Texas Conservative

Tonight, John F. Kerry will say said:

Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response.

Consider the implications of this statement.

He’s going to wait for the attack.

The Democrat Party's platform document, "Strong At Home, Respected In The World", however, envisages a Kerry presidency that would more resemble Jimmy Carter's rather than Bill Clinton- at least in foreign policy.

…

The Kerry foreign policy would be different from that of Bush in at least three areas:

* Under Kerry, the US would forswear the right of pre-emptive action against its foes. It will employ its military only in a multilateral context, with the consent of the United Nations.

Such a policy would give the UN and the allies, who are not identified, a veto on the use of force by the US.

It also means that the US will act only after it is attacked, and not to prevent attack on itself or its allies.

…

Call it the Pearl Harbor Doctrine, if you like, but, if adopted, it would offer insurance to such regimes as North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Pyongyang and Tehran would know that, short of attacking the US directly, they should fear no military retaliation

* A Kerry administration would abandon Bush's commitment to promoting democracy, including by military pressure and/or action. Instead, the US will adopt the "soft power" method, using public diplomacy, battle of ideas, education, development aid, and human rights. (Here, the document echoes themes developed by Carter in 1976 .)

…

The document insists that "democracy will not bloom over night", echoing Kerry's statement that spreading democracy would not be among his priorities.

The document says a Kerry presidency will help "sustain voices of freedom against repressive regimes.

The word "sustain", used to avoid "support", is, meaningless in this context, while the label "repressive regimes", instead of "anti-democratic regimes", is unfortunate.

"Voices of freedom" will be sustained, a status quo word, to shout until they are hoarse, but never supported to actually prevail.

* In the war against terror, Kerry would put the emphasis on measures that the US and its allies must take within their realm rather than impose on others. This means police cooperation among the 60 countries with active terrorist cells.

The US will orchestrate the freezing of terrorist assets and the closing of terrorist channels of communication.

The problem, however, is that one man's terrorist is often someone else's "freedom fighter". For example, Syria and Iran will never admit that the Hezballah is a terrorist organization and almost all Arab states refuse to label Hamas and Islamic Jihad as terrorist.

There are also thousands of front organizations- charities, and NGOs, enjoying high patronage in their respective countries, part or all of whose activities could be regarded as terrorist.

The governments concerned are unlikely to disband them to please Washington, especially if refusal to do so entails no costs. The document's suggestion to "name and shame" countries that finance terror is no deterrent. Many Arab leaders would love to be singled out as supporters of Hamas or Islamic Jihad because that would give them an almost heroic profile in their own neck of the wood.

"... you cannot run ... you cannot hide ... we will destroy you"

ABC News:

As Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards arrived in Boston today for the Democratic National Convention, so did the California man who is their single biggest contributor.

He is Stephen Bing, a wealthy film producer who, with little fanfare, has managed to steer a total of more than $16 million of his money to Democratic candidates and the supposedly independent groups that support them.

"To most of the people who track money and politics, they're like, who the hell is Steve Bing?" said Chuck Lewis, founder of the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit, nonpartisan watchdog organization.

Bing is perhaps best known for sparking a tabloid frenzy when he publicly expressed doubt that he was the father of actress Elizabeth Hurley's baby. (A paternity test proved he was indeed the father.) He repeatedly has refused to say why he is funneling millions of dollars to the Democrats.

Lewis thinks it is cause for concern.

"We can identify who the big donors are, but how much do we really know about any of them?" he said.

In fact, Democratic Party officials said they knew nothing about the man who law enforcement officials tell ABC News is Bing's friend and business partner — Dominic Montemarano, a New York Mafia figure currently in federal prison on racketeering charges.

Montemarano has a long criminal record and is known to organized crime investigators by his street name, Donnie Shacks.

Meet Farida Goolam Mohamed Ahmed. Federal News Radio reports:

She was stopped at McAllen Miller International Airport on July 19 headed to New York.

Eddie Flores of the U.S. Border Patrol office in McAllen, Texas tells FederalNewsRadio.com that a review of her papers raised some concerns.

"In looking at her documents, they did not find any entry documents in her passport where she was legally admitted into the United States," says Flores.

Ahmed produced a South African passport to the agents with four pages torn out, and with no U.S. entry stamps. Ahmed reportedly later confessed to investigators that she entered the country illegally by crossing the Rio Grande River. Ahmed was carrying travel itineraries showing a July 8 flight from Johannesburg, South Africa to London. Six days later, Ahmed traveled from London to Mexico City before attempting to travel from McAllen to New York.

Government sources tell FederalNewsRadio.com that capturing this woman could be comparable to the arrest of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of 9/11. It was revealed in court Tuesday that she was on a watch list and had entered the U.S. possibly as many as 250 times.

Meanwhile, the Tombstone Tumbleweed reports "that a flood of middle-eastern males have been caught entering the country illegally east of Douglas, Arizona. The increased patrols in the Huachuca Mountains area of Cochise County, seems to have diverted the flow of OTM’s, “other than Mexicans” east to the Chiricahua Mountains." While a Border Patrol information officer publicly denied the reports, another agent told the publication that "the men were suspected to be Iranian or possibly Syrian nationals."

Are you wondering why the Kerry campaign is dwelling 30 years in the past, trying to use Kerry’s Vietnam service as the centerpiece at the convention instead of the more recent 20 years of his Senate record?

Reports have it that the convention center is covered with Kerry Vietnam era pictures (although I’m sure none of them include a tasteful “Winter Soldier” montage or a medal flinging pic). Kerry grandstands in his convention entrance using a water taxi as his “swift boat” and stocking it with his Vietnam “band of brothers”. Kerry’s super-8 film from Vietnam will play heavily in the film about the man, although we may have difficulty separating the real action from the reenactments. Ms. Heinz-Kerry lovingly tells the world that John got his medals “the old fashioned way, he earned them.”

Of course I know why they’re hanging out in Vietnam. Because that’s the last time he was actually strong on defense. OK, I’m being facetious. But really .... how do 120 days in a combat zone trump a 7300 days (20 years) in the Senate? Regardless of the Star Trek defense (“deflectors up, full speed ahead”) its his record in the Senate which tells the true tale of the real John Kerry, presidential candidate.

Not Vietnam.

The first thing one must understand is Kerry’s running away from the “L” word. Kerry is a liberal, but apparently not a proud one. Vietnam duty isn’t a typical “liberal” thing. But if you're trying to cover a liberal voting record, it does provide that deflector shield for which your looking.

…

The question is can his 120 days in Vietnam give cover to his 7300 days in the Senate?

As we know the announced purpose of the event is to “introduce” John Kerry to America. The Democrats will tell you its because they want America to get to know the real John Kerry. But with all the Vietnam and none of the Senate you have to wonder about that. When you really consider the approach, it would seem disingenuous at best. It would seem, in reality, that they really don’t want America to get to know him that well. Not well enough to understand that his Vietnam service in no way portrays the ‘real’ John Kerry.

