The First Draft of History

This is why I'm a conspiracy theorist:

On September 11, 2003 I was working inside of a factory in Alabama. I had no access to news either on TV or radio until my shift was over late in the afternoon. I became aware of the terrorist attack on our nation via a phone call from my wife around 9:30 am or so from my panicked wife who said something on the order of:

"We're under attack. Planes have crashed into the World Trade Center and both towers have collapsed. The Air Force has shot down a plane in Pennsylvania and I think they've bombed the Pentagon too."

That's what I call the first draft of history. Everything after that is edited. Sanitized for your protection. Very quickly after a tragedy like 9-11, especially one involving terrorism, you stop seeing the raw footage. You stop seeing footage on TV of the bodies jumping out of the doomed buildings, because someone has decided that you don't need to see that anymore. In other words, you stop seeing the truth.

Being an Air Force veteran, I clued in on the part about shooting down a plane. It was all a monstrous tragedy, but the shootdown of an American airliner by the military would be unique and historic. That would be a truly important part of the story. Was the Air Force really given an order to shoot down a commercial airliner? My wife didn't make up that bit of information in the middle of that recounting of the morning's events. She was relaying to me actual news stories which indicated that the plane was shot down based on eyewitness accounts. Was it true?

Over time, the shootdown story was dismissed in favor of the now well-known story of the "Let's Roll" passengers forcing down the jet. That's the version that the 9-11 Commission tells in minute-by-minute detail in their Report. The shootdown story was just incorrect. The witnesses were wrong. Anyone who wants to keep exploring the shootdown theory is just a kook, (or Keeper Of Odd Knowledge, as Rush calls them!). Case closed.

Until this week, when Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld opened it again. Speaking to American troops in Iraq, Rummy made a statement about the terrorists "attacking the United States in New York and shooting down the plane in Pennslyvania". Oops! Slip of the tongue. Nothing to see here. Move along please.

Don't you remember? The witnesses were wrong. Just like they were in Oklahoma City where they saw Middle Eastern companions with McVeigh. Just like they were on Long Island when they saw a missle take down TWA Flight 800. Just like they were when they saw an explosion take down a jet leaving New York in the week after 9/11. They were all wrong.

The govenment told us so. It must be true.

"It's about physics"?

By now everyone has probably seen the video of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld answering questions yesterday from the troops in Kuwait, troops about to be sent into Iraq. Internet watchers have probably also tuned into the controversial discovery that the most contentious questions from the soldiers were not spontaneous, but were staged by embedded reporters.

I'll focus only on the most serious aspect of the story: Rumsfeld's answers.

Now I'm a fan of Sec. Rumsfeld and I think he did a stellar job in reforming the Cold War structured military to fight and win two terrorist based wars, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. I'm a fan. And I'm glad he's staying on in the administration.

But this particular press conference is very troubling. I do applaud the Secretary for stepping up to the mike and taking questions unscripted. And, granted, I'll have to assume that we did not see the whole story on the MSM reports. I heard expanded coverage which indicated that he was well received and even had a standing ovation from one group. I'll assume that the whole conversation was taken out of context in the soundbites, as it invariably is.

Having said that, I would have to say that his answers yesterday to the troops were beyond pitiful. Three answers in particular were deplorable:

1. The answer to the question of why the army didn't have enough armored vehicles: "It's not about the army's desire, it's about physics, it's about production."

Not good enough, by far. You're the Sec. of Defense. Break through all of that. Find out if they have enough armor. If they don't, get it to them. Period. You owe it to the troops.

2. General answer to some bitching: "You go to war with the army you have, not the one you want to have."

True, but not good enough. You're the guy who's supposed to deliver the army that you want to have. Deliver it already.

3. Further answer on the question of armor: something to the effect of "you can have a fully armored vehicle and still get blown up"

Are you kidding me? You would say that to a gathering of troops heading into battle? Are you a heartless robot?

Howard Fineman of MSNBC and Newsweek had it right tonight when he said that the last statement showed a hopelessly "cavalier" attitude toward soldier's lives. Absolutely right.

John Stewart, of "The Daily Show" on Comedy Central skewered these answers in a devastating and hilarious montage.

President Bush stepped out today and rightly corrected these ridiculous comments. And hopefully he gave Rumsfeld a thorough dressing down. We need Rumsfeld's leadership to finish the job there. But he needs to learn a lesson here. His answers were plainly not acceptable.

Awful-izers

My pastor stepped on my toes this weekend, but good. If you are a regular church goer and have a good pastor you know that he's going to hit you where you live every now and again and put you under "conviction".

In my case, it was his description of what he calls "awful-izers". They are the folks around the church and elsewhere that he encounters that take any piece of news and put the worst possible take on it. The example he gave was of a prayer chain that started with the news that a member was going in for heart tests, and by the time it got around the chain the member was dead and the funeral was on Wednesday! Someone in the chain was an awful-izer.

Okay, he got me. I'm a partisan. And a news junkie. And an occupational hazard for a partisan newsjunkie is to be an awful-izer. I've known for a long time that I'm prone to this particular malady and every so often I get reminded of it. It takes a lot of effort to take a balanced look at issues and both not exaggerate the severity of an issue and to see the positive elements of the other point of view. I try to achieve that, but it's hard and I often fall in the trap of being an awful-izer.

Now, I have to list two caveats with the concept of awful-izing in general:

- it doesn't mean that there is never "awful" news or issues that need to be confronted, or exposed, or opposed. And I will take those issues on fearlessly.

- both sides are susceptible to this phenomenon. I feel comfortable saying that it's typically the party out of power that exhibits this the most, as I believe the Democrats did during this election.

Ok. I've fessed up. Anyone else want to examine themselves? You should think about some self-examination if you've any of the following positions in the last year:

- George W. Bush is Hitler
- John Ashcroft is a facist who uses the Constitution for toilet paper
- America is worse than al Qaeda
- Haliburton is the single most corrupt entity in the world (U.N. oil-for-food, pick up the red phone)
- The fundamentalist Christian right is taking over America and shoving it's views down everyone's throats

Come on in. Stick your toes out and get them stepped on. It does a soul good.

Methodists Hold Line on Clergy

The news last week included an item about a United Methodist "trial" of a clergy member living a lesbian lifestyle. The "jury" of clergy convicted her in a vote of 11-1 and has removed her from the clergy. Members of her home church have stated publicly that the would want her to continue her duties as a layman, minus the sacraments that are reserved for clergy.

I don't particularly have a comment on the specific case or the woman who was on trial. She makes her own choices about her lifestyle and I'm sure that she is a fine and caring person who wants to minister to people in a sacrificial manner. Admirable. I have no desire, and certainly no standing not being a member of that church, to judge her.

I do think, however, it was inevitable and necessary that the hierarchy of her church, to whom she is completely accountable, to judge her by the standards of the church doctrine as they have articulated it through decades of working that question out against scripture and their consciences. I applaud the church for standing on their doctrine and not retreating. And, I don't have much doubt about how John Wesley - founder of the Methodist denomination - might have decided on the question.

My only comment on the case revolves around a statement made by her lawyer who argued that the important issue was whether or not all members of the Methodist Church, regardless of status, had equal rights.

This statement cuts right to the heart of the divide between liberals and conservatives. One of the definitions that I've heard and applied on the question is that liberals emphasize group and rights/entitlements where conservatives emphasize individuals and responsibilities. In that light, liberals have made enormous inroads in the last 40 years in focusing public debate related to issues in the news on solely on "rights".

This focus on "rights" over responsibilities is evident in this case and in this lawyer's statement. Let me make the following points:

- Not every member of a church has a "right" to be a member of the clergy. Clearly the clergy is a set-apart subset within the body that is charged with the responsiblity moral leadership. In short, there is on purpose a difference between the clergy and the laymen (and laywomen) of a church. The responsibility-based concept of being "worthy" of being a member of this select group has been lost in our generation to a legion of lawyers litigating "rights".

- Any church has the authority to define qualifications for its clergy. Most do so in published doctinal manuals.

- It is the obligation of the church authorities to test candidates for clergy and to choose only the worthy. This is what is due to the flock, that they are led by worthy leaders.

- It is also the obligation of the church authorities to uphold those standards and to discipline and/or expel clergy members who fail in their duties. Again, no one is ever "entitled" to be a clergy member. There is no tenure in the church. Churches who fail to uphold their standards relating to doctrine, and who pander excessively to the "rights" of individuals as did the Catholic Church with their epidemic of pedophile priests, fail the membership of the church to the harm of the church.

In this case, the United Methodist church had a traditional doctrinal stance that an open homosexual lifestyle is incompatible with excercising the select sacrificial leadership responsibility of the clergy. Not everyone will agree with that stance, but then again membership in the church is a voluntary association. If you don't agree then join a different church.

And, unexpectedly I might add, they upheld their own doctrine in the face of withering publicity about the "rights" of one person to violate the standards and still maintain the role of leadership. They were resisting political correctness in its purest form. I applaud the Methodists for resisting it. And I wish the woman in question well in her life as a member of the church and in her service as a layman.

Clinton's Presidential Lie-brary

President George W. Bush gave an impressive speech today at the Little Rock, AR opening of the Presidential library for former President William Jefferson Clinton. Bush's speech was reverential and respectful, as it should be. We have traditions in this country and civility in the highest political office in the land is one of them. We don't need presidents sniping at their predecessors.

However, the rest of us can - and should - be real about the situation.

