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?

Ad Wars

Random thoughts on the "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth" ads on John Kerry.

- I'm amazed at the harsh media reaction to these ads. The mainstream media is in full attack mode on the veterans themselves.

- All of the furious reaction and activity in the media apparently doesn't include one thing: actually reading the book that the veterans have released to document their claims. According to the few who have, "Unfit for Command" is extensively documented and makes the case strongly. It was obvious in the Chris Matthews'interview / haranguing of Michelle Malkin that he not only had not read the book but that he wasn't even cognizant of the exact nature of the claims the veterans have made. He came unhinged and put words in her mouth that she didn't say and the book doesn't say.

For example, Malkin mention the allegation that at least one of Kerry's wounds was self-inflicted and therefore would not have been a legitimate basis for a purple heart. She didn't make that up. I've seen the veterans being interviewed making that claim. The claim that Kerry screwed up and misfired a grenade launcher and was hit from shrapnel that ricoheted from a nearby rock. No enemy fire is the point of the claim. And the on scene commander refused to sign a citation for that reason. But Matthews clearly didn't know the facts of the allegation. He seized on her words "self-inflicted" and turned it into "shot himself". He said "no one has made the claim that he shot himself". Chris, read the book before you interview people. Earn your salary.

- The new ad should be very effective. It shows ex-POW's stating that Kerry betrayed his country when he came back and alleged war crimes by his fellow soldiers. It's already been reported that Kerry's words were played over and over during torture in the Hanoi Hilton to get prisoners to sign confessions. It's an abomination. He's worse than Jane Fonda. There is no way he's fit to be the Commander in Chief. That's the message of the ad and it's true. Hopefully it gets played.

- The Democrats are countering with an ad by retired Air Force General Merril McPeak. McPeak claims that he supported Bush in 2000 but will now support Kerry because he has a "plan". Folks, let me tell you something. I served in the active duty Air Force when McPeak was the Air Force Chief of Staff during the first gulf war. I didn't have any respect for him then. He was a worthless Chief of Staff who regularly pissed off the enlisted force. He was an elitist snob jerk. No one even remembers his contribution during Desert Storm. The only thing he was known for was redesigning the dress blue uniform into the awful "Airline pilot's" uniform that it is today. It's the plainest service uniform and everyone hated the switch. Please, do not let this guy sway your opinion.

Summer Reading

I'm reading "The 9/11 Commission Report" for fun summer reading, in my spare time.

I must say that the chapters that I've read so far are riveting. Totally fascinating.

My expectation going into reading it was not high. I expected a partisan slam on President Bush. I was wrong. What I've read so far is a straight-down-the-middle compelling narrative of the facts of 9/11. I have learned more in the reading of the first chapter on the events of that day than I had previously learned in 3 years of paying close attention to the news. I was very surprised. And pleasantly surprised.

The second section, on the rise of Bin Laden's organization Al Qaeda, is riveting as well.

I'm only through the first two sections and I haven't gotten to the recommendations section, but I already have a recommendation of my own. It would be worth your time to read this report before the election. And it should be required reading on college campuses.

Stay tuned.

Truth will tell, in time

The Democrats are staking their whole run for the presidency this year on the news being bad. For them to unseat a sitting wartime president they need things to go badly. They need the economy to go badly. They need the war to go badly.

I understand you want your guy to win. Hey, it's an election and you're the party out of power. Significantly out of power. The presidency, the House of Representatives, and the Senate are not in your control. Only the courts and the press. You're miffed and you want power back. I understand that.

I understand that you're still steamed about the election of 2000. Your guy got the most votes and you lost the presidency because of the arcane Electoral College. I get that. You feel robbed. I understand. You even want to grab on to every "Bush Stole the Election" story you can even when the facts don't back you up. You want to yell "Count every vote!" even when all the votes were counted by a media consortium after the election and found that Bush still won. Doesn't matter, you want to be mad. You want to yell "Bush disenfranchised the blacks!" even though civil rights commissions investigated after the election and found that wasn't true. Doesn't matter. You want to be mad. You want the base to be mad. Fine. Hold on to that illogical bitterness if it gets you through the election.