In this sense, 9/11 has taught us that terrorism against American interests “over there” should be regarded just as we regard terrorism against America “over here.” In this same sense, the American homeland is the planet. But the enemy is not just “terrorism,” some generic evil. This vagueness blurs the strategy. The catastrophic threat at this moment in history is more specific. It is the threat posed by Islamist terrorism —especially the al Qaeda network, its affiliates, and its ideology.

As we mentioned in chapter 2, Usama Bin Ladin and other Islamist terrorist leaders draw on a long tradition of extreme intolerance within one stream of Islam (a minority tradition), from at least Ibn Taimiyyah, through the founders of Wahhabism, through the Muslim Brotherhood, to Sayyid Qutb. That stream is motivated by religion and does not distinguish politics from religion, thus distorting both. It is further fed by grievances stressed by Bin Ladin and widely felt throughout the Muslim world—against the U.S. military presence in the Middle East, policies perceived as anti-Arab and anti-Muslim, and support of Israel. Bin Ladin and Islamist terrorists mean exactly what they say: to them America is the font of all evil, the “head of the snake,” and it must be converted or destroyed.

It is not a position with which Americans can bargain or negotiate. With it there is no common ground—not even respect for life—on which to begin a dialogue. It can only be destroyed or utterly isolated.

The Washington Times confirms Annie Jacobsen's account of the strange goings-on aboard American flight 327 in this article titled "Scouting jetliners for new attacks":

Flight crews and air marshals say Middle Eastern men are staking out airports, probing security measures and conducting test runs aboard airplanes for a terrorist attack.

At least two midflight incidents have involved numerous men of Middle Eastern descent behaving in what one pilot called "stereotypical" behavior of an organized attempt to attack a plane.

"No doubt these are dry runs for a terrorist attack," an air marshal said. Pilots and air marshals who asked to remain anonymous told The Washington Times that surveillance by terrorists is rampant, using different probing methods. "It's happening, and it's a sad state of affairs," a pilot said.

This incident struck me as particularly shocking:

A second pilot said that, on one of his recent flights, an air marshal forced his way into the lavatory at the front of his plane after a man of Middle Eastern descent locked himself in for a long period.

The marshal found the mirror had been removed and the man was attempting to break through the wall. The cockpit was on the other side. The second pilot said terrorists are "absolutely" testing security.

I've been skeptical about these stories, mainly because I fly so much that if a lot of this activity were going on, I think I would see it. Of course, there are thousands of flights and I ride only a relative handful of them. Reading the Times' account, it's hard to remain skeptical.

If that little anecdote is even remotely accurate, why the hell wasn't it reported to the public? Don't give me any bureaucratic BS about "ongoing investigations" or "we don't want to spook the big fish," either. If a "man of Middle Eastern decent" was caught trying to break into an airline cockpit, we damn well ought to know about it before he's had a chance to try out the shiny new toilet in his maximum-security holding cell.

And if this is a matter of being politically correct and not 'profiling'... then the hell with you, Norm Minetta. Your personal squeamishness is not worth risking the lives of the people you're supposed to be protecting. That goes for you too, Tom Ridge.

He goes out and interviews ordinary non-intellectual GOP voters and finds that, like most ordinary people, they don't have much grasp of political minutiae. He finds that they vote for GWB simply because they see him as a man of good character. Our Leftist does not understand that at all. Character? What is that? The best explanation he can come up with is that it is some kind of religion! The Leftist's poster-boy is the psychopathic Clinton -- a man of no character at all but who can talk the feelgood talk. So Leftists love him. The warm inner glow of feeling superior is all that matters to them.

"Document Sock”

(A song parody to the tune of “Crocodile Rock” and dedicated to Sandy Berger)

I remember when Donks were young
Me and Clinton had so much fun
Bombing tents and Afghan stones
Had my intel briefings and a place of my own
But the biggest kick I ever got
Was stuffing a thing called the Document Sock
While the other wonks were rockin’ round the clock
I was hopping and bopping in my Document Sock

Well, Doc-Socking is something shocking
When your stockings start to fill
I never got in trouble then, when I was working under Bill
National Archives – Friday nights
And notes tucked in my tighty-whites
The Document Sock was out of sight.

But the years went by and my clearance died
Clinton left the White House but he still would lie
Long nights dreaming of the NSC
Cramming secret papers in my old blue jeans
But they’ll never kill the thrills I got
Stuffing notes in my Document Sock
Now caught with papers in my heel
Gotta get John Ashcroft to cut me a deal

In order to qualify a "collection" of WMD's as a "stockpile" the following conditions must be met:

1. They must be in a large warehouse, and the warehouse clearly marked as a 'WMD Storage Facility' in Arabic, French, Russian, German, and English.

2. There must be at least 6000 neatly stacked munitions clearly labeled as 'WMD' in Arabic, French, Russian, German, and English.

3. Saddam must make an appearence on Late Night with David Letterman, admitting ownership of the 'alleged' WMD. He must also state, for the record, that France, Germany, and Russia had nothing to do with it. In addition, he must sing a duet with Paul Shaeffer, 'Just the Two Of Us'.

4. The 'alleged' corpses of at least 30,000 US servicemen and women must be shipped to Tehran for independant confirmation of potential WMD exposure. The Iranians will have 10-15 years to publish their results.

5. Ted Kennedy must set his beer down long enough to read the Iranian report.

Kerry campaign adviser Sandy Berger removed secret terrorism documents from a 9/11 Commission reading room on no fewer than five occasions, his lawyer Lanny Breuer admitted late Monday night.

Breuer told the Wall Street Journal that his client, who served previously as the Clinton administration's national security adviser, inadvertently removed several copies of an after-action report on the foiled 1999 Millennium bomb plot during two separate visits to the top secret facility.

Breuer said also that Berger deliberately removed handwritten notes that he made during three additional visits to the Archives last fall to review classified documents.

Breuer said removing those notes was a violation of National Archives policy, and that Berger regretted the action. "He knew it was a technical violation, and he admits that it was an error in judgment."

But according to New York civil rights lawyer Ron Kuby, Berger's decision to remove his notes wasn't just a "technical violation."

"You're not permitted to remove anything from that room - period," he said Tuesday morning. "And that means even your notes. If you're taking notes about classified information, those notes are now classified. They're placed in a secure area. You can have access to them only while being viewed by a security officer. Nothing gets removed."

Even if Berger had removed only his personal notes on classified material, it would still be a crime, said Kuby, who learned about classified reading room procedures during his own involvement in the trial of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers.

Now is there anybody but Democrat cool aid drinkers alive that believes the apologists for Berger? To say Berger wasn't covering up some serious problems for himself and/or Bill Clinton is making a serious leap into fantasyland. To even advance the possibility that Berger wasn't knowingly commiting a crime is delusional.
Berger is just one more of the continuing political mistakes of the Clinton years.

Michael "Get Outta The Way! He's Gonna Eat The Whole Raw Bar!" Moore is upset over the action taken by Aladdin Casino president Bill Timmons this week.

After headliner Linda Rondstadt tried to dedicate a song to Moore and his propaganda movie, Fahrenheit 9/11, patrons booed the singer. Timmons had Rondstadt not only escorted offstage, but completely out of the hotel, and told not to return.

