Digging into the transcript

It's starting now, the post-debate debate, and it's fascinating. Here's the transcript, and here are a couple of bon mots discovered so far, via Instapundit.

1) Kerry said he'd give nuclear fuel to Iran. It doesn't matter if you pronounce it correctly if you say stuff like that.

2) Kerry, trying to brag about his decades of foreign (policy) experience, mentioned Treblinka Square. Problem is, according to the new bloggers Reliapundit, Treblinka Square wasn't above the old KGB headquarters, it was the site of a Nazi extermination camp. Now, I wouldn't have known that, so I'm impressed that this blogger does, even if maybe he did just Google it. "The Astute Blogger" indeed! Also, check out his profile: lives in New York, in the arts, 4th generation registered Dem, but seems to be a 9/11 hawk who's going to vote for Bush. Here's another of his posts that's really good.

Closing remarks

Oh, geez, Kerry is using the "I fought as a young man" line again.

Now the President's closing remarks. He addresses the draft lies: "We will have an all-volunteer army".

He believes in the "tranformational power of liberty". That's good, better than "the future belongs to freedom" line from Kerry.

Steadfast, resolute, strong, keeping our word, supporting our troops... we can achieve the peace. He closes the sale, "I ask for your vote".

Whew. It's over.

Korea

Wow, Bush is really nailing Kerry on his suggested approach to talks with North Korea. It's a bizarro world - here, Kerry's advocating that we "go it alone", while Bush is saying, "Hey, we've got allies here, all pressuring Kim Jong Il." As Glenn Reynolds said, no matter who wins, Kim Jong Il should be nervous.

Twice so far

I didn't hear Kerry actually say "Vietnam"... but he already has referenced his war experience twice. As Instapundit says, "take another drink". Apparently, some are playing drinking games... but not us! Not with four kids, not at our ages, not... oh never mind.

The President is hitting some of these right out of the ball park, as far as I'm concerned. And Tom agrees: at one point he was downstairs and I was upstairs, both watching, and we both burst out in applause when Bush derided the notion of trying to be "globally popular". Just the fact that Kerry kept saying Kofi Annan's name with a sort of reverence was enough to show you how wacky that approach is. Can you say, "Oil for Food" scam?

Wow, I can't believe how much better Bush looks in these debates than four years ago.

Bush is being incredibly generous right now, praising Kerry for his service, his being a good father, his service in the Senate (though, wryly, he's not so sure he agrees with the record). But now he's hitting him again on the message: Mixed messages send the wrong signals to our troops, our citizens, our allies, and the Iraqi peopel.

Going to stop this live-blogging for now (since I'm pretty sure nobody's reading me now anyway...!) So if you're looking for good live-blogging, go over to Instapundit. Lots of other good bloggers out there tonight, too.

Oh gee, Kerry's saying he's never wilted and never wavered. Hmmmm. And now the "rush to war" canard again.

OK, now I'm going to quit, really.

Tonight's debate

Haven't had time to blog about anything today - not that there weren't lots of things to blog about. But just have to post this before we watch the debate tonight: If "W" can just keep that twinkle in his eye, he'll win. That's how he won the debate against Gore (when Gore came stalking over toward him), and that's how he can win tonight. As I said in a previous post (no time even to look up that link, so if you're interested, you'll have to hunt for it!), Americans don't want a humorless drone for their President. That's not the deciding factor, of course, or at least it shouldn't be, but if there truly are people are still undecided (really now, is that possible?) they might make up their minds based on personality. Bush wins that contest hands down.

I'm predicting that Kerry will go after Bush like an attack dog. He's been hanging out with Joe Lockhart et. al. just long enough to decide to go all out. Besides, he's got nothing to lose at this point. I can't imagine that he'd be dumb enough to mention Vietnam, but then again... OK, he'll mention it just twice.

That's all I have time for now. Wanted to post about the Dr. Phil interview with the Prez and Laura yesterday, but no time. Wanted to post about the horrible violence in Iraq today, but only enough time to say it breaks my heart, but makes my will stronger, that we persist in this war and win it. I will pray harder, and give more. The local news had a story about a school principal who was called up to Iraq; he spoke very movingly about going there to help other children, in another country, have the same opportunities that children here already have. God bless him. I'll keep him in my prayers as well.

The Crawford "newspaper" endorses Kerry... Big Deal.

Drudge was linking to this story yesterday. So I went to the link, and then to the Iconoclast site.

The masthead indicated this was Volume 5. Hmmm. That's not very many volumes. So I called the number given for advertising info, and was told that the paper was started in December of 2000. Right after the election.

I'm thinking this weekly paper was started just to have a forum for the opposition, which is fine, but if it's true, it hardly makes their "endorsement" of Kerry a big deal.

UPDATE: The link for Archives on the Iconoclast site only shows the past three issues. I clicked on "Crawford" for back issues as instructed, but that link is broken. Next I sent a quick email to the webmaster asking for a copy of the first issue, but got a "message delivery failure" email in return. Quite an outfit they've got there, isn't it? About as well-oiled as Kerry's campaign.

UPDATE TWO: This morning's Chicago Tribune had a "Campaign Dispatch" bit about the endorsement. However, they erroneously reported that the Iconoclast endorsed Bush in 2000. According to the information I was given on the phone yesterday, the Iconoclast wasn't begun until December 2000, so they couldn't have endorsed anyone in the last election. I called the paper to give them this info and the woman said they'd look into it to see if a correction was necessary. Like the endorsement itself, this isn't really a big deal, but it's one of those little points that a paper like the Tribune ought to get right. The best part of the article? The fact that the townspeople of Crawford are so furious about the endorsement that, as one woman said, "I'd just as soon burn it". Don't look for that on the Kerry website.

Kerry's Not-So-Great Misadventures in September

This timeline is hilarious if you're a Bush supporter, but it's get-out-the-hankies time if you're not.

And I would suggest that for today's entry, Chris Lynch should add that Kerry is turning orange. Hey, John Forbes, it's not even October yet! Why the pumpkin look?

I would check back to the link above every day this week. There are still three days left in September, with time for many more mishaps.

This video is devastating.

Watch this: Searching

Just for fun...

For all the sports fans out there: Football Fans For Truth

Thoughts from an Iraqi blogger

Just go and read this, please. (Link via Instapundit.) He's justifiably angry about the sneering column by Maureen Dowd (which I won't link to, because it's just not worth the cyberspace). Here's a quote from the Iraqi blog:

But it's the Dowds who seem to have the floor. The vast majority of Iraqis who want to make the country succeed and are willing to take risks and work hard to achieve that goal are all fodder for her snide jokes. Rest assured, Iraqis know Allawi's history very, very well. Iraqis know about his Baathist past; they know that he is no Nelson Mandela. But for now, he's their chance. For figures like Dowd, Allawi and indeed all his fellow Iraqis are just punchlines. But if this is about sarcasm and jokes, we'll see who -- the Iraqis or the sneering press -- has the last laugh.