I understand that you want to read every news story in absolutely the most negative light about the Bush administration.

But rooting against the war is going too far. And playing up every "Bush Lied, Kids died" conspiracy is hurting our image abroad when our troops are in harm's way.

Democrats - I implore you. You need to rethink your embrace of every outlandish Michael Moore or Howard Dean charge just because it feeds your hatred of George W. Bush. It really is undermining the war effort. And time eventually exposes the falsity of your claims.

Here are the latest two examples:

1. Bush elevated the security threat level just for political gain last week.

Tom Ridge raised the security threat level in New York. When pressed by the media and partisan Democrats he said that some of the intelligence information was old. The Democrat spin machine suddenly started pumping out the story that the threat wasn't real and that Bush did it for political gain in an election year.

However, the story is slowly coming out. Yes there was old intelligence. But there was also a new arrest of a high level Al Qaida operative in Pakistan with information on his computer that updated the old intelligence. It was a real threat based on a new arrest. Tom Ridge and his team were limited in what the could say without revealing intelligence sources. Democrats played on that and made wild accusations knowing that Ridge would be limited in defending his actions in order to keep intelligence safeguarded. The Democrats actions are despicable and indefensible in wartime.

2. Democrats continue to allege that there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaida and therefore the invasion of Iraq could not be placed in the scope of the War on Terror.

The danger for the Democrats here is that as more information is made public from Iraq it will support the connection.

Here's an important story in the news this week related to Iraqi funding of Al Qaida using the totally corrupted Food for Oil program. http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/8/125457.shtml

Bottom line: Democrats - you've got to rethink embracing every outrageous charge against the Bush administration in wartime just to get your guy elected. It's harmful to the country. Stop it.

A Party in Freefall

The Illinois Republican Party continues it's free fall into irrelevance this month with the selection by the party of the candidate for the U.S. Senate from Illinois - Alan Keyes.

The Repubulican Party Central Committee in Illinois is on a record run of continuous disasasters, leading the party to record electoral pariah status. Starting with nominating a crook like George Ryan to be our candidate for Govenor. Next they nominated Jim Ryan to succeeed George. Jim Ryan sleep-walked his way through campaigning on the slogan, apparently, of "I'm not George, really" and went down to a resounding defeat. Now we have a Democrat as Govenor. Finally, we have the meltdown of Jack Ryan as our Senate candidate and we face the turnover of the Senate seat from Republican to Democrat control. Nice work Central Committee. Do you have more Ryans to run for office so that every state position could be held by Democrats?

This Senate election affects me for two reasons:

1. I live in Illinois and will be represented by this Senator.
2. I live in the United States and will be affected by whether or not the Senate is Republican or Democratic controlled. With the Senate tied the loss of one seat could tip the balance.

So after the meltdown of Jack Ryan our Central Committee has selected Alan Keyes to run with approximately 2 months to go in a race against Barack Obama. Here's the pros and cons of this selection of Alan Keyes:

Pros:

- he's a well qualified candidate with public service on his resume
- he's brilliant
- he's well spoken and a fierce debater
- he's popular with Republicans and has a built in constituency
- he can raise money on short notice
- he has a shot at winning even with the debacle of our selection process

Cons:

- he's never been elected to office
- he's not from Illinois. He criticized Hillary Clinton for running for Senate from a state she's not from and now he's doing the same thing. Intellectual honesty compels me to mark this as a con. I too criticized Hillary and I can't just excuse it from Keyes because he's my guy.

Really it's all too much to put up with. In the whole state of Illinois can't we find one decent candidate who's actually from our state and who's not named Ryan?

All that being said, Keyes is our man and I will vote for him. Let's Vote!

Liberals Still Don't Get It - It's a War!

There's a pivotal scene in the movie "The American President" starring Michael Douglas that defines liberal misunderstanding of war for me and reminds me of John Kerry.

