September 14, 2004 - Bin Rather Lied! Babies Died!

Today's Commentary: September 14th, 2004

Bin Rather lied - Babies died!

Hello Thinkers!

I am going to do my best to keep this one clean, but it won't be easy.

Do you recall, a few years back, the advertisements for a product, a pill, that would lower your weight by encapsulating the fat from the food you consumed? The idea being that the fat would pass through your system instead of being absorbed and eventually parking in the reserved spaces on your love handles. Great idea, until they got to the high speed verbal warning at the end of the commercial describing the side effects. Remember those? Spontaneous uncontrollable bowel movements and gas with oily discharge...yum! People apparently decided that they would rather have their fat on their body instead of in their shorts, because I don't see or hear commercials for this wonder drug anymore.

Now there are commercials for 'male dysfunction' drugs with product warnings that have me a little concerned. For the record, I take neither Cyalis, Livitra, nor any similar product. However, the reason for my distress is that the commercials for these products warn users to seek medical attention if they maintain an 'elevated state' for more than four hours. While not using these products, I have been in an excited state, bordering on sexual arousal, for the past four DAYS - ever since I found out that Dan bin Rather has based a "60 Minutes" Bush bashing story on a potentially falsified document.

The past few days I feel like I have been carrying on a steamy, lurid affair. Leaving work early to consummate my rendezvous with breaking news updates has been only part of my recent erratic behavior. My wife cannot understand why I am wearing expensive cologne every day. I have strained my right shoulder spending too many hours at the gym this week. I called the 800 number for Frederick's of Hollywood to order the French Maid silken teddy for my TV. When they asked me what size, I said "37 inch diagonal." For lunch, I dash to my car for a quickie with news talk radio. For my dinners with the 6 o'clock news, I have been lighting taper candles, raiding the wine rack for my favorite merlots and red zinfandels and settling back with expensive meals - filet mignon, shrimp, rack of lamb and oysters, lots of oysters.

This has been a whirlwind affair for me - no love, no nurturing, no caring - just raw, gritty, violent gratification, the way it was supposed to be. Watching bin Rather squirm like an oozing earthworm impaled on the treble hook of reality, scrutiny and at least semi-objective journalism has been intensely draining. I have taken up smoking. My back hurts.

This runaway freight train started tepidly enough, as just another biased news story from bin Rather on 60 minutes. In his attempt to bring down the President's rising poll numbers, Dan scooped a story which would indicate Bush's activity in the Texas Air National Guard would make him unfit to be C-in-C for this country. Nevermind the fact that he has been doing just that for the past 3+ years - during wartime no less.

Bin Rather's primary evidence? Documentation and an interview with Former Texas House Speaker and Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/091004_bush_service.pdf
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/08/60II/main642060.shtml

This information claims Bush received preferential treatment to avoid overseas deployment during the Vietnam War, and shirked responsibilities to get out of Guard duty altogether. More telling than any part of the Barnes interview was the initial recorded exchange between the Texas politician and bin Rather:

DAN RATHER:
First of all, thank you for doing this.

BEN BARNES:
Glad to be here. Yeah.

Yep. That just about says all you need to know.

Then came the first questions about validity of the supporting documents. Who would have known that this initial story could have snowballed lustfully into what may be the demise of bin Rather? The proportional fonts and superscripts were very uncommon in the late 1960s and early 1970s - but are automatic in today's Microsoft Word. The military lingo has been questioned. Where is the official letterhead? The signature of the late Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, the reported author is suspect. Killian's widow and son are utterly rejecting the validity of the reports, calling them "a farce." CBS News reports these papers came from Killian's "personal file", even though his family claims the papers did not come from them, and Lt. Col. Jerry Killian did not keep copious written notes. How could CBS News have not done even the most basic fact checking?

Even ABC News, another skanky concubine of the left, is starting to look good to me. What the hell? In this bloody orgy of frenzied feeding ripping apart the biased and half-assed reporting by bin Rather and CBS News, all are welcome! Just keep the shoes on!

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\\Politics\\archive\\200409\\POL20040909d.html
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200409\POL20040910b.html
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200409\POL20040910d.html
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/bush_documents_040909-1.html

Oh! The rapture!

Looking at the transcript from the Barnes interview, the former Lt. Governor says, "I-- that's-- that's not my nature to get involved and wanna be political. And that's not why I'm here today." Yet later he makes this statement, "Well, I've been helping Sen. Kerry's campaign from the first day announced." That does not sound like a person who's nature is not to be political. Even the NY Times, the bastion of liberal bias describes Barnes as follows:

"Mr. Barnes, 66, an adviser to Senator John Kerry's campaign and an influential lobbyist with offices in Austin and Washington..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/09/politics/09guard.html?8bl

Climactically, Fox News, my favorite mistress in this carnal feast of journalistic slaughter is reporting that "A key source who was named to back up CBS News' claims about the authenticity of documents used in a report on President Bush's (search) Air National Guard service has recanted his support, saying the network got the information wrong."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132157,00.html

This is too much to take! The dog isn't being fed. The yard work isn't being done. God, it's hot in here... Bills aren't getting paid. I don't care! I don't care! I love it! I love it!

Whew!

Terry McAuliffe is not only distancing himself from this memo, he is implicitly blaming Karl Rove and the RNC of planting this bomb to make Democrats look bad. I wonder if Terry also believes that Israel is actually behind the 9/11 attacks. He certainly knows, like the rest of us, that bin Rather will ignore fact-checking and run with any ball that advances his liberal agenda. Objectivity be damned!

http://washtimes.com/national/20040910-011417-2610r.htm

But despite a chicken-farm's worth of eggs on the face of bin Rather, CBS is standing by their man. Their official statement reads: "For the record, CBS News stands by the thoroughness and accuracy of the 60 MINUTES report this Wednesday on President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/08/60II/main641984.shtml

Talk about gas with oily discharge!