A presidential library is the ultimate in spin. All of them, including presidents from both parties, are glass and marble monuments to spin. The president in question gets to set the agenda for the library. He selects the exhibits and the display and context of his presidential papers. He, in short, tells the story of his presidency his way and with the power and eloquence that millions of dollars can buy in marketing prowess. In this case, Bill Clinton personally directed and approved each detail present in the library.

We can debate how the library presents "the record" on important issues of the day like the budget, welfare reform, the Middle East peace process, NAFTA, etc. President Clinton will present them all as historic triumphs. Us partisans will quibble. Historians (mostly liberal) will judge. The end.

Clearly, however, the most interesting part of the library will get the most spin. That would be the "Lewinsky wing", or the part covering the first impeachement and trial of an elected president. Will Ms. Lewinsky's tapes be there? Or the blue stained dress that ultimately brought him to trial? I'm guessing not.

From the early indications, I'm correct in calling it the Lie-brary. Clinton has cast this section as his version of those historic events. You know the story: the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy set out on an unconstitutional coup by means of an illegitimate impeachment. Please - I may gag.

An honest portrayal of the impeachment would address the fact that Bill Clinton lied to the American public when he wagged his finger in our face and said "I did not have sex with that woman...", and it got worse from there. He lied to a federal judge and to a grand jury. He tampered with witnesses and obstructed justice. And he threw all of his trusted aides under the bus to go out an perpetuate his lies. But those lies are probably not represented in the lie-brary. Only the lie that he wasn't guilty and that it was a illegitimate partisan witchhunt.

And for that I blame not only President Clinton, but the U.S. Senate for failing to do their duty after listening to the evidence and for acquitting him. They left him standing. And now he gets to gloat and tell it his way in his lie-brary.

Ashcroft and Arafat: History's Judgement

This week has seen the departure from the political scene of two historic men: John Ashcroft and Yasser Arafat.

The media coverage of these two men by the MSM and the "conventional wisdom" on them held by the American left demonstrates clearly why the left cannot be trusted with the responsibility of providing for our national security.

The left in America and across secular Europe loves Arafat and despises John Ashcroft. This cannot possibly be a more upside down view of reality.

First Arafat, who the MSM elevates to a co-equal among statemen. A champion of his oppressed people. The reality is the polar opposite. Arafat was a thug and a terrorist who, at the end of the day, left his people in refugee status and deep oppressive poverty for 40 years while he pilfered billions from them for his Swiss bank account. He deserved to die in ignominy instead of being welcomed by the terrorist-coddling French.

Second, John Aschroft - who the liberal elite and the MSM despise and caricature as a prudish religious fanactic facist who ran roughshod over the constitution and our civil liberties. Again, the polar opposite of the truth. I could recount his record as our Attorney General, but that has already been done here by Terence Jeffrey better than I could do it.

I will note a ridiculous observation by a celebrated pundit who said this week that clearly, in hindsight, the fear of a terrorist attack during our election cycle was overblown and hyped. Why? Because an attack didn't occur, of course. It doesn't occur to this man that the opposite is true - that the threat was very real and that the reason that we weren't attacked was the courageous and effective work of our Attorney General in thwarting the attacks. Our national security will be set back tremendously if we allow this misunderstanding of Ashcroft's role to go unchallenged in the MSM. I say thank you, John Ashcroft, for you hard work in the face of withering fire from the left. Thank you for keeping us safe.

Ashcroft and Arafat. I trust that history will judge them more wisely than the talking heads of our time have done.

Scott Peterson's Lesson for America

Fortunately, I avoided immersion in the OJ-like celebrity obsession with the Scott Peterson murder trial. I tuned in briefly at critical moments and passed on the non-stop cable coverage of every witness and trial development.

I know four things about the Peterson trial:

1. I had no doubt that he was guilty based on his behavior during her disappearance and his run for the border with the bleached hair and the bags of cash.

2. I did have doubts about a jury's ability to arrive at that conclusion. I think the OJ jury lowered everyone's expectations for the forseeable future. This jury went a long way toward restoring our trust in the system.

3. I have no problem with the death penalty for Peterson, should the jury that heard the evidence vote for that. The man is a psychopathic monster who killed a vivacious young woman and her unborn child just to get out of parenthood.

4. There is a broader lesson for America in this case, and unfortunately it is not about Laci Peterson. There are way too many murders of innocent spouses in this country for there to be a lesson here.

The lesson is with the "death" of the unborn baby, Conner. The 2nd degree murder conviction for the murder of Conner exposes an untenable dichotomy on the issue of abortion.

Someone explain to me how it's rational to hold these two positions simultaneously:

1. If the "unborn baby" is wanted (as Conner was), and a person violates it's rights by causing it's "death", then a legal crime of "murder" has taken place that can be adjudicated by a jury with a penalty attached.

but....

2. If the "fetus" is unwanted (as 1.5 million per year are not), then it has no rights, and a doctor can be paid to "terminate" it with no penalty and the "right" to do this is celebrated by enlightened elite in this country.

The answer is that it is not rational to hold these two views. The biological and legal fact of whether or not it is an "unborn baby" with rights or a "fetus" without rights cannot be determined by whether or not it is "wanted".

Sadly, America will continue a divided partisan struggle on this question until we come to grips with that. And Scott Peterson inadvertently advanced the discussion.

Advice to the Left: Ratchet back the Rhetoric

I'd like to comment on the outrageous observations made by Maureen Dowd last week. Writing from "Murderer's Row" at the nation's leading liberal newspaper, The New York Times, Ms. Dowd flailed out in her post election despair:

The president got re-elected by dividing the country along fault lines of fear, intolerance, ignorance and religious rule. He doesn't want to heal rifts; he wants to bring any riffraff who disagree to heel.

W. ran a jihad in America (emphasis mine) so he can fight one in Iraq - drawing a devoted flock of evangelicals, or "values voters," as they call themselves, to the polls by opposing abortion, suffocating stem cell research and supporting a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.

Before I comment on what specifically I find so offensive in that writing, let me offer some advice to my friends on the left of the political spectrum: (And, believe it or not, I have some friends on the left.) I've been where you are. I understand the feelings that come after a defeat in a presidential election that you care about. I understand the anger, despair, confusion, and general disbelief that so many of your fellow countrymen could be so foolish or deceived. Welcome to my world during two elections of Bubba Clinton.

My advice, free of charge and hard won by experience, is to do three things:

First, take a deep breath and realize that you will survive. I survived eight years of Clinton and you will survive eight years of Bush. You might not like it. It may grate on you. But you will survive. America as a whole survives even our worst Presidents. (Jimmy Carter, pick up the red phone). I was confident of a Bush win and was deeply opposed to John Kerry, but I had already resolved to myself that I would survive a Kerry Presidency if that unimaginable scenario had materialized.

Second, seriously re-evaluate your thinking. You can go through the next four years believing that an evil administration conspired to steal another election by duping a huge majority of "sheep" in the heartland that are ignorant, religious fanatic, bigots who are bent on oppressing minorities and turning back progress and science due to inbreeding. Or you can allow yourself to consider that there is a sizable portion of America, at least 59 million strong, who have rational, informed, deeply held core principle beliefs that are in opposition to yours. You can read my posts on this blog about topics that Ms. Dowd mentions like stem cell research or gay marriage and agree that they are thoughtful and resonable contrary positions, or you can continue to believe that everyone who disagrees with you is a porch-sitting banjo-picker straight out of "Deliverance". I gaurantee you that you'll live a healthier life if you give up the sterotypes.

And finally, you can ratchet back the over-the-top Michael Moore-ish hyperbole that passed for campaign rhetoric for the last two years. Think back over the positions your side took in the heat of battle. "Bush lied, kids died". Cheney is Hitler. Ashcroft is a facist. The Patriot Act set up a police state. Tax cuts for the rich. It was too much. It was all inaccurate, it didn't help you win, and it was harmful to the political discourse in America.

Back in the Clinton days we were called Clinton-Haters. The irony is that we didn't really hate Clinton. We despised him for his personal corruption. And we strongly felt that he should be removed from office for perjury, tampering with witnesses, obstruction of justice and the like. But we didn't hate him. The difference is that the left really hates Bush. I have no doubt that Moore and Garofolo and Franken really deeply hate George Bush. And it comes out in the rhetoric.

Which brings me back to Ms. Dowd. I find her observation that "W. ran a jihad in America" to be deeply offensive and the overwrought rhetoric of hate.

Jihad? Is she insane? Jihad? Talk about de-valuing a word.

After 9/11 don't we recognize what a jihad is?

Flying planes loaded with fuel and people as bombs to kill thousands more to the glory of Allah is jihad. Do you see anything in the Bush campaign that resembles that?

Slaughtering hostages with a long knife in grisly and barbaric beheadings is jihad. Is Ms. Dowd confused between those events and a Bush campaign rally?

Slaughtering 50 Iraqi police officers on their way to an R&R simply for cooperating with America is jihad. Slaughtering moms and kids in a school in Beslan is jihad. Sending armed warriors to blow up airliners in Moscow is Jihad. Suicide bombers in grocery stores in Jerusalem is jihad.

Are you really that confused, Ms. Dowd, that you relate a gay marriage referendum in Ohio to these atrocities? Do you compare 250 honorable decorated Swift Boat veterans signing an affadavit to the unfitness of Sen. Kerry to the insane ravings of Osama bin Laden who echoed the Democratic talking points in his last video.

And how was Ms. Dowd's ridiculous screed treated by the MSM. Was she rebuked? Reigned in? Did anyone object to her equating the Bush campaign with jihad - an intentional murderous plan by our nation's enemy to destroy us by violent and barbaric means? No. On the contrary, she was feted this morning with a fawning segment on "Meet the Press".

