Saturday, September 11, 2004
Conniving, Bullheaded, and Slick
Well, SeeB.S. Evening News just did its small bit on the “memos.” It began by framing it as a story about Bush’s National Guard service. There were “serious” questions such as whether Bush had defied a direct order to get a physical. It then claimed that the story was based on lots of evidence, like interviews. They even had the cojones to mention the memos as part of the evidence without mentioning in the same breath that the memos were suspected to be fake!
It wasn’t until halfway through the story that SeeB.S. got to that little detail about the credibility of the memos. And most of that was dominated by the fact that an initial doubter, of the memos, Phillip Broussard, now concedes that the documents could have been made on a typewriter available in 1970.
The fact that one of the military men mentioned in the memos as bringing pressure to bear to “sugar coat’ Bush’s Guard record, Col. Walter Staut, was honorably discharged a more than a year before the memo was written? No mention of that.
I’ll bet Dan Rather must be happy he has the day off.
UPDATE: Thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the link. However, I am not sure that SeeB.S. mispronoucned the name "Boussard" on air. I took the misspelling from the SeeB.S. story on the internet, when I was checking something after seeing the news broadcast. My bad, and my apologies.
. . .
Friday, September 10, 2004
THE BASE SAGS
Why Kerry is suddenly going left on the war.
. . .
Thursday, September 09, 2004
GAY MARRIAGE REALLY ON THE BRAIN
Now that Andrew Sullivan has decided not to vote for Bush, his website is quickly becoming one big anti-Bush diatribe. It’s kind of amusing to watch.
Today he has called the recent Bush memos “devastating.” But why is this incident any more damaging than the AWOL story back in February? After all, the same issues were hashed out in February.
And what did Sullivan have to say about that back then? Apparently only this:
PARANOID AFTER-THOUGHT: I was always a little suspicious about Terry McAuliffe's raising of the Bush National Guard AWOL issue. I wondered: why are they doing this now, rather than wait till later? Now I wonder if it wasn't a pre-emptive strike. Was it an attempt to ensure that Bush and his aides had decried "gutter politics" in the week that the Kerry story was going to break? I don't know. But the timing is suspicious. Hyper-paranoid thought: were the dreaded Clintons behind this? It certainly makes the Kerry candidacy less secure, raises the likelihood of a brokered convention, etc etc... Take it away, Dick Morris.
Well, back then it was so devastating that Sullivan dedicated only one post to it, and then only to suggest that McAuliffe was up to no good. But now, it seems, the whole mess is very important to Sullivan, and McAuliffe is above suspicion.
If only Bush had condemned FEMA…
. . .
WHO'S AN IDIOT?
Robert Bidinotto has a comment on Teresa's latest.
. . .
FORGERIES?
The new Bush memos may be just that. See Powerline and LGF.
That is a big victory for the blogosphere, and huge blow to the mainstream (read "left-wing") media, if true.
. . .
|
. . .
|
