« August 2006 | Main | October 2006 »
September 29, 2006
Bad Week For AP's Jennifer Loven
Associated Press White House correspondent Jennifer Loven is either a glutton for punishment or just too ideologically driven to know how ridiculous she appears to the public. At Tuesday's presidential press conference with Bush and Karzai, Loven is the reporter asking the questions:
PRESIDENT BUSH: Thank you. We'll have two questions a side. We'll start with Jennifer Loven.
Q Thank you, sir. Even after hearing that one of the major conclusions of the National Intelligence Estimate in April was that the Iraq war has fueled terror growth around the world, why have you continued to say that the Iraq war has made this country safer?
PRESIDENT BUSH: I, of course, read the key judgments on the NIE...Some people have guessed what's in the report and have concluded that going into Iraq was a mistake...
Now, you know what's interesting about the NIE -- it was a intelligence report done last April. As I understand, the conclusions -- the evidence on the conclusions reached was stopped being gathered on February -- at the end of February. And here we are, coming down the stretch in an election campaign, and it's on the front page of your newspapers. Isn't that interesting? Somebody has taken it upon themselves to leak classified information for political purposes...
Q Why is that declassification not --
PRESIDENT BUSH: Because I want you to read the documents so you don't speculate about what it says. You asked me a question based upon what you thought was in the document, or at least somebody told you was in the document. And so I think, Jennifer, you'll be able to ask a more profound question when you get to look at it yourself -- (laughter) -- as opposed to relying upon gossip and somebody who may or may not have seen the document trying to classify the war in Iraq one way or the other. ...I guess it's just Washington, isn't it, where, you know, we kind of -- there's no such thing as classification anymore, hardly. But, anyway, you ought to take a look at it and then you'll get to see...
Karzai hammers Loven, too:
PRESIDENT KARZAI: Ma'am, before I go to remarks by my brother, President Musharraf, terrorism was hurting us way before Iraq or September 11th...They came to America on September 11th, but they were attacking you before September 11th in other parts of the world. We are a witness in Afghanistan to what they are and how they can hurt. You are a witness in New York. Do you forget people jumping off the 80th floor or 70th floor when the planes hit them? Can you imagine what it will be for a man or a woman to jump off that high? Who did that?...Should we wait for them to come and kill us again?
On Thursday, Loven came back for another helping of smackdown during the gaggle with Press Secretary Tony Snow aboard Air Force One:
MR. SNOW: The President's remarks today...we'll have extensive comments on the war on terror, the tools that are needed to win it. He will address the National Intelligence Estimate, but will also talk more broadly about the administration's strategy for winning the war on terror and the political differences between the two parties in their own words and their own votes, as far as proceeding with the battle against terrorists...
Q Could you talk more specifically about what kinds of differences he's going to point out?
MR. SNOW: For instance, differences in votes on matters like the Hamdan legislation yesterday in the House of Representatives. He'll be citing some of the comments that members of the Democratic leadership have made in recent days about what they think is necessary for winning the war on terror, and so on...
Q Is he going to specifically name Democrats?
MR. SNOW: No, he will not. He will not be naming names. He will be reciting quotes, however.
Q So it will be clear who he's talking about?
MR. SNOW: If you have been reading the papers, you will know.
Q Uh-oh.
MR. SNOW: Uh-oh, says Jennifer Loven of the Associated Press.
Jennifer Loven, stuck on stupid.
Posted by jeffgannon at 06:37 AM
September 28, 2006
Desperate Dems Turn To Woodward
Democrats and their Old Media operatives are seeing the opportunity to take over Congress in November slipping further from their grasp as each day passes. The New York Times failed to stop GOP resurgence with the NIE story, in fact, it made things worse for them when it blew up in Bill Keller's face. Democrats now turn to CBS, a network that has been willing to use all of its resources to undermine President Bush and his party. The network and its sister company, publisher Simon & Schuster, that brought you Rathergate and a wave of Bush-bashing tomes in 2004 has hauled out what they consider their ultimate WMD, Bob Woodward.
Woodward is the hero of the current generation of Washington political activist reporters who were inspired to join the profession during the Watergate era. He has been forgiven for concealing his source in the Valerie Plame affair, especially since it was Richard Armitage and not Karl Rove or Scooter Libby. Woodward's silence allowed Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgeral to prolong a fraudulent investigation for over two years after he knew the truth.
The release of Woodward's new book, "State of Denial", which from reports is a regurgitation of John "cut and run" Murtha's talking points about the Iraq war and an obvious premise to demonstrate some equivalence to the Vietnam war, is one of the acts of desperation Americans have come to expect from the Old Media. The vision is complete all the way down to Bush having secret meetings with Nixon advisor Henry Kissinger!
The White House press corps will start braying at the podium to answer the charges in the book. The story will run its course after two weeks when key elements are discredited. The sideshow will be to see how the conspiracy crowd end up blaming the debacle on Karl Rove.
The benefit to the Republicans will be that the story will keep the focus on the war on terror which works against the Party of Surrender. There is not a single person in the United States who believes that a Nancy Pelosi-led Congress will wage an effective war on terror or have a clue as to what to do about Iraq. That is the most signifant obstacle that the Democrats face in their quest to return to power.
Posted by jeffgannon at 11:24 AM
If You Don't Stand For Something, You'll Fall For Anything
These words are basis of a hit country song from a few years ago and repeated to me recently by a wise woman. They were never more literally important than today in Norway where radical feminism has gone off the deep end. World Net Daily is reporting that a school district has decreed that boys must now sit down to urinate.
It might be too much information for some, but I'm standing up in support of those who will challenge the latest assault from the hysterical wymyn of the Left.
Posted by jeffgannon at 09:04 AM
NYT Predicting Dem Takeovers
Last week, The New York Times tried "cherry-picking" a leaked classified intelligence report to damage the Bush administration and the Republicans a month before the November midterm. That backfired when the White House released the full summary that revealed a much different assessment than was trumpeted by the newspaper.
Now the NYT is pushing a phony story that Democrats' chances in November are IMPROVING, even though most analysts (even Democratic operative Larry Sabato) see the possibility of a takeover of one or more houses of Congress slipping away.
