The Conservative Standard
Wednesday, May 26, 2004
Political Potpourri

The Kerry Campaign Misery Index

For the sixth straight week, the Kerry campaign has increased the level of misery and shame on America. The index rose 14 points last week to close at a new high of 339.4.

I think the Kerry Misery Squad has finally figured out that keeping the Senator quiet is a smart move. The less he has appeared on TV, the fewer negative things he has said and the more stable his poll numbers have been.

But he's had some help from a few friends....

The Gentlelady From California

Senator Kerry may be quiet, but others in the Democratic Party have not been silent. Last week, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi took several personal potshots at the President. Among the highlights:

"The situation in Iraq and the reckless economic policies in the United States speak to one issue for me, and that is the competence of our leader. These policies are not working."

"I believe the president's leadership in the actions taken in Iraq demonstrate an incompetence in terms of knowledge, judgment and experience in making the decisions that would have been necessary to truly accomplish the mission without the deaths to our troops and the cost to our taxpayers."
These kinds of bald face misstatements just blow me away. The fact that any Democrat can make untrue, demonstrably false statements like those is just incredible. To hear them from a party leader is really astounding. How these folks can say things like that and maintain any sort of credibility with the American people is beyond me. But I hope they keep it up.

Reckless economic policies? Low inflation, low unemployment, and a more than a million jobs created in eight months is reckless? Oh, yeah. We need to slow that down for sure.

Accomplish the mission in Iraq without losing lives or spending money? I want to hear that plan. How does that work? How do we prosecute a war without getting our hands dirty? I'd like to know. I'm waiting, Nancy. Still waiting. Please tell me.

Incidentally, we have completely crushed Muqtada al-Sadr's rebellion. You can be forgiven if you didn't know this. The press has been busy playing up stories about prisoner abuse, so they haven't had much time to devote to military successes. Darn the luck.

U.S. forces have killed hundreds of Sadr's "Minute Men" as Michael Moore described them. He (Sadr, not Moore) agreed Wednesday to withdraw his forces from Najaf and turn the city over to Iraqi police control. This was accomplished with the cooperation of the Iraq religious leaders and a relatively small U.S. loss of life. Yeah, that was a pretty reckless and incompetent of the President. I'm sure he's ashamed of himself.

The Man Who Would Have Been King

If you thought Nancy Pelosi was harsh, you ain't seen nothin' yet. Al Gore went off his lithium today and had another big, screaming tantrum.

In a rambling speech at New York University, Gore went nuts with such nuggets as:

"What happened at the prison, it is now clear, was not the result of random acts by 'a few bad apples,' it was the natural consequence of the Bush Administration policy that has dismantled those wise constraints and has made war on America's checks and balances."

"The unpleasant truth is that President Bush's utter incompetence has made the world a far more dangerous place and dramatically increased the threat of terrorism against the United States."

"He [President Bush] promised to 'restore honor and integrity to the White House.' Instead, he has brought deep dishonor to our country and built a durable reputation as the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon."
Gore's speech is eight printed pages and goes on and on like that. It is chock full of nonsense, quotes unnamed sources and just sprays hate at the President. Go read it for yourself. It's pretty incredible.

I can't look at or hear Al Gore without thinking to myself how lucky we are he wasn't elected president. We very nearly escaped a serious tragedy.

A Concert Without A Conductor?

You have to pay real close attention, but connect the dots in the anti-Bush, anti-America news of the last six days. Look at Congresswoman Pelosi's speech, the "shocking findings" that al-Qaeda is flourishing, the U.S. condemnation from Amnesty International, and finally, Gore's speech. Read the text and think about the subjects. Then look at the Kerry's campaign's focus for this week.

What do we find? Some of the exact same phrases and ideas are being repeated. All of these things, including the findings from "independent think tanks" are dovetailing with the Kerry message this week.

Coincidence? Oh, I'm sure it must be. We all know these independent liberal groups and persons cannot, under the terms of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act, work in concert with the Kerry campaign. Therefore, it has to be a coincidence. And a failure of leadership from George Bush, of course.

"It's a nice day for a white wedding..."

When I first heard that coalition forces had killed 40 people at an Iraqi wedding, I was scared of the repercussions. Now that I know it wasn't true, I'm even more scared.

