George Soros really gets his money's worth with this find.

Willis discovers that either George Bush is a criminal polygamist married to two different women, or else that there's another George Bush in the large state of Texas.

The George W. Bush and Sue Bush couple seem to have a phone number listed on Google, and seem to live in El Paso, rather than Washington DC or Crawford, but Oliver still finds it "curious."

He will get to the bottom of this nefariousness. I can guarantee you that.

Hat tip to Nick Kronos, posting at The Perfect World.

Posted by: Ace at 04:15 PM | Comments (37)
Post contains 106 words, total size 1 kb.

I'll actually be out for much of the evening, so everyone will just have to wait for me to make my insightful pronouncements like "Bush did what he needed to do" or "Kerry was... what's the right word? douchebaggish."

If anyone wants to comment here as the thing happens, be my guest.

Posted by: Ace at 04:09 PM | Comments (46)
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.

Thanks to the contributors here for getting the ball rolling. I can't credit everyone by name -- it would interupt the flow -- but suggestions are derived from the comments in this thread.

I don't suggest that anyone actually play this drinking game. It's dreadful.

Rules:

* If John Kerry says "I've been very clear" on his unclear position on Iraq, sip.

* If John Kerry says "I've always maintained" this or that, chug.

* If John Kerry says "My one core principle is that I think I'd look pretty damn spiffy walking up the steps to Air Force One," ingest an entire bottle of shoe polish, "just to say you did it."

...

* If John Kerry says "W is for Wrong," drink.

* If John Kerry says "Q is for Quagmire," do an upside-down beer bong.

* If John Kerry says "C is for Cookie and that's good enough for me" and then begins devouring his lectern like a muppet with the munchies, get in touch with Liza Manelli's "back doctor" and claim you've got lower-lumbars in desperate need of realignment as well as a "kind mellowing."

...

* If John Kerry says he was a prosecutor in the eighties, take a sip.

* If John Kerry says he has served on the Senate Intelligence Committe since the eighties, do a shot.

* If John Kerry says he banged Morgan Fairchild in the eighties, quit your job and become a full-time binge-drinker -- the craze that's sweeping the nation -- because that just might get him elected President.

...

* If Bush appears too damn cocky by smirking, take a sip.

* If Bush appears too damn cocky by winking, chug.

* If Bush appears too damn cocky by inviting John Kerry to "pull his finger," get sloppy-drunk and begin calling up ex-girlfriends to ask them "Do you ever miss the good times, and/or my wiener?"

...

* If Kerry claims that Bush lacks the credibility to lead the world, drink.

* If Kerry claims that "foreign leaders support" him, chug.

* If Kerry recounts a three-way he once had with Charo and Yahoo Serious, go down to the NYU Drama School dormitory and see if you can't pick up a contact high.

...

* If John Kerry calls our allies a "phony colation," take a drink.

* If John Kerry calls our allies a "coalition of the bribed and the coerced," chug.

* If John Kerry calls Tony Blair "a mincing little sweetboy with a prep-school man-crush on George Bush," load up a syringe with a mixture of sodium pentathol and clarified Komodo Dragon poison and inject it directly into your frontal lobe.

...

* If Bush says "They hate our freedom," take a drink.

* If Bush says, "The Middle East will become safer once they get that 'whiff of freedom' in their lungs," chug.

* If Bush says, "Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose" and then breaks out into the na-na-nah-nah-nah chorus from Me and Bobby McGee, coat a live parakeet in Everclear and kerosene and then swallow it whole.

...

* If John Kerry's skin coloration resembles that of Brian Dennehy, drink.

* If John Kerry's skin coloration resembles that of George Hamilton, chug.

* If John Kerry's skin coloration resembles that of Benjaman J. "The Thing" Grimm, use a rubber-headed mallet to pound the your genitals into a pulpy oblivion until you see the "Star-Child" from 2001: A Space Odyssey and begin whispering "It's full of stars."

...

* If Bush pronounces "nuclear" correctly when referring to nuclear weapons, sip.

* If Bush says "nook-lar" when referring to nuclear weapons, chug.

* If Bush avoids the word "nuclear" entirely by calling nuclear weapons "sub-atomic clusterfucking whats-its," dip a fountain pen into a cup of liquified heroin and stab it straight into your pudendum.

...

* If John Kerry mentions Vietnam, use an envelope to inflict a paper-cut on your tongue.

* If John Kerry says that he won't allow anyone to "question his patriotism," cut off the pinkie on your off-hand, Yakuza-style.

* If John Kerry says "As a Vietnam veteran, I won't stand here as someone who served in Vietnam having my patriotism questioned by someone who did not serve in Vietnam, and that is the lesson of Vietnam, as I learned while serving in Vietnam as a Vietnam veteran in the Vietnam War patrolling the rivers of Vietnam," take out a two-man lumberjack's band-saw and inflict upon yourself an abdominal wound the approximate severity of that suffered by Quint at the end of Jaws.