Posted by jeffgannon at 08:32 AM
Clinton Judge Rules Ashcroft Not Immune
U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge is a classic example of a "judicial activist". A review of his decisions show how the Left uses the courts to impose by fiat what it can't win at the ballot box. The ACLU is cheering Lodge's ruling that former U. S. Attorney General John Ashcroft is not immune from prosecution for actions taken while in office, specifically as it related to the detention of a terrorism suspect/witness.
Lodge's other liberal activist rulings:
Posted by jeffgannon at 08:11 AM
What Sabato Didn't Hear
Political analyst and university professor Larry Sabato, injected himself into the smear campaign against George Allen by making claims about words he said that he heard the senator make way back in the 1970s. Now he says he didn't hear Allen speak the alleged racial epithets. Sabato has finally revealed himself to be a Democratic political operative. This follows being a rather dismal political analyst as well. Those qualifications make him a good strong candidate for the DNC chairmanship when Democrats tire of The Screamer.
Posted by jeffgannon at 06:39 AM
September 27, 2006
Dem Suicide Alert: Market Near All-Time High
On Tuesday, the Dow closed at a 6 1/2 year high, its second highest close in HISTORY. Its been less than 2 years since Democrats were calling the American economy the "worst since the Great Depression."
Rep. Charlie Rangel, the man who would become chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee if Democrats take over in November marked the occasion by telling reporters that he would not renew the Bush tax cuts that produced this roaring economy.
Democrats raise taxes every chance they get. Will voters choose to have their taxes raised in November?
Posted by jeffgannon at 10:04 AM
Allen Accuser Hides From Fox News
Dr. Ken Shelton, a former college teammate of George Allen is claiming the future senator once made racial remarks. Allen allegedly used a Robert Byrd-ism, the "N" word. Slate.com is leading the jihad against Allen, aided by the Washington Post and MSNBC's Chris Matthews.
Fox News has attempted to cover the story also, but when Molly Hennenberg contacted Shelton, a woman who answered the phone at his residence said, "The told us not to talk to Fox News."
Who is "they" and why not talk to Fox News? I smell a smear...
In a related, but barely noticed development: Webb Dodges Question On Racial Epithet
This is how the Associated Press helps Jim Webb deal with questions of whether he did the same thing Allen is accused of:
Democratic Senate challenger Jim Webb declined to say definitively Tuesday whether he had ever used a common derogatory term to describe blacks, stepping carefully after watching his campaign rival confront charges of racism.
"I don't think that there's anyone who grew up around the South that hasn't had the word pass through their lips at one time or another in their life," Webb told reporters.
OK, that explains it. Now back to crucifying Allen...
Posted by jeffgannon at 07:08 AM
Plamegate A Fraud - But Cheap!
The Washington Post continues the Old Media backtrack on The Big Nothing, otherwise known as the Valerie Plame affair. The lastest effort comes from Carole Leonnig, who praises Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald for his frugality in proving, well, nothing.
Still there is a note of sadness in the brief piece:
"Fitzgerald's probe roiled the White House, laid bare an Oval Office intent on squelching a critic of the Iraq war and forced reporters to do the unthinkable -- name their confidential sources. Though Fitzgerald debated for months whether to charge Bush Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove with a crime, the investigation eventually led to no charges of a criminal leak."
Pardon me, Carole, didn't you get the note about Richard Armitage? Maybe you should stop by Bob Woodward's desk and have him fill you in. Armitage was the leaker and Fitzgerald knew it over two years ago. Rove wasn't charged with a crime because he didn't commit one.
Will you liberal "journalists" ever accept the fact that there will be no Fitzmas for you and no "frog-marching" of Rove?
Posted by jeffgannon at 06:45 AM
September 26, 2006
Attempted Gay Rape, Murder Gets Little Notice
The Old Media is downplaying the shocking aspects surrounding the case of a 40-year-old Pennsylvania man who murdered a 23-year-old man college student after drugging and attempting to rape the victim. The report in the Aberdeen American opens with:
"A Northern State University student who was found dead last week in Pennsylvania was strangled after rejecting sexual advances from a sales manager for the company he was interning for, authorities have said."
Rejecting sexual advances? Fighting off a rapist after being drugged and is rejecting sexual advances?
It's ironic that the victim is Jason Shephard, his last name recalling another case involving homosexuality and murder. When Matthew Shepard was killed in 1998 the case got worldwide attention as a symbol of anti-gay violence. Don't look for much reporting on Jason's case, however. The perpetrator is gay and the victim was described by a friend as "staunch Republican who liked to talk about his faith."
Do a Google search. There's no coverage of the crime outside of the Philadelphia area where it took place and the upper Midwest where Shephard was from. Nothing in the New York Times or the Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times. No weepy segments on the Today Show or The View (c'mon Rosie, tell us what you think.) The GLBT media has yet to report the story and probably won't. Why is that?
Posted by jeffgannon at 10:19 AM
Partial Leaks, Anonymous Comments
Another classified document "leaked" to the New York Times and the Washington Post that is damaging to the Bush administration. Democrats seize on the information for political gain. The administration can't fight back becasue the document is still classified. Every time this happens, I wonder if Americans have figured out that these are fraudulent political stories. After a succession of phony stories beginning with Rathergate, the trustworthiness of the Old Media is as low as it's ever been. That suggests Americans are onto the game.
Posted by jeffgannon at 09:16 AM
Fauxtography
Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen blasts photojournalists who put their bias into the images they show to the world. In discussing the flawed coverage of the recent hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah he writes:
Why Israel's leaders were surprised by this turn of events is beyond me. After all, it has happened before and even has a name: the CNN effect. But the complaint can be taken deeper still when, as has clearly happened, the historical basis for the state is forgotten, ignored or not even known. It is, after all, impossible to know Israel without knowing the Holocaust, which is not some historical abstraction -- the murder of 6 million -- but the ferocious killing of person after person.
Posted by jeffgannon at 09:08 AM
Dems To "Vietnamize" Iraq War
After 10 days into the invasion of Afghanistan, Democrats and the Old Media began to talk about a "quagmire", an effort to conjure up the image of America's involvement in Vietnam three decades ago. It is part of a sustained strategy by which both groups actively work to undermine ANY military action undertaken by the United States (except Bill Clinton's Kosovo intervention.)
Democrats take pride in the fact that they betrayed American forces in Southeast Asia by cutting off funding for the troops while they were still in country. With the potential of taking over the House in the November midterms, many Democrats see defunding the war in Iraq as Priority One.