There are two lessons to be learned from the "wedding attack" incident. First, the terrorists are becoming extremely adept at manipulating the media. They've always been good at it, but they're getting real good at it now. Second, the media is becoming extremely compliant about telling the terrorist side of the story without bothering to check the facts first.

I am stunned by the fact that reporters won't leave the safety of the Green Zone to report good news, but will send a crew halfway across Iraq to dredge up anti-American propaganda from terrorists.

One more time for those of us from the "flyover states":

The terrorists cannot beat us militarily. They know that. They beat us when the break our resolve to fight them. The media is helping the terrorists. Read that again.
Now I'd like to have a little fun at the expense of the conspirators, both the terrorists and their friends at the Associated Press.

To: Rikad Nayef
From: Rajeef Shihab
Date: May 18, 2004
Subject: Wedding Plans

The "wedding" plans are going well. Make sure everyone knows where the "reception" will be held. My house at Mogr el-Deeb is very isolated. It is 250 miles from Ramadi, just five miles south of the Syrian border.

The "wedding guests" have assembled $4 million in Syrian and Sudanese currency to pay the expenses of importing French-made "pastries" from Syria. We have assembled a large quantity of white "powdered sugar" to decorate the "pastries."

We are unsure where the groom and bride may want to "honeymoon." Accordingly, we have gathered up a number of passports from different countries for them to use. We have also purchased a Sudanese plane ticket.

The celebration should be quite festive. We have acquired a large number of rocket-propelled grenade launchers to put on a fireworks display. We have a number of battery packs on hand to create improvised explosive devices. We will be able to put on quite a fireworks show. Heh, heh.

There will be a large quantity of handguns, rifles and machine guns for the revelers to use for "celebratory fire." Tell the "wedding guests" that if anyone tries to crash the party, they are to lay down a thick, suppressing celebratory fire. I hope no one "accidentally" hits an American airplane. Ha!

I have acquired a video camera to tape the celebration. This tape may come in handy in the event that anyone cannot attend the "party."

Your pal,
No one wants to see innocent women and children killed in a tragedy like this. On the other hand, most drug and arms smugglers don't bring their families into hazardous areas either. They also don't hide in Mosques like cowards to escape attack.

General Kimmitt said it best:

"Bad people have celebrations too."

"What we found on the ground and our post-strike analysis suggests that what we had was a significant foreign fighter smuggler way-station in the middle of the desert that was bringing people into this country for the sole purpose of attacking to kill the people of Iraq."
Rest in peace, party-goers.
Friday, May 21, 2004
Unfiltered News from Iraq

I just read a story that ran in the Biloxi Sun Herald that I wish every American could read. I am reproducing it below, but you can find the original print version here.

Take a moment to read the whole article, because you sure aren't going to see this story on the network news.

A soldier's view from the frontline


BAGHDAD, Iraq - I am a soldier with the 16th Engineering Battalion of the 1st Armored Division. Our unit is presently in combat against the uprising of Muqtada al-Sadr.

This situation is extremely sensitive. Had we entered this prematurely, victory would not have been possible. We have been involved in preparations and much planning. Today we are scoring amazing successes against this would-be tyrant.
I ask only that the American people be brave. Don't fall for the spin by those portraying this as a disaster. It just isn't true.

In April 2003, while the main war was still going on, I gave a class to my company about the threat posed by Sadr. Though my fellow soldiers didn't appreciate having to attend a class at 8 a.m., they can tell you that what is happening now is no surprise.

Our evaluation more than a year ago was that Sadr presented a formidable and possibly impossible threat. Last summer, as my unit covered Sadr City - the sprawling part of Baghdad that Sadr controlled - his militia made a show of force in defiance of the effort to open Iraq to new freedoms.

Sadr intimidated most of Iraq's Shia leaders and the community at large. He welcomed many foreign fighters to train and assist his militia in terrorist tactics and guerrilla warfare.

Our leaders acted with caution and care to secure ever-stronger cards against Sadr while working to achieve four main goals. The first goal was to isolate Sadr. Second was to exile him from his power base in Baghdad. Third was to contain his uprising. And the last was to get his hard-line supporters to abandon him and to encourage moderates to break from him.

