52-40 in a three-way heat.

I don't want to say that John Kerry is getting desperate, but I hear he just wrote the Federal Election Commission to volunteer to write the official November 2nd After-Action Report.

Posted by: Ace at 09:31 PM | Comments (6)
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.

Allah and I were just musing over that odd date.

Fresh Air originally tipped me that FoxNews' PDF of the docs had a creation date of February 6th. I told him to stop speaking lunatic gibberish of that sort to me.

But maybe it means something after all.

I'm speculating madly at this point, but could it be simply that most major news organizations HAD these documents since February 6th or a bit before, but could not authenticate them (for obvious reasons)?

Is that the reason why our very-objective media decided to go full-force on the subject at the time? They had these documents which they could not authenticate -- no one would say "Yeah, I got them out of the garbage at the base" -- but they all believed the contents of the memos, and so went hog-wild hounding Bush over the allegations contained in the forgeries?

This NRO article answers the charges floating about in February.

Why is it the media just suddenly went into overdrive on this issue in January - February?

Has this all been a coordinated media-DNC attack for six fucking months?

Update: Fresh Air now says he doesn't think the date-stamp on the PDF means much, and is more likely to just be due to a glitch than a sign that Fox has actually had these documents for seven months.

I don't know, though. It does seem to me that the liberal media and the Kerry campaign have this strange habit of revisiting this dead issue at the exact same time every half-year or so. I guess it was all just a coincidence that Kerry announced his "Fortunate Son" TANG attacks on Bush the same week that CBS decided to go forward with its DNC-provided forgeries.

Question the timing? Certainly not I.

I guess that might be the sort of "shadowy link" that the New York Times cares about when it's Republicans who are somehow linked together, rather than they to the DNC.

Posted by: Ace at 08:34 PM | Comments (24)
Post contains 353 words, total size 2 kb.

Another admission, although the article spends more time crying that the useful TANG issue is now damaged than that a journalistic scandal of Watergate-level dimensions has just been perpetrated by CBS News.

But it seems that CBS News knows damn well the documents are forged, too

Watch Allah.

Posted by: Ace at 08:04 PM | Comments (4)
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.

Allah says so, and Bill does too. I was about to say it's time for a boycott, but shucks if someone hasn't beaten me to it (and done all the work, too).

As Bill advises: Be polite. Avoid all emotional language. Talk up fairness and integrity and wanting to support companies you think do good work and avoid companies you think behave badly; don't talk about "outrage" or "shock."

But do let them know you will vote with your eyes.

You might also want to let their sponsors know you'll also vote with your dollars. Fraters libertas shows the way.

I'm sort of half-against this, because the liberals will be claiming 50 years from now that CBS only said the documents were forgeries because of unjust economic pressure.

But it's time for CBS News to understand that we won't stand for it anymore.

Update: And let all of Viacom's numerous companies know too.

Posted by: Ace at 07:20 PM | Comments (8)
Post contains 157 words, total size 1 kb.

Down below I was rather sarcastic about Ms. Knox's suggestion that "someone from the Army" might have typed up the forgeries, based upon seeing the actual documents previously.

I was thinking, "She's trying to send us looking at someone from the Army, because she knows/suspects it's someone from the Air National Guard."

But, gee willickers, turns out that maybe I forgot who was who among the players. Cabal of Doom reminds me:

For instance, she said, the use of the words “billets” and a reference to the “administrative officer” of Mr. Bush’s squadron reflect Army terminology rather than the Air National Guard. Some news reports attribute the CBS reports to a former Army National Guard officer who has a longstanding dispute with the Guard and has previously maintained that the president’s record was sanitized.

So let me take back my sarcasm about looking at "someone from the Army." Let's cast a wide net here. We don't want to leave any stone unturned.