Call them what you will, "cut and run" cowards, Defeatocrats, surrender monkeys - the net result is the same. Democrats represent weakness in the face of deadly threats against Americans and our way of life.
Posted by jeffgannon at 08:41 AM
September 25, 2006
Dems Expose Secret Info For Political Gain
Portions of a classified intelligence report about terrorism is leaked to the New York Times and the Washington Post a few days before Democrats begin to hold "hearings" around the country about the war in Iraq. A coordinated political attack? You bet. Will a Special Prosecutor be named to discover the source of the leak? Don't bet on it.
The same people who howled when Robert Novak published the name of a thrid-rate CIA analyst are cheering about secret information about the war on terror being spread across the front pages of America's newspapers.
Note how the Associated Press doesn't mention that the report was classified until the end of the fourth paragraph.
Posted by jeffgannon at 07:39 AM
September 22, 2006
White House, McCain Deal Dooms Dems
The intramural scrimmage in the Republican Party about the handling of terrorist detainees is over. The White House and the McCain-led mutineers reached an agreement late Thursday that settled the week-long squabble. The loser in all this? Democrats.
Democrats were counting on McCain to give their opposition to any Bush plan cover. Now that a deal has been struck, the Democrats have face a dilemma. If they vote for the measure already condemned by the ACLU, they'll anger the Hard Left base as indicated by the protests now raging at DailyKos and Democratic Underground. If they vote against it - or better yet filibuster - it confirms Democrats' weakness on matters of national security.
IM from Rove: ROFLMAO!
UPDATE
The New York Times is demanding Democrats take action:
"The Democrats have largely stood silent and allowed the trio of Republicans to do the lifting. It's time for them to either try to fix this bill or delay it until after the election. The American people expect their leaders to clean up this mess without endangering U.S. troops, eviscerating American standards of justice, or further harming the nation's severely damaged reputation."
The Washington Post is more subtle, but the message is clear:
"Mr. Bush wanted Congress to formally approve these practices and to declare them consistent with the Geneva Conventions. It will not. But it will not stop him either, if the legislation is passed in the form agreed on yesterday. Mr. Bush will go down in history for his embrace of torture and bear responsibility for the enormous damage that has caused."
Another IM from Rove: ACLU! (Almost Coughed Lung Up laughing)
Posted by jeffgannon at 07:34 AM
September 21, 2006
How Will Illegals Aliens And The Dead Vote Now?
Democrats are wailing today because the House passed a bill yesterday that would require a photo identification in order to vote in federal elections. In doing so, a portion of the Democrats' base - illegal aliens and the dead have been "disenfranchised".
IDs are required to get on an airplane, cash a check, drive a car, buy booze or smokes and hundreds of other daily activities. Why is it just voting that shouldn't have such a requirement? Fraudulent votes disenfranchise the rest of us.
Posted by jeffgannon at 08:28 AM
Dems Think House Takeover Is A Done Deal
Despite a Republican resurgence in the polls this week, Democrats still believe they will take over the House in November. The Old Media does too, as an article in The Hill indicates. Josephine Hearn opens her hopeful piece writing:
"The two Democrats vying to become House majority leader next year are courting Democratic candidates likely to win in November, hoping to reach out early to those who may one day have a say in their promotion."
Nancy is picking out drapes for the Speaker's office and Waxman, Conyers and others who expect to become committee chairs are writing up a truckload of subpoenas for the White House to go with the articles of impeachment that have already been prepared.
How angry will the Congressional Democrats be if they fail to take control of the House? They already sound like Ahmandinejad and Chavez with a caffine buzz - how much worse (and entertaining) can it get?
Posted by jeffgannon at 07:57 AM
September 20, 2006
Chavez "Hearts" Commie Writer, Liberal Hero
Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez spoke to the United Nations today spouting DNC insults and talking points. He even held up a copy of a Leftist manifesto by Noam Chomsky. Liberals are thrilled that Chavez would "speak truth to power". But they should know that euphoria will be short-lived since these rantings help - not hurt - George W. Bush and his party.
Every Republican candidate should ask their opponent to disavow the statements of Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Will Nancy Pelosi or Howard Dean condemn these remarks and anger their very angry Bush-hating base? Not likely.
The simple truth is that a vast majority of the American people resent tin horn depots like Chavez and Ahmadinejad coming to the United States to avail themselves of the free speech they deny the citizens of their own countries. Just as many loathe the Old Media for predictably giving these creeps a "journalistic Lewinsky".
Posted by jeffgannon at 12:13 PM
Congressmen Earning Their Stripes
Democrats abandoned the "culture of corruption" campaign slogan earlier this year when it became clear some in their own ranks may have committed "ethical lapses" - Washington-speak for "crimes". Wrongdoing by members of either party is indefensible, however, there is a significant difference in how Republicans deal with it as opposed to Democrats.
Republicans who have gotten into trouble resign and face the music. Duke Cunningham left and is now serving time. Bob Ney has pleaded guilty to a few counts of whatever and will likely step down soon. Tom DeLay left town even though no allegations against him have been proven.
Democrats on the other hand, have a habit of hanging on until the paddy wagon pulls up to the Capitol. No one can forget the spectacle of James Trafficant, who was literally dragged off the House floor screaming "Beam me up, Scotty!" Now witness William "Cold Cash" Jefferson who continues to declare his innocence even though two people have already gone to prison for bribing him. His indictment is on the way - and Jefferson's attitude promises to provide some Cynthia McKinney-esque footage just in time for the midterm elections.
Roll Call has a rundown of some of the infamous former members who went from the House to the Big House. However, the list of family members who ended up on the wrong side of the law overlooked Sowande A. Omokunde, the son of Democratic Rep. Gwen Moore who was sentenced to four to six months in jail for slashing the tires of 100 vehicles outside a Bush-Cheney campaign office on Election Day 2004 that were to be used for a Republican get-out-the-vote drive. I'm sure it's just an oversight, not a deliberate attempt to ignore a proven case of vote supression.
Posted by jeffgannon at 07:44 AM
Clinton Machine Grinds Toward 2008
Hillary Clinton's march to the White House, that many believe began in 2000 but others hypothesize originated in Little Rock, Arkansas long before, is picking up the pace. Former DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe admits that he will head up the former First Lady's campaign to become the next Commander-In-Chief.
