QandO

New QandO Blog

Due to our growth, QandO has been forced to move off of MovableType, and onto a custom blogging platform designed by QandO blogger Dale Franks. In addition to the new look, we've added a few new features that will be explored more fully in time. For now, the links you need to know are:

• QandO Blog
- ongoing Neolibertarian commentary from Dale Franks, McQ and Jon Henke.
• QandO front page
- introduction page and contact information.
• QandO Discussion Forums
- continue your own conversations, ask questions, start debates, invite friends, make suggestions....and occassionally get your comments bumped up to the main blog.
• QandO Articles and Essays - our essays....and, soon, essays from contributors.

One does not have to register to leave comments on the blog, though other features do require registration. We hope you will sign up and become a frequent voice on QandO. In the meantime, adjust your bookmarks, blogrolls and lives accordingly.

The New QandO Blog

Weekly QandO Roundup

A Weekly Best-Of-QandO, with links to, and excerpts of, our most important posts from the past week. [though, I'm largely leaving out the somewhat dated Ra^therGate stuff]

And don't forget the new QandO site, and the new QandO blog. More functional, more involved....and soon, more features, too.

____________________________________________________________________

* Exit Interview (Jon Henke) - A book review of "Miles Gone By: A Literary Autobiography" by William F. Buckley Jr.

One doesn't have to read very far into Miles Gone By to discover that Buckley's intentions are far more "Literary" than "Autobiography". Certainly, the book is an autobiography, inasmuch as its stories come from his undoubtedly fascinating life. But, rather than creating a chronological, original tale of his own life, Buckley has compiled essays--written at various stages in his literary career--which give something approaching snapshots of his life, rather than a complete portrait.

This has its up and down sides.

__________________________________________________________________

* Quarterly Services Survey (Jon Henke) Papa's got a brand new....er, economic indicator. The first Quarterly Services survey indicates growth in the services sector.

With typewriters and physical examinations from 1972 dominating the headlines, some other important news has been unfortunately neglected. As I noted last week the Census Department has released "first new economic indicator from the Census Bureau since the 1960s". [first announced Wednesday, Sept 8th]

You may recall that the Daily Mislead hysterically called the forthcoming indicator "the latest in a series of actions by the White House to doctor or eliminate longstanding and nonpartisan economic data collection methods."

Well, it's called the "Quarterly Services Survey (QSS)", and it measures the service sector industries, "which account for nearly 55 percent of the nation’s economic activity". It's hard to see why the Daily Mislead is opposed to a measurement of the Service Sector of our economy, but one suspects it may have more to do with partisanship than with data.

__________________________________________________________________

* Democrats ignore "first law of holes"... (McQ) "... when you're in one quit digging." And the Democrats are in one....so, it's hard to see why they still want to make this election about Bush's National Guard Service. Because that's working out sooo well for them, so far.

Bush "wasn't in the Airforce?"

My guess is, and I don't have the time to dig it up, but other bloggers will, that when he went to flight school he was federalized and put under Air Force orders for those two years. Most likely it was a requirement. That would certainly qualify for having served "in the Air Force". Additionally ANG assets are considered to be reserve assets of, you guessed it, the Air Force. So if you're flying Air Force assigned air defense missions as an interceptor pilot, even as a part of the TANG, you are probably all right if you claim to have served in the Air Force. Any claim to the contrary might be seen as silly and stupid. But then we're talking about the DNC here.

__________________________________________________________________

* "Is there any betrayal that we wouldn't support?" (Jon Henke) - Let's be honest - Kerry might be uninspiring, but we're not all that excited about Bush, either.

I'll let you in on another secret. Senator Kerry isn't the only candidate in this race who a large section of his own party would be happy to replace.

While bloggers like to say that Kerry is the "Anybody But Bush" candidate, I'd argue that Bush is--for conservatives and libertarians, anyway--the "Anybody but a Democrat" candidate.
[...]
Indeed, beyond his hawkish approach to the war on terror, I simply cannot think of much that I like about Bush. And even his approach to the war on terror suffers from frequently poor implementation, and even poorer rhetoric. (though, with Bush as the candidate, I suppose the latter might be a bit unavoidable)

And yet, John Kerry is worse in every way. And the Libertarian candidate is even stranger than usual.

__________________________________________________________________

* 9/10 Kerry outlines Economic Plan (McQ) - Kerry pretends we've never had "recession, 9/11, war", and then offers his free candy...er, economic plan.

This isn't much of an economic plan in my estimation. Its a "I'll do it better" plan built on a mischaracterization of where we've been (recession, 9/11, war) and where we are (1.7 million new jobs, 5.4% unemployment, increased productivity, total compensation up, and the highest homeownership percentage in the nation's history).

It identifies problem areas, but then misses or overstates government abilities to solve them.

Its a true "candidates" manifesto: Long on charges, short on meaningful specifics, and redolant of the stink of promises impossible to keep.

__________________________________________________________________

* Voodoo economics II - The Sequel (McQ) - The Boston Globe conflates the Kerry's proposed additional spending with Bush's proposed fiscal shift, and claims they're equivalent. They are, to be blunt, wrong.

$2.2 trillion in new spending proposals and $860 billion in new revenue, offset by a 'cost' of $400 billion for middle-class tax cuts? That takes the increase in revenue from the 2% down to a net $460 billion, not the $600 billion we've been told to expect.

So Kerry says he's going to cover $2.2 trillion in spending with a $460 billion net increase in income tax revenue?

And cut the deficit as well?

Sure sounds like voodoo to me.

__________________________________________________________________

* What would Rather do? (Dale Franks and Jon Henke) - In which Dale preemptively nails the CBS reaction to the document forgery, and lays out their roadmap to Obfuscation.

Bases on the coverage of the memo's story at the CBS Website, I suspect they'll be following a line of, "The documents aren't important. It's the deeper truths behind them that are important. Forget the documents. It's the story you need to understand.
[...]
And aliens could have produced them at their sector administrative outpost at Alpha Centauri, then beamed them to earth. Lt Col Killian could have run them off at PIP (the Kinko's of that era), because they were 'specially important. A lot of things could have happened.

But, how likely is it that they happened? That's the question that CBS still doesn't seem keen to address.

__________________________________________________________________

* Triumphalism (Jon Henke) - Blog triumphalism is a bit out of hand, so it's time to remember our "proper place"....what we are, and what we aren't.

Blogs, I think, are a combination of editor and stringer. Bloggers do both the fact-checking (of editors), and the preliminary--even dubious--muckraking (of stringers in search of a story). The Blogosphere might best be compared to the newsroom at a newspaper. There, you'll find everything....the conscientous fact-checking, as well as the unsourced rumors that never make the final product.

Well, in the 'sphere, all of it is thrown against the wall to see what sticks. Blogs, like the preliminary research done in the newsrooms, are not The Record. They are merely the combined intelligence and information that goes into coalescing The Record.

Except, in blogs--for better or worse--it's all written and published as it happens.

__________________________________________________________________

* Old Media BS Filter (McQ) - Blogs are another level of editorial oversight.

What blogs don't do as a rule, is break news. Bloggers are net consumers of news. But what they provide is something new and something which has been lacking forever. The old media likes to talk about editorial "checks and balances". But those are internal checks and balances which may or may not render judgement that a story is both factual and unbiased as we've seen with Rathergate and my other such stories. It is difficult to see beyond institutional bias sometimes, and that is where bloggers perform a valuable "filtration" function. They provide an external version of "checks and balances".

__________________________________________________________________

* How did we end up with this clown? (Jon Henke) - Bush claims Kerry wants to expand government. Which is a bit of a pot/kettle criticism.

Face it - the only thing Bush can brag about is his comparative conservative advantage over Kerry. And that's akin to saying a tornado is--comparatively--better at home improvement projects than a hurricane.

How did this guy ever get nominated by the Republican Party, and how can we make sure the GOP never does that again?

__________________________________________________________________

* The Persistent Myth of the Stolen Election (McQ) - Debunking the 2000/Florida election myths.

Its an article of faith on the left that George Bush "stole" the 2000 election with the aid of the Supreme Court which gave him a win in FL that he didn't earn and thus a Presidency he didn't earn.

To this day, the myth is still perpertrated by the likes of Jesse Jackson, John Edwards and John Kerry:
[...]
The problem for the left is that there are no facts to support the myth. Unlike Michael Moore's claim in his factually challenged film "Fahrenheit 911", none of the recounts which were conducted post election showed that Al Gore would have won:

__________________________________________________________________

* True or election year politics? (McQ) - A Democratic Senator announces a forthcoming Guard and Reserve Call-up that hadn't yet been announced. Er....

That means this falls under one of two categories ... we have here a representative who has no problem telling of military plans in advance of their execution if it will reflect negatively on his party's political opponent or we have a representative who's making something up (which can't be checked) simply to frighten the families of Guardsmen and reservists in hopes of changing their vote.

Either way, I have a real problem with this announcement. It is the ultimate in politicizing the war in Iraq.

__________________________________________________________________

* The Iraq Intel Assessment (McQ) - The Iraq intel assessment: what it shows and what it doesn't.

However there's a reason I, at least, haven't paid that much attention to the intelligence estimate on Iraq that was given to the White House.

Experience.

I've read a good many intel estimates/assessments in my day (most of them tactical) and have come to understand they're a snap shot in time based on the information available at the time as well as assumptions and intel sources. I've also come to understand that with the passing of a day, the assumptions can change to the point that the assessment is rendered useless. I also came to understand that there are varying grades of intel sources. Some are rock solid and some are almost worthless. But both are used in intel assessments.

Lastly, intel assessments reflect the thoughts of, not surprisingly, the intel world. They do not reflect the ground truth that commanders in the field see. They are just another tool for the commander's decision making process.

__________________________________________________________________

* Oh, it's not just the documents, Dan. Apparently, the story has some holes, too (Dale Franks) - "I hate to risk veering off into Freeper territory here, but it's hard to beleive that the only answer for the one-sidedness of the CBS story is just incompetence."

Have you ever wondered when CBS News talked to Col. Staudt? "Cause, if you have, you can stop wondering.

They didn't.

Here they were, with these «damaging »memos, telling a story about how Staudt was applying political pressure to sugar-coat Mr. Bush's EOTRs, and, yet, somehow, they never talked to the man who was allegedly asking for the sugarcoating to be done.

Maybe the phones were out in Manhattan the day they were planning to call.

The new Blog is up!

Please be aware that real blogging has now begun at the new QandO blog! I've already put in my thoughts about today's big WaPo story on Ra^thergate.

Quick Hits

*** Freeven, at Mental Hiccups, asks "What is John Kerry hiding?".....and then he answers it, too.

"I have nothing to hide. I want you to ask me questions." --John Kerry, Democratic candidate for President
Reuters, August 3, 2004

Oh really?

If Mr. Kerry has nothing to hide, why won’t he let us see the following:

"The following"--i.e., what Kerry is still hiding--includes Kerry's military, medical, and tax records. And his war journal. And his Senate Intelligence Committee attendance record. And more.

John Kerry has previously said "The Nixon legacy of secrecy is alive and well in the Bush White House". One wonders if Kerry and his supporters really ever had a problem with that secrecy, or if they just wanted to get their hands on the machinery they'd just woken up to bitching about in January 2001.

That's a rhetorical question.

____________

*** Earlier this week, I wrote a piece called "Triumphalism", in which I discussed the nature and role of the blogosphere. (and what we aren't, too) A reader (unnamed, unless he tells me otherwise) sent this email, which I think deserves attention.

I liked your analogy of the blogosphere as a great big newsroom, and I think the similarities go deeper than you suggested in your article.

We have columnists (e.g. Andrew Sullivan - possibly unfair since he is an actual newspaper columnist, but he embodies a particular kind of "thinker" blogger).

We have stringers (think Glenn Reynolds: he says, "hey, look at this!" and everyone else gets to comment: the "linkers").

We have editors (just about everyone with an opinion, another kind of "thinker" blogger).

We have editorials (Bill Whittle?).

We have analysis writers (Steven den Beste, plus the myriad specialists).

We even have the cartoons! (DayByDay... soon may it return).

It's all there, with one exception. We have no "reporters", we don't break news, as some would put it. Well, I'm not so sure. After all, each one of us could be considered a local reporter. We don't need national roving reporters because we have people *everywhere*. As for breaking news.. well, if it's local we do. But how often is a local event of national or international significance? As for breaking news... liveblogging perhaps? I'm not sure about that one.

I think, however, your analogy could be improved very slightly. Yes, a newsroom. But an "open source" news room. All decisions, judgements and logical processes are there to be examined by anyone who cares to, which makes a big difference.

Maybe that could make a good reality TV show? Put cameras in the news rooms of major newspapers and TV broadcasters.

I think that description holds up pretty well, and I think the (rough) comparison between the blogosphere and a newsroom is appropriate.

_____________

*** I've had a few people ask about Neolibertarianism in recent days. "What is it?" Well, there's no simple answer, and that's something I want to correct in upcoming months, but I also need to offer a temporary explanation until then.

There's no simple explanation. I like the term "Hobbesian libertarian"--or "Lockean ideals in a Hobbesian world"--though, I recognize the fact that this won't exactly clear things up.

I responded to a reader earlier today on that question. I'll reproduce it here for what it's worth...

Neolibertarianism is, essentially, a more pragmatic, results-oriented, version of libertarianism. It is not as ideologically rigid, to the exclusion of effectiveness. I believe that, if we truly want more liberty, then it is encumbent upon us to act in ways that actually work towards increasing liberty, rather than simply running off the cliff, flag flying high....then bitching about the fact that the world didn't see things our way and repeal the laws of gravity out of respect for our strongly held views.

To be more specific: in my case, at least, I believe the concept of "Natural rights"--i.e., "rights" that people have as a function of their very nature--is silly. We have no more "natural rights" than does any given animal. And you see how well that works out for them. (or, at least, I did last night over a steak)

The universe makes no normative judgements on "right and wrong". It's simply matter and energy.

"Rights" are only "rights" insofar as they are enforceable. Which means "power" is the absolute, and not "rights".
[...]
Once we cut past the conceit that there is some list of "natural rights" [intrinsic to humanity] we're left with the simple fact that, if we want more freedom, we have to exert power towards that end. In our modern world, "power" [to that end] is largely exerted in the form of government. (or "war, by other means")

So, a Neolibertarian recognizes that a basic component of human nature is to work within governments--or power-coalitions--and recognizes that we must work within that paradigm, rather than rejecting it wholly, like the Libertarians.

Sorry, but every time I write about neolibertarianism, I recognize
that I need to--one day--put down some coherent, logical descriptions of the philosophy. Something more user-friendly than this philosophical meandering,
and less simplistic than "Libertarians tend to be absolutist loons, and we're not".

For more posts on Neolibertarianism, read here, here, here, here and here.

UPDATE: Interesting article about Halliburton--a favorite Democrat whipping-post for the Bush administration--here.

"[M]any voters may have no idea what services Halliburton provides to the government but that they know Cheney once ran the company"....and that is, apparently, enough for a political indictment. Left unsaid, though, is the exceedingly minimal actual profit--a key component of the term "profiteering"--that Halliburton is actually making on their contracts.

Burkett and the Kerry Campaign

Bill Burkett, the retired National Guard officer who's been cited as the probable source for the CBS memos, appears to have been an Democrat operative looking for a way to discredit Bush according to a Washington Post story today:

The former Texas National Guard officer suspected of providing CBS News with possibly forged records on President Bush's military service called on Democratic activists to wage "war" against Republican "dirty tricks" in a series of Internet postings in which he also used phrases similar to several employed in the disputed documents.

Retired Lt. Col. Bill Burkett, who earlier said he overheard Bush aides conspiring with the commander of the Texas National Guard to "sanitize" the president's military records, has refused to comment on reports that he could be CBS's confidential source. In e-mails yesterday to The Washington Post, he said he would speak out "at the appropriate time" but "that time is not now."

His first attempt to push the "stanitizing" story back in the late '90s was stuffed when all those he accused of doing it or knowing about it categorically denied Burkett's allegations. So it appears he had quite an axe to grind.

Per WaPo, he plans on speaking out, but only at the appropriate time. You have to wonder what could be more appropriate a time than now?

In e-mail messages to a Yahoo discussion group for Texas Democrats, Burkett laid out a rationale for using what he termed "down and dirty" tactics against Bush. He said that he had passed his ideas to the Democratic National Committee but that the DNC seemed "afraid to do what I suggest."

In another message, dated Sept. 4, Burkett hinted he might have had advance knowledge of some details in an explosive segment that aired Sept. 8 on CBS's "60 Minutes." In addition to airing footage of an interview with former Texas lieutenant governor Ben Barnes saying he helped Bush get into the Guard, the network broadcast documents purporting to show that Bush had disobeyed a direct order to take a physical required to continue flying in the spring of 1972.

"I believe that Bush knows that there is more coming out than Ben Barnes," Burkett wrote. "No proof, just gut instinct."

Gut instinct indeed.

So we have an axe-grinder with tenuous link to the DNC who has "advanced knowledge" of something big on CBS? Sounds more and more like Burkett's the source, doesn't it?

For his part, Burkett said in an Aug. 25 posting to a different Web site, Online Journal, that he and other researchers had "reassembled" files showing that Bush did not fulfill his oath to obey his superior officers. It was not clear from the context of the message, however, whether he was referring to records that have dribbled out of the White House and the Pentagon in response to Freedom of Information Act requests or to previously unpublished documents.

"Reassembled" is newspeak for "forged". A word on the FOI for Bush's records. Memo's to File would not be in Bush's record. They'd be in a private record. If Killian had indeed done such documents, they wouldn't be in his official file. The reason one does a Memo to File is to privately record what may be a problem so that if the problem ever comes to fruition and they try to pin the blame on you, you have a MTF to show you took certain actions and covered your butt. If nothing ever came of the problem, you'd most likely get rid of the MTF. But regardless, it would be a private, unofficial file.

So we know that Burkett contacted the DNC. But is there a connection in all of this to the Kerry campaign.

Well, yes.

In an Aug. 21 posting, Burkett referred to a conversation with former senator Max Cleland (D-Ga.) about the need to counteract Republican tactics: "I asked if they wanted to counterattack or ride this to ground and outlast it, not spending any money. He said counterattack. So I gave them the information to do it with. But none of them have called me back."

Cleland confirmed that he had a two- or three-minute conversation by cell phone with a Texan named Burkett in mid-August while he was on a car ride. He remembers Burkett saying that he had "valuable" information about Bush, and asking what he should with it. "I told him to contact the [Kerry] campaign," Cleland said. "You get this information tens of times a day, and you don't know if it is legit or not."

Which leaves the question: What did the Kerry campaign do with the information Burkett had, if anything?

Kerry Medals 'properly approved' per navy

This should put to rest some of the debate about Kerry's medals, at least whether they were "properly approved". Per the Navy Inspector General:

"Our examination found that existing documentation regarding the Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart medals indicates the awards approval process was properly followed," Route wrote in the memo sent Friday to Navy Secretary Gordon England.

"In particular, the senior officers who awarded the medals were properly delegated authority to do so. In addition, we found that they correctly followed the procedures in place at the time for approving these awards."

What this means is they were properly submitted and those that needed to sign off on them did and those that awarded the medals had the authority to do so.

What it doesn't do is answer whether the events or "wounds" which lead to the medals warranted the medal or not. It also doesn't identify, in the case of the first Purple Heart, who signed off on the award (since his first commander under whom the "wound" occurred says he refused to do so).

But in terms of the legitimacy of the awards, the Navy is saying they were legitmately awarded and properly approved. That is all it is saying.

"Conducting any additional review regarding events that took place over 30 years ago would not be productive," he wrote. "The passage of time would make reconstruction of the facts and circumstances unreliable, and would not allow the information gathered to be considered in the context of the time in which the events took place.

"Our review also considered the fact that Senator Kerry's post-active duty activities were public and that military and civilian officials were aware of his actions at the time. For these reasons, I have determined that Senator Kerry's awards were properly approved and will take no further action in this matter."

So endeth this part of the medal's saga.

She's baaack...

According to NewsMax, Hanoi Jane has now weighed in:

The America-bashing actress then urged voters to back Kerry over Bush, saying, "I don't think there's ever been such a clear choice between radicalism and moderation. I mean, we are dealing with a radical ideologue here."

A moment of sanity here ... compared to extreme leftist Fonda, anyone in the center or center/right would be a "radical ideollogue" in her world.

And that tells you where Kerry's "moderation" falls on the Fonda political spectrum.

Right where it always has .... very close to Fonda's leftist extremism.

Between her and Ted Kennedy, Kerry has just the friends he needs in the last few weeks of the race to ensure he gets no closer to the White House than booking an official tour.

Oh, it's not just the documents, Dan. Apparently, the story has some holes, too

In an exclusive interview with ABC News, Col Walter Staudt has contradicted the CBS Memos story.

Retired Col. Walter Staudt, who was brigadier general of Bush's unit in Texas, interviewed Bush for the Guard position and retired in March 1972. He was mentioned in one of the memos allegedly written by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian as having pressured Killian to assist Bush, though Bush supposedly was not meeting Guard standards.

"I never pressured anybody about George Bush because I had no reason to," Staudt told ABC News in his first interview since the documents were made public.

The memo stated that "Staudt is pushing to sugar coat" a review of Bush's performance.

Staudt said he decided to come forward because he saw erroneous reports on television. CBS News first reported on the memos, which have come under scrutiny by document experts who question whether they are authentic. Killian, the purported author of the documents, died in 1984.

Staudt insisted Bush did not use connections to avoid being sent to Vietnam.

"He didn't use political influence to get into the Air National Guard," Staudt said, adding, "I don't know how they would know that, because I was the one who did it and I was the one who was there and I didn't talk to any of them."

Read that last sentence carefully. Have you ever wondered when CBS News talked to Col. Staudt? "Cause, if you have, you can stop wondering.

They didn't.

Here they were, with these «damaging »memos, telling a story about how Staudt was applying political pressure to sugar-coat Mr. Bush's EOTRs, and, yet, somehow, they never talked to the man who was allegedly asking for the sugarcoating to be done.

Maybe the phones were out in Manhattan the day they were planning to call.

This is just yet another disturbing aspect of the whole episode. Somehow, the folks at CBS never aired the objections of document experts who questioned their authenticity before the story aired. They didn't include the denials of Lt Col Killian's wife and son. they didn't include any of the several peoploe who remeber Mr. Bush serving in Alabama.

And, now, we find out they didn't even talk to Col. Staudt.

I hate to risk veering off into Freeper territory here, but it's hard to beleive that the only answer for the one-sidedness of the CBS story is just incompetence. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask how much of this whole CBS national guard is the result of an agenda, rather than sloppy reporting.

One wonders if they didn't intentionally not talk to Staudt because they somehow knew or suspected he would refute every detail of the story.

Clearly, CBS didn't even do the bare minimum of due diligence before reporting this story, and, what is even worse, as the cracks in not only the memos, but the story itself, grow wider and wider, they're circling the wagons.

This is unconcsionable, and it makes one wonder how much often this kind of thing went on in old media before there was the distributed intelligence of the Internet to make fact-checking by the public so much easier.

One wonders when or if someone at Viacom will start putting the pressure on Rather--who is the 800lb gorilla at CBS News--to resign in an attempt to salvage some shred of credibility for the News Division.

The Iraq Intel Assessment

Reader Mr. K was concerned that the CBS story had been "beaten to death" and yet the story of the Intel Assessment about Iraq hadn't been mentioned and was very "pessimistic"".

Well, true on both accounts. However there's a reason I, at least, haven't paid that much attention to the intelligence estimate on Iraq that was given to the White House.

Experience.

I've read a good many intel estimates/assessments in my day (most of them tactical) and have come to understand they're a snap shot in time based on the information available at the time as well as assumptions and intel sources. I've also come to understand that with the passing of a day, the assumptions can change to the point that the assessment is rendered useless. I also came to understand that there are varying grades of intel sources. Some are rock solid and some are almost worthless. But both are used in intel assessments.

Lastly, intel assessments reflect the thoughts of, not surprisingly, the intel world. They do not reflect the ground truth that commanders in the field see. They are just another tool for the commander's decision making process.

That being said, I ran across something at Captain's Quarters from a Marine Major (serving in Iraq) that pretty much said what I wanted to say. Some salient clips:

Let’s lay out some background, first about the “National Intelligence Estimate.” The most glaring issue with its relevance is the fact that it was delivered to the White House in July. That means that the information that was used to derive the intelligence was gathered in the Spring – in the immediate aftermath of the April battle for Fallujah, and other events. The report doesn’t cover what has happened in July or August, let alone September.

IOW a three month old snap-shot taken in the middle of the battle for Fallujah? Any guess as to how it might be colored?

Well how about Najaf, you say? It certainly looked like the possiblity of civil war when that cranked up. Well, again, it depends on how you look at it. As a strategic intel weenie or a commander on the ground:

The naysayers will point to the recent battles in Najaf and draw parallels between that and what happened in Fallujah in April. They aren’t even close. The bad guys did us a HUGE favor by gathering together in one place and trying to make a stand. It allowed us to focus on them and defeat them. Make no mistake, Al Sadr’s troops were thoroughly smashed. The estimated enemy killed in action is huge. Before the battles, the residents of the city were afraid to walk the streets. Al Sadr’s enforcers would seize people and bring them to his Islamic court where sentence was passed for religious or other violations. Long before the battles people were looking for their lost loved ones who had been taken to “court” and never seen again. Now Najafians can and do walk their streets in safety. Commerce has returned and the city is being rebuilt. Iraqi security forces and US troops are welcomed and smiled upon. That city was liberated again. It was not like Fallujah – the bad guys lost and are in hiding or dead.

Most likely the intel estimate talks about the Sunni triangle as it existed in June of this year. But what about now?

You may not have even heard about the city of Samarra. Two weeks ago, that Sunni Triangle city was a “No-go” area for US troops. But guess what? The locals got sick of living in fear from the insurgents and foreign fighters that were there and let them know they weren’t welcome. They stopped hosting them in their houses and the mayor of the town brokered a deal with the US commander to return Iraqi government sovereignty to the city without a fight. The people saw what was on the horizon and decided they didn’t want their city looking like Fallujah in April or Najaf in August.

You can bet that's not in there, because it hadn't happened in June. As our Marine Major points out "boom, boom" two great things happen almost sponteneously, not because of US troops but because of Iraqi citizens ... neither of which are reflected in the gloom and doom assessment:

Boom, boom, just like that two major “hot spots” cool down in rapid succession. Does that mean that those towns are completely pacified? No. What it does mean is that we are learning how to do this the right way. The US commander in Samarra saw an opportunity and took it – probably the biggest victory of his military career and nary a shot was fired in anger. Things will still happen in those cities, and you can be sure that the bad guys really want to take them back. Those achievements, more than anything else in my opinion, account for the surge in violence in recent days – especially the violence directed at Iraqis by the insurgents. Both in Najaf and Samarra ordinary people stepped out and took sides with the Iraqi government against the insurgents, and the bad guys are hopping mad. They are trying to instill fear once again. The worst thing we could do now is pull back and let that scum back into people’s homes and lives.

So what's the trend in this Major's assessement on the ground? That in these two very important instances, "ordinary people stepped out and took sides with the Iraqi government against the insurgents".

As he says, that's huge. For Mr. K and the rest of those feeling a bit pessimistic about Iraq, he passes this along:

So, you may hear analysts and prognosticators on CNN, ABC and the like in the next few days talking about how bleak the situation is here in Iraq, but from where I sit, it’s looking significantly better now than when I got here. The momentum is moving in our favor, and all Americans need to know that, so please, please, pass this on to those who care and will pass it on to others.

But he also warns of this:

It is very demoralizing for us here in uniform to read & hear such negativity in our press. It is fodder for our enemies to use against us and against the vast majority of Iraqis who want their new government to succeed. It causes the American public to start thinking about the acceptability of “cutting our losses” and pulling out, which would be devastating for Iraq for generations to come, and Muslim militants would claim a huge victory, causing us to have to continue to fight them elsewhere (remember, in war “Away” games are always preferable to “Home” games). Reports like that also cause Iraqis begin to fear that we will pull out before we finish the job, and thus less willing to openly support their interim government and US/Coalition activities. We are realizing significant progress here – not propaganda progress, but real strides are being made. It’s terrible to see our national morale, and support for what we’re doing here, jeopardized by sensationalized stories hyped by media giants whose #1 priority is advertising income followed closely by their political agenda; getting the story straight falls much further down on their priority scale, as Dan Rather and CBS News have so aptly demonstrated in the last week.

From his lips to God's ears.

Blog Note

Just got off the phone with Dale Franks¹, and it appears our new design is coming along rather quickly. We may be able to transition over there sometime next week. Go check it out--the front page, the blog, etc.--and tell us what you think.

A few notes on what we're hoping to do:

• Neolibertarianism: we'd like to use this portal as a chance to explore the concept of Neolibertarianism further. To create a bit of an identity for the philosophy, and a website/blog for Neolibertarian thought. Ideally--and down the road, of course--we'd like QandO.net to be an intellectual alternative and counterpoint to Paleolibertarian sites like antiwar.com and lewrockwell.com.
• Blog: obviously, the blog will, essentially, be the same great writing (Dale), keen analysis (McQ) and assorted other nonsense. (hi!)
• Discussion forums: for those of you who would like to continue your own conversations, invite friends to discussion groups, etc. (I'd also like to create a chat room, but that may involve a bit more than we can do currently)
• Our articles: from time to time, we'll post larger column-length articles, or turn a blog post into something more column-friendly.
• Contributors: at some point, we plan to solicit and/or accept column contributions from readers and interested writers. We'd like to build a real library of Neolibertarian thought, comparable to what the National Review does for Conservatism.