I know who I'm rooting for, and it ain't the press.

Another laugh!

Some of the funniest photos yet.

Good for a laugh.

This almost sounds a little like an urban legend to me... but what the hey, we need a laugh. (Thanks to Rightwingsparkle for linking to the letter on Wizbang. Go to Larry Elder's site for the original posting of the letter, and while you're there, poke around a little. He's good.)

Today's quiz

Based on these descriptions, predict whether the person is a Bush or Kerry supporter:

1) A 50-year old female, public school teacher, married, no kids.

2) A 40-something male, drywaller, married, four kids.

3) A 50-something business woman, owner of an upscale, well-established jewelry store; marital status unknown; lives in an older suburb.

Ready? Scroll down when you've made up your mind.


















1) Bush. She's adamant about not wanting Kerry to be president because of his waffling on the security issue.

2) Bush. He's a former Marine, owns his drywalling business which employs a number of immigrants, is disgusted with Kerry's posturing on his Vietnam service, wants to see the terrorists defeated, and knows that the economy is far better than Kerry and the Mainstream Media would have us believe.

3) Kerry. She lives in a predominantly Democratic neighborhood and seems to have bought the MSM/Kerry view on the violence in Iraq, the need for a quick "exit strategy", it's costing too much, etc.

I had conversations with all three of these people over the past 3 days. Fascinating. I've never seen people so engaged on the issues as they are for this campaign. Not sure what that will mean for either turnout or the final results, but it's interesting to be able to have these sorts of conversations with people that I only know in a casual or business context.

Bush volunteered for Vietnam.

Instapundit links to this article from Newsweek:

The standard rap against Bush is that he was ducking combat by joining the Guard. Actually, the Texas Air Guard had a program called Palace Alert that allowed pilots to volunteer for flight time in Vietnam. Three of Bush's fellow pilots—Udell, Woodfin and Fred Bradley—recalled to NEWSWEEK that Bush inquired with the base commander about signing up for Palace Alert. He was told no; he had too few flying hours at the time and his plane, the F-102, was by then deemed obsolete for air combat.

Wow. So Bush actually volunteered for Vietnam? How come he never mentions that? Oh yeah, because he's not basing his campaign on what happened half a lifetime ago. There's a lot to admire about our President.

Lazarus at the gate.

Today's Gospel can make a comfortable middle-class American squirm. It's the parable of Lazarus, the poor man covered with sores, lying at the gate of the rich man's house, longing just to eat the scraps from his table. As our pastor put it this morning, the rich man didn't actively do anything evil to Lazarus; his sin was one of omission. He just ignored Lazarus. He was too comfortable, too complacent, too self-centered.

So what can we do to help the poor? On an individual level, I think all middle and upper-class Americans (and might I add French, Italians, Canadians, etc.) can give more, which is why I intend to add to my list of "Please Give" sites as time allows.

That's where it starts, with individuals giving more of what they have, as their own conscience dictates, to the charities they support. That's not enough, of course, and it's true that we must do more, but this proposal, for an international tax to be levied and collected by the U.N., is a dreadfully bad idea. I think we should have learned by now that the U.N. is inefficient, ineffective, and corrupt,and shouldn't be trusted to administer a child's piggy bank, much less a multi-billion dollar international tax.

According to this story, the GAO has weighed in on the idea, properly:

The Washington-based General Accounting Office (GAO), a US watchdog body, has said the United States is opposed to any suggestion that the United Nations be granted authority to impose taxes.

"Because the United Nations is an organisation of sovereign states with no independent power of its own, it has no authority to impose taxes within the jurisdictions of its member states," the GAO said.

Exactly. Also, according to this article, the Bush administration (through spokesperson U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman) objected to the tax proprosal on the grounds that "[international taxes] would be inherently undemocratic and impossible to implement."

Of course they would be. But, for having the courage to say so, President Bush will be criticized. Here's what the exemplary Jacques Chirac, he whose country was part of the Oil-for-Food scandal, has to say:

Chirac, who traveled to New York solely for Monday's meetings, said he and Silva would propose new approaches to fund the alleviation of poverty, although the meetings resulted in no specific proposals.

"I believe taxation is a necessity," he said at a press conference following the meeting.

The large number of supporters for the declaration creates "a new political situation" for the United States, Chirac said.

"You can't oppose that forever," he declared.

Already, he's trying to set a trap for Bush.

But, Mr. Chirac, let me tell you, we can oppose bad ideas forever. And this is a really, really bad idea.

If the U.N. was serious about alleviating poverty and hunger, there are many things they could do instead of setting up another huge bureaucracy to try to forcibly redistribute wealth.

They could advocate for democracy and actively oppose tyrants of all types, including communists and Islamofascists, since people living under dictators always are worse off than those in free countries. Best case study of that today: North vs. South Korea.

They could focus the world's attention on the corrupt leaders who steal aid money meant for their starving people.

They could urge countries to reduce taxes so that people are encouraged to take initiative to solve their problems, start their own businesses, invest in their local communities, reduce their dependency on government.

That's what I'd like to see the U.N. do, so that instead of getting the crumbs of the tax money from the U.N.'s table, the Lazaruses of the world could be invited to the party.

But while you wait for that to happen... don't forget to give a little more.

And Kerry wants to be a coalition-builder? Ha.

I'd wanted to blog more about Kerry's shameful remarks after Prime Minister Allawi's speech, but didn't have time. However, Ali has it exactly right on Iraq the Model:

Allawi’s speech was articulate, impressive and honest and most Iraqis I talked to lately share the same opinion with me, but much more impressive was the reaction of all members of the congress who were there. That was the American people there, the whole American nation not just republicans, standing and cheering not Allawi but what he stood for; IRAQ. They were showing support and friendship to Iraq not Allawi and that was a rare moment in history where the two nations Iraq and America stood as equal friends, no actually it was more like family as one American friend described. Insulting Allawi and Bush and the whole speech, speaking so harshly of that unique moment is an insult not to Bush or Allawi but to both the Iraqi and American nations, and yes that goes for everyone did that.

Everyone including Senator Kerry, I would say.

Here's another take, from Doug Giles of Townhall.com, on Kerry's comments:

Watching a grateful Allawi cheered on by the entire membership of our Congress warmed my belly and made me proud to be an American.

