affect the outcome of a presidential election whose outcome was clearly in doubt. There is already enough evidence to suggest the DNC was a party to this fraud. This is completely outrageous folks.

Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot?! If Fox news was attempting to smear Kerry? Can you imagine the elite media?


2) Kerry has now explicitly said that he believes that we would be better off with Saddam still in power. How he reconciles this with his vote to authorize force is beyond comprehension. But putting his political ineptness aside, this shows that Kerry in his heart is just another 9/10 dem that still suffers from Vietnam syndrome. At least he has finally let us in on how he would handle the Iraqi situation (at least until another focus group tells him otherwise). A blogger on another site (captainsquartersblog.com I think?) did a Lexis search and found that it has been several weeks since Kerry has mentioned either the word "victory" or the word "win" when referencing Iraq. He thinks we cannot win, just as he did when he was in the VVAW. What he has done is set an artificial timeline for troop withdrawals, which screams of weakness and and a defeatist posture. This is a monumental election - and the differences between the two candidates could not be starker. This is a choice between Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill. This is a choice between a 9/12 posture and a 9/10 posture that has been on the wrong side of history at every turn.

Two Items of Interest

First, you may get sick of my fascination with Neil Boortz but he sums up a lot of opinions, not all, I have and I respect his thoughts. I think the following just begins to prove that socialist regimes cannot stand not having sole power of the world's economic, political, and social agenda unfettered by "details" such as who funds what. They seek to do anything to "create" a second super power, even if through manipulation of smaller countries through monetary bribes (I don't support the US's use of these "bribes" either) or manipulation of UN programs PRIMARILY funded with OUR hard earned dollars to garner "support" of initiatives and creating an illusion of US obstinate behaviour. Anyway, here are Neil's thoughts:

JACQUES CHIRAC SLAMS U.S. Remember back in the summer when George Bush said that the European Union should admit Turkey into the E.U.? Do you also remember who came out and said that President Bush and the United States should stay out of official European Union business? That's right...it was none other than French President Jacques Chirac. I'm not sure what the French word for hypocrisy is, but Chirac is at it again. This time he is slamming the United States. What for, you ask? No, it has nothing to do with Iraq. At a meeting of the U.N. General Assembly, Mr. Chirac accused the United States of obstructing a worldwide campaign to eradicate poverty. Chirac's panties are in a knot because the United States would not go along with a non-binding declaration calling for a "renewed political mobilization" to help more than 1 billion people living in poverty around the world. The mean, evil United States strikes again! "However strong the Americans may be, in the long term, you cannot successfully oppose a position taken by 110 countries," Chirac said. "You can't oppose that forever." Really? Could someone please tell me where it's written that the United States has to go along with whatever policy initiative 110 nations might adopt just because we're outnumbered? What if 110 nations get together and decide that the United States should levy a 5% income tax surcharge against all American wage earners, and that the funds raised from that tax should be turned over to the UN for poverty relief work ... UN style? Is the US compelled to go along?

Apparently that idea would appeal to Chirac. Listen to this gem: "The price of selfishness is rebellion. We should ensure that the world's unprecedented wealth becomes a vehicle for the integration, rather than exclusion, of the most underprivileged." In other words, we should ensure that wealth is confiscated from people who earned it (The United States) and given to countries that did not earn it. Where have we heard this before? Oh yeah ... the Democratic party platform...never mind. With their plans for worldwide hand outs, leftist socialist countries like France want to impose a global tax to redistribute the wealth of the world more evenly. And guess who gets to decide that? That's right...the United Nations. If they had their way, before long you would be paying into the United Nations, to help those less fortunate around the world. Only then could poverty be "eradicated." So with all of that Chirac stormed out of town and won't be here for President Bush's speech to the U.N. today. Good riddance.

Second, I highly recomend this article from a card carrying Democrat (though I cannot possibly rationalize how he ever made it to that decision), but he appears ready to support our President.

The W Boom

Two Great Primers on Kerry's War and Post-War Activities

In today's NY Post, the bloggers at Powelineblog.com (one of the leading sites that tore apart the CBS documents) and Captainsquartersblog.com wrote two op-ed's that are both great reads. For those that haven't been paying too, too much attention, they are fantastic primers on the questions about Kerry's war record and his anti-war activities. They cover the basics very well - things that all informed voters should be aware of. If you need more, I can highly recommend "Unfit for Command" by John O'Neill. It is a truly damning book based the accounts on 250+ swift boat veterans, more than 50 of which served with Kerry. And unlike the CBS reporting, these people are all alive and give eyewitness testimony backed up by sworn affidavits.