In this scene in an otherwise fine movie Douglas, as President of the United States, is chairing a meeting of his top advisors. America has been attacked. The President approves a plan to strike the Intelligence Headquarters of the enemy where they planned the attack on us. But he fine tunes our attack in response to make sure he hits the building late at night when only a skeleton crew will be on duty to minimize the casualties. His advisors swoon. Oh, he's so caring! We must issue a press release about his courage. The President demurs: this is the most difficult decision I've made. Somewhere tonight a janitor's life is going to end without him knowing why and I hate that I had to do it.

Liberals apparently love this scene as an example of courageous leadership. He had to strike, but he minimized the casualties. In fact, it's based on a real life example. After uncovering an Iraqi plot to kill ex-President Bush, Bill Clinton ordered a strike on the Iraqi Intelligence Headquarters at midnight for the same reason. Oh, he's so courageous and caring!

I personally hate this scene and what it represents. I always want to throw a shoe at the screen and yell "No, that's not the right response!" What did the janitor do to us? How effective was it to kill him and to blow up an empty building? Do you think that would deter a future attack? It's ridiculous. It's all style over substance. A worthless "message". The right thing to do, if you're going to strike the Headquarters where the attack on us was planned, is to hit it in the daytime and take out the actual leaders who did the planning. That's effective.

But liberals, who hate the use of force even when it's justified and necessary, mistake what fake President Douglas and real President Clinton did for courage.

John Kerry reminds me of that misunderstanding of courage and of the use of force to defend us.

I'm not going to take much space to comment on John Kerry's speech to accept his nomination and close out the Democratic National Convention. I'll just say this. It was a complete mess. Poorly delivered. An incoherent theme. No vision. All slogans. This was his first big test as a candidate and he failed it. He had a month to write the speech and this awful thing was what he delivered.

However, one line of the speech that deserves commenting on came in a section where Kerry was trying to make the case that he could be trusted with homeland security. He said essentially this:

...any attack on America will be met with a swift and certain
response.

Really? You're going to wait for an attack? Senator Kerry, you still don't get it.

The most drastic thing that George W. Bush changed about American policy after 9/11 was that we were no longer going to wait for an attack on America and then treat it like a crime. We were going to take the fight to those who are planning to harm us and treat it like a war. Stop them before they attack us. That was a monumental shift in policy and it came through leadership.
Kerry has not caught up to the change. He'll wait for an attack. Then he'll send the cops over to take fingerprints for a trial. Maybe send a missle or two into an empty tent. If the U.N. and France approve of it, of course.

There is a clear choice in this election:

The future - George W. Bush - who lead a paradigm shift and is taking the fight to the terrorists.

The past - John Kerry - who will wait for an attack.

You choose.

The Democratic Echo Chamber

Here’s the one thing I took away from watching the 4 day coverage of the Democratic National Convention:

Democrats have been talking to each other in campaign mode for a year now and they think that their I-hate-Bush talking points are now universally accepted truths all across America. So now they just shorthand it to each other in the Echo Chamber.

Here’s what I imagine a conversation between 3 delegates at the convention to be like:

Left - winger #1: Count Every Vote! Can you believe the security here?

Lefty #2: Bush is a divider, not a uniter! I like your hat.

Lefty #1: Restore Credibility! I got some new Edwards buttons. He's got such great hair!

Lefty #2: Tax cuts for the rich!

Lefty # 1: Internationalize the war! No WMD’s!

Lefty #2: Lost 1 million jobs! Haliburton!

Lefty #1: Hey there’s sister Lefty. Is she done with her abortion rights, stop outsourcing, start gay marriage, stop-the-war committee meetings?

Lefty #3: Hi Ladies. I hate Bush. Bush lied, kids died. No War for oil. Florida. Deserter. Election Stealer. Disenfranchiser. And he’s stupid, too!

Lefty #1: Shhhhhh! Didn’t you get the memo? We’re not supposed to say any of that out loud here! We can’t tip off the swing voters.

Lefty #3: Oops. Sorry. But hey, no one’s looking. Let’s all whisper it together.

Lefty chorus, whispering: I Hate Bush!

Lefy #1: Wow, I feel better. I’ve been keeping that bottled up all week.