Does that sound like too much? Perhaps. But it's become very apparent that blogs have a very important contribution to make to the national discourse, and I want QandO to be an important part of that for our fellow Neolibertarians.

The New QandO

^{1 Every blog should have a Dale Franks. Useful, friendly, and he comes in 6-packs.}

True or election year politics?

From Drudge:

STATEMENT FROM REP JOHN P. MURTHA [D-PA]:

I have learned through conversations with officials at the Pentagon that at the beginning of November, 2004, the Bush Administration plans to call up large numbers of the military guard and reserves, to include plans that they previously put off to call up the Individual Ready Reserve.

I have said publicly and privately that our forces are inadequate to support our current worldwide tempo of operations. On November 21, 2003, a bipartisan group of 135 members of the House of Representatives wrote to the President urging an increase in the active duty army troop levels and expressed concern that our Armed Forces are over-extended and that we are relying too heavily on the Guard and Reserve.

We didn't get a reply until February 2004, and now as the situation in Iraq is deteriorating, it seems that the Administration will resort to calling up additional guard and reservists, again with inadequate notice.

One can reasonably expect the Pentagon to deny this. One thing you don't do is signal to your enemy what you plan on doing in the future, to include mobilization.

That means this falls under one of two categories ... we have here a representative who has no problem telling of military plans in advance of their execution if it will reflect negatively on his party's political opponent or we have a representative who's making something up (which can't be checked) simply to frighten the families of Guardsmen and reservists in hopes of changing their vote.

Either way, I have a real problem with this announcement. It is the ultimate in politicizing the war in Iraq.

Curmudgeon conceeds CBS wrong

Per the NY Daily News, even CBS fixture Andy Rooney thinks the documents are fakes:

CBS curmudgeon Andy Rooney indicated yesterday he believes the controversial documents on President Bush's National Guard service are fake and said it could cost Dan Rather down the road.

"I'm surprised at their reluctance to concede they're wrong," Rooney said, referring to CBS brass.

Despite praising Rather as "a good, honest newsman," Rooney added, "I'm unsure if they're whistling in the dark instead of apologizing."

Kind of begs the question of whether a 'good honest, newsman' would continue to perpetuate a fraud, dosen't it?

Rooney doesn't think the network would try to ease out Rather over the memo mess, but he added, "It might have an effect on him six months from now."

But what about the effect it will have, overall, on CBS? Is allowing Dan Rather to continue to stonewall worth the price to CBS in ratings and credibility?

"If Dan Rather wants to stay at the 'CBS Evening News' and be the premier anchor at the network, this whole imbroglio didn't help him," said Max Robins, editor in chief of Broadcasting & Cable magazine.

However, unlike NBC News, which has groomed Brian Williams to take over from Tom Brokaw after the presidential election, CBS has no succession plan.

Which is easily remedied by looking outside CBS.

I still ask, how long can CBS let this obvious fraud of a story continue without specifically addressing the challenges to the authenticity of the documents which have been raised? How long can it continue without at least ordering an internal investigation?

The Persistant Myth of the Stolen Election

Its an article of faith on the left that George Bush "stole" the 2000 election with the aid of the Supreme Court which gave him a win in FL that he didn't earn and thus a Presidency he didn't earn.

To this day, the myth is still perpertrated by the likes of Jesse Jackson, John Edwards and John Kerry:

There are many issues to debate and argue about the sordid Florida experience, but one of the most intriguing is how a cottage industry has sprung up among liberals to perpetuate this myth. (Jesse Jackson still refers to Florida as "the scene of the crime" where "we were disenfranchised. Our birthright stolen.") As the 2004 election grew closer, the distortions spread beyond Moore's fantasy to the presidential campaign itself. Senator John Kerry told crowds that "we know thousands of people were denied the right to vote." His running mate, former trial lawyer John Edwards, ended speeches with a closing argument about "an incredible miscarriage of justice" in Florida.

The problem for the left is that there are no facts to support the myth. Unlike Michael Moore's claim in his factually challenged film "Fahrenheit 911", none of the recounts which were conducted post election showed that Al Gore would have won:

But in fact, every single recount of the votes in Florida determined that George W. Bush had won the state's twenty-five electoral votes and therefore the presidency. This includes a manual recount of votes in largely Democratic counties by a consortium of news organizations, among them the Wall Street Journal, CNN, the Boston Globe and the Los Angeles Times. As the New York Times reported on November 21, 2001, "A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward." The USA Today recount team concluded: "Who would have won if Al Gore had gotten manual counts he requested in four counties? Answer: George W. Bush."

Despite evidence to the contrary in the form of that presented by the consortium of news organizations, the myth persists among the left. It is the origin of the hate which they feel for Gerorge Bush.

When confronted by the fact that the news consortium could find no basis for the claim that Bush and the Supreme Court had "stolen" the election, many on the left then made the claim that certain minorities had been illegally "disenfranchised" (by not counting their vote) and others had not been allowed to vote ... in fact, per the claim, prevented by police from voting. Enough, those critics claim, to have easily made the difference for Al Gore.

After all the media recounts of 2001 showed that George W. Bush would still have won under any fair standard, Democratic activists have narrowed their charges to the purported disfranchisement of black voters. The Civil Rights Commission, led by Democrat Mary Frances Berry-with only two Republican commissioners at the time-issued a scathing majority report in 2001 alleging "widespread voter disenfranchisement" and accusing Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush of "failing to fulfill their duties in a manner that would prevent this disenfranchisement."

So by what means did the Civil Rights Commission prove these charges? Well, in fact, they really never did.

But when it comes to actual evidence of racial bias, the report draws inferences that are not supported by any data and ignores facts that challenge its conclusions. Since we have a secret ballot in America, we do not know the race of the 180,000 voters (2.9 percent of the total number of ballots cast in Florida) whose ballots had no valid vote for president. Machine error cannot be the cause of discrimination, since the machine doesn't know the race of the voter either, and in any case accounts for about one error in 250,000 votes cast. (And, as some have asked, is it not racist in the first place to assume that those who spoil ballots are necessarily minority voters?)

The Commission simply assumed that the invalid ballots were those of minorities. That somehow blacks and other minorities were shut out of voting based on the evidence that 180,000 ballots had no valid vote for president. That somehow those counting the ballots knew the voters were black.

Sounds absurd, but that's the core of the claim.

The question then is: was the commission able to come up with "a consistent, statistically significant relationship between the share of voters who were African-American and the ballot spoilage rate?"

The answer is a flat "no". In fact, a study showed something else entirely:

John Lott, an economist and statistician from the Yale Law School now with the American Enterprise Institute, studied spoilage rates in Florida by county in the 1992, 1996 and 2000 presidential elections and compared them with demographic changes in county populations. He concluded that "the percent of voters in different race or ethnic categories is never statistically related to ballot spoilage."

Lott found that among the 25 Florida counties with the greatest rate of vote spoilage, 24 had Democratic election officers in charge of counting the votes. He concluded that "having Democratic officials in charge [of county elections] increases ballot spoilage rates significantly, but the effect is stronger when that official is an African-American."

In other words, the possibility of disenfranchisement as charged by the Civil Rights Commission took place in counties with Democratic officials in charge of the elections and counting.

How then is it possible for Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush in particular and the Republicans in general, to have "disenfranchized" minority voters in those counties?

In fact, ballot spoilage at the rate indicated in the 2000 election is about average and happens in every election:

Ballot-spoilage rates across the country range between 2 and 3 percent of total ballots cast. Florida's rate in 2000 was 3 percent. In 1996 it was 2.5 percent.

Another of the charges leveled was that blacks were kept away from the polling places by police.

Other charges from Democratic activists turned out to be "falsehoods and exaggerations." For instance, when the commission investigated the charge that a police traffic checkpoint near a polling place had intimidated black voters, it turned out that the checkpoint operated for ninety minutes at a location two miles from the poll and not even on the same road. And of the sixteen people given citations, twelve were white.

And last, but not least, "the Florida attorney general Bob Butterworth-a Democrat-testified that of the 2,600 complaints he received on Election Day, only three were about racial discrimination."

The myth's foundations are easily destroyed with fact, but not as easily dismissed by those who badly want to believe George Bush was "selected not elected". Although false, the myth gives them a basis for their claim to the illegitimacy of Bush's presidency and a reason for their hate. Whether its true or not apparently doesn't matter anymore (and I'm not so sure it mattered then) as the hate is now so rooted within them that it is a part of their political being. ABB is their mantra and ABB is who they'll vote for, regardless of whether that's good for the country or not.

The excerpts are from James Fund's new book Stealing Elections, via RealClear Politics.

How did we end up with this clown?

Sometimes--frequently, even--I am just aghast at the sheer, unadultered bull coming from the Bush campaign - and, specifically, from President Bush.

If you listen carefully to the rhetoric in this campaign, I'm running against a fellow who wants to expand government. We want to expand opportunity for every single citizen of this country.

That's pretty much the same thing on which Bush ran in 2000 - "My opponent trusts government. I trust you."

That's what he said, anyway. Once elected--as the Cato Institute pointed out--Bush became the "Mother of All Big Spenders."

Now, I realize it's nothing new to point out that Bush has all the fiscal discipline of a, er, politician running for reelection. So, instead, let's just point out the hypocrisy of Bush calling Kerry "a fellow who wants to expand government."

In the same speech, Bush advocates:

• ...expanding Pell Grants...


• I want to expand community health centers...

Expand = Spend more. A lot more.

Of course, he didn't always use the word "expand". Other times, he said....

• We've strengthened Medicare, and we're not turning back

"Strengthened" = $400, oops, $551.5 billion in additional spending.

• So what I'm telling the places like China is you treat us the way we treat you.

"Treat us the way we treat you" = "Fair Trade" = Protectionism = "dismal record on trade"

• ....in high schools we'll fund early intervention programs to help students at risk

No Child Left Behind = "Bush moves to increase federal spending on education" = +65%

Face it - the only thing Bush can brag about is his comparative conservative advantage over Kerry. And that's akin to saying a tornado is--comparatively--better at home improvement projects than a hurricane.

How did this guy ever get nominated by the Republican Party, and how can we make sure the GOP never does that again?

Old Media BS Filter

Reading through the comments to Jon's post about the blogosphere's triumphalism over Ra^thergate, I came across commenter Navteqie's take on the whole thing.

I think everyone misses the point of Blogs entirely.

The blogsphere is a giant B.S. filter of what is fed to us from the MSM. Instead of one reporter getting some information, then disseminating it to us through his biased mind, and then feeding it to us as he sees it, we have Blogs which consist of millions (?) of people that have more combined knowledge on the subjects the reporter is giving us and thoroughly disecting it to find out what the -REAL- truth is.

For the most part, I agree. While mildly crude characterization, its a very succinct description of what the blogosphere, on both sides, has done since its existance. "Fisking" is and has become an integral part of its daily bread, where columnists and opinion leaders in the old media have their version of events and their pontifications challenged. The intent? Filter out the nonsense and challenge the ideological conventional wisdom. Its usually done with facts, figures and logical arguments to counter the arguments of the pundit.

The same goes for more hard new stories, such as Ra^thergate. I won't bore you with a rehash of the details so readily known among those who frequent the blogosphere, but suffice it to say, the "BS Filter" was applied to a CBS "60 Minutes" story and CBS was found wanting.

In my estimation, this sort of function is both necessary and invaluable. What blogs don't do as a rule, is break news. Bloggers are net consumers of news. But what they provide is something new and something which has been lacking forever. The old media likes to talk about editorial "checks and balances". But those are internal checks and balances which may or may not render judgement that a story is both factual and unbiased as we've seen with Rathergate and my other such stories. It is difficult to see beyond institutional bias sometimes, and that is where bloggers perform a valuable "filtration" function. They provide an external version of "checks and balances".

Depending on who's ox is being gored, one or the other of the ideological sides of the blogosphere is going to look hard at the facts and figures of the old media's output. And its at that point where the strength of the blogosphere is found.

Michael Van Winkle, in a Tech Central Station article, points to how that strength manifests itself by citing the smiling ghost of F A Hayek. As Van Winkle points out, "Hayek's work centered on the effectiveness of spontaneous, decentralized organization". That effectiveness was proven last week, initiated by Powerline.

Hayek's work focused on how it is that complicated and reliable systems of cooperation come about without any centralized direction. When they do, they outperform systems of "command", systems that rely on central direction. Hayek was an economist and so his primary object of study was the market and how, seemingly counterintuitively, it can work without commands; and why it outperforms large scale centralized economies like the Soviet Union.

[...]

Hayek theorized that markets worked better primarily because of their ability to facilitate the use of 'on the spot' knowledge, knowledge that is very unique to a particular person or place.

With Powerline as the source of the questions about the CBS program and the authenticity of the memos, it solicited "on the spot" knowledge from its readers simply by asking those questions. The reaction, as we know was both spontaneous and phenomenal.

This traditional criticism of the internet has now been aimed at the blogosphere and is embodied by big journalists like Jonathan Klein who, while defending the CBS story to The Weekly Standard remarked, "You couldn't have a starker contrast between the multiple layers of check and balances [at '60 Minutes'] and a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas writing." Klein misses the point that it's not whether you can trust some guy in his pajamas, but whether you can trust a spontaneous system of thousands of guys in their pajamas trading information and imparting small, sometimes deceivingly insignificant, bits of information.

On reflection, Klein seem like a dinosaur who doesn't understand what the impact of that meteor means to him. As Van Winkle points out the "spontaneous system of thousands of guys in their pajamas trading information and imparting small, sometimes deceivingly insignificant, bits of information" created a synergy and self-correcting process which very quickly and convincingly destroyed CBS's claim that the memos were real.

The BS Filter characterization, despite its crudity, seems to be the best fit to me. I think it is very unlikely that bloggers will ever break news ... in fact I find it very unlikely they want too. Instead what bloggers bring to the game is an external and spontaneous system of filtration which has never existed with the old media. As Van Winkles concludes:

Big media isn't dying. It never will. The proof of this is that most bloggers get the grist for their mills from traditional big media sources. The impact of the blogosphere is to change the way the media does business. Five years from now, the news channels doing well will be the ones who take the blogosphere seriously, finding ways to use it to better its own reporting and analysis.

I agree. And those who embrace and use the new media in that capacity will most likely survive and thrive. And those, like CBS, who fight and denigrate it will go the way of the dinosaurs.

The BS filter is in place .... and it works.

Kerry's Quagmire

Per the experts, and the polls, each candidate has issues which are strengths and weaknesses. On the Kerry side, its health care, the economy, and social issues. On Bush's side its defense and national security. The issue that could make Bush the most vulnerable, an issue which can swing both ways, is Iraq. If Kerry could frame the debate about how wrong Iraq is, how badly it is going and how poor a decision Bush made to go in there, he'd have a shot.

But as Charles Krauthammer points out, Kerry's record of votes and statements really leave him nothing with which to do that:

If the election were held today, John Kerry would lose by between 88 and 120 electoral votes. The reason is simple: The central vulnerability of this president -- the central issue of this campaign -- is the Iraq war. And Kerry has nothing left to say.

Why? Because, until now, he has said everything conceivable regarding Iraq. Having taken every possible position on the war, there is nothing he can say now that is even remotely credible.

Krauthammer takes us down memory lane with Kerry concerning Iraq. Suffice it to say that whatever Kerry tries there's a statement he's made or a position he's taken on Iraq which refutes it:

He now calls Iraq "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." But, of course, he voted to authorize the war. And shortly after the fall of Baghdad he emphatically repeated his approval of the war: "It was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him."

Right decision? Wrong war? Which is it?

When Don Imus asked him this week, "Do you think there are any circumstances we should have gone to war in Iraq, any?" Kerry responded: "Not under the current circumstances, no. There are none that I see. I voted based on weapons of mass destruction. The president distorted that." But just last month he said that even if he had known then what he knows now, he would have voted for the war resolution.

Absolutely no circumstances we should have gone to war as opposed to saying he'd have voted for it again even knowing what we know now. Two completely contradictory statements.

Is Iraq a part of the war on terror? Well, yes and no. Then and now.

Is Iraq part of the war on terrorism or a cynical distraction from it? "And everything [Bush] did in Iraq, he's going to try to persuade people it has to do with terror, even though everybody here knows that it has nothing whatsoever to do with al Qaeda and everything to do with an agenda that they had preset, determined."

That was April 2004. Of course, shortly after Sept. 11, Kerry was saying the opposite. "I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally," he said in December 2001. "This doesn't end with Afghanistan by any imagination. . . . Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue [with], for instance, Saddam Hussein."

The only consistent position Kerry has taken on Iraq is an inconsistent one which features the candidate adopting whatever stance is popular (or politically necessary) at the time. As one person mentioned, its a "weather-vane" approach to national security.

Interestingly, last week Kerry was back to considering Iraq a part of the war on terror:

Kerry temporarily returned to that position last week when he marked the 1,000th American death in Iraq by saying the troops have "given their lives on behalf of their country, on behalf of freedom, in the war on terror."

With these conflicting statements, stances and positions, is it any wonder why people are in the dark as to where Kerry stands on Iraq?

Couple his constant changes there with a record he's running away from (how often have you heard the man mention what he's done in the Senate) and you have a candidate who can't seem to get any traction because he doesn't stay with one position long enough to be identified with it.

Krauthammer explains his "Kerry theory of political expediency and multiple positions" this way:

How did Kerry get to this point of total meltdown? He started out his political career voting his conscience on national security issues. During the 1980s he was a consistent, dovish liberal Democrat: pro-nuclear freeze, anti-Star Wars, against the Reagan defense buildup, against the war in Nicaragua. And then he joined the overwhelming majority of his party in voting against the Persian Gulf War.

That turned out to be a mistake. And Kerry suffered for it. The very next year he had to watch as Al Gore, who got the Gulf War right, was chosen for the 1992 Democratic ticket, a spot for which Kerry had been on the short list.

Kerry learned his political lesson. Or thought he did. So when the Iraq war came around, he did not want to be caught on the wrong side of another success. He voted yes.

But then things went wrong both for the war and for him. What did he do? With Howard Dean rocketing toward the Democratic nomination, Kerry played to his deeply antiwar party by voting against the $87 billion to fund the occupation.

Two months later, with Saddam Hussein caught and the war looking better, Kerry maneuvered again, slamming Dean with: "Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president."

Kerry is now back to the "wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time," a line lifted from Dean himself. So we are not better off with Hussein deposed after all.

With factions in his campaign staff fighting among themselves for dominance, the lack of a strategy and a message are becoming obvious and critical. A recent NDN Poll (a Democrat poll) points out that among swing voters, 48% feel Bush has a clear agenda for the future while only 38% believe the same to be true for Kerry.

These dizzying contradictions -- so glaring, so public, so frequent -- have gone beyond undermining anything Kerry can now say on Iraq. They have been transmuted into a character issue. When Kerry went off windsurfing during the Republican convention, Jay Leno noted that even Kerry's hobbies depend on wind direction. Kerry on the war has become an object not only of derision but of irreconcilable suspicion. What kind of man, aspiring to the presidency, does not know his own mind about the most serious issue of our time?

Its a good question, and its an unanswered question. Its also the question which is most likely to sink any Kerry presidential hopes if left unanswered. The other unanswered question is can Kerry change the perception of his constant vaccilation and apparent inability to take a consistant stand within the next 6 weeks enough to neutralize the negative characterization he labors under, that of a "flip-flopper?"

We'll see. But in my opinion, it is that which his campaign must accomplish if he's to have any chance at all of winning.

UPDATE: If you haven't seen the RNC video on Kerry's multiple positions on Iraq, its interesting and illustrates Krauthammer's points quite well. Keep in mind though that it is an RNC video.

Repealing the Price Mechanism

In a recent press release, John Kerry claimed that:

“The election comes down to this. If you believe this country is heading in the right direction, you should support George Bush. But if you believe America needs to move in a new direction, join with us. John and I offer a better plan that will make us stronger at home and more respected in the world. And we need your help to do that."

.....citing--inter alia--"The number of uninsured has swelled under Bush" to "15.6 percent of the total population".

And he has a plan to reverse that. Essentially--with mandated government intervention for health care by fiat--it amounts to socialized medicine.

So, how's that working out elsewhere?

Canada often boasts its universal health care program shows it is more caring than the United States, but the system is creaking alarmingly, with long wait lists for treatment, and shortages of cash and doctors.
[...]
As the politicians bicker, Canadians spend more time waiting in line. A study by the right-wing Fraser Institute this month said that average waiting time for treatment in 2003 rose to 17.7 weeks from 16.5 weeks in 2002.
[...]
Some delays are much longer. Patients in Ontario who require major knee surgery can wait six months to see a specialist and then another 18 months for surgery.
[...]
Statistics Canada said in June that some 3.6 million Canadians, or 15 percent of the population, did not have a regular doctor last year. This means hospital emergency rooms are flooded by people with routine problems.

And that's in Canada....the Democratic Party's Health Care Promised Land.

Remember: if you don't like to see 15% of America uninsured, the Democrats have a solution. They'll insure so many people that 15% of Americans won't even be able to see the doctor. (which keeps costs down!)

(via Econopundit)

Anyone believe in omens?

A shot from the destruction Hurricane Ivan brought to Pensacola FL. Take a close peek near the bottom right.

Rather & CBS reaping the forgery whirlwind?

Per Drudge it appears so:

CBS executives on both coasts have become concerned in recent days that Dan Rather's EVENING NEWS broadcast has plunged in the ratings since the anchor presented questionable documents about Bush's National Guard service.

NIELSEN numbers released this week show Rather fading and trailing his rivals in every Top 10 city, other than San Francisco, with audience margins in some cities running more than 6 to 1 against CBS!

Executives fear many voters inclined to vote for Bush are now switching off Rather.

Maybe instead, executives should fear that viewers (instead of voters) who are disinclined to accept fraud and then watch it supported night after night are switiching off.

"The audience appears to [be] polarized," a top CBS source said from LOS ANGELES on Thursday. "Rightly or wrongly, we're being perceived as 'anti-Bush,' which I do not think is fair to Dan, who is a fine journalist... of course we do not like to see the ratings coming back the way they are this week."

Are these guys out of touch or what? While some do indeed think that CBS is preceived as being "anti-Bush" so is much of the news media. That perceived bias hasn't hurt the rest of the news media as badly as CBS is being hurt. Conclusion: Maybe its something else.

Maybe, its because CBS has perpertrated a fraud and is too arrogant to admit it?

A Rasmussen poll says only 27% of those polled believed the memos to be real. That goes far beyond a pro-Bush faction.

In Philadelphia, the nation's #4 market, Rather pulled a 2.6 rating/5 share on Tuesday night against ABC's 13.3 rating/23 share and NBC's 4.0/7.

In Chicago, Rather hit a 2.3/5 to ABC's 9.2/20.

CBS trailed ABC by more than 2 to 1 in Los Angeles.

And in the nation's top market, New York, Rather finished not only behind NBC NIGHTLY NEWS and ABC WORLD NEWS TONIGHT -- but also pulled less audience than reruns of the SIMPSONS, WILL & GRACE and KING OF QUEENS.

Rather finished dead last in New York during the 6:30 pm timeslot among all broadcast channels tracked by NIELSEN on Tuesday.

Pretty sorry ratings to say the least. While pressure may not get CBS's advertisers to jump ship, bad ratings certainly will.

I wonder if the "internal investigation" is becoming more of a possibility now?

UPDATE: Reader S. asks "but aren't they always the bottom of the barrel. How about some comparative ratings."

Good point. For the week of September 9, 2004 which is a pre-Ra^thergate rating:

NBC's "Nightly News" won the evening news ratings race, averaging 8.7 million viewers (6.3 rating, 14 share). ABC's "World News Tonight" had 7.5 million (5.4, 12) and the "CBS Evening News" 6.5 million (4.6, 10).

The real story of 527s

T. Bevan of RealClear Politics drops an interesting little factoid on us concerning the much discussed 527s.

Look at this list of the top individual donors to 527's. So far, twenty-five individuals have contributed $58,218,283 to these groups. Of that total, 97% has gone to liberal and/or anti-Bush organizations and Soros and Lewis are responsible for nearly half of that money ($26,830,000) just between the two of them.

On that particular list, if you haven't ponied up at least half a mil, you're a nobody. 97% have gone toward sinking Bush.

Yet who was the first candidate to really whine about a 527?

Statistics and nincompoops

Sometimes you come across "reasoning" which makes you realize that if this was representative of main stream thinking, you'd have to conclude the human race doesn't have a chance of survival.

Some professor of statistics wrote a piece for the LA Times (I found it in the San Jose Mercury) in which he says ... well let him say it:

The bottom line is this: There will always be terrorists and legitimate efforts to catch and kill them. But meanwhile, the bigger statistical threat comes from the driver next to you who is talking on the cell phone.

Did you catch the premise? This "terrorism" thing is all about the threat to you, and if you're worried about that, its hardly that much of a real threat when compared to bad drivers.

Statistically speaking.

He writes a whole piece describing how we're overreacting to this terrorist thing and giving away liberties by the handful when, in fact, it only averages about a 1000 or so souls a year.

OK, true enough. I stand a much greater chance of being killed by another driver than by a terrorist. But on reflection, that's not the point of all of this, is it?

I don't think anyone really believes that its all about the threat only to them.

Its about much more than that. For instance, everyone of the 40,000 deaths on the highway this year will not change the direction of an election, such as 200 deaths in Spain did. Even twice the numbers of deaths on the highway would not have the horrible negative effect on a nation's economy as did 3,000 on September 11, 2001. While the loss of life is negligable in comparision, the impact of terrorism is far, far more damaging to the nation as a whole.

I look both ways before crossing a street or pulling out into one, but not one of the drivers out there is a threat to me when I step into a government building or any other crowded public facility, unless that driver has made his car into a bomb.

Certainly all of what Bart Kosko says in his article is technically true, its also irrelevant.

Terrorism isn't just about the threat to me. Its about the threat to the very fabric of the nation I live in. Its a concerted effort by a brutal and fanatic enemy to change my way of life, change the direction of my country and effect the very lifeblood of my nation ... its economy.

Not one of the millions of bad drivers out there can or will have that effect.

So when you hear an idiot savant like this guy tell you that statistically speaking your neighbor in her car is more of a threat than Osamma bin Laden, pat him on the head, send him off to his ivory tower and call ahead to clear the road so he won't take out some innocent driver as he heads that way.

Book Review: "Miles Gone By'

My book review of "Mile Gone By: a Literary Autobiography" by William F Buckley--one of the giants of political thought in this past century--is up. You can read it here. Comments can be made on this post.

Allies rebuke Annan

Below in "Stray Voltage" I mentioned Kofi Annan's BBC interview. In that interview, Annan characterized the invasion of Iraq as "illegal". Seems that description engendered a rather sharp reaction among some of the states which participated in Iraq:

But Australian Prime Minister John Howard said it was entirely valid.

[...]

Labelling the international body "paralysed", he said it was incapable of dealing with international crises.

"The legal advice we had - and I tabled it at the time - was that the action was entirely valid in international law terms," he said.

In the US, Randy Scheunemann, a former advisor to US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had this to say:

"I think it is outrageous for the secretary general, who ultimately works for the member states, to try and supplant his judgement for the judgement of the member states," he told the BBC.

"To do this 51 days before an American election reeks of political interference," Randy Scheunemann said.

Scheunemann also points to the UN's lack of action in Sudan as a further indication of its failure and the failure of multilateralism under its leadership.

The Brits too reacted strongly:

The British government - which has argued that UN resolutions provided a legal basis for intervening to topple Saddam Hussein - said the 2003 invasion was "not only lawful but necessary".

"We spelt out at the time our reasons for believing the conflict in Iraq was indeed lawful and why we believed it was necessary to uphold those UN resolutions," Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt told the BBC.

Japan's response is a bit more muted, but it asks, in essence, what the heck Annan meant by his use of the term "illegal".

Japan's top government spokesperson told a news conference that he would be seeking clarification about the exact significance of Mr Annan's words.

"We wish to verify the real meaning by making various inquiries," Hiroyuki Hosoda was quoted as saying by AFP news agency.

It'll be interesting to see if there's any further fallout from the Annan interview.
Bush speaks to the UN General Assembly next week, and the BBC is of the opinion that both Annan and the Bush administration will try to play this down.

Stray Voltage

Who’s Bill Burkett ... well if you want a pretty complete picture, don’t rely on the MSM, check out Ace of Spades instead. And excellent run down on the man suspected to be the source for the forged memos.

--------------------------

The Kerry Spot on NRO reminds us that there is a race for the presidency going on and it seems the news is getting worse on the Kerry side of the ledger:

While all of us are focused on exposing Dan Rather as a blatantly dishonest hack, the polls are, by and large, falling apart for John Kerry.

We reported earlier that a poll has Bush up in New Jersey, down by only four in Illinois. Now we notice Bush is up 6 in Florida, up 4 in Nevada, tied in Minnesota, up 3 in Pennsylvania, Bush up by 2, 6, or 8 in Wisconsin. The three most recent Ohio polls have Bush up 12, 3, and 9.

This doesn't mean the election is over — not by a long shot.

Heed the last line. But last line included, it is not looking good, at this time, for the Dems.