The Latest Happenings

First, I would like to thank The Newt for picking up the slack this morning. I had surgery on my pinkie today so my blogging may be sporadic. Btw, what happened to SQ's "Poker Tip of the Day"?

Anyhoot, two statements regarding Rathergate were released today, one from Dan Rather, the other from CBS. Captain's Quarters has a nice discussion on these pathetic statements:

No one at CBS wants to take responsibility for the debacle which they caused. Specifically, none of the following are mentioned in the various apologies and statements:

* No apology or even mention is given for the repeated "personal" assurances of Rather and Heyward that the documents were genuine. All of a sudden, they speak in the passive voice: "We were misled ..."

* Neither CBS nor Dan Rather apologized for smearing the critics of the documents as "partisan". Neither have acknowledged that the critics were correct, either.

* Neither give an explanation as to why their own experts were ignored when they raised questions about the documents.

* No one has explained why Ben Barnes was used as a source for this story, given Barnes' status as a major Kerry fundraiser and his contradictory public statements on this issue in the past.

* Andrew Heyward, as President of CBS News, has the responsibility to ensure that CBS News employees use proper journalistic practices and research their stories carefully under all circumstances. Heyward has yet to tell how he accomplished this in light of the fiasco that occurred.

* Dan Rather, as managing editor, has the responsibility to ensure that stories are well-researched and accurate prior to publication. Rather gave no explanation, other than claiming to have been "misled", as to how he fulfilled his responsibilities in this case.

In fact, the apologies are nothing more than a "gee, we're sorry" one would expect to hear at a department store when a product failed to perform.

Also, if you get the chance, pick up today's Wall Street Journal. There is an excellent article entitled "As Bush Goes, So Does Market" (subscription required) that illustrates the remarkable correlation between Bush's reelection chances and the stock market, which as The Newt could better articulate, is the best predictor of the economy's outlook.

A "Bush Rally" is buoying stocks in the market's historically weakest month, underscoring the increased attention investors are paying to politics and terrorism.

Looking past corporate profits and interest rates, some investors have begun tracking data on an Irish betting Web site, TradeSports.com, that takes wagers on, among other things, who will win the presidential election. In
recent weeks, a chart of President Bush's re-election chances based on TradeSports odds has looked surprisingly like the chart of the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
The two have been moving more or less in tandem for
months, and the link seems to have kicked in most strikingly around the start of June -- about the time the election battle lines began to firm up. The TradeSports data show that expectations of a Bush re-election were rising until
mid-January of this year, when they topped out at about 75%. The betting then turned against Mr. Bush, and his odds fell to just less than 50% around the end of July. Then the betting swung back his way, hovering at about 70% yesterday.

The stock market has seemed to follow in Mr. Bush's wake. The Dow industrials and Standard & Poor's 500-stock index began their slide in mid-February, a few weeks after Mr. Bush. They pulled out of that slide in mid-August, and the Dow industrials are up 1.1% in September -- a month that has
had an average loss of 1.23% since their inception in 1896.

"It's eerie," says John Caldwell, chief investment strategist at McDonald Financial Group, a brokerage arm of Cleveland financial group KeyCorp. "It is a pretty strong relationship."

Now, obviously I'm a bit biased, but wouldn't it be fair to say the it is a near certainty that a Bush administration would lead to better economic growth than a Kerry administration?

There's also a good article about the stark differences between some of the recent polls. And a good article about how Bush plans to control the Iraq debate by showing US resolve. (subscription required for both). This week, he is speaking to the U.N. and he is hosting Allawi at the White House.

But by far the most important reason to pick up today's Journal is a special section about football! The Journal discusses whether the NFL's "socialism" can survive, whether football coaches' motivational ploys would work in a business setting, the greatness of the new Madden NFL videogame, new stadiums and a whole lot more. Great stuff indeed.

Also, check out the New Yorker's piece on Teresa Heinz Kerry (btw, is it me or is it just the Dem wives that insist on having at least 2 last names?). Today's news is that she calls her critics "scumbags." Can she possibly be the first lady? A Billionaire Mozambiquan (is that the right term -?) Heiress with a French Accent who said that hurrican victims should go naked? (the modern-day version of "let them eat cake"). She can't possibly be the first lady, can she? As opposed to a schoolteacher/librarian from Texas? Which one do you think best represents America? ARGHHHH!!!