Hey is anyone hungry? We can limo over to the Ritz Carlton for our party with the Clintons. Time Warner is buying the Dom Perignon. We can talk about the poor.

Lefty chorus: Let’s go. Kerry’s a war hero!

A Choice...Reason or Ignorance

Ron Reagan Jr. offered this choice in his passionate speech before the Democratic National Convention on the topic of Embryonic Stem Cell (ESC) research. A choice in our election in November between reason or ignorance.

Reagan was offered the prime time speaking slot to tweak the Republicans, of course. To stick a knife into his old man's name. And to take shots at George W. Bush, who the Democrats accuse of blocking miracle cures just around the corner to foist his own ignorant religious beliefs on the country. The bastard! George W. Bush must be evil. Ron Reagan Jr. said so.

Reagan made the simplified case. People have diseases. Miracle cures are just around the corner. The cures are only being stopped by the ignorant, like super meany George Bush, who can't tell the difference between a clump of stem cells and a full grown person. Why, oh why, can't everyone see how reasonable ESC is? Why aren't we pouring in the federal dollars to line up and destroy embryos in the petri dishes? Why is Bush so stupid and mean?

The case was made to the convention. The delegates gushed their approval. Ron Reagan was their new champion.

The esteemed Ron Reagan Jr.

Noted Scientist and Physician. Nobel prize winner in genetics and neurologic research. Gifted deep thinker and noted embryologist.

Oh, wait. Ron Reagan has none of those credentials. In fact, what exactly does he do? I mean besides being a professional besmircher of his father's legacy?

Democrats - why are you listening to Ron Reagan Jr on a topic like Stem Cell Research? You're emabarrassing yourself nodding along like puppets  at his sophmoric appeal to "reason".

Ron Reagan Jr. and I have about equal credentials to opine on the subject of Stem Cell Research. We both watch TV and we both read newspapers. He pretends to be a journalist, I write a blog. His father died from a terrible disease. My grandfather died from the same disease. We're even.

Oh, wait - he has special empathy for the subject. He said so. Because he knows a little girl with diabetes who could benefit from a cure.

Oh, wait - I have diabetes and could benefit from a cure. I guess I'm one up on young Mr. Reagan.

Okay. For the know-nothing bobbleheads on the convention floor who were swooning at young Ron's profound choice between reason and ignorance, let's look at the two key facts.

First, there are deep and unavoidable moral issues here that Reagan just swept aside. He may not give pause to the thought of destroying life to benefit life, but many people including me do and you can't just sweep it aside and accuse those who disagree with you of being ignorant. Or bad people.

Second, he's wrong. There is plenty of informed medical opinion, if you care to read it, outside of the realm of those with a political axe to grind that indicates that Embryonic Stem Cell Research is non-operative and that there is no miracle cure around the corner. In fact, there have been no research projects with ESC's that have had positive results. There have been studies with adverse results that had to be halted. There have been positive studies with Adult Stem Cells, which do not have the moral issues attached. But ESC has not panned out. Want proof? George Bush did not make stem cell research illegal, he just limited federal funding. Private funding is fully legal and permissable. If ESC held the hope of miracle cures around the corner for diabetes, private companies would be rushing to fund it and patent it. They're not. Why? Because it doesn't work. The few who want to keep pushing it have to go for government funding because the private funders know it doesn't work. That's your proof.

So why do Ron Reagan Jr. and the know-nothings keep pushing failed Embryonic Stem Cell research over promising Adult Stem Cell research and distort the hope of imminent cures? Because it fits with the abortion-at-all-costs agenda of his crowd that dominates the Democratic National Convention. If they make it noble to destroy embryos to advance science they further legitimize abortion.

Okay, bobbleheads on the floor of the convention- keep swooning at the the profound young Ronnie. I, on the other hand, have no problem choosing between reason and ignorance.

Bill Clinton Rocks!

Okay, I haven't been smoking marijuana. I haven't changed my mind on the fact that Bill Clinton is a pathological liar and a disgrace to the country.

