Effective draw.

Kerry did very well, slightly better than Bush - but Bush also turned out a workmanlike performance on his most passionate issues, and I don't think that this exchange will have a massive impact on the electorate either way. Kerry beat Bush in terms of aesthetics, which is suprising.

That being said, I think that Kerry will grow stronger in the domestic debates and pull close to the bottom margin-of-error by election day.

UPDATE: Bill Kristol:

"If you are a Kerry supporter, you were heartened."

But ...

Kerry was tougher than I had expected, which is good -- except that you never know what he'll say next time. If I hadn't been paying attention to the campaign, though, I'd be fairly impressed -- and Kerry has to hope that most people who watched the debate fall into that category.

UPDATE: Did I miss this?

UPDATE: Gallup has the post-debate poll results:

Kerry Wins Debate
Viewers also more favorable to Kerry, but opinions about Iraq and military leadership still favor Bush

I always get nervous when Bush suits up to go into battle and represent my positions on war and peace. I've found his public speaking in defense of pre-emption to be repetitive, simplistic and full of rhetoric, a style that gives the impression of evasion and cognitive dissonance. In particular, the failure to discover stockpiles of WMD tends to trip up Bush, and I sincerely hope that he has some new, perceptive responses to put into play against Kerry.

Kerry could be very interesting; he's bleeding heavily in the polls and certainly views the debates as his only real chance to mortally wound Bush. Keeping with the tone of his campaign, he could get too aggressive and drastically overreach.

Let's watch ...

UPDATE: Llamas are live-blogging the debate. (Scroll upwards)

Also Commissar, Spoons.

UPDATE: Body armor, Viet-ny-am, oiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllll.

UPDATE: For my money, the Llamas have the best live coverage, with updates like this:

YES!

Zombie ghost of FDR rolls onto stage, punches Kerry in the nuts.

UPDATE: Then again, Spoons has ...

Kerry: "I will hunt down and kill the terrorists wherever they are."

Did John Kerry just say kill?!? He just got Andrew Sullivan's vote.

Ha!

UPDATE: Ok, I'm not live-blogging this debate, but I can't let this one slide - Kerry: "35 - 40 countries in the world had a greater capability to make weapons than Iraq ..."

How many of those countries were shooting at us, Senator?

November 18, 2002

STARR: Wolf, that is the essential question that is facing the Bush administration, because it's becoming increasingly clear day-by-day that the Iraqis have absolutely no intention, according to administration officials, of stopping this shooting war with the United States over the no-fly zones.

More ...

Iraqi gunners opened fire 60 times on U.S. and British warplanes patrolling the north this year. Warplanes struck back 10 times, bombing Iraqi anti-aircraft batteries or radar stations. The attacks have been more intense in the larger southern zone, with almost twice as many strikes.

The last time the Iraqis opened fire in the north was Wednesday. A mission was canceled Thursday, apparently due to stormy weather.

The shooting varies in intensity. Burgess said the Iraqis open up -- usually with anti-aircraft artillery or machine guns -- about once an hour during the flights, but sometimes shoot as much as three times an hour.

The shooting, he said, has been fairly constant during his year commanding air operations.

Although no pilots have been shot down during the history of the flights, there is always a risk.

"They shoot at us quite a bit," said "Bartdude," an F-16 pilot with the Ohio National Guard who has flown over the no-fly zone for the past month. For security reasons, pilots of "Bartdude's" 112th Fighter Squadron have been ordered to speak only on condition that they are identified by their Air Force call signs and not their real names. Pilots are rotated into the region on 90-day assignments.

Is the concept of containment realistic or acceptable when the country in question is actively shooting at US military personnel, in addition to failing to disclose the fate of its weapons systems and stockpiles? The Iraqi non-solution was unravelling; there was no possibility of leaving Saddam Hussein in power without at the very least sacrificing the populations of Northern and Southern Iraq to a terrible reckoning from Saddam Hussein. The no-fly zones were simply unsustainable, and we were already in a lukewarm military conflict.

UPDATE: Stephen Green is drunkblogging the debate ...

7:36pm. Time to mix another drink. I might miss the mext question.

Admirable dedication, Steve.

INDC merits a brief mention on Hume's Political Grapevine segment, and the Daily Recycler posts a video link along with some kind words.

As an aside, I've had some Jammie-wearers-in-arms good-naturedly crack on my tendency to glowingly link to instances where INDC Journal is featured in the MSM. Some have said it's egotistical and self-centered; others have opined that it's ironic that bloggers are still thrilled to get ink or air-time in mediums that we deride with such frequency. These are accurate points.

But that was Special Report. Special Report is what 60 Minutes used to be before it turned into "60 Minutes," if you know what I'm sayin' ...

I'll play it like the Fonz on the next one.

Read More »

Ta-DAH! Ta-DAH! Ha ya like me nah?!

UPDATE: Beta version for my more mature new readers:

"Well now, the Wizbang fellow certainly gave that man what-for, did he not? Why yes, he did. That was the 'bees-knees!'"

UPDATE: Pre/Im-mature triumphalism aside, Paul needs to explain his case better - how is the "th" definitively revealed to be a crude addition to the original? Am I dense?

UPDATE: A Wizbang commenter adds:

Simple explanation: [he] cut and pasted the TH into the image of the document to make it look like the TH he created on his typewriter matches the TH from the CBS memo. If you look at the PDF and the PSD files, you can see that the 72 in the date "1972" a few lines above the superscript TH also appears to be pasted in.

UPDATE: Wizbang beaten down? Another helpful commenter:

If you read page 8 of the prof's report, Wizbang has misfired.