The concept is far scarier than "Speaker Pelosi".
Posted by jeffgannon at 07:36 AM
September 19, 2006
Frist Wants A Border Fence
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist declared, "It's time to secure the border with Mexico," when announcing plans to introduce a bill for the construction of a 700-mile fence on the southern border of the United States. Senate Minorty Leader Harry Reid's spokesman Jim Manley said that the move "smacks of desperation", but to the anti-illegal immigrant crowd, Frist's epiphany is a welcome development.
Earlier in the year, I predicted that the GOP would embrace the "border security first" by this point in the mid-term campaign. Is it crass politics or capitulation to the will of the majority - and does it matter?
Posted by jeffgannon at 10:46 AM
Scales Fall From One Liberal's Eyes
Sam Harris writes a piece that got by the Politburo at the Los Angeles Times. In "Head-in-the-Sand Liberals", Harris recognizes what his liberal bretheren with not acknowledge: radical Islam is a threat to civilization.
The indictment:
"..my correspondence with liberals has convinced me that liberalism has grown dangerously out of touch with the realities of our world — specifically with what devout Muslims actually believe about the West, about paradise and about the ultimate ascendance of their faith.
On questions of national security, I am now as wary of my fellow liberals as I am of the religious demagogues on the Christian right.
This may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that "liberals are soft on terrorism." It is, and they are."
Take note, Speaker Pelosi.
Posted by jeffgannon at 10:28 AM
"Path to 9/11" Writer Gets Gannonized
Cyrus Nowrasteh, the scriptwriter for the ABC docudrama "The Path to 9/11" has been Gannonized by Democrats and their Old Media operatives because of the inconvenient truths about Bill Clinton's dereliction of duty in dealing with terrorism. Nowrasteh details the abuse he has endured from the liberal intelligensia and sets the record straight in a Wall Street Journal piece.
From the dispicable Old Media:
In July a reporter asked if I had ever been ethnically profiled. I happily replied, "No." I can no longer say that. The L.A. Times, for one, characterized me by race, religion, ethnicity, country-of-origin and political leanings--wrongly on four of five counts. To them I was an Iranian-American politically conservative Muslim. It is perhaps irrelevant in our brave new world of journalism that I was born in Boulder, Colo. I am not a Muslim or practitioner of any religion, nor am I a political conservative. What am I? I am, most devoutly, an American. I asked the reporter if this kind of labeling was a new policy for the paper. He had no response.
From the liberal smear machine:
The hysteria engendered by the series found more than one target. In addition to the death threats and hate mail directed at me, and my grotesque portrayal as a maddened right-winger, there developed an impassioned search for incriminating evidence on everyone else connected to the film. And in director David Cunningham, the searchers found paydirt! His father had founded a Christian youth outreach mission. The whiff of the younger Mr. Cunningham's possible connection to this enterprise was enough to set the hounds of suspicion baying. A religious mission! A New York Times reporter wrote, without irony or explanation, that an issue that raised questions about the director was his involvement in his father's outreach work. In the era of McCarthyism, the merest hint of a connection to communism sufficed to inspire dark accusations, the certainty that the accused was part of a malign conspiracy. Today, apparently, you can get something of that effect by charging a connection with a Christian mission.
Posted by jeffgannon at 08:32 AM
September 18, 2006
Gimme That Old Time "Religion Of Peace"
Some Muslims are outraged by Pope Benedict's reading of a medieval quotation on Islam and holy war that suggested a propensity to commit violence in the name of Allah. In an effort to prove that Islam is the "Religion of Peace", Muslims across the globe burned the Pope in effigy, firebombed Catholic churches, issued death threats and murdered an Italian nun.
Let's not forget the dozens who were killed in reaction to cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed and Michael Isakoff's phony story about flushing a Koran down the toilet at Guantanamo Bay.
What are those "moderate" Muslim voices saying today?
Posted by jeffgannon at 08:30 AM
AP's "Jihad Journalism"
Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein has been held by American forces in Iraq for the last five months because of his suspicious relationship with insurgents in Iraq. Is this a threat to a free press or a threat posed by terrorist sympathizer in the press giving aid and comfort to the enemy?
AP whines, but Michelle Malkin is all over it.
Posted by jeffgannon at 08:23 AM
September 17, 2006
Clinton and McGreevey - Sexual Predators
American spent eight years learning that Bill Clinton was a womanizer, a serial adulterer (ask Paula Jones, Jennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky), a sexual harasser (ask Kathleen Willey} and perhaps a rapist (ask Juanita Broderick). Now it appears James McGreevey, former Democratic governor of New Jersey who resigned from office in a cloak of victimhood, seems to be cut from the same cloth.
The man McGreevey claims was his "lover" says that he was the victim of unwanted gay sexual harassment. Let's see how long it takes the GLBT crowd to decide that the "Gay American" ex-guv isn't such a hero after all but just another sexual predator using his postion of authority to get in someone's pants.
Don't hold your breath.
Posted by jeffgannon at 07:00 PM
September 15, 2006
Be Careful What You Wish For
Dana Milbank rues the Democrats' problem that they brought on themselves. Remember when the Democrats WANTED to talk about national security? Now that the issue has turned against them, Democrats can't get away from it.
Posted by jeffgannon at 09:49 AM
Democrat To Blame For Maryland Election Fiasco
In every election since the contested presidential contest in 2000, Democrats have claimed that Republicans have stolen elections from them. Conspiracy theories abound, even though there has never been a single proven case of Republican electoral skullduggery. When there were snafus in the Montgomery County (MD)primary this week, Democratic activists howled that Republicans were to blame.
But it was a Democrat that "screwed up." The Washington Post provides a puff-piece to show that there was no malicious intent. Readers don't learn that the official who forgot to give poll workers the plastic cards to operate the electronic voting machines is a Democrat until the 20th paragraph!
How might the article have been different if the election official was a Republican?
Posted by jeffgannon at 09:16 AM
The Big Nothing That Won't Go Away
Democrats and the Old Media desperately want the Valerie Plame Affair to go away. People like myself want to keep it alive because of what if reveals about the incestuous relationship between the two groups that literally "made a federal case" out of nothing at all. Not surprisingly, some of them don't want to let go of the Wilson-Plame fraud, believing that Fitzmas might someday come.