This has been done brilliantly. Sadr is losing everything. Consider just some of the goals we've accomplished recently:

• Goal One: Sadr's so-called Mahdi Army militia now is fighting alone. The people of Baghdad, Karbala and Najaf are not supporting him. His forces are isolated.

• Goal Two: His one-time powerbase, Sadr City in Baghdad, has been lost. Sadr has been exiled. We have him on the run. Other Shia leaders are breaking from him. Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani has left Sadr's call for jihad and uprising to founder on deaf ears. Paul Bremmer and Gen. John Abizaid stunned the Shia community by negotiating a calm in Fallujah. That tail-spinned Sadr's ability to intimidate Iraq's Shia leaders. The Iraqi people of Najaf and Karbala are offended by this Baghdad thug coming to their cities and trying to hijack them into conflict with the United States.

• Goal Three: Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia are insulting the most sacred sites of Shia Islam daily. This is offending Iraq's Shia leaders very much. Our units, in fact, are operating within 500 meters of the most sacred Shia religious sites, and the local people are not resisting. This is what the pessimists at home are preventing you from understanding. Something like this would have been impossible before Sadr and his militia thugs went into there to hijack Iraqi Shia Islam. The people of Najaf and Karbala know we are not there to conquer and occupy the religious sites; we are there to liberate them from this would-be tyrant.

• Goal four: Now Sadr's patrons and mentor in Iran are breaking from him. Grand Ayatollah Kazim al-Haeri in Qom, Iran, is no longer backing him. Haeri was a close intimate to Sadr's respectable father. Sadr has been abandoned.

I'm not blind to the casualties this is causing us. My battalion should be home reunited with family and friends after serving a full year here. Instead, we are still here where the temperature is reaching 115-125 degrees. And some of my fellow soldiers have fallen.

U.S. soldiers are working their hardest. Be strong and persistent in your faith with us. Sadr's militia is desperate, so it is dangerous, but keep this in perspective.

The pessimists would have you believe this is a disaster. Don't listen. I think some of them believe their reputations require our failure because they have been so negative. Eliminating Sadr's threat is part of the mission. We are further ensuring the liberation of the Iraqi people. This has to be done, and we are doing it.

Don't be seduced by those who would rather that we sit back and just enjoy the freedoms past generations of Americans have sacrificed to gain for us. This is our time to earn it. I remember President Bush saying after the Sept. 11 attacks: "The commitment of our fathers is now the calling of our time."
Joe Roche serves with the U.S. Army's 16th Combat Engineer Battalion in Iraq and is an adjunct fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research (www.nationalcenter.org), a conservative think-tank. Readers may write him at NCPPR, 777 N. Capitol St. NE, Suite 803, Washington, DC 20002.
"I think some of them believe their reputations require our failure because they have been so negative."

BAM! You hit it right on the head, Joe. The liberal establishment is counting on America to fail in Iraq. They have invested everything in telling the American people that we are failing and cannot win the War on Terrorism. If we succeed--scratch that--WHEN we succeed, the liberals are going to have, as they like to put it, a huge credibility gap.

The Democrats pinned their hopes on a weak economy and failure in Iraq. Now that the economy is back on track, they have been forced to bet all their chips against America's success in Iraq. As I've said many times, they've got nothing else to offer the American people. Nothing. If people begin to notice that Iraq is settling down and moving toward sovereignty, John Kerry is finished. The liberals will look awfully silly (yet again) and the American media is going to lose (even more) trust with the American people. The liberals must paint Iraq as a failure. They have no other choice.

So do your part as a patriot. Circulate the article above. Send it to a friend or two. Talk about it. Reference it. Make people understand that, in spite of what they are hearing on TV, we are winning the War on Terrorism. Spread the word.

As Joe Roche put it: "Don't be seduced by those who would rather that we sit back and just enjoy the freedoms past generations of Americans have sacrificed to gain for us. This is our time to earn it."

Sunday, May 16, 2004

Partners In Crime

I can't believe this one.

CBS And ABC To Partner With Al-Jazeera
May 14, 2003
Associated Press

At a joint news conference in New York, CBS News President Andrew Heyward and ABC News President David Westin announced their respective networks will pool their reporting with Arab network al-Jazeera.