---------------------------

Robert Novak is having trouble figuring out the Kerry/Gun Control gambit. His essential question is “why”? Its mostly a loser, yet he continues to return to it. His analysis:

Last Friday, Sen. Kerry abruptly returned to the safely buried gun control issue by decrying President Bush for permitting the assault weapons ban to end. On Saturday, he addressed the Congressional Black Caucus with a liberal harangue. On Sunday, Kerry rested. On Monday, Kerry was back boosting gun control, scolding Bush for letting the assault weapons ban expire at midnight.

Only two explanations are possible, and neither is reassuring to worried Democrats. Kerry could be making a conscious, though counterproductive, decision to reassure his liberal base. Or, he could be trapped by the calendar of events -- talking gun control because a deadline had been reached and talking civil rights because the Black Caucus invited him. Democratic strategists are particularly concerned by the latter explanation, suggesting a mindless campaign.

With the reported “civil war” raging inside the campaign, it appears the candidate himself is adrift. So he’s reduced to “issues of opportunity” since there’s no real direction to his campaign?

Not a good sign for Kerry/Edwards.

-------------------------------

I read it in today’s Atlanta Journal Constitution and Whizbang is reporting that it was also in the Washington Post that there may be more “documents” about to be released concerning Bush’s Guard service.

In a related development, White House press secretary Scott McClellan hinted that more documents regarding Bush's National Guard service may soon be released. Asked whether officials in the White House have seen unreleased documents, McClellan called that "a very real possibility." Other officials with knowledge of the situation said more documents had indeed been uncovered and would be released in the coming days.

I use the scare quotes on “documents” because it remains to be seen whether they’re real or not.

---------------------------------

Hurricane Ivan roared into Mobile Bay last night sending 53 foot waves crashing toward the shore. We here at Q and O send along our hope that all who were and are in Ivan’s path remain safe and healthy.

---------------------------------

Kofi Annan sounds like a Kerry echo chamber, or is it the other way around? From a BBC interview:

Q: Are you bothered that the US is becoming an unrestrainable, unilateral superpower?

A: Well, I think over the last year, we've all gone through lots of painful lessons. I'm talking about since the war in Iraq. I think there has been lessons for the US and there has been lessons for the UN and other member states and I think in the end everybody is concluding that it is best to work together with our allies and through the UN to deal with some of these issues. And I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time.

Q: Done without UN approval - or without clearer UN approval?

A: Without UN approval and much broader support from the international community.

Annan goes on to say he considers the war to have been “illegal”. He forgets to mention that UN resolution 1441 included language which essentially said that any member nation of the United Nations was allowed to take military action against Saddam Hussein if the provisions of all the resolutions are not completely complied with. They weren’t and the rest is history.

Triumphalism

Blog triumphalism is getting a bit out of hand, lately. I think it's time for a bit of perspective. Sure, the distributed intelligence of the blogosphere helped a great deal in aggregating relevant information, pushing the Forgery Story to the front burner, and pressuring CBS--and the media--to reach some resolution.

For all of that, the 'sphere deserves credit.

But this talk about "revolutionizing the media", "bringing down the Mainstream Media", and "making the MSM obselete" are just so much nonsense. As Josh Marshall writes, "most of what blogs do feeds off of newspaper coverage -- either criticizing coverage, expanding on coverage, running with stories that aren't getting much attention and so forth. That's not to say blogs aren't important, only that they're in a synergistic or interdependent relationship with the conventional media".

I've been conflicted about the proper description of blogs. Blogs are:

• the free safety's of the media, policing the media/political zone at our discretion


• citizen journalists


• Rumor-mongers, muckrakers, pundits and loudmouths


• All of the above

David Adesnik writes that "American journalists' unflagging efforts to confront authority figures and challenge conventional wisdom created the environment within which bloggers can thrive" and that, as a result of this, "America's bloggers are very much its journalists' children".

There's something to this, I think, but it doesn't quite hit the mark.

Blogs, I think, are a combination of editor and stringer. Bloggers do both the fact-checking (of editors), and the preliminary--even dubious--muckraking (of stringers in search of a story). The Blogosphere might best be compared to the newsroom at a newspaper. There, you'll find everything....the conscientous fact-checking, as well as the unsourced rumors that never make the final product.

Well, in the 'sphere, all of it is thrown against the wall to see what sticks. Blogs, like the preliminary research done in the newsrooms, are not The Record. They are merely the combined intelligence and information that goes into coalescing The Record.

Except, in blogs--for better or worse--it's all written and published as it happens.

In our current case--commonly called Ra^therGate--Matthew Yglesias makes a case against blogs that I think touches on, but ultimately misses, the point...

I'm not quite sure I grasp all the blogosphere triumphalism surrounding the Killian memos. After CBS ran the story, the conservative side of the 'sphere came up with dozens of purported debunkings of their authenticity, almost all of which turned out to be more purported than debunking. Then after a few days of back-and-forth, traditional reporters at The Washington Post came out with a more careful, more accurate, more actually-debunking story. The folks at PowerLine and LGF are, at best, Gettier cases, they didn't do any of the actual debunking. Instead, it was done by reporters working for major papers. And good for them. And shame on CBS. But I don't really see what the blogs had to do with it. [emphasis added]

Matt essentially notes the preliminary nature of the blogospheric contribution to this story. You can be certain the WaPo reporters didn't arrive at their story fully-formed and correct. Instead, they pieced together the various bits and pieces pointed out by others, be they experts or bloggers, discarded the dross and wrote up the accurate bits.

Now, one might correctly say that the final WaPo product had a higher percentage of accuracy than the whole of the blogospheric contribution, but if Matt really can't see that the blogosphere contributed to that final product....

Well, I doubt he's that foolish.

In fact, the blogosphere's contribution was exactly the sort of distributed-intelligence expertise, aggregation and vetting that produces--and, in fact, produced--a story like that which eventually ran in the Washington Post. Blogs were editors to CBS, and stringers for the Washington Post.

Tony Blankley described this distributed intelligence contribution in more vivid terms:

CBS did what it has always done: It produced and broadcasted a highly polished segment in which the argument was magisterially framed to their advantage, with the facts favorable to CBS cherry-picked for presentation, while annoying contrary facts were ignored. Carefully edited, prime time quality interviews of their supposedly authoritative expert witnesses were laid in. The whole package was opened, narrated and concluded with dignified contempt for their victim by their star asset, uber-anchor Dan Rather. Enough said. Full stop. Next matter. Long live the King.

Then the bloggers went to work. From the four corners of humanity, experts started deconstructing the "truth" that CBS had presented. Who knew that there are experts who specialize just in the history of IBM selectric typing balls or the kerning capacity of computer printing? (For instance, the carrying of the tail in the letter "y" under the space of the preceding letter, as in the word "my." Typewriters can't do it; computers can.)

As each of these experts added their information to one blog, other bloggers would monitor it, pass it on, add a new fact, reorganize the analysis and synthesize new information. If new information proved wrong, it was corrected by yet another expert in the blogosphere. Mistakes were cheerfully admitted and instantly corrected. People who had filled out such forms 30 years ago added their analysis. Both technical and historic information constantly came in -- ever-increasing the fullness of understanding on the topic. It was like watching time-lapse photography of a cell dividing and growing. It was as if the very mechanism for establishing truth was a living, pulsating force.

CBS had one handwriting expert against the bloggers' legions of subspecialists. It was pathetic. CBS couldn't possibly employ enough producers to identify each and every new specialist they needed, track them down, contact them and get their testimony -- at 11 p.m. or 2 a.m.? The bloggers couldn't find them either. The bloggers' advantage is that the experts find the bloggers. There are just millions of smart people all over the world sitting at their computers, ready to join the quest. The bloggers themselves often add powerful analytical capacity to the process. It is like a reporter having a team of high-powered lawyers helping construct the strongest possible line of reasoning to their reports -- paragraph by paragraph.

The Internet bloggers picked CBS's story as clean as a school of piranhas would pick clean some poor water buffalo that wandered into their river.

Jesse Taylor is correct to critically ask "Have we now reached the point ... where a significant portion of the conservative blogosphere actually believes that it provides a thoroughly reliable fact-check function?"

But Tony Blankely is also correct to describe the process thusly: "As each of these experts added their information to one blog, other bloggers would monitor it, pass it on, add a new fact, reorganize the analysis and synthesize new information. If new information proved wrong, it was corrected by yet another expert in the blogosphere."

Blogs, in the end, are not the Journalism Product of Record. But they are a part of the process....as both stringers and, at times, editors-of-last-resort.

And, really, that's a pretty valuable contribution.

UPDATE: Powerlineblog makes related observations here and here.

UPDATE II: At Non-Box Thinking, Roger Snowden writes....

The real revolution is not the blogosphere, per se. It is competition in the media news marketplace, first brought by talk radio, and then cable news. The failing of broadcast news-- CBS, NBC and ABC-- is they did not recognize competition from cable news until it was too late. CNN, once the cable alternative to MSM, is now MSM itself. They too failed to recognize competition, and now FoxNews has twice the audience of CNN on any given night.
[...]
MSM is the self-appointed autocracy, while the blogosphere is almost pure democracy. Right, left, tinfoil-hat or stone-cold-sober, bloggers compete with ideas. Individual citizens eventually decide what is true and what to believe. In a recent survey, Rasmussen reports only 27% of the public thinks the Rathergate documents are not forgeries. The emperor has no clothes.

The marketplace of ideas will win the day.

He has a point, I think. What passes for news media is becoming less centralized, and more ideological...as well as more ideologically diverse. I do wonder what effect that will have on the consumers, who are becoming more comfortable picking their media outlet based on what news they like to hear. (see: FOXNews)

I fear that may lead to even more polarization, in due time, as the citizenry immerses themselves in almost wholly different universes of facts and values. What facts, after all, will Rush Limbaugh news-consumers share in common with Al Franken news-consumers?

Very little, I fear. And that will make a civil, reasonable exchange of ideas very nearly impossible.

UPDATE III: Bit late to update this post, but Bill from INDC Journal has made a very important contribution to the "settle down, Beavis" theme....

Teresa Knows best

Nothing of huge significance here, just interesting and indicative:

Teresa Heinz Kerry, encouraging volunteers as they busily packed supplies Wednesday for hurricane relief efforts in the Caribbean, said she was concerned the effort was too focused on sending clothes instead of essentials like water and electric generators.

"Clothing is wonderful, but let them go naked for a while, at least the kids," said Heinz Kerry, the wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites). "Water is necessary, and then generators, and then food, and then clothes."

Uh, gee Teresa, thanks. Tell us again why are you visiting those sending stuff to the Carribbean when we've had 3 hurricanes make landfall in the US in the last month?

Progress report on the new blog

In case you were wondering how the new blog is coming along here it is. I've gotten the majority of programming done to display the entries from the SQL Database, and I've done a little initial formatting, too. All the entries are just test data so far, but it gives you an idea of how the blog will look when it's done.

For you geeks out there, the blog itself is an ASP.NET control I've put into a DotNetNuke template page.

The First Rathergate

I'm posting this story by Anne Morse in its entirety because it is true. But more importantly it demonstrates a pattern that is not new with Dan Rather and CBS News. Its not hard to spot, but it is very damning in light of the charade these people are engaged in concerning the forged "Killian Memos".

--------------------------------------------------------

Critics are calling the media scandal over the Jerry Killian forgeries "Rathergate." But to thousands of Vietnam veterans, the real Rathergate took place 16 years ago when Dan Rather successfully foisted a fraud onto the American people. Then, unlike now, there was no blogosphere to expose him. On June 2, 1988, CBS aired an hour-long special titled CBS Reports: The Wall Within, which CBS trumpeted as the "rebirth of the TV documentary."

It purported to tell the true story of Vietnam through the eyes of six of the men who fought there. And what terrible stories they had to tell.

"I think I was one of the highest trained, underpaid, eighteen-cent-an-hour assassins ever put together by a team of people who knew exactly what they were looking for," said Steve Southards, a Navy SEAL who told Rather he had escaped society to live in the forests of Washington state. Under Rather's gentle coaxing, Southards described slaughtering Vietnamese civilians, making his work appear to be that of the North Vietnamese.

"You're telling me that you went into the village, killed people, burned part of the village, then made it appear that the other side had done this?" Rather asked.

"Yeah," Steve replied. "It was kill VC, and I was good at what I did." Steve arrived home "in a straitjacket, addicted to alcohol and drugs" knowing that "combat had made him different," Rather intoned. "He asked for help; that's unusual, many vets don't. They hold back until they explode."

Rather then moved on to suicidal veteran named George Grule, who was stationed on the aircraft carrier Ticonderoga off the coast of Vietnam during a secret mission. Grule described the horror of watching a friend walk into the spinning propeller of a plane, which chopped him to pieces and sprayed Grule with his blood. The memory of this trauma left Grule, like Steve, unable to function in normal society.

Neither could Mikal Rice, who broke down as he described a grenade attack at Cam Ranh Bay, which blew in half the body of a buddy, "Sergeant Call." "He died in my arms," Rice tearfully recalled. Rice described how the sound of thunder and cars backfiring would regularly trigger his terrible memories.

Most horrific of all were the memories of Terry Bradley, a "fighting sergeant" who told Rather he had skinned alive 50 Vietnamese men, women, and children in one hour and stacked their bodies in piles.

"Could you do this for one hour of your life, you stack up every way a body could be mangled, up into a body, an arm, a tit, an eyeball . . . Imagine us over there for a year and doing it intensely," Bradley said. "That is sick."

"You've got to be angry about it," Rather replied. "I'm suicidal about it," Bradley responded. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, drug abuse, alcoholism, joblessness, homelessness, suicidal thoughts: These tattered warriors suffered from them all. The Wall Within was hailed by critics who - like the Washington Post's Tom Shales - gushed that the documentary was "extraordinarily powerful." There was just one problem: Almost none of it was true.

The truth was uncovered by B.G. Burkett, a Vietnam veteran and author of Stolen Valor: How the Vietnam Generation Was Robbed of its Heroes and its History (with Glenna Whitley). Burkett discovered that only one of the vets had actually served in combat. Steve Southards, who'd claimed to be a 16-year-old Navy SEAL assassin, had actually served as an equipment repairman stationed far from combat.

Later transferred to Subic Bay in the Philippines, Steve spent most of his time in the brig for repeatedly going AWOL. And George Gruel, who claimed he was traumatized by the sight of his friend being chopped to pieces by a propeller? Navy records reveal that a propeller accident did take place on the Ticonderoga when Gruel was aboard - but that he wasn't around when it happened. During Gruel's tour, the ship had been converted to an antisubmarine warfare carrier which operated, not on "secret mission" along the Vietnam coast, but on training missions off the California coastline. Nevertheless, Burkett notes, Gruel receives $1,952 a month from the Veterans Administration for "psychological trauma" related to an event he only heard about.

Mikal Rice - the anguished vet who claimed to have cradled his dying buddy in his arms - actually spent his tour as a guard with an MP company at Cam Ranh Bay. He never saw combat. Neither did Terry Bradley, who was not the "fighting sergeant" he'd claimed to be. Instead, military records reveal he served as an ammo handler in the 25th Infantry Division and spent nearly a year in the stockade for being AWOL.

That's good news for the hundreds of Vietnamese civilians Bradley claimed to have slaughtered. But it doesn't say much for Dan Rather's credibility.

As Burkett notes, the records of all of these vets were easily checkable through Freedom of Information Act requests of their military records - something Rather and his producers simply didn't bother to do. They accepted at face value the lurid tales of atrocities committed in Vietnam and the stories of criminal behavior, drug addiction, and despair at home. Perhaps that's because this is what they wanted to believe.

Says Burkett: The Wall Within "precisely fit what Americans have grown to believe about the Vietnam War and its veterans: They routinely committed war crimes. They came home from an immoral war traumatized, vilified, then pitied. Jobless, homeless, addicted, suicidal, they remain afflicted by inner conflicts, stranded on the fringes of society."

Burkett, who did check the records of the vets Rather interviewed, shared his discoveries with CBS. So did Thomas Turnage, then administrator of the Veterans Administration, who was appalled by Rather's use of bogus statistics on the rates of suicide, homelessness, and mental illness among Vietnam veterans - statistics that can also be easily checked.

Rather initially refused to comment, and CBS spokeswoman Kim Akhtar said, "The producers stand behind their story. They had enough proof of who they are." For his part, CBS president Howard Stringer defended the network with irrelevancies. "Your criticisms were not shared by a vast majority of our viewers," he sniffed, adding that "CBS News and its affiliates received acclaim from most quarters . . . In sum, this was a broadcast of which we at CBS News and I personally am proud. There are no apologies to make."

Sarah Lee Pilley, who ran a restaurant in Colville, Washington where the CBS crew dined while filming The Wall Within, would not agree. The wife of a retired Marine lieutenant colonel who saw combat in Vietnam, Pilley, said she "got the distinct feeling that CBS had a story they had decided on before they left New York."

After interviewing 87 Vietnam veterans, CBS chose the "four or five saddest cases to put on the film," Pilley said. "The factual part of it didn't seem to matter as long as they captured the high drama and emotion that these few individuals offered. We felt all along that CBS committed tremendous exploitation of some very sick individuals."

Why would Dan Rather do such a thing? Partly because the stories of deranged, trip-wire vets is much more dramatic than the true story: That most Vietnam veterans came home to live normal, productive, happy lives. Second, Rather apparently wanted the story of whacked-out Vietnam veterans to be true - just as he now wants the Jerry Killian story to be true. Or maybe - despite a preponderance of the evidence - he considered the sources of these tales of Vietnam atrocities "unimpeachable."

As angry Vietnam veterans began calling CBS to complain about the factual inaccuracies of The Wall Within, Perry Wolff, the executive producer who wrote the documentary, claimed that "No one has attacked us on the facts." Despite the growing evidence that he'd been had, Rather also continued to defend the documentary - which is now part of CBS's video history series on the Vietnam War. Perhaps Vietnam veterans ought to take a page out of the book of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and air television ads exposing Rather's deceits - something along the lines of: "Dan Rather lied about his Vietnam documentary. I know. I was there. I saw what happened. When the chips were down, you could not count on Dan Rather." Certainly, we cannot count on him for the truth.

During a 1993 speech to the Radio and Television News Directors Association, Rather criticized his colleagues for competing with entertainment shows for "dead bodies, mayhem, and lurid tales." "We should all be ashamed of what we have and have not done, measured against what we could do," Rather said. Thousands of Vietnam veterans - not to mention the Bush campaign - would agree. - Anne Morse is a writer living in Maryland.

Coelho: Kerry Campaign in Chaos

Tony Coelho, former Al Gore campaign manager fired some heavy shots at the Kerry campaign today:

Longtime Democratic insider Tony Coelho lashed out at the John Kerry presidential campaign, characterizing it as a campaign in chaos. With yet another appointment of a former Clinton administration staffer to Kerry’s team on Tuesday, Coelho argues the problem is worsening.

“There is nobody in charge and you have these two teams that are generally not talking to each other,” says Coehlo, who ran Al Gore's campaign early in the 2000 presidential race. As Coelho and other detractors see it, there is a civil war within the Kerry campaign.

If true its explains some of the reasons Kerry has seemed so inept lately on the campaign trail. Per Coelho, its all about money:

“Here are two groups that have never gotten along and have fought, and it is a lot over money,” says Coehlo. "Because in the Democratic Party the consultants get paid for the creation and the placement of [advertising]. Republicans only pay you for the creation.”

So each faction is fighting over what ends up in the ads? And what gets in the ads ends up being 'the message'.

That's where the fight is .... over what constitutes "the message".

“Our problem here is a national message,” Coelho says. “What is it that we [Democrats] are? If you go to Kerry, that’s a disaster because the candidate should not be involved in solving disputes or the creation of his message.

“You need a [campaign] boss, somebody who says ‘Shut up, we are going to work this out.’ Not someone who can go around to Kerry, and that’s Shrummy’s forte,” Coelho continues, speaking of Shrum. The Kerry campaign has over the past week refuted speculation that either Shrum or Sasso are running the campaign.

Coelho isn't a big fan of Shrum's. Shrum has managed many presidential campaigns, but they've all been losers. Shrum's 0 for 7.

Coelho is a Sasso fan. Sasso has recently joined the Kerry campaign.

“What I’m looking for is a Karl Rove and I don’t know where our Karl Rove is.” Coelho says. “I think Sasso is a Karl Rove. I’m very high on Sasso because I don’t think he plays Machiavellian games. I think he very sincerely wants to win. I think he is very big on Kerry. And I think he’s tough enough to say, ‘Goddammit, come together.’”

But apparently the power struggle is in full bloom. And the result is a failing campaign. The signs of distress are so obvious that Democrats are coming out of the woodwork to try and save it:

But in a sign of how seriously the Kerry campaign is taking its dive in the polls, a trio of ex-Clinton staffers has come aboard recently, including former Clinton press secretary Mike McCurry who signed up on Tuesday. He joins Joe Lockhart, another onetime Clinton press secretary, and Joel Johnson, the former president’s legislative strategist.

The call for the Clintonistas, in McCurry’s view, illustrates that Democrats are circling the wagons.

“Democrats are sort of coming out of places where normally they might sit on the sidelines,” McCurry says, “because there is a strong sense that we really need to get in there and try to help, because it is an important election.”

McCurry tries to downplay the apparent lack of an identifiable Democrat message.

McCurry defends the Kerry camp and says he doesn’t think they got off message in August. “I think Bush got on message,” he says.

“I think [Mr. Bush] had a much better August than he had had prior,” McCurry adds. “So I think part of this is a reaction to the fact that [the Bush campaign] sharpened up their operation and had a good convention on their side. We just have got to do our bit, on our side.”

Sounds a little like whistling past the graveyard to me.

Meanwhile Coelho says its time to decide who's in charge:

Of Shrum’s role as adviser, Coelho says “I’m not anti-Shrummy here. What I’m saying is that you need to have someone in charge and I think Sasso’s capable of it.”

“If [Sasso] is in charge then Goddammit, say it and stop having the speculation of who's in charge because that’s worse,” Coelho says. “It also starts to impact in regard to the whole image of leadership. If someone can’t control a message in a presidential campaign, how are you going to be a good president?”

Makes you wonder, doesn't it? If candidate Kerry can't even "lead" his own campaign, why in the world would you want to give him the opportunity to lead the country?

48 days and a wakeup.

What would Rather do?

UPDATE (JON): I'm bumping this post of Dale's to the top, because Dale got it exactly right. To the letter. CBS had a chance to offer a mea culpa--or, at least, transparency--and all they came up with was "we believe every word of those forgeries, because they're exactly what we wanted to hear".

Unbefreakinglievable. Just damn. And the worst is this line from CBS News President Andrew Heyward:

Some at this network believe the backlash against the 60 Minutes report is pure politics. But that's the critics' point as well -- that fake, or real, the fact that 60 Minutes got these documents during an election year was no accident.

That's it, guys. You commit journalistic fraud....but, your critics are Republicans. So, you're even. Equivalency!

Read on. Dale nailed it.

_____________________________________________________________

Bases on the coverage of the memo's story at the CBS Website, I suspect they'll be following a line of, "The documents aren't important. It's the deeper truths behind them that are important. Forget the documents. It's the story you need to understand.

CBS News says the original report used several different techniques to make sure the memos were genuine, including talking to handwriting and document analysts and other experts who strongly insist that the documents could have been created on a typewriter in the 1970s – as opposed to a modern-day word-processing software program.

And aliens could have produced them at their sector administrative outpost at Alpha Centauri, then beamed them to earth. Lt Col Killian could have run them off at PIP (the Kinko's of that era), because they were 'specially important. A lot of things could have happened.

But, how likely is it that they happened? That's the question that CBS still doesn't seem keen to address.

CBS has also said its story about Mr. Bush's guard service relied on much more than documents. Featured in the segment was former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes, a Democrat who claims he pulled strings to get Mr. Bush into the Guard in 1968.

«So, please, ignore the document forgeries. Not important. It's the story that's the important part. Trust us on this. »

Uh huh.

CBS News spokeswoman Sandra Genelius said CBS did not believe Knox was a documents expert and that the network believes the documents are genuine.

"It is notable that she confirms the content of the documents, which was the primary focus of our story in the first place," Genelius said.

So, essentially, their saying that, even though Killian's secretary, Ms. Knox, thinks the documents are forgeries, the whole forgery deal is unimportant because the content of the memos are what they wanted to believe at CBS comport with the story CBS reported.

So, the CBS argument is that the documents were fake, but their content was authentic. And that's supposed to make it all better?

Huh.

Well, don't expect any big mea culpa from CBS in half an hour. I think their position is pretty clear. If the documents were forgeries, then we should just forget about that and concentrate on the rest of the story CBS is trying to tell us.

But, if CBS' journalistic standards were so shoddy that they were perfectly willing to pass these memos off as reliably authenticated, why should we give any credence to the rest of CBS's story? How do we know that it wasn't also infected by similarly sloppy standards?

CBS is silent on that point.

UPDATE (JON): Beldar is pretty mad.

I try to be fair-minded. I try not to reach snap judgments. I try to "see the other side." I try not to overstate. But in this post, I will express opinions that are as blunt and as strongly felt as any I've ever stated in my life. Nothing in this post is sarcasm or snark. This is as serious as a heart attack — and it's no longer funny to me, but a national disgrace and a national tragedy.

He goes on, and he is brutal. Captain Ed just asks a few questions...

Here's a question: if CBS really has all of this "coroborating" evidence on hand, why not show it? Why was Dan Rather out chatting up Marian Knox this afternoon if their story was as well-sourced as Heyward claims? If the memos are "accurate", why does one of them describe pressure being applied on Killian and Hodges by a general who had retired 18 months before the date of the memo? How did the memos get created if all Knox had in the TANG office was a manual Olympia and a standard Selectric, neither of which could do the proportional spacing and kerning evident in the memos?

Who gave the memos to CBS News?

Well here's a surprise

First we had Canada reporting huge deficits in its health care system and now we have France in the same boat:

France's ailing health insurance system for salaried workers showed a all-time record deficit last year of EUR 11.9 billion (USD 14.6 billion), an official government report revealed Wednesday.

The government accounting office, one of two bodies that monitors the social security budget, attributed the skyrocketing deficit to "state decisions" combined with a general increase in the public demand for health care services.

When its free or of low cost people demand more. When people have to pay the actual cost of something they have a tendency to use only what they need.

"The deficit in the insurance branch, which nearly doubled from 2002 (EUR 6.1 billion) to 2003 (EUR 11.9 billion) is unprecedented," said the annual report by the Cour des Comptes, due to be officially released on Thursday.

Salaried workers account for more than 80 percent of insurance payments in France.

The global social security deficit, including the budgets for family, health, pensions and work-related accidents, stood at EUR 11.5 billion for 2003, more than triple the EUR 3.4 billion recorded the previous year.

Couple this with France's stagnant economy and double digit unemployment and you can imagine the natives are not happy.

Although France's health care system was once hailed as one of the world's best, it is now battling both the massive deficit and a poor public image after last year's deadly heat wave that claimed 15,000 lives.

I'd also bet its trying to figure out how its going to ration its health care now that its running huge deficits.

In July, both houses of the French parliament approved the centre-right government's plan to overhaul the health insurance system, which includes a raft of cost-cutting measures to check the spiralling deficit.

The plan asks patients to pay EUR 1 per medical consultation, encourages the use of generic drugs and cracks down on sick leave abuse.

It calls for the use of computerized records as a way to trace a patient's medical history and pinpoint possible abuses such as over-prescription of drugs.

Ah, sounds like Kerry's plan ... fix the bureaucracy, generic drugs (Canadian drugs in Kerry's case) an abuses such as over-prescription (redundant tests in Kerry's case).

And of course, its a band-aid. Single-payer systems which ignore market forces are doomed to be buried by them (because they can't control the rest of the markets which impact health care).

When he presented the plan in May, French Health Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said the government hoped the initiative would generate EUR 15 billion to EUR 16 billion in annual savings.

Heh ... yup. They've been so successful in reforming bureaucracy and government in France in the recent past that I can't wait to see how quickly these "initiatives" generate the savings they 'expect'.

[/sarcasm]

This, by the way, is the left's dream for your future health care as well.

Irony Alert

Reader Ed Madden points us to something on the CBS web in which he thinks Dan Rather may need to enroll:

Forensics 101

Watching Ivan

Just took a peek at the NOAA satellite pic I linked to here and it looks as if Ivan has started taking a turn to the north. A few hours ago it looked like a dead hit on New Orleans, but with this move to the north it looks like it may instead move directly into Mobile bay.

I live in Atlanta. The forecast is sprinkles today (we've been overcast all day), 1 to 2 inches tomorrow and, depending on whether Ivan stalls or not (right now they're saying they expect the storm to stall) we could get up to 7" on Friday and wind gusts up to 50 mph. I may need a bilge pump before its all over.

To you folks in the Pensacola, Mobile and New Orleans areas, good luck and if you haven't done so (and still can) get out of there. As I heard one guy from New Orleans say "give Ivan some respect". Its not worth your life to ride it out.

NHL Lockout ignores fans

I'm not a hockey fan, nor will I ever be ... just not brought up to appreciate it I guess (my brother calls it soccer of skates).

But this just doesn't make sense regardless of the sport:

The National Hockey League will lock out its players Thursday, threatening to keep the sport off the ice for the entire 2004-05 season. The long-expected decision was approved unanimously Wednesday by NHL owners, who are demanding cost certainty, which players say would be tantamount to a salary cap.