Not so for the DNC’s presidential wannabe. With tight-pursed lips, mock civility and a clenched jaw, Kerry relieved himself like a drunken alley cat on everything Allawi said. At Carville’s command, Kerry would have us believe the Iraqi patriot is a Bush administration puppet, going so far as to imply that Allawi was lying, deceiving the world about the true state of Iraq. For Kerry to accuse Allawi of lying is similar to Michael Jackson calling William Buckley freaky.

Yep.

Bias against bloggers.

According to Little Green Footballs, the New York Times Magazine wrote an article about political blogs, and somehow managed to leave out any mention of the conversative bloggers. This is journalism?

UPDATE: Skimmed most of the NYT article; the fact that they wasted so much space on Wonkette (who I refuse to even link to) shows they really didn't intend a serious article. You would think they could have managed to spend a few column inches on how bloggers discovered that Dan Rather used forged documents, but no. What a joke.

More good news from Afghanistan

And more reason to stay the course in Iraq. Here's the article; here's a quote:

Afghans themselves are optimistic. The country has passed its major political challenges reasonably well since the fall of the Taliban in 2001 – forming a transitional cabinet, drafting and approving a constitution, maintaining a steady civilian government in Kabul. The next milestone, Afghanistan’s first free presidential election in over a decade, also looks to be a qualified success. For now, that’s quite an achievement.

I'd say.

The "First Lady" factor.

There's one element of this campaign that hasn't gotten as much attention as I'd expected, perhaps because it's viewed as not as important as the main issues (true) or perhaps because it's not considered polite (though I don't think it's impolite), and that is that the Democratic wives are a big drag on the ticket.

I'll grant you that both Elizabeth Edwards and Teresa Heinz Kerry are smart and independent. You might hear people say that Americans can't handle smart, independent women, but that's flat out false. It flies in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, at the personal level, where men are eager to marry smart women, and where fathers strive to raise daughters who are educated and independent; in the corporate sphere and academia, where smart women with advanced degrees achieve at high levels; and in self-employment and entrepreneurship, where women are well-represented.

Besides, Laura Bush and Lynne Chaney are equally as smart and independent as the Democratic candidates' wives, and they've obviously been accepted as appropriate First Lady types. Laura Bush's approval rating hovers above 70%. (Teresa Heinz-Kerry's is a shockingly low 35%).

A second possible factor is Teresa's outspokenness. But the problem is not just that Teresa "speaks her mind"; I think Americans are very comfortable with women who speak up. It's the way she does it. She is amazingly blunt; she's said things that most people would try not to say when in front of an open mike. If you're going to speak your mind as the First Lady, we'd like you to at least be polite about it, thank you. It would be nice if you didn't refer to those who disagree with you as "idiots", or use the word "scumbags" in any context.

A relevant quote from a profile of her in the New Yorker,

Despite her linguistic prowess and her worldliness, Heinz Kerry has, at times, a deaf ear for the nuances of slang, code, condescension, and vulgarity in English—for the emotion of the language.

This doesn't bode well for her role as a national spokeswoman, if she were First Lady.

I think Americans also want to at least have some reason to believe that the First Couple, as it were, has a stable, loving marriage. For the Heinz-Kerry's, given the report of a shouting match on the campaign trail, this report of the two during an interview, and my own observation of her body language during a snippet of the Dr. Phil interview (she was leaning away from John as she sat on the sofa with him, and had an oh-my-gosh-I'm-so-bored look on her face), I'm not so sure that's the case. Is it none of our business? Maybe. But I'm not arguing that we should consider this; I'm simply offering the observation that people probably do consider it, and that this may hurt the Kerry campaign.

To tell the truth, in spite of all this, I actually think I might like Teresa, if I knew her. I think she's like that somewhat eccentric aunt everyone should have, always fun to be with, perhaps a little unpredictable, outspoken, with an interesting life story. And I think she probably has a big heart. I read, in the Weekly Standard, that she once told an audience on the campaign trail that she had always wanted a big family, seven, eight kids. The audience laughed. Then she said she tried but couldn't do it. They laughed again... until it dawned on them that she was sharing a story of personal heartbreak. In my view, anyone who wanted to have a bunch of kids can't be all bad.

I even kind of like the fact that even though she's worth billions, she looks like she dresses not much better than I do, and her hair is definitely not upper-east-side "rich hair". It's sort of a nonchalant, I-don't-care look.

However. Put all these things together - the emotional tone-deafness, the world-be-damned bluntness, the casual approach to appearance - and I'm not sure that's what people are looking for when they think "First Lady". Eccentric, rich old aunt, maybe. First Lady of the United States of American, uh-uh. Is this the women we want representing our country at state dinners? Meeting with foreign dignitaries? Speaking out on her pet issue? (Speaking of which, what is her pet issue, anyway?)

Here's a theory from Industrial Psychology that applies. According to "Implicit Leadership Theory", people have beliefs, shaped in part by their culture, about what a leader should be (decisive, perhaps somewhat charmismatic, intelligent, not a loner, not egocentric, etc.) When we look for a new leader, every four years, we match up the potential candidates with our abstract, implicit prototype of a leader.

This is probably also true of First Ladies. We match up the candidates wives to our images of what a "First Lady" looks like. And that's where Teresa (and even, to some extent, Elizabeth Edwards) doesn't quite make the cut. I'm thinking she's going to cost the Dems at least 2% of the vote. Not much -- but maybe enough to affect the outcome.

UPDATE: After a lengthy online search, I found the Weekly Standard article that profiled Teresa and mentioned her love of children. Here's the quote (the article is available only to paid subscribers).

Her candor can be incredibly touching. "When I was 5 years old, or 6, I had just had a little baby sister, so I was really enchanted," she told the GLBT caucus during one of her digressions. "And people would say, 'Well, what are you going to be when you are big?' And I always said, 'I'm going to have 12 children.'" Here the audience broke out in laughter, but it was not a joke.

"I didn't," Teresa continued. "I tried, but I didn't." Not understanding what she meant, the audience laughed again, and started clapping.

Teresa paused for just a moment. "I lost three, okay? So I got up to six," she said gently. "But I have three wonderful children, and a grandchild." Her voice had real pain, and pride.

See why I like her? But I just don't want her as a First Lady, that's all.

A "Thank You" from Iraq's prime minister.

Drudge links to this AP story on Ayad Allawi's speech to Congress today. Said Allawi:

"Today, we are better off, you are better off, the world is better off without Saddam Hussein," Allawi said. He added: "Your decision to go into Iraq was not an easy one, but it was the right one."