The networks say they are taking this step to ensure fair and accurate reporting on news in Iraq and the Middle East.

"American war correspondents face unprecedented dangers in Iraq," said CBS's Heyward. "The potential for loss of life and kidnapping is growing each day. By pooling our reporting with al-Jazeera, we hope to minimize the exposure of our correspondents."

ABC News President Westin outlined what the two networks hoped to accomplish with this joint effort.

"Al-Jazeera can get into combat areas that are unsafe for American reporters. This partnership will allow us to report on the successes of insurgents in such trouble spots as Fallujah, Nasiriya and Najaf. Likewise, we can share information and insight into the plans of Coalition Forces with al-Jazeera and its audience."

When asked if such a partnership with an alleged anti-American news network might compromise the objectivity of American news reports, Heyward angrily refuted that notion.

"The news coming from Central Command and the [Coalition] Provisional Authority is inherently biased to say the least," said Heyward. "CBS and ABC hope to add accuracy and fairness to our reporting by presenting the news and views of the Iraqi freedom fighters as well as the U.S. military."

Westin was quick to interject, "News coverage of the Vietnam War was improved dramatically by interviews with North Vietnamese troops and commanders. We hope to bring some of that same balance to our news reports on the War in Iraq."
Stop. Take a deep breath.

The story you just read isn't real. It isn't an AP story at all. I wrote it. It is a hoax, a parody, satire, whatever the lawyers want to call it.

My point in doing this is simple. Ask yourself: Did I believe the story? Did I think it was true? Did it sound plausible that two American TV networks would invent a new way to broadcast anti-American news?

If you answered yes to any of those questions, then welcome to the Conservative Revolution, my friend. You just got a taste of what the American media gives us each day. We get an endless drip of negativity, misery and failure from our own "news" reports. There is nothing positive or uplifting about the news that isn't qualified by, "...but here are some other problems."

Welcome to My World

Media bias is nothing new. We've all known about it for quite some time. The only people who still deny it exists are liberals and reporters. It is that denial that has made the problem worse and worse and worse. And nowhere is media bias at a more fevered pitch than Iraq.

I thoroughly hate having to absorb media reports through a veil of skepticism. It is exhausting to have to question everything you're told by the media. But you've got to do it, friends. In an age where media conglomerates control nearly everything we are told, we have to question their fairness and honesty. There just isn't any other choice anymore.

I have said this many times and will continue to say it: If you're not visiting the Media Research.org web site on a regular basis, YOU SHOULD BE. In fact, go there now and take a look and then come back here.

Knowing that such an organization exists to root out media bias is a comforting thing. Beyond that, however, you have to learn to spot media bias and train yourself to look for it every single day. It's not a fun thing by any means, but it will allow you to get more truth from the news.

For those of you who hate the idea of having to pick apart the news you see/hear/read, here are three quick and dirty warning signs that you are probably not getting objective news: 1. Associated Press. 2. Reuters. 3. The New York Times. You can add pretty much any media outlet in the country to that list because the vast majority of their news comes from one of those three sources.

For my part, I have quit watching ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN. The only reason I watch their news now is to get the liberal spin on events of the day. I almost exclusively watch Fox News now, and even then, I have to filter it for objectivity. Apparently, I'm not alone in this. The Big Three Networks and CNN have all lost tremendous market share to Fox and will continue to do so.

Pick A Side

The United States is at war with terrorism and will be for years to come. That is a sad, true, harsh fact of life. Consequently, it's time--it's past time--to pick a side and stick to it.

The media has chosen its side. They have chosen to run stories that demoralize Americans and give aid and comfort to our enemies. And no, I don't think that statement is too harsh. Go look again with objective eyes if you disagree.

The terrorists know they can never beat us militarily. They KNOW that. Where they hope to beat us is in our own minds. If they can crack our resolve, as they have many times before, they know we will go away and leave them to their devices. In fact, they're counting on it.

Are you on America's side? Then go now and find some positive stories about our efforts to fight terrorism in Iraq. I'll give you three places to start:




But the greatest thing you can do to help America is to keep your resolve. We cannot give up and we cannot give in to terrorism. We have to keep fighting.