Anyway, Fatass, bitching like the PMS sufferer he is, sent a complaint letter to Timmons.

"What country do you live in? Last time I checked, Las Vegas is still in the United States. And in the United States, we have something called 'The First Amendment.' This constitutional right gives everyone here the right to say whatever they want to say. All Americans hold this right as sacred. Many of our young people put on a uniform and risk their lives to defend it. My film is all about asking the questions that should have been asked before those brave soldiers were sent into harms way," he [Moore] wrote.

"For you to throw Linda Ronstadt off the premises because she dared to say a few words in support of me and my film, is simply stupid and Un-American. Frankly, I have never heard of such a thing happening. I read that you wouldn't even let her go back up to her room at your hotel! Are you crazy? For crying out loud, it was a song DEDICATION! To 'Desperado!' Every American loves that song! Sure, some people didn't like the dedication, and that's their right. But neither they nor you have the right to remove her from your building when all she did was exercise her AMERICAN right to speak her mind."

Last I checked, your right to freedom of speech doesn't guarantee you a stage to speak from, you idiot!
She was hired to sing, not pontificate!

My advice to Linda Rondstadt: Shaddap and sing! You wanna preach, go pay for your own damn pulpit!

Quite a few years ago, I spent a summer working for the State Department. One of my most vivid memories of that time is the emphasis that was placed on proper handling of classified documents. Such documents were prominently marked, and at the end of every work day, all classified materials were locked in safes. This was a ritual which everyone took seriously. One source of amusement was the fact that virtually anyone could classify a document, while a high-level review was required to declassify it. So every now and then, a low-ranking employee (like me, for example) would, as a joke, classify a comic book as "Secret." For years thereafter, the comic book would dutifully be gathered up every evening and locked in a safe.

Against this background, it strikes me as ludicrous to suggest that a national security professional like Sandy Berger, with years of experience in the State Department, would forget that he is not supposed to stuff classified documents into his shorts and take them home. No. There was a very serious reason why Berger took that risk.

And a huge risk it was. Berger was very likely to be Secretary of State in a Kerry administration. He threw that chance away because there were documents that he desperately wanted to get out of the National Archives. And he didn't do it just once. We don't know, from news accounts, how many times he hid documents in his clothes and smuggled them out of the Archives, but we know it happened several times, at least, because Archives employees saw him do it and started marking documents they gave to him so they could track their exodus.

So what was he so anxious to remove from the public record? Some have suggested that he stole records relating to weaknesses in port and airline security in order to feed them to the Kerry campaign. This seems extremely unlikely for two reasons: 1) I don't think a man like Berger would risk his career and reputation to do it, and 2) it was wholly unnecessary. Kerry doesn't need secret, technical details to assail an alleged lack of homeland security planning; all he has to do is make general criticisms, and hope for a successful terrorist attack. And that is all that he has done.

The only motive I can imagine that would lead Berger to take the immense risk of stealing classified documents out of the National Archives is that they contain information that is extremely damaging to him and to the Clinton administration. While the timing is not entirely clear from press accounts, it appears that Berger purloined the documents last year. I haven't been able to pin down the exact timing of the Sept. 11 Commission's investigation, but it seems reasonable to conclude that Berger wanted to get the documents in question out of the Archives before the Commission discovered them. This would make sense only if they were extremely damaging not only to the Clinton administration, but to Berger personally. Of course, given Berger's role as National Security Advisor, any serious default in the Clinton administration's response to terrorist threats would have reflected badly on him. The millenium bomber is an obvious example, but the documents may have related to Clinton's decision not to capture Osama bin Laden, or many other matters.

That is, I think, what must have happened. But we will probably never know. Berger has admitted that he destroyed some documents--"inadvertently," which is even more absurd than sticking them into his pants inadvertently. And it is not clear from news accounts whether there is any complete record of all of the materials that Berger had access to, and could have smuggled out of the Archives. This matter will drop, as the mainstream press will prefer not to pursue it. Berger's effort to frustrate the historical record will, I suspect, be successful. But he will pay a price: he will never be Secretary of State.

Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson has been publicly discredited. He lied about his wife's role in his trip to Niger. He lied about what he found during that trip. He lied to reporters about the forged documents purporting to demonstrate an Iraqi attempt to procure yellowcake from Niger, when he said he had seen those documents though they had not become part of the public war debate yet and would not for another eight months after his trip.

Over at Amazon.com, there are some new reviews of Joe Wilson's book on his trip to Niger and the Plame affair to reflect recent disclosures, including this:

Well here's what's going on: A mediocre man was given a shot at redemption, put in a half-hearted attempt, blistered when challenged, packaged some lies for sale, undermined the country in a time of war, and made out like a bandit.

Look for Mr. Wilson in any future Democratic Cabinet or in an Ivy League faculty near you.

It's overall rank is 1,873 on Amazon's list.

The National Endowment for the Arts has issued a report that documents a continuing and accelerating decline in literary reading in all parts of the American population. Literary reading is defined as novels, plays, and poetry, although in the report's statistics a juvenile romance novel counts the same as Moby Dick. And to qualify as a literary reader, all you have to do is read one book in the course of a year. Here's the worst news:

The steepest decline -- and the one that the report notes with most alarm -- has occurred among young adults. In 1982, respondents ages 18 to 34 were the group most likely to report the recreational reading of literature. Over the intervening decades, they have become the group least likely to do so (except for some segments of the population over 65).

The change has been particularly striking among those ages 18 to 24. The report says that, over the past two decades, the share of the adult population engaged in literary reading declined by 18 points, from 56.9 percent in 1982 to 43 percent in 2002. But for the 18-to-24 cohort, the drop has been faster, sinking from 59.8 percent to 42.8 percent, a decline of 28 percent.

"Reading at Risk" states that the trends among young readers (or, perhaps, nonreaders) suggest that "unless some effective solution is found, literary culture, and literacy in general, will continue to worsen."

"Indeed, at the current rate of loss," it says, "literary reading as a leisure activity will virtually disappear in half a century."

The statistics aren't surprising, but they are stark. Close to 60 percent of the 18 to 24 crowd don't read even one book -- not a mystery, not a thriller, nada -- in a year.

Maybe they're tired out from all the schoolwork they've done to become so proficient at math and science. Since 1995, an organization called Trends in International Mathematics and Science Studies (TIMMS) has been monitoring and testing the proficiency of high school seniors in these subjects worldwide. The latest full study was conducted in 1998, when today's 24 year olds would have been taking the test. How did they do?

One of the more ominous findings in the latest study is that even the American students taking advanced courses could not measure up to students from other nations. In math, they ranked 15th out of 16 nations. In physics, U.S. seniors ranked dead last.

[…]

Of course, math and science aren't as interesting as some other subjects. You can be hopeless with a calculator and still have quite a powerful interest in, say, history. Or maybe it's better not to say history because the picture doesn't look good there, either. Apparently we haven't been teaching this subject to kids for quite a long time now, if these citations by the National History Day program are true:

• A 2000 Gallup Youth Survey shows that only 4 in 10 teenagers know that 1492 was the year that Columbus discovered America.