Also,

"We Iraqis know that Americans have made and continue to make enormous sacrifices to liberate Iraq, to assure Iraq's freedom," Allawi said. "I have come here to thank you and to promise you that your sacrifices are not in vain."

Kerry already is trying to rip this apart, according to this AP story picked up by The Guardian (wouldn't ya know) - but it's a stretch to believe that he would know more about the situation in Iraq than that country's own prime minister.

The truth about Afghanistan

Maybe things aren't as bad as Kerry and the Mainstream Media would have us believe. Here's a great article you really should read, in today's New York Times. (Isn't it amusing how I pretend that someone - other than you, dear husband - actually reads this blog? And yes, that's a pathetic plea for comments...) Anyway, it's a great article (via Instapundit, via Greg Djerejian.)

From the NYT article:

While two out of three Afghans cited security as their most pressing concern in a poll taken this summer by the International Republican Institute, four out of five respondents also said things are better than they were two years ago. Despite dire predictions from many Westerners, the presidential election, scheduled for Oct. 9, now looks promising. Ten million Afghans have registered to vote, far more than were anticipated, and almost half of those who have signed up are women.

And Greg Djerejian's question is in line with this blog's meme about the "anti-Bush Old Media":

Will Bergen's piece (Bergen, of course, is no Bush apologist) be honestly appraised (or even mentioned) by a quorum of commentators on the Left? Or will they continue to trot out the tired and convenient shibboleth that Bush bungled Afghanistan because of the Iraq adventure?

In my field (Industrial Psychology), we like to say that "past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior (under similar circumstances)". Given that, I'm predicting that the answer to Greg's questions are 1) No, it won't be mentioned by the left, and 2) Yes, they'll continue to trot out the old "Bush bungled" shibboleth. Kind of a no-brainer there, isn't it?

Here's one more thing you should read; follow the link.

Kofi Annan has a lot of nerve...

... to call the war in Iraq "illegal". First, it boggles the mind to think that this comes from a man who presided over "Oil for Food", the corrupt scam perpetrated under the auspices of the U.N., through which Hussein enriched his coffers - and maybe those of the terrorists - while his people starved. Not only that, but it's hard to imagine an organization more bloated, incompetent, and self-serving than the U.N. They were useless in getting Hussein to change, and just as useless now about the crisis in Darfur.

So not only does Annan have zero moral authority to proclaim our actions "illegal", his remarks could be additional ammunition for the Hussein loyalists and terrorists. Over on Iraq the Model, Omar has posted the text of an email from Mr. Joseph Ghougassian, a former ambassador of the USA to Qatar who also worked as a CPA advisor in Iraq. Here's an excerpt, so you can ponder the implications of Mr. Annan's despicable comments:

If I was still in Baghdad, I would feel uneasy and unsafe to conduct outside the Green Zone my usual daily official business given the high rhetoric of Kofi Annan and Senator John Kerry about the war in Iraq. I feel for my colleagues who are still toiling in Iraq; they are caught in the web of politicians making irresponsible assertions that empower the terrorists to continue and expand their evil doings against the Iraqis and foreigners.

Zarkawi, Bin Ladden and the countless terrorist groups operating inside Iraq, listen to American and British media. The criticisms levied by Annan and Kerry play well in the hands of the terrorists and provide the latter the added fuel to brainwash suicide bombers or to incite criminals to behead Americans and civilians of other nations.

At this juncture of time, Annan should become sensitized to the real pains and losses the Iraqi Kurds, Shias, Turkomen and Christians suffered in the hands of Saddam. May be he should apologize to Iyad Allawi, the Interim Prime Minister, for making the undiplomatic faux pas in declaring the war in Iraq as "illegal".

After all, had Kofi Annan been an effective U.N. Secretary General and had he succeeded in persuading Saddam to comply with all the UN security council resolutions, the US and its allies would not be in Iraq.

I don't even know what to say. Except maybe that Annan's incompetence, depravity and arrogance are contemptible.

What do the Iraqi people think?

Apparently, they have much more confidence in their country's future than John Kerry does. A poll released on September 8th indicates that most Iraqis have faith in democracy, and express hope for the future. Here's a quote from an article by James S. Robbins:

The IRI poll revealed that three quarters of Iraqis are hopeful for the future, that 80 percent believe things will slowly get better, two-thirds think life will be better a year from now and seventy percent would not leave Iraq if given a chance. Eighty-seven percent plan to vote in the upcoming election (much greater than US voter participation), and only about 1.5 percent are concerned that the security situation makes things too unstable to vote. Fifty-eight percent believe democracy is either very or somewhat likely to succeed.

Somebody tell John Kerry; he still has time to change his mind about Iraq. Again. And again, and again, and again....

Vietnam, Iraq, and freedom.

Amity Shlaes has a very thoughtful column in today's Chicago Tribune. (OK, maybe there are good reasons for us to subscribe.) She makes the case the world has changed dramatically in the past 30 years since Vietnam, and that's why voters aren't responding to Kerry's anti-Vietnam war and anti-Iraq war positions the way the Dems thought they would. As she puts it:

Still, the main reason the Vietnam debate has taken the turn it has is generational. In the years after Vietnam, Americans could, if they chose, comfortably tell themselves that war must be avoided at all costs. The war they were in, the Cold War, seemed distant and cynical. That began changing with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the 1991 Persian Gulf war and, especially, the conflict in Yugoslavia. The end of the Cold War proved that the fight for freedom--the phrase had seemed so tired--was perhaps worthy after all. The first Gulf war demonstrated that a war that was merely about borders and sovereignty could be an incomplete war, even a dangerous failure.

The Balkan wars and subsequent international effort, including pressure to bring down then-Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, showed that a moral campaign to re-establish democracy could be worthwhile. These wars formed the young adulthood of Americans born after Saigon fell.

More recently--especially after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks--the U.S. accelerated its re-evaluation. Afghanistan and Iraq seemed worthwhile for moral reasons. Perhaps, people began to think, Vietnam had been worthwhile as well. The Bush administration has formulated its democracy-building programs for Afghanistan or Iraq poorly. But the idea that the U.S. should bring democracy to troubled places has taken root in the U.S., and not merely among the so-called neo-conservatives.

I hate to be in the position of arguing "for" war. I pray every day that this war will end soon, and I pray for the people of Iraq as well as the coalition soldiers and their families who are suffering so much.