Deeper and Deeper and Deeper.......

I mean, honestly, where will this end? I just hope despite the average joe's attention span's ever shortening length, that this story isn't put to pasture wehn CBS admits being the "victim" to a horrendous scam (eyes rolling). Anyway, this is great and I recommend further exploring Boortz's site for those of you not in the "know." A snipet here (the story he references is here):

This weekend we learned that Bill Burkett developed an itchy keyboard finger a few weeks ago and decided to do a bit of bragging to his Texas Democrat friends. On August 21st Burkett wrote an email to a group of Texas Democrats saying that he had passed some information to a former senator who was out there working for John Kerry. Burkett said that he initiated a contact with the Kerry campaign that resulted in him getting a phone call from Max Cleland. Cleland, as you probably know, is the obsessively bitter Vietnam War veteran who lost his first race for reelection to the U.S. Senate representing Georgia. The Georgia voters resented the manner in which Cleland became a lap dog to Tom Daschle and his choice to work to strengthen government employee unions at the expense of a strong Department of Homeland Security. In his email message Burkett said that he gave Max Cleland information that could be used to mount a counterattack against the critics of Kerry's service in Vietnam.

Information? What information? Isn't it perfectly logical to believe that the information that Burkett is talking about is, in fact, the forged documents used by Dan Rather?

Here is where we see a possible reason for Rather's stonewalling.

Is it possible that Max Cleland is actually the source of those documents? Possible, yes. Proven, no. Could Burkett have passed the documents to Cleland who then made them available to CBS News? I'm just saying it's possible, folks. But this scenario would explain why Rather had circled the wagons. Max Cleland is part of the Kerry campaign team. It was Max Cleland that John Kerry sent to the gates of the Bush Ranch in Crawford, Texas for a publicity stunt. Kerry is Cleland's instrument of revenge against the Republican Party that deprived him of his seat in the U.S. Senate, and the Kerry Campaign knows all-to-well how to take advantage of an eager dupe. If ... and I'm saying IF ... the source of the documents was Cleland, then the Kerry Campaign is directly implemented in the scandal. Turn out the lights.

Great New Piece By Mark Steyn

When reading this I literally laughed out loud. Some excerpts:

Of all the loopy statements made by Dan Rather in the 10 days since he decided to throw his career away, my favorite is this, from Dan's interview with the Washington Post on Thursday:
''If the documents are not what we were led to believe, I'd like to break that story.''

Hel-looooo? Earth to the Lost Planet of Ratheria: You can't ''break that story.'' A guy called ''Buckhead'' did that, on the Free Republic Web site a couple of hours after you and your money-no-object resources-a-go-go ''60 Minutes'' crew attempted to pass off four obvious Microsoft Word documents as authentic 1972 typewritten memos about Bush's skipping latrine duty in the Spanish-American War, or whatever it was.

....

By now just about everybody on the planet also thinks they're junk, except for that dwindling number of misguided people who watch the ''CBS Evening News'' under the misapprehension that it's a news broadcast rather than a new unreality show in which a cocooned anchor, his floundering news division and some feeble executives are trapped on their own isle of delusion and can't figure out a way to vote themselves off it.

So the only story you're in a position to break right now is: ''Late-Breaking News. Veteran Newsman Announces He's Recovered His Marbles.'' And, if last week's anything to go by, you're in no hurry to do that.

Instead, Dan keeps demanding Bush respond to the ''serious questions'' raised by his fake memos. ''With respect, Mr. President,'' he droned the other day, ''answer the questions.'' The president would love to, but he's doubled up with laughter.

....

There's no legal or First Amendment protection afforded to a man who peddles a fraud. You'd think CBS would be mad as hell to find whoever it was who stitched them up and made them look idiots.

So why aren't they? The only reasonable conclusion is that the source -- or trail of sources -- is even more incriminating than the fake documents. Why else would Heyward and Rather allow the CBS news division to commit slow, public suicide?

Read the whole thing.

Kerry's Sister Warns Australians that Their Alliance with the US Endangers Them

Well folks, Kerry just sent his sister to Australia to try and influence their presidential election.

John Kerry's campaign has warned Australians that the Howard Government's support for the US in Iraq has made them a bigger target for international terrorists.