Bill Press (is he still alive?) is one of those who still believes the Joe Wilson version of events, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Karl Rove Gets No Apology From Me (Bill's very bitter.)
Not to worry. Victoria Toensing, who authored the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, makes the right points and asks the right questions. What A Load Of Armitage!
Posted by jeffgannon at 08:08 AM
September 14, 2006
GOP Fighting Back Is "Going Negative"
The DNC has apparently directed their Old Media operatives to write about Republican efforts to fight back against the Democrats false charges as "going negative."
Washington Post: Va. Race Goes Negative on 1979 Essay
Remember when Teddy Kennedy tried to smear Sam Alito with a paper someone else at Princeton wrote?
Howard Fineman, Democratic strategist/Newsweek reporter
Posted by jeffgannon at 09:07 AM
No Saddam - Al Qaeda Ties?
From the New York Sun:
A deputy prime minister of Iraq yesterday offered a sharp contradiction of the conventional wisdom here that Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Al Qaeda had no connection before the 2003 war, flatly contradicting a recent report from the Senate's intelligence committee.
In a speech in which he challenged the belief of war critics that Iraqis' lives are now worse than under Saddam Hussein, Barham Salih said, "The alliance between the Baathists and jihadists which sustains Al Qaeda in Iraq is not new, contrary to what you may have been told." He went on to say, "I know this at first hand. Some of my friends were murdered by jihadists, by Al Qaeda-affiliated operatives who had been sheltered and assisted by Saddam's regime."
How long will it be before The New York Times or Washington Post reports on this?
Posted by jeffgannon at 08:30 AM
September 13, 2006
ABC Reveals Anti-Terror Simulation Tests
It didn't take long for ABC to revert to form after being blasted by Democrats for airing its docudrama "The Path to 9/11". ABC News reporter Brian Ross has obtained tapes (how and are these classified?) that show similated terrorist attacks and the methods that have been developed to thwart them.
Is treason an addiction or a compulsion?
Posted by jeffgannon at 06:40 AM
Dem Candidate A 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist
Florida Democrats recently selected Dr. Bob Bowman as their candidate to challenge Republican Congressman Bob Weldon in November. Bowman is typical of the New Democrat - genus Moonbatus pelosi.
Bowman's campaign website discusses 9/11:
"The truth about 9/11 is that we don’t KNOW the truth about 9/11, and we should...There is mounting evidence of complicity by elements of our own government."
The next bit reads like a rant I heard from one of these nuts at the National Press Club on Monday (I haven't reformatted this, honest):
"If they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding everything? Why are they hiding audiotapes of FAA and NORAD controllers? Why are they hiding videotapes of whatever hit the Pentagon? Why are they hiding the black boxes? Why did they destroy most of the forensic evidence showing that three buildings at the World Trade Center were brought down by thermite demolition charges? If the thermite residue found on severed steel beams didn’t bring down the towers, what did? (Never before in history did steel skyscrapers fall because of fire, and THREE of them did on the same day … one of which wasn’t even hit by an airplane!) Why did four hijacked airliners fly around for up to an hour and 45 minutes without being intercepted? Why were normal procedures not followed? (If normal procedures HAD been followed, the aircraft would have been intercepted with 20 minutes to spare, the twin towers would still be standing, and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive.) If it was massive incompetence, why has no one been fired? … or demoted? … or court martialed? (Instead they were promoted or given the medal of freedom!) If Osama bin Laden was really suspected, why did our government violate its own “no-fly” order to hurriedly fly the bin Laden family out of the United States before they could be questioned? Why does the “Osama bin Laden” in the “confession” videotape have a nose about an inch shorter than the real Osama bin Laden? Why have half a dozen of the 19 “hijackers” turned up in other countries … alive and well? Were there really any hijackers at all, and if there were, were they patsies? Who made millions on short sales of United and American Airlines? Where is the tens of billions of dollars worth of missing gold that was stored in the World Trade Center?"
If national Democrats are ever asked about Bowman, the interviewer shouldn't allow them to dismiss this as a default candidate in a "safe" Republican district. Bowman won a primary with 55% of the vote! That begs the question: How bad was the loser?
Bowman certainly isn't alone in his claims about 9/11. Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez seems to agree something. He told his supporters:
"The hypothesis is not absurd . . . that those towers could have been dynamited. A building never collapses like that, unless it's with an implosion."
This conspiracy stuff must be in the new Democratic National Committee talking points if both Bowman and Chavez are repeating it.
Posted by jeffgannon at 06:23 AM
Wilson/Plame Make Fatal Mistake
When former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage confessed that he was the government official who revealed Valerie Plame's association with the CIA to journalist Robert Novak, the Old Media rushed close the book on the case. The Valerie Plame Affair didn't bring Fitzmas like Democrats and the Old Media had hoped, with Karl Rove being "frog-marched" out of the White House. Instead, The Big Nothing blew up in the face of the Old Media - and it wants to stop talking about it. The talking point was that because Armitage was a "friendly" to the Washington press, what he did was "inadvertant" and certainly not malicious - end of story.
But the publicity starved Joe Wilson and his spy-gal pal won't let it go. They announced Tuesday that they would be adding Armitage to their civil suit that has already been filed against Scooter Libby and Rove. Bad move for them, since the case will bring more scrutiny to the collaboration between Wilson, the Democrats and the Old Media to push the political prosecution conducted by Patrick Fitzgerald. Wilson obviously didn't read the Washington Post last week when it opined, "too much attention was paid to Wilson and is false claims."
UPDATE: The Old Media storyline about Armitage inadvertently mentioning Plame to Novak is crumbling...
Posted by jeffgannon at 06:11 AM
September 12, 2006
AP's Nedra Pickler - DNC WH Press Corps Operative
Even though the subject of her article is President Bush's prime-time 9/11 speech, Nedra Pickler, a White House reporter for the Associated Press manages to insert a Democratic talking point in the very first sentence of the lede:
"President Bush is invoking the memory of Sept. 11 to defend the war in Iraq, drawing protests from Democrats who say he politicized a national day of mourning."
No liberal bias?