• The 1994 National Assessment of Educational Progress reported that only 17 percent of fourth graders, 14 percent of eighth graders, and 11 percent of twelfth graders were judged to be “proficient” in their knowledge of history. Over one-third of fourth and eighth graders failed to reach the “basic” level and more than half of the twelfth graders surveyed could not even achieve a “basic” understanding of the history of their own Nation.

• The 1994 National Assessment of Educational Progress reported that only 27 percent of America’s students knew what the U.S. Constitution was.

• A 2000 study done by American Council of Trustees and Alumni found that nearly 80 percent of graduating college seniors from the nation’s top 55 college and universities failed when asked questions from a basic high school history exam.

[…]

Where are we? There don't seem to be any intellectual pursuits to speak of in the younger crowd. No reading, no math or scientific interests, no historical curiosity, no long family talks by the fireplace. There is time required, of course, for work or school. Where else does the time go?

One big part of the answer is participating in the pop culture. This involves shopping, watching TV, surfing the Internet, and listening to music. Here's a hodgepodge of statistics cited by Media Scope:

• Teenage boys spend about $84 a week, girls $83; boys spend more of their own money each week than do girls while girls spend more of their parents' money than do guys.

• Teens spend more than 90% of their earnings, or about $67 a week, on merchandise, health and beauty aids, and entertainment.

• Each year, teenage girls spend over $4 billion on cosmetics.

• 35% of teens are interested in getting a credit card; 32% of teens already have personal credit cards; 9% of teens have access to their parent's credit card.

• The average American spends 9.2 hours each day using consumer media.

• More households report having video game equipment (62%), than having a subscription to a daily newspaper (50%). Of those U.S. homes with children, 70% own video game systems

• 18% of teenagers 13-17 read "often," 50% read "sometimes" and 32% "never" read.

• American children who have home video games play with them about 90 minutes a day.

• Teenagers spend an average of 2.5 weekday hours on a home computer

• 66% of U.S. children have a television set in their bedrooms.

• Children spend about 28 hours per week watching television. Over the course of a year, this is twice as much time as they spend in school.

• Teenage boys spend nearly twice as much time watching MTV as reading for pleasure.

• 2.5% of 12- to 17-year-olds watch network news.

• Teens ages 12-20 make up 16% of the population, but purchase 26% of movie tickets.

• 63% of kids ages 9-17 say that seeing the latest movies is important.

• 54% of kids view a movie on a VCR three or more days a week and 47% see a movie in a theater at least once a month.

• American teenagers listen to an estimated 10,500 hours of rock music between the 7th and 12th grades-- just 500 fewer hours than they spend in school over twelve years.

• 80% of 12- to 14-year-olds and 75% of 9- to 12- year-olds watch music videos.

Given these little nuggets of information, it's hardly a shock that when some masochist compared kids' knowledge of pop culture with, well, anything, pop culture won. In a 1998 survey sponsored by the National Constitution Center, it was established that more American teenagers:

• can name three of the Three Stooges than can name the three branches of government (59% to 41%)

• know the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air than know the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (94.7% to 2.2%)

• know which city has the zip code "90210" than the city in which the US Constitution was written (75% to 25%), and

• know the star of the motion picture "Titanic" than know the Vice President of the United States (90% to 74%).

These would be the same folks who are now setting records for not reading as young adults. What do we know about them for sure? They're spending machines. They're pop culture junkies. They have probably spent more time listening to pop music than engaging in anything that could reasonably be called conversation, and they don't have much of a clue about where the advanced civilization they live in came from. For them, it's all just there.

KIDDIE INFOBOT BLASTS BUSH
The bias and Bush hatred out there have even infected an online robot:

Internet instant messaging is one of the most popular methods for teens and even adults to stay in touch with friends and family. One of the better known messenger programs, AIM, offers the feature called Smarter Child, a robot programmed to provide automated responses to those with whom it chats.
Built and programmed by Conversagent, Inc., a privately held firm that develops technology for creating and operating interactive agents, Smarter Child is able to dispense facts and figures, movie times, or just plain conversation with AIM users.

But when Erin told the robot that "George Bush is awesome," she was shocked by the response. "No way. George W. Bush is way uncool," the reply stated. She asked, "Do you like George W. Bush?" and the program replied, "I'm a Kerry supporter myself."

Testing the waters, she typed in "John Kerry rocks." The robot's response: "Absolutely. John Kerry rocks."

When Erin asked Smarter Child what it thought of Bush, it replied, "If u don't have anything good 2 say about someone, don't say anything at all." Smarter Child added a wink in addition to the computer short-hand language.

Not satisfied with that answer, Erin persisted in getting the robot to open up. "I have my reasons, believe me. I really, really don't like George W. Bush," the robot explained.

Whoever programmed that robot to mess with kids' heads like that is evil. Just plain evil.

Stephen Klein, CEO of Conversagent, said his firm received many complaints from users about Smarter Child's political bias. Although the robot was originally programmed to oppose Bush, Klein said it was being changed to adhere to the views of the users with whom it interacted. He conceded that Smarter Child had become "too anti-Bush."
"It got ridiculous. We realized criticizing political figures was out of bounds," Klein said.

Now, instead of disagreeing with users who state, "I like George Bush," or agreeing with those who say, "I like John Kerry," the robot mostly stays on the political sidelines. "Robots don't get involved in politics," the Smarter Child program replies, before asking users to make their choice for president.

It is still possible to get the robot to reveal its true feelings however. When told that "John Kerry rocks," Smarter Child still responds "Right on!" with a wink. When told that "John Kerry is awesome," it responds "Absolutely. John Kerry rocks." And when users tell Smarter Child that "George Bush is awesome," it replies, "I'll remember that. It's interesting especially since other people I've talked to say they don't like George W. Bush."

Par for the course, the Democrats are all to happy to tinker with young skulls full of mush in devious ways:

When asked about Smarter Child's support of Kerry, Jano Cabrera, a spokesperson for the Democratic National Committee said: "Clearly this is a smart robot. This shows that we've made great advances in artificial intelligence. The "smarter" in Smarter Child speaks for itself."

Evil. It's a little digital madrassah, meant to teach kids a poisonous little lie.

Because John Kerry manifestly does not rock. He flips. And he flops. But he does not rock.

Britain's Butler Report, assessing the quality of that country's pre-war intelligence on Iraq has been released. Here's how the AP leads its report:

Iraq had no useable chemical or biological weapons before the war, and British intelligence relied in part on "seriously flawed" or "unreliable" sources, an official inquiry reported Wednesday.

In fact, the Butler report actually stated that

… even now it is premature to reach conclusions about Iraq’s prohibited weapons. But from the evidence which has been found and de-briefing of Iraqi personnel it appears that prior to the war the Iraqi regime:

a. Had the strategic intention of resuming the pursuit of prohibited weapons programmes, including if possible its nuclear weapons programme, when United Nations inspection regimes were relaxed and sanctions were eroded or lifted.

b. In support of that goal, was carrying out illicit research and development, and procurement, activities.

c. Was developing ballistic missiles with a range longer than permitted under relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions.

d. Did not, however, have significant - if any - stocks of chemical or biological weapons in a state fit for deployment, or developed plans for using them.