Let me just say the obvious to Ms. Dowd, Sen Kerry, and the partisans on the left: not being able to distinguish between the President of the United States and our mortal enemy with whom we are at war in a substantive and rational way is what lead 59 million of your countrymen to conclude that your candidate could not be trusted with our national defense. Period.

This over-the-top rhetoric needs to stop. It is inaccurate and completely unhealthy for us as a nation. And it has consequences.

Fox News carried a tragic story today of a 25 year old man who committed suicide at Ground Zero in New York this week. He was "upset about the result of the presidential election". He was a student and was due to be married, but he ended it all in despair. I don't know anything about this young man or his mental state, but this story made me very sad. What a tragic and senseless waste. I won't lay his death specifically at anyone's feet, although I'm tempted to. (Michael Moore, call on line one) But I will urge my friends on the left to spend the time until the inauguration re-examining the rhetoric. Ratchet it back, please.

I'm trying to help you. Really.

Senatorial Smackdown in Progress

Personally, I don't have much use for the United States Senate and, consequentially, the 100 U.S. Senators. The White House, I like. The House of Representatives, I like. The Senate, I could do without it.

The main function of the Senate is to act as a patrician brake on the rabble rousing will of the people. We can't have mob rule breaking out. So the job of the Senate is to be obstructionists. Stick in the muds. Can't get alongs. Activity which doesn't win many points with me, me being a radical get-something-done activist type. The only reason that conservatives would like the function of the Senate is that they contribute to gridlock in Washington D.C. And, for small government conservatives, gridlock is a good thing.

While I merely dislike the Senate, I usually hold Senators in contempt. They are to a man, and occasionally a woman, pampered elites. Millionaire Ivy Leaguers. If America had royalty, it would be the U.S. Senators. The 100 princes and princesses of American government. They are bloated with power wielded over decades with Presidents coming and going while they sit on their thrones. As I recall from my history, Americans don't nuture an overfondness of royalty. Somehow the Senate survived our purging of the royals.

And now, post election, the Senate has come back into focus. With one Senator failing in his bid for the presidency and fading from the stage, another has emerged to engage the formidable focused energy of the blogosphere.

Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania has stepped his pampered, pedicured, toe in the mud on the day after the election and is now front and center in the direct line of ire from the same conservative forces that swept President Bush to a convincing re-election.

Senator Specter has been here before. He routinely angers conservative Republican with his RINO (Republican in name only) stances. Most notably, he disgraced himself during the Senate's darkest hour by voting "not proved under Scottish Law" in the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton. We don't forget such disgraceful behavior..

Senator Specter survived a fierce primary challenge this year from a principled conservative rival who was clearly the superior candidate. How did he survive? President Bush dropped into Pennsylvania and campaigned for him. And how does Specter pay him back. He stabs him right in the back. Ted Kennedy couldn't have done it any better (although he tried on the education bill.) On the day after Bush's election victory, Specter held a press conference to announce that he would obstruct Bush's judicial nominees, from his pending position as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, if they were "out of the mainstream". That' liberal speak for conservatives, especially conservatives who are pro-life.

Imagine: A Republican, and a Republican who owes his seat directly to President Bush, steps to the microphone on the day after 59 million people spoke in support of the President to say essentially "not so fast, you've got to get past me".

Bottom line: Senator Arlen Specter must be denied the Chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee when the Senate meets next month to choose its leadership. Tradition be damned. Seniority be damned. You cannot reward this blatant disloyalty with power. Especially on the committee where possible Supreme Court nominees will be vetted. It's not going to happen.

The blogosphere is available, postelection, to be fully engaged in this fight. And if Sen. Arlen Specter thought he had a tough fight in his primary - he hasn't seen anything yet. We will bring him down. It's on now.

More Red than Blue

I have 3 thoughts about the election results this week.

1. I am, of course, mind-bogglingly happy that my guy won. But I was not at all surprised. Friends will attest that I've been very confident all year that the election would turn out with a Bush re-election and strong gains in the House and Senate. Confident enough that I went to bed at 8:30 pm on election night with only a cursory glance at the returns on the networks.

What made me that confident? The candidate? The conventions? The debates?

No. All of those reinforced my confidence. But the clincher that made me confident came much earlier in the year. It was the phenomenal success of the Mel Gibson movie "The Passion of the Christ". I had been telling people that the movie would open big, stay strong, and rake in millions. Nobody outside of my church believed me. Even my favorite radio drive time talk jock dismissed it the day before opening and guessed that it may break $30 million. Last time I heard it was heading toward $1 billion foreign and domestic box office and DVD sales. Watching the MSM (mainstream media) be totally clueless about that phenomenon was a giant lesson. I knew that the same majority that turned out for that movie to vote at the box office would turn out to support a President who was a genuine man of faith. I was right. The MSM was completely shell shocked, again.

2. There's even more red areas (republican) than blue areas (democrat) if you look at the county - by - county map than there is if you look at the electoral college map. Take a look:

Electoral College map:

and county-by-county:




Check out, for example, Michigan and California which went blue in the winner-take-all electoral map but have sizeable areas of red.

Clearly the divide, if it exists geographically, is between large cities and rural areas.

3. The big loser in the election is the credibility of old MSM journalism, which was so far in the tank for Kerry that they risked blantantly unethical get-Bush "gotcha" pieces and sold their credibility in the process.

- Dan Rather, the "Memogate" fraudulent attack on the President is not forgiven. Your days are numbered.
- Ted Koppel, that hit piece where you went to Vietnam to find Vietcong soldiers to rebut decorated U.S. veterans on Nightline was unexcusable. God bless John O'Neill and the Swiftboat veterans for their service, then and now.
- 60 Minutes, your attempt to explode the bogus "missing ammo" story 30 hours before the election was not unnoticed.

The new media is watching and will hold you accountable. Viva bloggers!

My Election Day Hopes

It's all over now but the voting. And then the cheering or booing. All I know for sure is that half of the country is going to need Prozac for a while whichever way the vote goes. I'm envisioning people curled up in the fetal position for a week.

So, as I finish work today and head home tonight to watch the returns, here are my simple election day hopes:

1. that people vote. All people who are at least moderately informed, vote. Don't hide behind a confusion because you don't like either candidate. Take a stand, make a choice, and vote. We need to have a strongly voiced referendum this year, either way it turns out. Don't stay on the sidelines.

2. that the vote isn't close, either way. Please, campaigns, spare us the litigation wars. It's not healthy for America to have so many people distrust the process. I can't take another 4 year debate on who "stole the election".

3. that we have a gracious concession, either way. Please candidates, don't drag this out for personal power.

4. that there's no violence. Let's demonstrate to the watching world how peacefully democracy works. And if Kerry wins, how a peaceful transition of power looks.

5. that there's no gloating, either way.

6. that we wake up tomorrow and move on with our lives, either way this comes out.

Happy Election Day! Viva America!

The Newest Democrat?

Usama bin Laden, our mortal enemy in the War on Terror, released an election eve video through al Jazeera TV in the Mideast. It was either an attempt to affect our election or a signal to some cell to launch an attack.

As for the tone of the tape - unlike previous tapes where he was a fire-breather who regularly promised our destruction, he seems to have turned into somewhat of a girlie-man terrorist who says it's in our hands not to be attacked again if we leave them alone. I'm guessing that killing or capturing 75% of his killer buddies, under the capable leadership of George W. Bush, has neutered him a great deal.

Nonetheless, he made a couple of interesting points:

- Just like John Kerry, bin Laden argues that President Bush has "lied" to the American people since 9/11.

- Just like Michael Moore, bin Laden argues that President Bush was derelict for sitting in a classroom reading to students during the 9/11 attack.

Gee, when you there isn't a dime's width of difference between our mortal enemy and one of our political parties - there's a problem there.

The one remaining question is: Where is Usama? Maybe he's in Florida hiding as a registered Democrat.

Kerry or the Terrorists: Who's Right?

John Kerry has been on the campaign trail for months now alledging that George Bush was not aggressive enough on terrorism. That he took his eye off of al Qaida and let them off the hook.

Do the terrorists see it that way? Do they think Bush was too easy on al Qaida?

Not according to a tape that is, according to the Drudge Report, in the hands of ABC News and the CIA. The tape is from a member of al Qaida and is a warning about the next terrorist attack. An attack bigger than 9/11. An attack where the "streets will run with blood" and " ' America will mourn in silence' because they will be unable to count the number of the dead".

And why do they want to attack us again?

"Further claims on the video: America has brought this on itself for electing
George Bush who has made war on Islam by destroying the Taliban and making war
on Al Qaeda."

Apparently al Qaida would have preferred the appeasement policy of John Kerry and his elite buddies at the United Nations. Another good reason to vote for George W. Bush.

Why I support President Bush's Re-election

I was re-reading some of my recent posts this week and realized something. They're mostly negative. I've allowed the intensity and negativity of the campaign to dominate my writing here. But a funny thing has happened. Since I've already voted, absentee, I've found that I've almost completely tuned out of the election. I'm on an even keel. I'm not even that interested in weighing in on why the other guy is wrong.

So, I decided to pause and post something positive for a change. Let me list why I support the re-election bid of President George W. Bush.

1. I like his character. He's a staightforward man. He's a principaled man. He's a compassionate man. He's a man of faith. Despite all of his critics on that front, that's what I take from what I've read and heard and observed of him. He's a man of solid and unshakeable principles who is not particularly concerned about his legacy or about being liked.