And note: Apparently the Dems are mass-emailing to rig the stupid, unscientific on-line internet polls that don't mean a thing (although the responsible media will cite them anyway, just to fill time).

American Daughter has a list of the polls that they're planning on spambombing. It's so juvenile and childish, but I guess we have to spam-bomb back.

Honestly, this is so dumb.

Posted by: Ace at 12:56 PM | Comments (19)
Post contains 839 words, total size 5 kb.

Apparently this story's been around for a little while; it just never got a lot of play.

The Chicago Sun Times reported on September 12th:

WASHINGTON -- A federal prosecutor is investigating whether two reporters for the New York Times were leaked information about a terror financing investigation that may have tipped off the targets of the probe, one of which was Bridgeview-based Global Relief Foundation.

...

'Plan went awry'

Fitzgerald, who also is investigating the leak of a CIA undercover officer's name to the media, is attempting to determine if anyone in the government tipped off the Times reporters about a plan in December 2001 to seize the assets of the Global Relief Foundation on suspicion that it was financing terrorism. Existence of the probe was first reported Friday by the Washington Post.

So, it does seem the government's main interest is in finding who leaked to Shenon, rather than if Shenon leaked to GRF. I argued with a left-wing poster about this; I was wrong.

According to a staff report from the independent commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks, the FBI had intended to obtain secret surveillance warrants to monitor the reaction of the charity in the United States after its overseas offices and those of another Islamic charity, the Palos Hills-based Benevolence International Foundation, were searched Dec. 13, 2001.

''This plan went awry,'' the report said, after word about government action was leaked to Global Relief, apparently when a Times reporter called a charity spokesman to ask whether he knew about a plan by the U.S. government to freeze its assets.

''FBI personnel learned that some of the targets of the investigations may be destroying documents,'' the Sept. 11 Commission report said, adding that the FBI then did a ''hastily assembled'' search of both charities' offices in Illinois.

Global Relief attorney Roger Simmons said he and Global Relief officials have been interviewed in detail about the matter by the FBI. Simmons said there was no destruction of evidence....

The Sept. 11 report says that ''press leaks plagued'' most actions to freeze assets in the United States taken by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control.

No criminal charges have been brought in the Global Relief case, although its founder has been deported. Through a spokesman, Fitzgerald declined comment on the leak investigation.

What annoys me is that many reporters, like Mike Wallace, say that their responsibilities as a journalist trump any responsibilities they might have as Americans-- and as human beings, for that matter.

Wallace famously declared that he would not avoid covering a story simply to save an American platoon he was travelling with:

But while Jennings and his crew were traveling with a North Kosanese unit [seems to be a made-up enemy country for the hypothetical-- Ace], to visit the site of an alleged atrocity by U.S. and South Kosanese troops, they unexpectedly crossed the trail of a small group of American and South Kosanese soldiers. With Jennings in their midst the Northern soldiers set up an ambush that would let them gun down the Americans and Southerners.

What would Jennings do? Would he tell his cameramen to "Roll tape!" as the North Kosanese opened fire? What would go through his mind as he watched the North Kosanese prepare to fire?

Jennings sat silent for about fifteen seconds. "Well, I guess I wouldn't," he finally said. "I am going to tell you now what I am feeling, rather than the hypothesis I drew for myself. If I were with a North Kosanese unit that came upon Americans, I think that I personally would do what I could to warn the Americans."

Even if it meant losing the story? Ogletree asked.

Even though it would almost certainly mean losing my life, Jennings replied. "But I do not think that I could bring myself to participate in that act. That's purely personal, and other reporters might have a different reaction."

Ogletree turned for reaction to Mike Wallace, who immediately replied. "I think some other reporters would have a different reaction," he said, obviously referring to himself. "They would regard it simply as another story they were there to cover." A moment later Wallace said, "I am astonished, really." He turned toward Jennings and began to lecture him: "You're a reporter. Granted you're an American" (at least for purposes of the fictional example; Jennings has actually retained Canadian citizenship). "I'm a little bit at a loss to understand why, because you're an American, you would not have covered that story."

Ogletree pushed Wallace. Didn't Jennings have some higher duty to do something other than just roll film as soldiers from his own country were being shot?

"No," Wallace said flatly and immediately. "You don't have a higher duty. No. No. You're a reporter!"

Jennings backtracked fast. Wallace was right, he said: "I chickened out." Jennings said that he had "played the hypothetical very hard."He had lost sight of his journalistic duty to remain detached.

...

