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.
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Monday, September 27, 2004
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.
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.
Thursday, September 23, 2004
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.
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.
Sunday, September 19, 2004
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?
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?
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
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!
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!
Monday, September 13, 2004
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.
Sunday, September 12, 2004
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.
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.
Friday, September 10, 2004
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:
USA Today characterized that quote with a story by Jill Lawrence and Richard Bennetto titled:
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.
"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.
Monday, September 06, 2004
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?
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?
Sunday, September 05, 2004
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)