We are winning.

The Week In Review

The Kerry Campaign Misery Index

The Kerry juggernaut rolled along strong this week. We should all be feeling just a little worse about things today.

In its fifth week, the Kerry Campaign Misery Index rose 65 points to a new high of 325.4. Senator Kerry's persistent harping on the failures of the Bush administration contributed to the index's second largest one-week gain.

New rule. Each time a Democrat uses the words "arrogant" or "stubborn" to describe the President, one point will be added to the index. Don't like that rule? Whine and cry about how unfair it is and then get the ACLU to sue me.

Not In My Backyard

The New York Times ran another "analysis" of the presidential race this past week. Those of you familiar with the Times' objective coverage will recognize the piece. They run one every few weeks and the theme is always the same:

"Things are tight, but here are three reasons why John Kerry will carry the day."

This particular article talked about visits to battleground states. The bit that caught my eye was from Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona. The article said:

Ms. Napolitano said that when she accompanied Mr. Kerry here on Friday at the annual meeting of the moderate [Ha!] Democrat Leadership Council, "Everybody who saw him told him the same thing: He needed to get to their state as soon as he could."
Draw your own conclusions, but the message I get from that is: "Our states are too close to call. We're scared. Get busy and start stumping here."

A Word On Polling

Watch the President's overall job approval rating closely. A good place to do that is www.rasmussenreports.com where you can see the President's job approval rating as well as the daily presidential tracking poll.

I have read three lengthy expert analyses that say if the President's job approval stands at 45 to 49%, the race is tight. If it stands at 50% or better, this will add four percentage points to his poll number.

According to Rasmussen, the President's job approval number has been hitting in the low 50s nearly every day this year. If this trend continues, and if the experts are correct, battleground states like Florida, Ohio, Michigan, et al, should just barely tip for the President. I've been saying for some time now that this election wouldn't be as close as everyone thinks.

Now do you see why "everyone" is clamoring for Senator Kerry to visit their state?

John Kerry may be his own worst enemy, however. To quote this article by Scott Rasmussen:

What little movement we have seen suggests that the President loses a couple of points every time a new level of bad news comes from Iraq. After a few days or a week, however, the numbers return to the toss-up range. Senator Kerry loses a few points every time the spotlight focuses on him. Kerry's numbers bounce back when the focus returns to the President.
Perhaps the smartest tactic for Senator Kerry is to stay silent. Remember what your mother told you: "If you don't have anything nice to say...."

"I Feel Your Pain"

Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington introduced an amendment to the Republican tax bill this past week. The amendment would have provided extended unemployment benefits for 1 million plus unemployed workers. Because of a quirk in Senate rules, the amendment needed 60 votes to pass. It failed by a vote of 59-40. Who was the absent Senator?

Have you seen this man?

The Democrats spun that story about 60 different ways. The Kerry campaign dismissed the Senator's absence by saying: "We were told that no matter what would happen, [the Republicans] would change a vote in the Senate and they were not going to let it happen."

Well, gee, I guess we'll never know, will we? Then again, if Senator Kerry had shown up to do his job, he might have made the difference for a million people. As it is, he was the only United States Senator that didn't think the vote was important enough to attend. In fact, the last time I checked, John Kerry had the worst voting record in the Senate. Something to think about in November.

Sunday, May 09, 2004
The Week In Review

I am working on a number of articles at the moment, including a review of the Kerry education plan. For now, however, you'll have to settle for another Week In Review.

The Kerry Campaign Misery Index

The Kerry Campaign Misery Index increased only 17 points to close the week at 260.4. The index began four weeks ago at a base of 100 and has increased every week since.

Senator Kerry spent the week focusing on education, which drew another big yawn from the media. He did preempt two education speeches to criticize the President on Iraq. Those remarks gave the biggest boost to the index. This relative lack of media coverage explains this week's small increase.

A special shout out to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi for using the phrase "worst _____ since the Great Depression." Thanks, Nancy. I had been missing that.

The Torricelli Factor--Part 2

Since the New York Times cracked the whip on the Kerry campaign last week, Kerry's minions have responded. The long-promised positive image ads have begun to run across the country and field offices have been started in several key states.