Diana Kerry, younger sister of the Democrat presidential candidate, told The Weekend Australian that the Bali bombing and the recent attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta clearly showed the danger to Australians had increased."Australia has kept faith with the US and we are endangering the Australians now by this wanton disregard for international law and multilateral channels," she said, referring to the invasion of Iraq.

Asked if she believed the terrorist threat to Australians was now greater because of the support for Republican George W. Bush, Ms Kerry said: "The most recent attack was on the Australian embassy in Jakarta -- I would have to say that."

Forget the sheer absurdity of the charge - the Bali bombing was in October 2002, well before the Iraq war - Kerry is trying to influence the Australian election in order to weaken an alliance during a time of war. And for what? So he can get in the White House. This is merely further proof that Kerry cares more about being the President that he does about the United States.

This is a very telling maneuver by the Kerry camp. And this is the exact reason why not only Kerry, but everyone associated with his campaign and indeed his entire party need to be punished in November. Think about what this means - he is affirmatively trying to weaken a war alliance in order to seize power. Can you imagine if it were reversed? If Howard's opponent tried to influence our election!

The Dems are going to lose because they don't understand the Global War on Terror. They don't understand America's role in the 21st century. They don't understand that politics stop at our borders - especially during a time of war and especially regarding a key war ally.

But I guess this doesn't surprise me. Kerry himself negotiated with North Vietnamese and Viet Cong leaders in Paris - before he was even discharged from the Navy - during his stint in the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. He met the communist Sandanistas with Tom Harkin in 1985, in direct contradiction to our national policy of supporting the Contras. Here is a picture of him (and Tom Harkin) shaking hands with Daniel Ortega. Shortly after this was taken, Ortega flew to Moscow to arrange for some funding from the then Soviet Union.

Dr. Evil would say to Kerry, "You just don't get it John. You don't."

CBS Update - Dubya Weighs In

In a striking example of the difference between the two campaigns, Dubya today delivered a surgical indictment of CBS. The much, and I mean much, more disciplined Bush campaign let the media outlets sort the documents out - and when it became certain that the documents were forgeries, Bush waited still a few more days before addressing it. "There are a lot of questions about the documents and they need to be answered," Bush said today. Click here for story.

On the other hand, the day after the 60 mins. interview, McAuliffe was demanding answers and Harkin was demanding answers. A few days later, Edwards demanded answers. They wrapped themselves around this to such an extent that they will pay dearly. Bush, of course, remains above the fray until one final dagger needed to be struck, and then he delivers without any gratuitus partisan attacks.

Note: Speaking of Edwards demanding answers, is anybody taking this guy seriously? He was never in the military and in fact received a deferrment! How can they possibly attack Cheney's deferrments? I...uh...I just don't get it.

It's Hard to Believe It's Been Ten Years.....

It's hard to believe it's been ten years since another Emory alum, Newt Gingrich, led the Republican revolution. Newt's vision enabled the Republican Congress to balance the budget, reform welfare, and basically do everything that Clinton now takes credit for. Click here for a good article about Newt's Contract With America. I guess I started this post with the understand that Henry would let it get to his head. You see, Henry, MC and I decided that if we were politicians, MC would be Dubya, Henry would be Newt and I would be, well of course Karl Rove.

UPDATE: Alright I couldn't resist. MC would be Dubya because although a conservative at heart, he can get along with the other side. Also, he's greatly underestimated by his opponents. Henry would be Newt because he is an idealogue that believes deeply in conservative and capitalistic values. Also, he's a stickler for details. I would be Karl Rove because I beat the other side by having a better strategy, my opponents think I'm evil (which I get a kick out of), and I love to win.

Great New Site

Being a sports nut, as many of you are, has made the Kerry campaign that much more painful to watch. From his calling Lambeau field "Lambert Field", to his discussion about Manny Ortiz (a cross between Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz), to his cheering on the Buckeyes in the heart of Michigan territory, to the fact that he throws like a girl...it has been a sad, sad affair. This site, Football Fans for Truth, chronicles Kerry's failure to pass the "regular guy" test. Click Here.

IS DOYLE IN THE LATEST DEM AD?!!!

My good friend, and former roommate, Eric Doyle, who is an F-18 pilot in the Navy, was on the USS Lincoln when Bush landed to make his famous speech after major combat operations ceased. He was all over the news as one of the pilots surrounding Bush. The latest Dem ad shows a short clip of Bush surrounded by the pilots. It was so fast I couldn't tell whether Eric was in the picture. Can anybody tell? If so, sue Eric, sue!!!