Despite what both sides of this fight believe, they exist because of the fans. No fans, no teams, no salaries, no owners. If no one shows up, no TV, no revenue.

This sort of nonsense almost killed baseball, and it has a much broader base than does hockey. Some fans have never come back after the baseball strike.

Ignoring the fact that it is the fans are who pay the freight, as the NHL owners are doing here, may cost them a hell of a lot more than the money involved in this fight right now. It may cost them and the players their livelyhood. They're not only locking out the players ... they're locking out the folks who will make or break the NHL. And they have a tendency to take that very personally.

Dan, just answer the question

Rather, in the NY Observer, says, essentially, forget whether the memos are real or not, answer the questions George Bush:

"With respect: answer the questions," said Dan Rather, the CBS News anchor. He was asking a direct question to President George W. Bush, his re-election campaign and his political allies in the press and on the Web. "We’ve heard what you have to say about the documents and what you’ve said and what your surrogates have said, but for the moment, answer the questions.

Now maybe its just me, but does it strike anyone else that what Rather is asking us to do is akin to finding an entry in the "Hitler Diaries" saying Dan's Mom had an ongoing relationship with Adolph and requiring poor Dan to forget the diaries are forgeries and answer the questions about the relationship?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

This just gets more and more bizarre.

UPDATE (JON): I'm thinking 60 Minutes (SUN) should do an expose about 60 Minutes (WED). They can even doctor up some tapes with, oh, anybody--heck, Lesley Stahl and Andy Rooney--impersonating Dan Rather and Terry McAuliffe.

Then, Ed Bradley can ask Rather: "Are you, in fact, an operative for the DNC, Dan? Or just a really bad journalist? With respect, answer the questions."

Yeah, I think that might be appropriate.

Voodoo economics II - The Sequel

We all remember "Voodoo Economics" don't we?

Well, welcome to the sequel "Voodoo Economics II - "cost" = spending".

In today's Boston Globe, an attempt is made to show how Kerry's proposed spending of $2.2 trillion (yes, its gone up again) is less than the "cost" of Bush's proposals.

Cost v. spending?

First let's take a look at their chart:

A $1 trillion "cost" to privatize Social Security? Or $1 trillion saved by younger future recipients in private accounts --- enough that perhaps the government won't be doling out any to them when their retirement comes? Social Security has to be fixed at some point and now is as good a time as any. Consistent with Bush's "Ownership society".

Or how about a $243 billion "cost" associated with new tax cuts and tax free health savings accounts? The cost of tax cuts? Cost to what? Fat government programs which could pare their share of revenues perhaps? Cost to subsidy programs that the government should forgo? Cost to programs in areas the government has no business? Meanwhile citizens are left with the opportunity to take charge of their own healthcare costs. Again consistent with Bush's "Ownership Society".

Cost? Its only a cost if the federal government has the money. If the money belongs to the citizens, it isn't a government cost.

When the Globe uses "cost" it assumes ownership of the money by the govenment. It assumes it to be its irrevocable due. And when it is kept by those who earn it instead of being handed to the government to be handed out by the government in its various programs, that "costs" the government per the Globe. Its a convoluted and specious argument at best.

If we take these bogus "costs" out and compare spending programs we find that out of the $2.9 trillion that the Globe claims Bush is proposing, in reality, we're down to 1.65 trillion in spending.

Still too much, but wait there's more. Again a "cost" is being correlated with the spending proposals on the Kerry side of the chart.

$1 trillion for permanent tax cuts.

That's future revenue if taxed at the former rate.

Vapor revenue.

It is not a "cost". Its not a spending proposal. So now, we're down to $650 billion on the Bush side for new spending. At least as outlined by the Globe's numbers. Again too high, but nothing like the $2.9 trillion nonsense the Globe was trying to pawn off.

In reality, when comparing "spending" its Bush $650 billion, Kerry $2.2 trillion.

On the Kerry side, we're looking at pure and unadulterated spending. Proposal after proposal to increase spending.

Well almost. Remember those middle class tax cuts? Remember how Kerry says he wants those while claiming he'll pay for everything else with increased taxes on the two precent of the highest income earners in America?

Kerry also has called for a middle-class tax cut, which is expected to cost more than $400 billion.

A chunk of those costs would be borne by rolling back tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers, saving $860 billion -- not enough to cover all the new spending.

No kidding?

$2.2 trillion in new spending proposals and $860 billion in new revenue, offset by a 'cost' of $400 billion for middle-class tax cuts? That takes the increase in revenue from the 2% down to a net $460 billion, not the $600 billion we've been told to expect.

So Kerry says he's going to cover $2.2 trillion in spending with a $460 billion net increase in income tax revenue?

And cut the deficit as well?

Sure sounds like voodoo to me.

9/10 Kerry outlines Economic Plan

Somebody ought to tell John Kerry that 9/11 actually happened and while it may surprise him to know that, it may also explain, among other occurrances, why the economy had a rough time. Of course the other occurrances include an inherited recession and a war. You'd think a guy running for president would know that. Instead we get this:

Since January 2001, the economy has lost 1.6 million private-sector jobs. The typical family has seen its income fall more than $1,500, while health costs are up more than $3,500.

Recession, 9/11, war.

And again, we then get this:

The economy still has not turned the corner. Over the last year, real wages are still down and even the jobs created in the past 12 months represent the worst job performance for this period of a recovery in over 50 years. Indeed, the total of 1.7 million jobs created over the last year is weaker than even the worst year of job creation under President Clinton, and below what is needed just to find jobs for new applicants entering the work force.

It hasn't turned the corner, but its created 1.7 million jobs, making up the 1.6 million lost in the wake of what?

Recession, 9/11, war.

Unemployment is lower now than it was under Clinton when he ran in 1996. Lower in the wake of?

Recession, 9/11 and war.

And as has been demostrated here, "real wages", whatever that term means, in terms of total compensation, is not down, its up.

In the wake of recession, 9/11 and war.

When the economy needed short-run stimulus without increasing the long-run deficit, President Bush got it backwards, passing an initial round of tax cuts that Economy.com found had no effect in lifting us out of recession. He then passed more deficit-increasing tax cuts that Goldman Sachs described as "especially ineffective as a stimulative measure." When small businesses and families needed relief from skyrocketing health-care and energy costs, he chose sweetheart deals for special interests over serious plans to reduce costs and help spur new job creation.

Of course Alan Greenspan pointed to the tax cuts as one of the single most important acts which lifted us out of the recession early and quickly.

As for Economy.com, I couldn't find anything at their site which said the tax cuts didn't help lift us out of recession. In fact, I found exactly the opposite:

The economic impact of the combined monetary and fiscal stimulus has been substantial. Indeed, if monetary and fiscal policy had remained unchanged during the Bush Presidency, the recession that began in early 2001 and ended later in the year, would have likely instead lasted through much of 2003.2 The economy would still be shedding jobs.

Over the entirety of the Bush Presidency, monetary and fiscal stimulus have added an estimated 2.5 percentage points to per annum real GDP growth (see Table 3). Of that, 1.5 percentage points is due to an easier monetary policy and 1 percentage point to fiscal policy. Of the contribution to growth from the fiscal stimulus, the bulk has been from surging defense spending and income tax cuts to lower and middle income households.

At the peak of the stimulus in early 2002, combined policy stimulus provided a whopping 4 percentage points to real year-over-year GDP growth (see also Chart 1). Even during the first quarter of this year, nearly one-half of the close to 4% annualized real GDP growth in the quarter was due to the policy stimulus.

Anyway, blatant nonsense aside (you can't fix a problem unless you create one), what is Kerry's plan? Here's the 1, 2, 3, 4:

With the right choices on the economy, America can do better. American businesses and workers are the most resilient, productive and innovative in the world. And they deserve policies that are better for our economy. My economic plan will do the following: (1) Create good jobs, (2) cut middle-class taxes and health-care costs, (3) restore America's competitive edge, and (4) cut the deficit and restore economic confidence.

OK, let's get into the how:

•Create good jobs. I strongly believe that America must engage in the global economy, and I voted for trade opening from Nafta to the WTO. But at the same time, I have always believed that we need to fight for a level playing field for America's workers.

I am not trying to stop all outsourcing, but as president, I will end every single incentive that encourages companies to outsource. Today, taxpayers spend $12 billion a year to subsidize the export of jobs. If a company is trying to choose between building a factory in Michigan or Malaysia, our tax code actually encourages it to locate in Asia.

My plan would take the entire $12 billion we save from closing these loopholes each year and use it to cut corporate tax rates by 5%. This will provide a tax cut for 99% of taxpaying corporations. This would be the most sweeping reform and simplification of international taxation in over 40 years. In addition, I have proposed a two-year new jobs tax credit to encourage manufacturers, other businesses affected by outsourcing, and small businesses that created jobs.

Outsourcing is a tiny problem in the job market. Taxation isn't the only problem. It has to do with wages. It has to do with regulation. It has to do with competitiveness. Addressing only the taxation angle will not stop outsourcing at all. Again, as pointed out here, there's another side to the dynamic. Insourcing. The US seems to be doing pretty darn well on the "insourcing" front because of the productivity of its workers.

The net trend has been a plus for insourcing of jobs over outsourcing them.

American businesses are the most competitive in the world, yet when it comes to enforcing trade agreements the Bush administration refuses to show our competitors that we mean business. They have brought only one WTO case for every three brought by the Clinton administration, while cutting trade enforcement budgets and failing to stand up to China's illegal currency manipulation. That not only costs jobs, it threatens to erode support for open markets and a growing global economy.

Actually American businesses aren't the most competitive in the world. They're the most productive in the world. Where much of their lack of competitiveness comes from is over-regulation and taxation. Notice Kerry doesn't even try to address these ... instead its all the rest of the worlds fault for not playing fair. My suggestion ... clean up the regulation and taxation mess at home and then if we're still not competitive, look at the rest of the world.

• Cut middle-class taxes and health costs. Families are being increasingly squeezed by falling incomes and rising costs for everything from health care to college. But spiraling health-care and energy costs squeeze businesses too, encouraging them to lay off workers and shift to part-time and temporary workers.

Under my plan, the tax cuts would be extended and made permanent for 98% of Americans. In addition, I support new tax cuts for college, child care and health care--in total, more than twice as large as the new tax cuts President Bush is proposing.

Keep in mind, he is embracing permanent tax cuts for 98% of Americans. That leaves the top 2% as the main bill payers for all of Kerry's programs. And his programs of new spending add up to almost 2 trillion dollars. Estimates say that increasing taxes on the top 2% of income earners to the same level they were under the Clinton administration (and that is Kerry's stated plan) will raise $600 billion.

Where will the rest come from? That's a very real and important question Kerry needs to answer.

I have proposed a health plan that would increase coverage while cutting costs. It builds on and strengthens the current system, giving patients their choice of doctors, and providing new incentives instead of imposing new mandates.

My health plan will offer businesses immediate relief on their premiums. By providing employers some relief on catastrophic costs that are driving up premiums for everyone, we will save employers and workers about 10% of total health premiums.

Probably one of the most significant problems in spiraling health care costs are law suits. Malpractice law suits and the cost of malpractice insurance drives the decision of many MDs to call it a day and retire because they can no longer afford the malpractice premiums demanded.

Kerry, as is typical of candidates, offers more for less. His solution is government. Any of you who've any had experience with goverment programs know that you rarely, if ever, get more for less.

Our hospitals and doctors have the best technology for saving lives, but often still rely on pencil and paper when it comes to tracking medical tests and billing. As a result, we spend over $350 billion a year on red tape, not to mention the cost of performing duplicative or redundant tests. My plan will modernize our information technology, create private electronic medical records, and create incentives for the adoption of the latest disease management.

Kerry promises a revamp of the medical bureaucracy? How? This has been a candidates pipe-dream for years. And the only area government can impact is its own bureaucracy: Medicare and Medicaid.

He ignores the fact of that which drives "duplicative or redundant tests" is the possibilty of a law suit. Its medical CYA which drives those tests as much as anything. Streamlining the bureaucracy does not effect that basic truth and won't effect at all the desire for doctor's to protect themselves from potential financial ruin.

And I won't be afraid to take on prescription drug or medical malpractice costs. We will make it easier for generic drugs to come to market and allow the safe importation of pharmaceuticals from countries like Canada. Finally, we will require medical malpractice plaintiffs to try nonbinding mediation, oppose unjustified punitive damage awards and penalize lawyers who file frivolous suits with a tough "three strikes and you're out" rule.

This plan will make our businesses more competitive by making our health care more affordable.

Finally Kerry gives a swipe at the malpractice problem. His solution "lets try nonbinding mediation". Yeah, there's a winner. And who's to determine what "unjustified punitive damage awards" are? How will they determine whether a suit is frivolus? And how is something which gives you three shots "tough"?

Why won't he just come out and say "I will ask Congress to pass a comprehensive tort reform act to lower the cost of medicine to everyone?" Instead we get nonsense about nonbinding arbitrarion, "tough" three strikes and your out and the usual about "unjustified damage awards" and "frivolous law suits".

• Restore America's competitive edge. America has fallen to 10th in the world in broadband technology. Some of our best scientists are being encouraged to work overseas because of the restrictions on federal funding for stem-cell research. President Bush has proposed cutting 21 of the 24 research areas that are so critical to long-term growth. We need to invest in research because when we shortchange research we shortchange our future.

Who's "we"? As a libertarian, I want businesses, not government (except in the area of defense) driving research. I agree with the cuts in federal research dollars. What government ought to do is encourage research, not pay for it all. '

Businesses know, especially those in cutting edge technologies, that R&D is critical. The market is a much better arbiter of where research money should go than is government. Let the maket work.

My plan would invest in basic research and end the ban on stem-cell research. It would invest more in energy research, including clean coal, hydrogen and other alternative fuels. It would boost funding at the National Science Foundation and continue increases at the National Institutes of Health and other government research labs. It will provide tax credits to help jumpstart broadband in rural areas and the new higher-speed broadband that has the potential to transform everything from e-government to tele-medicine. I would promote private-sector innovation policies, including the elimination of capital gains for long-term investments in small business start-ups.

If you look at stem-cell research right now, the money is flowing to adult stem-cell research, not fetal stem-cell research. Why? Because that is where some fairly substantial progress is being made. I'll again make the point that absent a profit motive government spending in this area tends to be highly inefficient.

As for the "rural broadband' initiative, its fluff thrown out there to the "fairness crowd". If it isn't cost efficient to put broadband into the rural areas yet, it won't be if Kerry does it. The difference? Instead of potential customers and businesses picking up the tab, you the tax payer will instead.

• Cut the deficit and restore economic confidence. When President Bush was in New York for the Republican convention, he did not even pay lip service to reducing the deficit. His record makes even Republicans wary. From missions to Mars to a pricey Medicare bill, President Bush has proposed or passed more than $6 trillion in initiatives without paying for any of them. The record is clear: A deficit reduction promise from George W. Bush is not exactly a gilt-edged bond.

Key point "propsed or passed". Passed is much less that proposed. Now I'm not at all convinced that Bush has come close to that $6 trillion figure that Kerry pushes out there, but suffice it to say, I'm not happy with Bush's performance in this regard either.

But here's the problem. After taking Bush to task, Kerry neglects to mention that he's proposed almost $2 trillion in new spending and has told us he can pay for all of it on the back of tax increases to the wealthy.

Its nonsense, of course. It does not compute. But more importantly, it certainly does nothing to imbue me with the confidence that Kerry is serious about deficit reduction.

Americans can trust my promise to cut the deficit because my record backs up my word. When I first joined the Senate, I broke with my own party to support the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction plan, which President Reagan signed into law. In 1993, I cast a deciding vote to bring the deficit under control. And in 1997, I supported the bipartisan balanced budget agreement.

I think we're all familiar with the "I cast the deciding vote" hyperbole. But more importantly what everyone should be familiar with is Kerry's past deficit reduction proposals have mostly been on the back of defense and intelligence appropriations as is dramatized quite succinctly in his 1984 memo outlining the defense systems he'd like to see cut as well as other votes over the years.

Yes the deficit needs to be cut, but I've seen nothing in Kerry's record to indicate he'd attack the discretionary spending side of the ledger and cut social programs. I've seen every indication, however, that he'd be willing to go after defense spending which, with the ongoing war on terror, is critical.

I will restore fiscal discipline and cut the deficit in half in four years. First, by imposing caps, so that discretionary spending--outside of security and education--does not grow faster than inflation. If Congress cannot control spending, it will automatically be cut across the board. Second, I will reinstitute the "pay as you go" rule, which requires that no one propose or pass a new program without a way to pay for it. Third, I will ask for Congress to grant me a constitutionally acceptable version of line-item veto power and to establish a commission to eliminate corporate welfare like the one John McCain and I have fought for.

A) He can't impose caps. He can demand them. He can lobby for them. He can ask that they be followed. But Congress enjoys the power of the purse, not the President.

B) Pay as you go sounds great, doesn't it? But we've been there and done that. What's the deficit today? What makes John Kerry think as president he'll be able to make "pay as you go" work when as a Senator he ignored it?

C) Line item veto ... ain't going to happen. It would require amendment of the Constitution to be "Constitutionally acceptable". No way that happens. If it had a chance, a Republican Congress and a Republican President surely would have seen it passed. More election fluff.

I am not waiting for next year to change the tone on fiscal discipline. Every day on the campaign trail, I explain how I pay for all my proposals. By rolling back the recent Bush tax cuts for families making over $200,000 per year, we can pay for health care and education. By cutting subsidies to banks that make student loans and restoring the principle that "polluters pay," we can afford to invest in national service and new energy technologies. My new rules won't just apply to programs I don't like; they will apply to my own priorities as well.

"We can pay" for healthcare, education, defense, deficit reduction, permament tax cuts for 98% of the population, and 2 trillion in new spending proposals with tax increases on 2% of the tax payers?

Maybe you can suspend disbelief and buy into that, but I just can't.

This isn't much of an economic plan in my estimation. Its a "I'll do it better" plan built on a mischaracterization of where we've been (recession, 9/11, war) and where we are (1.7 million new jobs, 5.4% unemployment, increased productivity, total compensation up, and the highest homeownership percentage in the nation's history).

It identifies problem areas, but then misses or overstates government abilities to solve them.

Its a true "candidates" manifesto: Long on charges, short on meaningful specifics, and redolant of the stink of promises impossible to keep.

High Noon

CBS News has announced that they'll be releasing a statement abou the Killian Memos at 12:00 EDT today. Considering that their own document experts have been spouting off about the problems with the memos' authenticity over the last day or so, this should be an interesting statement.

So, will they own up to the problems that even their own experts (no doubt seeing their professional reputations on the line) have been touting to the media? Or will they, in a stunning coup, produce Lt Col Killian himself to vouch for the memos' authenticity?

UPDATE (JON): They certainly might apologize, or produce proof. But there's always a third option.

CBS Ringers

Due to today's news, I'm bumping this relevant post back up. It has been updated to reflect the ABC story, in which more experts jump off the CBS Titanic.

The mainstream is finally catching up, but--as Glenn Reynolds notes--it's "not really news to people who have been reading blogs". Today's CBS problem: their own experts. (or, "experts", as the case may be)

I'm aware of 3 names that CBS has brought forth to corroborate their documents. Bill Glennon, Robert Strong, and Marcel Matley. Unfortunately for CBS, these "experts" seem to be hedging.

In order:

• Bill Glennon - seems to have been promoted rather quickly. (via Tim Blair) He was initially described as a "technology consultant in New York who worked for I.B.M. ... and repaired typewriters". He has rather quickly become a "document expert".

  Odd, though, because he also said "I don’t claim to be a typewriter expert...". Guess he studied hard over the weekend, because when they heard he was willing to verify their documents, "CBS called him Monday morning".

  None of which is to discredit what he said. But it certainly is odd, the inflated expertise CBS will assign people who are willing to corroborate their documents. And it's even odder that CBS is not looking for independent experts to examine documents, but, instead, presenting people who have already expressed a concurring opinion.

  Stacking the deck, are we, CBS?




• Robert Strong - while CBS claims he corroborates the content of the memos, Strong is quick to point out that "he's not a forensic expert and isn't vouching for the documents".




• Marcel Matley - Per the Washington Post, Matley "said yesterday that he examined only the late officer's signature and made no attempt to authenticate the documents themselves.

  "There's no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them."

That's got to be the weakest set of expert testimony I've ever seen. Two guys who say there are aspects of the document that seem accurate, and one guy who used to repair typewriters and says it's "possible" they could have been created on a typewriter in the 70s.

And that doesn't even include people like Hodges, who said he thinks they are forgeries. Of course, CBS didn't relate his story for long.

QUESTION: Why is CBS stacking their expert deck with ringers?

UPDATE: Tom Maguire goes into detail on the damning Washington Post piece, saying it "puts up a huge "No-Sale" sign on the latest CBS defense", and pointing out that the WaPo has done exactly as Brad DeLong asked, and gotten documents written concurrent with the alleged Killian memos. (So, DeLong believes they are forgeries now, right? Yes, and with an apology. Good on him)

ALSO: I fear I've missed one expert CBS cited: "Richard Katz, a computer software expert", who "noticed a slight variation in the boldness of the letters, as there is on many typewritten documents". A credible criticism, though I think it is dulled by the fact that the document has been through so many generations.

So.....where are those originals, CBS? If even your own experts claim that copies are unreliable indicators, why have you purported to have authenticated them based on copies alone?

UPDATE II: Bithead makes a good point...

If they do not stop the stonewalling tactics, Americans will respond by simply assuming ... that the source was in the DNC, Kamp Kerry or one of the far-left 527's, and they will vote accordingly.

It is accurate, I think, to say that the lack of full transparency on the part of CBS can lead to nothing but skepticism. As long as they pull the "this story is true, don't ask questions!" dodge, it's hard not to wonder why they mind a bit of scrutiny. It's not at all hard to come to a conclusion very unflattering to CBS.

I'm not sure they'll be able to maintain this "don't look behind the curtain" stance, though, because the mainstream press--perhaps sensing blood in the water--has come out swinging their big bats. (if I might mix a metaphor)

UPDATE III: Unbelievable. CBS was worse than I'd imagined. Not only did they go after "ringers" for experts, they rejected experts who didn't give them the feedback they wanted....

Two of the document experts hired by CBS News say the network ignored concerns they raised prior to the broadcast of a report citing documents that questioned George W. Bush's service in the National Guard during the Vietnam War.
[...]
Emily Will, a veteran document examiner from North Carolina, told ABC News she saw problems right away with the one document CBS hired her to check the weekend before the broadcast.

"I found five significant differences in the questioned handwriting, and I found problems with the printing itself as to whether it could have been produced by a typewriter," she said.

Will says she sent the CBS producer an e-mail message about her concerns and strongly urged the network the night before the broadcast not to use the documents.

"I told them that all the questions I was asking them on Tuesday night, they were going to be asked by hundreds of other document examiners on Thursday if they ran that story," Will said.
[...]
A second document examiner hired by CBS News, Linda James of Plano, Texas, also told ABC News she had concerns about the documents and could not authenticate them. She said she expressed her concerns to CBS before the 60 Minutes II broadcast.

"I did not authenticate anything and I don't want it to be misunderstood that I did," James said. "And that's why I have come forth to talk about it because I don't want anybody to think I did authenticate these documents."

Unbelievable. CBS claims these experts played a "peripheral role and deferred to another expert who examined all four of the documents used", but they're not exactly forthcoming with the names of those additional experts. They should be, though, considering the fact that the experts they have named are jumping ship.

Of course, at this point, those other experts may not want to be named. And without a last minute Hail Mary, Dan Rather is going down.

UPDATE IV: How long till the defense shifts to:

1. They're not forgeries, and only right-wing wacko's think they are. There is absolutely zero credible evidence that they are forgeries. This has been reported, substantiated and proven.
2. Karl Rove was behind the forgeries.

UPDATE V: Captain Ed writes...

I don't think any of us expected to see a major broadcaster with a penchant for deliberately hoaxing its audience in order to promote its left-wing agenda and candidate.

I am not a person who believes in any sort of monolithic media bias, or intentional Network liberal bias. I believe that what bias exists comes from subconcious assumptions, rather than conscious decisions.

But it's getting damned hard to see this as anything less than intentionally partisan bias.

UPDATE VI: Along these lines, and while noting another CBS story with...er, shortcomings, Powerline asks....

Can anyone think of an example of Dan Rather breathlessly announcing breaking news that turned out to be a flop--if not a pure fabrication--where the story reflected badly on a Democrat?

Hurricane ivan

If you're interested in following the progress of Hurricane Ivan, go here. Its a self-refreshing animated look at the storm from the NOAA satellite.

The MSM continues to pound CBS

Excerpts from various MSM sources about Ra^thergate:

The Arizona Republic: "Truth and Trust.

More important, the network's shrill defense underscores the very same doubts and suspicions that CBS is struggling to avoid: That the documents may have been produced by Bush's political opponents; and that in its haste to run with a story critical of Bush, CBS abandoned its journalistic good sense.

Rather shrugs off attacks on the story as the work of "partisans." A network executive denigrates those people raising questions on the Internet as "a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas."

The network couldn't announce its indifference to public opinion more clearly than if Rather himself began concluding his newscasts with the declaration, "Arrogance!"

Michelle Malkin: "The death cry of snob journalism"

As for Klein, his pajama put-down will go down in media history as the death cry of snob journalism.

With amusement, I have watched my colleagues in the Old Media fight every democratizing and choice-enhancing trend during the dozen years I've spent in the information business. They scoffed at Rush Limbaugh as a flash in the pan (and have searched in vain for a commercially viable liberal counterpart for the last 15 years). They sneered at The Drudge Report (then bookmarked his site for hourly reading). They sniped at Fox News (then ripped off every one of Roger Ailes' innovations). They laughed at Regnery Publishing (then snatched up its editors and formed New York knock-offs). They mocked the insurgent New York Post (as their own circulation figures and ad sales tanked). And now, in final desperation, they trash the blogging revolution as an irresponsible pajama party for unprofessional hobbyists (even as they launch their own corporate-scrubbed versions to exhibit their "edginess").

Faced with an unstoppable onslaught of competitive traffic, Dan Rather and the great pretenders in Trusted Journalism have only one choice for survival: Yield.

LA Times: "Paper War on Bush Record"

CBS News was had. It's hard to reach any other conclusion about documents that CBS and anchor Dan Rather have defended as revealing the truth about George W. Bush's military service.

Their existence is all the more puzzling in light of today's Times story quoting the onetime secretary of Bush's commander as saying that she recalled typing similar memos questioning Bush's service, but as casting more doubt on the ones that were obtained by CBS.

Bush's commanding officer in the Texas Air National Guard, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, wrote memos more than 30 years ago objecting to efforts to gloss over the young lieutenant's shortcomings and failure to take a flight physical, Marian Carr Knox of Houston said Tuesday. But, however similar, the four memos that surfaced last week appeared to be fakes, she said.

As The Times reported, conservative bloggers detected glaring inconsistencies, such as a Microsoft Word type style. The alleged memos from Killian also contain stylistic problems, such as the fact that Killian signs his rank not in accordance with National Guard procedure.

Zev Chafets, NY Daily News: Dan's 'scoop' is
as shaky as his status"

He may be the man on the set of the evening news, but his more citified colleagues have never stopped seeing him as a bumpkin from Sam Houston Teachers, a goofy guy who tries too hard.

This attitude has been painfully evident in the reaction to allegations that Rather's "scoop" about Bush's National Guard service was bogus. Rather had every right to expect that his colleagues would rush to his aid. But there has been very little solidarity, practically none of the "who do you think are?" indignation with which the elite media normally greet challenges from the right. The smart people have turned away, leaving Rather huffing and puffing about his unimpeachable credibility.

Poor Rather. Nearing the end of his career, he let himself get duped on a story he thought would make him a hero in Princeton. Instead, he will very likely be remembered as a goat. A Texas goat.

Eric Fettman, NY Daily Post: " Rather's Other Imploding 'Scoop'

The growing Memogate furor over the authenticity of doc uments said to cast doubts on George W. Bush's National Guard record isn't the only controversy dogging Dan Rather and CBS News these days.

The network is coming under fire in some quarters for a "CBS Evening News" broadcast about what it billed as a sensational national-security scandal that may have impacted critical U.S. policy decisions in the Middle East.

Less than a month later, however, the "sensation" has fallen far short of its original explosive billing. But that hype has provided potent ammunition for enemies of both Israel and the Bush administration's Mideast policies — ammunition that those forces are gleefully using.

James P. Pinkerton, Newday.com: "The day CBS News got 'blogged' down"

Sept. 9, 2004, will be remembered as a paradigm-shifting day in media history. That was the day the "blogosphere" took down CBS News.

[...]

But if the bloggers have power, it's because they form a robust intellectual marketplace, in which assertions must prove themselves before a jury of cyber-peers. In the words of James T. Smith, of critical-thinker.blogspot.com, "The blogosphere is the people." To be sure, the marketplace can make mistakes, but on the whole, like democracy itself, the more folks participating, the better the functioning.

But this democratization of the media is bad news - for those who liked it the old way, the top-down way.

NY Post: " Stop The Stonewall, Dan"

New York Times columnist William Safire yesterday urged Rather and his bosses to "call for a panel of old CBS hands and independent editors to re-examine sources and papers."

We agree.

When a Times reporter's credibility was called into question, the paper moved heaven and earth to determine whether or not the critics were right — and discovered they were.

If Rather and CBS hope to rescue their credibility, they should do no less.