For some reason only bullet point (d) made it into the AP story. But even that conclusion was distorted in the AP lead which implies that the Butler report concluded with certainty that "Iraq had no useable ... weapons". Here's another point from Butler:

We conclude that it would be a rash person who asserted at this stage that evidence of Iraqi possession of stocks of biological or chemical agents, or even of banned missiles, does not exist or will never be found.

Hmmm.

ROBERT NOVAK BREAKS HIS SILENCE on Plame/Wilson:

For a year, Democrats have been belaboring President Bush about 16 words in his 2003 State of the Union address in which he reported Saddam Hussein's attempt to buy uranium from Africa, based on official British information. Wilson has been lionized in liberal circles for allegedly contradicting this information on a CIA mission and then being punished as a truth-teller. Now, for Intelligence Committee Democrats, it is as though the Niger question and Joe Wilson have vanished from the earth.

Because a U.S. Justice Department special prosecutor is investigating whether any crime was committed when my column first identified Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA employee, on advice of counsel I have not written on the subject since last October. However, I feel constrained to describe how the Intelligence Committee report treats the Niger-Wilson affair because it has received scant coverage except in The Washington Post, Knight-Ridder newspapers, briefly and belatedly in The New York Times and few other media outlets.

The unanimously approved report said, "interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD (CIA counterproliferation division) employee, suggested his name for the trip." That's what I reported, and what Wilson flatly denied and still does.

Plame sent out an internal CIA memo saying that "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." A State Department analyst told the committee about an inter-agency meeting in 2002 that was "apparently convened by [Wilson's] wife who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue."

The unanimous Intelligence Committee found that the CIA report, based on Wilson's mission, differed considerably from the former ambassador's description to the committee of his findings. That report "did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium." As far as his statement to The Washington Post about "forged documents" involved in the alleged Iraqi attempt to buy uranium, Wilson told the committee he may have "misspoken." In fact, the intelligence community agreed that "Iraq was attempting to procure uranium from Africa."

GREG DJEREJIAN POINTS OUT MORE MAJOR ERRORS AT THE NEW YORK TIMES on the Niger uranium story. What's wrong with the Times reporters?

It certainly gives teeth to what Tom Maguire said:

Is this the New NY Times - lock the top reporter in a closet with a 500 page Senate report and a five day deadline? And how is that different from my own humble little blogging, anyway - hey, I am covering this story with as many sources as the NY Times! And more links!

And when you see how badly they're doing when all they have to do is sit in a closet with a 500 page report, it makes you wonder how well they report the things that require, you know, actual reporting.

UPDATE: This newer post by Tom Maguire is even more harsh regarding the Times' reporting -- or, perhaps I should say, non-reporting -- on this topic.:

Perhaps the Times can provide an anniversary piece - "How Invisible Can 16 Words Be?"

I have three words for their "16 Words" coverage - "Where is it?"

It's an absolute disgrace, and I hope that a major magazine will run a retrospective of this debacle -- in which media members were (willingly?) fooled by Joe Wilson, ginned up a bogus scandal, and then failed to admit it, or even report the key facts -- in a cover story naming names.

UPDATE: Greg Djerejian emails to note that the NYT has moved this story to a more prominent place on their website. "I guess the real test is what's in the paper version-something I can't check in London." I can't check it in my study, either. But regardless, they're not treating it anywhere near as prominently as they did the original Wilson charges.

The Butler Report states that Abu Zarqawi began establishing terrorist cells in February 2003 in advance of the Iraq war, to fight a rearguard action in Baghdad against the invading Coalitions forces, according to the Washington Post:

In February 2003, a month before the United States and coalition forces invaded Iraq, British intelligence received reports that Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab Zarqawi was establishing sleeper cells in Baghdad that would attack U.S. forces after they occupied the city, according a report on British prewar intelligence released yesterday in London.
In a prediction that has proved deadly accurate, the British Joint Intelligence Committee in March 2003 wrote, "These cells apparently intend to attack U.S. targets using car bombs and other weapons," according to yesterday's report by the Butler Commission. In the past year, Zarqawi has publicly claimed to have put together an Iraqi network that has committed dozens of bombings and killings, including the beheading of a Bulgarian truck driver that was revealed yesterday.

The March 12, 2003, JIC report also warned that "al Qaeda-associated terrorists continued to arrive in Baghdad in early March." Summarizing this information, the Butler panel noted that the JIC "did warn of the possibility of terrorist attacks on coalition forces in Baghdad."

A senior U.S. intelligence official said yesterday that the CIA was made aware of the reporting "simultaneously." The CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency passed on warnings to Bush administration policymakers that U.S. forces would probably be attacked by "stay behind" Iraqi forces and Islamic terrorists who would be drawn to Iraq by the invasion, officials said.

Perhaps I'm not the world's foremost expert on intelligence, but if al-Qaeda operatives were flooding into Baghdad and conducting joint operations with Iraqi security forces prior to the invasion, doesn't that demonstrate ... collaboration? It cannot possibly be argued that in the runup to the war, all of a sudden Saddam and AQ made all the necessary connections from a complete cold start to complete coordination of forces in preparation for a rearguard guerilla action. Besides, in February when this infiltration occurred, the final action was still in debate in the UNSC.

This information should silence all of the nonsense being tossed around about no connections between Saddam and al-Qaeda. If people think a bunch of armed lunatics could just show up in the capitol city of a state preparing for war without government cooperation, then it only demonstrates ignorance of both sieges and totalitarian states that disqualifies them as analysts.

A 24-year-old woman who went on the lam after she was accused of abandoning her twin toddlers on a busy Lake Worth highway is back in the country and has pleaded guilty to the crimes.

Christy Leann Radacy pleaded guilty this month to two charges of abandoning/endangering a child and to a bail-jumping charge. She entered the plea about two weeks after she was arrested at Dallas/Fort Worth Airport while getting off a flight from Madrid, Spain.

State District Judge George Gallagher ordered a pre-sentence investigation report and is expected to sentence Radacy in September. She faces up to 20 years in prison, but her attorney, Ray Hall Jr., said he has asked for deferred-adjudication probation.

Radacy's boyfriend at the time of the incident, Sari Ghazi Muhanna, 36, who has also been charged, remains on the lam.

"I haven't talked to or heard from him," said Muhanna's attorney, Bill Lane. "You would think if she came back and took care of her business, he would, too." On Memorial Day 2003, Radacy's twin daughters, then 22 months old, were taken out of a car and left on Jacksboro Highway.

Hall said that an aunt was in a nearby car and that his client believed that the children were safely in her care when she and Muhanna pulled away.

"It's not like it was reported," Hall said. "The boyfriend said, 'She's got them; get in the car.' "

Because the case is pending, prosecutor Tim Bednarz declined to comment Monday.

Hall said his client, who was free on bail when she missed a March court appearance, was persuaded by her boyfriend to flee the country.

