Archive for October, 2004

28
Oct

Why so shy, ABC?

   Posted by: rew   in Politics

As everyone knows by know, Drudge broke the story that ABC has a videotape by a purported terrorist, bravely waving a weapon and threatening Americans - while wearing a mask (courage, thy name is anonymity). It’s been quite the buzz in the past 24 hours or so.

Howard Kurtz has more details in this WaPo piece. He writes:

It has all the makings of an incendiary story: a chilling pre-election videotape featuring a supposed member of al Qaeda, declaring in English that “blood will run red in the streets of America.”

It’s apparently an ABC exclusive; so far I haven’t heard a peep about any other network having a copy of either the tape or the feed. And it’s big news, right? So why haven’t we seen it?

“We’re not quite there to broadcast something that would be quite frightening,” investigative reporter Brian Ross said yesterday. “I’d love to have the exclusive, but first we’d like to get it right.”

You see, it appears that the patriots at ABC, recognizing that their duty is as Americans first, gave a copy of the feed directly to the FBI and CIA, so that they could get a jump on identifying the terrorist (if possible) and perhaps develop a response.

(As of 5pm EST, Drudge says that his federal sources say the CIA and FBI late Wednesday authenticated the tape.)

You gotta admire, don’t you, these MSM reporters, so eager to verify before they report. Kurtz continues:

ABC was put in the awkward position of defending its insistence on fully checking out the story after the Drudge Report posted a huge online headline: “ABC News Holds Terror Warning Tape.”

That Drudge! Doesn’t he know that real journalists never rush to print? It’s verify, verify, verify.

In weighing the evidence, ABC staffers are mindful of the problem at CBS News, which has apologized for rushing on the air with disputed documents about President Bush’s National Guard service.

Ohhhh…so there might be another dynamic working here. Like - fear of utter humiliation at the hands of the pajamahadeen? Maybe it’s purely professional pride, insisting on only the finest, most accurate reporting humanly possible?

Ross and other ABC staffers say they believe that a Bush administration official leaked the story to Internet gossip Matt Drudge as a way of pressuring the network into airing the tape, which would heighten concerns about terrorism in the final week of the president’s reelection campaign.

And here we begin to see through the haze. It’s another Karl Rove trick! Shoot, it’s probably Karl Rove waving the weapon! Nasty Republicans! Evil Bushitler! Yeah, it’s a TRICK. So we have to be sure (says ABC).

Drudge reports an ABC source as saying, “This is not something you just throw out there while people are voting.”

“While they’re voting”? “Something this frightening”? Why, exactly, would ABC care? Hasn’t Kerry assured us that he’ll “hunt down and kill, with nothing more than a spoon and loincloth, or with his bare hands if necessary, the entire army of terrorists”? So we have nothing to fear from a Kerry presidency, if a mean old terrorist is threatening to kill us all, do we?

And why would ABC care? I mean, it’s news or it’s not; all they care about is the truth, right? Just the facts, and all of that?

Well, I can reveal to you why they care: They care for the very simple reason that they know, just like every other rational adult in the world that if people think there are still terrorists trying to kill them, they’re better off with Bush than with Kerry. Period.

And what’s more, ABC knows that Americans, in spite of the tree-hugging moonbats drifting cluelessly about, don’t take kindly to being threatened. And if they air a video tape which credibly presents a terrorist threatening Americans what will happen if “they” re-elect Bush/Cheney, then you’ll see a swing in polling overnight in favor of Bush. Americans, as even the French would admit, are nothing if not ornery when bullied (pandering defeatists like Kerry excepted).

So it’s not journalistic “ethics” (stifling a snicker) or even fear of getting embarrassed by the pajamahadeen that’s got ABC on pins and needles on this tape: it’s that they know that, if it’s real, it only helps Bush.

UPDATE: Geraghty wonders, too, as does Wizbang.

UPDATE: Well, ABC ran it, and Fox has the video stream. Typical frothing and fussing radical Islamic blowhard. Reminds me of Baghdad Bob. Anyone seem him lately? Hmmm…

28
Oct

Takes one to know one, Tuh-RAZE-uh

   Posted by: rew   in General

John Kerry’s little missus today “called attacks on her husband’s foreign policy views ‘Neanderthal.’” To which I say, “I’m rubber and you’re glue, etc.” And also “Nyah nyah nyah.” Anyway, she dropped this brilliant chestnut on us:

“The perpetration of certain myths that diplomacy and alliances are a sign of weakness is Neanderthal,” Heinz Kerry said. “I never heard of teaching a child to make enemies so they can get along in the playground.”