But the man can give a speech. There is no doubt about it. His speech at the Democratic National Convention tonight was amazing.  Clinton rocked the Fleet Center and the Democratic party faithful adore him. He didn't disappoint. The man can give a speech. Everyone else on the podium pales in comparison. Especially the dreadful Hillary.

He was lying, of course. Shoveling the B.S. full speed.  But as expertly as anyone ever has shoveled the B.S.

Gotta hand it to him.

You've also got to give credit to the Dems for the theme that they've settled on: "Strength and Wisdom are not mutually exclusive".  Their shorthand slap at Bush. They don't want to come out and say they think Bush is stupid. So they've shorthanded it.

I think it's misleading and irrelevant. I would ask them if "Strength and Appeasment" are mutually exclusive, because they're leading the appeasement parade.

But it is a clever slogan. And it was a great speech. I'll give them that. It won't be much consolation when they lose the election, of course.

Why is this a "Leak"?

I'm still amused by the breaking Sandy Berger story last week. Do you still need evidence of a liberal bias in the news?

A former National Security Advisor, preparing for testimony before the 9/11 commission related to his administration's handling of terrorism, walks out of the National Archives with all of the copies from the White House file of a terrorism report stuffed in his socks. Is that the headline? No. The headlines in the national press were centered on the Democrat's outrage that anyone would ascribe devious motives to this innocent act of sloppiness. Also, the "news" outlets parroted the Democrats suscpicion on the timing of the "leaks" about the Berger investigation by the FBI?

Leaks? What leaks? Who said it was a leak?

Why is it a leak? It can only be a "leak" if it is secret or classified information that was inappropriately divulged to the public.

Why is an investigation by the FBI of the theft of classified documents by a formal federal official a secret? Why does it have to be "leaked"? Why wasn't this public information from day one?

There used to be a time when it wasn't as clear that the mainstream press was an arm of the Democratic party. A time when a journalist discovering a federal investigation of a former federal official would call it "news", not a "leak". 

Of course, it is news. And, of course, the Democrats are just doing their usual scandal diversion by shouting "look over there - eek! it's a leak" to cover up for one of their own getting caught in misdeeds.

But journalists shouldn't be aiding their diversion.

For the journallistically impaired journalists out there - I'll help you out. The story is the theft of national security documents, not a "leak". Now, go and pretend you know how to report a story.

Where Have I Heard This Before?

So the main recomendation from the 9/11 committee is to have a single point of focus for our nation's intelligence gathering. A single director or czar for intelligence.

Maybe one focal group or task force or organization. I've got it! An Agency.

That collects data or worthwhile information related to national security. Something we would call "intelligence".

A group that all data flowed through. A group that was common to all data gathering groups. A Central group.

What we would call this Agency that was Central to all Intelligence gathering? That's a tricky one.

What would we call a Central Intelligence Agency? How about the C.I.A. ?

Oh, we already have that.

How about we just rebuild the agency that was gutted by Democratic congressmen for the last 3 decades?

Keep these people away from the Documents!

"Democrats denounce allegations about Berger" says the MSNBC headline.

What are the allegations? Did he turn left without signalling? Did he corrupt an intern in his National Security Advisor office? (Not likely, they were all down the hall in the little kitchen off the oval office with his boss.)

No - the allegation is that he walked out of the National Archives with classified documents hidden in his briefcase, his pants, and even in his socks.

Oh, that allegation. The one with the FBI investigation. The one with the possible jail time.

But Democrats, as usual, can't seem to muster any concern about the theft of classified documents related to 9/11. They are mad! They're furious! Not at the theft of classified documents, but at "the timing of the leak"! Nice try at a diversion by the ethically challenged. But it won't work.

"He was just sloppy", they said.

Kind of like Hillary was sloppy with the missing subpoened billing records that showed up in her residence with her fingerprints on it. Kind of like the security chief in Clinton's White House was with the 800 FBI files on key republicans that just happened to show up in his office. Remember? "Just a bureaucratic snafu".

Sloppy like that.

Keep these people away from important documents.