The Prof isn't claiming that he typed a matching memo, he's claiming (w/r/t that page) that by using photoshop, he can show that his typewriter font is a closer match for the documents than Times Roman.

In other words, he specifically admits to photoshopping in the report.

I'm just going to sit this one out until resolution.

Now NBC?

UPDATE: At least they mentioned that Rangel sponsored the legislation ...

UPDATE: A commenter cuts NBC some slack:

Actually, I was surprised NBC mentioned not only that it was the Dems that introduced the bills, but that the military doesn't want the draft - and why.

That portion sounds fair to me, but I haven't seen the piece. And what about the background on the activist?

UPDATE: Another commenter:

I saw the piece. I think Malkin is overreacting.

Let's get some video.

UPDATE: NRO:

NBC's/MSNBC's favorite "Republican" 9-11 widow, Kristen Breitweiser, is now featured in a two-minute Kerry-endorsing ad on the DNC web site.

Contrarian argument: she's got to pick some candidate - does that invalidate her opinion? Need video!

Despite my recent legal research, I missed this:

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has launched a criminal investigation into forged military records allegedly obtained from President Bush's National Guard file that were aired by CBS News three weeks ago, referring a congressional request for the probe to the investigative division of the Texas Rangers.

Supoena power, here we come.

(Thanks to Pete Wright)

UPDATE: Look for the obligatory New York Times hit piece that highlights George Bush's nefarious former financial ties to the "Texas Rangers."

Beautiful Atrocities highlights the latest (indirect) mainstream endorsement for Markos "Screw them" Zuniga: the NEA:

Carrion feeder Markos Zuniga: 'I feel nothing over the death of merceneries [sic]. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.'

In Matthew Klam's good-natured NY Times profile of leftie blogger Markos Screw'em Zuniga, aka the Daily Kos, Zuniga crows that after sponsors (including John Kerry) abandoned him for gloating over the mutilation murders of 4 American workers in Iraq, he easily found new ones. In fact, his most high-profile sponsor is currently the National Mobilization for Great Public Schools, an octopus comprised of 6 partisan political organizations, including MoveOn.org, the NAACP, & - the NEA.

"Teach the children well," I suppose.

UPDATE: This post and the linked post refer(red) to the NEA as a taxpayer supported organization, but I can find no direct financial links to the government; they're a non-profit membership/lobbying organization:

Founded in 1857 "to elevate the character and advance the interests of the profession of teaching and to promote the cause of popular education in the United States," the NEA has remained constant in its commitment to its original mission as evidenced by the current mission statement ...

That being said, it's still important to review the nature of their membership:

Anyone who works for a public school district, a college or university, or any other public institution devoted primarily to education is eligible to join NEA.

No word about how they feel about the murder and brutal dismemberment of American defense contractors.

(Thanks to Boyd for fact-checking INDC)

UPDATE: Commenter Laddy elucidates the indirect link:

NEA is comprised of public school employees whose salaries are paid by the taxpayers. The teachers' NEA dues, deducted from their salaries, fund the NEA. I would guess that's what is being referred to.

I'll be on Cam Edwards' show at 4 PM (Eastern) today. You can listen via Sirius Satellite radio or catch a live stream at NRANews.com. We'll be discussing CBS News.

CBS Evening News reporter Richard Schlesinger.

*** Exclusive ***

Yesterday I interviewed several CBS News employees about their controversial story highlighting the possibility of a draft reinstatement. I spoke with Richard Schlesinger, the story's reporter, Sandra Genelius, a CBS Spokeswoman, and Linda Karas, the producer of the piece.

First I spoke with Mr. Schlesinger, who was eager to talk to me about the motivation and issue that drove the story. He expressed a firm belief that they "played it straight."

INDC: "First of all, what motivated CBS News to run this story?"

Schlesinger: "The point of the piece was taking look at issues through the eyes of people who feel that those issues are the most important ... in the campaign. People who are vitally concerned. We've done many of these stories on many topics. I did another one around affordable housing ... and minimum wage, for example."

INDC: "A lot of people have a problem with this issue though, because it's specifically something that's been used by the Kerry campaign as a recent talking point. Did this influence ..."

Read More »

(By Cox & Forkum, via Ace)

Did they do it again?

Does this compare to 60 Minutes? We'll find out.

UPDATE: Powerline was Drudge-lanched again; this time they've maintained signal.

UPDATE: More.

That's just some unadulterated fun, that's what that is ...

And it's too good not to pass along. You've all heard Kerry get abused for his famous statement:

"I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

He decided to clarify his position on Good Morning America:

It was a very inarticulate way of saying something and I had one of
those moments late in the evening when I was tired in the primaries and
didn't say something clearly.

The rest of the clarification aside, there's one problem with his chronology:

"I actually did vote for his $87 billion, before I voted against it," he told a group of veterans at a noontime appearance at Marshall University.

Heh. At least he didn't claim to be in Cambodia when he said it.

By way of apology for the self-gratifying, jargon-crippled exposition posted below, I'd like to offer up the following:

If John Kerry were an inaminate object, he'd be a generic copy of a Swiss Army knife with a dull blade and broken scissors. Or an overcooked Ramen noodle.

Discuss.

UPDATE: Commenter Bullwinkle points us to a clarifying link.

