June 26, 2004


Well, I'm back in town and therefore back on the blog. While I was away, I ignored the news entirely, and it was a welcome break from the madness of our times.

While I was gone, it seems some Irish info-lass bullied our President and the terrorists beheaded a Korean man. May he rest in peace.

Having just spoken with Mrs. JYB, who is currently in Japan, I can confidently say that though the beheading was carried out by actual terrorists--terrorists who have beheaded three American civilians since the war's beginning--around the world it is not the terrorists but the United States that is bearing the blame. The world press, taking its cue mostly from the US press, has of course taken the hard left Michael Moore-ish view of things, that no matter what happens it's America's fault speaking broadly and George W. Bush's fault if you want to get specific. And since the US press is mostly in bed with the left wing of the Democrats, it's not much of a leap to cast the following aspersion--the left wing of the Democrat party as represented in the press is destroying America's reputation around the world.

What consequences will shake out from this is anyone's guess, but the fact is that the international press, again taking its cue from our own press and the arguments the Coalition of the Wild-Eyed is proffering, is just shredding the good name of America on a constant basis. Mrs. JYB reports that it does no good to try and reason with people overseas about this--they only see and hear what the press feeds them (blogs aren't big yet over there), and the press is feeding them a diet of anti-Americanism of Al Jazeera proportions. So even in allied Japan, our reputation is shot. It will take years to recover.

And let me drive home a point about who is actually destroying our reputation. It isn't George Bush or the Republicans who are constantly ripping our allies as a coalition of the bribed and coerced. It isn't George Bush and the Republicans who are drumming up so many half-witted conspiracy theories about the war, and it isn't George Bush and the Republicans who are accusing their opposites of betraying the country when the plain facts say it isn't so. It's the Democrats, the psychotic and increasingly dangerous Democrats, who are casting these lies in the direction of our leadership and who are dragging the name of America through the sewer. It's the Democrats who have taken a war fought for necessity and for humanitarian reasons and have constructed elaborate lies about it, and it's the Democrats who have insulted our allies who are shedding blood and treasure to help us. It is the Democrats and the press who are creating all the negative perceptions of us around the world--if we appeared unified, the world would be a lot less likely to believe the worst about us. But when you have a former vice president spewing the most vile lies about the current president, well, it gives the press around the world even more license to muddy us.

Well, thanks a hell of a lot, Democrats. You may not only cost us the war, which will get many, many people killed, but you may also cost us our alliances hard won over decades of patience and bipartisan effort. You liberal left-wingers are fools. If it were in my power I'd make it so that we could defend only those Americans who want to be defended from terrorists, leaving you idiots out in the cold to combat the terrorists on your own. Maybe then you would learn which side you should be on. Maybe then you would figure out that the enemy isn't some God-fearing architect in Mississippi but nutbag Islamicists who keep capturing innocent civilians and cutting their heads off to make snuff films. Maybe then you would figure out that however imperfect the effort has been, our cause in Iraq and in the war in general has been noble, just and necessary.

But you'll never learn, will you? 9-11 taught you people nothing. Not a thing. You'll watch your Fahrenheit 9-11, you'll try and get as many young minds filled with its lies as you can, and you'll continue to lie about your country and thereby help the terrorists.

Ugh. I can't say it's good to be back to reality, but there is some hope in a way. Lately I've been reading Reagan's War, which is a biography of President Reagan from the point of view of his anti-communist efforts beginning in the 1940s and ending in 1989. In his day Reagan was treated a little bit better than Bush has been, but not much, by the press and the Democrats. The Democrats played footsie with the Soviets throughout the Reagan years, trying to convince the USSR that though Reagan was a nut they, the kindly Democrats, would make sure that he couldn't go too far with his crazy military build-up and his overseas adventurism. The hopeful part of the book isn't the behavior of the left--if anything, it has just proven that they are consistently anti-American and just as consistently wrong. The hopeful part is that in spite of it all, Reagan won out, his ideas won out and we won the Cold War. It's no exaggeration to say that had the Democrats gotten Reagan to back down, we would have lost the Cold War, and the Democrats would have been fine with that. And it's no exaggeration to say today that if the Democrats force Bush to back down we'll lose the war on terrorism. History will vindicate President Bush and the war in Iraq. It will. He has been right and his critics have been wrong all along. That's the hopeful part. I don't think he'll back down, and in the end I think the left will once again overplay its weak hand and find itself out on the political wilderness again, where it belongs. Well, I hope all that happens. I hope Bush doesn't back down, and I hope he manages to defeat the left while he's also leading the fight against the terrorists. Losing to one would probably mean losing to the other, and the consequences of that are unthinkable.