Revisiting Jihad

In my recent post "Rethinking Russia" I was entertaining the idea that we should revisit previous world conflicts to evaluate whether Al Qaida or terrorists played a role in areas where we hadn't focused on that possibility.
 
Reader Jill left an excellent comment where she challenged my assertion that Al Qaida was playing a role in Bosnia and Chechnya.
 
I've learned two things since:
 
1. I'm reading Richard Clarke's book "Against All Enemies". Readers of this blog will know that I'm not a fan of Dick Clarke. However, he has some interesting relevant info in his book on this topic. He indicates, approximately around page 138, that as the CIA and other agencies began tracking Al Qaida that they knew that they were strategically planning and executing the exportation of "jihad" into countries like Bosnia and Chechnya. Their goal was and is to establish a Caliphate in that region of the country to reestablish Islamic rule.  Yes, he said Bosnia and Chechnya specifically.
 
2. USA Today had a cover story yesterday about a top Al Qaida officer, with direct ties to Osama Bin Laden, surrendering in Saudi Arabia. An interesting little sidenote in the article was that he was offloaded in Saudi Arabia in a wheelchair. Why a wheelchair? Because he was injured fighting in Bosnia and Chechnya.
 
Connect the dots, people.

America is Safer

I caught a little bit of President Bush's speech today at Oak Ridge Laboratory while I was dressing for work. Not all of it, but snippets. It was in part a defense of our actions in the War on Terror.

It had a tag like this throughout the speech: "The terrorists have suffered defeat after defeat and America and the world are safer". Great line. And true. (Don't believe me? Read the text of the speech and argue it with me.)

Another great line: "The War on Terror will not be fought to a draw".

Well written. Convincing. Why haven't I heard a speech like this every month for the last year? He's got the right message. Why haven't he used the bully pulpit to defend it more.

I sat through a seminar today on change. One of the key recommendations in a change environment? Communicate. Communicate. Communicate.

I would say the War on Terror was a big change for the country. President Bush, take the seminar advice. Communicate. Communicate. Communicate.

The Black Screen Tells All in Farenheit 9/11

Propaganda. Webster defines it as "the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person". It's not a word much in use anymore. It's a word I heard often growing up during the Cold War. The Soviet Union and their Communist puppet states were masters of propaganda. Now all that the twentysomethings coming up behind me ever hear about is propaganda's kinder little brother: "spin". But, with the release of Michael Moore's outrageous new movie, "Farenheit 9/11", propaganda makes a roaring comeback.

And a minute or two of black screen in the movie tell you all you need to know about it. I'll get back to that.

Before I review the movie let me make three things clear. First, Michael Moore has a right to make this movie and to profit from it. I'm a free market capitalist and a first amendment fan and I say he's entitled to submit his movie to market forces and be seen. Second, I would say Moore is a skilled propagandist. He even makes a point or two worth considering. But they are lost in the orgy of Bush bashing and anti-war exploitation of widows and amputees. Third, I would say that as Moore as the right to put the movie out, the rest of us have a responsibility to review it and to revile it for what it is: vile anti-American propaganda.

I knew that if I was going to comment on the movie, and how could I not as a conservative blogger, I needed to actually see the whole movie. So I reluctantly went to my local metroplex and, with teeth gritted, coughed up the $7.50 to see it. Let me just say it took enormous willpower not to walk out in the first 10 minutes or heckle the screen throughout. But I made it. As painful as it was I suffered through the whole movie. Here's my review:

Unfortunately, the movie is effective as propaganda. It drives hard at it's theme (Bush is bad) with a relentless unflattering portrayal of George W. Bush. Also of everyone in the administration: Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, John Ashcroft, and Paul Wolfowitz. All get hammered with unflattering portayals. All driven by a running narrative by Moore telling his simple story that goes something like this:

George Bush is a bad man from a bad family including Pappa Bush. They are all corrupted by oil money. They are owned by Saudi Arabia, who owns a large portion of America, and are their puppets. First, the Bush's (George, Jeb, etc.) disenfranchised all of the blacks in America and stole the 2000 election by stealing Florida and then having Pappa Bush's friends on the Supreme Court seal the deal. Then the set their eyes on looting the country through big oil. The Bush's are surrounded by corrupt people who are also owned by big oil (Haliburtion, Harken, Arbusto Drilling) and by big defense (The Carlyle Group). Bush's corrupt minions (Cheney, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz) were all asleep at the switch for 9/11 because they were plotting a takeover of Iraq for it's oil and for revenge from the Gulf War. After 9/11 all the evil minions realized that their friends (Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, Saudi Arabia) were guilty, so they decided to attack poor innocent Sadaam Hussein as a coverup. (See the video of the smiling dancing Sadaam. Hey, he's not too bad!). They had to attack Afghanistan first, but only as a ruse. And they did all of this so that they could build a pipeline through Afghanistan and make billions of dollars with all of their corrupt oil buddies.

And oh, by the way, Al Gore and all of the Democrats are guilty too because they didn't stop it.

And oh, by the way, all of the media is guilty too because they reported favorably on the war. And Fox News Network is especially evil because they apparently conspired with the evil Bush's by calling Florida for Bush on election night. (Disregard the fact that they were right).

And oh, by the way, all of our troops are bloodthirsty killers who play rock and roll in their tanks as they blow up only innocent Iraqis in a country that "never killed a single American".

And oh, by the way, Michael Moore really does love America and our troops.

Can I gag now? I certainly did while I was watching the movie.

Moore is a master of weaving falsehoods, quick edits, unflattering pictures, and interviews with only those that support his views. He mixes, out-of-context quotes, outlandish speculation, and unfounded accusations in a building pace to walk you to a conclusion: George W. Bush and his people are the biggest evil on the planet.

It would take pages to do a complete critical analysis of the movie, and those can be found from more talented writers than me. Let me just take a few shots:

Mockery: Moore has a field day making fun of Bush for taking a "vacation" in Texas in August 20001. He states, not implies, that Bush was loafing and "should've shown up for work" right before the terrorist attacks. Never mind that presidents before him routinely get out of Washington in August because the Congress is not in session and there's no legislative work to do. Never mind that president's are rarely ever truly on vacation - with satellite phones and secret service and National Security staff meeting with them every day.

Conspiracy Theory: Moore makes a lot out of a blacked out name on Bush's released medical records from his Texas National Guard days. The released record includes a page relating to two airmen failing their medical exams: Bush and a Mr. Bath. Moore makes a lot out of the blacked out name of Mr. Bath and weaves an elaborate conspiracy involving the Saudis and oil money. A more reasonable explanation to anyone who has ever served in the military is that the Privacy Act applies and Bush cannot release the record of Mr. Bath. That' why it's blacked out. But that's too simple and doesn't fit the need of a propagandist.

Falsehoods: An early example comes in the opening montage about Bush stealing the 2000 election. Moore pans a newspaper headline "Gore wins in statewide recount", followed by a video clip of a Gore partisan saying the same thing. Wow! Really! Gore won? The trick here is the phrase "statewide recount". True, 3 independent news sources obtained the ballots after the election and finished the "recount". They did conclude that Gore won a statewided recount. The problem is that it is irrelevant. Gore's official challenge to the election was not statewide. Gore only challenged 4 cherry-picked heavily Democratic counties. The independent news agencies concluded that Bush won the election when recounting just those 4 counties. So, under Gore's chosen contest - Bush won and the election stands. Moore left out those inconvenient facts because they do not fit with his propaganda.

Outrageous claims: Moore repeats the canard that Bush's allies purged the voter rolls in Florida of "people not likely to vote for him. You know, you can usually tell them by the color of their skin". That's a vicious and racist allegation. The rolls were purged of felons ineligible to vote. And they were purged by county officials, most of whom in Florida are Democrats.