Christopher Hitchens is a genius on a roll:

He explains that he believes the moment the left's bankruptcy became clear was on 9/11. "The United States was attacked by theocratic fascists who represents all the most reactionary elements on earth. They stand for liquidating everything the left has fought for: women's rights, democracy? And how did much of the left respond? By affecting a kind of neutrality between America and the theocratic fascists." He cites the cover of one of Tariq Ali's books as the perfect example. It shows Bush and Bin Laden morphed into one on its cover. "It's explicitly saying they are equally bad. However bad the American Empire has been, it is not as bad as this. It is not the Taliban, and anybody - any movement - that cannot see the difference has lost all moral bearings."

And he echoes an evolutionary theory that I absolutely endorse:

Can he ever see a defeat for this kind of Islamofascism? "This kind of theocratic fascism will never die because we belong to a very poorly-evolved mammarian species. I'm a complete materialist in that sense. We're stuck with being the product of a very sluggish evolution. Our pre-frontal lobes are too small and our adrenaline glands are too big. Our fear of the dark and of death is very intense, and people will always be able to profit from that. But nor can I see this kind of fascism winning. They couldn't even run Afghanistan. Our victory is assured - so we can afford to be very scrupulous in our methods."

Do yourself a favor and read the whole thing. This evolutionary race has ironic and depressing implications when one compares the pace of advancement for human tolerance to the pace of destructive technological innovation and ubiquity, a concept that's magnificently explained in a book titled "Why We Hate," by Rush Dozier, Jr.

(Via Allah)

I've previously applied Hitchens and Dozier's thoughts about evolutionary theory to domestic politics in addition to Islamofascism. To be clear, I'm not directly comparing American political affiliations to violent theocracy, but a watered-down version of human nature plays itself out in moderately similar forms in our civil society. For the most part, it's the vitriol without the violent action. The following is a cleaned-up version of a long, boring comment that I left on Allah's blog awhile back:

Read More »

* James Joyner roots around in a trash can and says, "Look what I found!"

* Real Clear Politics has a supraphysiological dosage of Bush-Cheney smack-down for poll junkies.

* Dean explores the phenomenon known as "Instapundit-envy." My personal story of Insta-obsession is documented here. I'm much better now.

* Florida Cracker has been doing some fantastic hurricane blogging. Start with this post and keep scrolling.

* Rusty teaches us Arabic swear words. INDC Bill is a link-"sharmoota."

* Jeff Goldstein has the aforementioned "Instapundit-envy."

So sad. So very, very sad.

Is CBS mirroring Kerry campaign talking points?

Three weeks after he denounced the internet as being "filled with rumors," the embattled CBS anchor ran a story on his Tuesday "Evening News" program hoping to stir up fear of an impending military draft.

In a story that was a textbook example of slipshod reporting, CBS reporter Richard Schlesinger used debunked internet hoax emails and an unlabeled interest group member to scare elderly "Evening" viewers into believing that the U.S. government is poised to resume the draft.

To me, the video comes off as a scare piece. Read the analysis and watch the clip here.

UPDATE: Ace has the siren up.

UPDATE: Captain Ed thinks that John Kerry has "a severe case of projection."

UPDATE: Charlie Rangel wants you! And VodkaPundit comments.

UPDATE: Say Anything piles on.

Please go to this link, register with the Washington Post and vote INDC Journal the "Best Inside the Beltway" Blog.

I have been nominated and matched up against my potty-mouthed, left-wing, light-weight, strawberry-blonde nemesis and certainly much worse, a man that derives grim satisfaction from the death and mutilation of Americans in Iraq.

I certainly won't mind losing to "the Corner."

I can even live with losing to Joshua Michael Jeremiah Marshall's Buddy Holly glasses and turtleneck; he can actually write.

But if there is any semblance of justice left in man's universe, I will not lose to Markos Moulitsas "Screw Them" Zúniga, or the pimpette of the blogosphere, known to longtime INDC readers only as She Who Will Not Be Named or Linked.

That being said, it's a reader poll, and both of those sites severely spank me in traffic levels, so the outcome may be a foregone conclusion. Help me at least make it close.

Go to this link, and don't be lazy; take the 10 seconds to register so that you may vote. Then scroll down and look for ...

Best Inside the Beltway

Talking Points Memo
National Review - The Corner
Wonkette
INDC Journal
Daily Kos

And vote your conscience. Spread the word. If we can ruin Dan Rather's day, we may just have a shot at taking a swipe at the worst of the (paid) New Media as well. If you prefer, by all means vote for NRO. This may be the second most important ballot you cast this year. Ok, third, perhaps fourth or fifth, if you have to cast a ballot for your co-op or condo board, or something.

In addition to an explicit shout-out to IMAO in the humor category, below the fold are INDC's other endorsements:

Read More »

An earnest Kerry supporter writes a critique of the GOP's windsurfing ad in the Boston Globe:

USING JOHN Kerry's windsurfing as an indication of his waffling and changing with the wind is proof that Bush and his campaign lack an understanding of not just the sport of windsurfing but of the real world.

In windsurfing it is important to keep a keen eye on the water to detect wind shifts and changes in conditions. Is it not equally important in the global arena to do the same and make deliberate adjustments in response to changes? Kerry stayed on his board despite gusty conditions because he detected changes and was prepared to respond to them.

I consider his ability to make adjustments an asset for any leader.

SALLY AUSTIN-RUNCI
Duxbury

Very poetic, Sally. The RNC will certainly think twice about running any more iterations of that ad.

(Via reader Mike Sierra)

Protesting media bias in jammies, Nixonian couture and white long white socks with hush puppies; these guys put the 'sense' in fashion sense.

On Sunday, a small crowd of Rathergate protestors gathered outside of CBS News Studios in Washington, DC. They were few in number. They were polite. They were angry. And most of them were in pajamas.

Read More »

Ha. And double-ha.