2. I like his cabinet: - despite the overwhelming tide of hatred from the left mischaracterizing them. I think that Bush's cabinet is comprised of solid, experienced, and talented patriots who take the job of serving the President of the United States very seriously. I like them all: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Condi Rice, Colin Powell, etc.

Rumsfeld - who reacted to a military challenge in the aftermath of the worst attack on our nation ever and is getting the job done with spectacular military wins in Afghanistan and Iraq - reshaping our military from cold war obsolesence in the process.

Ashcroft - who undertook the serious business of reshaping the instruments of justice to bring them to bear on the most serious internal threats that we've faced.

It's clear to me that Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Aschroft - to mention only a few- are men of clear and unwavering convictions and that that clarity upsets a lot of people. So be it. I'm with them.

3. I like his policies: He learned the lesson of 9/11 - that we can no longer be safe with a policy of treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue and tracking down the individual terrorists to "bring them to justice", but that it's a war and the main foe is the state sponsor of terrorism that acts as a force multiplier by supplying financing, training bases, etc. He learned this lesson and he will not waver from it even under withering fire from the appeasement crowd in the media.

I like that he applied tax cuts accross the board and did not pander for votes.

Quote from this week on the stump: "The government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. If you paid taxes, you should get some relief"

Dead on, constitutionally correct.

I like his stand to do what is right, not what is politically popular with the elites and the media of this country. Taking down the Taliban was the right thing to do. Deposing Sadaam was the right thing to do. (And I like that he spent the political capital that came with a 90% approval rating to do the right- but difficult - thing in Iraq.) I like that he stood up to the delusional United Nations and told them that they were on the verge of irrelevancy after 17 failed resolutions in 12 years in Iraq. Bush does what's right, not what's politically correct.

4. I like his leadership style: He's an executive. He sets the course for his team and delegates to them the responsibility to get results. He's not a micro-manager. He's not a legislator. He's an executive. And that is the job description of the President.

5. I like his wife: a very classy First Lady.

6. Finally, I like his optimism: It comes through in all of his speeches. While his opponent drones on with a litany of failures, misjudgements, and "lies" the President remains steadfast in demonstrating leadership through optimism.

While his critics have carped at him relentlessy through this term, he has perservered. At each step, his critics have been wrong. They've said:

- you can't go into Afghanistan and win. Look at what happened to Russia
- Iraq will be a quagmire with tens of thousands of casualties and will take months if not years to win
- you can have democratic elections in Afghanistan

and now, the chorus is - you can't have elections in Iraq. Oh yes we can, if Bush is still President.

I did not vote against someone. I did not vote for the "lesser of two evils". I voted, proudly, for someone who I admire, trust, and respect for President of the United States of America.

Jimmy Carter: Devaluing the Ex-Presidency

Jimmy Carter has apparently lost his ever-loving mind. And he's trashing the reputation of ex-Presidents as senior statemen who's opinion should be valued and sought in weighty matters of state.

Jimmy Carter has been in the news for three things of late:

1. Certifying the election in Venezuala as an election monitor. This was an election so fraudulent, apparently, that event the European Union will not recognize the results. A thoroughly corrupt coronation of a thug for president. And, it can surely be said, Jimmy Carter never met a thug dictator that he did not like - so he certified the election.

2. Answering the question of what his two favorite movies of all time are: Casablanca and Farenheit 9/11. Puh - leeeeeeze. This answer alone should disqualify him from being sought for an opinion ever again.

3. Opining this week in the press that the American Revolutionary War was an uneccessary war. That if England had only respected our rights a little more the war could have been avoided and eventually America would have gained our freedom without bloodshed.

Why does anyone still seek Jimmy Carter's opinion? Reporters: please let him stay with the noble causes he's good with: teaching Sunday School and building houses for the poor. Those are worthy endeavors. Meddling in foreign affairs? That, ehhhhhh - he's not so good with.

Into the Booth

I voted today! Absentee, because I'll be out of the state on Nov 2.

I guess I'm just a spectator now for the next two weeks. I'll fire up the popcorn and watch from the sidelines.

Halloween comes early for the Kerry campaign

We're two weeks from an election, and 13 days from Halloween, and the Kerry campaign for President is trotting out the usual skeletons and boogeymen to scare voters into voting for them:

- scaring seniors that George W. Bush is going to take their social security away from them through a "January surprise" to privatize social security. Nonsense. Bush's plan for personal retirement accounts is sound and has been known since the 2000 election.

- scaring young people that the Bush administration is going to start a draft after the election. Nonsense. The only congress critters to propose a draft were Democrats and the bill was soundly defeated in the house 400 to 2 by the Republicans.

Hey - John Kerry. Boo!

The Kerry's Tax Hypocrisy

Really, it's just too much to bear.

The sheer magnitude of the hypocrisy of Sen. John Kerry, who certainly did marry up to a billionaire heiress, and the heiress herself Teresa Heinz Kerry is truly stunning.

After a year and a half on the campaign trail bashing President Bush for irresponsible tax cuts that only benefit his rich buddies in "the richest one percent of taxpayers", Mrs. Heinz Kerry finally deigns to release her tax records. And what a stunner they are.

It was bad enough when John Kerry released his tax records and revealed that he only paid approximately 12% tax rate compared to the Bush's tax rate of over 20%.

Now, we discover that Teresa, whose net worth of over $1 Billion surely puts her in the richest 1%" bracket, paid much less. According to this excellent report at Newsmax.com, Mrs. Heinz Kerry paid a paltry 1.2% tax rate on her income of approximately $50 Million in 2003.

This one fact should be all you need to know to not vote for John Kerry.

Let me say that again: 1.2% tax rate. In fact, I would be hard pressed to call her a "tax payer" at all at that rate.

That is, if the records are even accurate. Kerry reported income of $5 Million, which under reports her probable annual income of $50M based on a reasonable return against her net worth. Again, from Newsmax:

"Financial experts cited by the New York Post on Saturday said that the Kerry family's reported $5 million annual income wouldn't come close to covering their lavish lifestyle, which includes five estates; multiple cars; a $3.5 million Gulfstream V jet complete with plasma TV, gold fixtures and two bathrooms; a yacht worth $750,000 to $1 million and servants in every location."

What happened to all of those speeches about the rich paying their fair share?

Obviously, she has the best lawyers and accountants that money can buy to shelter her income. Maybe John Kerry could propose a government entitlement program to help the poor and downtrodden by providing them with Teresa's tax lawyers to help them avoid paying taxes. But then again, how would they fund it if everyone avoided taxes like Teresa does?

The Kerrys. John and Ter-aaaaa-za. Champions of the poor and downtrodden. Working for the little guy. Paying their fair share.

It makes me want to vomit.

John Kerry's America

After watching the 3 Presidential debates, and listening to John Kerry's relentless drumbeat of pessimism and negativity, here's what I've learned:

In John Kerry's America:

George Bush has:

- Lied us into the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time - apparently for the wrong reason having to do with making his oil buddies at companies like Halliburton rich while the bodies pile up in Iraq (more in September than there were in August, more in August than there were in July, more in July than there were in June). Or was it to avenge his daddy?
- Squandered our budget surplus to give tax giveaways to all his rich buddies
- Lost all of our good jobs overseas to make greedy companies richer.
- Sold out our government to the wishes of the Saudi Royal Family.

and George Bush wants to:

- Leave all of our children behind.
- Take away your Social Security checks.
- Keep you from having prescription drugs free from the government.
- Stuff his religious, bigoted, scientifically ignorant beliefs down every Embryonic Stem Cell's throat.
- Take a way a women's constitutional right to choose. (Choose what? Oh, sorry, we're not supposed to ask that question)
- Raid your house and toss you in jail for fun under the Patriot Act

While John Kerry would:

- have a good job for everyone. Not as high paying as being a gigolo Senator with a billionaire wife, but you know what he means.
- give everyone all the prescription drugs they want, preferrably from Canada
- Make the French and Germans like us. Oh, and the UN too.
- Hunt and kill the terrorists, but not go over there to do it
- End the deficit and give tax cuts to "those who need it most", or at least the ones that he needs votes from.
- Ban guns, except for the hunting guns that he happens to use for sport when he's not, say, windsurfing

After all, he has plans.

And apparently in John Kerry's America you can:

- Vote to authorize a President to use any military force deemed necessary to depose a dangerous dictator who potentially has weapons and intent to harm us, but not acutally ever use that force - and still get what you want if you do it "smarter"

- "Defend your country when you're young" and be a 3 month war hero fit to lead this nation, and also be patriotic by returning home and trashing the war and painting all of your fellow veterans as murderers and rapists.


Please, spare me. I'm getting depressed by John Kerry's America.

Define "Contain"

Could the United States, as an alternative to going to war in Iraq to depose Sadaam Hussein, have continued to “contain” him effectively?

That was a topic of discussion at a family gathering this last weekend. I was discussing the election and the war with my brother in-law. He’s no wild eyed lefty. He shares a military background with me. As do his brothers – Air National Guardsmen all - who, for the first time in their lives, are considering voting for a Democrat – John Kerry. They’re not gung ho Kerryites. They just have a beef with President Bush of his handling of the Iraq and even his decision to go to war in the first place. They strongly believe that we could have done more to “contain” Sadaam. I would guess that the stress that the war has put on National Guard unit factors into their displeasure with President Bush.

As these are men I respect and whose opinions are worth considering I gave this some thought this week. Could we have contained Sadaam satisfactorily in the post 9-11 era given that the terrorism ante had been raised considerably?