Kerry/Rather Spot opens the New York Times and finds that one particular stone is getting a bit turned:

But one person at CBS, who spoke on condition of anonymity, confirmed a report in Newsweek that Bill Burkett, a retired National Guard officer who has charged that senior aides to then-Gov. Bush had ordered Guard officials to remove damaging information from Mr. Bush's military personnel files, had been a source of the report. This person did not know the exact role he played.
Mr. Burkett declined to return telephone calls to his home near Abilene, Tex. His lawyer, David Van Os, on Tuesday repeatedly refused to say in a telephone interview whether the officer had played a part in supplying the disputed documents to CBS. Mr. Van Os said "the real story is and should be, where was George Bush?" and that Mr. Burkett "is not the proper object of attention."

Mr. Van Os called Mr. Burkett "a man of impeccable honesty who would not permit himself to be a party to anything fake, fraudulent or phony."

It's not fraudulent if you're creating a "forgery" out of "the truth," of course.

Update: And remember Allah's argument that someone from the ANG wouldn't have made the acronymic errors seen in the forgeries.

Not to cast any suspicions, but Mr. Bill Burkett was not in the Air National Guard. In fact, he was in the Army National Guard.

Someone from the army, as it turns out.

Posted by: Ace at 07:14 PM | Comments (6)
Post contains 417 words, total size 3 kb.

Let me tell you something: If I were of a mind to commit fraud, I would not want Charles Johnson or his commentors on my freakin' trail.

Posted by: Ace at 06:54 PM | Comments (7)
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

Step One in this process -- which is taking far longer than I had hoped or expected, even though it's only been six days now -- was getting the major media to admit, with little caveat, that the documents are forgeries.

Thanks to the suprisingly upfront Washington Post and ABC News, Step One has begun. Step One isn't quite completed yet, but with major liberal-leaning news organizations admitting the blatantly obvious, we're closer to the end now than the beginning.

At least for that step. Step Two is actually investigating the severe, partisan-driven journalistic lapses, both intentional and negligent, that caused Dan Rather to publish a libelous hoax in his newscast, and holding him to account.

And Stept Two also involves holding Dan Rather to account for his subsequent lies in defending his original actions. His original actions could charitably be called merely negligent -- but he has told at least proveable, deliberate deceptions during the cover-up.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 06:37 PM | Comments (6)
Post contains 1391 words, total size 9 kb.

CBS is leaking like a pierced heart and it's going to get worse-- see esp. Latest from CBS and ABC, CBS Affiliates upset, and No More Benefit of the Doubt.

ABC News draws life's blood.

A Small Victory has a Career Death Pool going. You'd better be fast. Damn fast.

Dan Rather Retirement Watch:

At the tone, the Dan Rather Retirement Watch displays a time of

(bong)

11:56PM -- two minutes closer to midnight

By the Way: Thursday is my prediction for the retraction/launch of a "Blue Ribbon" (bullshit) investigation.

I don't have sources. I have no sources. Sources don't dig me.

Posted by: Ace at 05:36 PM | Comments (7)
Post contains 106 words, total size 1 kb.

And I don't think the CBS News scandal -- about to go thermonuclear -- is going to help.

I haven't read much about Rathergate in the actual (print) Wall Street Journal. I can only assume that means they are 1) not only ultra-liberal, despite their conservative editorial page, but incompetent and without ambition and all, or 2) are working on a story.

I think WSJ reporters are as liberal as anyone else's, but I don't think they're incompetent or without ambition.

This is going to be a two to three week story, unless the mainstream media is so monolithically liberal and corrupt as to bury it by Friday. I don't know if they are that monolithically liberal and corrupt; it doesn't cause hope that the Washington Post, even while reporting the documents are forgeries, did so on an inner page (Page A8, if I recall correctly).

Assuming the mainstream media cannot bury the story, that means we're going to have three weeks of coverage of this story, during which time it's going to be that much harder for Kerry to get his message out to the public.

Which, come to think of it, may not be such a bad thing for him.

Forget I said anything.

Posted by: Ace at 04:11 PM | Comments (8)
Post contains 218 words, total size 1 kb.

Go here.

Go to the second item. The one about Laura Bush.

Read what CBS News has to say about her belief that the memos are forgeries.

Make sure you're in a chair that will hold your body comfortably in case you faint from open-mouthed shock.

I'll wait.

Posted by: Ace at 03:45 PM | Comments (15)
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.