UPDATE: Uh, I just got my memo:

Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill pimps John Kerry's grand Iraq strategy to NPR:

Cahill: "Well actually, I think that some of the people who have done the most with this around the world are the Irish and the French, and that if we could draw them into this, helping us train Iraqi nationals, that would be a huge step in the right direction. But they won't do it so long as we have the leadership that we have right now."

Of course, Mary Beth's campaign strategy hinges on the idea that you don't read Drudge or the FT:

French and German government officials say they will not significantly increase military assistance in Iraq even if John Kerry, the Democratic presidential challenger, is elected on November 2.

There's still the Irish!

"Ok, despues de este partido, que te parece si les tiramos unos manisitos a los detenidos y luego nos hechomos una par de tremendas jineteras? Good times, 'Himmie.' Good times."

President Carter made some big announcement that's supposed to be critically important to the election, but I can't absorb his message. The thing is, I've had a fundamental inability to listen to anything that the man has to say, ever since he decided to enthusiastically jettison any infinitesimal shred of credibility that he may have once possessed as a rational political analyst:

Carter responded to personal question as well. He said his two favorite movies are “Casablanca” and “Fahrenheit 9/11.”

To be perfectly clear, I have nothing against Casablanca.

Intel Showed Iraq Smuggled Out WMDs

Thank you.

UPDATE: Also, the WaPo has an excellent, gut-wrenching article about the continuing demand for positions within the Iraqi security forces, despite deadly attacks from terrorists:

A war within a war is playing out across Iraq. On one side are the jobless and underemployed young men who continue lining up to apply for positions in the reconstituted police and National Guard. On the other side are the insurgents working assiduously to kill them.

The "insurgents" in Iraq aren't merely "rebels" fighting the will of a foreign occupier; they're terrorists intent on using murder and destruction as a means to political ends that extend beyond the disengagement of the United States.

Aka "You never know who's reading:"

Bill,

Enjoyed the poll, but a couple of notes:

(1) I haven't been a sub for Rush for years -- with the exception of a two-day stint last year, during his rehab. I host my own syndicated radio talk show these days on the Fox News Radio Network.

(2) As for the "partisan" label: It might be worth reviewing my work on Fox News Sunday. The biggest complainers were conservatives, who said I was too nice to liberals.

(3) I demand a recount on the finals. I'm a Hume guy.

(4) Most importantly, however, you spelled my name right. That trumps all other considerations.

Love the site.

Best,

Tony Snow

I'm glad that Mr. Snow is apparently a good sport. That being said, I'm crossing my fingers that Jeff Greenfield and Charles Osgood don't read INDC ...

Blogging is largely curtailed due to today's extremely busy schedule.

New INDC readers: I recently ran an incomplete "Best Of" series before my aborted RNC trip. If you like what you've seen since Rathergate, you might enjoy some of these selections. If you read nothing else, I'd like you to check out my all time favorites: INDC's coverage of the National World War II Memorial Dedication Weekend, Parts One and Two (especially Part Two). Enjoy.

Also, regarding my offer of a reciprocal blogroll to interested bloggers: to be honest, the comment and e-mail response was larger than expected, and I'm not sure that I can add 75-100 web sites to my sidebar. I haven't decided what to do about this yet, so sit tight.

Stay tuned for new coverage later in the day.

UPDATE: Also, please check out "The Carnival of the Liberated" over at Dean's World, featuring this week's round-up of posts from Iraqi bloggers. Surpass the MSM narrative and read the words of those that actually live the conflict.

George Bush may have volunteered for service in Vietnam ...

"The Air Force, in their ultimate wisdom, assembled a group of 102's and took them to Southeast Asia. Bush volunteered to go. But he needed to have 500 [flight] hours, but he only had just over 300 hours so he wasn't eligible to go,” Morrisey recalls.

... and John Kerry owns an assault weapon.

"My favorite gun is the M-16 that saved my life and that of my crew in Vietnam," Mr. Kerry told the magazine. "I don't own one of those now, but one of my reminders of my service is a Communist Chinese assault rifle."

(WVLT link via BC)

UPDATE: Tim Worstall discusses the death rate associated with flying an F-102 fighter-interceptor.

UPDATE: He had an assault rifle before he didn't.

Senator John Kerry's campaign said yesterday that Mr. Kerry did not own a Chinese assault rifle, as he was quoted as saying in Outdoor Life magazine, but a single-bolt-action military rifle, blaming aides who filled out the magazine's questionnaire on his behalf for the error.

Aides "filled out" a "questionnaire?" The snippet from the original article certainly looks like a direct quote to me ...

UPDATE: Heh. Malkin has more thorough criticism:

[WHICH AIDES?! WHO ON KERRY'S STAFF WOULD HAVE WRITTEN SUCH A THING IN KERRY'S NAME WITHOUT KERRY'S PRIOR APPROVAL? COME ON, JODI. THIS IS NOT STENOGRAPHY CLASS.]

*** Exclusive ***

Bob Schieffer was kind enough to grant me a brief, impromptu interview outside of CBS News Studios in Washington, DC.

INDC: "Mr. Schieffer, do you mind if I ask you a couple of questions about the CBS memo scandal?"

Schieffer: "Uh, sure, go ahead."

INDC: "I was just wondering if you had any comment on what you think may happen with this entire (forgery) situation ..."