A child? The playground? I realize, as you probably do, that Democrats (particularly this odious generation of narcissistic leftist Ameriphobes) have great difficulty “growing up”; it shows in a variety of ways: childish name-calling, constant “he hit me first” whining when caught, inconceivably bald denials when caught in the very act of being naughty, etc.

But that doesn’t mean we have to take seriously such tripe when talking about wars where very evil, very adult men and women attempt to destroy American men, women, children, buildings, politics, indeed the very civilization. Please, Mrs. Kerry - take your pseudo-sophisticated twaddle back to your fellow intellectual inbreds, and get back to your mutual coo-fest over one another. Leave defending the country and making it safe for nutcases like you to the adults.

28
Oct

Memo to Sox Fans: Can we work a deal?

   Posted by: rew   in Politics, Sports

OK, you guys have your World Series, say sayonara to The Curse, etc. So can you please recapture John Kerry and put him back in the hole where you keep Dukakis? He’s starting to scare the rest of us with his reckless attacks on our own troops.

We’ll call it even. Re-sign Pedro and we might even let you have another one next year, if you’ll just do this one thing. Thanks.

UPDATE: OK, Curt’s on board - who else can we count on?

UPDATE: I mean, seriously.

25
Oct

So what’s ol’ Bill up to?

   Posted by: rew   in Politics

Naturally, the MSM is panting and fawning over the return of Bill Clinton to the campaign trail. Never mind what a reflection it is on “war hero” Kerry that he has to bring the most famous draft-dodger of all out to campaign for him. Never mind what it says about the state of things when Kerry, who desperately wants you to believe that he’s a sportsman, has to beg a barely-recovered heart patient out of recovery to come make a speech to shore up his effort.

And never mind what it says about the state of Kerry’s campaign that the DNC’s nominee for president has to look for saving to one-half of the team planning to return to the White House in 2008 (if Kerry loses). Conflict of interest, anyone? Is that…desperation I smell?

But never mind about Kerry for a minute; what’s Bill doing? I think it’s pretty common knowledge that the plan was/is for Hillary to take her turn as president (her official turn, I mean) in 2008. And the calculus is simple - if Kerry wins in 2004, Hillary has to wait until 2012 to run, at which time she’ll definitely be 65, and probably out of office if Giuliani runs against here in 2006.

Sooooo…it only makes sense to think that Hillary’s political ambitions are best served by a Kerry loss, which would perfectly position her (and Bill) to return as the “saviors” of the part in the 2008 race, a race which (so far) doesn’t actually have a presumptive Republican opponent in place.

Given that, what is Bill doing? Rush suggested that Bill is “covering his bases”: essentially, positioning himself to be able to say, “See, without me, Kerry wouldn’t have made it,” in case of a Kerry win, or to say, “If only I could have been there earlier, I could’ve pulled it out for Kerry,” in case Kerry loses. I think Rush is right on this, but I think there’s more.

Dick Morris suggested that Clinton just can’t resist the attention, the applause, the adulation, the limelight: he’s out there because it’s like catnip.

But I believe that the biggest reason Bill Clinton is out pretending to stump for Kerry (and I think it’s just that) is simply this: he knows that Hillary can’t (or won’t) do it, and he knows it has to be done. There are several reasons why Hillary has been preternaturally quiet this election season (has she ever been this quiet since 1991?). But I think the main one is that she gains absolutely no benefit from being connected in the minds of voters to this Kerry campaign. And this is true if he wins (which is a bad thing for her anyway), but especially if he loses. Just as Kerry has avoided like leprosy any mention of his intimate connection to the Dukakis disaster, likewise no one wishing to run in ‘08 will want to have any pesky “Kerry for President” speeches showing back up then.

So why does it have to be done, forcing Bill out of bed and onto the trail? Because the Clintons still control the DNC, but that control is tenuous, and might be slipping. If Kerry loses this election (and I might as well go out on a limb now and say I think that he will), McAwful is very likely out as the DNC boss. And the next DNC party chairman could not be more of a mindless Clinton hand puppet than McAuliffe, for the simple reason that it’s not possible.

The Clintons, both of them, cannot afford for major events — winning or losing this election, and the inevitable aftermath — to happen in the Democratic Party without their appearance of influence. And it’s a very fine line that they must walk, seeming to be involved enough to remain the party’s godfather(s), while not being involved enough to take the bullet for the failure, should Kerry lose.