Wednesday, May 18, 2005

Double Standards at Newsweek

Earlier this month, Newsweek ran an article in which they alleged that a U.S. guard serving in Guantanamo Bay flushed a Koran (the Islamic holy book) down a toilet in order to force a confession out of a terrorist detainee. Newsweek admitted they had only a single unnamed source for this story, a story that we now know to be false. Newsweek were forced to retract the story, but too late; the damage has already been done. This false allegation sparked riots throughout the Muslin world, resulting in 17 deaths. Also, the US military's campaign to win the hearts and minds of Muslims, specifically in Iraq and Afghanistan, has been undermined.
Seven years ago, Newsweek had a major scoop. President Bill Clinton had an affair with a young White House intern by the name of Monica Lewinsky; but Newsweek deep-sixed the story because they had only a single source to back it up.
Let's be honest here; Newsweek didn't run the Lewinsky story because they didn't want to embarrass a Democrat president. They, along with the rest of the Liberal mainstream media, never pass up any opportunity to embarrass a Republican president. Don't forget, the Lewinsky story was actually true.

Monday, May 02, 2005

Please Get Out Of Your Country!

Can you imagine the president of the United States actively encouraging his fellow citizens to live in another country? Can you imagine your president visiting Ottowa to beg the Canadian Prime Minister to open Canada's southern border and allow tens of millions of Americans to cross (illegally). Would you still be proud to be an American? I know I wouldn't.
Mexican citizens don't need to imagine such a scenario. For them, it's a reality.
According to my Almanac, Mexico's current population is about 104 million. The government - led by President Vicente Fox - is obviously desperate to reduce that number. Presumably, they must have a specific number in mind. I wonder what it is? 90 million? 80 million? Let's say it's 75 million. Why don't they simply ask the United Nations to help them to relocate those 29 million citizens that are surplus to requirements?

Friday, April 29, 2005

We're Sorry, Saddam!

If the New York Times is to be believed (and who wouldn't believe the Times?) we shouldn't have gone to war with Iraq. Our justification for going to war - Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) - never existed; therefore, we shouldn't have gone to war. The rest of the liberal mainstream media agree with this, as does most of the Democrat Party, the Hollywood left, and the Dixie Chicks. If they're right, here's what we should do:
1) Restore Saddam Hussein to his pre-war position as absolute dictator of Iraq.
2) Pay for any damages we caused, plus an extra few hundred billion dollars for any emotional stress suffered by the Iraqi people.
3) End all economic sanctions, given that Iraq has now proved it has no WMD.
4) George W. Bush should give up his two daughters, Barbara and Jenna, in exchange for Saddam's two angelic sons, Uday and Qusay, who never did anyone any harm other than raping the odd few thousand women and assorted minor atrocities. These two fine young men were foully murdered by U.S. forces at the behest of the evil Bush, who is a mere puppet of the diabolical Karl "The Ripper" Rove, who is in turn a puppet of the unspeakable Dick "Damien Omen IV" Cheney. It's only fair that the Bush twins should be sacrificed.
Strange thing is, nobody on the left, not even Michael Moore or any of his liberal buddies in Hollywood have suggested restoring Saddam to power, let alone offering up the Bush Babes. How can this be? There were no WMD! Surely, we should return to the pre-war status quo, right?
We can draw only one logical conclusion from this. The left must secretly believe that we were right to forcibly remove Saddam from power, but they can't admit it because they can't bear to give any credit to the Bush administration.
Try asking an anti-war acquaintance if Saddam Hussein should be restored to power in Iraq. If the answer is no, ask why not? Presumably, your acquaintance will give you a list of reasons: Saddam killed 300,000 of his own people, he invaded two of his neighbors (Iran and Kuwait) and threatened many others etc. "Wait a minute," you should respond. "I thought you said there were no other reasons for going to war with Iraq!"
In reality, there were indeed many other reasons to go to war; and contrary to what you hear from the liberal mainstream media and the Democrats (one and the same thing, really), Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld and Cheney etc. have all along repeatedly specified these reasons. If you don't believe me, do a Google search on the internet.
I find it amazing that the media have barely mentioned the 300,000 bodies found in mass graves all over Iraq. That's almost the entire population of Pittsburgh, or three Beaver Stadiums filled to capacity. For me, this alone justifies going to war.
Another story the media have done their very best to ignore is the UN Oil-for-Food program. This has been the single greatest scam in the history of the world, and I'm not exaggerating.
The total value of the Oil-for-Food program is estimated at $111 billion. About 20% of this was skimmed off the top. Some of it went to Saddam himself in the form of kickbacks, the rest was used to bribe various businessmen (including the son of United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan) and government officials, mostly in France, Germany, Russia and the UN itself.
Saddam built dozens of palaces for himself. Each of these palaces was the size of a large college campus. Most of them were built after the first Gulf War of 1991. The vast amounts of money used to pay for these palaces was meant to feed the long-suffering Iraqi people. The United Nations knew all this, but did nothing. Too many people were making too much money, and it wasn't Halliburton.
It gets even worse. There is growing evidence that some of the money generated by the Oil-for Food program was funneled to terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and... wait for it... Al Q'aida. It is entirely possible that the 9/11 attacks were at leat partially funded by money syphoned from the UN Oil-for-Food program.
And what about those elusive WMD? If you get your news from ABC, CBS or NBC you will have concluded that there was no WMD. Maybe there wasn't, but the jury is still out. Satelite photos taken just prior to the coalition invasion showed a large convoy of trucks crossing into Syria from northwestern Iraq. It is still not known what those trucks contained.
Coalition forces found vast quantities of pesticide throughout Iraq, a country that is mostly urbanized or desert, with very little land suitable for agriculture. Why would the Iraqis require such extraordinary amounts of pesticide? Because it is easily weaponized. Indeed, Iraq used this "pesticide" during the eight year long war with Iran. Saddam also used this "pesticide" on his own people.
These stockpiles of pesticide were hidden under large camouflage nets in the middle of a desert. Why? Why would the Iraqis need to hide this stuff if it was only meant for agricultural use? And here's the clincher: just a few yards away from these barrels of pesticide were thousands of empty shells. Now, when the media tells us that WMD haven't been found, they are telling the literal truth. No ready made WMD have been found (yet), but the ingredients to quickly produce WMD have been found. Not for the first time, the media only tells us part of the story. They aren't actually lying, but by failing to report important facts they are distorting the truth.