Schieffer: "Here is all I can tell you: we made a bad mistake. We've admitted we made the mistake, we've appointed some distinguished outside people to help us figure out how not to make that mistake again, and we're gonna have to live with our mistake. [W]hat we have to do ... we've been hurt by this and ... what we have to do is get back our credibility one story at a time, one day at a time. This is not something that we can fix by just turning the light switch on and off. And, uh, it's been a really tough thing for us... both from the standpoint of credibility and emotional. I mean, those of us who work here really love this place and ... we want to fix it and get on with it."

INDC: "Has there been any extreme reaction inside CBS to the allegation that (Mary) Mapes was in contact or collusion with the DNC, or more accurately, with Joe Lockhart?"

Schieffer: "Well, you know, in any political campaign, you're gonna have people on one side that are gonna slip a reporter something because they think it'll hurt the guy on the other side. But the reporter has the responsibility to determine, number one, whether that is true, and number two, to make a judgment as to whether it's in the public interest and whether or not it should be part of the debate. And if you make that judgment, then, uh, that's a legitimate story to do. But to somehow join up with a campaign, that's totally improper. I don't know what happened here; I wanna wait and see what this commission finds out about this before I make a judgment on what happened here, because really that part of it, all I only know about is what I read in the papers. I'm not gonna make a judgment on that yet, but we have no business joining up with a campaign on either side, and saying, 'let's all work together here.' That's not what we're supposed to do."

INDC: "Has this scandal affected you personally, with your impending moderation of one of the (Presidential) debates?"

Schieffer: "Well, there's been some e-mail that says that I should excuse myself ... but both the White House and the Kerry campaign have said that they think that I can do a fair and honest job. So as long as it's ok with them, I think it's ok."

INDC: "Ok, well I'll let you go. Thank you very much for your time."

Schieffer: "Ok, thank you."

Today I received a direct mail solicitation that pitched a subscription to the New York Times. I think that I'll take a pass.

It's surprising when I really stop to consider it, but I can't even read the Times anymore; the fact that its agenda mortally cripples the quality of its reporting doesn't even merit regular criticism. And that's somewhat remarkable because there are many papers that I don't typically agree with that still have premium placement in my daily reading list. In contrast, I no longer even bother to scan the homepage of the New York Times. It's that much of a joke.

So much for "the paper of record."

UPDATE: Maybe I spoke too soon (see Allah's update).

UPDATE: David Frum comments on the NYT blogger story:

Disregard the heckling. The piece is riveting: vivid, remorseless, and deadly. Klam has that magic interviewer's gift for inducing his intended victims to place their lives in his hands. Yes, he dealt with left bloggers only. The right-wing bloggers should be grateful to have been spared. Anyway, why shouldn't Klam focus on left-wing bloggers? They’re an important story - from the point of view of the Times and its constituencies, a supremely important story.

Just to avoid confusion, I didn't mean to leave the impression that I was angry about being left out of the story (as implied by a commenter). The larger point of my post is, "It's the NY Times, so who really cares at this point?" The feature may eviscerate the leftie bloggers (Kos's treatment is specifically hilarious), but it's still a warped portrait of the blogosphere, and warped portraits are a specialty of the NYT. The rest of Frum's piece makes some excellent points about the impotence of the hired guns in the leftie spectrum of the New Media, so make sure that you read the whole thing.

In order to get beyond the campaign rhetoric and dig deeper than the predetermined sensationalistic or defeatist narratives written by certain analysts for the major dailies, you should read blogs. I'm not going to excerpt it; read the whole thing.

(Via Vodkapundit)

UPDATE: And when you're done with that, read Gen. David H. Petraeus's column in today's WaPo.

(Via reader jdwill)

A few days ago, I asked you to nominate the best TV news anchor based on the dual criteria of fairness and accuracy. Let's tackle some of your responses:

Chris Wallace (FOX): He's good, sure, but Wallace telegraphs what team he's playing for to anyone that regularly watches him. Proof: a disturbingly positive review of the Bush twins' cringe-worthy performance at the RNCC. Disqualified.

Tony Snow (FOX): Highly competent and very smart, but pretty damn smug and way too partisan to win this contest. Proof: subs for Rush Limbaugh. DQ.

Jeff Greenfield (CNN): Tends to be a straight shooter, but Jeff's not an anchor. Tends to whine. As a child, may or may not have been mercilessly pantsed by his classmates. Disqualified.

Read More »

Allah!

UPDATE: Perhaps Goldstein wasn't born to Photoshop, but he surely picked it up at a young age. Mr. T is priceless.

Hitchens may have an intermittent relationship with good taste, but he's always a deadly commentator. From the transcript of last night's episode of Scarborough Country:

But for journalism and its standards do matter, not just to me. I don‘t think of myself now as in the same profession of Dan Rather. And Dan Rather showed himself, it seems to me, to be—not for the first time actually—a very poor specimen of a showbiz type. He‘s not in journalism at all anymore. It‘s an absolute scandal that this stuff ever got on the air.

And it‘s wrong for us to call it forgery, even. A forgery is an attempt to fake something that‘s worth having. If I could get my printer to give me a $100 bill and I handed it to you and you took it, the handshake between us would be of that kind. But if I printed a $99 bill and handed it to you, you would be a fool and I would be a crook twice. This is not a forgery. This is fabrication.

And we help Rather out, it seems to me, every time we say forgery. Forgery is the cover story now. That‘s what they‘re back to. They‘re saying, well, it‘s essentially true. All the documents are fake, but the story is true. This is unpardonable.
...
I don‘t think it could fall any lower than this, in other words. And whether there is collusion with the DNC or not, I don‘t know. But there really had better not be, because I can‘t think—having said it couldn‘t go any lower, that‘s as low as it could then go.

A tremendous rendition of one of my all-time favorite songs. Enjoy and be at peace.