Posted by jeffgannon at 09:29 AM
Dems Thwart 9/11 Commemoration Resolution
House Democrats have balked at voting for a Congressional resolution marking the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Their beef? They don't want to mention anti-terror legislation passed in the past five years - especially the Patriot Act.
If Democrats can't stand to even mention the Patriot Act, how could they ever be trusted to use it in defense of the United States against the threat of terrorism?
Posted by jeffgannon at 07:13 AM
September 11, 2006
How Liberals Put America At Risk
The fifth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks is a good time to reflect on how such a thing could have happened. I'm not going to dig into what Bill Clinton and George W. Bush should, could or would have done to foil the plot, nor am I going to speculate about the reason al Qaeda wants to kill Americans.
Instead, I'm going to point out the dangers of a political ideology that keeps the United States at risk. Living in Washington, DC, one of the target cities for terrorist attacks, it's sickening to know that a key weapon for our enemies is as close as the newspaper box on the corner. Two articles in today's Washington Post provide examples of how the liberal-dominated Old Media and their soulmates in the Democratic Party undermine the security or our country.
First up: Situation Called Dire In West Iraq
This article cites the "secret" report of the chief of intelligence for the Marine Corps in Iraq about the military and political in the western Anbar province. The article quotes an unidentified Army officer repeating the Murtha mantra: "We haven't been defeated militarily but we have been defeated politically -- and that's where wars are won and lost."
The substance of the article doesn't suprise me since morale crushing news about Iraq is standard fare for the Washington Post, but the shameless publication of a classified document makes my blood boil. That newspaper along with The New York Times have exposed vital national security programs on their front pages for the past five years since the first plane hit the World Trade Center. Whether is it the NSA terrorist surveillance program, CIA interrogation facilities and techniques or the terror fund tracking program - they print it all - no matter what the consequences.
Why doesn't Dana Priest try on expose al Qaeda's plans? Come on, Christiane Amanpour, you know where Osama is, drop the dime on him.
Second up: Worried CIA Officers Buy Legal Insurance
Why should the men and women who do the necessary work of trying to get information from the "worst of the worst" of the world's terrorits need legal protection? The Washington Post reports:
Justice Department political appointees have strongly backed the CIA interrogations. But "there are a lot of people who think that subpoenas could be coming" from Congress after the November elections or from federal prosecutors if Democrats capture the White House in 2008, said a retired senior intelligence officer who remains in contact with former colleagues in the agency's Directorate of Operations, which ran the secret prisons.
If Democrats win control of the House or Senate in November or the White House in 2008, America's defenders will need to worry about whether they will be prosecuted for doing the job WE need them to do.
Is there any doubt about the danger to America from within?
Posted by jeffgannon at 07:57 AM
September 10, 2006
WashPo Says GOP Going Negative
The Washington Post is "reporting" that the Republican Party is planning to devote a substantial portion of its campaign funds on "digging up dirt" on Democrats. It's especially interesting that the article portraying the practice of looking into the background of a political opponent in such a negative way comes from the Washington Post.
The WashPo has been the major force behind the George Allen "macaca" ca-ca for weeks, manufacturing a controversy out of very little (in the same way it did in the Valerie Plame Affair.) Nor should it be forgotten that one of its reporters, Matthew Mosk, worked with one of Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley's Democrat operatives to create the phony MD4Bush story.
The ultimate irony is that Republicans have to spend money on the opposition research that the Old Media provides to the Democrats for free under the guise of "investigative journalism".
Posted by jeffgannon at 09:19 AM
September 08, 2006
Armitage: "Whoops..Darn It..Sorry"
Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage has now confirmed that he was Robert Novak's source for the column that revealed Valerie Plame's employment with the Central Intelligence Agency. In a TELEPHONE interview with the Associated Press, Armitage expressed contrition: "I made a terrible mistake, not maliciously, but I made a terrible mistake."
His phoned-in mea culpa: "I did what I did...I embarrassed my president, my secretary, my department, my family and I embarrassed the Wilsons. And for that I'm very sorry."
Novak said that Armitage wasn't a "partisan gunslinger", but I disagree. The act of telling Novak about "Wilson's wife" may have been idle gossip, but his conduct thereafter was decidedly partisan.
Armitage made a mistake that he owned up to right away, to Colin Powell and others at the State Department and to the FBI - but never to the White House. He could have put a stop to all of this nonsense every day during the past three years, but chose not to do so. Instead, he remained silent while Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald mounted a three-year assault against the Bush administration trying to prove a crime they BOTH was never committed.
Democrats and the Old Media share in the responsibility for this sham as well. Both of those groups knew that Plame was not covert and that Joe Wilson was a serial liar yet continued to amplify every word that came from his lips.
Now that the truth has come out - it's gotten awfully quiet in DC with regard to the Valerie Plame Affair. The Washington Post and New York Times have whispered what they want readers to believe is an apology for their agenda-driven reporting of The Big Nothing and appear to be moving on.
I'm wondering how deep in their pages they'll bury the story that the charges against Scooter Libby have been dropped when Fitzgerald realizes that he has no case. Democrats and their Old Media operatives already know that there will be no Fitzmas this year or any year and have moved on to something else.
Posted by jeffgannon at 08:36 AM
September 07, 2006
More Plamegate Apologies
The Washington Post is again apologizing for its role in promoting the fraudulent Valerie Plame story. Columnist David Broder suggests that other people and publications owe an apology to Karl Rove for their smear campaigns. But that applies to the Washington Post as well and should be seen as such.
Posted by jeffgannon at 09:00 AM
At Last, A Real 9/11 Debate
Democrats' outrage over ABC's docudrama, "The Path to 9/11" is forcing a public debate over the circumstances that led to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. That debate never took place because the 9/11 Commission was essentially a political whitewash. There is plenty of blame to go around, for both Republicans and Democrats.
However, Democrats have spent the past five years blaming Bush for failing to prevent the attacks that occurred eight months into his term while refusing to accept any responsibility for what happened - or didn't happen - in the eight years that preceded Bush's tenure.
Bill Clinton and other members of his administration are protesting any suggestion that they bear any responsibility for America being unprepared for the growing threat posed by terrorists. The good news is that the more they scream, the more people will pay attention. Information that was excluded from the official version will be revealed and discussed so that Americans can reach their own conclusions.
That's what we've wanted all along.