After a brief discussion between Wallace and Scowcroft, Ogletree reminded Wallace of Scowcroft's basic question. What was it worth for the reporter to stand by, looking? Shouldn't the reporter have said something ?

...

[Wallace continued to say "No."]

A few minutes later Ogletree turned to George M. Connell, a Marine colonel in full uniform. Jaw muscles flexing in anger, with stress on each word, Connell said, "I feel utter contempt."

No kidding, huh?

And yet Shenon apparently thought very little at all about divulging secret information to a group widely known to be a terrorist-funding front -- which, to be fair, he shouldn't have had in the first place, and that's the fault of the loose-lipped government official.

The "Reporter's Code" won't let them tell American soldiers about an impending attack, but they don't hesitate to call up a terrorist-funding "charity" and tip them off about an ongoing secret government investigation, just to get some ridiculous comment about it.

"Hey, this is Philip Shenon of the New York Times. Did you know that the government plans to freeze your assets and is scrutinizing the hell out of your right now?"

"Umm, no, actually, I didn't."

"Care to comment?"

"Errr... got to go. I just remembered, I have some papers I need to shred."

Seems to me that, in this hypothetical, Mike Wallace could have, err, similarly "called the American platoon for comment" upon the impending ambush -- as Shenon did -- but gee willickers, seems he decided against doing so. Probably because that would be making news, rather than just reporting it.

This code of neutrality seems only to apply strictly to prevent any aid to fellow loyal law-abiding Americans. When it comes to enemies, foreign and domestic-- the rules suddenly get a little more relaxed.

Posted by: Ace at 12:19 PM | Comments (13)
Post contains 1125 words, total size 7 kb.

James at notes that MoveOn.org is pressuring CBS News to run with proven dissembler James Wilson's long-discredited uranium-from-Niger bullshit.

And Wizbang scoops that CBS News has been previewing this story for left-wing groups and media organizations like Salon.

If CBS News has no bias, why is it only sharing its story with the hard left?

Are they trying to avoid any criticism or challenge of their story by un-like-minded partisans?

Is this how a news organization is supposed to behave? At this point, how is CBS News any different than the DNC?

Posted by: Ace at 12:10 PM | Comments (6)
Post contains 106 words, total size 1 kb.

Sal sends this:

Finally, I have to remind you that the new terrorism does not put an end to the old forms of terror. Unfortunately we know that in Spain, having suffered ETA attacks for more that 30 years now. But there is something we must understand and be clear about: Violence and terror must be condemned in all circumstances. There are no, and can be no, good and bad forms of terrorism.

Many times I have read and heard in the American media how ETA terrorists have been described as “young rebels” and “pro-independence militants”. I would like you to know that these individuals murder, kidnap, torture and bully free citizens in a democratic country. They are terrorists, and nothing more. It is easy to look with some sympathy upon those who commit their crimes thousands of miles away. It is seriously immoral and extremely detrimental, because every phrase and every gesture of tolerance signifies new encouragement for them to commit further crimes. In other words, calling ETA a “separatist group”, or the FARC in Colombia a “liberation organization”, would be like calling Al Qaeda “a religious or spiritual organization”. Simply unacceptable.

If we want to win, the terrorists must be made to feel our hostility everywhere.

...

I am telling you all this in order to give you an example of the endurance that is required in certain situations. Endurance is not only important, it is vital. Otherwise, when your strength is seen to be flagging, it is the terrorists who win. When President Bush warned us that this would be a long war, one that would last many years, he was not resorting to rhetoric. This is something you should all know.

Endurance and moral clarity.

Ladies and gentlemen, dear American friends, let me conclude by saying again that despite all, I am an optimist. I have managed to apply some successful policies to fight against terrorism in my country. And I know terrorism can be defeated. I am not saying that it will be easy. I have already mentioned several extremely painful incidents in my own life. However, we must stick to the conviction that they cannot beat us. It is true that the yardstick for victory is different in the case of ETA when compared to that of Al Qaeda. However, a yardstick for victory does exist.

Bin Laden was forced to flee Afghanistan, and although he remains alive and has not yet been captured, his movements and capacity for directing operations have been severely diminished. This is not only in our eyes, but even more importantly, in the eyes of his own followers. The terrorists achieved a clear victory after the 11th March atrocities in Madrid and the subsequent withdrawal of the Spanish contingent from Iraq. However, this was only a partial victory, in spite of the boost in morale it gave them. I do not know what they will attempt to do now. However, the pressure to demonstrate that they are not losing the war is very intense. It is so intense that they may be tempted to carry out an attack here in order to influence the electoral process, as they did in Spain.

I do not wish to sound alarmist. It is not my place to warn you of the degree of threat that hangs over the United States. I would simply state that I believe the terrorists would wish to be present at the November elections, either through direct action here if they can, or indirectly by making Iraq an inferno for our political leaders.