(Via Flea)

This whole Rathergate deal has helped INDC top the half-million mark in site visits. We're at 550,591. I suppose that the top sites do that in a slow week, but it sure feels like a lot of "F5" to me.

INDC also entertained well over 100,000 unique visitors in the month of September.

Thank you for your support.

UPDATE: I'd also like to thank my top 15 traffic donors, in terms of frequency and/or number of visits:

Allah
Andrew Sullivan
ASV
Captain's Quarters Blog
Dean's World
Hugh Hewitt
Instapundit
LGF
Michelle Malkin
Outside the Beltway
Politburo Diktat
Protein Wisdom
QandO
Vodka Pundit
Wizbang!

Fine blogs, all.

Yes, yes, of course I'm kidding about Sullivan; substitute Powerline, Rathergate, the Kerry Spot and the Corner. Also, thanks to the too-numerous-to-individually-name smaller blogs that link me with frequency, and a special shout out to Dean and the Commissar for getting me started and providing early encouragement.

Sending a trackback to a blog without linking his or her work in your post is very bad blog etiquette. Feel free to ask any burning questions about blogging protocol in the comment section.

UPDATE: Before getting too involved in new questions on trackbacks, I should probably point you to this helpful post:

Trackbacks - The Peoples' Version

In fact, the Commissar has devoted an entire series to newbie blogging questions and explanations of how software and protocol merge in the blogosphere. Visit his how-to-blog archive and just keep scrolling for answers.

I'm pretty blown away by the largely positive tone of the WaPo's profile of Allawi:

Iraq's Dynamo
Prime Minister Ayad Allawi Generates a Can-Do Aura

He is, said a U.S. congressional official who follows Iraq, a tough guy trying to bring to Iraqis the thing they really want.

"They want a badass guy who is going to solve the security problem," this official said.

And they've got Allawi.

The article sucks some of the oxygen out of Kerry's disturbing choice to directly attack Allawi's speech to Congress. I realize that candidates have to spin things as negatively as possible in the months just prior to the election, but Kerry's choice to directly confront the prestige of a struggling ally is nakedly unscrupulous, and hence constitutes a foolish political move as he attempts to sway moderates that still believe in the possibility of a successful Iraq.

But even if one believes that everything that Kerry said were true, a much wiser course of action would have compelled him to focus all of his criticism on Bush, effectively inferring criticism of Allawi. His strategy to attack the Iraqi directly befuddles me, and his decision to exploit the event deeply offends me. Kerry's stump speech perfectly reinforces the popular perception that he values political advantage over the greater good.

To be honest, I'm not sure how Iraq will turn out with another Bush Administration, but it seems fairly evident where the policy will head under Kerry's captainship.

UPDATE: Using some uncharacteristically pointed language, Glenn Reynolds expresses a similar sentiment about Lockhart's supplemental attack on Allawi:

This is behavior that is absolutely unacceptable coming from a Presidential campaign in wartime, and it's not an isolated incident but part of a pattern of such behavior. Joe Lockhart should apologize for these remarks, and Kerry should fire him. Otherwise you're going to hear a lot of people questioning Kerry's patriotism. And they'll be right to.

Hmmm. Maybe they should talk about the Texas Air National Guard ...

UPDATE: The motivation behind Kerry's new line on Iraq is revealed in a new poll by the Economist (links to a pdf file):

ECONOMIST/YOUGOV POLL SAYS VOTERS ARE PESSIMISTIC ABOUT IRAQ BUT CONVINCED AMERICA IS DOING GOOD

New York, NY Barely six weeks from polling day, the spotlight in America's election this week swivelled from a war that ended some 30 years ago in Indochina to the war raging right now in Iraq. Neither George Bush nor John Kerry is giving a completely straight account to voters. The American people, however, are making up their own minds about the war and according to the latest Economist/YouGov poll, the majority are pessimistic about how it is going but convinced that America is doing good.

Read More »

Almost. Maybe. Not quite. From the NY Times:

Mr. Kerry still mentions his service frequently, often in the context of his challenge to Mr. Bush on Iraq, but he has not said a word about Mr. Bush and the National Guard since the night after the Republican National Convention. "We've moved past it," explained a senior strategist, Joe Lockhart.

That's awful smart of them. The DNC? Not so much:

But the Democratic National Committee is pressing forward with its efforts to use the National Guard questions to try to undercut the president's character and credibility on jobs, health care and Iraq.

I repeat my assertion that Terry McAuliffe is a very, very "special boy." A continued focus on Bush's National Guard service is analogous to the sacrificial Charge of the Light Brigade, except instead of charging nobly into overwhelming cannon fire with sabres held high, the Dems are packing rubber chickens and water balloons.

UPDATE: GASP! I think that the "Weekly World News" may have figured out what happened to Lucy Ramirez ...

The FBI and Department of Homeland Security are looking high and low for Brimbaw, Texas, a once-booming financial center of 1.2 million people that investigators say vanished from the face of the earth on June 17, leaving behind just one man who remembers it.

"This is like something out of the Twilight Zone -- and the more I think about it, the weirder it gets," says an FBI agent working the strange case from a field office in Dallas.

"We're talking about a city of over a million people -- a huge banking and financial center -- gone . . . poof! -- just like that. "And all we've got to go on are the recollections of just one man who is struggling to provide us with details.

It may be worth noting that at this point, I trust a ridiculous rag that has a regular feature on "Alien & UFO Reportings" more than CBS.