The news is not all good for the Senator, however. Several notable left-wing pundits have written articles critical of Kerry's lack of fire on Iraq and complaining about his lack of charisma.

Give him a break, guys. Kerry can only nitpick one thing at a time.

This Is Your President

At a campaign stop in Lebanon, Pennsylvania, President Bush was working the crowd when he heard someone say, "This girl lost her mom in the World Trade Center on 9-11."

From the Cincinnati Enquirer:

Bush stopped and turned back.

"He changed from being the leader of the free world to being a father, a husband and a man," [the girl's father Lynn] Faulkner said. "He looked right at her and said, 'How are you doing?' He reached out with his hand and pulled her into his chest."

Faulkner snapped one frame with his camera.

"I could hear her say, 'I'm OK,'" he said. "That's more emotion than she has shown in 2 1/2 years. Then he said, 'I can see you have a father who loves you very much.'"
Remember that photo on election day.

"Best economic recovery since the Carter Recession."

The past two weeks has brought some extraordinary news on the economy.

The big March jobs increase had a nice effect on the Consumer Confidence Index. The index rose 4.4 points in April to 92.9.

"This latest improvement in consumer confidence was sparked by a more favorable assessment of current business and labor market conditions and increased consumer optimism about the next six months," says Lynn Franco, Director of The Conference Board's Consumer Research Center. "The job market, which has a major impact on confidence, appears to be gaining strength. The percentage of consumers claiming jobs are hard to get is now at its lowest level since November 2002, and more consumers expect this trend to continue."
I think it is also worth noting that the Democrats quit harping so much on the economy during most of April.

A few short days later, the Commerce Department released the first quarter economic growth numbers. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew at an adjusted rate of 4.2%, signaling healthy economic growth. GDP growth for the past year stands at an impressive 4.9%, the best growth rate in the past 20 years.

That made the media unhappy, of course. Because some economists had predicted a 5.0% growth rate, the typical headline or lead was that the economy grew at a less-than-expected clip. Forget that the growth was the best in 20 years. Let's trot a few guys to say that the economy is good, but could be better. Let's make the public hold their breath for another month or two. Nice.

The media's "below expectations" spin backfired when the April jobs report was released this week. A total of 288,000 new jobs were created last month, about 100,000 ahead of expectations. The March numbers were revised upward to 337,000 new jobs. Even manufacturing jobs got a small, much-needed bump.

It's kind of hard to find the cloud in that silver lining, but the media tried. They took their cue from the Kerry campaign and pointed out that 1.6 million jobs have been lost during the Bush presidency. They certainly didn't want to point out that more jobs have been created this year than were lost in the past two years. And they sure didn't want to say that job losses in the post-9/11 economy have begun to reverse also.

The economy will continue to improve this year. John Kerry has lost a quarter of his battle plan. Now we're down to "Iraq is Vietnam" and "I served in Vietnam" and "America sucks! Hate Bush!"

Annual Report on Terrorism

I've been waiting for nearly two weeks for the news outlets to report this story. With the exception of one interview on Fox News and one story on CNN, no one has made a peep about it.

The State Department released its 2003 report on global terrorism two weeks ago. The report shows, in detail, that terrorism fell last year.

There were 190 acts of international terrorism in 2003. That is down slightly from 2002 and down a whopping 45% from 2001. Anti-U.S. attacks were up a tad from 2002, but down 62% from 2001.

My first thought was, "How can that possibly be? With all the activity in Iraq, how can terrorism be down?"

The answer is highlighted in the State Department report:
Most of the attacks that have occurred during Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom do not meet the longstanding US definition of international terrorism because they were directed at combatants, that is, US and Coalition forces on duty. Attacks against noncombatants, that is, civilians and military personnel who at the time of the incident were unarmed and/or not on duty, are judged as terrorist attacks.
So they fiddled with the numbers to make them look good, right? No. Think about it.

Many foreign terror groups have committed their resources and people to Iraq. As a consequence, the Middle East has become the world's main terrorist battleground outside of Asia.

Now call me stupid, but it sure seems to me that it is a better plan to fight terrorism in Iraq than in New York. If our efforts have caused terrorists to concentrate their efforts in the Middle East, where we have a well-equipped army of 200,000 soldiers, then are we not winning the War on Terror? Have we not done a good job of containing terrorism? Is the world not a safer place because of our policies?