Posted by B. Preston at 07:40 PM | Comments (14) | TrackBack

June 25, 2004


This is a great new word, and a great column by a Turkish Muslim-American. Maybe William Safire will write something exploring the word "hatriotism" if we all start using it more.

Michael Moore has released the cinematic equivalent of a French kiss to all who hate America. He is the leading exponent of hatriotism.

"HATE-RIOTISM" describes the new breeze blowing through the American media. It is now "cool" and "relevant" to mock everything for which our soldiers are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Criticizing democracy and America has long been in vogue in continental Europe from those who look with disdain at American "naivete," while still lamenting the Islamic onslaught.

Now imported to our shores, hatriotism is the simplest way to get the growing contingent of professional protestors who populate television audiences to cheer: Mock America. Mock our involvement in Iraq. Mock President Bush ... and get rousing applause.

The only problem is ... America has freed my kinsmen.

. . .There is one final irony. There is a film producer who has worked for years, chasing down Michael Moore in an effort to interview him. The young man, named Michael Wilson, is making a documentary titled "Michael Moore Hates America." So far, Moore has dodged him at every turn. Anyone who knows cinema recognizes that this is the exact tactic Moore took in his film "Roger and Me," as he chased an automobile executive for an interview.

Do you see the paradox? Because Michael Moore is now in the mainstream of hatriotism, and now the young conservatives are the radicals, Moore has become his own worst nightmare. Michael Moore has become that which he mocked. He has become an aloof elite.

Count me among the radicals.

UPDATE: Michael Moore on Americans and America:

''They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet," Moore told Britain's Mirror newspaper recently, referring to his fellow citizens as a whole.

And that's not all Moore had to say about his brother Yanks across the pond. ''We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing.''
Turns out, when the Democratic Party's all-but-official filmmaker is speaking at home, he has nice things to say about at least some of his fellow citizens. But according to New York Times columnist David Brooks, when Moore travels abroad it's not just the Bush administration he trashes - but the American people en-masse.

Here's a few more bon mots from the Kerry campaign's leading celluloid supporter, as cited by Mr. Brooks on Saturday:

''That's why we're smiling all the time,'' Moore told a rapturous throng in Munich. ''You can see us coming down the street. You know, 'Hey! Hi! How's it going?' We've got that big [expletive] grin on our face all the time because our brains aren't loaded down.''

To a crowd in Cambridge, Moore intoned: ''You're stuck with being connected to this country of mine, which is known for bringing sadness and misery to places around the globe.''

Posted by Chris Regan at 12:35 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack


Never has someone tried to sound so intelligent saying such stupid stuff. In hypocritically lying through his teeth about the President, Gore says Bush didn't just lie, he told "an artful and important lie" assisted by his vast network of "digital Brown Shirts." Puhleeze. What a poser.

"Indeed, Bush's consistent and careful artifice is itself evidence that he knew full well that he was telling an artful and important lie -- visibly circumnavigating the truth over and over again as if he had practiced how to avoid encountering the truth."

Gore also accused the Bush administration of working closely "with a network of 'rapid response' digital Brown Shirts who work to pressure reporters and their editors for 'undermining support for our troops."'