Monday, November 15, 2004

My Post-Election Rant

While the LMM (Liberal Mainstream Media) are busy making excuses for Kerry's defeat, delegitimizing Bush's victory and threatening to break up the United States, this particular conservative blogger is also angry and frustrated. I believe our president was robbed: robbed of a landslide victory on 11/02/04.
Still, his victory was perhaps the greatest political achievement in this nation's 228 year history. Not only did Bush defeat a Democrat Party who were prepared to do and say anything to regain power, he also withstood a truly astonishing onslaught by the LMM.
I would compare the LMM's effort to the Ardennes Offensive of 1944-45, when Hitler rolled the dice one last time. The last week of the campaign (missing explosives) can be compared to the Battle of the Bulge. Hitler lost that battle; the LMM lost this battle. Hitler soon lost the war, but what about the LMM? Are they finished? Not yet. They'll hang on a lot longer than the Third Reich did 60 years ago.
And the LMM can take some comfort from the election results. Newsweek's Assistant Managing Editor, Evan Thomas (no friend of the GOP) stated in July that media bias would give Kerry an extra 15% of the votes come election day. If he's right (and I believe he is) Bush would have won the election by 18%, a massive landslide. Bush's margin of victory was small enough (less than 3%) to allow the left to make all kinds of excuses for their defeat: the gay marriage issue, GOP voter fraud in Florida etc. They even have the nerve to demand that Bush reach out to Democrats on Capitol Hill. My advice to Bush is "Don't do it!" You made a huge effort when you first came to Washington D.C. in January 2001, and we all know how that worked out. They had their chance and blew it. Don't give them a second chance, they don't deserve it.

Friday, October 08, 2004

Bush & Cheney's Anger

The Old Media are obsessed with President Bush's body language that he displayed during the first presidential debate in Coral Gables, Florida last Thursday. There is no doubt that Bush did himself no favors, just as Al Gore did himself no favors four years ago. Apparently, Bush was even visibly irritable when a campaign aid fired questions at him during a pre-debate "practice session." For this reason, the Bush campaign insisted that the cameras should only focus on the man speaking. The TV networks quite rightly ignored this demand.
Five nights later, Dick Cheney managed to control his facial muscles; but he clearly had nothing but contempt for his Democrat opponent, John Edwards. He had the air of a man who was disgusted that he was sharing a stage with such a political lightweight. He's right, of course, but I wonder how this attitude played with those appalling swing voters?
So what was their problem? When George Bush walked on that stage in Florida, he was sitting pretty. Ahead in the polls, his Democrat rivals in dissarray, he should have been in high spirits. Perhaps he was tired after spending the day helping hurricane victims. That may be part of the reason, but in my opinion the biggest reason for Bush's strange performance is simple: he is furious with the Democrats' disgraceful politicization of the War on Terror. The final straw, I believe, was Kerry's criticism of Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi.