Well, apparently not, according to the Los Angeles Times. In an article titled "Threat of 'Dirty Bomb' Growing, Officials Say" the L.A. Times paints a cheery picture of nuclear holocaust in a major city. Thanks for the nice thought.

From the article:

"I'm very surprised that a radiological device hasn't gone off," said Matthew Bunn, a nuclear expert at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. "There is a bigger puzzle--why no Al Qaeda attacks since Sept. 11 in the U.S.?"
I truly believe you have to go to an Ivy League school to find morons of this magnitude and stature. Why haven't there been Al Qaeda attacks in the U.S. since 9/11? Because we've got them on the run, jackass. We have destroyed 75% of their ability to operate, we've taken away their money and support and we've run them out of two terror-harboring countries. They haven't been back because our strategy is working!

You can remember that on election day too.
Saturday, May 01, 2004
The Week In Review

I haven't been a very conscientious blogger this week. There are many news items that bear some attention, so I'll hit them quickly.

The Kerry Campaign Misery Index

After long week of defensive flailing by "The Angry John Kerry" the misery index shot up 74 points to 243.4. The index began three weeks ago with a base score of 100.

A good deal of the increase was due to Kerry's speech at Westminster College in which he said things like, "We know our military was sent into battle without the right equipment."

["I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it."]

Also prominent was Kerry's speech to the Conference of Black Mayors on Thursday in which he scared the snot out of the public about chemical plant security.

"I wish their policies were as tough as their words. What are we waiting for? Why won't they lead this nation to take every step to prevent one of our own chemical plants from being turned into a weapon of mass destruction against our own people?"

That's gotta make the Democrats proud of their boy!

How Very Clintonesque

Prior to his appearance on Meet The Press last Sunday, Senator Kerry had his hair done. Cristophe stylist Isabelle Goetz was flown to Washington to touch up the Senator's hair before his TV appearance.

The cost of this extravagance? Between the cost of the haircut, the travel time for the exclusive stylist and the private jet ride, estimates place the cost of this haircut at $1000. That's five times what President Clinton's Cristophe cut cost.

It paid off for Senator Kerry, however. I was so dazzled by his hair, I didn't even catch all his pointless blathering and diplobabble on TV.

The Torricelli Factor

Remember New Jersey Senator Rober Torricelli? He had won the Democratic primary in New Jersey in 2002 when scandal finally brought him down. Rather than eat the loss, Torricelli withdrew just before the election and the New Jersey Dems replaced him on the ticket with retired Senator Frank Lautenberg. Of course, they had to go to court to get Lautenberg on the ballot, but the Democrats live to bend the law in court.

There have been some recent cries in the wilderness that Senator Kerry may not be able to win in November. Some have suggested that perhaps--just perhaps--the Dems should ditch him and run another candidate in November.

First, let me say that the chances of Kerry being bumped off the ticket are zero. He's got the delegates and the convention is all but over. To that, add the fact that the Democrats love to play this little self doubting game in every election cycle. However, the buzz won't go away. I waited until I got three sources before mentioning it.

You'll never guess where the second guessing is coming from. It certainly shocked me. The first source was this column in the Village Voice. As if that weren't shocking enough, the New York Times ran a more in-depth piece on the failings of the Kerry campaign. When the Liberal Bible runs a story like that, you'd better get your house in order.

The third source is one of my own. I have been watching liberal message boards this past week. Sure enough, about a quarter of Kerry's own "supporters" are starting to express their dissatisfaction with him. This could possibly signal a crack in Kerry's support that Ralph Nader could rush in to fill. Here's hoping Nader makes it onto every ballot in America.

Ted Koppel's Tribute

When I heard that Ted Koppel planned to read the names of soldiers killed in action in Iraq, my first thought was that it was more anti-war propaganda by the liberal media. After hearing Koppel's protestations to the contrary and his desire to honor the fallen, I very reluctantly gave him the benefit of the doubt.

Then the liberals showed their true colors.