Posted by jeffgannon at 08:39 AM
Bush Smokes Dems On National Security
When the Washington Post figures out that the Democrats got outmanuevered again by "misunderestimating" President Bush - and writes about it - it's too late. President Bush framed the debate that will dominate the news between now and election day in a major speech in the East Room Wednesday afternoon.
How serious a problem is it for Democrats? The answer is in the third paragraph:
By challenging Congress to immediately give the administration authority to try notorious al-Qaeda figures such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed by military commissions, he shifted the argument with Democratic critics of national security policies and competence. As Bush framed the choice, anyone against his proposal would be denying him necessary tools to protect American security.
Will Democrats roll over and pass Bush's proposals or fight the President's efforts to bring the "worst of the worst" to justice?
If Democrats go along with the President, their angry base will get even angrier - at them. If Democrats oppose Bush on the prosecution of those responsible for planning the 9/11 attacks they will confirm their reputation of being weak on national security.
Either way, Bush wins.
Posted by jeffgannon at 08:17 AM
September 06, 2006
Dem Protests Showing of ABC 9/11 Documentary
New York Democrat Rep. Louise Slaughter is demanding that the ABC network presentation of its documentary "The Path to 9/11" be shown with disclaimers. In a PRESS RELEASE, the moonbat who would become chairman of the House Rules Committee if Democrats took over the chamber in November said, "ABC has a responsibility to make clear that this film is not a documentary, and does not represent an official account of the facts surrounding the September 11th attacks."
Except that it is. I saw the film at the National Press Club screening and I've read the 9/11 Commission Report. The documentary is consistent with the Report.
More Slaughter gems:
"We have yet to establish the impartiality and accuracy of the people behind this film and the claims it advances, and the American people need to know that."
You remember the crusade Slaughter led against Michael Moore’s agitprop film, "Fahrenheit 9/11", Dan Rather's phony Bush National Guard Story and of course the Old Media's coverage of the Valerie Plame Fraud? Of course not, she was too busy demanding an investigation of a White House reporter - me.
Rep. Slaughter also expressed concern over the timing of the mini-series, as well as recent Republican rhetoric on the issue of national security and its connection to the war in Iraq.
"But what is far more important is the timing of this movie..."
Hmm...a 9/11 documentary coming out on the fifth anniversary of 9/11. Very suspicious. Would Christmas, oops sorry Louise, "holiday season" be better?
"The anniversary of the attacks is an emotional time, and it is wrong for anyone to play on those emotions and use them to advance a political agenda."
Fair enough, let's have another Paul Wellstone memorial service/campaign rally or follow the blubbering Cindy Sheehan around the globe as she meets with the leaders of countries hostile to the United States instead. How about a commemoration of Hurricane Katrina with a week-long series of news stories and a Spike Lee mini-series on HBO?
"We have been told we are in a fight against a new kind of fascism, and that individuals who question our current path in Iraq are morally equivalent to Nazi appeasers and those who would justify slavery."
The truth hurts, doesn’t it Louise?
"Such claims are more than just morally reprehensible and deeply irresponsible. They are also damaging to our country, making it difficult, if not impossible, to have a serious, non-partisan discussion about how best to protect our nation."
This from the party that would leave us defenseless in the face of greatest threat of the 21st Century. Democrats want to impeach President Bush for the terrorist surveillance program. Have we forgotten about the cheers from Democrats when Senator Harry Reid bragged, "We killed the Patriot Act!!"?
"Democrats have always worked to promote a more peaceful and secure world, and we will continue to do so, regardless of this divisive Republican rhetoric."-
How's that nuclear freeze work out? I suppose you want more U. N. sanctions?
"What America needs is real security based on an honest view of the world and the threats against us, not more divisive, pre-election rhetoric that slanders political opponents while doing nothing to make our nation more secure." -
What Democrats need is a realistic view of the world and to be honest about who they are and what they believe. That’s why this ABC program is so important.
Posted by jeffgannon at 06:01 AM
September 05, 2006
Snow Nails Reporter Spouting DNC Talking Points
David Gregory, MSNBC's impetuous Democrat operative in the White House Press Corps got hammered today by Press Secretary Tony Snow for reciting DNC talking points disguised as questions. Let's go to the transcript:
Q The President, in his last speech, made very clear that the American people have a choice -- right? -- in the way forward in the war on terror, which suggests, by definition, that he is trying to frame the political debate for the midterm election when it comes to national security. Is that fair?
MR. SNOW: I think both parties -- if you take a look again at the letter -
Q But I'm asking about the President. I'm not asking about Democrat -- you don't speak for Democrats. I'm asking about the President.
MR. SNOW: Well, but I'm trying to answer, because there are two parts of this equation, David. There seems to be a presumption that if Democrats make political points the President shouldn't respond because that would be political. The President -- these are important issues, and you can call it politics, you can call it whatever you want, but the most important thing to do is to provide a basis for people to take a look at the facts and reach thoughtful conclusions...
- This is a favorite tactic of Democrats and the Old Media, advancing a political argument then claiming that responding to it is "playing politics".
Q Okay. There's so much emphasis by the President on his resolve and on the consequences of failure, which seems to dovetail to the political strategy of casting the vote as not a referendum on his leadership or his conduct in the war on terror, leading the war on terror, but on a choice between two parties and their visions. And I'm curious whether, in this document, there's any reflection on the fact that this White House, this administration failed to anticipate a violent terrorist-based insurgency in Iraq, and also failed to adapt once it learned of its presence? And shouldn't that be put before the voters this fall?
MR. SNOW: I think you've admirably expressed the Democratic point of view, but I don't think --
- He shoots, he scores!
Q It's not a Democratic argument, Tony.
MR. SNOW: Let me answer the question, David.
Q But hold on, let's not let you get away with saying that's a Democratic argument.
MR. SNOW: Okay, let me -- let's not let you get away with being rude. Let me just answer the question, and you can come back at me.
Q Excuse me. Don't point your finger at me. I'm not being rude.
MR. SNOW: Yes, you are.
Q Don't try to dismiss me as making a Democratic argument, Tony, when I'm speaking fact.
MR. SNOW: Well, okay -- well, no --
Q You can do that to the Democrats; don't do it to me.