I, of course, had an opinion on this topic being the news junkie that I am. But I paused to give it further serious reflection. Here’s what I think:

It depends on what you mean by “contain”.

Prior to our deposing Sadaam Hussein’s regime in Baghdad by military force our containment of Sadaam had these features:

1.No fly-zone: air cover over 2/3 of Iraq with hundreds of sorties flown each year since 1991, putting our pilots at risk, with no foreseeable end in sight.
2.Sanctions: prohibiting Iraq from selling it’s most abundant and profitable resource. Did it stop Sadaam from an extravagant and profligate lifestyle of building luxury palaces in his own honor country wide? No. It did however result in the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children because of Sadaam’s greed and neglect of his people.
3.Oil for Food Program: the exception to the sanctions to remedy the child starvation. Did it save children? No. Instead it funded bribes to France, Germany, and Russia to keep the U.N. off Sadaam’s back. More that $10 Billion was siphoned from the program in a successful effort to corrupt both our allies and the U.N. to the bone to overlook Sadaam’s transgressions.
4.U.N. Resolutions: 17 in 12 years demanding that Sadaam comply with provisions of the peace deal that ended the Gulf War, including disarming and destroying the WMD’s. 17 resolutions demanding “serious consequences” that were rendered worthless by Sadaam’s gleeful defiance. Unenforced resolutions that threatened to render the United Nations authority as a world body irrelevant.
5.Weapons Inspections: the goal of which was not to find WMD’s. The burden of proof as established in the UN Resolutions was not on the inspectors to find them, but on Sadaam to furnish proof that he had in fact destroyed his weapons. Inspections that were inoperative after 1998 when Sadaam kicked the inspectors out of the country and Bill Clinton allowed that to stand. Inspections that were mocked when George Bush’s influence caused the reintroduction of inspectors in 2002 and Sadaam provided reams of useless data as evidence.

So, I’m left with two questions:

First, did the “containment” work?

Not in my opinion. Continuing the “containment” with our pilots continually at risk and Iraqis dying under our sanctions as Sadaam continued squandering their rationed national resources on palaces and death squads was immoral and irresponsible. Sadaam was free to operate in Iraq and bribe allies and international bodies to look the other way. He was free, in fact, to be a national sponsor of terror at least in the Middle East in general and possibly with al Qaida directly. This was not a tenable situation after 9/11.

Second, did the weapons inspections – as John Kerry has said – “work”?

Not in my opinion. Granted that stockpiles of WMD’s have not been located in Iraq since our invasion last year. However, there remain two possibilities for that: 1) that he had destroyed all of the WMD’s and 2) that he hid them or transferred them out of the country to Syria and Lebanon.

Not only did every intelligence source believe that Sadaam had WMD’s, but events since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 tell me that the second option is the most likely. Two examples:

- convoys of trucks were aerially photographed leaving Iraq into Syria in the weeks preceeding the invasion
- Terrorist al Zarqawi of Iraq was implicated in a bombing attempt at an embassy in Jordan using chemical weapons acquired from Syria with Iraqi origins

So after reflecting on my friend’s concerns about the necessity of the War in Iraq I’ve arrived at my conclusion. It was not tenable to continue to try to “contain” Sadaam Hussein in the post 9/11 era. Sadaam continued to be a threat that we could not tolerate. The invasion was both necessary and justified.

Exploiting Embryos

So, exactly how did Embyronic Stem Cell (EST) research become one of the main election year issues anyway? Do most voters in America lose sleep over whether or not the Federal Government, as opposed to private companies, is spending enough tax dollars on EST? Really? Is that what will drive you to the polls? While we're at war? Really?

However it became an issue, it is an issue. And rarely has a public issue been so propagandized, distorted, and exploited. And with the death of Christopher Reeves this week the exploitation will ramp up exponentially.

I already had my say on this blog on the topic of EST research. (July 29th, A Choice...Reason or Ignorance"). But let me just recap a few salient points:

1. George W. Bush did not ban EST research. He banned federal funding of stem cell lines that were not currently existing. That's federal funding, not all funding. Private companies are free to fund research, and if there were in fact a miracle cure to be found in this research they would be throwing dollars at it.

2. To date EST research, which has severe moral implications in destroying a life to obtain the stem cells, has not had any successfuly trials. In fact, several trials had to be stopped because of severe adverse reactions in trial patients. By contrast, adult stem cell research - which does not entail any of the moral issues - has shown potential. This simple fact has been widely distorted by EST supporters for unfathomable reasons. We should at all costs be pursuing cures through adult stem cell research.

3. Several disabled celebrities or family members are passionate activists for EST research. Ron Reagn, Jr (based on his father suffering from Alzheimer's) and Michael J. Fox who is suffering from Parkinson's come to mind. However, their emotional appeals are distorting the issues. Doctors concede that EST holds no promise for a cure for either Alzheimer's, in Reagan's case, or spinal cord regeneration in Reeve's case. Reeves himself acknowledged this. And the Parkinson's trials were the trials that had to be stopped. The EST activists are using these emotional, and understandable, appeals to distort the basic facts of the science of this research. EST doesn't work. Adult stem cells do.

4. Finally, the demagoguery of John Edwards saying this week that research that could be conducted under a John Kerry presidency could have had Christopher Reeves up out of his wheel chair walking is the lowest form of political pandering and exploitation of suffering I have seen in my long political life. No question about it. Despicable.

CBS's External Coverup, er..... Investigation

So news junkies: are we on pins and needles, waiting with baited breath, to see what oh what the results of the CBS external cover-up, er... investigation into Dan Rather's Memogate might reveal? Well, apparently we'll be waiting a little longer.

From today's Reuters:

"Les Moonves, the co-president of CBS parent company Viacom, told an analyst meeting that the review of the CBS "60 Minutes II" report being done by former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and retired Associated Press chief Louis Boccardi had no timetable for completion. But he said he did not want it to interfere with the Nov. 2 election.

'Obviously, it should be done probably after the election is over so that it doesn't affect what's going on,' he told a Goldman Sachs media conference in New York."


Let me get this straight: CBS, Dan Rather, and 60 Minutes had no problem airing a one-sided smear piece attacking a sitting President with fabricated evidence less than a month before his bid for re-election. That "affect" on the election they don't mind. But it's apparently unthinkable that they would conclude an investigation into this sloppy and unprofessional "reporting" in a timely manner before the election because it might affect it.

Well, yes if the results of the investigation show that there was, as it appears there was, collusion between the CBS staff and the Democratic National Committee and/or the John Kerry campaign to smear the President. I'm guessing that is a result they would rather announce after the election.

The question is: Where is the rest of the media on this story? Are they going to let CBS get away with stonewalling this "investigation"? Is any news organization going to do independent reporting on the key remaining questions of the scandal?

- Where did Bill Burkett get the fabricated documents if he wasn't the original source?
- Is it just coincidental that the broadcast of the 60 minutes story was coordinated to the day with the DNC's "Fortunate Son" ad campaign?
- Is it coincidental that the DNC chairman was using specific language ("sugar-coating") from the fake memos early in the day before the CBS broadcast aired?

Are there any journalists out working independently on this critical election related scandal? Or are they all sitting in the press room at CBS waiting for the handout from CBS on the results of the "external" investigation?

The Unasked Question in the Presidential Debate

I thought the 1st Presidential debate between George W. Bush and John Kerry last night was excellent as debates go. It was substantive and gave both candidates an opportunity to discuss national security issues.

Overall, I thought that John Kerry did a little better than I expected. He was more focused and less demagogic than usual and he made his case. I thought George Bush did a little worse than I expected. He missed opportunities to brag about his accomplishements and to sharpen the differences with his opponent.

I think George Bush's main mistake was in answering the questions that were asked, rather than answering the questions that he would want to ask to focus on his accomplishments. The questions were heavily geared toward events of the last year including the War in Iraq. They were very light on the issue of 9/11 and the radical restructuring of our government and our foreign policy that Bush achieved in his first 2/12 years. I would have advised Bush to include a reference to 9/11 in his answer to every question that was asked about Iraq.

In fact, to me anyway, the unasked question in the debate was:

How have the events of 9/11 affected your view of national security policy, homeland security, and foreign relations?

George W. Bush could have knocked that one out of the park and scored a knockout victory. It's too bad that Jim Lehrer didn't ask it.

Competence through Do-Overs

John Kerry on the War on Terrorism in Iraq: If I knew then what I know now on WMDs I would not have gone to war in Iraq.

Dan Rather on Memogate: If I knew then what I know now on the authenticity of the documents we would not have run the story.

Competence through Do-Overs. A new standard in leadership as demonstrated by the elite left in this country.

Note to John Kerry: when you're the President you have to make command decisions on the information you have at hand. You don't get to second guess it later.No do-overs.

Note to Dan Rather: you should have known then what you know now. It was sloppy, biased, agenda driven reporting that kept you from "knowing" that the documents were a forgery. No do-overs.

It's the Editorial Judgement, Stupid

If you were the editor, which of these stories would you have put on the front page, above the fold, on Thursday morning's edition of the nation's newspaper, USA Today?

1. Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi comes to the U.S. to address a rare joint session of the U.S House of Representatives and of the U.S. Senate to say to America "Thanks for your sacrifices" in our war to liberate Iraq and that, yes, it was the right thing to do.

2. U.S. Olympic Gold Medalist Paul Hamm is traveling to Switzerland with his band of lawyers to try to defend his disputed gold medal.

The enlightened editors of USA Today chose story #2. They buried the Allawi story inside the paper. Any bias in this choice, I ask you dear reader?