Friday, September 17, 2004

Curious & Curiouser

CBS News revealed on Wednesday that they had SIX, not four, alleged Killian memos. We in the blogosphere have known this for a week. USA Today had all six memos in PDF format on their website. Strangely, USAT removed the “extra” memos from the file over the weekend; however, last time I checked, they had replaced one of them. What’s going on here?
Here’s what I think happened: instead of hiring one top-notch expert to look at all the memos, CBS News cherry-picked SIX experts, one for each memo. Three of the experts have confirmed this: Marcel Matley, Emily Will and Linda James. Matley only verified the accuracy of the signature, not the entire memo he was “assigned” to. Emily Will warned CBS News not to go on air with these memos.
Why would CBS News do it this way? Because they suspected the memos were forgeries. So they discarded the memos rejected by Will and James, but went with the other four. If someone gives you six twenty dollar bills and you discover that two of them are counterfeits, aren’t you going to suspect the other four?
This is no longer a question of CBS News and Dan Rather being duped. They are willing accomplices.
Earlier this week, Newsweek fingered one Bill Burkett as CBS News’ “unimpeachable source.” He’s harbored a long-standing grudge against Bush. Yesterday we learned that the memos were faxed to CBS News from a Kinkos in Abilene, TX. Burkett lives in Baird, TX, just 21 miles from Abilene. Burkett has a standing account at that particular Kinko’s.
Burkett’s attorney, David Van Os, denied his client had anything to do with the memos. Van Os is an interesting character. Here’s is bio. You’ll notice he has been an important official in the Travis County Austin), TX Democrat Party. By coincidence, Robin Rather, daughter of Dan, is a well-known political activist in Texas, and is also an official in the Travis county Democrat Party. She is also a likely candidate for Austin Mayor in 2006. Four years ago she invited her famous father to a fundraiser there, where he would almost certainly have met another top official in that local party: Ben Barnes.
Dan Rather failed to mention that Barnes has raised over $500,000 for the Democrat Party, and is the nation’s third largest individual Kerry campaign fundraiser. He is also vice-chairman of the Kerry campaign. (when it was discovered that the SwiftVets were partially funded by a Houston Republican, it was enough for the mainstream media, including Dan Rather, to dismiss the SwiftVets out of hand)
A few days ago I was about 75% sure that Karl Rove was behind all this. Now I think that’s highly unlikely. All leads point to the Travis County Democrats and, by extension, the DNC.

Friday, September 10, 2004

Three-Prong Attack On Bush Collapses

The NBC Today show is scheduled to feature Kitty Kelley's new Bush hit piece on three consecutive mornings starting on Monday. Kelley's reputation precedes her. She once claimed that Frank Sinatra and Nancy Reagan did the bad thing in the Oval Office. In her new book she accuses the current First Lady, Laura Bush, of using and selling drugs in her younger days. Only a rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth liberal could possibly believe that.
Why would NBC give this woman even one day- let alone three- to plug her latest garbage? We all know the answer to that one, don't we?
Fortunately, NBC may have second thoughts. Kelley's biggest "bombshell" is that George W. Bush used cocaine at Camp David while his father was president. Kelley claims she got this nugget from Bush's former sister-in-law, Sharon Bush. Yesterday, Mrs. Bush flatly denied telling this story to Kelley, or anyone else.
The other two prongs involve Dan Rather, Ben Barnes and a couple of "damaging" memos that just happened to fall into Rather's lap. Ben Barnes is a former Texas Lieutenant-Governor, who now claims he helped Bush get into the Texas National Guard (TNG). What Rather failed to mention is that Barnes is a big Kerry fund-raiser, a personal friend and neighbor of Kerry's, and previously, Barnes swore under oath that he had nothing to do with getting Bush into the TNG.
As you probably know by now, the supposedly damaging documents are forgeries; and very amateurish forgeries at that.
The most baffling thing about this three-pronged attack is how utterly inept it has been. Kitty Kelley! Cut me some slack! Are we expected to take this wretched woman seriously? And what about CBS News? Do they really believe Ben Barnes is credible? Back in the 1960's, Barnes was considered a rising star in Texas politics; a future president, perhaps. But by the early 1970's his career was over... because he was corrupt.
And finally, the forged documents. They are such obvious forgeries, I don't understand why the hot shot investigative reporters at CBS News could be taken in by them. Perhaps they weren't; perhaps they still don't understand the power of bloggers such as Powerline, who made short work of exposing these documents. A few years ago, CBS may have pulled this off.
It had occurred to me yesterday that the Bush campaign may have produced these forged documents in order to flush out the LMM (Liberal Mainstream Media). Today I've changed my mind. There was no percentage in it. Why would the Bush campaign take a chance that Dan Rather's obvious bias would get the better of him? Too risky. By the way, don't be surprised if CBS News internal investigation concludes that they've been had... by Karl Rove; whether it's true or not.
I have a feeling this three-pronged attack was supposed to be launched in late October, but the LMM panicked because of the Kerry campaign meltdown. The LMM decided to unload six or seven weeks early, with disastrous consequences.
Finally, I think it's time for Dan Rather to go. His 60 Minutes show is simply an extension of the Kerry campaign. What little remained of his credibility has been destroyed. Rather is 72 now and becoming more outrageous the older he gets. The CBS top brass should find the courage to show him the door.