So the VRWC is a vast RWRRDBS conspiracy now? As for the rock-solid Iraq-al Qaeda connection, Gore says:

"Beginning very soon after the attacks of 9/11, President Bush made a decision to start mentioning Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein in the same breath in a cynical mantra designed to fuse them together as one in the public's mind," Gore said

He said Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney continue to argue for a connection between bin Laden's al Qaeda network and the deposed Iraqi regime because it supports their push for war in Iraq and justifies "some of the new power they've picked up from the Congress and the courts"

Huh? As it turns out Al, your administration swore under penalty of perjury to the connection:

In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.

The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.
The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists.
The 1998 indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
Shortly after the embassy bombings, Mr. Clinton ordered air strikes on al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and on the Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan.
To justify the Sudanese plant as a target, Clinton aides said it was involved in the production of deadly VX nerve gas. Officials further determined that bin Laden owned a stake in the operation and that its manager had traveled to Baghdad to learn bomb-making techniques from Saddam's weapons scientists.

Amazingly now Bill Clinton, who is clearly having trouble keeping track of all his lies and their legal implications, now says he "never believed it." Meanwhile al Qaeda continues to seek out those scientists to this very day, as I just posted below.

Even the NY Times knows the Iraq-al Qaeda collaboration can no longer be seriously argued against. If you can no longer fool 'em, join 'em! The Times was previously withholding the evidence. Clinton/Gore are apparently still using last week's talking points.

Contacts between Iraqi intelligence agents and Osama bin Laden when he was in Sudan in the mid-1990s were part of a broad effort by Baghdad to work with organizations opposing the Saudi ruling family, according to a newly disclosed document obtained by the Americans in Iraq.

Posted by Chris Regan at 12:21 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack


More of Saddam's leftover "non-existent" WMD that he wasn't able to move to Syria are being found in Iraq, and terrorists are looking to use them:

Insurgents in Iraq are seeking chemical arms and expertise left over from the regime of Saddam Hussein for possible use against U.S. and allied troops, an intelligence official in Iraq said yesterday.

Charles Deulfer, the head of the CIA weapons inspection team, also said in a television interview that weapons searchers so far have found as many as a dozen chemical-filled bombs.

. . .On the chemical munitions, Mr. Deulfer, who replaced David Kay as the head of the Iraq Survey Group earlier this year, said that the group has uncovered 10 to 12 bombs filled with blistering mustard gas or the nerve agent sarin.
"We're not sure how many more are out there that haven't been found, but we've found 10 or 12 sarin and mustard rounds," he said. "I'm reluctant to judge what that means at this point, but there's other aspects of the program which we still have to flush out."

. . .Officials said the chemical munitions were probably stored with conventional arms in some of the thousands of weapons depots located throughout Iraq. Military officials have uncovered some 8,700 weapons depots and continue to find new ones, and estimate that the weapons depots in Iraq contain between 650,000 and 1 million tons of arms.

The dumps are believed to be arming the anticoalition insurgency as former regime elements and terrorists join forces in conducting attacks.

Posted by Chris Regan at 11:37 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack


Fake suicide belts are for babies I guess. More "mature" grade-schoolers have graduated to advanced jihadi play-acting:

Just when you think it can't get any worse, it does.

A video located today on Sheik Abu Hamza's website, www.shareeah.org, features four children, doing what as children the world over do: pretending.

But what is completely unnerving about this video is what they are pretending.

One young boy kneels in front of three other children, in the same manner of the condemned man; Three other children stand behind him in the same way that the terrorists stood over the men prior to their beheading. The three standing children are armed with pretend weapons. One of the three children is a girl.

The tallest of the three standing children pretends he is Zarqawi, and reads a list of demands.

The film clip ends with the pretend beheading of the kneeling child.

And I thought kids wearing fake dynamite was chilling.

Posted by Chris Regan at 11:26 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

June 23, 2004


CBS has partnered with Amazon.com now as part of their full-press multimedia campaign to oust Bush and elect John Kerry. After giving the former 60 Minutes employee, Bill Clinton, the entire show for a softball pillow talk session with Dan Rather, the CBS house now wants to collect their vig from online sales of the book.