Two Things (At least) That the Dems Should Learn From This Debacle

First, they should fire McAuliffe as soon as the election is over. Since he has come aboard, Bush became the first Republican incumbant whose party seized control of the Senate and extended their lead in the House. Also, the Republicans extended their lead in governorships and now have the majority of the State Legislatures. Now, it appears that Bush's coatails will extend the lead in the Senate and the House. In short, McAuliffe has been an absolute disaster.

Second, they have to amend their primary process. The Iowa primary voters basically decided the race before it ever started. They realized that the favorite, Dean, had no chance nationally because of his dovishness so they jumped on a War hero instead. This was a huge, huge mistake. Not for rejecting Dean, per se, but for choosing a man with indefensible positions. He was for the Vietnam war before he was against it, for the Patriot Act before he was against it, for No Child Left Behind before he was against it, for the Iraqi war before he was against it. He is possibly the worst national candidate I've ever seen in my lifetime, with the possible exception of Dukakis. What were they thinking? This is not, as the pundits want you to believe, a referendum on the incumbant. This is a referendum on the challenger. We're not going to hand the keys to White House to someone who has contradicting positions on fundamental questions of war and peace. Better the evil we know than the one we don't.

He says that he is for broad international coalitions with UN approval but he voted against the first Gulf War. He was a strong proponent of unilateral disarmament during the Cold War. He was a strong opponent of Reagan's Central American policy. He's voted against every major weapons system that we use today. He voted against funding our troops in Iraq. As Seth likes to point out, this is why it's almost impossible to go from Congress to the White House. It's too easy to pick apart your record.

Current State of the Race

bush is trading at about 60 cents on the iowa markets, which is very, very bullish. http://128.255.244.60/quotes/78.html also, he is dominating in ohio, leading in wisconsin, is tied in pennsylvania, tied in minnesota, TIED IN NEW JERSEY (once a "sure thing" for kerry) and only down by 7 in socialist new york. the real question is: will kerry surpass dukakis's popular vote?

What the dems are up to...

meanwhile it's business as usual for the true dems - yesterday, angry kerry supporters ripped a bush/cheney sign apart that a THREE YEAR-OLD GIRL was carrying, causing her to cry. also, a woman disrupted laura bush's speech yesterday by saying that bush killed her son (a soldier who died in iraq).

Lowry's latest "must-read"

for a brilliant analysis of Kerry's Iraqi position(s) you must read lowry's piece. http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200409141223.asp

What this all means....

Now, of course, nobody is talking about Kerry - who is off spouting about healthcare somewhere - because CBS refuses to admit they were duped by a partisan lunatic. If there was any doubt about the disingenuiness of the mainstream press, there is none now. Instead, the voters are becoming bombarded with pictures of Bush climbing into his FIGHTER JET. LOL!! and the only thing people will get out of this is "damn, i didn't know bush was a fighter pilot" and "i can't believe they would forge documents to prove and irrelevant 30-yr old fact." and the dems have wrapped themselves around this issue so much, people will likely link the dems to the forgeries.

Meanwhile...

Meanwhile, Terry McAuliffe (who is the greatest thing that has happened to the Republican party in the last 10 years) is demanding answers to the questions, harkin is demanding answers (harkin, you'll recall, used to brag about being a vietnam fighter pilot - turns out he flew cargo planes in japan) and so is edwards. Additionally, the DNC has a new ad that questions Bush's guard service and actually uses clips from the CBS broadcast!!! My dog, Sebastian, could run a better campaign than these clowns. This, of course, is flying directly in the face of Clinton's (the only democrat in the last 40 yrs with any sense of the
electorate) advice to Kerry, which Clinton felt was important enough that he called Kerry to give his advice from his hospital bed before quadruple bypass surgery.

CBS

Let's recap some of the key point thus far. Dan Rather (who put the BS in CBS) was so excited at his recent scoop that he triumphantly paraded four documents that seemed to prove that Bush disobeyed a direct order to take a flight physical (even though he was no longer going to be flying) and that Bush received preferential treatment because of his dad's position (which, of course, was a relatively unknown congressmen from rural texas). These documents appeared to be authentic to Rather, who constantly brags about once being in the Marines. I guess he should know with all his military experience. Of course, like every other democrat that was in the military (see e.g., tom harkin and john "fuckin" kerry) he grossly exaggerates his record at every opportunity. You see, Rather was discharged from the Marines 4 months after he was sworn in. He never completed boot camp due to physical reasons (it's unclear whether he failed the physical requirements or whether he has an ailment of some sort). He later served in the Army guard for a very brief stint. (as an aside, graduating boot camp was one of the greatest days of my life - because that is the first time that you EARN the title "Marine").