September 9, 2004 - Election 2004: Guns vs. Butter

Today's Commentary: September 9th, 2004

Hello Thinkers!

Before I get to my scheduled rant, I must follow up some comments I made in my last distribution. In my August 24th Commentary, I ripped into Johnny Hair and the Edwards Ambulance Machine for using litigation in an attempt to shut down the Swift Boat Veteran's for the Truth 527 ads.

http://home.comcast.net/~fish2xs/todayscommentary/2004-august-24.html

Since then, I have read and heard that the Bush team is also suing to shut down other 527 advertisements. Any assault on non-libel speech, especially during the political season, is inexcusable and unforgivable. Are we only to be allowed to hear what the respective campaigns want us to hear? What a ridiculous display of elitism from both campaigns! While most of you can figure out how I'll be voting this November, I still have plenty of bones to pick with Mr. Bush. His assault on the first amendment is only part of it. Now on to the subject at hand....

Mon Dieu! What must John Francois Kerry be thinking now? Only a few short weeks ago, polls showed the presidential race to be a statistical toss-up, with Kerry in the lead. It was a tight horse race reminiscent of other epic battles: Wyatt Earp vs. Ike Clanton, Allies vs. Axis, Ginger vs. MaryAnn. Now after the Republican convention, Bush/Cheney is enjoying, by some reports (which I don't believe, by the way) a double digit lead over Kerry/Edwards.

This recent surge has not gone unnoticed by Johnny Hair. The midnight rally in Springfield, OH, immediately following the Republican convention is a certain sign that the gelcoat is coming off the yacht. Even the lovely Teresa has not been immune from the angst of their recent political tailspin. The combination of Happy-Meal caviar and breathing the omnipresent cloud of Paul Mitchell hair products pumped into the Kerry campaign bus must be taking its toll on her tummy.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/05/heinz.kerry.hospital/

Many are the factors which could be causing this turn of events. Post-convention bounces are common, as long as you are not John Kerry, anyway. It is possible that voters are beginning to seriously look at Kerry in light of the message that the RNC focused on in NYC. Even less than two months away from the election, Kerry's positioning is still fluid on significant issues. When pushed to answer Bush's question, "Knowing what we know now, would [Kerry] have supported going into Iraq?", Kerry answered yes.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/08/17/kerrys_lack_of_decisiveness_on_iraq_is_suffocating_him/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37796-2004Aug27.html

This is interesting coming from the self-described "anti-war" candidate. More recently, he is telling us that Bush is doing "everything" wrong in Iraq. It seems the only 180 Kerry has a problem with is the one that will release his Vietnam medical records.

John Kerry's persistent flip flopping could well be a natural result of the composition of today's democratic party. Not only does he need to get the pivotal undecided voter, Johnny Hair also needs to shore up the mosaic of special interests that currently comprise his voting base. This mosaic is held together almost exclusively by a visceral loathing of all things W. This puts Kerry at the mercy of the group to whom he speaks at any point in time, leaving him to do a patch job on the others to keep their support from deflating. Grabbing undecided votes by talking tough on defense one day, means outlining the next day, his objectives of 'Operation Infinite Appeasement' to his base, who mostly believe the attacks of 9/11 are America's fault.

Seizing this, the RNC did what it had to do, and did it very well. They focused on getting out one message: "Our team is better at keeping us safe", and making that message more important than any coming from the other camp. Johnny Hair has even been helping the RNC cause. During his acceptance speech in Boston, he said "Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response," implying that he would wait for another attack instead of doing something to prevent it.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0729.html

The reply from the Republicans? Wake up you idiot! We have already been attacked - now we must take the fight to our enemy.

I have been wrong predicting elections before, and have made a point to avoid predicting this one. But I cannot see how enough of the people who give a damn enough to vote can look at the messages coming from both candidates and put a solid national security policy in the back seat at this point in our history. I have never thought, and still do not believe, that Kerry will even make it close. I feel only a major faux pas (and I mean major!) can derail Bush in November.

I suspect that the penultimate nail in Kerry's political coffin may have come from outside our borders. Images of the slaughter of over 300 innocent people, half of them school children, in Beslan, Russia, needs to be seared - seared into Kerry's memory like a Cambodian Christmas party. No economic policy, civil rights issue or Francophile philosophy Kerry runs with can compare to the guttural response Americans felt when Chechnyan Islamic terrorists mowed down fleeing schoolchildren, shooting them in the back as they escaped. Within every parent's mind is the horror that people exist in the world who could actually do this. The only thing that approaches my personal disdain for these Islamic terrorists, is the whitewashing of them with terms like "rebels" and "militants", that the press is currently engaged in.

Each voter will be making a statement in November. Will it be similar to that of Vladimir Putin who said, "Just imagine that people who shoot children in the back came to power anywhere on our planet. Just ask yourself that, and you will have no more questions about our policy in Chechnya." Or will it be similar to that of French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin, who 'wanted to express solidarity' yet said, "but also we want to have all the necessary information and we remind Russia every time we meet of the need to respect human rights".

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/08/international/europe/08russia.html

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3589710&thesection=news&thesubsection=world

My statement would be to suggest Mr. Putin change his last name to "the Impaler".

As said before, I have been wrong in picking the winner in epic historical struggles, and despite my beliefs, this one could be very close. Oh, who am I kidding? This race was never close. It is MaryAnn by a country mile!