Ratherbiased.com has the scoop:

Besides its controversial vending of the books of authors featured on its news programming and its unprecedented decision to devote an entire 60 Minutes episode to Dan Rather's dialogues with former president Bill Clinton, CBS has also come under fire for forcing all of its radio affiliates to carry a live townhall meeting featuring Clinton tomorrow.

"It's going to be like one big commercial for the book! Why didn't Mr. Clinton's publisher just buy an hour," a CBS Radio News affiliate exec told Matt Drudge last week. "This is not news, this is marketing. I already feel dirty!"

Asked about CBS's apparent efforts to boost (and profit from ) the sales of books covered in its news programming, conservative publishing executive Peter Collier sensed two problems.

"There are really two things wrong here. One is the general problem of liberal media bias which is universally known, including among the media themselves. It's fair to say that CBS and many others in the media marginalize conservative authors unless they're too big to ignore, like Bill Buckley.

"The other thing is that these are supposed to be news shows. The whole deal raises serious questions about their authenticity. First they make news out of liberal authors which increases their commercial viability and then they, in effect, profiteer from it by selling the books on their site. The whole marketing concept is bad, period."

... If one clicks on the link and ends up at Amazon there is a little "cbsnewscom" extension on the URL. For any sales of the book, CBS News will make a cut of the profits, through a pre-existing arrangement between CBS News and Amazon.com.

After spending beaucoup bucks promoting the interview, the execs figure, what's wrong with a little recouping?

Posted by Chris Regan at 02:50 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack


I covered this disturbing trend in an earlier post today, but then I came across this new WSJ piece that further shows how more people now see the only rational conclusion one can come to is that many of Bush's critics are becoming mentally unhinged from reality.

The point here is not that Mr. Bush has a flawless or even a good record or that his critics don't have their points. The point is that, at this stage in his presidency, Mr. Bush cannot credibly be described as some kind of world-historical disaster on a par with James Buchanan and Herbert Hoover, nor can he credibly be accused of the things of which he is accused.
This brings us to our second hypothesis, which is that his critics are insane.

This is an easier case to make. Mr. Blumenthal, for instance, is the man who described Bill Clinton's presidency as the most consequential, the most inspiring and the most moral of the 20th century, only possibly excepting FDR's. Mr. Krugman spent his first couple of years as a columnist writing tirades about how the U.S. economy was on the point of Argentina-style collapse.

What makes these arguments insane--I use the word advisedly--isn't that they don't contain some possible germ of truth. One can argue that Mr. Clinton was a reasonably good president. And one can argue that Bush economic policy has not been a success. But you have to be insane to argue that Mr. Clinton was FDR incarnate, and you have to be insane to argue Mr. Bush has brought the U.S. to its lowest economic point since 1932. This style of hyperbole is a symptom of madness, because it displays such palpable disconnect from observable reality.

If you have to go looking for outrage, the outrage probably isn't there. That which is truly outrageous tends to have the quality of obviousness.

So here is one aspect of this insanity: no sense of proportion. For Mr. Blumenthal, Fallujah isn't merely like Stalingrad. It may as well be Stalingrad, just as Guantanamo may as well be Lefertovo and Abu Ghraib may as well be Buchenwald, and Mr. Bush may as well be Hitler and Hoover combined, and Iraq may as well be Vietnam and Bill Clinton may as well be Franklin Roosevelt.

The absence of proportion stems, in turn, from a problem of perspective. If you have no idea where you stand in relation to certain objects, then an elephant may seem as small as a fly and a fly may seem as large as an elephant. Similarly, Mr. Blumenthal can compare the American detention infrastructure to the Gulag archipelago only if he has no concept of the actual size of things. And he can have no concept of the size of things because he neither knows enough about them nor where he stands in relation to them. What is the vantage point from which Mr. Blumenthal observes the world? It is one where Fallujah is "Stalingrad-like." How does one manage to see the world this way? By standing too close to Fallujah and too far from Stalingrad. By being consumed by the present. By losing not just the sense, but the possibility, of judgment.