Those of you who are political junkies will remember the famous James Carville quote from the 1992 presidential election: "It's the economy, stupid". Carville, as Bill Clinton's campaign manager wrote the note to himself on a whiteboard to remind himself what to focus on in the election. Not the Gulf War. Not the end of the Cold War. The economy, stupid. That was his focus and it worked.

USA Today's cover of the news section on Wednesday helped me realize that our focus on media scandals like CBS's Memogate, and media coverage of the election in general should be:

It's the Editorial Judgement, Stupid.

Focus is a remarkable thing, and it's worth thinking about in this presidential election cycle - especially in regards to the media's role in the election. What role does the editorial judgement of the mainstream media play in shaping voter thought?

Take the Dan Rather / CBS / 60 minutes scandal for a minute. What is the larger picture that this scandal exposed? Is it Dan Rather's sloppy reporting? Rather's hatred of George Bush? His willingness to use forged documents to get "the story"? CBS's liberal bias? It's all that, of course.

For me, the focus going forward should not be on Dan Rather and his colleagues. Rather should resign. No question about it. Using forged documents in a one-sided hit piece designed to do damage to a sitting president's re-election campaign is unquestionably grounds for immediate termination. The focus for the analysis that this scandal should engender is: editorial judgement.

Editors make judgements. In the news business they make judgements about what is newsworthy. What story, out of the hundreds of possible stories, does the viewer need to see tonight or this week?

Let's take two competing stories available for an editor at 60 Minutes to choose from in the last month or so:

1. The Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, whose ads have been the single most influential event of the campaign as they've taken John Kerry down in the polls. The Swifties most devastating claim is that after John Kerry returned from Vietnam, and while still an officer in the U.S. Naval Reserves, visited Paris and conducted private talks (negotiations?) with the head of the Viet Cong about releasing POW's to his organization. When he returned home John Kerry held a press conference urging President Nixon to accept the Viet Cong 7 point peace (surrender?) plan in total. Treason is the correct word for this action.

2. Claims that George Bush missed a flight physical and was suspended from flight status in the Air National Guard 35 years ago and that he was AWOL from duty for a portion of his enlistment. A story contradicted by the official military record showing that Bush accumulated enough service points in each of his 6 years of honorable service. A story backed up by "newly discovered documents" of dubious authenticity from a suspect source. Documents which have now been demostrated to be forgeries.

Did 60 Minutes give airtime to the John Kerry story? No. 60 Minutes has not aired any interviews with the Swifties or investigations of any sort of their claim. But they did rush to air with the bogus Bush story. The editorial judgement in this case offers a clear indictment for bias at CBS and 60 minutes. Liberal, anti-Bush, bias.

Okay, back to USA Today. I was traveling on business on Thursday. I woke up in my hotel room and collected my USA Today hanging on my door, eagerly wanting to read coverage of Allawi's address to Congress. You might say I was disappointed.

Any time someone addresses a joint session of Congress it's important. The House and the Senate don't just get together to hear baseball box scores. They get together for significant historical moments to hear someone speaking about momentous issues. You would think it would make the front page of the paper. Wouldn't you think that?

Let me ask you this: We are in a war. A contentious war with casualties and with many questions. A war where our people are debating the question - was it worth it? The Prime Minister of the country that we went to war to liberate comes to the U.S. to address Congress with a message of "Thank you for your sacrifice" and "Yes, it was the right thing to do". You would think that would be on the front page of the paper. Wouldn't you?

Not the editors of USA Today. They chose to cover a non-news event related to an Olympics that was already over. Wow, that's earthshattering news for the front page, above the fold, of the nation's newspaper. Was there any bias in the editorial decision to stuff the Allawi story inside the paper instead of the cover? You bet there was.

I would say it was a poor choice. A biased choice. But, unfortunately, not a rare choice.

It's the Editorial Judgement, stupid.

Bush Quotables

I haven't had time yet to read the text of George W. Bush's speech to the United Nations this week regarding Iraq. But I did see the USA Today coverage the next day and I immediately picked out two awesome and inspirational quotes:

First:

...arguing that in an age of terrorism, "there is no safety in looking away"

Right on the money. Better yet:

Referring to the bloody chaos that has beset Iraq recently, he said: "The proper response to difficulty is not to retreat, it is to prevail."

I'm writing that one down. And I have to find time, as I usually do, to read the whole speech.

Liberal Amnesia

I heard some liberal pundits this week forecast that the elections scheduled for January in Iraq would surely not be held on time. They were gleeful in their dissection of President Bush's pronouncements on one day that "elections will be held" and on the next day that "elections are scheduled". To them that meant that their dire predictions of quagmire were true.

There are at least two problems with their gloom and doom forecasts. First, events in Iraq won't stand still enough for there to be a quagmire. Every time they predict something won't happen on schedule it happens. Remember the handover of power to the Iraqis that couldn't possibly happen on June 30th? It happened. Second, they either still don't know George W. Bush yet or they are succombing to their usual amnesia.

Liberals in the media who offer predictions are never slowed down by the fact that all of their past predictions were wrong. It's their own peculiar brand of amnesia.

Go as far back as you want.

Let's start with John Kerry's on the Dick Cavett show debating John O'Neill in 1971. In response to a question from Cavett about the "cliche" of their being a bloodbath in Vietnam if we pulled out Kerry predicted that at most there would be 3000 to 5000 "assasinations" which were to few to worry about. O'Neill responded that the history of Vietnam suggested a bloodbath. History provides the answer. Hundreds of thousands were killed. It was clearly a bloodbath in Vietnam after we pulled out. Thousands more put out to sea, with thousands dying there, to avoid the slaughter on shore. Has John Kerry ever said that he was wrong?

Liberals never seem to look back and ask the question of who was right. They are in fact skilled at downplaying the atrocities of our enemies and at predicting our defeat or the powerlessness of our "quagmires".

We could review many other assertions the left has made over the years:

- that the Cold War was not winnable
- that the Gulf War would take years and thousands of casualties. That we, in effect, would suffer a bloodbath.
- that going into Afghanistan would be a disaster that would bog down and take years and thousands of casualties.
- that the original invasion of Iraq would bog down and take years and cost thousands of casualties.
- that we couldn't turn the country back over to Iraqi civilian officials on June 30th

And now, they predict that the elections won't be held in January as the Bush administration has claimed. They, apparently, still do not know George W. Bush.

I know that there are problems with insurgencies that we are battling in Iraq. And I grieve for the 1000 brave military members who have lost their lives.

But let's be clear. If we went back in time to January of 2000 and predicted that the war would go as follows: that the military would march to Baghdad in a few short weeks and topple the Baathist government, capture Sadaam Hussein and kill his thug sons, capture or kill most of the Iraqi leadership, and then establish and turn power over to a new civialian Iraqi government with only 1000 dead in less than two years - liberals would have scoffed at that.

So now the prediction from the gleeful left is that the elections in Iraq scheduled for January will have to be postponed. Would Las Vegas, if they looked back at the record on liberal predictions, give odds on that?

Is CBS News the Next Enron?

From where I sit this week, knowing what I know today about CBS and Dan Rather's "Memogate", I'd say it's entirely possible that the whole CBS News empire could instantly implode the way that Enron and Arthur Andersen did.

A few years ago, in the roaring 90's stock market environment, Enron and Arthur Andersen were giants in their respective fields. Enron in the energy business, Arthure Anderson in the accounting realm. Both almost untouchable mega companies with thousands of employees. Today they are both gone. Zilch. Nada. Game over.

How could the mighty fall so fast? Simple malfeasance. They lost the public trust because of substantial and unquestionable improprieties perpetrated by their leadership. Although Enron's business was energy, trust was the basis of it's stock value and when that disappeared so did it's net worth. And if you can't trust an accounting firm like Arthur Anderson, how can they stay in businees? They couldn't and their disappearance was lightning fast.

Were all of the thousands of employees guilty? Of course not. Many fine people found themselves suddenly, unimaginably, on the street because of the reckless behavior of a few at the top.

And so we find ourselves at this moment in time with CBS News. A network news division's coin is credibility. If that is substantially undermined in this information age where the consumer has literally thousands of choices for news sources you're dead. Pure and simple. You may as well put up the test pattern. It's over. And clearly that's the fate that Dan Rather and his staff of producers have brought upon the Tiffany Network. They attempted a poorly crafted hit piece on a sitting President's re-election bid using easily detected forged documents and it will cost them dearly in credibility. My prediction is that it's a fatal blow and CBS News will join the shame list with Enron and Arthur Andersen.

And who will have brought them down? The bloggers in the blogosphere that the network elitists disdain. Memo to the elitists: you can sneer at us bloggers as unaccountable nuisances writing "in their pajamas in their living room", as former CBS exectutive Johnathan Klein said on Fox News network this week. But don't tempt the blogosphere. We're legion and we're ruthlessly effective at correcting error.

Although I had no role in this seismic media event other than being a normal contributor to FreeRepublic.com on occasion, I have to say it:

I'm proud to be a blogger.

Facing the National Guard

Both George W. Bush and John Kerry are scheduled to address the National Guard Association this week as the election draws near. Who do you think will get a better reception from the Guardsmen?

The man who served honorably in the National Guard for 6 years, or the man who keeps equating service in the National Guard in the 70's with dodging the draft and running to Canada?

The man who flew fighter jets in the service of America's Air Defense, or the man who faked 3 Purple Hearts to get out of a combat zone?