UPDATE: Per Fox News, CBS will release a statement on the documents today around noon:

CBS News, dogged over questions about the authenticity of memos apparently showing that President Bush shirked his National Guard service more than 30 years ago, is expected to release a statement about the document snafu around noon Wednesday.

Stay tuned.

Where's Dale?

If you really want to know, I've been working on the Qando web site's new look, feel, and functions. I've just been too busy to blog. But I think it's coming along nicely. If you want to see the new site, go here.

I'm working on the new blog right now, and it'll be a few weeks before I'm ready to unveil that bit, but a good portion of it is ready to go.

I think you'll be happy with the new interactivity. Many of you, however, will apparently be disappointed in the lack of porn.

Killian's Secretary Claims Doc's are frauds but contents are real

Per Drudge:

The DRUDGE REPORT has found Lt. Col. Jerry Killian's former secretary who claims that the Texas Air National Guard documents offered by CBS in its 60 MINUTES II report filed by Dan Rather last week are indeed 'forgeries'.

"I did not type these particular memos. I typed memos like these," Knox told the DRUDGE REPORT from her home in Houston.

"I typed memos that had this information in them, but I did not type these memos. There are terms in these memos that are not Guard terms but that are Army terms. They use the word 'Billets'. I think they were using that to refer to the slot. That would be a non-flying slot the way we would use it. And the style... they are sloppy looking."

But Marion Carr Knox stands by the accusations contained in the allegedly fraudulent documents that Bush skirted a medical and flight exam without suffering institutional repercussions.

"The information in these memos is correct -- like Killian's dealing with the problems."

"It was General Staudt, not then Lt. Colonel Hodges [who succeeded Staudt], that was putting on the pressure to whitewash Bush. For instance he didnt take his flight examination or his physical. And the pilots had to take them by their birthdays. Once in a while there would be a reason why a pilot would miss these things because some of them were commercial pilots. But they had to make arrangements to take their exams."

Knox speculated as to how she thought the forgeries were created saying, "My guess is that someone in the outfit got hold of the real ones and discussed it with a former Army person."

But Killian's son, Gary essentially says "nonsense".

Contacted by the DRUDGE REPORT, Lt. Col. Killian's son Gary, who also served in the unit during the same period, responded: "I know Marion Carr. I remember her as a sweet lady who reminded me then of a dear aunt."

"But if Staudt had put pressure on my dad, there would have been a blow-up -- instantly. It was one of the reasons they got along so well. They had a mutual respect for one another."

"As has been pointed out by so many others, then Col Staudt had been out of the unit for 18 months. And I stand by my previous comments regarding my dad's admiration for Lt. Bush and his regard for him as an officer and pilot -- which was exemplary."

What brought Ms. Knox forward?

"What really hacked me off was when it was somebody on TV, associated with the White House, who said that all of this information was lies. And I got excited at the time because I knew that I had typed documents with this information because a person like Bush stood out from the others -- because of his association with his father."

Asked about reports that Lt. Col. Killian's wife and son saying he didn't type, Knox stated, "He didn't need to. He had me."

Of course Ms Knox is not exactly a neutral party in all of this:

Knox told the DRUDGE REPORT that she did not vote for Bush in 2000 because he is 'unqualified' for the job, and does not intend to vote for him in 2004, either.

"Bush was not the only person of privilege who had a spot in the Guard. Senator [Lloyd] Bensen's nephew was in headquarters. There was a big jewelery store, Gordons. Their son was in the Guard. The owner of Batelstein's, a posh department store in the area, his son was in. The other kids couldn't get in like that. Hugh Roy Cullen's grandson was also in. He was a big oil man."

In the meantime, another former Guard officer had this to say about flight physicals in general:

Contacted at his office in Bartlett, Texas, former Major Dean Roome, who served with Lt. Bush, responded to the latest information.

"If the memos are fraudulent, then why were they generated? Roome asked.

"Marion Carr Knox is validating what the rest of us are saying. She says once in a while a pilot would miss a physical because some of them were commercial pilots. I was also a commercial pilot with Continental Airlines. The clinic did not just open up for us to take a personal physical. The Flight Surgeons had to be there along with a full complement of medical personnel. We took our physical during the Uniformed Training Assembly (UTA) just like everyone else."

"The 'former Army person' she references is the person we believe may have created the fraudulent documents in an effort to injure President Bush. He has his own agenda and I doubt that he has any 'real ones'

Who is this mysterious "Army person?" No one knows at the moment, but it appears he, or she, is the one holding the smoking gun, if such a gun exists.

Oh, and one more little thing about Ms. Knox:

Ms. Knox states emphatically that she is not acting for political motives, and has no formal relationship with any political party. She says she just wants to set the record straight.

So, if true it leaves us with a whole raft of questions which need clarifying, some of which are:

When she says "I typed memos like these", does she mean specifically relating to George Bush or in general relating to pilots who had missed their flight physicals (or both?)?

Was an order given to George Bush in writing to report to Killian (or the medical facility) for a physical as portrayed in one memo?

Why would Staudt tell Killian to sugarcoat Bush's OER in May of 1972 when Bush had been there under Killian's command from 1971 to 1972?

Why would Killian be claiming he'd only do a "not observed", per the fradulent memo, when he had observed Bush between 1971 and 1972?

But most importantly, if the contents are "real", why the frauds?

Nope, sorry Ms. Knox ... this stinks a bit too. We'll just have to sit back and watch this develop a bit more.

MoveOn's red herring

Yup, the boyz and girlz at MoveOn have just put out a stinkin' fish as far as ads go. Its an ad in which absolutely everything is wrong.

FactCheck.org, which is usually a bit more restrained in its comments, minces no words when it comes to the new MoveOn ad about assault weapons:

This latest ad from Moveon PAC is about as misleading as it can be. Through words, graphics and sound effects, it invites viewers to think that the expiration of the ban on 19 semiautomatic assault weapons will allow people legally to buy fully automatic machine guns that can fire "up to 300 rounds per minute." That's false.

Well there's a surprise. In fact, the only thing "assault'" about the weapons in question is the name. They are semi-automatic rifles, not automatic rifles like the military assault rifles, and they're no different, in effect than hundreds of other semi-automatic rifles sold daily except they happen to look like military assault weapons.

That's right, their biggest "crime", if you will, is they look like something they're not.

As FactCheck.org points out:

It has been illegal to buy a machine gun without federal clearance since 1934, and remains so.

[...]

The fully automatic version of the AK47 -- pictured and described in the ad -- remains just as illegal as it was before the ban expired.

In other words, in terms of automatic weapons and automatic assault weapons, nothing has changed.

Of course in the politically charged atmosphere of a national election, its not unusual to see some exaggeration come to the fore, like MoveOn's claim about President Bush:

But on Sept. 13th, George Bush will let the assault weapon ban expire. George Bush says he’s making America safer. Who does he think he’s kidding?

Except George Bush didn't let the assault weapon ban expire, Congress did.

The ad also claims that Bush "will let the assault weapon ban expire," which is misleading. In fact, Bush spoke in support of the ban during his campaign four years ago and his spokesman said as recently as May of last year that he still supported it. It was Congress that failed to consider extending the ban and didn't present Bush with a bill to sign.

If there's any claim to be made that has some legitimacy, it would be that Bush didn't exert the leadership necessary to have it renewed. Maybe, maybe not. I've not seen that discussed anywhere yet. But in terms of power, he had no power to keep the law from expiring. Only Congress had that power.

The assault gun ban was about attributes which were non-leathal. Grips, magazines, etc. It wasn't about the important attributes of a real assault weapon ... automatic fire. Automatics, as pointed out, have been illegal since the '30s. This was about how a semi-automatic rifle looked.

The now expired Assault Gun Ban was a typical symbolism over substance law. It did nothing to prevent the spread of real assault rifles to terrorists or criminals and it certainly didn't keep them from using them over the years the law was in effect.

Kerry is so 9/10

With the Assault Weapon Ban coming to an end, John Kerry steps up to the plate to.....well, conflate things.

"Let me be very clear. I support the Second Amendment," Kerry said yesterday. "I've been a hunter all my life. But I don't think we need to make the job of the terrorists any easier."

Cause, you know, what would terrorists do if they had to go without those cool hand-grips and 3 extra bullets per clip.

Things that make you go "hmmmm"...

Hmmmm, this brings to mind a few questions:

Five widows whose husbands were killed in the Sept. 11 attacks will endorse John Kerry for president on Tuesday, United Press International has learned.

Kristen Breitweiser, Patty Casazza, Monica Gabrielle, Mindy Kleinberg and Lorie Van Auken will announce their support for Kerry at a press conference in Washington DC, and then embark on a whirlwind campaign tour through key battleground states.

"This is not about politics," Breitweiser - who lost her husband Ron in the World Trade Center - told UPI. "This is about making the country safer. No one should have to go through what I went through."

1) Does this constitute "politicizing" 9/11 and will Kerry condemn it?

2) If 5 widows of soldiers come forward and endorse Bush, will they get the same coverage?

As an FYI, this is really nothing new for these 5. They've been rabid anti-Bushies for years.

The five - who have become known as "The Jersey Girls" - were the moving force behind the relatives' campaign that forced the administration to set up an independent commission of inquiry into the attacks, which killed 3,000 people.

Oh, and in answer to the questions in 1:

Democratic strategists see the endorsements as one way to narrow the security gap between their challenger and Bush, who currently enjoys a more than 20 percent lead on terrorism issues.

The answers are yes and no.

Cheney clobbering Edwards?

Joan Vennochi of the Boston Globe has come to a startling conclusion:

Dick Cheney, the dour vice president with the downward-curling lip, is clobbering Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards.

Apparently this just surprises the pants off of Joan. Why, I'm not sure. After all, Kerry hired a lightweight as his VP candidate. That's not to say Edwards is totally without substance. But politicially he's more face than force. A one term Senator who apparently would not have won reelection. So junior that he had few opportunities to exhibit any leadership in the Senate.

Why is it surprising then that a man who's been in politics for over 30 years in the Congress, as Sec Def and VP would be "clobbering" Edwards? It shouldn't be a surprise at all.

Perhaps Vennochi is surprised because she actually believes Edwards has a point:

Edwards is correct, there are two Americas and there are many ways to show it. Poverty is on the rise, fewer people have health care. Stretching income to cover basic costs is more difficult. A recent Businessweek.com article labeled shoppers as "Moneyed vs. Worried." August retail sales showed that discount stores like Wal-Mart, Costco, and Target fell below analysts' forecasts. Some blamed hurricane season, gas prices or the late start of back-to-school shopping. However, the same factors did not impede retail sales at high-end stores. "Wealthy Americans seem unshaken by current economic uncertainties and are still spending their money freely, while consumers in lower income brackets are feeling less secure," Businessweek concluded.

As with most commenters on the left, Vennochi strips the context from these statistics in order to invoke the class warfare canard. The inferrence in the above paragraph is the policies of the Bush administration have driven more into poverty and helped the wealthy. As usual what is left out of the discussion is the fact that the Bush administration inherited a recession, 9/11 happened which further impacted the economy and we went to war against terror. All three events would indeed cause results that would impact poverty and income statistics.

Also left unsaid is the rapidity of the recovery given the recession, 9/11 and war, and the fact that the economy is now adding jobs at a decent level and economic growth is approaching record levels. Unemployment is below the level which Democrats crowed about during Bill Clinton's 1996 campaign.

Perhaps that is why, given the growth which is now becoming more and more obvious to Americans, plus the fact that in general the economic picture is more upbeat than it has been, that the "Two Americas" class warfare speech is no longer resonating like it did previously. It may also be because the "Two Americas" speech was a targeted speech, meant to sway primary voters already committed to the Democrats. It apparently isn't as powerful among the center or right.

Which leaves the Democrats with this:

Everyone knew that Edwards brought good looks and charisma to the Democratic ticket.

And in the absense of a message that's all he has to offer. As the economy continues to grow and marginalize his message, he hasn't much left. His record of one term leaves him little to fall back on. His experience is minimal and it stands to reason that an old and savvy political warrior like Dick Cheney would have his way with a relative neophyte in the hard-ball arena of national politics.

Why Joan Vennochi finds this surprising is beyond me.

While few vote for a president because of his VP (or VP candidate), they may indeed vote against a presidential ticket, (all things being fairly equal) because they're reluctant to put the VP candidate a heart-beat away from it all. Kerry once quipped that the Secret Service had standing orders to shoot Dan Quayle if anything ever happened to Bush 41.

A Kerry presidency might see those mythical orders revisited.

That's gonna leave a mark

Unkindnesses have been done. Let's document them!

* Lyndon LaRouche is as weird as ever, isn't he?. An article descibes the candidate thusly....

Franklin D. Roosevelt knew about the impending Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and "allowed that to happen." [The candidate] says he's fairly certain that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't operating as a lone gunman. And he doesn't know what really happened in Oklahoma City, but he's happy to imply that someone planted four bombs inside the Murrah building. "The official federal reports just don't seem quite right to me," he says.

[The candidate] is one of those committed to the mean-spirited notion that it wasn't Osama bin Laden and friends who murdered 3,000 people on Sept. 11, 2001. It was interventionist American foreign policy. And to demonstrate just how crass a conspiracy theorist can be, [he] used Sept. 11 as an opportunity to milk for campaign contributions: He sought donations yesterday ranging from $9.11 to $1,909.11.

Well. While Lyndon LaRouche is still as weird as ever, that wasn't actually about him. That is how columnist Doug MacEachern described a meeting with Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik.

Looks like the John Birch Society has their Manchurian Candidate.

Those of you who know ideological Libertarians will appreciate this.....

As a rule, lower-case libertarians prefer their important government business to be performed no higher than the state level. And the less involved Washington, D.C., is in their lives, the better. They tend to be far less judgmental about other people's lives than social conservatives.

Or, at least, they try to be. Libertarian Party members, on the other hand, often have a certain off-the-charts obsessive-compulsiveness regarding their issues. By way of example, I give you Ernie Hancock, a former candidate for a host of Arizona offices who can throw a demand for unobstructed Second Amendment rights into a discussion of mozzarella cheese.

________________________________________________________________

* Zell Miller fights back, responding to his critics in the Opinion Journal. While I still think little of his speech, he does manage to put some of his critics in their place. At the end, though, there is one of the most pithy, yet brutal, responses I've had the pleasure to see. And it is delivered to a man who richly deserves it.

But for David Gergen and this newspaper's Al Hunt, among others, to call me a racist was especially hurtful. For they know better. They know I worked for three governors in a row, not just one: Carl Sanders, Lester Maddox and Jimmy Carter. They knew I was the first governor to try to remove the Confederate emblem from the Georgia flag. And by the way, when I called each of Georgia's former governors to tell them what I was about to attempt, Jimmy Carter's first question to me was, "What are you doing that for?" Mr. Gergen and Mr. Hunt also know I appointed the only African-American attorney general in the country in the 1990s and more African Americans to the state judiciary than all the other governors of Georgia combined, including that one from Plains.

Ouch.

Want to forge your own memos?

Go to Ebay where a fine 1961 vintage IBM Selectric 72 is up for auction.

The title of the auction?

"RARE 1961 IBM 72 SELECTRIC TYPEWRITER GREAT FOR FORGING.
CREATE YOUR FORGED DOCUMENTS RIGHT THE 1ST TIME - CBS"

Of course.

And take heed:

This auction is for a vintage IBM Selectric 72 typewriter. This is one of the early Selectrics produced in the early 1960s, a Model 7X. Now you can create those forged documents right the very first time. We will ship at no charge for Buy It Now buyers.

Yes, this is the one CBS should have used to forge there documents. So to give your forged documents that original look use the original equipment. All you need is some old typing paper to give your forged documents that unique original professional look!

Ah America, where satire and disrespect collaborate to make a buck and a political statement.

Gotta love it.

Wonder if we ought to send Dan a memo?

Better late than never

The old media, like a shark pack smelling the blood of one of its own, finally turns on CBS and begins ripping it to shreds.

The Washington Post has a story out which destroys the "document expert" claim of Rather and CBS:

The lead expert retained by CBS News to examine disputed memos from President Bush's former squadron commander in the National Guard said yesterday that he examined only the late officer's signature and made no attempt to authenticate the documents themselves.

"There's no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them," Marcel Matley said in a telephone interview from San Francisco. The main reason, he said, is that they are "copies" that are "far removed" from the originals.

Bloggers knew this last Friday. WaPo further reports:

A detailed comparison by The Washington Post of memos obtained by CBS News with authenticated documents on Bush's National Guard service reveals dozens of inconsistencies, ranging from conflicting military terminology to different word-processing techniques.

The analysis shows that half a dozen Killian memos released earlier by the military were written with a standard typewriter using different formatting techniques from those characteristic of computer-generated documents. CBS's Killian memos bear numerous signs that are more consistent with modern-day word-processing programs, particularly Microsoft Word.

The beginning of a feeding frenzy? Oh yeah ...

"I am personally 100 percent sure that they are fake," said Joseph M. Newcomer, author of several books on Windows programming, who worked on electronic typesetting techniques in the early 1970s. Newcomer said he had produced virtually exact replicas of the CBS documents using Microsoft Word formatting and the Times New Roman font.

Newcomer drew an analogy with an art expert trying to determine whether a painting of unknown provenance was painted by Leonardo Da Vinci. "If I was looking for a Da Vinci, I would look for characteristic brush strokes," he said. "If I found something that was painted with a modern synthetic brush, I would know that I have a forgery."

We, among others, reported Dr. Newcomer's findings over the weekend.

The conventional wisdom is so convinced now that the memos are forgeries that politically, its even safe for the First Lady to take a shot at them:

Meanwhile, Laura Bush became the first person from the White House to say the documents are likely forgeries. "You know they are probably altered," she told Radio Iowa in Des Moines yesterday. "And they probably are forgeries, and I think that's terrible, really."

The documents have apparently been in CBS's possession for over a month. And CBS still declines to reveal their source:

Citing confidentiality issues, CBS News has declined to reveal the source of the disputed documents -- which have been in the network's possession for more than a month -- or to explain how they came to light after more than three decades. Yesterday, USA Today said that it had independently obtained copies of the documents "from a person with knowledge of Texas Air National Guard operations" who declined to be named "for fear of retaliation."

That says to me its most likely not this Bill Burkett fellow because he's already gone public in the past. Who, then, remains a mystery.

WaPo then describes its detailed examination of the documents and their findings:

A detailed examination of the CBS documents beside authenticated Killian memos and other documents generated by Bush's 147th Fighter Interceptor Group suggests at least three areas of difference that are difficult to reconcile:

• Word-processing techniques. Of more than 100 records made available by the 147th Group and the Texas Air National Guard, none used the proportional spacing techniques characteristic of the CBS documents. Nor did they use a superscripted "th" in expressions such as "147th Group" and or "111th Fighter Intercept Squadron."

In a CBS News broadcast Friday night rebutting allegations that the documents had been forged, Rather displayed an authenticated Bush document from 1968 that included a small "th" next to the numbers "111" as proof that Guard typewriters were capable of producing superscripts. In fact, say Newcomer and other experts, the document aired by CBS News does not contain a superscript, because the top of the "th" character is at the same level as the rest of the type. Superscripts rise above the level of the type.

• Factual problems. A CBS document purportedly from Killian ordering Bush to report for his annual physical, dated May 4, 1972, gives Bush's address as "5000 Longmont #8, Houston." This address was used for many years by Bush's father, George H.W. Bush. National Guard documents suggest that the younger Bush stopped using that address in 1970 when he moved into an apartment, and did not use it again until late 1973 or 1974, when he moved to Cambridge, Mass., to attend Harvard Business School.

One CBS memo cites pressure allegedly being put on Killian by "Staudt," a reference to Col. Walter B. "Buck" Staudt, one of Bush's early commanders. But the memo is dated Aug. 18, 1973, nearly a year and a half after Staudt retired from the Guard. Questioned about the discrepancy over the weekend, CBS officials said that Staudt was a "mythic figure" in the Guard who exercised influence from behind the scenes even after his retirement.

• Stylistic differences. To outsiders, how an officer wrote his name and rank or referred to his military unit may seem arcane and unimportant. Within the military, however, such details are regulated by rules and tradition, and can be of great significance. The CBS memos contain several stylistic examples at odds with standard Guard procedures, as reflected in authenticated documents.

In memos previously released by the Pentagon or the White House, Killian signed his rank "Lt Col" or "Lt Colonel, TexANG," in a single line after his name without periods. In the CBS memos, the "Lt Colonel" is on the next line, sometimes with a period but without the customary reference to TexANG, for Texas Air National Guard.

An ex-Guard commander, retired Col. Bobby W. Hodges, who CBS originally cited as a key source in authenticating its documents, pointed to discrepancies in military abbreviations as evidence that the CBS memos are forgeries. The Guard, he said, never used the abbreviation "grp" for "group" or "OETR" for an officer evaluation review, as in the CBS documents. The correct terminology, he said, is "gp" and "OER."

Again the vast majority of these plus many more have been available among blogs for days.

CBS had produced an "expert" who claimed the memos could have been produced on an IBM electronic typewriter, but an expert contacted by WaPo claimed that was not true.

In its broadcast last night, CBS News produced a new expert, Bill Glennon, an information technology consultant. He said that IBM electric typewriters in use in 1972 could produce superscripts and proportional spacing similar to those used in the disputed documents.

Any argument to the contrary is "an out-and-out lie," Glennon said in a telephone interview. But Glennon said he is not a document expert, could not vouch for the memos' authenticity and only examined them online because CBS did not give him copies when asked to visit the network's offices.

Thomas Phinney, program manager for fonts for the Adobe company in Seattle, which helped to develop the modern Times New Roman font, disputed Glennon's statement to CBS. He said "fairly extensive testing" had convinced him that the fonts and formatting used in the CBS documents could not have been produced by the most sophisticated IBM typewriters in use in 1972, including the Selectric and the Executive. He said the two systems used fonts of different widths.

The CBS "expert" , after a pretty strong initial statement, seemed to back down in the face of Phinney's findings.

The rest of the article again mentions Matley's denial that he was an expert in formating or fonts, CBS's spokesperson claiming all of this was inconclusive and the usual spin from all sides.

All I'd like to do is welcome the old media to the party ... a party that's been going on for days.

Where have you guys been?

Vets Protest against kerry

This weekend (Sep 12) veterans against John Kerry held a "Kerry lied while good men died" rally in Washington DC.

Public Enquiry Project has a multipart still developing story about the event if you're interested. You can read part 1 here and part 2 here.

Iraq war has cost 200 billion and counting?

Well not quite. In fact, per FactCheck.org, not even close at this time.

Kerry and the DNC are running ads which claim the war in Iraq is at "200 Billion" in cost and 'counting'. Kerry also mentioned it 14 times in a stump speech.

FactCheck.org quotes the Office of Management and Budget which puts the cost at 120 billion thus far. FactCheck.org notes:

One liberal group, the Center for American Progress (CAP), comes up with a higher figure in an August 25 report: "so far, the war has cost the United States $144.4 billion." But that figure is produced by simply padding the OMB's $119 billion figure with $25 billion approved by Congress as an "emergency appropriation" signed into law by Bush on Aug. 5.

But what the Kerry campaign and the DNC do is further pad the CAP's numbers:

Nevertheless, Kerry further pads the $144 billion figure by adding another $60 billion that his campaign says the Bush administration is expected to ask for after the election, as a supplemental appropriation. It is true that the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that an additional $56 billion will be required next fiscal year. But that's money that won't be spent until next year, and even then it's padded with more than $9 billion that doesn't actually apply to Iraq.

So Kerry's "$200 billion and counting" includes:

119 billion actually spent

25 billion emergency appropriation

60 billion in assumed spending

9 billion that doesn't apply to Iraq

Some creative accounting there boys.

While the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) does say about 56 billion will be spent next year, its figures are based on the war on terror as a whole not just the part of it which is Iraq:

CBO's estimate covers next-year money for Iraq and Afghanistan and what CBO calls the "global war on terrorism," including added costs of keeping combat air patrols over major US cities. It includes $5 billion for "Operation Enduring Freedom" in Afghanistan, $4 billion for "Operation Noble Eagle" (the Pentagon's domestic anti-terrorism operations) and $13 billion in an "undistributed" category that includes such things as mobilized reservists stationed in the United States who are supporting both Iraq and Afghanistan operations, and the cost to maintain active-duty forces above authorized levels.

Not quite the same as 60 billion they've assumed will be spent only in and on Iraq.

119 billion is obviously nothing to sneeze at ... but its not "200 billion and counting" by any stretch. And while the war in Iraq may indeed cost 200 billion or more, its not there yet and the Democrats should quit saying it is.

"60 Minutes" track record isn't that hot

Yeah, yeah, I know I keep dwelling on aspects of Ra^thergate but I heard the inteview with this insufferable twit, Klein. A more classic example of the arrogance of the old media would be hard to find:

A watershed media moment occurred Friday on Fox News Channel, when Jonathan Klein, a former executive vice president of CBS News who oversaw "60 Minutes," debated Stephen Hayes, a writer for The Weekly Standard, on the documents CBS used to raise questions about George W. Bush's Vietnam-era National Guard service.

Mr. Klein dismissed the bloggers who are raising questions about the authenticity of the memos: "You couldn't have a starker contrast between the multiple layers of check and balances [at '60 Minutes'] and a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas writing."

He will regret that snide disparagement of the bloggers, many of whom are skilled lawyers or have backgrounds in military intelligence or typeface design. A growing number of design and document experts say they are certain or almost certain the memos on which CBS relied are forgeries.

Mr. Klein didn't directly address the mounting objections to CBS's story. He fell back on what high school debaters call the appeal to authority, implying that the reputation of "60 Minutes" should be enough to dissolve doubts without the network sharing its methods with other journalists and experts. He told Fox's Tony Snow that the "60 Minutes" team is "the most careful news organization, certainly on television." He said that Mary Mapes, the producer of the story, was "a crack journalist" who had broken the Abu Ghraib prison abuse story.

Of course Klein never mentioned that the "most careful news organization, certainly on television" had been duped by forged documents before:

"60 Minutes" may have a sterling reputation in journalism, but it has been burned before by forged documents. In 1997 it broadcast a report alleging that U.S. Customs Service inspectors looked the other way as drugs crossed the Mexican border at San Diego. The story's prize exhibit was a memo from Rudy Comacho, head of the San Diego customs office, ordering that vehicles belonging to one trucking company should be given special leniency in crossing the border. The memo was given to "60 Minutes" by Mike Horner, a former customs inspector who had left the service five years earlier. When asked by CBS for additional proof, he sent another copy with an official stamp on it.

CBS did not interview Mr. Camacho for its story. "It was horrible for him," says Bill Anthony, at the time head of public affairs for the Customs Service. "For 18 months, internal affairs and the Secret Service had him under a cloud while they established that Horner had forged the document out of bitterness over how he'd been treated." In 2000, Mr. Horner admitted he forged the memo "for media exposure" and was sentenced to 10 months in federal prison. "Mr. Camacho's reputation was tarnished significantly," Judge Judith Keep noted.

Mr. Camacho sued CBS and eventually settled for an undisclosed sum. In 1999 Leslie Stahl read an apology on the air: "We have concluded we were deceived, and ultimately, so were you, the viewers."

Nor is it like "60 Minutes" has only made that one "mistake" in the past. As Walter Olson reminds us in a 1993 National Review article, "60 Minutes" has pulled some stinkers over the years:

In December 1980, 60 Minutes reported that the small army-style "CJ" Jeep was dangerously apt to roll over--not only in emergencies but "even in routine road circumstances at relatively low speeds." A Jeep is shown crashing. "We'll get to precisely what the conditions were that made that single-car accident happen in a moment," promises Morley Safer.

"60 minutes" conclusion: The CJ was just too dangerous to drive. But what "60 Minutes" didn't tell anyone was the following:

Viewers might have profited by knowing, for example, that testers had to put the Jeeps through 435 runs to get 8 rollovers. A single vehicle was put through 201 runs and accounted for 4 of the rollovers. Make a car skid repeatedly, Chrysler says, and you predictably degrade tire tread and other key safety margins.

"60 Minutes" made the conclusion fit the story.

Then there was the truck tire story the next year on "60 Minutes"

Consider the Emmy-winning 60 Minutes segment in March 1981 revealing how the most common type of tire rim used on heavy trucks can fly off, killing or maiming tire mechanics and other bystanders. Again CBS relied on film from the Insurance Institute, this time showing an exploding rim shredding two luckless dummies, an adult and a child. Such footage, said Mike Wallace, "shows graphically what can happen when a wheel rim explodes." Insurance Institute spokesman Ben Kelley (who had also appeared on the Jeep segment) explains that a truck tire is under enormous pressure. "And if that metal, for any reason, dislodges, it fires off like a shell out of a cannon."

But again, there was a "rest of the story" which the "60 Minutes" viewers were never privy too:

Again, 60 Minutes did not see fit to tell viewers exactly why the metal happened to dislodge in the film clip. It turned out that, according to the Insurance Institute, the rims had been "modified" to get them to explode for the demonstration.

Well, actually, the rims' locking mechanism had been deliberately shaved off for the test. Under questioning in a later deposition, an Insurance Institute employee acknowledged that the testers had to go back and shave off more and more of the metal in stages before finally getting off enough of it--an estimated 70 percent-that the rims would explode.

Of course we all know if you change a design by removing 70% of it, there's a huge possiblity that it will fail.