But whatever happens, let us be sure not to let the terrorists believe that they are getting away with it.

It's a long speech, and that's just the last of his seven theses on terrorism. But it's worth reading.

Posted by: Ace at 11:43 AM | Comments (4)
Post contains 650 words, total size 4 kb.

Angry words exchanged as he insists -- nay, demands! -- that the time-expired lights be removed from the debate lecterns.

GABLES, Fla. (AP) - Democratic candidate John Kerry's campaign demanded Thursday that the lights signaling when a speaker's time has expired during debates with President Bush be removed from the lecterns because they are distracting, but the commission hosting the debates refused.

An angry exchange between representatives of the Kerry campaign and the Commission on Presidential Debates took place just hours before the candidates were to meet at the University of Miami for the first of three debates, The Associated Press learned. Kerry's team threatened to remove the lights when they visit the debate site with Kerry later in the day.

"We'll bring a screwdriver," said a Kerry aide familiar with what several people called an angry exchange.

Is it so hard for this moron to just limit his scary-important dissertations to two minutes?

Or is his camp just trying to reduce expectations? Is this story real or contrived in order to make people think that John Kerry might Hulk Out if the time-expired light goes on?

Eh. Either way, he's a shaved Bigfoot.

Thanks to AS. No, a different AS.

Posted by: Ace at 10:38 AM | Comments (14)
Post contains 217 words, total size 1 kb.

It looks genuine, at least upon first examination.

I'm really not sure about some of those typefaces, though.

Ironically enough, it now turns out that Dan Rather's "unimpeachable source" is a partisan blogger, too.

There's absolutely nothing of any interest on the blog thusfar. A lot of whining about CBS News to no particular purpose, and Burkett's six billionth flogging of the AWOL charges.

The link is here, and I suppose it wouldn't hurt to click on it, except that he'll be using his traffic stats to sell blogads soon, I imagine.

Thanks to Cedarford.

Update-- The Logic of a Disordered Mind:

Burkett had admitted his deception concerning his source(s) to CBS prior to the interview and that only five individuals within CBS had prior knowledge of this before the interview. Why Was this the entire focus of the interview and the clip placed on the CBS Evening News?

What the heck is his complaint here? Why is it relevant that "only five individuals" knew he lied before the interview? What has that got to do with anything?

And why wouldn't his admitted lie be featured prominently?

I don't even get this one.

Posted by: Ace at 10:30 AM | Comments (24)
Post contains 199 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm really concerned about this, and I just got an email about it getting me "all riled up."

Tell your friends about this outrage so that CBS News will then "cover the worry that's out there" without disclosing that these worries are in fact without any substantiation whatsoever, and that, indeed, it seems to be hard-core Republicans entirely behind these rumors.

I know CBS News will cover these worries o' mine, because they just assured Bill from INDC that partisanship had nothing at all to do with pushing the Democrats' attack-of-the-week about the draft.

Posted by: Ace at 09:59 PM | Comments (17)
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.

Interviews reporter & producers responsible for fake-email/fake-Republican draft story.

Great job, Bill. I'd be so happy for you if I weren't boiling over with seething jealousy.

I'd still like to know the following:

Do all the people involved in this matter believe that reporting about chain emails without mentioning they're false is responsible?

Would they similarly put up sham emails while implicitly vouching for their accuracy -- using the emails as the news peg -- if the emails in question stated erroneous facts that damaged John Kerry?

What is their rationale is for refusing to re-report on the story and stating, explicitly, that the text in the emails is inaccurate? These reporters always claim they just want to "get the truth out there," but when the "truth" might undermine their credibility or previous reporting, suddenly "the truth" is irrelevant.

I think the reporters and producers are fundamentally dishonest, by the way. Confronted with Bill's common-sense question about putting up false emails as a news peg, they all attempt to pretend that Gee, that never even occurred to me.

If it didn't occur to them, they should be fired for incompetence.

They also all claim that the emails weren't important to the story, which is sort of odd-- since when do reporters carefully scripting and cutting a three-minute piece include irrelevant information?

If the emails weren't important, why did they feature them?

And finally, note their eagerness to get a "Republican woman" (right) as their subject. They say that they didn't include a left-winger because that would be taken as suspect. And yet they also seem to be implying that the story wasn't particularly harmful to Bush; that the story was about both parties equally.

If it's about both parties equally-- why the driving need to get a "Republican voter" who just happens to associate with International ANSWER as a subject?

Update: PrestoPundit catches the CBS News reporters almost saying their report was fake, but accurate.

Turns out it really doesn't matter if there's any chance of a draft, or if the emails were fake.

Posted by: Ace at 09:51 PM | Comments (14)
Post contains 356 words, total size 2 kb.