UPDATE: The Fort Worth Star-Telegram withdraws the major bombshell of the story, thus invalidating much of the analysis below (boy, this is getting old):

This article has been corrected from the version published in the newspaper and online Friday morning to reflect that Bill Burkett was referring to conversations with CBS when he said, "They tried to convince me as to why I should give them the documents." The earlier version incorrectly reported that he had discussed the documents with Joe Lockhart of the Kerry campaign.

The original post follows:

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram has a big scoop, namely Bill Burkett's first non-CBS interview since the scandal broke (registration required (UPDATE: changed to non-registration link), and I had it before Drudge, so "nya").

The suddenly "impeachable source" warms up by taking a swipe at Rather:

"It caught CBS very flat-footed. They were not prepared. And I had warned them ... that this would probably be one of the most highly coordinated vicious attacks that they would ever have to face," Bill Burkett, a former Texas National Guardsman, said in an interview with the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

Burkett said that he and CBS News anchor Dan Rather spoke "forcefully" after questions arose about dated Guard memos supposedly from Bush's commander and provided to the network by Burkett.

Burkett said he agreed to a taped interview with Rather on Monday as suspicion about the memos mounted, putting the network's reputation at stake. He said key portions of the interview were never aired.

"He snipped it apart to cover them," he said. "That's all that that evening news was - to find a fall guy. And it was me."

Like the appetizer? Good? Good. Now for the meat, baby:

He said, however, that during the meeting in which he gave the memos to CBS, he was also told by a producer that his phone number would be passed on to Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart.

"I was absolutely and clearly told that that was as far as anyone could go without crossing the line of (journalistic) ethics," Burkett said.

Are you ready? Are you ready for it?

During a single phone conversation with Lockhart, Burkett said he suggested a "couple of concepts on what I thought (Kerry) had to do" to beat Bush. In return, he said, Lockhart tried to "convince me as to why I should give them the documents."

Beautiful.

Let's review Lockhart's recollection of the phone call:

Lockhart said he phoned Burkett at the number provided by CBS. Lockhart also said that the documents never came up in his conversation with Burkett.

Who to believe?

Grab a seat, get comfortable, whip up some popcorn and savor the delicious irony as the Dems, CBS and the larger media descend like flesh-eating locusts on the reputation of this "well-regarded Texan."

UPDATE: Let me explain my read on why Burkett said something that contradicts Lockhart:

First of all, he's clearly incompetent (look at the forgeries) and probably unstable, and he probably never saw or perhaps absorbed Lockhart's quote. In his clumsy read of the situation, he thinks that he's protecting Lockhart by implying that he wouldn't give them the documents. This does two things:

1. Enhances Burkett's sense of self-importance in the narrative; the Kerry campaign wanted his help.
2. In Burkett's mind, it insulates the Dems from the charge of forgery.

If the Dems couldn't get their hands on the documents, then they have no responsibility for awareness that they were forgeries; but what Burkett may not realize is the fact that Cleland and Lockhart already went on the record with a denial about any knowledge of or conversation about the documents.

We all knew that the denial of any conversation about the documents was bullshit, of course, but now we have one of the parties, no matter how incredible, on record to back up part of the suspicion.

UPDATE: Commenter "Prakk" over at the Commissar's thread gets why this is still a big deal, despite Burkett's crazy incredibility as a witness:

This is ENDGAME. True or false Burkett just moved the piece on the board that forces the issue.

UPDATE: While Lockhart claims no mention of the documents in his conversation with Burkett, this NY Post editorial suggests that Mapes told him about the documents:

And while Lockhart insists that the documents were never mentioned in their conversation, he conceded "it's possible" Mapes just happened to mention the memos when she asked him to give Burkett a call.

Yesterday, he explained it this way: Mapes asked Lockhart to speak to "a guy who is being helpful on this story," adding that she just happened to mention that "there are some records that might move the story forward" without telling him what they said.

Maybe CBS isn't the only one with a credibility problem.

"The fact that CBS News would coordinate with the most senior levels of Sen. Kerry's campaign to attack the president is a stunning and deeply troubling revelation," said the White House.

That's putting it mildly.

"[I]t's possible" that Mapes mentioned the memos? As if the memory of someone informing the Kerry Campaign of explosive documents that were harmful to Bush wouldn't be seared, I mean seared into Joe Lockhart's memory? That he wouldn't have sprung wood at the mere mention of such incendiary documents?

Who is buying this crap?

FBI: "At this time we are making no comment."

DOJ: "No comment."

The Feds, they bounce me around like a ping-pong ball ...

UPDATE: "Winemaker" has set up a site devoted to discussing the legal angles of Rathergate.

"I'm a special boy."

UPDATE: Premature gotcha moment; NRO retracts after discovering that the RNC Press release was wrong/misleading, and McAuliffe was only quoting from the news article that was posted prior to the CBS broadcast. INDC follows suit and apologizes for the premature conclusions, but still firmly stands by its position that Terry McAuliffe is, in fact, "a special boy," with all of the connotations inherent to such a description. Geraghty's statement:

FINAL UPDATE: I spoke to Jano Cabrera, DNC press guy. He politely explained that there was teleconference on Bush's military record, but McAuliffe did not use the phrase "sugarcoated" — and there is a transcript. The "sugarcoated" remark came in an e-mailed statement that was distributed to reporters as the "60 Minutes II" story was beginning, and was based on the posting of the memos on CBS' web site.