"She was in a situation where she had no money and no vehicle, and he talked her into going," Hall said.

"He said that she was going to go to jail for 10 years. She was scared and went with him."

Hall said Radacy called him before returning to Texas and said that her family had provided her with a plane ticket home and that she wanted to turn herself in.

"She voluntarily came back," Hall said.

"She called me and told me she was coming back. Apparently someone else found out, too."

Radacy was arrested at the airport by U.S. marshals, Hall said.

The children are in the custody of a great-aunt.

In fact, it seems that there are more than twice as many African Americans in college than in jail.

U.S. Census Bureau (2000): African Americans in college: 2,224,181

U.S. DoJ Office of Justice Programs: "Prison and Jail Inmates at MidYear 2003" (p.11): "Table 13. Number of inmates in state or federal prisons or local jails" -- Black Americans in jail: 899,200.

Those nearly 900,000 incarcerated African Americans still represent a tragic waste of lives and potential. But fortunately, things are not nearly as gloomy as John Kerry wants to believe they are.

It's possible that Kerry is basing his claims on other data, but it would be interesting to learn what his sources are.

UPDATE: As a commenter notes below, this Kerry howler was already debunked a month ago. But then why is Kerry still making the same claim today? What kind of an echo chamber is his campaign that none of the staff read Kerry's sharpest critics? Not a good sign for those who look to Kerry to improve intelligence capabilities or cure government agencies of their dysfunctional groupthink culture.

Well-known global thinker Chevy Chase, on George W. Bush, after last week's concert of hate:

"I'm frightened by Bush, if you want to know the truth. He's a narcissist, as are we all. But, eh, he's managed to, ah, you know, form a few hate groups into a, ah, an entire Islamic jihad, and I, ah, I don't trust him. I don't like him. And I think he's venal, and I just don't like him, for the record. I want him out. I want Kerry in."

OK, we all know that no one give's a hoot what Chevy Chase thinks. I concede he's harmless. But he does serve as a window into the "thinking" of the Michael Moore Democrats, who seem to believe that the jihadists wouldn't exist but for Bush. Would that even one reporter would have asked Chase about the first attack on the World Trade Centers, the embassy attacks in Africa or the U.S.S. Cole. But that would have been unfair. That would have required Chase to think on camera, not read lines in a prompter.

The Iranian mullahcracy injected a little conspiratorial nonsense into the diplomatic debate over terrorism this morning with an assertion that Muslims couldn't possibly be capable of kidnapping and beheading foreign nationals in Iraq. However, they do claim to have solved the mystery:

Iran's Supreme Leader said on Tuesday he believed the United States and Israel, rather than Muslims, were behind the kidnapping and killing of foreign nationals in Iraq.
"We seriously suspect the agents Americans and Israelis in conducting such horrendous terrorist moves," the official IRNA news agency quoted Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as saying in a meeting with visiting Singaporean Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong.

"(We) cannot believe that the people who kidnap Philippine nationals, for instance, or beheaded U.S. nationals are Muslims."

That must be it! The Jews and the Americans --who, after all, are nothing but puppets of the Jews -- must secretly be forming their own beheading squads, invoking the name of Allah and posting snuff films to well-known Islamist web sites, so that they can undermine the Iraqi government that we installed ... no, wait ...

OK. We're actively beheading the citizens of countries that wouldn't support our efforts in Iraq -- no, wait, that's not right ...

Ah! Beheading Americans and citizens of friendly countries helps America and the Jews because it convinces more countries to send help to Iraq ... nah, that can't be it ...

Now I've got it. Iranian mullahs are lunatic, paranoid liars who probably could be convinced into thinking that the Jews secretly control everything, including themselves, and have a lower collective IQ than the first OJ jury.

Somehow I think the last suggestion is closest to the truth.

One recent morning--the Sunday before Memorial Day--I picked up the Asheville (N.C.) Citizen-Times and started looking through national news coverage. You know, the stuff that is filtered through the lens of liberal bias long before it even reaches local papers, which rarely revise what they get off the wire services.
In a story on Donald Rumsfeld's remarks to the graduating class at West Point, here is the lead paragraph: "Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, making no mention of the prisoner abuse scandal that has led to calls for his ouster, told a cheering crowd of graduating cadets Saturday that they will help win the global fight against terror."

Let's see, how could there be any bias in that? Every word is true, right?

Except for this: The first thing mentioned, the lens through which we are forced to view the rest of the story, is something that did not happen and that only an idiot would expect might happen: Mr. Rumsfeld mentioning the prisoner-abuse scandal at a commencement address at West Point.

The lead, in other words, is not the graduation that is supposedly being reported, but rather Mr. Rumsfeld's failure to resign in the face of events that happened weeks ago. How is Mr. Rumsfeld's not resigning news? It's mentioned in this story only because the reporter does not want to let go of it.

This is bulldog journalism: Once you get hold of a story, you never loosen your grip until your victim dies--at least politically.

Does it happen to everybody? Or just Republicans? Well, try this fictitious opening paragraph: "Senator Hillary Clinton, making no mention of the $100,000 she once made by trading cattle futures with astonishing perfection, told a cheering crowd of activists that President Bush's globalist economic policy is hurting poor people in other countries and costing American jobs."

Nope. You've never seen it, and you never will. Because bulldog journalism only goes one way in our "unbiased" mainstream media.


The only differences between Fox News and all the other news media are (1) they admit that on some issues they take sides, and (2) they allow the conservative side to be heard--without contempt.

In every case of bias I just cited, the writers would almost certainly be outraged at my accusation that they were doing anything other than reporting the facts as clearly and fairly as possible. It doesn't occur to them that they are biased because they live in a box filled with people who share exactly the same bias. But that's how we human beings create our working definition of sanity--someone who shares the same worldview as his neighbors is "sane," and those who don't are crazy.
The left-wing news media live in a tiny village of people who all think (or pretend to think) exactly alike. Therefore, to them any reporter or media outlet that rejects their premises must be insane or dishonest, and instead of seeking to refute them with actual evidence, they merely call them names and accuse them of venal motives.

The fact remains that on Fox News, and only on Fox News, we get television reportage that gives us at least two sides of every important issue. On all the other TV news outlets--and "mainstream" newspapers--we mostly get coverage that is hopelessly biased. The madmen have taken over the asylum and now, dressed in white lab coats, they pronounce the rest of the world insane.

[…]

I wrote this essay for a newspaper that is also biased. The only difference--and it's all the difference in the world--is that the Rhinoceros Times admits that it's a conservative paper and reports events through conservative eyes. Likewise for this Web site.
Fox News Channel, on the other hand, claims to have only one bias--it is definitely pro-American--and it presents all the facts and every viewpoint and leaves the decision up to the viewer. Imagine if these news stories had been written from that perspective. They would be barely recognizable--and some of them would not have been written at all.

What makes the liberal bias in the mainstream media so pernicious is that they deny that they're biased and insist that their twisted version of events is "reality," and anyone who disagrees with them is either mentally or morally suspect. In other words, they're fanatics. And, like all good fanatics, they're utterly convinced that they're in sole possession of virtue and truth.