But while it's true that war is hell, pacifism leads just as surely to other kinds of hell. The people of Iraq were suffering under a Hussein-induced hell for decades. Now, the entire civilized world is being threatened with the Islamofacist kind of hell, where terrorists unleash their fury against any innocent man, woman, or child who (they think) stands between them and world domination. Here's a quote from Al-Qa'ida spokesman Suleiman Abu Gheith, in 2002:

The [divine] rule is that the entire earth must be subject to the religion of Allah - not to the East, not to the West - to no ideology and to no path except for the path of Allah…"

He goes on to say that, since Muslims have been wronged by American "infidels", (but never by their own tyrannical Muslim leaders?),

We have the right to kill 4 million Americans - 2 million of them children - and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands.

As far as I can tell, there is no alternative. Appeasement won't work. Containment won't work. Being "nice" to them won't work. Remember, it was during the Clinton years, when supposedly we were being "nice" to everyone, and when we supposedly had such great respect throughout the world, that the terrorists planned, financed, and trained for their brutal attack on 9/11, not to mention carrying out the many other attacks against our bases and embassies around the world.

I'm glad that Senator Kerry has decided, finally, to take a stand on the war in Iraq - at least for today. He's chosen the wrong stand, of course, but fortunately for us, and for people around the world, he's not the President, and I hope he never will be.

How could Dan Rather ever have believed this?

Drudge is linking to a USA Today story that lays out unbelievably damning evidence about Rather's source, Bill Burkett. How Rather and Mary Mapes could ever have believed this man is beyond me. I still feel sorry for Burkett; he's obviously very disturbed, and is admitting to more lies than I can count right now. Read the whole article -- and your jaw will be hitting the floor, too.

Why, oh why, do we even subscribe?

The Chicago Tribune's headline this morning: "Kerry: Bush Failed in Iraq". Wait a minute -- they take Kerry's latest attempt to try to hurt Bush in the polls and actually call that news?!? They make that the HEADLINE?!? With a huge picture of Kerry pointing, as though he's shaking his finger at someone. Maybe tomorrow the headline will read, "Kerry: Vote for me, not Bush".

I need more coffee, because I'm thinking maybe I just didn't wake up enough yet to read that right.

Oh, yes, that other little matter about Dan Rather passing off forged documents as real, from a disgruntled former TexANG member who now is a Kerry supporter, who seems to be in cahoots with Joe Lockhart of the Kerry campaign, which seems to prove that CBS is so partisan that they can't see straight? That (much smaller) headline is above the fold, but the story itself has only a few inches below the fold on the front page.

Saw the Today show this morning; Anne Curry interviewed Nancy Gibbs of Time magazine, who said that the real question hasn't been answered yet. That is, of course, who created those documents? And I would add, just how much was the Kerry campaign involved?

Ms. Gibbs made me chuckle when she said something about how bad the Kerry camp must feel to wake up to learn that "the president is now the victim of a vast left-wing conspiracy"! I love it. In addition, she said that this whole episode with bloggers shows that we've democratized (or maybe decentralized) information so much that if major media won't cover a story, someone else will.

Then, in a pathetic, reflexive defense of her profession, Anne Curry wrapped up by saying something like, "Oh yes, that's fine, but [concerned frown on face] we have to make sure it's right."

Anne, Anne, Anne. Were you paying any attention? CBS got the story horribly, miserably wrong, and the guys in pajamas got it exactly right.

On a totally different topic...

During school time today, my 7-year-old son read a poem titled "The Sewing Lesson" from his McGuffy reader. Those books are delightful. (Note to self: Good topic for future post...) It seemed appropriate to give him and my 5-year-old daughter a little sewing lesson, so we got out the sewing basket and a piece of scrap velvet cloth. They each unspooled the thread, cut a length, threaded the needle, and then sewed a few inches of stitches. I couldn't believe the joy they found in this little task! When I said, "That's enough sewing for today" (just as the mother in the poem had said) they put away their materials and said they couldn't wait for their next sewing lesson. I love homeschooling.

Why I love Google.

When writing that last post, I googled "penultimate" just to see if there was a word for third-to-last. Well, I found this, which was good for a laugh, and this, which proves that languages are fascinating.

And that's why I love Google.

P.S. If you're wondering but don't want to follow the second link, there doesn't seem to be an English word for third-to-last, but there apparently is a German one.

It's always in the penultimate paragraph.

A local radio host, Mark Belling (who's also an occasional substitute host for Rush Limbaugh) says that when reading a story from Old Media, you always should read the second- or third-to-last paragraph, because that's where the real lede will be buried.

I think he's right. Here's the third-to-last paragraph in an AP story on Rathergate, as linked on Drudge today:

CBS said Burkett acknowledged he provided the documents and said he deliberately misled a CBS producer, giving her a false account of their origin to protect a promise of confidentiality to a source.

If he's really protecting the confidentiality of a source, who could that be? Could it be, as has been rumored, someone from the Kerry campaign? Or did Burkett give the documents to the campaign? Whether or not the Kerry campaign was involved at all, we still need to know 1) who created those documents and 2) what's going to happen to Dan Rather.

One Worry.

Based on the polls, things are looking good for President Bush. Most show him leading Kerry by at least 5 points; a USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll shows him leading by 52 to 44, in Wisconsin. IN. WISCONSIN. Unbelievable, though in line with what I've predicted.

But there's one worry that's been nagging at me over the past week or so, and that's voter fraud. Jeff Jacboy has a great article today that lays out the scope of the problem. It's distressing, to say the least.

Mark Belling also addressed the problem in an article recently, and has been talking about it on his daily radio talk show, as well.

Now, theoretically, this shouldn't affect the election, if you make the assumption that both Republicans and Democrats cheat in equal numbers. But I don't think that's the case. Here's a quote from the Jacoby article linked above:

Fund cites reporter Glenn Simpson and political scientist Larry Sabato, co-authors of a recent book on corruption in American politics. Some liberal activists they interviewed go so far as to justify voter fraud on the grounds that such "extraordinary measures" compensate for the weaker political clout of minorities and the poor.

So, if it's true that desperate people do desperate things, and if it's also true that the Democrats are getting more and more desperate (which recent events would seem to indicate), then this is not good for Republicans.

Although, as Hugh Hewitt says in the title of his new book, "If it's not close, they can't cheat!" I'm hoping that will be the case.

UPDATE: Oops, a typo above; I meant to type "Jacoby", not "Jacboy".

Dan Rather is finally admitting it.

Drudge reports that Rather is going to say, "We were deceived."

Shouldn't he really say, "We were so excited that were were finally going to be able to stick it to Bush - after years and years of fruitless fishing for documents - that we rushed into a story that anybody could tell was bogus."

Yep, he should.