Then of course there's the Audi 5000 "sudden acceleration" story carried in 1986 on "60 Minutes":

The Audi, it seemed, was a car possessed by demons. It would back into garages, dart into swimming pools, plow into bank teller lines, everything but fly on broomsticks, all while its hapless drivers were standing on the brake -- or at least so they said.

"Sudden acceleration" had been alleged in many makes of car other than the Audi, and from the start many automotive observers were inclined to view it skeptically. A working set of brakes, they pointed out, can easily overpower any car's accelerator, even one stuck at full throttle. After accidents of this sort, the brakes were always found to be working fine. Such mishaps happened most often when the car was taking off from rest, and they happened disproportionately to short or elderly drivers who were novices to the Audi.

So naturally "60 Minutes" set out to investigate as it wasn't buying into it being the fault of drivers. The assumed conclusion was it had to do with a design flaw.

It found, and interviewed on camera, some experienced drivers who reported the problem. And it showed a filmed demonstration of how an Audi, as fixed up by, yes, an expert witness testifying against the carmaker, could take off from rest at mounting speed. The expert, William Rosenbluth, was quoted as saying that "unusually high transmission pressure" could build up and cause problems. "Again, watch the pedal go down by itself," said Ed Bradley.

All by itself? I mean there it is on camera, no?

Well yes, but no.

Bradley did not, however, tell viewers why that remarkable thing was happening. As Audi lawyers finally managed to establish, Rosenbluth had drilled a hole in the poor car's transmission and attached a hose leading to a tank of compressed air or fluid.

The tank with its attached hose was apparently sitting right on the front passenger seat of the doctored Audi, but the 60 Minutes cameras managed not to pick it up. It might have been for the same reason the Jeep weights were tucked away in the wheel wells, rather than being placed visibly on top.

Freakin' incredible.

So next time you see that arrogant and sneering excuse for a former executive vice president at CBS remind him his panties aren't at all as clean as he'd like to pretend and that his system of checks and balances obviously didn't work in the past. Also remind the twit that we guys (and gals) in pajamas in our living rooms aren't buying into his spin and nonsense.

Now excuse me, my wife wants the CJ so I'm going to have to go to the store in the Audi 5000.

UPDATE (JON): One thing that Klein said really jumped out at me.

"“You couldn’t have a starker contrast between the multiple layers of checks and balances and a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas.”."

Well, I guess that is a pretty stark contrast. Of course, the picture changes just a bit if the major media reporter is, say, sitting in his living room doing cocaine, and the blogger has an editorial staff of thousands.

I'm just sayin'.

Canadian Paper touts bloggers

Arthur Weinreb of the Canada Free Press finds the AP "booing" story of interest.

If you're not familiar with it, the AP originally reported that Pres. Bush, while at a campaign rally, announced that ex-Pres. Clinton would be undergoing by-pass heart surgery and the partisan Republican crowd booed. The story was false and AP had to retract it mostly because the blogosphere wouldn't let it die.

Weinreb's message? About the same as we've told concerning the CBS Rathergate fiaso.

Bloggers are out there and they're watching.

Without comment or explanation, AP changed the story that it ran later in the day. In the second version, AP changed the reaction of the Bush’s audience to read, "[T]he crowd reacted with applause and some "ooohs" apparently surprised by the news that Clinton was ill".

The next morning, AP issued a retraction that said "This is a correction to an incorrect story posted by AP on Friday stating the crowd booed the President when he sent his good wishes. The crowd, in fact, did NOT boo."

The reporter, that Associated Press refuses to identify, no doubt heard what he wanted to hear--a Republican crowd booing Bill Clinton who had been hospitalized with a serious medical condition and more importantly, George W. Bush saying or doing nothing about the audience’s negative reaction. This is the only plausible explanation for the mistake other than a complete fabrication of the audience’s reaction.

What helped force Associated Press to send out the corrected story plus the retraction the next day was the power of the Internet. Immediately after the news hit the wire services, blogs were filled with the correct version of the reaction to Bush’s announcement in West Allis and allegations of media bias on the part of AP. As well as making the blog sites, the wire service’s error was reported on news sites such as Newsmax.com.

AP’s erroneous story plus quick correction, followed by a retraction is a good illustration of how the mainstream left-wing media can be held accountable for inaccuracies and bias through the medium of Internet sites.

I'd only add that the same applies left-wing bloogers and right-wing nonsense.

Crank or whistle-blower?

Newsweek has identified the CBS source of the memos as one Bill Burkett, an former Guard officer who claimed, some years ago, that he'd witnessed a "sanitization" of George Bush's Guard records. The two individuals he claimed were present and did the sanitzing said his story was 'absolute garbage'.

Where did the documents come from? CBS won't say. But the trail pieced together by NEWSWEEK shows that in a sulfurous season like this one, the difference between obscurity and power is small, and anyone can get a hearing. A principal source for CBS's story was Bill Burkett, a disgruntled former Guard officer who lives in Baird, Texas, who says he was present at Guard headquarters in Austin in 1997, when a top aide to the then Governor Bush ordered records sanitized to protect the Boss. Other Guard officials disputed Burkett's account, and the Bush aide involved, Joe Allbaugh, called it "absolute garbage." Burkett may have a motive to make trouble for the powers that be. In 1998, he grew gravely ill on a Guard mission to Panama, causing him to be hospitalized, and he suffered two nervous breakdowns. He unsuccessfully sued for medical expenses.

Still, in theory, Burkett may have had access to any Guard records that, in a friend's words, "didn't make it to the shredder." Fellow officers say he wasn't a crank, but rather a stickler for proper procedure—a classic whistle-blower type. Burkett was impressive enough to cause CBS producer Mary Mapes to fly to Texas to interview him. "There are only a couple of guys I would trust to be as perfectly honest and upfront as Bill," says Dennis Adams, a former Guard colleague. The White House, through Communications Director Dan Bartlett, called Burkett a "discredited source." Indeed, Bush strategists are convinced—or have convinced themselves—that the issue will backfire on its purveyors.

The "theory" put forth here is they destroyed any records that would have refelcted poorly on W. Well, except those memos from Killian to Killian. Memos which non-typing Killian conveniently put together with future technology so they'd be easily readable by CBS.

"Fellow officers say he wasn't a crank, but rather a stickler for proper procedure—a classic whistle-blower type."

A fellow who'd seen his "whistle" discredited these many years and who harbored resentment because of that. A fellow who wanted badly to get back at those who dismissed his allegations. A fellow so much a stickler for proper procedure that he fabricated 6 memos on technology that was non-existent in 1973 and referenced officers who were no longer serving in the TANG.

In other words, a "crank".

"Is there any betrayal that we wouldn't support?"

At The New Republic, an article about Bush that should ring the bells of real conservatives and libertarians. The scene: convention week, a Club For Growth panel meeting of supply-siders, going on about the Bush tax cuts as Supply-siders tend to do....

But, as the session ground to a close, it took an unexpectedly dour
turn. A senior from Fordham University wearing an untucked white shirt
stood to challenge the panel. "Bush spends like Carter and panders like
Clinton. It feels like we've had the third term of a Clinton
presidency," he said, decrying the dramatic growth of government on the
president's watch. "Is there any betrayal that we wouldn't support?"
With so many party loyalists in the room, you might have expected such
comments to elicit boos. Instead, there was scattered applause. One man
shouted, "Yes!" Stephen Moore, the president of the Club for Growth and
the morning's moderator, solemnly turned to the speakers. "Why don't we
address this? It's a serious question."

It wasn't just a stray moment of discontent. For all the encomiums GOP
speakers have been showering on George W. Bush from the podium at
Madison Square Garden, conservatives--especially conservative
intellectuals--have a far less rosy view of the president. Last month,
Andrew Ferguson wrote in The Weekly Standard, "[W]e'll let slip a thinly
disguised secret--Republicans are supporting a candidate that relatively
few of them find personally or politically appealing." Or, as
conservative columnist Bruce Bartlett told me, "People are careful about
how they say it and to who they say it, but, if you're together with
more than a couple of conservatives, the issue of would we be better or
worse off with Kerry comes up--and it's seriously discussed."

I'll let you in on another secret. Senator Kerry isn't the only candidate in this race who a large section of his own party would be happy to replace.

While bloggers like to say that Kerry is the "Anybody But Bush" candidate, I'd argue that Bush is--for conservatives and libertarians, anyway--the "Anybody but a Democrat" candidate.

Conservative criticism of Bush falls into several categories, the most significant of which concerns the president's economic policies. "There's a sense that he is not a real Ronald Reagan anti-government
conservative," says Moore, who, with Bartlett, is one of Bush's loudest
economic critics. Granted, when conservatives signed up for Bush's 2000
campaign and its "compassionate" agenda, they understood that their man
wasn't going to eviscerate the welfare state. (After the Newt Gingrich
debacle, most Republicans conceded that they couldn't sell raw
anti-statist ideology in a national election.) But they didn't expect so
many flat-out betrayals: tariffs on steel and lumber, federal
regulations on corporate accounting, the creation of a new Cabinet
department (Homeland Security) and no elimination of existing ones, and
a failure to veto any of Congress's deficit-ballooning spending bills.
Last year, National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru wrote, "More people are
working for the federal government than at any point since the end of
the Cold War. Spending has been growing faster than it did under
Clinton." At the convention, I kept hearing economic conservatives
denouncing a line in the party platform extolling a boost in education
spending. "Weren't we supposed to be against that?" kvetched one.

A second set of complaints has to do with the war. Some conservatives,
such as Pat Buchanan and his fellow isolationists at The American
Conservative, opposed it from the start. Their arguments, however, never
gained much traction in the conservative mainstream. With the
administration's failure to extinguish the Iraqi insurgency, however,
that has begun to change. A growing camp, including pundits George F.
Will and Tucker Carlson, have joined the antiwar right. Their conversion
can be traced to the failure to find weapons of mass destruction. But
they have also bluntly expressed qualms about the administration's goal
of planting democracy in the Middle East, a goal they say disregards
conservatism's traditional skepticism about government's ability to
transform culture.
[...]
In recent months, these complaints have metastasized into an extremely
dim view of Bush the man and his management style. Conservative critics
accuse him of harboring an unhealthy obsession with electoral
considerations. Moore says, "Bush and [Karl] Rove are very political.
Bush throws a big sop to the left and then does something for the right.
They'd sell out to the left on education and then play hardball on the
tax bill." And what makes Bush's concessions to the left even more
irksome is that they have yielded so few political benefits. None of his
so-called "big-government" initiatives--from campaign finance reform to
the prescription-drug benefit to No Child Left Behind--have
significantly tilted poll numbers in the Republican direction. Ponnuru
wrote in National Review last spring, "As they survey the public
reaction, many congressmen who voted for the education and Medicare
bills are regretting their votes. Nobody who voted against them regrets
his. The reforms have lost Bush conservative support without gaining him
compensatory support from the center."

Indeed, beyond his hawkish approach to the war on terror, I simply cannot think of much that I like about Bush. And even his approach to the war on terror suffers from frequently poor implementation, and even poorer rhetoric. (though, with Bush as the candidate, I suppose the latter might be a bit unavoidable)

And yet, John Kerry is worse in every way. And the Libertarian candidate is even stranger than usual.

Even with a successful conclusion to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, I cannot see Bush going down in history as a successful President. Some aspects of his term--the economy, for instance--may be largely beyond his control. Other aspects--the war on terror--have yet to be determined.

But, those objections aside, who will lionize George W Bush? Between the rampant government spending, trade restrictions, social conservatism, multiple on-going wars, and dramatic expansion of regulation [under reader advisement, I'm eliminating this aspect] pretty much every other part of Federal government.....

...is there some massive niche of voters who will praise this one day? A previously undefined "Big Government/Social Conservative/Protectionist/Interventionist"? Does this voter exist anywhere but the head of Karl Rove?

I doubt it. And, while I may be wrong, I think it's exactly this lack of positive features that will suppress the Republican vote in this election. The Democrats are energized. Not by their own Qualude of a candidate, perhaps, but at least they have somebody to vote against.

By what are the Republicans motivated? I'm not so sure that the distance between Kerry and Bush on the war (BUSH: "I'll Finish it" - KERRY: "Me too, but differently") is enough to scare the GOP voters into action.

UPDATE: Secure Liberty and Brain Fertilizer weigh in on the topic, both in some degree of disagreement. Some good points...

Secure Liberty:

However, aside from the war on terror, there a few other positives for the President. Judges. I wish he would fight for them a little harder, but I like the nominations. There's a good chance that the Republicans can pick up a few seats in the Senate and defeat the Democrat's filibuster. Given that the liberal plan is to erode our Constitutional Republic by judicial fiat, NOTHING is more vital. If Bush wins, and the GOP picks up a couple of seats, look for a few retirements from the Supreme Court.

I think he has a good point about Supreme Court judges. Clearly--from a conservative/libertarian POV--Bush would appoint superior judges. I suspect there are a couple pending retirements just waiting for a Democratic Presidential administration.

Brain Fertilizer:

There will be a fight in the Republican tent very soon, just after the Democrats implode. The thing I like about it is that with the rise of the internet, there will be much more debate going from the grassroots upward, rather than direction and "take it or leave it" coming from the top down. It can't help but improve our two-party system immensely.

I have no idea what impact the rise of the citizen journalist (among other things, the blogosphere) will have, but I certainly agree with Nathan that it will exacerbate the conflict within the party. And, based on the predominance of libertarian thought in the 'sphere, I think that's a pretty good thing.

Democrats ignore "first law of holes"...

... when you're in one quit digging.

Fresh off the Kerry Vietnam quagmire and the CBS memo debacle, the DNC, figuring the third time must be a charm, has decided to further push the Bush AWOL meme in fresh attacks. Per Drudge:

Faster than a CBS eye can blink, dogged Dems are set to take to the airwaves anew hoping to keep questions about President Bush's National Guard duty in play, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

Candidate Kerry apparently has rejected former President Clinton's advice not to get further locked in a 2004 Vietnam quagmire.

"George W. Bush's campaign literature claimed that he 'served in the U.S. Air Force.' The only problem? He didn't," slams a new DNC press release set for distribution.

Hey Bill, have a Big Mac and shut up.

Instead of heeding Clinton's advice to pick an issue or two and stick with it and stay on message, the DNC, and one presumes, the Kerry campaign, have decided that they have to do to Bush's service what the Swift Boat Vets did to Kerry's.

Unfortunately they are missing two very key points.

1) This is old news. Regardless of the truth of the matter, those that believe Bush received preferential treatment to get in the guard to avoid Vietnam and then went "AWOL" already believe that. Those that don't aren't going to be convinced, especially by the lame stuff the DNC and CBS is running out there.

2) Unlike Kerry, the electorate has 4 years of George W Bush as president to judge which makes his service 30 years ago irrelevant. Kerry, on the other hand, can't point to any leadership of consequence over the last 30 years and thus has chosen to run on his record of 30+ years ago.

The DNC just doesn't understand this point. As Pat Caudell said, and I paraphrase "if they stay in Vietnam, they're dead". Caudell is a well known Democrat consultant.

Bush "wasn't in the Airforce?"

My guess is, and I don't have the time to dig it up, but other bloggers will, that when he went to flight school he was federalized and put under Air Force orders for those two years. Most likely it was a requirement. That would certainly qualify for having served "in the Air Force". Additionally ANG assets are considered to be reserve assets of, you guessed it, the Air Force. So if you're flying Air Force assigned air defense missions as an interceptor pilot, even as a part of the TANG, you are probably all right if you claim to have served in the Air Force. Any claim to the contrary might be seen as silly and stupid. But then we're talking about the DNC here.

Apparently Terry McAulliff and the Kerry Campaign feel Caudell and Clinton are full of beans.

I happen to think they're dead on. Watch the poll numbers for confirmation.

Quarterly Services Survey

With typewriters and physical examinations from 1972 dominating the headlines, some other important news has been unfortunately neglected. As I noted last week the Census Department has released "first new economic indicator from the Census Bureau since the 1960s". [first announced Wednesday, Sept 8th]

You may recall that the Daily Mislead hysterically called the forthcoming indicator "the latest in a series of actions by the White House to doctor or eliminate longstanding and nonpartisan economic data collection methods."

Well, it's called the "Quarterly Services Survey (QSS)", and it measures the service sector industries, "which account for nearly 55 percent of the nation’s economic activity". It's hard to see why the Daily Mislead is opposed to a measurement of the Service Sector of our economy, but one suspects it may have more to do with partisanship than with data.

The very first release of the QSS happened this morning [Monday] at 10am. (the QSS homepage is here)

Revenues in three major U.S. services industries increased 5.4 percent from the first quarter to the second quarter to $598.1 billion, the Commerce Department estimated Monday.

Caveats: the data is not seasonally adjusted, and the survey only includes ~15% of the relevant industries, so far. (both of which will be corrected in coming years)

5+% growth quarter over quarter is quite good, but it should be noted that the previous quarter saw weak growth, or even decline, in many of those service sectors, so the expansion is not exactly occuring in a straight line.

To date, the Daily Mislead has not announced their specific objection to the Quarterly Services Survey. Nor do I imagine they will. After objecting to the Bush administration "eliminat[ing] longstanding and nonpartisan economic data collection methods", it's hard to see how they could advocate the, er, elimination of a new source of economic data.

A view from a Reader

I got a very interesting email from a reader concerning the CBS Ra^thergate memo flap and the reaction of the blogosphere.

Jim Johnson sat out there on the net and watched it all happen. He comes up with some interesting observations and some fairly pointed commentary which I wanted to reproduce in its entirety. I think he does some pretty good analysis:

In your post you refer to a "growing line of 'questionable journalism"." I think it is time to come to a real judgment about the competence of the MSM. There has been a never ending whine of the right about the "liberal bias" and lack of objectivity of the big media. The examples have been trotted out endlessly for years. The naive assumption of the right has always been that if a sufficient number of examples are pointed out that the left, in its desire to uncover truth, would say "O my gosh, you are correct, that wasn't fair."

One of many errors the right continually makes is to grant the inherent competence of its adversaries. The reason for this is that issues become resolvable if there is a shared paradigm of problem solving. This is laziness on the part of the right. It seems to be a quick clean path to resolution. If, however, you say the left doesn't "get it," and that there skill set is deficient one is open to the relativistic arguments that their world view is as valid as yours. This has been the fear of the right as long as I can remember.

There is a resolution though, and that is to be on the right side of what works in the world. It is the Left's biggest and most glaring deficiency. The fact is that the Left is not rigorous, logical, and consistent. Its analysts and commentators are second rate or worse by and large. Imagine James Carville teaching a class in logic. In the same way the media does not have competence in the way the world understands (or should) what competence is. They really don't "get it" or share the same reality. Standards of proof are substandard.

ASIDE: This leaves them open to manipulation by those who do have a clue. Clinton had a very good clue. My opinion is that Clinton is more naturally a conservative in his gestalt and could have been anything he wanted. Circumstances provided the path he took. He is, however, a pragmatist at heart. Triangulation was a strategy based on what works.

This is a rambling way of saying most journalists of the MSM really don't know what they are doing but are very good a spouting a vocabulary that makes them appear to know. They are very good at dissembling because their unconscious and continual covering of their lack of competence is perfect training in their political avocation.

On the other hand it makes the MSM sitting ducks for the Blogoshere because competence (in Bloggerland) is what separates the men from the boys whether in pajamas or not. The outcome of the battle with the MSM is a forgone conclusion. Either the MSM goes down in flames or real competence arises and takes it over. They currently cannot compete with the new medium. The inefficiency that has been revealed is the ability to get at the truth and the Blogosphere has revealed it brutally.

One of the things I've learned as I've gotten older is that many "experts" talk a good game but aren't as "expert" as they'd like us to believe. Some have become complacent in their celebrity, some have stopped developing their expertice in a changing field, and, as Jim points out some simply aren't as competent as they'd have you believe.

Jim's "aside" is very important in my estimation. I agree with his assessment of how Clinton understood and used the old media's incompetence. And we've all seen their glaring incompetence in all things military. The memos highlight this incompetence and demonstrate how very easily manipulated CBS was with rather crude and obvious forgeries. Crude and obvious to everyone but CBS.

And we have reports that CBS eshewed interviews with Killian's widow and son as well as Maj Rufus Martin, all people who would have shed a completely different light on the memos. They also decided they didn't want to talk to others who knew Bush, people suggested by Killian's son. He was told, when he suggested them, that they were to "Pro Bush". Their "expert" who was their "trump card" never saw the memos, but had them read to him. He denied their authenticity once he saw them. Their "document expert" only vetted the signature on one memo and has no expertice in document forensics itself. 11 independent document experts say they're forgeries.

But CBS "stands by its story".

All of this points to an agenda as well as a competence problem. It is very reminiscent of the "Tailwind" controversy at CNN where a blatantly false story was presented as fact, even though there were scores of witnesses and tremendous evidence available to discredit it. The net, in its infancy in this regard, was instrumental in discrediting this story. Although bloggers weren't in evidence per se, message boards and web sites carried the story, gathered the contrary evidence and kept it alive until the old media could no longer ignore it.

Both "Tailwind" and "Ra^thergate" point to another fault with the old media.

Pure and unadulterated arrogance.

They have, for so long, been the sole arbiters of what is and isn't news that they haven't yet recognized or accepted that that day is over. They have, for so long, been able to say "we stand by this story" and have that end the discussion that they are completly blindsided by the new media's ability to keep a story alive. As Jim points out, these things "make the MSM sitting ducks for the Blogoshere".

To everyone but those who desperately want the memos to be real, and CBS, they've been discredited. When you begin to see parody and satire based on the memos, you know that CBS's credibility has not only been questioned, but trashed.

You wonder how long they'll stand by "we stand by this story". You wonder how long they'll agree to suffer this tremendous blow to their credibility. You have to wonder if Dan Rather is worth that.

Quick Hits

Items:

* If you want bloggers to write about a column, write a column about bloggers. In between attempting to discredit the mainstream media, there's nothing we bloggers like more than....attention from the mainstream media.

Alert bloggers who knew the difference between the product of old typewriters and new word processors immediately suspected a hoax: the "documents" presented by CBS News suggesting preferential treatment in Lt. George W. Bush's National Guard service have all the earmarks of forgeries.

Huzzah! A shiny quarter to the first person who gets QandO mentioned in the pages of the New York Times, LA Times, USA Today or Washington Post.

Safire does make some good points here. In typical blogger fashion, I'm just going to skip straight to the relevant 'grafs....

The L.A. Times also checked out a handwriting analyst, Marcel Matley (of Vincent Foster suicide-note fame), who CBS had claimed vouched for the authenticity of four memos. It turns out he vouches for only one signature, and no scribbled initials, and has no opinion about the typography of any of the supposed memos.

The Dallas Morning News looked into the charge in one of the possible forgeries dated Aug. 18, 1973, that a commander of a Texas Air Guard squadron was trying to "sugar coat" Bush's service record. It found that the commander had retired from the Guard 18 months before that.
[...]
[The AP] consulted the document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines of Paradise Valley, Ariz., and reported "she could testify in court that, beyond a reasonable doubt, her opinion was that the memos were written on a computer."

Serious allegations, and serious problems with those allegations. And Safire--albeit with professional civility--opens unambiguous fire on Dan Rather...

The Washington Post reported Dan Rather's response to questions about the documents' authenticity: "Until someone shows me definitive proof that they are not, I don't see any reason to carry on a conversation with the professional rumor mill" and questioned the critics' "motivation."
[...]
To shut up sources and impugn the motives of serious critics - from opinionated bloggers to straight journalists - demeans the Murrow tradition. Nor is any angry demand that others prove them wrong acceptable, especially when no original documents are available to prove anything.
[...]
Hey, Dan: On this, recognize the preponderance of doubt. Call for a panel of old CBS hands and independent editors to re-examine sources and papers. Courage.

"Courage". The none-too-subtle message here is that the alternative to transparency in this case is cowardice.

Safire is right, I think. CBSNews is, after all, in the business of "journalism". News. Accuracy. (all snark aside, please; I'm not interested in debates about "liberal bias") At the end of the day, this is a classic debate. CBS has made an assertion, and it has been challenged. The ball is now in their court. They can either produce the evidence retract the story - back it up, or back off.

In the end, if these documents are legitimate, then an objective analysis by an expert panel can do nothing but confirm the documents accuracy, and CBS' reliability. If these documents are forgeries, then an objective analysis by an expert panel can do nothing but help CBS confirm the inaccuracy of those documents, though it would, perhaps, hurt CBS.

Why would a journalistic entity put anything above accuracy? And why would their reputation depend on not allowing an independent examination of their evidence?

"The story is true. The story is true" is not a credible defense. It is assertion, and should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

UPDATE: On the "write about bloggers, and bloggers will write about you" theme, everybody will be linking to this LA Times story. One part, in particular, stands out as utterly ridiculous....

Media experts said the role of the bloggers illustrated a significant development in the relationship between mainstream news and the still-nascent phenomenon of blogging.

This was the first time, some said, that the Web logs were engaging in their own form of investigative journalism — and readers, they warned, should be cautious.

Yes, readers should be cautious about anything they read on blogs. We are, after all, the internet equivalent of the op-ed pages of a newspaper.

But "the first time" that blogs have engaged in investigative journalism? Child, please. The blogosphere does that every day. Every. Damn. Day.

_________________________________________________

* Beldar Blog--one of the most important blogs on this CBS issue--is taking a look at the new USA Today documents, and the discrepancies between them and the CBS documents. Take a look.
_________________________________________________

* Patterico notes that the "Texans for Truth" spokesman, Bob Mintz, who claimed Bush was not in Alabama, because he hadn't seen him and "It would be impossible to be unseen in a unit of that size", has also said....

"I cannot say he was not there," Mintz said. "Absolutely positively was not there. I cannot say that. I cannot say he didn't do his duty."

...which seems, you know, relevant.
_________________________________________________

* A Powerline Reader makes a very good point....

What do Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed, Capt. George M. Elliott, and now Dr. Phillip Bouffard all have in common? They were all misquoted in the Boston Globe.

What's more, there seems to be a pattern. The Globe quotes, the source objects, the MSM refers to it as a "recantation," the Globe stands by its story and claims to be relying on what the source "originally said." We have an identical situation with Sharon Bush (Kitty Kelley) and a similar set of circumstances with Maj. Gen. Bobby Hodges (CBS).

"The story is true. The story is true." Maybe, if they keep saying it, people will believe it. That seems to be the going strategy.
_________________________________________________

And in non-CBS-related news. (yes, there is some)

* Take this with a grain of salt or three, as it's not being reported elsewhere, but the Washington Times has an interesting report [apparently corroborated by Senator Ted Stevens and Rep. Curt Wheldon] of French military support for Iraq that went on until just a few months before the war, violating a whole bevy of UN sanctions.

New intelligence revealing how long France continued to supply and arm Saddam Hussein's regime infuriated U.S. officials as the nation prepared for military action against Iraq.

The intelligence reports showing French assistance to Saddam ongoing in the late winter of 2002 helped explain why France refused to deal harshly with Iraq and blocked U.S. moves at the United Nations.
[...]
The State Department confirmed intelligence indicating the French had given support to Iraq's military.

"U.N. sanctions prohibit the transfer to Iraq of arms and materiel of all types, including military aircraft and spare parts," State Department spokeswoman Jo-Anne Prokopowicz said. "We take illicit transfers to Iraq very seriously and work closely with our allies to prevent Iraq from acquiring sensitive equipment."

Sen. Ted Stevens, Alaska Republican and chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, declared that France's selling of military equipment to Iraq was "international treason" as well as a violation of a U.N. resolution.

There's a great deal more, including details about illegal dual-use rocket propellants, instances of French weapons used against US troops, and blank French passports.
__________________________________________________

* What kind of idiot is running the Bush/Cheney campaign in Florida?

State law sets a Sept. 1 deadline for the governor to certify a list of presidential electors for each party's candidates.

But Sept. 1 was also the day President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were being nominated at their party' convention in New York. Consequently, some of their paperwork did not arrive at state elections headquarters until Sept. 2, a day after Gov. Jeb Bush certified the candidates for president.

Millions of dollars in advertising for the swing state of Florida, but they can't spring 100 bucks for a reliable courier to get the papers to the Florida Election Commission?
__________________________________________________

* Captain Ed notes two witnesses to Bush's Alabama service. Well, one witness to his presence at the base in Montgomery, and one witness to his absence from the Blount campaign on those weekends...

The Decatur Daily (Alabama) published an interview this morning with former Air Force Sgt. James Copeland, who insists that he saw George W. Bush doing his required drills at Dannelly Air National Guard Base in Montgomery, AL during the period CBS and Democrats claim he was AWOL:

Copeland, who lives in Hartselle, retired from the Air Force on Jan. 31, 1980. He was the disbursement accounting supervisor, a full-time position, for Dannelly Air National Guard Base in Montgomery from Oct. 28, 1971, to Oct. 27, 1975. His office was less than 100 yards from the hangar where Bush performed drills.

[...] And the Decatur Daily, in a demonstration of actual investigative journalism that the spoiled brats at CBS could only envy, actually looked around for witnesses at the Winton Blount campaign to see if Bush missed any campaign events because of his National Guard duties. Bingo!

Joe Holcombe, 71, of Joppa worked with Bush on the Blount campaign. He told THE DAILY last week that he remembers Bush missing at least one campaign meeting because of his National Guard drills.

Oops. Sorry, guys, but that's gonna leave a mark.

UPDATE: Anybody else see Matt Lauer's interview with Kitty Kelly? Brutal. There was a palpable sense of disgust from Matt Lauer, for Kitty Kelly. Good for him.