For some reason I don't think our Founding Fathers considered that one day our nation, in the middle of a war, might have a major political party hijacked by certifiable pro-enemy demagogues with control over the majority of the press and schools.

Posted by Chris Regan at 02:15 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack


The media blackout/whitewash of Vladimir Putin's revelations about Saddam's designs on America continues:

Ignoring Putin's revelation:

While ABC's "World News Tonight" covered the story on Friday, other networks felt that they had more important things to talk about than a possible attack on America by Saddam . According to the Media Research Center, Friday's CBS "Evening News" didn't mention Mr. Putin's revelation, even though it spent more than two minutes on the debate over ties between Iraq and al Qaeda. (Dan Rather thought that a more important story was Bill Clinton's statement, in his new book, that he warned President-elect Bush about Osama bin Laden, but Mr. Bush didn't care.)
NBC "Nightly News" skipped the Putin story and focused on something else: a story undermining the Bush administration's contention that arch-terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi — given refuge by Saddam — is linked to al Qaeda. On "Today" the next morning, NBC buried the Putin story behind excerpts of Mr. Clinton reading a passage from his book about how Martin Luther King Jr. had inspired him. On Saturday, The Washington Post relegated the story to Page A11.
The public is poorly served by such coverage. The fact that the president of Russia effectively is taking Mr. Bush's side on the question of whether Saddam posed a threat to this country is a major news story and should be treated as such. That it is not getting this kind of coverage suggests that many journalists do not have their priorities straight.

Vladimir Putin backs Bush...but media continues to lie.

Putin referred to Saddam's "special forces" as the instruments of his planned terror attacks. But no country in the Middle East has genuine special forces, certainly nothing to compare with what the US or the UK can field.

Moreover, Saddam would never have been stupid enough to use 'special forces' that could be directly traced to him. So who was going to carry out his terror attacks? Who had the network and the necessary fanatics for such tasks? Guess who? That's right, al Qaeda.

The same people who would deny this conclusion and call it nothing but self-serving speculation is the same crowd that deny any al Qaeda-Saddam links. They will admit that al Qaeda operated, and still does, in South East Asia, the Philippines, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, North Africa, etc. In fact, just about any place, including Toyland, except Saddam's Iraq.

But unless Putin is lying, and I doubt that even the most pathological Bush-hating journalist would even suggest that, then we must turn to al Qaeda as Saddam's 'special forces'.

It's funny how liberals love to expose the "evils" of former American Special Forces guys being paid by Rumsfeld to bravely protect our personnel interests in Iraq, yet they don't want to consider that al Qaeda was serving in a true evil mercenary capacity for Saddam by cowardly attacking Americans around the world. Oh, that's right, the hijacking training in Salman Pak was anti-terrorism training. I forgot.

Posted by Chris Regan at 01:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack


That's both a new slogan for liberals and still the instructions being given to flight attendants after 9/11.
A Homeland Security official said a basic training curriculum was developed and delivered to the airlines to implement but is now being revised with stronger requirements and will be sent back to the airlines to enforce by the end of the year. That's in addition to the advanced training. Flight attendants also will be given martial arts training.
Pilots with guns, and flight attendants that know martial arts...maybe we're finally getting a clue.
Posted by Chris Regan at 01:22 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack


The recent capture of the British naval officers was not simply a border dispute with a third party as most of the press has spun it. As with China's forcing down of our plane a few years ago, there had to be a greater reason for the capture. Michael Ledeen sees it as part of the overall strategy of (Iranian-backed) terrorists in Iraq, and an attempt to drive up oil prices. That directly relates to the recent terror campaign going on now in Saudi Arabia.