The man who honorably serves as a resolute Commander-in-Chief for the National Guard troops that are now deployed into a war zone, or the man who voted to deploy them and then voted to deny them supplemental funding after they were in harms way?

I don't have any doubt who will get the cheers and who will get either boos or polite silence.

I finished reading "Unfit for Command" this week. It's the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth account of John Kerry's dishonorable service in Vietnam and after he returned. Having read that, I would not want to be John Kerry stepping in front of a group of veterans. Especially the National Guard who he continues to disparage. But, as a former Air National Guardsman myself, I would like to buy a ticket to the event!

My Letter to USA Today

Following up on my post last Friday about the press herd misquoting Vice President Dick Cheney as saying that if we elect Kerry we'll get attacked again: I was aggravated that USA Today repeated the misquote again today. Therefore I submitted the following Letter to the Editor:

USA Today, along with other media outlets, continues to mischaracterize quotes made last week by Vice President Dick Cheney regarding the importance of the pending election on the War on Terror. The mischaracterization occurs by truncating Cheney's comments to in a manner that mistates his meaning.

In the article in today's edition on page 11A, "Powell, Rice defend Cheney's comment" you quote the Vice President as saying "that if John Kerry is elected president, 'the danger is that we'll get hit again' by terrorists."

The implication of that abbreviated quote is that Cheney is implying that if we elect Bush/Cheney we won't be attacked. This is nonsense and is not the meaning of Cheney's actual quote.

The full quote from the Vice President is:

"Because if we make the wrong choice,then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devasting from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mindset if you will, that in fact these terroist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us."

An honest reading of the full remark by Cheney reveals that he is not saying that if we elect Kerry we risk being attacked again, as your misquote implies. The Vice President is instead arguing that if we make the wrong choice and elect a new adminstration that would respond to a terrorist attack in a 9/10 mode as a crime and not a war that it would be a mistake. I personally believe that is an legitimate, accurate, and defensible point that needs to be made in this election season.

I urge USA to review the full quote on videotape. If you can find it. ABC's "Nightline" aired the clip last week with the same truncation. I only saw the full clip on Fox News Network.

My question is: why does USA Today continue to truncate the quote at a comma midsentence and, in doing so, alter the meaning entirely? Do you consider that valid journalistic practice?

I urge USA Today and other media outlets to accurately report the full quote and to cease mischaracterizing the Vice President's remarks on this important topic.

The Party of 35 Years Ago

There is one thing that this election season has made absolutely clear: the Democratic Party is hopelessly mired in a time warp with a focal point of about 35 years ago.

The 60's liberals in the leadership of the Democratic Party, including their standard bearer John Kerry, have had their entire worldview shaped by the Vietnam War. They didn't learn the right lessons from it and they can't let go of it.

There is less than two months to go until a Presidential election and their candidate, who they raced to in a primary season coronation because he was the "electable" candidate, is flagging in the polls. States that were considered too close to call, or battleground states, are settling into the Bush column. They watched their opponent, the sitting President of the United States, wind up an enormously successful party convention with a riveting speech that laid out an agenda for a second term centered on the War on Terror overseas and the "Ownership Society" at home.

So what do the Democrats want to talk about? Vietnam. Vietnam. Vietnam. 35 years ago. They have a solid 4 talking point plan:

1. Praise John Kerry's service as a war hero. John Kerry at the convention: "I'm John Kerry - reporting for duty".

2. Praise John Kerry's conviction as a war protestor.

3. Attack Dick Cheney's military status during the Vietnam War. "I guess I'll let the voter's decide whether 5 deferrments makes you more qualified than two tours of duty".

4. Attack, for the 4th time, George Bush's service in the National Guard. Accuse him of getting special favors. Accuse him of being AWOL.

There are many problems with this approach. I'll just point out three.

1. George Bush's status 35 years ago is irrelevant. As people pointed out on talking head shows this week, the time to bring this all up (and they did) was 4 years ago. Britt Hume nailed it today on Fox News Sunday when he observed that the only reason you examine a candidate's military service is to predict what kind of Commander-in-Chief he might potentially make. We don't need to guess with Bush - he's already been Commander-in-Chief for 4 years. You either like his record and will vote for him or you don't like it and you won't. You don't have to read 35 year old memos like tea leaves to divine how he might act. As he said in his convention - "You know where I stand".

2. John Kerry - who still has to prove his ablity to act in an Executive office - his record of 35 years ago is relevant as a predictor of command behavior and is not favorable. He challenged America to ask his "band of brother" about his heroism and 254 of his fellow Swiftboat Veterans stepped up and labelled him unfit for command. And the more times they replay his antiwar testimony from 1971, the harder it is to spin his Jane Fonda-ish treason into a heroic act of conscience with most viewers.

3. This tactic is forcing a schizophrenia on Kerry's supporters who have to argue simultaneously that:

a. of course John Kerry is a war hero and being a war hero for 4 months in Vietnam is so noble that it trumps everything including Kerry's own 20 year Senate career and

b. of course John Kerry was telling the truth when he testified that American soldiers, including himself, committed war crimes on a daily basis at all levels of command and that our country sent the "army of Gengis Khan" to rape and pillage the countryside in a losing effort for a dishonorable cause.

Which is it? And how do you make both arguments without your head spinning on your shoulders?

So, Democrats. Keep going. Keep refighting the Vietnam War. Stay locked in a time warp 35 years ago. And I'll keep watching Bush's poll numbers climb and watch more blue states (Dem) change to red states (Rep) on the electoral college map.

Cheney Misquoted by Press Herd

I have to admit I was stunned when I heard news stories about Vice President Cheney's remarks on the campaign trail. He was quoted in newspapers and on news shows as saying this:

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make
the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that
we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the
standpoint of the United States." (AP)

USA Today characterized that quote with a story by Jill Lawrence and Richard Bennetto titled:

"Cheney ties election result to chance of terror attack" (USA Today,
9/8/04)

I was puzzled. Why would Dick Cheney, a shrewd political veteran, make such a naked and damaging statement in front of a media herd. But he must have said it. I've seen several clips of him saying it. So what give?

Finally last night I understood it. I was watching Fox News Special Report with Britt Hume and they were discussing the story. But they didn't stop the clip where everyone else did - right after "... we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States." That's where all of the mainstream media stops the tape. But Fox let it roll a couple of more sentences allowing Cheney to finish his thought. His next couple of sentences were about a new administration's handling of the attack in a pre 9/11 mindset, with a law enforcement approach. When you finish the thought you get a completely different message, which I picked up immediately when I heard the full clip.

So let's look at the full quote and see how it stands:

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States." and it will be handled in a pre-9/11 mindset with law enforcement means instead of treating it like a war.

I had to paraphrase the last part because I can't find the full quote anywhere online.

In other words:

Dick Cheney was not saying that the danger is that if we make the wrong choice (elect Kerry) that we'll get hit again, with the implication being that if we elect Bush we won't get hit again.

Dick Cheney was saying that the danger is that if we make the wrong choice (elect Kerry) we'll get hit again and it will be mishandled, using law enforcement means instead of treating it like a war.

The full quote gives a completely different, and I would say completely accurate, picture.

This small story re-emphasizes two points to me:

1. The mainstream media is a herd that all repeat the same story. Why did they all stop the clip early?
2. The mainstream media cannot be trusted to report the story accurately.

Really, is there not one reporter there who heard the full statement by Dick Cheney and could properly understand it and report it? Amazing.

Global Jihad - Chechen office

I confess that I am puzzled as to why the the media and the left in America are so reticent to connect Al Qaeda to the Chechen "separatists" that just assaulted Russia in several bloody and murderous assualts in the last 30 days. In most of the newspaper articles that I've read on the topic you have to go several paragraphs in before you find a reference to Al Qaeda involvement. In the case of the siege of the Russian school and the deaths of more than 300 including women and children you only hear whispers in the media that there may have been "Arabs" mixed in with the killers.

How does it help our National Security efforts for the left to downplay the role of Al Qaeda in global terrorism?

As I've said before, I'm still in the process of reading the excellent "9/11 Commission Report". Fascinating. Here's a tidbit that I read yesterday in the report, with cable news playing stories about the tragedy in Russia in the background. It's about Mohammed Atta, the leader in the 9-11 attacks on America, and his group of 3 friends who became the core leaders in the attack.

"...they had formed a close-knit group as students in Hamburg, Germany. The new recruits had come to Afghanistan aspiring to wage jihad in Chechnya. But al Qaeda quickly recongized their potential and enlisted them in its anti-U.S. jihad." pg 158

There are other references in the 9/11 report to Al Qaeda support of the jihad in Chechnya, such as:

"...a support center for the Muslim rebels in Chechnya." pg 58

"... Bin Laden's agenda stood out. While his allied Islamist groups were focused on local battles, such as those in Egypt, Algeria, Bosnia, or Chechnya, Bin Laden concentrated on attacking the "far enemy" - the United States". pg 59 Yes, but he still financed people and weapons to fight in those other places as well.

"These were part of a larger network used by diverse organizations for recuriting and training fighters for Islamic insurgencies in such places as "Tajikistan, Kashmir, and Chechnya." pg 64

And so on.

As I've quoted before, former Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke, not a friend of the Bush administration, lists in his book "Against all Enemies" the connection between Al Qaeda and warring countries like Chechnya.