MR. SNOW: No, I'm doing it to you because the second part was factually tendentious, okay? Now, when you were talking about the fact that it failed to adapt, that's just flat wrong. And you will be -- there has been -- there have been repeated attempts to try to adapt to military realities, to diplomatic realities, to development of new weapons and tools on the part of al Qaeda, including the very creative use of the Internet. So the idea that somehow we're staying the course is just wrong. It is absolutely wrong...
Q No, you described me as rude in making a Democratic argument and said --
MR. SNOW: Well, that's because I kept trying to answer the question, and you kept jumping in. We need to come to an accommodation, because I'm perfectly happy to take on both sides.
Posted by jeffgannon at 06:52 PM
September 02, 2006
It's Joe Wilson's Turn To Apologize
The Washington Post issued what is as close to an apology for its flawed and politically-motivated coverage of the Valerie Plame Affair. Now it's Joe Wilson's turn - but this is not the first time I have suggested that he make ammends for his false claims.
From the White House Press Briefing of July 15, 2004 (over two years ago!):
MR. McCLELLAN: Two questions a day. Go ahead, Jeff. (That's me!)
Q: Last Friday, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report that shows that Ambassador Joe Wilson lied when he said his wife didn't put him up for the mission to Niger. The British inquiry into their own prewar intelligence yesterday concluded that the President's 16 words ["The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"] were "well-founded." Doesn't Joe Wilson owe the President and America an apology for his deception and his own intelligence failure?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, one, let me point out that I think those reports speak for themselves on that issue. And I think if you have questions about that, you can direct that to Mr. Wilson.
I also wrote about it at the time:
Joe Wilson Lied and Owes George W. Bush and America (and Me) an Apology
Some selected exerpts:
...the Senate Intelligence Committee published information that showed Joe Wilson had lied about how he came to be sent to Niger. He denied that his wife had any role in it whatsoever. But a memo Plame wrote on February 12, 2002 proves otherwise. She actively promoted him for the mission, just as she had done in 1999.
The Committee also chastised the former ambassador for using press reports to make declarative statements about the authenticity of documents he had never seen. It also said that his work was inconclusive and gave more credibility to the claims of an Iraq-Niger deal instead of debunking them.
...Valerie Plame brought attention to herself when she went outside the agency to bring in her husband for the Niger mission. One has to wonder how the United States commits billions of tax dollars to the CIA yet not a single person within the agency was qualified to sail off to Africa to “sip sweet mint tea” with the locals. Still more puzzling is how a retired second-tier diplomat is supposed to convince anyone to admit to providing uranium to one of the most dangerous men in the world.
...I raised all of these questions with Wilson in October 2003 in an interview for Talon News. Since I was aware of the INR report, I confronted him about it.
Wilson lied to my face (and tape recorder):
TN: Did your wife suggest you for the mission?
Wilson: No. The decision to ask me to go out to Niger was taken in a meeting at which there were about a dozen analysts from both the CIA and the State Department. A couple of them came up and said to me when we're going through the introductory phase, "We have met at previous briefings that you have done on other subjects, Africa-related."
Not one of those at that meeting could I have told you what they look like, would I recognize on the street, or remember their name today. And as old as I am, I can still recognize my wife, and I still do remember her name. That was the meeting at which the decision was made to ask me if I would clear my schedule to go.
TN: An internal government memo prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel details a meeting in early 2002 where your wife, a member of the agency for clandestine service working on Iraqi weapons issues, suggested that you could be sent to investigate the reports. Do you dispute that?
Wilson: I don't know anything about a meeting, I can only tell you about the meeting I was at where I was asked if I would prepare to go, and there was nobody at that meeting that I know. Now that fact that my wife knows that I know a lot about the uranium business and that I know a lot about Niger and that she happens to be involved in weapons of mass destruction, it should come as no surprise to anyone that we know of each others activities..
From the outset, I saw the whole thing for what it was, a fraud:
...No matter what kind of conspiracies one might fantasize about, one thing is certain: Joe Wilson lied. Lying to me is just bad manners, but lying to the nation is something he should be called to account for. More than anything, Joe Wilson owes George W. Bush an apology.
I got it so right and the Old Media got it so wrong.
Posted by jeffgannon at 02:01 PM
September 01, 2006
Washington Post's Plamegate Apologia?
The Washington Post, that did as much as any other news outlet to push The Big Nothing as well as its attacks on me about it (Dana Milbank, I'm talking about you) is expressing regret "because of our oft-stated belief that far too much attention and debate in Washington has been devoted to her story and that of her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV..."
The epitaph of the Valerie Plame Affair:
"Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously."
By "so many people" does the Washington Post mean everyone in their own newsroom?
The Democrat and Old Media suicide watch alert has to be raised to RED all the way to November. A major newpaper saying that Joe Wilson's charges against the Bush administration concerning his wife were FALSE? Does that mean the Washington Post is saying that Joe Wilson LIED? Oh my, that's going to leave a mark!
Posted by jeffgannon at 08:45 AM
BREAKING NEWS: Unemployment drops to 4.7%
How long will it take the Associated Press to find some bad news in the number?
Posted by jeffgannon at 08:40 AM
White House Press Corps Blank On Armitage
In the week since it was revealed that former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was the Bush administration official who told reporters that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA, members of the White House press corps have been oddly disinterested in this startling development.
It can't be that the pressies have been too busy with other matters like the celebration of the anniversary of Katrina and their collective outrage over the Bush administration's criticism of the Democrats' antiwar and the Old Media's biased coverage of the war against "Islamic fascism" to inquire about Armitage. After all, last week the reporters managed to squeeze in FOUR questions about Rockey Vaccarella's visit with President Bush - questioning the hurricane survivor's political background.
The silence from the group that has driven The Big Nothing since July 2003 belies that fact that Armitage's role has DEVASTATED not only the integrity of Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and his case against Scooter Libby, but the morale of the press corps itself.
Posted by jeffgannon at 07:58 AM
Antiwar Leftists Beat "Baby Killer" Guardsman
Five men attacked a uniformed National Guardsman in Washington state on Tuesday. One of the thugs called the victim a "baby killer". Was it random violence or a targeted attack on a member of the military from by one of the non-violent, tolerant, antiwar Left? From the lack of Old Media interest in the story, I'd say the latter. If a "peace protester" had gotten roughed up, we'd be hearing about it 24/7.
Posted by jeffgannon at 06:10 AM