Then he should follow up with, "So, I retire in disgrace, and promise to never, ever, take a fee for a speaking engagement for the rest of my life, nor will I write a book in which I endeavor to reclaim my lost reputation. So, I say, for the last time, 'If you're disgusted with us, frankly I don't blame ya.'"

Or maybe he should say this.

Case Closed on Rathergate

Here is a fabulous side-by-side comparison of the fake Ra^thergate documents and some authentic TexANG documents. The Washington Post is doing its job, unlike much of the rest of Old Media.

Of course, it will take a long time for Old Media to acknowledge that GIPs (Guys In Pajamas, as they were disparagingly referred to by CBS executive Jonathan Klein) might actually know something, and might even do a better job of ferreting out facts than they do. This morning's Chicago Tribune had a front page article on blogs, in which they made hay out of the shocking revelation that some bloggers - gasp - actually are conservative! Of course, they make no note at all of the fact that most Old Media types - including Dan Rather - are liberals, and have a long track record of voting Democratic, speaking at Democratic fundraisers, and giving money to Democrats running for office. Nor have they excoriated George Soros for giving millions of dollars to noxious groups like moveon.org, the way they did the Swift Vets for speaking out about John Kerry.

In the end, the bias of Old Media may end up being irrelevant. The blogosphere will become the much-needed system of checks and balances that is needed for a free press. Certainly, in this case, it's obvious that the blogosphere did a far better job of fact-checking and research than CBS.

Here's a good explanation of why the blogosphere works so well, based on F. A. Hayek's economic model of the efficiencies of decentralization. Since there's nothing more decentralized than blogs on the Internet, is it possible that there's nothing more efficient than the blogosphere for information seeking and sharing? (Credit to Instapundit for linking to the first and third articles linked here.)

In honor of today's Bears / Packers game:

Kerry. Pathetic. Geez, I think I could throw a football better than this.

And here are some other things: He called Lambeau Field "Lambert" field. Oh. My. Gosh. Is he really as clueless as he appears to be?!? He might have lost Wisconsin just for that boneheaded remark.

On the other hand, if you want to see a man who actually knows something about sports, here's a clip from a new HBO Documentary, "Nine Innings from Ground Zero", about the 2001 New York Yankees. The clip showcases President Bush throwing out the first pitch in Game Three of the World Series - a perfect pitch, I might add, unlike Kerry's pathetic bouncer in Fenway Park for which he was booed in his own hometown.

That's what I said!

"Like watching a train wreck." Yep, that's what I said, and here's what Tim Rutten of the the L.A. Times says, via Instapundit:

Watching Dan Rather unravel over the past week has been something like watching a train wreck unfold: You know it's all going to end badly, but you just can't look away until you've seen how many cars ultimately go off the rails. Well, now we know, and there's not much left to do but wave at the caboose as it careens over the side. . . .

You'll need to register for the L.A. Times to read it (isn't that annoying? at least it's free) but it's worth it because Rutton has good suggestions on how CBS should have handled this. Everybody makes mistakes; it's how you 'fess up to them and fix them that shows what you're made of.

Another Swift Vets for Truth ad

Go here and take a look. This one is as good as the others. And when you get there, copy the website address and email it to everyone you know. This needs to be seen.

He didn't say the threat was imminent!

I just heard Tim Russert say that the President claimed Iraq posed an imminent threat. I am so sick of hearing people say that when it is simply not true!

This is the relevant quote from the President's State of the Union speech on January 28, 2003:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

Clearly, he's saying that we can't wait until the threat is imminent.

Here's another good speech by President Bush, in which he lays out the case for military action against Hussein. All other options had been tried, and failed; Hussein had a brutal history of using weapons of mass destruction; he was harboring terrorists; he had an abiding hatred of the United States.

Here's the thing: Hindsight is 20/20. Now it seems that Hussein didn't yet have WMD (although, truly, we don't know if he'd shipped them out to Syria or somewhere else just before the war). But we didn't know that then. The entire world, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and George W. Bush included, believed that Hussein possessed such weapons (just as he had when he mass-murdered the Kurds). We knew that he was harboring terrorists. We knew he wasn't cooperating with the U.N. and hadn't been for years. We knew he was an evil tyrant who tortured and mass-murdered his own countrymen.

So we had reasonable cause to remove Hussein from power. And no matter what Kerry says now about it, remember that he argued forcefully for going to war based on the evidence that we had at the time. Don't believe it? Go to http://kerryoniraq.com

Wow, where to begin???

First, Drudge links to a Washington Post article which says Dan Ra^ther is now "having doubts" about the authenticity of the memos, and, get this, he said, "If the documents are not what we were led to believe, I'd like to break that story."

Dan. I don't know how to say this, but... IT'S OLD NEWS! You've been scooped by the GIPs!^*.

Not only that, but Drudge also points to another Post article, which says the documents have been traced to a Texas Kinko's, not far from the house of one Bill Burkett, the disgruntled former National Guard member.

Isn't that interesting?

I'm glad the Republicans aren't going to pursue this in Congress. Let the Old and New Media sort this out. I have confidence in the Blogosphere.

* GIPs = Guys In Pajamas

UPDATE: Here's a good story on Burkett. He's hardly an unimpeachable witness. I feel sorry for the guy, actually.

UPDATE 2: If you go to the Post links from this site, you have to register. However, if you go to Drudge, you can still get the articles without registration.

There's something about a guy like this

that you gotta love.

I'm not a pundit with political savvy..

... and I don't even play one on TV. So you really have no reason to put much faith in anything I say here.

Still, I'm sticking with my prediction of a landslide (clarification: electoral landslide, not popular vote landslide as in the 80% to 20% drumming of Mary Panzer yesterday) for President Bush. I'm also predicting that Bush will take Wisconsin as part of that landslide, and that Senator Feingold can kiss his Senate seat good-bye.

This could be entirely wishful thinking on my part. But I'm still going to stick with my predictions. So, on November 3rd, I'll either be crowing "I told you so"... or eating crow.

UPDATE: But I won't be listening to Sheryl Crow. She's giving a free concert for Kerry today. Boo.

Democracy is exciting.

Primary election today in Wisconsin. There was a three-way race in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate. It was a tough decision; all three were pretty good candidates, and any one of them would be a far sight better than the absolutely disgraceful Senator we have now (Russ Feingold). Here's the gist of the conversation I had with at least half a dozen people: "Who are you voting for? Who's the best candidate? Who's got the best chance to beat Feingold in November?"

I've never seen people go through such a difficult decision-making process in an election. I personally changed my mind multiple times. Finally, my husband convinced me that Michels was the best candidate -- though truthfully, we both thought Russ Darrow (his slogan: "The Right Russ") was going to win. So, we voted for the guy who we thought was truly the best candidate: more conservative, more solidly pro-life.