ABC, the network that gives us anti-Iraq news and daily body counts announced that Nightline program would air during Sweeps Week. Well, of course. God forbid we do anything to honor our troops when there aren't ratings involved. Just to make sure they squeezed every last nickel out of our dead soldiers, they put Koppel on Good Morning America the day of the broadcast to hype the Nightline show.

Then, just to make absolutely certain we couldn't misunderstand Koppel's motives, he went on Air America with Al Franken on Friday. Kopple, the scion of impartial broadcasting, cast aside his reporter's cloak and became a commentator for a while. Imagine my surprise when Koppel began to critisize the progress of the war.

I'm sick of having to filter everything I see and read through an objectivity filter. Just once I'd like to sit down and watch or read the news without having to pick through the liberal bias. Just once.

Here's my challenge to those of you in the media: For every three negative stories you run about the War on Terrorism, run one positive story. Just one. Find a good thing that happened in Iraq and say, "Here is a positive, uplifting story" without following it up with, "but here's something to make you doubt that things are really that good after all." For every picture you run of a burning truck and an angry mob, run one of a smiling, well fed Iraqi child.

If you do that, I might watch your news for some reason other than identifying liberal bias. You can even do it during Sweeps Week!

Teaching By Example

A DEA agent, giving a presentation to children on gun safety, accidentally shot himself in the leg on Friday, April 9th.

It gets better. The unnamed agent removed the magazine, pulled back the slide and had an audience member look inside the gun to confirm it wasn't loaded. When he released the slide, a bullet discharged and shot him in the thigh.

Said one participant, Vivian Farmer, "The kids screamed and started to cry. Everyone was pretty shaken up, but the point of gun safety hit home. Unfortunately, the agent had to get shot. But after seeing that, my nephew doesn't want to have anything to do with guns."

Yeah, nice lesson. Freaking brilliant. Why don't you have a kid look down the barrel next time, you moron? Better yet, do it yourself. You just gave some really nice fuel to the anti-gun crowd. Idiot.

"Our greatest interest, I think, is going to be in the facts."

President Bush and Vice President Cheney testified before the 9/11 Commission this week. The President silenced the critics and jokesters who said the joint appearance was a cover up and an attempt to get the stories straight. The Commission released a very positive statement after the three-hour meeting. It was reported that the President answered about 99% of the questions himself.

But, in yet another demonstration of their serious commitment to duty, two commissioners left before the end of the meeting. Former Senator Bob Kerrey and former Congressman Lee Hamilton both left to attend other meetings about an hour before the President's testimony concluded.

Between this, half the commission being absent for Condoleezza Rice's private testimony and Jamie Gorelick's obvious conflict of interest, how can the commission ever hope to be taken seriously? No matter what they say now, it will all be clouded by the slipshod, haphazard way they have conducted themselves. Oh sure, they'll show up when the cameras are on. But if they can't get some TV time, they act like they don't care. Get this circus over with quickly.

Shut The Hell Up, Andy

Sometimes only a soldier can say the things that need to be said.

In this terrific Fox News story, former Lt. Colonel Oliver North suggests that Andy Rooney may be less than helpful to the war effort.

Rooney, the once-tolerable "60 Minutes" commentator, wrote a newspaper column titled, "Our Soldiers Aren't Really Heroes." Among other things, the resident Hobbit from CBS wrote, "You can be sure our soldiers in Iraq are not all brave heroes gladly risking their lives for us sitting her comfortably back here at home."

I'm going to reserve my own vitriolic comments. Oliver North said what needed to be said in his column. His best comment was, "One thing you could do to show your appreciation for our troops who are defending your right to speak is to shut the hell up."

Andy Rooney makes me wish that CBS would lower its mandatory retirement age to 135-years-old.

Placing Liberal Blame Where It Belongs

In one of the oddest cases I have ever read, this story tells who Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger blames for the Jayson Blair scandal.

The cause of Blair's ficticious reporting? The Times readers, of course!

"Sulzberger [said] the worst thing to come out of the Blair scandal was...readers who knew about the incorrect reporting did not complain..."

That's a whole lot like saying, "I shot myself in the leg, but the fault lies with the person who confirmed that it wasn't loaded."

That is some classic liberal blame denial, Pinch. No wonder your paper stands in such high esteem with the left wing.

Powered by Blogger