Interviews: Moore interviews several people, all of them from the same viewpoint. Only two congressmen, McDermott and Conyers, who are among the most liberal partisans in Congress. He inteviews a 9-11 widow mad at Bush. She has a right to her anger, but do you suppose there are widows who support Bush? Of course there are. Not in Moore's film however. Moore exploits the grief of a mother who lost a son in Iraq who's mad at Bush. Do you think there are parents of soldiers who support the war? Not in Moore's film. He interviews wounded soldiers mad at Bush. Again, they are entitled to their anger but I imagine that there are wounded soldiers who are proud of what they accomplished in Iraq. Not in Moore's film. Most eggregiously, he films Iraqi people shouting their hatred of Bush. Are there Iraqis who are grateful that we liberated their country? Of course there are. Not in Moore's film.

I could go on and on. But the black screen is the most telling. So let's go back to it.

Since the film is nominally about 9-11 Moore has to cover it and he does. For a few moments the screen goes black. We hear the sounds of the planes slamming into the buildings. We hear screams and moans and chaos. All of the sounds we are familiar with from that day. But no pictures. Eventually the picture comes back and we see people standing confused in the street. Crying. Ashes falling. Some brief comment by Moore and then he moves on.

Why the black screen? Why no video of the planes slamming into the buildings? Why no video of the bodies jumping out of the buildings? Why no video of the buildings collapsing with mass murder as the consequence? Why none of that most compelling video. This is afer all a movie, not an audio, and this is after all the pivotal moment of 9/11. Is it because there's no video of those events? No - there is plenty of video available. We've all seen them. Is it because it's too gruesome? No - Moore has no problem showing gruesome footage when it makes America look bad.

Ah, that's it. It's because propaganda is most effective when appealing to emotions. And the emotions you feel when you watch the planes hitting the towers, and the bodies jumping out, and the buildings falling are not the emotions that the master propagandist Moore wants you to experience. Those emotions helped us bond with George W. Bush. They do not fit the 'Bush is Bad' conclusion that Moore is driving at. That's why the screen is black during the most pivotal moment of 9/11. And that black screen is Michael Moore's shame.

Those few of you that clapped when the lights came up - I'm worried about you. I know that there is no talking to the grown up Bush-haters in the crowd who saw their own blind partisan hatred of Bush echoed back in this film. But I am worried about the twentysomethings who did not grow up in an era of real propaganda and are unprepared to critically analyze it. But then again, most of those clapping did not look to me like people likely to be registered voters, so I'll relax.

Rethinking Russia

Headline in my local newspaper 2 days ago: "Militants attack Russian town, 48 killed".

OK. I start reading.

The town, of course, was in the embattled area of Chechnya. Militants attacked it. Or separatists. Or militant separatists.

OK. 5 paragraphs into the story I find this: the militants were trained in Afghanistan with the Taliban and Al Qaida.

Paragraph 6 I find this: the militants are tied to the Wahabbi Muslim sect in Saudia Arabia which spawned Osama bin Laden.

So my question is: Why did it take 5 or 6 paragraphs to get to this information? Why wasn't it in the headline that "Al Qaida attacks Russian town, 48 killed"? Why do we mask who they are by calling them militants or separatists, as the media has done for the last decade.

So now I'm rethinking Russia and their decade long battle in Chechnya. I don't even know where that is, and I'm sure I don't know all of the details of that conflict. I do know that we in America have condemned the Russians for trying to put down the "separatists" every time.

Now I'm thinking that the Russians are fighting a common enemy to us and are 10 years ahead of us in the War on Terrorism. If they are indeed fighting Al Qaida I say "Go Russia"!

My thinking is that after 9-11 it is our obligation to go back and review every conflict in the last 20 years through the lens of the War on Terrorism. How long has it really been going on?

For example, President Clinton is out promoting his book and trumpeting as one of his major accomplishments the defeat of the Serbians in Kosovo. Were we on the right side in that one, thru the lens of the War on Terror? Serbia is a Christian nation. Kosovo / Albania were Muslim nations. Serbia was accused of "ethnic cleansing". What ethnicity were they trying to cleanse? As I remember it, they were principally fighting against the KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) which was a militant islamic group. Was Serbia an early combatant in the War on Terror before we ever realized there was a War on Terror. I'm thinking so.

We owe ourselves a re-evaluation of recent history so we know the full extent of the fight that we're in.