Famous replies to urgent questions

Washington, DC, Aug. 23, 1814: "President Madison, British soldiers are near the city now and have threatened to burn it to the ground, including the Executive Mansion where you and Mrs. Madison live. Do you have any reports from American commanders?

President Madison: "Well, I haven't been briefed yet, Larry. They have offered to brief me; I just haven't had time."

Early 1861: "Mr. Lincoln, there are reports from the War Department that secessionist South Carolina is mustering cannon and state militia along Charleston's harbor coast facing Fort Sumter. Do you believe there is a threat to Federal troops on the fort?"

President Lincoln: "Well, I haven't been briefed yet, Larry. They have offered to brief me; I just haven't had time."

March 1917: "President Wilson, the Navy reports that German submarines are very effectively enforcing the Kaiser's decree of unrestricted warfare against vessels of any nationality proceeding to the British Isles. What can you tell us about that threat?

President Wilson: "Well, I haven't been briefed yet, Larry. They have offered to brief me; I just haven't had time."

December 6, 1941: "President Roosevelt, the Imperial Japanese government has really dug its heels in that further negotiations are useless. Our sources in the War Department say that General Marshall will send a 'war warning' message to Pacific commanders soon. Any comment?"

President Roosevelt: "Well, I haven't been briefed yet, Larry. They have offered to brief me; I just haven't had time."

The Larry King Show, July 8, 2004:

King: Tom Ridge warned today about al Qaeda plans of a large-scale attack on the United States, didn't increase the--do you see any politics in this? What's your reaction?

Kerry: Well, I haven't been briefed yet, Larry. They have offered to brief me; I just haven't had time.

"In the first 13 quarters of the Bush Administration, the basic determinant of our standard of living increased by almost as much as during the entire 32 quarters of the Clinton Administration... But it would spoil the narrative of the Bush Administration as bumbling and Hoover-esque to point out that the most fundamental measure of our economic strength is shooting through the roof." (emphasis mine —SCH)

• The journey of a thousand miles begins with a broken fan belt and a leaky tire.

• It's always darkest before dawn. So if you're going to steal your neighbor's newspaper, that's the time to do it.

• Sex is like air. It's not important unless you aren't getting any.

• Don't be irreplaceable. If you can't be replaced, you can't be promoted.

• No one is listening until you pass gas.

• Never test the depth of the water with both feet.

• If you think nobody cares if you're alive, try missing a couple of car payments, or shorting the IRS.

• Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

• If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.

• Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish, and he will sit in a boat and drink beer all day.

• If you lend someone $20 and never see that person again, it was probably worth it.

• If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.

• Some days you are the bug; some days you are the windshield.

• Good judgment comes from bad experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.

• The quickest way to double your money is to fold it in half and put it back in your pocket. (Unless you're a Democrat, then just take it out of your neighbor's pockets)

• A closed mouth gathers no foot. (Good advice for Kerry)

• Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side and a dark side, and it holds the universe together.

• There are two theories about winning an argument with a woman. Neither one works. (Personal experience leads me to belive that there are an infinite number of theories, and that none of them work)

• Generally speaking, you aren't learning much when your lips are moving.

• Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it most.

• Never miss a good chance to shut up. (Another good piece of advice for Kerry)

• There is a fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."

Edwards said it was "a great honor" to be there and insisted, "This campaign will be a celebration of real American values."
Kerry thanked all the performers for "an extraordinary evening," hailed the "great producers" - Harvey Weinstein of Miramax and Jann Wenner - and said "every performer tonight ... conveyed to you the heart and soul of our country."

They're talking about a star-studded fundraiser in which celebrities took turns making jokes about Bush, some using vulgar sexual innuendos and most mocking the president.

So that's the heart and soul of our country? Priveleged celebrities telling dirty jokes about the president? Real American values, guys. Judging from the several reports I read about this gala, it appeared to be a hate filled rally against Bush, rather than a rally for Kerry/Edwards. Positive message, my ass.

When Howard Dean faced the same situation (a fundraiser in which hate-filled celebrities got out of hand), he quickly denounced the vitriol at his party. Kerry and Edwards embraced it.

It was also pretty revealing that Kerry had time to attend to this fiesta of farce yesterday, considering he had no time for real senatorial business:

"It is a great example of John Kerry's priorities that on the day he said he did not have time to receive his intelligence briefing on threats to America, he found time to attend a Hollywood fund-raiser, filled with enough hate and vitriol to make Michael Moore blush," Schmidt said.

Schmidt was referring to Kerry's interview on CNN's "Larry King Live" earlier Thursday in which Kerry, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he had been offered a briefing from the Bush administration about new terror warnings, but told King, "I just haven't had time." Kerry then told King he would be briefed later this week.


Forget terror threats. Kerry had to go get his hate on.

"I want Bush in there, because the other guy is like sending a boy to do a man's job," said Glenn Foldessy, 45, of Streetsboro, Ohio, outside Cleveland, as reported by the Associated Press

"There are three things I know about John Kerry. First, that he speaks three or four languages, and one of them is French. Second, that he's married to an ex-senator's wife who's worth a billion dollars. And third, he is supposedly a Vietnam vet." — Randal Vinson, Tennessee resident, as quoted in Slate.

It is rare for a political faction to be blessed with an opponent who is so charismatic to his fanatical supporters, so repulsive to non-supporters, and so vulnerable to criticism and caricature. I can't think of a high-profile leftist I'd rather have "at the centre of things" than Michael Muqtada al-Moore.

If one was particularly cynical, one might entertain the suspicion that Moore secretly hates the left, and is laughing twice as hard. Not only is he getting filthy rich off them, and laughing all the way to his bank, he's also helping to engineer their marginalization, and laughing all the way to their political destruction.

Yes, I was a liberal. When I was seventeen, I marched in no-nukes rallies. Now I think that nuclear power is our future. You live and learn. I was a naive teenager who was sucked into the "movement" by older friends who preached their gospel to me daily.

I was always uncomfortable in that group, as if I were a poser, someone who didn't really belong but was going along for the ride because it was supposedly the right thing to do.

In later years, I went through several periods of self-loathing that stemmed from activities I participated in with these people. I never went to bed feeling self-satisfied like they did. Most of the time - even as recently as three years ago - I felt slightly dirty, as if I were doing something wrong or not being true to who I was. But I went on carrying the banners and talking the talk and using all the correct phrases and terminology and talking points. I could have made a movie: I Was A Leftist Robot.

The thing about lefties is they want you to follow whole play book or none of it. You are either with them and their issues 100% or you're a pariah. When I bought an SUV, I lost my street cred. I went from a compatriot to a baby killer. I was shunned by a good portion of the society I belonged to.

It was then that my cool exterior began to chip away. This was even before 9/11. I would have conversations with my father - a conservative Republican - and find myself agreeing with him more and more, though I would never tell him that. I would fight with him on certain issues but I didn't fight with a strong will. At some point, I realized that when I debated with my father, I was only reciting from a script. Were these really my core beliefs? I questioned myself and my motives more and more.