Via Jim Geraghty, the RNC rolls out a press release titled "CHRONOLOGY OF CHARACTER ASSASSINATION:"

9 HOURS BEFORE THE CBS REPORT: "Democratic Party chairman Terry McAuliffe said, 'George W. Bush's cover story on his National Guard service is rapidly unraveling. ... George W. Bush needs to answer why he regularly misled the American people about his time in the Guard and who applied political pressure on his behalf to have his performance reviews 'sugarcoated.'" (Terence Hunt, "Questions Raised About Bush Guard Service," The Associated Press, 9/9/04)

(Emphasis mine)

Let's re-read that memo, shall we?

Any doubt that any rational person (or a premature reactionary that smells blood -- ED) had about the DNC's prior knowledge of these specific documents just shattered into a thousand pieces, probably along with Terry's career (finally). It appears that Joe Lockhart lied to you. Max Cleland probably lied to you. And predictably, Terry McAulliffe was the one that certainly lied to you and opened his mouth one too many times.

And Jim's already covered this angle, so I don't have to:

"Sugarcoated." What an interesting word. McAuliffe could have said that Bush's performance reviews were covered up, spun, masked, smoothed over, soft-pedaled, glossed over, prettified, veiled, whitewashed, hushed up, concealed, varnished, suppressed, or distorted. But he just happened to pick a word that appeared in the memos that were supposedly unveiled to the world hours later.

Because you just know what set of excuses are probably coming down the pike:

"'Sugarcoated' is a common colloquialism that Terry uses at least eight times per day. It's a regional New York thing. He just told me this morning at breakfast, 'ay-oh, ay, George Bush sure sugarcoated that friggin' speech to the UN, eh? Hey what's that you're eating, is that freakin' sugarcoated?'" -- Jano Cabrera, DNC Communications Director.

(Speculative, satirical quote, folks, that's not real. We'll see if my prediction comes true - Ed.)

Riiiiight.

UPDATE: To be perfectly clear, I am not saying that the Dems knew that the documents were fake, rather only offering my opinion that it's pretty obvious that the DNC knew about the existence and contents of the documents, and likely had copies prior to the CBS broadcast.

UPDATE: Also relevant - let's ignore the forgery angle and assume that the DNC thought that the docs were real - at the very least, it's now even more apparent that a CBS News producer helped feed relevant attack information that was intergrated into the DNC's "Fortunate Son" campaign. The bare minimum of collusion between a major network news outlet and a political campaign is certainly the greater issue. Mapes needs to go immediately, along with Heyward and Rather.

UPDATE: Cam Edwards made a good point on the radio today - what if promos for the 60 Minutes piece used the phrase "sugar coated?" I'm not sure how to verify this, but it would certainly invalidate the "ah-ha" moment.

Though I'm sure that 95% of you have already been there, I feel obligated to shoo all of you over to Allah's latest link-dump. It seems that a torch-bearing crowd of MSM op-ed villagers is beginning to form up and chant Rather's name. Also, all due credit: his ET photoshop has me giggling like a shackled loon.

One item I'll excerpt directly is the third installment in Pinkerton's "smack-down" series, where among other demands, he throws down the following gauntlets:

Third, for Mary Mapes, the CBS producer who honchoed the Guard story: the Associated Press described Mapes as "a dogged and talented journalist who made no secret of her liberal political beliefs." If so, in the interests of transparency and full disclosure, shouldn't she detail all her contacts with the John Kerry presidential campaign, as well as the Democratic National Committee? Also, come to think of it, Mapes wasn't the only CBS employee working on the story - let's all 'fess up.

Fourth, for Kerry operative Joe Lockhart, who says that he didn't know why he was supposed to call Bill Burkett, the apparent source for the phony documents - only that he did because Mapes asked him to: Hey, Joe, doesn't the idea that a busy muckety-muck like you would call a stranger flunk the laugh test, unless it was part of a deal with Mapes and CBS? So let's get all phone and e-mail records, please, so that the voters can assess any possible improper Kerry-CBS collusion.

Amen, brother. It's nice to see these concepts gain traction outside the blogosphere.

I have a schedule full of meetings and spreadsheets, so more light posting today. In the meantime, go read Ace's profanity-laced tirade on why Rathergate matters, and why the media insults your intelligence when they claim to have no ideological bias.

Second, as Kausfiles also points out, this is in fact a major story, no matter how much the liberal media or their political wing, the Democratic Party, would like to pretend it isn't. You've got a high-ranking Kerry aide, former Clinton spokesman Joe Lockhart, on the phone with a CBS producer and an unhinged Texas Democrat who is at least the conveyer of forged documents.

We're told again and again that the media doesn't care which party a story may damage; they're only interested in a juicy story. Well, here's an objectively juicy story, ladies. And yet it keeps getting reported deep in the interior of the paper, and every night we have to listen to sermonettes from you insufferable pricks about what a "distraction" all of this silly CBS-abetted-political-forgery-to-corruptly-change-the-outcome-of-a-political-election seems to be.

Third -- and this is my point -- it sure seems to me that this was considered a "real issue" two weeks ago when it was assumed the documents were authentic and showed that Bush got special treatment in the Guard over thirty fucking years ago.

Harsh? Check. Truth to power? Double-check. Imagine for a second that the Bush campaign had been in contact with some right-wing nutball that peddled forged documents regarding Kerry. Even my liberal readers can't possibly envision that this story would receive the pompous poo-pooing and muted treatment it's getting now, if it had a chance to take down the Bush Administration. Read the whole thing.

I think that Ace may have actually convinced Eric Alterman with that one ... or at least caused him to wet his pants with fear.

Later today, I'll reveal the answer to one of yesterday's questions.

NY Times UPDATE: In case anyone's interested, Rathergate.com spoke with Jayson Blair about the scandal.

More importantly, William Safire tackles the Federal c