Anyway, it turns out that, due to the power of the internet, these documents were easily pegged as forgeries within hours of Rather's broadcast. You see, the type font was times new roman, which was virtually non-existent on typewriters (that use courier). Rather's response to this is that it was possible in 1972, even though experts said the machine that could've done this would've cost $15,000 in 1972. Also, the spacing was inconsistent with any typewriter even today - typewriters have even spacing because they don't know what letter comes before or after a typed letter. The spacing on the documents was consistent with a modern computer. Further, the superscripts would have required LtCol Killian take the typewriter apart with a screwdriver and insert different keys in order to achieve the smaller font. Rather said that other documents has superscripts - although the other superscripts were still the same font size. Again, a clear indication of a modern computer.

Additionally, the paper was on 8.5 x 11 - while the Air Force used 8.5 x 10.5 at the time. Further, the documents exhibited "kerning", which is when a letter curves around a preceding or proceeding letter - impossible on any typewriters. Oh and by the way, LtCol Killian didn't know how to type and it is against Air Force regulations to keep such personal files. This is of course in addition to the sheer absurdity of the documents on their face. One was entitled "CYA" for christ's sake. One document said that a certain General was pressuring Killian to sugarcoat Bush's reports. Of course this General retired from the Guard 18 months before the letter was written and had no power whatsoever to influence anybody.
Keep in mind, of course, that the author of these memos has been dead for 20 years, his widow and son, who was also in the squadron, state that he never kept any personal files and that he greatly admired Bush, which is consistent to all the official documents that Killian filled out on Bush.
Furthermore, Bush's address on the documents was wrong, and one of the documents had a PO box for the squadron, which was bogus. Indeed, the PO box was 34567 for christ's sake. Also, Lt Col Killian's signature was not consistent with other documents and Army terminology was used instead of Air Force terminology (the reason for this will become clear later).
Rather put forth an expert that was a handwriting expert, not a document expert. This guy wrote a Law Review article in 2002 that stated that it was IMPOSSIBLE to authenticate a signature based on a copy. Of course, CBS only had copies. The expert, who CBS instructed to not talk to anyone else, couldn't take it anymore and is telling anyone that will listen that he absolutely did not and could not authenticate the documents. CBS also put forth 2 more experts, who not only are telling anyone who will listen that they didn't authenticate the documents, but are saying that they warned CBS of all the inconsistencies and told them not to run the story. CBS also put forth a retired Col. to say that although he couldn't authenticate the documents, they were consistent with the facts at the time. This Col has now said that he never saw the documents, and was misled by CBS for, among other things, telling him the documents were hand written!!
So what does CBS do? They bring out a 86 year-old lady who was not in the military but was a civilian contractor. They state that she was Killian's secretary - even though she was NOT his personal secretary but a secretary for the entire group! She is an admitted bush-hater, calling bush "unfit for command," she has never had any personal contact with Bush, she thinks that the documents are forgeries BUT she "feels" that the contents of the documents are true based on what Killian said 30 years ago - like LtCol Killian is going to confide his deep secrets about a fellow officer with the group civilian secretary.

It now appears that Rather's "unimpeachable" source is LtCol Burkett, a retired ARMY (hence the army terminology) guardsman. The NY times was able to trace the document to a kinko's near his home - also, other guardsmen have speculated that he was the source of the documents. Burkett is on record as comparing bush to hitler, has had 2 nervous breakdowns, has been hospitalized for depression and once tried to sue his superior officers in their INDIVIDUAL capacities for an illness he received when he was in Panama. He thinks he was activated for a few months to go to Panama because then-governor Bush was punishing him for making noise about having to erase some files damaging to the bush - like they would ask an admitted bush-hating army guardsman to destroy some air force documents about bush.

To top it off, Rather is now DEMANDING that Bush answer the questions raised by these forged documents!!! I swear to God i couldn't make this stuff up if I tried.

UPDATE: I stupidly relied on the NY Times for my assertion that Bush's dad was a congressman at the time. They just posted a correction stating that he was the ambassador to China in 1972. My apologies. I think Jayson Blair wrote that piece.

The First Post!

I'm excited about this new blog. I encourage members to post, and post frequently. Let the blogging begin!