I became increasingly uncomfortable with my own ideals. I would write something and then immediately feel ashamed about it. But I didn't want to step out of line. I didn't want to lose the friends I had and I certainly did not want to lose myself. If I admitted that everything I had been saying and writing and doing was done out of some sense of obligation and not with any true belief, then I would be branding myself a liar and a hypocrite.

Did I really hate my country the way the rest of my clan did? No. Never. Did I think we were an evil people out to conquer the rest of the world? No. Would I give some more thought to being a vegetarian? No way. Would I get rid of my SUV in the name of the cause? Nope. Would I be a tree sitter or give money to the people who want to destroy a car dealership? Hell no. So umm...why are you calling yourself one of us? Damned if I know.

[…]

I feel at home now. I don't feel like a stranger in my own country. I don't feel the nagging self doubt, I don't feel the strings being pulled when I talk. And I don't need a playbook to debate anyone because all my talking points are my own.

I noticed this line from one of John Kerry's recent speeches at NRO's Kerry Spot:

"Don’t tell us disenfranchising a million African Americans and stealing their votes is the best we can do."

Um, what?

Let me rephrase that: WHAT?!?

Exactly why hasn't this little tidbit been noted by the national press? With a banner headline? That's not just rhetoric, it's the electoral equivalent of a blood-libel. For one thing, it's a flat-out lie, as reluctantly found by the partisan Democrat-dominated US Civil Rights Commission, which despite months of investigation, noted only 26 people with "disenfranchisement" complaints, most of which were found to be specious (link is to a .pdf file of the minority dissent, see page 32).

Not "a million disenfranchised," but 26 people with complaints, not all of which were valid.

Kerry isn't just lying, he's indulging in blatant, ugly race-baiting (it's noteworty he says nothing about the military personnel whose 2000 absentee ballots were voided at the demands of Gore lawyers--now they were disenfranchised, but since they didn't vote correctly, it's below French John's notice). Why isn't he being called on it by the press?

Scratch that--you already know the answer. The press is on his side. Let's try again:

Why isn't he being called on it by the blogosphere? If this flat-out ugly lie isn't in the same league with Trent Lott's stupidity, I'd like to hear one legitimate reason why not.

... I know it's required for every pundit, columnist, and lowly blogger to weigh in on the intensely interesting subject of Kerry-Edwards. So I'm trying to do my part here. Kerry-Edwards. Kerry-Edwards! Kerry-Edwards? It will come to me in a minute, I'm sure.

They sure do make some big teeth down south. Do you think maybe there's a little horse in some of those bloodlines? Forget that. It's off-topic. Sort of off-topic anyway. They keep reminding us that he's this rich successful trial lawyer, but I keep seeing him as the guy on TV who wants you to come on down to the dealership and make an eye-popping deal on a leftover Chevy pickup. Why do they always shout and carry on like that? Is there some sort of secret car-dealer society where they learn all that hokey jabber? Well, this line of talk isn't going anywhere. Kerry-Edwards.

Kerry-Edwards. Somebody or other told me Chris Matthews said that Edwards would clean Cheney's clock in a debate. Because he's a rich trial lawyer. Am I the only one who's ever watched Court TV? I can't believe all those trial lawyers are so anxious to be filmed on the job. Perry Mason they're not. What they are is slow, halting, repetitive, and boring. Real life cross-examination is more like an audit than an episode of Law and Order. I think Cheney could stand up to an audit pretty well. Heaven knows he's probably been through enough of them. Of course, Chris Matthews isn't the most objective fellow in the world. Not the smartest fellow in the world either. In fact, he's kind of a dope. But a fast-talking dope. He's the only man in broadcasting who can give a 700-word sound bite. Oh. Did I stop talking about Kerry-Edwards again? Sorry.

Kerry-Edwards. Will Edwards help the ticket? Who knows. Will he hurt the ticket? Who knows. Should it have been Gephardt or Bayh or Clinton instead? Who cares. The decision's been made. Will Edwards carry his own home state? Well, that's why we have elections, to find out that very thing. Are women going to flock to Edwards? I don't know. I'm not a woman. What do men think of him? Lots of things probably. Most men have pretty different opinions about everything but women, and Edwards isn't a woman, so there's no help there. Kerry-Edwards.

Kerry-Edwards. I'm trying. I'm really trying to figure out what could have been in all those other articles about Kerry-Edwards. But I can't. I couldn't even read them. As soon as they get to the part about Kerry-Edwards a certain feeling steals over me and my eyelids start getting heavy. Kerry-Edwards, Kerry-Edwards, and then my head starts to droop toward my chest and before I know it I.........................

Ooooh! You’re really spooked by F911, musta struck a nerve, eh? Scared that Chimpy McDeath is gonna go down? I love that: Moore’s on the cover of Entertainment Weekly and Time and who knows what else; he's the big magilla of the month. But respond to his assertions and you’re acting out of frantic panic. Right. I admit, I don’t like Mr. Moore; I don’t share his contempt for the American people, and I think he’s a dishonest polemicist.

In a further repudiation of the "Bush Lied!" meme, the Financial Times in London reports that Lord Butler's investigation into prewar British intelligence confirms that Iraq did attempt to get uranium from Niger in defiance of cease-fire agreements and UN resolutions:

A UK government inquiry into the intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq is expected to conclude that Britain's spies were correct to say that Saddam Hussein's regime sought to buy uranium from Niger. ... The UK government has remained adamant that negotiations over sales did take place and that the fake documents were not part of the intelligence material it had gathered to underpin its claim.

The Financial Times revealed last week that a key part of the UK's intelligence on the uranium came from a European intelligence service that undertook a three-year surveillance of an alleged clandestine uranium-smuggling operation of which Iraq was a part.

Intelligence officials have now confirmed that the results of this operation formed an important part of the conclusions of British intelligence. The same information was passed to the US but US officials did not incorporate it in their assessment.

Let's recap what we've found since the fall of Saddam Hussein. We've discovered WMD that the UN demanded to be destroyed, including more than a dozen shells with sarin and more with mustard gas that dated back before Gulf War I, part of the stockpile for which Saddam never accounted. The CPA has found mass graves with at least 300,000 bodies in them, and even the National Geographic now estimates that as many as 7 million Shi'ites have disappeared over the twelve years the UN sat on its hands and allowed Saddam to defy the sixteen resolutions demanding his verifiable disarmament. Intelligence files discovered by independent sources such as the Los Angeles Times shows that Saddam thwarted the arms embargo that supposedly "contained" him with the active help of UNSC member Syria. ABC reported that Saddam's IIS supplied Abu al-Zarqawi, an al-Qaeda operative, with shelter and weapons.

Now we find out that the Brits correctly reported Saddam's efforts to get his hands on uranium, in defiance to the neat little storyline constructed by the Left that Bush's reliance on that information equates to a lie used to mislead the US into war. And to what purpose would Iraq put that uranium had it successfully concluded that transaction? Does anyone suppose that Saddam simply wanted to make his palaces glow in the dark -- or perhaps make Tel Aviv or DC do so instead?