New expert calls memos "forgery"

Via BeldarBlog:

Quoting Dr. Joseph M. Newcomer, a PhD from Carnegie Mellon Univ. with 40 years in Computer Science to include vast experience in fonts, typefaces, etc:

... I am not a fan of George Bush. But I am even less a fan of attempts to commit fraud, and particularly by a complete and utter failure of those we entrust to ensure that if the news is at least accurate. I know it is asking far too much to expect the news to be unbiased. But the people involved should not actually lie to us, or promulgate lies created by hoaxers, through their own incompetence.

There has been a lot of activity on the Internet recently concerning the forged CBS documents. I do not even dignify this statement with the traditional weasel-word "alleged," because it takes approximately 30 seconds for anyone who is knowledgeable in the history of electronic document production to recognize this whole collection is certainly a forgery, and approximately five minutes to prove to anyone technically competent that the documents are a forgery.

I love it. He refuses to dignify the forgeries with "the traditional weasel-word 'alleged'."

Heh ... strong statement to follow.

You'll find Dr. Newcomer's destruction of CBS's memos here. Worth the read.

QandO: It's not just for blogging anymore

I'm very. very excited about the changes that are in the offing here at QandO. Let's just suffice it to say that soon, QandO will be much more than just a blog.

Yes, the blog will still be here, although it will have a new look, but it'll still be the same bloggy goodness that you've gotten used to.

But I really think you'll like what we are preparing to become.

Aren't you just dying for a hint?

Weekly QandO Roundup

In a week dominated by typewriters, documents, and Dan Rather, we have written other stuff. No, really. Pretty useful stuff, too.

So, here is a collection of links to, and excerpts from, our most relevant posts from the past week. [excepting our CBS-related posts] Look through the excerpts, and read the posts that interest you.
______________________________________________________________

* "The smell of panic is in the air" (McQ) - 5 reasons Kerry has been, and is, in trouble.

Any honest person would have to admit, an 11 to 13 point bounce probably did invoke a little panic over in Kerryland since everyone, and I mean everyone (well except me), was convinced there just weren't enough uncommitted voters to give anyone a bounce. Remember?

So what the hell happened?

Well first of all the pundits, pontificators and political experts were wrong. Like I've mentioned before, people really don't start paying attention until, well, right about now. And even now you're probably only talking 80 to 85% of those who'll vote. The other 15 - 20% will begin paying more attention around the time of the debates.

But clearly, if you consider the two latest polls from TIME and Newsweek, either something has happened or they're just now finally getting to see how this election is truely shaping up.

Either way, a bit of panic on the Kerry side may be warranted.

* Factchecking the NYT (Jon Henke) - In an editorial decrying the current "low level of debate" about the economy, the NYTimes editorial board takes the debate a bit lower.

One is a bit surprised that paragraph passed editorial scrutiny. How, I'd ask, can the economy simultaneously "barely...keep up with the number of people entering the work force" even as "the work force became smaller"?

Which is it? Is the work force increasing in size by something close to 144,000 per month, or is it becoming smaller?

Even aside from the cognitive dissonance such a contradiction must create, there are the simple facts, and they demand a correction from the New York Times, whether they want to argue the short view (we meant last month alone!) or the longer view (we meant the average growth in the work force!).

1. Last month: the labor force decreased in size last month by 152,000.
2. Average Civilian labor force growth since January, 2001: ~89,022

* I want you to get nasty (Dale Franks) - Dale delivers a righteous fisking to Joe Klein, who, apparently, "missed the whole Bush AWOL, fascist, liar, Hitler comparisons", because he seems to have placed John Kerry up there on a cross alone.

...I'd be perfectly happy for Mr. Kerry to transform himself into the fiery John Kerry of his VVAW days. I can't imagine a surer path to a Bush landslide than for Kerry to adopt that tactic. Let me join Mr. Klein in urging Mr. Kerry to do precisely that.

It seems to me that the Left has gotten increasingly tone deaf about what the average citizen is looking for. In the aftermath of the 2000 election, Democrats were moaning that the reason Al Gore didn't do better was that he wasn't liberal enough. Now, Mr. Klein suggests that we need to see a revival of Mr. Kerry's VVAW days.

Well, I'm perfectly willing to participate in that experiment. Indeed, I urge it strongly. After all, moving to the Left worked so well for Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Walter Mondale, and Mike Dukakis.

Since 1968, the Democrats have elected two presidents. Both of them were southerners that ran as moderates. Apparently, though, there are no lessons to be learned from that history.

* Sudan and the Election (Jon Henke) - Sudan could be a very effective wedge issue for John Kerry to both establish his military bona fides, and sway voters who will vote for a promise to "end a genocide". A look at Kerry's current position, and some historic parallels.

At the risk of being crass and heartless, allow me to suggest that John Kerry could make very serious electoral progress by simply politicizing genocide. Really.

The conditions in Sudan--genocide, by any definition but that of the United Nations--have been underreported in the past few years. While the United States has been more vocal and "concerned" than our colleagues in the UN, nobody has actually, you know, done anything about it. Sudan has remained a "problem" that requires "action"....though, apparently, not yet.

* Operation Dewey Canyon IV (McQ) - A look at one of the most objectionable Vietnam-era activities in which John Kerry participated.

In April of 1971, John Kerry and the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) held a 6 day event they called Operation Dewey Canyon III, which they billed as the “invasion of Washington DC". It was named after a military operation in Vietnam in which Army of Vietnam (ARVN) forces invaded Laos to cut the Ho Chi Minh trail (it was the major supply and troop movement route from North Vietnam into South Vietnam and traveled mostly through Laos).

This is the beginning of my own personal operation “Dewey Canyon IV”. I'll be talking more about this as the election nears. While its 35 years ago, its very important to me. This particular article is an attempt to give readers who weren't around at the time a feeling for the era in which Kerry and VVAW operated.

* Democratization and the state of progress (Jon Henke) - Critics of the war have been very quick to point to Bad Things, and declare defeat. I'm not so sure that's justified. Politics can have a way of making the battlefield obselete.

We would certainly like to see the Iraqis work side by side with us, all of them gladly....but that's a bit of a utopian dream. Nobody likes an occupation, and unrest is a given. We should leave that scenario off the table. It's a false choice.

What we need is simply for the Iraqis to work out their own salvation, and--beyond a certain point--that doesn't really require us. In fact, it requires our absence.

Matt seems to regard this story of Iraqis asserting their independence as a bad sign for the US. I'd argue that it is only a bad sign if we assume one of two things:

* the utopian fantasy of the lion laying down with the lamb was a possibility.
* it prevents elections.

* It's called The Daily Mislead...and they mean every word of it (Jon Henke) - A division of Moveon.org is lying? Say it isn't so! (hint: it is)

By this point, you'd think the Daily Mislead could not be more laughably inaccurate, but you'd be wrong. Oh, how you'd be wrong....

This is not the first time the White House has tried to doctor or manipulate economic data that exposed President Bush's failed policies. In the face of serious job losses last year, the Associated Press reported "the Bush administration has dropped the government's monthly report on mass layoffs, which also had been eliminated when President Bush's father was in office."

Here is the "MASS LAYOFFS IN JULY 2004" report. It was cleverly hidden on the front page of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

You can also see the monthly data for every month going back to the beginning of 2001 here.

* More Nuance (Dale Franks) - Kerry doesn't really "flip-flop" from one side of the fence to the other on the Iraq war. In a sort of political "Schrodinger's Cat", he actually manages to be on both sides, simultaneously.

So, as near as I can figure it, his position is that the war in Iraq was a mistake, it was conducted incompetently, the intelligence was bad, and "everything" should've been done differently--whatever that means, Mr. Kerry's not saying, by the way--but he would've voted to go to war anyway.

And Democrats wonder why people think they're unclear on their committment to National Security. Hint to Dems: When it comes to the safety of the electorate and their families, nuance isn't what they're looking for. I'd've thought you guys would've been able to figure that out over the last 30 years or so, but I guess not.

* Records are Just a Bitch (McQ) - A list of the early "negative" attacks from the Kerry camp...useful when the Democrats start crawling up on the cross.

Nathan Carelton, at The Chronicle (Duke University) has compiled a lovely list of Kerry, Edwards and the gang going "neg" early and often. Feel free to use it the next time they whine about smears, hyperbole, insults and insinuation:

* A short primer on Chechnya (McQ) - "a short history of what has been happening in Chechnya since WWII"

As you can tell, Chechnya has not been a happy place for quite some time. And the Russians haven't helped the situation at all. That, of course, does not in any way excuse what was done in the school.

The Islamic connection seems to go through the Muslim Brotherhood which has been active in Chechnya. From what I read of the Muslim Brotherhood, it is considered to be moderate as compared to al-Queda, although if it is the MB, what they were just involved in showed anything but moderation and speaks to the possiblity of connection with more radical elements among Islamic extremists.

* Cheney, selective editing, and selective outrage... (Jon Henke) - Dick Cheney gets Dowdified, and, in their rush to condemn him, everybody forgets to check the transcript. And the Kerry/Edwards campaign forget their own rhetoric.

John Edwards responded less quickly to this inflammatory statement from August 30th....

...their failed leadership means that they cannot deal with the new threats we face. [...] We will ensure that we have the best ideas to make America stronger at home and... This is what they won’t do.

The above accusation that the Bush administration cannot deal with terrorism, and will not ensure that they have the best ideas to make America stronger was brought to you by John "will not divide" Edwards. And this statement....

In his most pointed attempt yet to distinguish his stand on the war from President Bush’s, Sen. John Kerry said Wednesday that "extremism has gained momentum" and the world is more dangerous because of the Bush administration’s bungling in Iraq.

..is brought to you by John "no scare tactics" Kerry.

So, you'll understand if I don't see any great problem with Dick Cheney saying that a Kerry administration's policies will increase the danger of terrorism.

* Destined for Failure (Dale Franks) - the relevant questions about the war on terror for a Kerry administration.

A negotiated settlement? With who? Negotiating what? I've asked it many times before, but I'll ask it again: How do you negotitate with an enemy wants nothing but your defeat and the destruction of your way of life? What do you offer them short of this that will satisfy them? How do you convince them even to begin negotitations if they consider themselves intruments of Gods will, and negotiation with infidels an apostacy? While we're on the subject, who will we be negotiating with? The web of terror is a somewhat looseley organized collection of inter-related groups that span the a quarter of the globe, each with it's own leadership and objectives?

And what about the longer-term questions? How would such a negotiated settlement secure any lasting peace? Wouldn't any concessions we offer them--whoever "they" might be--constitute a victory for the terrorists, and encourage even more terror, since we've already shown that, given enough pressure, we will offer them concessions? That's the same kind of "negotiation" that Edouard Daladier and Neville Chamberlain did with Adolf Hitler in the 1930s. We may want to take a look at where than got them before heading down that path.

Similar questions arise when talking about a victory that would allow us to decalre the war over, and come home to ticker tape parades. A victory against who? As Dennis Miller observes, it's not like there's an Al-Qaidastan we can invade and occupy. Its thousands of individuals in hundreds of groups spread out all across south central Asia? What will the condition of victory be, and how will we know we've achieved it? And, even better, how does Mr. Kerry propose to get us there in some finite time? What is his plan for victory?

* No Good Options (Dale Franks) - The terrorist attack on a school in Beslan brings home the difficult realization that we cannot stop people who are determined to kill themselves and take some of us along with them.

It's Hobson's choice. The terrorists aim to kill their hostages, because that is the statement they mean to make. Negotiations are, therefore, fruitless. At best, they delay the inevitable, while allowing the hostage takers to consolidate their position, and brutalize the hostages. Moreover, as Beslan shows, as time passes, it increase the chance that a booby-trap will be inadvertently tripped. On the other hand, an assault runs the risk of the terrorists simply blowing all their bombs, and going down in a flaming orgy of destruction, taking our children along with them. Also, if the terrorists expect that our policy will be to forego negotiations and assault, they won't take hostages at all. They'll just start killing children immediately in order to maximize casualties, in the expectation that as soon as security forces arrive, an assault on their position will begin.

In essence, what this means is that, the moment such a terrorist operation begins, our first operating assumption must be that the children are already dead, no matter what we do, and to plan on killing the hostage takers immediately, irrespective of the loss of life that might entail.

* Was Bush really AWOL? (McQ) - Since AWOL is a charge under the UCMJ, McQ takes a look at the UCMJ.

...the National Guardsmen now serving under federal authority in Iraq are subject to the UCMJ. However the National Guardsmen presently serving the Governor of the state of Florida in disaster relief are not.

All that to say that technically Bush could never have been charged with either AWOL or desertion under the UCMJ since when the alleged occurrances took place, he wasn't serving the federal authority and thus wasn't even subject to the UCMJ.

___________________________________________________________

For more Ra^therGate analysis and news....just scroll down. There's quite a lot. Most important, though, is this post:

A Compendium of the Evidence
There, you can find a collection of the relevant questions--so far, largely unanswered--about the CBS documents.

I'm done

At this point, I think I'm gonna drop discussing the CBS memos any longer. With the exception of a few holdouts, the vast majority of document experts that have come out have stated their belief that, with the evidence they've seen, the CBS memos appear to be computer-generated forgeries.

So, I think it's kinda pointless to spend any more time getting down in the weeds, discussing the number of twips the horizontal space of a Palatino Linotype "h" takes up. The prople who do that sort of thing professionally already seem to have weighed in on the side of forgery, except for a few holdouts, so I'm not sure what more I have to add. If you think the whole raft of forensic document analysts that have publicly stated that conclusion are wrong, then go right ahead.

But I don't feel any particular compulsion to continue arguing with you.

It seems to me that, in the face of such expert criticism, the ball is now firmly in CBS' court. They should provide the documents and the experts they used, and a full accounting of what leads them to the conclusion that the memos are genuine, and let the expert community examine them freely. Until that happens, it's not unreasonable to assume that they simply aren't interested in learning the truth about the documents.

And there, I think, is where we have to leave it, pending new information

9/11/04

On this, the third anniversary of 9/11, Dale and McQ have offered moving pictures as a reminder. Glenn Reynolds does the same. Others write about their own experiences on that day, and since.

I don't think I have much to add to that. 9/11 had an enormous impact on me, but it's hard to explain that. You either already understand, or you never could.

Instead, I'll point you to this story. It's the kind of story that wouldn't have moved many of us prior to 9/11, but moves us to tears today.

A reservist who lost his right arm in a roadside bombing in Iraq re-enlisted in the Army on the same day he received a Bronze Star for his service.

Sgt. Chuck Bartles, 26, raised his prosthetic right arm with his left hand as he took an oath Thursday during a re-enlistment ceremony at the Airborne & Special Operations Museum.

Bartles was injured when his vehicle was struck by a roadside bomb last year. One soldier died and two others were injured in the attack. Bartles’ right arm was shattered and had to be removed above the elbow.

“I’m not bitter at all,” he said. “I’ve been in the military my whole adult life, and I really enjoy it.”

Amputees are usually given medical discharges, but Bartles twice appealed to officials at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Satisfied that he could perform his duties, they agreed to let him re-enlist.

Bartles’ commander visited him at a hospital in Iraq the day after his amputation and praised his positive attitude.

“He was already talking about learning how to shoot left-handed because he didn’t want to miss the deer season,” said Lt. Col. James Suriano, commander of the 418th Civil Affairs Battalion.

9/11 didn't really change everything, you know. Some things, we just didn't notice that often. Extraordinary men and women like Sgt. Chuck Bartles, for example.

Yeah, this is what a non-typist would do...

According to Jerry Killian's wife, he 'didn't type'. Rufus Martin, his admin officer said the same thing. But we're now asked to believe that somewhere Jerry Killian had access to an expensive and difficult to operate IBM Selectric Composer typewriter and it was on that device he decided to type these memos.

Oh it would do all the stuff that everyone is arguing about, but then, unless you're willing to suspend disbelief, its not something Jerry Killian would have sought out to hunt and peck away on. Why?

"The first IBM Composer was the IBM "Selectric" Composer announced in 1966. It was a hybrid "Selectric" typewriter that was modified to have proportional spaced fonts. It is 100% mechanical and has no digital electronics. Since it has no memory, the user was required to type everything twice. While typing the text the first time, the machine would measure the length of the line and count the number of spaces. When the user finished typing a line of text, they would record special measurements into the right margin of the paper. Once the entire column of text was typed and measured, it would then be retyped, however before typing each line, the operator would set the special justification dial (on the right side) to the proper settings, then type the line. The machine would automatically insert the appropriate amount of space between words so that all of the text would be justified." LINK

A guy who would have a rough enough time typing it once would type it twice? Right. And he'd also know all that stuff about setting the "justification dail", etc. And then he'd "record special measurements into the right margin of the paper" as well. Um hmmm.

This is the sort of nonsense CBS is demanding everyone swallow. A non-typist who would probably had a hell of a time on a manual typewriter is supposed to have figured out how to use this one and turned out perfectly proportioned memos (even if their format is not according to accepted AF style).

Sorry ... no sale.

Never Forget

Freedom isn't free.

In Memoriam

Remember.

Expert angrily denies Globe story

Apparently the Boston Globe has again misrepresented what someone said (boy, there's a surprise ... remember George Elliott?).

As you recall, Bill at INDC Journal first interviewed Dr. Philip Bouffard, a documents expert. Dr. Bouffard, at that time said he was 90% certain that the documents were fake. But today, the Globe claims the following:

Philip D. Bouffard, a forensic document examiner in Ohio who has analyzed typewritten samples for 30 years, had expressed suspicions about the documents in an interview with the New York Times published Thursday, one in a wave of similar media reports. But Bouffard told the Globe yesterday that after further study, he now believes the documents could have been prepared on an IBM Selectric Composer typewriter available at the time.

Backing away? By that paragraph it would seem so. But not so fast.

According to INDC Journal, Bouffard is livid and contacted Bill to set the record straight. Read this first, then this.

The Globe adds a bit more to a growing line of "questionable journalism" among the old media. Its apparent that they want to dismiss all of this analysis as nothing so badly they can taste it. And they're working to do so in any way necessary.

CBS memo "Palatino Linotype?"

Disclaimer: I have no expertice in the forensic documents field. However a reader, billy, made the point that the typeface in the CBS memos isn't MS New Times Roman. His reasoning is thus:

I'd just like to point out that the typeface in the CBS memo is NOT the Microsoft version of Times New Roman. Of course this doesn't prove anything one way or another. But as it's clear to anyone who has actually looked at the documents closely - and it's very easily checked as the documents are online - it's best to not to use it as an argument against their authenticity.

Some of the salient differences between the typeface of the CYA memo and MS Times New Roman:

capital 'A' & capital 'M' - the angles of the A and M are substantially, consistently wider in the memo than in MS TNR. this cannot be an artefact introduced by copying/faxing if it affects only these two letters.

'8' - the proportions between upper and lower loops of the 8 are clearly different - in MS TNR, the two loops are very close in size. in the CBS memos, the top loop is plainly, consistently smaller.

small points I know, but enough to be absolutely conclusive that the typeface is not MS TNR.

I had linked to an automated slide show yesterday which did a complete comparison of the disputed document and it overlayed a document created in Microsoft Word 2000 but identifed the font used as Palatino Linotype.

Palatino Linotype is identified as a "True Type" (TT) font. For whatever reason, I've always been under the impression that TT fonts were fairly recent creations.

Questions to the folks more expert in this than me:

A) Do you agree its Palatine Linotype? See the referenced slide show. When I brought it up in my word processing program it looked identical to the font in the disputed memo. But it was admittedly a cursory inspection.

B) Is that font (as well as most TT fonts) a fairly recent creation?

C) If not, when was it created and was it in use on typewriters of the era of the memos?

If it is that font and that font is a fairly recent creation, then the evidence is certainly more damning than if its New Times Roman.

UPDATE: Check out this great work at Shape of Days blog. Jeff Harrell has contacted a typewriter expert and had him reproduce one of the memos on the high end typewriter CBS claims could have done it. Long story short: no sale. And its especially apparent when you read about the machinations he had to go through to get a superscript on there.

Why especially apparent? Because, as his wife noted, Killian didn't type. Not only that, the typewriter would have cost about 16,000 in 2004 dollars (not something a squadron orderly room would have) and the superscript required a ball change. But go, read it all.

UPDATE II: Reader Benito Guajardo offers some research into the Palatino font
The salient points are:

LINK --Palatino is a serif typeface created by Hermann Zapf in 1948. Full of grace and strength, Palatino is nearly universally admired. It has been adapted to virtually every type technology, and is probably one of the most used and copied typefaces in existence.

So obviously its been around a while and is quite popular.

Microsoft now also distributes 'Palatino Linotype' in Windows 2000 and XP.

It is availablle on MS Word for 2000 and XP.

LINK --It also has the distinction of having been created in at least five different media (Linotype composing machine, foundry metal, phototype film, transfer sheets, and digital)

But, if this list is inclusive, not in typewriters.

Those that would know say "no big deal"

As I've said repeatedly, the fact that George Bush may have missed some drills due to a job conflict, etc. is really not that big of a thing in the reserves. The civilian job is the top priority and the reserves and NG do their level best to work with the reservist or guardsman in regard to those conflicts.

Retired National Guard members and even an Army Reservist home on leave from Iraq say they aren't bothered by memos indicating President Bush was suspended from flying because he skipped a medical exam and missed six months of training with his Texas Air National Guard unit during the Vietnam war.

They said it's common for Guard members and reservists to miss drills - even up to six months - because of job conflicts, family problems or illness, and the members are encouraged to make up the drills so they don't lose pay or eligibility for retirement benefits.

"We worked around it. There's all kinds of situations ... that cause a person to go out of state for a period of time," said Ralph Bradley, 56, who served three years in Vietnam with the Air Force and 17 years with the Georgia Army National Guard.

So those that know simply shrug it off. They know this isn't anything special or rare.

"It's just politics. That's what they are doing; it's kind of obvious," said Neal Eubanks of nearby Leesburg, who served 39 years in the military - 23 in the Air Force and 16 in the Georgia Army National Guard.

Well it is politics, at least to those who know about how the military in general and the reserve components in particular work.

But to those who don't or refuse to learn, or to whom the facts are inconvenient, such as Terry McAuliffe and the crowd, they prefer to attack on very specious grounds.

As for reports - and criticism - that Bush may have sought to get out of Guard drills for several months in 1972, [Army Reserve Sgt. Tim] Wilding said: "It's stupid. They're trying to dig up crap.

"A lot of guys don't serve for four or five months at a time. They've got other stuff going on. They'll make it up later on, or they just won't get paid. That's really no big deal to a lot of National Guard soldiers. I don't see how it's relevant now," said Wilding, who has served nearly 20 years as an Army Reservist and has been stationed just north of Baghdad with the 428th Transportation Company.

What eveyone needs to understand is this ... the reserves and guard have always worked hard to help its reservists and guardsmen work through job conflicts which may remove them from the state and make drilling difficult. They work to retain good people. Anyone who's been in the reserves knows this to be true and understands that this is simply much ado about nothing.

As Neil Eubanks says, "Its just politics", and not even very good politics. Its the Democrat smear machine working overtime to plant false impressions about routine guard business and then repeat their lies over and over and over again hoping those unaware of how this all works will buy into the spin.

George Bush's records indicate he did what was necessary to have good years in both 1972 and 1973. He obviously had some job conflicts. But like thousands upon thousands of other rescervists, he found a way to make the number of points necessary to fulfill his obligation.

To those of us who've been in the reserves, its just "no big deal".

Expert: Signatures Forged on memos

Rowen Scarborough of the Washington Times reports:

A handwriting expert says the two signatures on purported Texas National Guard memos aired by CBS News this week are not those of President Bush's squadron commander, as asserted by "60 Minutes."

Until now, press scrutiny of the memos supposedly written by the late Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian focused on the finding that the documents were, in the opinion of experts, produced by computers not yet in use in the early 1970s.

Eugene P. Hussey, a certified forensic document examiner in Washington state, said yesterday there is another flaw in the CBS memos. Mr. Hussey studied the known signatures of Col. Killian on Air Force documents, and two signatures on documents dated 1972 and 1973 that aired on "60 Minutes" Wednesday night.

"It is my limited opinion that Killian did not sign those documents," Mr. Hussey told The Washington Times. He said he uses the phrase "limited opinion" because he does not have the original documents. He, like other experts interviewed by the press, relied on copies of originals first obtained by CBS. The White House then distributed copies of the memos in what is said was the interest of full disclosure.

All opinions are going to be "limited" until CBS releases the originals to outside experts like Mr. Hussey and others.

In the meantime, and the longer they let it go, it gets deeper and deeper for CBS.

Its beginning to smell a lot like "Tailwind".

Animated Slide show ....

.... demonstrates graphically why memo appears to be a fake produced on MS Word 2000.

You'll find it here. If you have any lingering doubts this may help you lay them to rest.

You'll need Macromedia Flash installed to watch it.

More Discrepencies noted in CBS Story

As has been mentioned a couple of times by readers of QandO, one of the people mentioned in a memo about "sugarcoating" a rating was out of the TANG for a year before the supposed memo was written:

The man named in a disputed memo as exerting pressure to "sugar coat" President Bush's military record left the Texas Air National Guard a year and a half before the memo was supposedly written, his own service record shows.

An order obtained by The Dallas Morning News shows that Col. Walter "Buck" Staudt was honorably discharged on March 1, 1972. CBS News reported this week that a memo in which Staudt was described as interfering with officers' negative evaluations of Bush's service, was dated Aug. 18, 1973.

You know, its beginning to look pretty pathetic on the CBS side. Its going to be an interesting weekend seeing how well they can avoid the mounting questions about their assertions.

A CBS staffer stood by the story, suggesting that Staudt could have continued to exert influence over Guard officials. But a former high-ranking Guard official disputed that, saying retirement would have left Staudt powerless over remaining officials.

Yikes ... If that's the best they can do, they're in for a VERY long weekend.

Retired Col. Earl Lively, who was director of Air National Guard operations for the state headquarters during 1972 and 1973 said Staudt "wasn't on the scene" after retirement, and that CBS' remote-bullying thesis makes no sense.

"He couldn't bully them. He wasn't in the Guard," Lively said. "He couldn't affect their promotions. Once you're gone from the Guard, you don't have any authority."

More and more interesting. Speaking of 'more', I'm beginning to wonder if Michael Moore might have consulted on the "60 minutes" broadcast. This has his style all over it, doesn't it?

Heh ...

Hodges retracts CBS authentication

Yesterday CBS pointed out that the documents in question had been authenticated by Maj Gen Bobby Hodges who had been commander of the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group during the time George Bush served. He's now said he was mislead by CBS:

Retired Maj. General Hodges, Killian's supervisor at the Grd, tells ABC News that he feels CBS misled him about the documents they uncovered. According to Hodges, CBS told him the documents were "handwritten" and after CBS read him excerpts he said, "well if he wrote them that's what he felt."

Hodges also said he did not see the documents in the 70's and he cannot authenticate the documents or the contents. His personal belief is that the documents have been "computer generated" and are a "fraud".

So we have Killian's son saying his father didn't keep those sorts of files and besides he thought the world of George Bush. We have Killian's widow saying he didn't type and besides he thought the world of George Bush. We also have the units admin officers saying those were not typical of the memos they turned out there. Last but not least, we have Hodges saying he never saw them and now that he has, they look fraudulent.

The noose around CBS tightens.

To kern or not to kern?

Bill, at InDC is retreating from the claim that the documents are kerned. I'm not sure why he's making the claim, because, as of yet, he's offered no explanation.

In the analysis I posted last night after blowing up the images and comparing the spacing, I found two examples where it appears the letters are kerned. But, after seeing Bill's retraction, I decided to look at the issue again in Microsoft Word, rather than just looking at the available copies of the memos, and looking for overlapping horizontal spaces.

The problem here, I think, is a confusion between kerning in Microsoft Word, and kerning within the font itself. Times New Roman (TNR) kerns the letters f, j, and by a tiny amount, r, in that they extend outside the horizontal space alloted to the letters.

Microsoft Word adds additional kerning by further compressing the space between letters. Unfortunately, the effects of kerning in Word for 12pt TNR is hardly noticable, except in a few isolated cases involving capital letters. For example the letter combination "YA" appears slightly differently in TNR in kerned and unkerned Word documents.

Based on that, I reproduced the 18 Aug 73 memo in both kerned and unkerned forms, in Microsoft word, and compared them to the original memo.

After viewing all three side by side, I have come to the conclusion that the original document is not kerned. The kerning we see in the memo is solely an artifact of the font, not of additional kerning from Word.

As such, I think I have to retract the kerning argument, because I simply can't say whether a typewriter version of TNR, if it was available, wasn't also similarly kerned internally.

It is vitally important to ensure that we honestly examine and re-examine our arguments, to ensure that what we are presenting is as correct as we can make it. That includes making the appropriate retractions when further investigation proves us wrong.

Superscriptastic!

From an anti-bush web site, awolbush.com, that posts service documents for both Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry, there is this document.

As you can see, it uses the superscript "th" in several places, and I suspect this is the document that CBS will show us tonight. It's the only document I can find after looking at them that uses superscripts.

I'm not sure what it proves, however. First the document is undated and unsigned, which makes it's provenance difficult to judge. But, based on the dates in the document, it appears that the earliest it could've been produced was in late November of 1974, over two years after the first Killian document. The font is also a monospaced font of the Courier family. Natually, as a monospaced font, it isn't kerned.