And surprise, surprise -- he won! And it wasn't even close; something like 43% to 23% for the runner up (Darrow). UPDATE 9/15: Just saw on the local news that it was 43% to 30%.

The other really interesting election was a State Senate primary race. The incumbent, Mary Panzer, the Senate Majority Leader, was soundly defeated by the challenger, Glenn Grothman, by 80% to 20%. That is far more than a defeat, that's a pounding. And why? Because the voters had decided she was a RINO: Republican in Name Only.

It's a good lesson for the Republican party. The base is solidly conservative; they are pro-life, they want their represenatives to be 100% pro-life, and they are not interested in wishy-washy, liberal-leaning RINOS.

The people have spoken! Hope the leadership is listening.

To Kitty Kelly: "Bye-bye now".

I'm watching Matt Lauer interview her now right, and I have to say, in my humble opinion, he's shredding her. I don't think this book will have any impact on anyone with an IQ higher than a turnip's. I mean, Laura Bush sold drugs to kids?!?! After picking myself up off the floor, it occurred to me that this book should be in the "Humor" section at B&N.

As far as the Bill Burkett question, Lauer at least mentioned in passing that he is possibly implicated in the questions about the forged documents (not exact words here, just going from memory). Well, that's something, I guess. But I'm still waiting for someone in Old Media to flat out acknowledge that the documents are forgeries, and that Bill Burkett has an axe to grind and is hardly an unimpeachable source. I won't be holding my breath.

What are you wearing? Jammies!

Back in the early days of AOL and Compuserve, one of my good friends hung out in a chat room called "What are you wearing?" And that was the topic of discussion. Since my friend almost always wears black (no, she's not a Goth), her posts consisted mostly of "black leggings and a black pullover", "black jeans and a black sweatshirt", etc.

However, as a brand-new-blogger, I guess my appropriate couture would be pajamas.

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.

Of course, bloggers are all over this, as you might expect, especially the always entertaining Lileks, and LGF.

Another reason to love blogs and bloggers: They're smart, AND funny. And I love smart, funny guys... that's why I married my husband, after all. (Hi sweetie!)

In today's episode of Rathergate...

The latest in "Ra^thergate": Bloggers are getting closer to figuring out who gave Dan Rather the forged memos last week. Go to Rathergate.com, a brand-new blog, or to Powerline, one of the first to start blogging on what is now known as Ra^thergate, or to Wizbang for the whole story on possible suspects. Oh, and here's a good fisking of Rather's pathetic defense.

Lefties are trying to scoff at this, as though it really is only a discussion of the merits of 1970's typewriters vs. Microsoft Word. They say, in effect, "Gee, can't we talk about the real issues?"

But this IS one of the real issues, of course. A democracy depends upon free and trustworthy media. Old Media once again has shown that it can't be trusted, and that it will do anything - lie, spin, stonewall - to hurt President Bush, while giving John F. Kerry a free pass on:

not releasing all his service records

not releasing his medical records

not releasing his wife's tax returns

not discussing his role as an anti-war protestor or self-proclaimed war criminal

not discussing his decades-long career in the Senate

In addition, the media:

at first tried to kill the Swift Vets for Truth story

now falsely claims that the Swift Boat Vets have been discredited

has enabled Kerry to get away with his lies about Christmas-in-Cambodia

is giving him a break on not meeting face-to-face with the press for over 40 days now (and counting)

I would post links to all these line items but just don't have the time right now. Maybe later. Anyway, you can read all the links I do have, and then start calling your local CBS stations asking what they're doing about this shameful failure of Mainstream Media. Call your local NBC and ABC stations, too, to ask if they're going to cover the downfall of CBS.

Yep. This is exactly right.

From a review of Misunderestimated:

After presenting tales of horrific cruelty commited by the former Iraqi leader, Sammon delivers a devastating, damning indictment of the American media's shameless pro-Saddam coverage. From Dan Rather's cozy interview with the dictator, to CNN's acknowledged complicity in terrorist cover-ups, to NBC's delayed dismissal of brazenly traitorous Peter Arnett, to the gross Washington Post mishandling of the Jessica Lynch story, Sammon details how "Bush's showdown with Saddam [has] left the American media's reputation in ruins." Besides the "embeds," whom he praises, Sammon characterizes most of the media elite as irresponsible and narcissistic.

Unsurprisingly, the "disastrous coverage" of an unrepentant press continues unchecked today as "the only major institution in America able to dodge such scrutiny." By failing to overcome their personal bias against the president, members of the press not only jeopardize their personal and professional integrity; Sammon says they also endanger our national interests.

What can we do about Iraq?

Watching Colin Powell on Russert right now. The situation in Iraq is disturbing, no question. Very disheartening that we've ceded control of four large cities to the insurgency, though Powell says there is a multi-pronged plan to regain control of these areas for the Iraqi government. He says this will be done before the scheduled elections in January. That would be wonderful. I still have confidence in the administration; I still think the correct decision was made with the intelligence available at the time; I truly believe that the 55 million people of Iraq and Afghanistan are better off now than they were four years ago.

But this will be a long, tough haul. So what can an ordinary American do?

1) Pray. Ask God for mercy, pray for peace. Pray for our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pray for our brothers and sisters there.

2) Learn more about what's really happening: do not, I repeat, do not rely on Old Media (a.k.a. Mainstream Media or MSM, or Big Media). Go to places like Iraq the Model, and then click on some of the links there, such as Iraq at a Glance. Go to Chief Wiggles and read his blog.

3) Share what you have. Donate to a good cause by going to Spirit of America or Operation Give. We have, and I plan to again.

Heroes of Flight 93.

Todd Beamer. Jeremy Glick. Sandra Bradshaw, Mark Bingham, Tom Burnett, other passengers and crew members who were the first soldiers in the War Against Terror, on Flight 93.

"Four More Ears!"

OK, so it's corny. Ouch, another pun. Well, so it's goofy, but hey, it really happened. We were having corn on the cob for dinner tonight - delicious - the kernels were pearlescent when we shucked them - so fresh - sweet, juicy - just the best corn we'd ever had, we all agreed. So we're eating the corn, and I said, "Hey, I've got four more ears to cook", which made 7-year-old son start to chant, "Four more years!" And we all laughed.

In a day with such horrible memories, such sadness, so nice to have these normal moments. Life is good, in spite of all the sorrow in this "vale of tears".

September 11.

My brother called me as I was having coffee; "Do you have the TV on?" No. "A plane crashed into the World Trade Tower." What??? Thinking, a small private pilot, maybe had a heart attack, passed out ... "Terrorism". Oh my God.