I also don't think it's a coincidence that it comes right as another ally with troops in Iraq has been targeted -- this time with another ruthless beheading. I doubt Iran released those capture photos to show the officers were safe. Most likely it was designed as a not-so-veiled beheading threat and a reminder of the 70's Iranian hostage nightmare for Tony Blair. Iran will probably just do what China did and release them, but it's interesting that they needed to personally step in for their terrorists and fire a loud warning shot over the bow of UK naval forces. It could also be a sign that Iran has decided that the U.S. can't be shaken from our goal in Iraq so they've now launched a new effort to break the Brits.

UPDATE: The always excellent Stratfor nicely lays out the back story of the brewing crisis between Iran and the U.S. My guess is that Iran is likely to continue, in concert with al Qaeda terrorists, to ratchet up the pressure on Bush and Blair through October/November. If Kerry gets elected, they declare themselves a nuclear power and Kerry welcomes them into the club with open arms, warning Israel not to interfere. If Bush gets re-elected, they'll have to reassess the political situation and see if the Dems have sucessfully tied one or both of Bush's hands behind his back.

MORE: Iran's links to 9/11, Al Qaida come to light:

Former CIA analyst Douglas MacEachin, a member of the 9/11 commission staff, said in testimony last week that Iran and its terrorist group ally Hizbullah were linked to the Al Qaida terrorist group.

Other U.S. intelligence officials said there is also evidence that Iran is linked to the September 11 attacks. According to the officials, two of the hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, who were aboard the aircraft that hit the Pentagon, had stayed at the Iranian ambassador's residence in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia before entering the United States in January 2001.

MacEachin disclosed that the Iran-Al Qaida ties were revealed in the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers residence complex that housed U.S. military personnel in Saudi Arabia. The bombing killed 19 Americans.

The attack was believed to be the work of a Saudi Shi'ite Hizbullah group with help from Iran.

"Intelligence obtained shortly after the bombing, however, also supported suspicions of Bin Laden's involvement," MacEachin said. "There were reports in the months preceding the attack that he was seeking to facilitate another shipment of explosives to Saudi Arabia, and on the day of the attack he was congratulated by other members of the Islamic Army."

U.S. intelligence agencies mistakenly assumed that, since a Shi'ite group was involved, rival Sunnis were not, he said.

"Later intelligence, however, showed a far greater potential for collaboration between Hizbullah and Al Qaida than many had previously thought," MacEachin said.

Several years before the Khobar bombing, Bin Laden and Iranian officials held talks on ending differences "to cooperate against a common enemy," he said.

And from earlier this year: Defector Links Iran to 9/11 Attacks

A national wire service and at least three major metropolitan dailies are chasing a breaking story that may confirm Iran's direct involvement in the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Towers that killed thousands of Americans. The source of the story is defector Hamid Reza Zakeri, now newly surfaced in Europe to give court testimony, who handled security for the planning meetings with al-Qaeda. In early June, Insight was the first to report the Zakeri information [see "Defector Alleges Iranian Involvement in Sept. 11 Attacks"], and to reveal that it dovetailed with a report on Iran's ties with al-Qaeda produced by the Defense Intelligence Agency and first reported by Insight in November 2001 [see "Iran Cosponsors Al-Qaeda Terrorism"].

Click here to read an updated report on Zakeri from the Chicago Tribune.

UPDATE: An Arabic paper out of London, Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, is reporting the detention of the (now released) sailors was designed to use them as bargaining chips to get 40 suicide jihadi volunteers released from British detention in Iraq.

Bill Gertz also notes:

A newspaper report stated that Bin Laden's next focus is likely to be Britain where he may be "masterminding a campaign to malign the reputation of Prime Minister Tony Blair who, the Al Qaida people say, has played a second fiddle to the American President Bush."

Posted by Chris Regan at 10:56 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack


You won't find this legacy claim in Bill Clinton's memoirs, but it's starting to look like Clinton's pathological lies for power and profit are what bred even bigger lies deeply into the modern liberal mind -- just as he taught a new generation of kids about what was "not sex." What was once simply a personal vice for Bill Clinton has become complete delusion for those that admire him.