"Bin Laden sent Afghan Arab veterans, money, and arms to fellow Saudi ibn Khatab in Chechny, which seemed like a perfect theater for Jihad." pg 136

What I've learned from all of this that I've been reading is:

1. Islamic terrorists have a goal - global jihad and the establishment of a global Caliphate.
2. They've organized fighter, money, and arms and ship them to warring hotspots such as Bosnia and Chechnya.
3. The jihad has been in progress in excess of 20 years - dated from the time of the Russian withdrawal from Afghanistan by the 9/11 Report.
3. The U.S. is only one of the targets in the West
4. The West has been, and is still, slow to put the pieces together and recognize it.
5. The mainstream media aids that deadly lack of understanding by being timid in making the connection between local wars and jihad.

As to the question of the media's to label Arab fighters in Chechnya as Al Qaeda: Why?

Bush's Current Events Bounce

I saw a lot of stunned media faces this week on TV as a Time Magazine poll following the Republican National Convention showed that months of a virtual tie have been broken with President Bush now having a 11% lead over challenger John Kerry.

Quiz: Which of the following stories that I watched on TV in the last 10 days WILL NOT help President Bush's reelection chances?

1. Al-Qaida backed Chechen Islamic terrorists seize a school in Russia and kill more than 300, including at least 150 children.

2. The Republican National Convention, including the "mad" night of Zell Miller and Dick Cheney launching pointed remarks at Kerry.

3. Al-Qaida backed Chechen Islamic terrorists take down two Russian commercial airliners simultaneously killing 90.

4. A&E replays documentaries on 9/11 that show the World Trade Center towers attacked by Al Qaida Islamic terrorists with more than 3000 brutally murdered.

5. Al-Qaida backed Chechen Islamic terrorists stage a suicide bombing in a Moscow train station, killing 10.

6. Islamic terrorists kidnap French journalists and threaten to kill them if France does not repeal a law banning headscarfs.

7. Three hurricanes in a row slam into and cripple the state of Florida. Including this week's assault by the Texas-sized behemoth Frances.

8. Islamic terrorists stage a suicide bombing on a bus in the Gaza Strip.

9. Islamic terrorists in Iraq kidnap and kill 12 Nepalese restaurant workers, shooting 11 and beheading one before dumping their bodies in a ditch and showing the video on Arab TV.

10. Former President Bill Clinton's chest pain that will result in a quadruple bypass heart surgery some time this week.

Answer: Sorry, it was a trick question. All of these stories help President Bush's reelection. How?

1. All of the terrorist attack stories remind people that:

a) the world is a dangerous place
b) the War on Terror is a global war and Al Qaida is involved everywhere
c) the fight on terrorism will be a long and unconventional struggle
d) we need a resolute leader to stay in there and keep fighting. That resolute leader is Bush.

2. The Republican National Convention was a huge success. It was well scripted and stayed right on message. That message played out sequentially over 4 nights by political superstars like John McCain, Rudy Guiliani, Arnold Schwarznegger, Laura Bush, and the candidates themselves. The message was:

Monday: 9/11 was a defining moment for our country - Bush was right to launch the War on Terror and - the WoT rightfully includes Iraq.

Tuesday: Republicans are optimisitic and compassionate

Wednesday: John Kerry record disqualifies him for command. And despite the media's hand-wringing about how "angry" Zell's speech was, it was devastating and effective.

Thursday: George W. Bush is the resolute leader we need. "...you know where I stand".

3. The hurricanes give the Bush's - Jeb and George - the opportunity to lead publicly and to dispense money and aid.

4. Clinton's heart attack takes him out of the campaign as a Kerry advocate. The Democrat's hero and leader - who by the way, is not the candidate - is down. Bad timing.

All of these stories help George W. Bush less than 60 days before the convention. I predict that we will see that 11% margin grow. Barring a catastrophic mistake on Bush's part I think it will be a substantial win in November.

And oh, by the way, watch out for Russia's response to the school attack. I saw quotes today from Russian premier Putin acknowledging that they have mishandled the recent Chechen situation by being "too weak". I'd say - look out. I'd hate to be the Al-Qaida backed Chechen Islamic terrorists when Putin, former head of the Russian KGB, takes the gloves off.

Class and Culture at the Olympic Games

Having said what I said earlier about the empty seats at the Summer Olympics and Greece's role in that, I'll say this as well:

Hats off to Greece for a staggeringly successful staging of the Olympic Games. They were safe, peaceful, interesting, and highly competitive. I enjoyed watching as much as I could and there were many thrilling moments.

And I was impressed by the Closing Ceremonies tonight as I was earlier with the Opening Ceremonies. They were a magnificently planned and delivered show of class and culture. Elegant and classy. And a celebration of the uniqueness and antiquity of Greek Culture. Bravo!

Unfortunately, I chose to contrast it with the MTV Video Music Awards which were on at the same time. I flipped back and forth. MTV, and all the music and Hollywood star power that they put on display, did not fare well in the comparison of class and culture.

And the fact that I spent any time at all watching MTV's VMA's unfortunately says too much about the state of my culture.

Congratulations to the people of Greece for a fine national effort and for the success of the games.

A Small but Significant Word

John Kerry enlisted in the U.S Naval Reserves, not the active duty U.S. Navy according to a passage in the book that is dominating the presidential campaign season: John O'Neill's book "Unfit for Command".

That single detail is the most consequential fact to emerge in the midst of the other allegations: that Kerry didn't earn his medals, that he used his medals to get sent home, that he fabricated his testimony to Congress on atrocities and his trip to Cambodia. His enlistment in the Reserves rather than the active Navy is a matter of public record and is either true or not true. The Swiftboat Veterans for Truth have the record.

Why is this seemingly inconsequential detail important to me?

Because Kerry and his supporters have for a year now been besmirching President Bush's service in the National Guard during the Vietnam era as not being honorable. And every time they ridicule the National Guard they ridicule me. I am a veteran of both the active duty U.S. Air Force (8 years) and of the Illinois National Guard (3 years).

In my particular case I was never deployed during my tenure in the Guard but my unit was repeatedly deployed all over the world shortly after I separated. I was ready to deploy and I consider my service to be honorable. I take it as a deeply personal affront every time Kerry or his surrogates imply or directly state that service in the National Guard is less than honorable.

Kerry and his true believers have been drawing direct contrasts to his service and Bush's. They say directly that Bush, a son of privelege, "hid out" in the National Guard to avoid service. By contrast Kerry, a son of privelege, said "Send Me" and enlisted active duty to go to war.

Nice story. But, like the other issues related to his service, the Swifties who served with him have exposed it as a lie. Kerry did not enlist in the Navy knowing that he would be sent. He enlisted in the Naval Reserves not knowing.

To me the National Guard and the Naval Reserves have exactly the same standing. They are both honorable service to our country. And everyone who enlists in the National Guard or in the Naval Reserves know at least two things:

1. You may get deployed to a hostile combat zone at any time
2. You have no control over that decision. You may go. You may not go. It depends on circumstances and on the decisions of politicians and commanders. It doesn't reflect dishonor if you don't get deployed. It doesn't particularly reflect valor if you do get deployed. It's what you signed up for.

Now, I admire the fact that Kerry enlisted in the Naval Reserves. And I do credit him for valor that his unit was, apparently, deployed to a combat zone and that he served there.

The dishonor comes in Kerry's continued trashing of fellow veteran George Bush's service in the National Guard. The allegations by his supporters that Bush "didn't serve" because he got a comfy post in the National Guard. It's not true. It's a particularly ugly and dishonorable accusation.

And in making those allegations about George Bush they personally offend me.

What I want to know is why hasn't this pertinent fact been investigated or reported by the mainstream media?

Watch the Media Discount Terrorism

The breaking news tonight has 2 commercial aircraft crashing simultaneously in Russia. Late updates indicate that the hijacking signal was triggered in one of the planes.

Now, unless you're a liberal in America your first suspicion should be of terrorism as the cause. Of course there is a "civil war" going on in Chechnya that is a likely source. However, I've already made the connections on this blog of Al Qaida operating in Chechnya in their quest to export Jihad. The second section of the "9/11 Commission Report" confirms that Al Qaida connection and operation in Chechnya.

However, expect the liberals including the mainstream media to immediately start discounting any Al Qaida involvement. I'll give them 8 hours from now and I should start hearing stories about the "separatists" in Chechnya that downplay Al Qaida.

Why? Several reasons. First and foremost is that liberals really didn't learn the lessons of 9/11 and really don't believe there is a terrorist threat to worry about. Oh, they give lip service to it. But they don't really believe it. They don't believe that Al Qaida is operating in Western countries. Surely not in "enlightened" countries like Russia that opposed our liberation of Iraq.

Also because it does not help them in their quest to unseat a wartime President who they've been accusing for a year now about lying about Al Qaida's operations outside of Afghanistan.

This is not a difficult prediction, by the way. Unfortunately it's way too easy.

Reaping the Empty Seats at the Olympics

I've been enjoying the Olympics on TV this week. I challenged my kids to watch the games instead of playing Game Cube or watching cartoons. It's working somewhat, and I try to watch with them. They seem to like swimming events the best.

It's fascinating to watch. The competition. The medals. The human drama. The empty seats.

What's up with the empty seats. It was hard not to notice in the first few days of the games that venues were half filled at best. Why? I've thought about it and have two thoughts as to why the empty seats.

The simplest answer is poor planning. People weren't sure even right up to opening day that the facilities would be done and that there even would be an Olympics. The Greeks brought this on themselves by leaving so much uncertainty if the stadium would be built on time. Not good when you're trying to convince people to fly across the pond in droves and pony up for expensive tickets to these venues. Is the concrete even dry yet?

The other reason was the fear of terrorist attacks, which was not sufficiently calmed by the Greeks. Really, do you trust Europeans with your security?