Turned on the TV; disbelieving. Told Tom about it. Watched it, shaking. Turned it off when the kids came downstairs, but not before hearing Tom Brokaw say, "This is war."

Ran upstairs, every 15 minutes or so, to check the TV in our room; saw the Pentagon destruction; heard about the crash in Pennsylvania (actually, I'm not sure of the time sequence here, so I can't say which I heard first; some of this has blurred with time); heard the rumors of more planes, more hijackings. In between, supervised kids' school work, then thought about how to tell them. Told them, trying to be appropriate for their ages. Four-year-old son drew a picture of towers and flames.

We were preparing to go to my Uncle's funeral that night; he, a WWII vet, had died a few days prior and the funeral Mass was that evening. A cousin was on the plane in the West Coast, ready to fly in, when the pilot announced they had to return to the gate. The rest of us, my family, parents, aunts, some of the cousins who'd flown in earlier, gathered that night in Church. We prayed for my uncle, and for our country.

I still do.

The big question is:

Who would be so dumb? Who would possibly be so dumb as to think they could create fake 1973 documents with a 2004 Microsoft Word system?

If there really is someone that stupid, then surely they'll be found out.

But still... wouldn't it occur to them that Word wasn't around 32 years ago? Unless it was someone who also wasn't around 32 years ago? Someone in his early 20's, say, who simply wouldn't think about the fact that there was a time B.C. (Before Computers).

Have to go to bed. All this is giving me a case of politics fatigue.

Dan Rather's interview

The Daily Recycler has a video link of Dan Rather's interview. Wow, he looks bad. He repeats himself, his smile is forced and tight, he really has nothing, and I mean nothing, substantive to back up his story on the documents. He's trying to act cool. But he's not a good actor.

I love the part where he badmouths the Internet for being full of rumors - and then says, "I love a good rumor as much as the next guy". No kidding. Notice the barely hidden hostility in his face when talking about the Internet.

Wow. I can't wait to see how this all ends.

"We never knew how good we had it."

I heard last week that this is what a Russian father said, after the terrorist attack on the school. I wept when seeing those horrible photos, and I wept for those children and their parents.

But of course this is true of all of us: We never know how good we have it, when it's just ordinary, quotidian, "no, nothing new here" life.

When something terrible happens, not only do you have to deal with the stress of the event itself, but you have to grieve for what you've lost. Sometimes what you lose is the ability to take things for granted. A gift, when you think about it. But it's a greater gift to appreciate every little thing, while you have it.

UPDATE: Just realized I initially read about this quote at Althouse. Credit where credit is due.

.

Rathergate?

No, I'm not clever enough to think of it, but quick enough to link to it! First saw this on Ann Althouse; she acknowledges Polipundit, who apparently got it from a reader. Yep, Ra^thergate. Perfect.

Also, please read this by John Podhoretz. It's short but it has everything you need to know about the documents. Except, of course, the ending. Who made the forgeries? Who passed them off to CBS? And why was CBS dumb enough to fall for it? Well, I guess we know the answer to that.

Update: Here's a discussion of what happened. Interesting. I bet the "eeevil-genius-Karl-Rove" theory gets the most press.

Nope. Not a train wreck. A demolition.

James Lileks has a perfect paragraph describing what's happening with Old Media.

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.

Good, isn't he?

That's why I think this is such a fascinating time: Old Media, leaning heavily to the left, slow, hidebound, sometimes irrelevant, always self-important, is being replaced by bloggers and the Internet, quick on their feet, fresh, always on top of the events of the moment. Exciting. I'm happy to be just a teeny little part of it, with my little unread blog, just knowing that I'm at the fringes of the party.

Wow.

Drudge reports that CBS is launching an internal investigation into whether the documents are forged. The blogosphere once again does the real work of journalists, and Big Media - actually, I'm going to start saying "Old Media" - follows along pathetically.

You must go to Power Line; he's gloating a little, but he's 100% right about what Old Media will be doing tomorrow. Can hardly wait to read my Chicago Tribune so I can fume about it over my coffee. Keep reading; he's got a fascinating post about the credibility (or lack thereof) of Ben Barnes, who came forward with a story about "pulling strings" for Bush years ago.

Update: When you go to Powerline, scroll down to the September 9th post to see his Old Media comments.

It's like watching a train wreck.

The implosion of Big Media is unbelievable. The latest: CBS might have fallen for forged documents in their big story yesterday about the President's National Guard service. Of course, in the first place, this really shouldn't have been a "Big Story". After all, the President isn't running on his National Guard record, the way Kerry is running on his Vietnam record. Secondly, this is old news. Four years ago, they tried to dig this story out of the ground with a spoon, and they couldn't resurrect it then. So why on earth would they try to do so now? Well, because they're in a panic, of course, since Bush is looking good in the polls.

Here are some good background sources: The Weekly Standard has a succinct summary and recommendations for what CBS needs to do next. Obviously, Big Media needs some coaching in the "Standards of Journalism" department. But just go to Instapundit, as always, for the best set of links on the story. If you just want to go to one more place, though, click here. Gosh these people are smart.

I'm not the only one...

...predicting a big win for Bush. Here's a quote from an interview of Ray C. Fair, by Deborah Solomon.

Q:As a professor of economics at Yale, you are known for creating an econometric equation that has predicted presidential elections with relative accuracy.

A:My latest prediction shows that Bush will receive 57.5 percent of the two-party votes.

By the way, scroll down the page at the link above for a discussion of game theory that absolutely cracked me up.

Also note how the interviewer, Ms. Solomon of the New York Times, practically scolds Professor Fair for giving the results of his prediction model - because it might hurt Kerry.

There were no "boos".

I was at the West Allis rally for President Bush, on Friday, September 3. Contrary to the false report sent out by the AP, there were NO boos when President Bush annnounced that former President Clinton was in the hospital. Rather, there was a very soft collective intake of breath (as in "What?!"), and then when President Bush asked for prayers for him, there was respectful, supportive applause (if it's possible to describe applause that way, and yes, I believe it is).

Here's more on the scandalously biased AP story. You can hear the crowd for yourself via the audio link on that page (just scroll down).

Why am I posting on this now, a week later? Because the original lie has spread around the globe and continues to be reported as fact. As Captain Ed puts it:

But this is far too outrageous for people to sit quietly by. It's one thing to report selectively; it's something completely different to write fiction and pass it off as news. The Associated Press has apparently decided to trade in its credibility with news readers and media sources in order to libel George Bush and a group of people who reacted in a most human and sympathetic fashion to the news of a political opponent's ill health.