This new breed of Democrats and their media friends have reacted to the Bush Presidency and the War on Terror by moving far from rational political discourse and bias. They've returned to the leftist roots of old Soviet-style propaganda and the Orwellian rewritng of yesterday's news. Michael Moore and MoveOn.org are really just the tip of the iceberg. We're essentially witnessing the hijacking of a major political party by those who have learned that big lies are powerful psychological and political tools. Once again, those being harmed the most by liberals are the kids who may not be savvy enough to refute the agitprop.

During my tenure on the Left as a leader in NOW, I recognized how, in our zeal to promote our agenda, we became indecent. Here, too, you see the results of Groupthink and Malignant Narcissism jammed together. Not only do these people believe they have sole possession of the truth, they are so convinced they also think they know what’s best for your children. Your concerns, your values, your rejection of the propaganda of that film, the maliciousness, and the hate, is of no concern to them. They know what’s best and they are determined to access your children one way or the other.

And all this for a film which has been, amazingly, endorsed by the terrorist group Hezbollah! Unbelievable? Not quite. Melanie Morgan, one of the nation’s more important radio talk show hosts, has established www.moveamericaforward.org, a site which shows how to fight anti-Americanism here at home and abroad. She has compiled one of the more complete information bases about Moore’s agenda and the nature of his demagogic film, including background on the Moore’s Hezbollah support. I urge you visit her site.

Here’s a newsflash to Ortenberg and Moore — the American people may be silent a great deal of the time but they should not mistake that as us being empty vessels waiting to be told what to do by people of their ilk. We are tolerant, and care about freedom of expression, but that does not mean we will offer up our children to be guided by self-loathing malignant narcissists who, to say the least, do not have our, or anyone else’s best interest in mind.

(Thanks to Henry Hanks, who previously alerted JYB to Moore's bigger agenda in the public schools. We have something ready to go on the subject -- more to follow.)

MORE: Spinsanity takes on the latest media lies about Bush's letter to Congress.

And don't miss this on the lies -- and the lying liars who lie about "lies and liars."

One of the most reprehensible things about the past year's campaign against President Bush is that his accusers have repeatedly lied in calling him a liar -- and they've marshaled nonexistent evidence to support their fraudulent claims. . .

The Bush administration is guilty of no misrepresentations on this issue. If someone sets about to prove another person lied, at the very least he should accurately quote the accused. After all, if you don't even know what the alleged liar said, how can you begin to determine whether he lied?

In all their gotcha-mania the accusers failed to meet this threshold requirement. They, including the New York Times, accused the administration of misrepresenting something it never said. You've got to have a representation before you can have a misrepresentation.

We really are enduring this post-rational convoluted insanity primarily due to Bill Clinton's leadership. At first Clinton's lies were America's joke, but now that we've completely descended into a maelstrom of lies it's no longer funny.

MORE: Drudge reports that Al "Geyser" Gore is about to erupt again:

Tue Jun 22 2004 17:28:24 ET

Washington, DC-- In a major Washington policy address this Thursday, former Vice President Al Gore will accuse the Bush Administration of intentionally misleading the American people by continuing to falsely claim a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

He will charge that Bush and Cheney have "institutionalized dishonesty as an essential element of their policy process."

Gore will also urge the broadcast media to further resist Administration efforts to manipulate and intimidate them, to fearlessly report the fact that there is no Al Qaeda/Saddam collaborative relationship, as the 9/11 Commission staff report has concluded.

Gore will also discuss the implications of the Administration's claim to be above the law in ordering the torture of suspects - and their claim that the Commander in Chief's power trumps all other laws. He will call for the Administration to reveal all orders given the military on the treatment of prisoners.


The Bush family even planted pre-emptive Iraq-al Qaeda ties in the liberal press in 1999!!