So, what have we learned? Well, not much. Unless this or a similar model was the typewriter used by Lt Col Killian, it tells us nothing. We already knew that some typewriters in 1973 did type a superscript "th". They were relatively rare, expensive, top-end models, but they existed. The question is, Did Lt Col Killian have one?

We don't even know who typed this, or when they did it, although it was at least 2.5 years after the original Killian memos. Maybe somebody got a nice new IBM Selectric Executive in 1975. Maybe this was automatically generated on a daisy-wheel computer printer at ARPC, and wasn't typed at all. How can we possibly know? And what does it tell us about the memos typed by Lt Col Killian?

Look, let's keep our eye on the ball here. The problem is not that there's a couple of superscripts in the CBS memos. That's just a flag that catches our attention because it's so unusual. Because once we notice that, we also notice the font, then we notice it's kerned, then we notice some stylistic problems, and so on.

All the superscript does it catch our attention. After that, it becomes just one piece in the totality of the evidence.

But, telling me that if you find a document a) with superscripts that is b) unsigned and c) undated, d) may not even be manually typed, and e) is at least two years newer than the memos in question, then you still haven't come anywhere near to proving f) the original memos are genuine.

It tells me nothing to show me something from Mr. Bush's records a couple of years later, to whom you can't attach a source or an author.

Find me similar examples of the same typographical and stylistic characteristics from Lt Col Killian's records. Because if Lt Col Killian's records have 1,000 monospaced Courier documents, and then these four proportionally spaced Times New Roman memo's, then you've still got lots of questions to answer.

Otherwise, all you're doing is just a version of the old joke about the defense lawyer: "You honor, I can produce 100 witnesses that didn't see my client shoot the victim!" If this is the document that CBS plans to show us tonight, then they're essentially saying, "See, I can prove that there were superscripted typewritten documents in the 70s!"

Well, yeah, there were. We know. So what? id this document typewritten, or is it daisy-printed? How do you know? Find any of those 1970s typewritten documents that were kerned? Oh, and while we're at it, are any of 'em in Lt Col Killian's files? Or is one document produced at an unknown time, by an unknown person, on an unknown system all you got?

Yes, I'll definitely be watching Gunga Dan tonight...

A compendium of the Evidence

The blogosphere has been all over the CBS documents, but all the information is parceled out in penny packets all over the place. At the request of a reader, I thought I'd try to consolidate them into a single post. This is not canonical, of course, just the stuff I know about.

Typographical Arguments

1. The use of superscripted "th" in unit names, e.g. 187^th. This was a highly unusual feature, available only on extremely expensive typewriters at the time.
2. The use of proportional fonts was, similarly, restricted to a small number of high-end typewriters.
3. The text of the memos appear to use letter kerning, a physical impossibility for any typewriter at the time. UPDATE: After manually recreating the 18 Aug 73 memo in both kerned and unkerned forms, I have concluded that the memo was not kerned. The font itself has a few internal kernings, which led to a mistaken impression that the document itself had been kerned. Since I cannot say definitively whether a typewriter version of Times New Roman, if available, had the same internal kernings as the computer version of the font, this argument has to withdrawn. It is important to note that it is still questionable whether a typewriter version of Times New Roman was even available, which would make the Kerning argument academic.
4. Apostrophes in the documents use curled serifs. Typewriters used straight hash marks for both quotation marks and apostrophes.
5. The font appears indistinguishable from the Times New Roman computer font. While the Times Roman and Times fonts were rare, but available, in some typewriters at the time, the letters in Times Roman and Times took up more horizontal space than Times New Roman does. Times New Roman is exclusively a computer font.
6. Reproductions of the memos in Microsoft Word using 12pt TNR and the default Word page setup are indistinguishable from the memos when superimposed.
7. The typed squadron letterhead is centered on the page, an extremely difficult operation to perform manually.
8. Several highly reputable forensic document specialists have publicly stated their opinions that the documents were most likely computer generated, and hence, are forgeries.
9. The numeral 4 has no "foot" serif and a closed top. This is indicative of the Times New Roman Font, used exclusively by computers. The font itself has existed for years, but apparently was used only by typesetters prior to the advent of the computer. UPDATE: Forensic document expert Philip Bouchard has now modified this criticism: "The (new Selectric) typefaces sent to me invalidated the theory about the foot on the four (originally reported to INDC), but after looking at this more, there are still many more things that say this is bogus... there are so many things that are not right; 's crossings,' 'downstrokes' ..."

Stylistic Arguments

1. The memos do not use the proper USAF letterhead, in required use since 1948. Instead they are typed. In general, typed letterhead is restricted to computer-generated orders, which were usually printed by teletype, chain printer or daisy-wheel printer, the latter looking like a typed letter. Manually typed correspondence is supposed to use official USAF letterhead. However, even special orders, which used a typed letterhead, were required to use ALL CAPS in the letterhead.
2. The typed Letterhead gives the address as "Houston, Texas". The standard formulation for addresses at USAF installations should require the address to read "Ellington AFB, Texas".
3. Killian's signature block should read:

   RICHARD B. KILLIAN, Lt Col, TexANG
   Commander

   This is the required USAF formulation for a signature block.

4. Lt Col Killian's signature should be aligned to the left side of the page. Indented signature blocks are not a USAF standard.
5. The rank abbreviations are applied inconsistently and incorrectly, for example the use of periods in USAF rank abbreviations is incorrect. The modern formulation for rank abbreviations for the lieutenant grades in the USAF is 2Lt and 1Lt. In 1973, it may well have been 2nd Lt and 1st Lt, but that certainly wasn't correct in 1984, when I entered active duty, so I find the rank abbreviation questionable, and, in any event, they would not have included periods. Lt Col Killian's abbreviations are pretty much universally incorrect in the memos.
6. The unit name abbreviations use periods. This is incorrect. USAF unit abbreviations use only capital letters with no periods. For example, 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron would be abbreviated as 111th FIS, not 111th F.I.S.
7. The Formulation used in the memos, i.e., "MEMORANDOM FOR 1st Lt. Bush..." is incorrect. A memo would be written on plain (non-letterhead) paper, with the top line reading "MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD".
8. An order from a superior, directing a junior to perform a specific task would not be in the memorandum format as presented. Instead, it would use the USAF standard internal memo format, as follows:

   FROM: Lt Col Killian, Richard B.

   SUBJECT: Annual Physical Examination (Flight)

   TO: 1Lt Bush, George W.

   Documents that are titled as MEMORANDUM are used only for file purposes, and not for communications.

9. The memos use the formulation "...in accordance with (IAW)..." The abbreviation IAW is a universal abbreviation in the USAF, hence it is not spelled out, rather it is used for no other reason than to eliminate the word "in accordance with" from official communications. There are several such universal abbreviation, such as NLT for "no later than".
10. The title of one of the memos is CYA, a popular euphemism for covering one's...ahem...posterior. It is doubtful that any serving officer would use such a colloquialism in any document that might come under official scrutiny.

Personal Arguments

1. The records purport to be from Lt Col Killian's "personal files", yet, they were not obtained from his family, but through some unknown 3rd party. It is an odd kind of "personal file" when the family of a deceased person is unaware of the file's existence and it is not in their possession.
2. Both Lt Col Killian's wife and son, as well as the EAFB personnel officer do not find the memos credible.
3. Keeping such derogatory personal memos , while at the same time, writing glowing OERs for Mr. Bush would be unwise for any officer. At best, it would raise serious questions about why his private judgments differed so radically from his official ones, should they ever come to light. At worst, they would raise questions about whether Lt Col Killian falsified official documents. As Lt Col Killian's son, himself a retired USAF officer, has said, nothing good can come of keeping such files.
4. Both Lt Col Killian's wife and son relate that Killian wasn't a typist. If he needed anotes, he would write them down longhand, but in general, he wasn't paper-oriented, and certainly wasn't a typist.
5. Killian's 18 Aug 73 memo, alleging that Col Staudt was putting pressure on to "sugar coat" Mr. Bush's OETR is odd, because Col. Staudt apparently retired in 1972. One wonder what pressure he was able to bring to bear as a retiree.

The reasons above constitute a very reasonable basis for serious questions about the legitimacy of the memos distributed by CBS. In light oif them, it seems to me that CBS has a positive duty to disclose as much information about the provenance and authenticity of the memos as possible. So far, their response has been, "We think they're true, so do not question us!" That is an understandable reaction, and, indeed, it's much the same as that of the German magazine Stern, when it claimed to have found Adolph Hitler's diaries in the 1980s.

It is not a helpful response, however, and it indicates that CBS is, at this point, far more interested in performing CYA operations than it is in getting to the bottom of these questions.

Rather to address issue on tonight's CBS news

From a CBS News press release:

Statement From CBS News Friday September 10, 3:53 pm ET

NEW YORK, Sept. 10 /PRNewswire/ -- Later today, CBS News will address on the air and in detail the issues surrounding the documents broadcast in the 60 MINUTES report on President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard. At this time, however, CBS News states with absolute certainty that the ability to produce the "th" superscript mentioned in reports about the documents did exist on typewriters as early as 1968, and in fact is in President Bush's official military records released by the White House. This and other issues surrounding the authenticity of the documents and more on this developing story will be reported on tonight on THE CBS EVENING NEWS WITH DAN RATHER.

Well that should be interesting.

The Shameless DNC

It's Karl Rove's fault!

Seems McAuliffe (although he may not realize it) has all but admitted that the memos are fake. He's doing so by suggesting Karl Rove is the man behind the plan:

Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe today said neither his organization nor John Kerry´s campaign leaked to CBS documents questioning President Bush´s service record, which may have been forged.

He suggested White House adviser Karl Rove could be behind the documents.

"I can unequivocally say that no one involved here at the Democratic National Committee had anything at all to do with any of those documents. If I were an aspiring young journalist, I think I would ask Karl Rove that question," Mr. McAuliffe said.

Asked later if he believed Mr. Rove or Republican operatives were involved, he said: "I am telling you that nobody — Democratic National Committee or groups associate with us — were involved in any way with these documents. I am just saying I would ask Karl Rove the same question."

Heh ... it appears that the only person this side of China who's sticking with "the documents are authentic" is Dan Rather.

The DNC has its backup lights on.

Our Ally to the north - thanks Canada

Yes, the title is a bit sarcastic. This from the National Post:

Canada rejected a U.S. request to send a squadron of CF-18 fighter-bombers to Afghanistan last year because of concerns that it might free more American forces for the invasion of Iraq, according to internal Defence Department documents.

In documents obtained under the Access to Information Act, the two top generals in the Canadian Forces agreed that a six-month deployment of as many as 18 aircraft to the air base in Manas, Kyrgyzstan, was "deemed feasible" but recommended against the proposal because of concerns over the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

My first reaction was unprintable. Deny support in one theater (a war which you support) in order to assure American troops don't get support in another theater (a war you don't support).

I'm sorry but this sort of crap is just indefensible. I can see saying no if you're streched thin or don't have the assets, but to deny support in hopes of denying units to Americans in combat just flat sucks out loud.

Well, the way I see it, if Canadian troops get in a pickle in Afghanistan and I I'm the US commander, when their call for airsupport came in I'm most likely deny it since there's a possiblity an American unit might be left short.

In reality I'd try to pull their Canadian bacon out of the fire. But I wouldn't be happy about it.

Some ally.

Admit Nothing. Deny Everything. Demand Proof.

CBS has apparently decided to stick with its story on the Killian memos.

In a statement, CBS News said it stands by its story.

"This report was not based solely on recovered documents, but rather on a preponderance of evidence, including documents that were provided by unimpeachable sources, interviews with former Texas National Guard officials and individuals who worked closely back in the early 1970s with Colonel Jerry Killian and were well acquainted with his procedures, his character and his thinking," the statement read.

"In addition, the documents are backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic document experts but by sources familiar with their content," the statement continued. "Contrary to some rumors, no internal investigation is underway at CBS News nor is one planned."

Essentially, CBS' position is, "Our mind is made up. Don't try and confuse us with facts."

Way to go, guys. Never admit error. That's really the key in maintaining public trust, as I'm sure everyone will agree. Don't let us know who your authentication experts are, or the methods they used to authenticate the documents. Don't respond to any questions with details about their source or provenance.

Just stonewall everybody.

Back in the day, CIA officers working in Vietnam were rumored to carry around warrant cards that stated:

DO NOT QUESTION OR DETAIN ME!
I am authorized to pass into restricted areas, carry unusual personal weapons, and conscript any person into service at any time.

The management at CBS News act like they're carrying around something similar.

For all the good it'll do 'em.

UPDATE: Gunga Dan enters the fray. Dan Rather went on CNN this morning. Unrepentant, he personally vouched for the authenticity of the memos.

You go, Dan!

Rather: "no apology, no retraction"

Via Drudge:

CBSNEWS anchor and 60 MINUTES correspondent Dan Rather publicly defended his reporting Friday morning after questions were raised about the authenticity of newly unearthed memos aired on CBS which asserted that George W. Bush ignored a direct order from a superior officer in the Texas Air National Guard.

CNN TRANSCRIPT:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAN RATHER, CBS NEWS ANCHOR: I know that this story is true. I believe that the witnesses and the documents are authentic. We wouldn't have gone to air if they would not have been. There isn't going to be -- there's no -- what you're saying apology?

QUESTION: Apology or any kind of retraction or...

RATHER: Not even discussed, nor should it be. I want to make clear to you, I want to make clear to you if I have not made clear to you, that this story is true, and that more important questions than how we got the story, which is where those who don't like the story like to put the emphasis, the more important question is what are the answers to the questions raised in the story, which I just gave you earlier.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Somebody needs to buy Dan a clue. Yo Dan, if the story is based on false documents, then the story isn't true and subsequent questions from faked documents have no validity.

It appears Capt Rather has chosen to go down with the ship.

One would assume if Rather is saying the above that it reflects CBS's decision and the end to its internal investigation, such that it was.

False pride and a refusal to admit being wrong? A feeling they can bluff their way thorough this one?

Regardless, unless he answers all the questions raised about the memos, he becomes Mr. Tailwind of 2004.

Maybe he and Peter Arnett could write their memoirs together.

They could call it "A Tale of Two Twits" (yeah I almost got there but I didn't think I could get away with "Twitties").

Special for the NYT

Found on Free Republic and sent to me by a QandO reader. He figures maybe the NYT could use it this sunday in a story about soft money and the left.

Heh ... yeah, right.

That'll happen.

As usual Lileks nails it

Seems Lileks likes the "old media/new media" characterization as well:

Blogs haven’t toppled old media. The foundations of Old Media were rotten already. The new media came along at the right time. Put it this way: you’ve see films of old buildings detonated by precision demolitionists. First you see the puffs of smoke – then the building just hangs there for a second, even though every column that held it up has been severed. We’ve been living in that second for years, waiting for the next frame. Well, here it is. Roll tape. Down she goes. And when the dust settles we will be right back where we were 100 years ago, with dozens of fiercely competitive media outlets throwing elbows to earn your pennies.

It would appear that if the old media is to survive it needs to quickly recognize the sea change at work here. It needs to join the new media instead of looking down its nose at it.

The old-line media, like its Boomer components, got old, and like the Boomers, it preferred self-congratulation to self-reflection. And so the Internet had it for lunch, because the Internet does not have to schedule 17 meetings to develop a strategy for impactfully maximizing brand leverage in emerging markets; the Internet does not have to worry about how a decision will affect one’s management trajectory; the Internet smells blood and leaps, and that has turned the game around, for better or worse. So we’re back to where we were in 1904 – except that the guys on the corner shouting WUXTRY, WUXTRY aren’t grimy urchins selling the paper – they’re the people who wrote the damn thing, too.

In the military there's a term for what is happening. We're told that in order to beat an enemy we need to "get inside his decision cycle". If you do that you're calling the shots and all he can do is react to your moves. In a sense that's what is happening here. Bloggers are on the story immediately and continuously. Its like the work of a hive, with information and bloggers coming and going, sharing and comparing. The product is scrutinized, parts of the theory are dumped, new parts are added as more and more information becomes available. Thousands participate through articles, comments and cites.

Meanwhile, plugging along at their relatively sluggish pace, with their limited staff and fixed publishing or broadcast times, the old media is simply overwhelmed.

Look at the stories out there today. They're essentially reporting today what bloggers knew and reported yesterday. They've been overwhelmed and they are figuring out there's no chance the "old way" will ever return.

This is an amazing thing to watch.

Quick Hits

I have a lot to say, but none of it requires an entire post, so....

* Now, this is funny...

Ignore the Lies of the Infidel Bloggers!
I have it on the highest authority that the documents are correct!
God Willing, our documents shall roast the stomachs of the pig Republicans with their Authenticity!

* The Spectator is claiming the DNC is behind the leak of these documents. I doubt this will be verifiable, and I won't speculate on the odds that a DNC staffer would leak such damning information to a right wing publication. (wait. Yes I will...they seem fairly low)

* Dean Esmay leaves a comment to a post below, writing....

It is high time the mainstream media be held to at least the minimum standards expected of competent bloggers, isn't it?

The more I think of it, the more I conclude that--in terms of the news media--the blogosphere is, essentially, another layer of editorial control. We are the Free Safety's of the news cycle, roaming at our discretion all over the newsroom and keeping the reporters in check.

And that goes for both the left and right sides of the 'sphere.

* Brad DeLong, citing a story in which Dick Cheney said "That's a source that didn't even exist 10 years ago. Four hundred thousand people make some money trading on eBay", writes...

Cheney needs a staff who will tell him that the $2.0 billion or so in eBay's domestic revenues are already included in the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis's estimates of GDP.

Brad DeLong needs a staff who will tell him that Cheney wasn't talking about GDP. He was responding "to a question from a self-employed man who said the federal government would consider him "unemployed".

While Ebay "employment", in itself, is certainly not a major component in the Household/Establishment disparity, it is indicative of the sort of alternative "employment" situations available in a changing economy.

10 out of 10 for snappy repartee, Professor. And minus a few thousand for missing the point.

* matthew Yglesias cites the existence of proportional type in 1941, and writes...

More and more this forgeries theory is looking like just some more rightwing BS.

Yeah, it's the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy: Forensic Document Specialist Division.

Is it a forgery? I have no idea. But, just as with the Swift Boat Vet story, the left side of the 'sphere seems to be engaging in some selection bias, touting the evidence that helps them, ignoring the evidence that does not, and calling "game over" at half-time.

* The New York Times editorial page is in high dudgeon. Bob Herbert is doing his best to conflate Iraq with Vietnam...

They were sent off by a president who ran and hid when he was a young man and his country was at war. They fought bravely and died honorably. But as in Vietnam, no amount of valor or heroism can conceal the fact that they were sent off under false pretenses to fight a war that is unwinnable.
[...]
To what end? You can wave goodbye to the naïve idea that democracy would take root in Iraq and then spread like the flowers of spring throughout the Middle East. That was never going to happen. So what are we there for, other than to establish a permanent military stronghold in the region and control the flow of Iraqi oil?

Well, Bob Herbert just doesn't seem Iraq becoming a flowering Jeffersonian democracy, so we might as well just declare defeat. And Herbert does.

I guess there's nothing in Bob Herbert's book between the Garden of Eden and Vietnam.

At some point, as in Vietnam, the American public will balk at the continued carnage, and this tragic misadventure will become politically unsustainable. Meanwhile, the death toll mounts.

The constant drip-drip-drip of casualties in Iraq certainly makes it feel worse than it is--by any historical standard, that is--but what has really made the American public "balk" at the cost of the war has not been the 1000 deaths. Far from it. Prior to the war, we all assumed there would be significant loss of life. In fact, in a survey of "opinion leaders, the general public and military elite", the "acceptable losses" broke down as follows....

• Opinion leaders: 29,853


• General Public: 10,045


• Military Elite: 6,016

In fact, it's exactly the sort of Vietnamization that Bob Herbert does that makes the American public "balk" at the war. Keep telling them they're doomed, Bob, and they're going to start to believe you.

Self-fulfilling prohecies are a great rhetorical trick, but at what cost?

* Oliver Willis is still running with the "Cheney said vote for us or die" meme, this time citing his explanation--which is perfectly clear and consistent with what he said before--and writing "Cheney tries to extricate his foot from his mouth. Nevermind, you horrible person, we know you were speaking your mind the first time. [...] Once again, the Bush administration tries to defeat facts with words."

Of course, Oliver defeats facts by ignoring words. Once again, he only presents a small portion of Cheney's statement, leaving out context. I know there's an election to win, and that supercedes, you know, intellectual honesty....but isn't that where David Brock--Oliver Willis' employer--went wrong, once upon a time?

UPDATE: I note that Instapundit, PowerLine and John Cole are have already found the Democrats tying to place the blame on Karl Rove. Their equivalent, I suppose, of "the butler did it".

"Rove Ex Machina"

UPDATE II: Kevin Drum has a very good rundown of the relevant problems with the memos, concluding....

Bottom line: these memos might be 100% genuine. But there are lots of legitimate questions about their origin and authenticity, and at a minimum CBS ought to make its own copies available for inspection and also ought to disclose the names of the typographic experts it consulted. Better yet would be convincing their source to either go public, allow inspection of the original memos, or at least allow a more thorough discussion of exactly where the documents came from.

For reference, some of the problems he notes with the memos were addressed in detail yesterday by Dale. (with graphics for you visual learners)

CBS Finally reveals expert who vetted memos

"These memos are absolutely and positively authentic. I give you my word on that. You can quote me. No kidding. I mean it. Honest."

More funny stuff at Whizbang.

Kerry campaign involved in "Rathergate"?

So says the American Spectator (via the Daily Recycler - due to heavy traffic, American Spectators site is down):

"More than a couple people heard about the papers," says the DNC staffer. "I've heard that they ended up with the Kerry campaign, for them to decide to how to proceed, and presumably they were handed over to 60 Minutes, which used them the other night. But I know this much. When there was discussion here, there were doubts raised about their authenticity."

If true, it redefines "smear campaign". As to the charge that Bush didn't release all his records:

The documents that CBS News used were not documents from any of Bush's personnel files from his time in the National Guard. Rather, CBS News stated that they were documents uncovered in the personnel files of Killian. That would explain why the White House or the Pentagon had never before released or even seen them.

Meanwhile, back at Kerry Campaign headquarters:

According to a Kerry campaign source, there was little gossip about the supposedly hot documents inside the office of the campaign on McPherson Square. "Those documents were not something anyone was talking about or trying to generate buzz on," says the staffer. "It wasn't like there were small groups of people talking about this as a bombshell. I think people here weren't sure what to make of it, because provenance of these documents was uncertain."

But did that stop them from offering them to news organizations? Apparently not. And despite "alarm bells", CBS News went with them:

A CBS producer, who initially tipped off The Prowler about the 60 Minutes story, says that despite seeking professional assurances that the documents were legitimate, there was uncertainty even among the group of producers and researchers working on the story.

"The problem was we had one set of documents from Bush's file that had Killian calling Bush 'an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot.' And someone who Killian said 'performed in an outstanding manner.' Then you have these new documents and the tone and content are so different."

Not to mention their style. But apparently that slipped past the CBS "experts".
It speaks to the desire of CBS to present a negative story about Bush even with all these alarm bells going on, they continued with the project.

Now, the producer says, there is growing concern inside the building on 57th Street that they may have been suckered by the Kerry campaign. "There is a school of thought here that the Kerry people dumped this in our laps, figuring we'd do the heavy lifting on the story. That maybe they had doubts about these documents but hoped we'd get more information," says the producer. "If that's the case, then we're bigger fools than we already appear to be judging by all the chatter about how these documents could be forgeries."

Where was the concern before they ran the story? While it may be true that the documents were forged and it may be true that in the end they were suckered by the Kerry people, it doesn't remove the responsibility for vetting the memos from CBS.

ABC apparently met to talk about the difficulties rival CBS faces and discuss the impact if it is true. The ABC meeting also discussed theories concerning the memos:

ABC News' political unit held a conference call at 7:00 p.m. Thursday evening to discuss the memo and its potential ramifications should the documents turn out to be a forgery. That meeting took place around the time that the deceased Killian's son made public statements questioning the documents' authenticity.

According to one ABC News employee, some reporters believe that the Kerry campaign as well as the DNC were parties in duping CBS, but a smaller segment believe that both the DNC and the Kerry campaign were duped by Karl Rove, who would have engineered the flap to embarrass the opposition.

*Sigh*

You knew Karl Rove would somehow end up as the evil genius behind all of this, didn't you?

(Hat tip to Looker for the link)

Citizen Journalists

Well why not, we have citizen soldiers?

That's the name John Podhoretz gives bloggers and their readers in the 60 minutes/CBS News "Memogate" flap:

The populist revolution against the so-called mainstream media continues. Yesterday, the citizen journalists who produce blogs on the Internet — and their engaged readers — engaged in the wholesale exposure of what appears to be a presidential-year dirty trick against George W. Bush.

What the bloggers and their audiences did was call into profound question the authenticity of four documents proudly trumpeted by CBS News in a much-heralded investigative report on Wednesday night's edition of "60 Minutes" about the president's National Guard service in the early 1970s.

I'm sure well now be treated to some professor of journalism's lament about these unprecidented attacks on an institution he or she reveres. However, these 'corrections" by bloggers seem to be getting more frequent, not less.

Of course, as Podhoretz explains, the left was giddy with the find and just didn't look that closely at the evidence. Never look a gift horse in the mouth. It was exactly what they'd been looking for. It was perfect. Perhaps too perfect:

Liberals went wild with glee about the story, especially after the onslaught on John Kerry's Vietnam record by his fellow Swift-boat veterans.

Kevin Drum, the most talented of the left-wing bloggers, wrote: "This story is a perfect demonstration of the difference between the Swift-boat controversy and the National Guard controversy. Both are tales from long ago and both are related to Vietnam, but . . . in the National Guard case, practically every new piece of documentary evidence provides additional confirmation that the charges against Bush are true."

Drum simply assumed that the documents were above-board. So did The New York Times and The Washington Post, both of which put the story on its front page on Thursday.

But we all know about "assumptions" don't we? Once the documents were released the scrutiny was on. First FreeRepublic and then Powerline were all over the authenticity of the memos. It spread like wildfire among blogs where readers offered comments and ideas, and in some cases expert testimony:

The Minneapolis lawyers who run powerlineblog.com were on the case early. Two of the blog's readers directed their attention to a note left on an Internet bulletin board on the freerepublic.com Web site — the 47th posting on the topic there.

Post No. 47 pointed out that there was something off about these documents from the 1970s: The spacing between the letters and the words was proportional, and only a few IBM electric typewriters could achieve that effect back then.

From there it was off to the races. Once anyone who had had experience writing and typing in the 1970s began examining the documents, it was impossible not to see some weird anachronisms that suggested they had been crafted not on a 1970s typewriter, but using Microsoft Word.

Charles Johnson, who runs the wonderful littlegreenfootballs.com, simply typed one of the memos over using Microsoft Word's New Times Roman font and, lo and behold, the document came out exactly identical to the one on the CBS site, down to the letter spacing.

The documents contain such features as superscript lettering, which is done automatically by Microsoft Word, and curly quotation marks. A brief glance at a Web site called selectric.org, run by an amateur typewriter fanatic, reveals dozens of IBM electric typefaces — and none of them has curly quotation marks.

By 3 o'clock, the very careful and honest Jim Geraghty, who produces invaluable material every day on nationalreview.com's Kerry Spot, was saying flatly, "CBS had better have one heck of a defense for this."

The flap was highlited on Brit Hume's Special Report and Nightline had a special segment on it as well.

From the lies of Ben Barnes to the apparent forgeries of who-knows-who-did-it — why has "60 Minutes" exposed itself in this way?

We all know why. Its producers and others in the media think George Bush deserves to be beaten up now because of the beating administered to John Kerry in August. In some weird way, the editors and producers believe this is fairness at work.

Instead, they have unmasked themselves. Or rather, they have been unmasked by ordinary people who can see what they and their hired experts evidently could not.

It appears that 60 Minutes/CBS had produced a hit piece in which the examination of the authenticity of the evidence at hand was less important than the damage it would do to the Bush campaign. 5 years ago, they may have gotten away with it.

Not anymore.

More from Q and O on this here and here.

UPDATE:

Maybe we should go with a new name for this. Instead of "Memogate" we should call it:

RA^thERGATE

(Hat tip to my bro for that one)

UPDATE II: Wretchard at The Belmont Club describes what happened yesterday with the memo story being shredded by bloggers as a result of "the distributed intelligence of the Internet". Precisely ... a world body of available investigators and experts converged to cry "fake" to the memos. It is still reverberating in the old media and will for some time.

CBS Investigates "Memogate"

From Drudge:

CBS NEWS executives have launched an internal investigation into whether its premiere news program 60 MINUTES aired fabricated documents relating to Bush's National Guard service, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

"The reputation and integrity of the entire news division is at stake, if we are in error, it will be corrected," a top CBS source explained late Thursday.

The source, who asked not to be named, described CBSNEWS anchor and 60 MINUTES correspondent Dan Rather as being privately "shell-shocked" by the increasingly likelihood that the documents in question were fraudulent.

Rather, who anchored the segment presenting new information on the president's military service, will personally correct the record on-air, if need be, the source explained from New York.

UPDATE (JON): I Love Jet Noise has a pretty comprehensive roundup of media reaction (or lack thereof) to this story, as well as notable quotes from the family of the late Lt Col Killian. (hint: they're not buying it, and they're mad. At CBS. )