Speaking of Gore using the word "instututionalized," it's hard to keep laughing at people who seriously appear to be mentally ill. I just hope someone gets him in a straitjacket by Thursday before he hurts himself, and helps the terrorists again, with his goose-stepping parade of paranoia.

Posted by Chris Regan at 10:13 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

June 22, 2004


I'll be off the blog for a day or two. Chris will take the helm.

I've been listening to a lot of Steve Taylor lately, which has had me in more of a fighting mood than usual. I'll leave you with a couple of choice lines from ST.

To the Left:

You save the whales, you save the seals
You save whatever's cute and squeals
But you kill that thing that's in the womb--
Would not want no baby boom.

Good, bad, laugh and scorn,
blame yourself for kiddie porn
Convenience is the law you keep
And your compassion's ankle deep.

Who ya tryin' to kid, kid?
Wrap it in a fine philosophy
Who ya tryin' to kid, kid?
But your bottom line still says me me me
Got your head together now?
Got a way that's better now?
Who ya tryin' to kid, kid?

And just to the general state of things:

Life unwinds like a cheap sweater,
But since I gave up hope I feel a lot better
And the truth gets blurred like a wet letter,
But since I gave up hope I feel a lot better

While the world winds down to a final prayer
Nothing soothes quicker than complete despair
I predict by dinner I won't even care
Since I gave up hope, I feel a lot better.

Is it any wonder that a guy who spent his teenage years listening to the likes of Steve Taylor ends up founding something called the JunkYardBlog? I think not.

MORE: Be sure to check out the 9-11 Rolling Memorial. And the leaked draft of Wild Bill's book proposal.

(thanks to MR for that last one)

Posted by B. Preston at 08:06 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 21, 2004


The rotund crockumentarian clearly believes in the use of force, when it comes to defending his own name from the truth. He's even in favor of pre-emptive defense. Witness:

Any attempts to libel me will be met by force,'" Fahrenheit 9/11 director Michael Moore told the New York Times on Sunday (June 20, 2004). "The most important thing we have is truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, knowingly telling a lie with malice, then I'll take them to court."

The Times also reported that Moore "has consulted with lawyers who can bring defamation suits against anyone who maligns the film or damages his reputation," and that he's established a "war room" to monitor attacks on the film.

So...forceful. When it comes to words on the page, that is. But when it comes to terrorists who kill Americans, Moore is ever the dove. Better still, he's actively on the terrorists' side.

Actually, Moore's behavior is less ironic than it seems. He's behaving the way any fascistic thug behaves, attempting to put the pillow over any critic before they can utter a peep. But there's the irony, if you want. Moore often accuses the Bush administration of burning down our freedoms even though absolutely no attempt was made to stop his film, yet he's declared his own little jihad against the free speech rights of anyone who disagrees with him.

MORE: Christopher Hitchens isn't intimidated. His exact words on Fahrenheit are that it's "a piece of crap."

Posted by B. Preston at 10:08 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack


Via ShopTalk:

"Shallow, phony patriotism will always draw a crowd - like dogs humping in the street." --MSNBC's Keith Olbermen, commenting that Fox News was the most watched cable news outlet during coverage of Ronald Reagan's funeral

If you watched Fox's coverage of the Reagan funeral, Olberman says you were basically watching dogs humping in the street. What a class act, huh?

Posted by B. Preston at 11:37 AM | Comments (12) | TrackBack


It's one thing to turn against President Bush because of actual policy disagreement. Heaven knows I've had my policy problems with the Bush administration--illegal immigration, anyone?--but those differences haven't caused me to go out of my way to make up reasons to oppose him this year. But in Andrew Sullivan's case, it's clear that one single policy difference, same-sex marriage, has caused him to turn on the Bush presidency. Instead of just admitting that, he's coming up with all sorts of new reasons to oppose it. It's nothing more than a fig leaf, a way of covering the fact that he's a single-issue voter and that single-issue is bigger to him than the war he once waxed so eloquently about. In that, he's substantially no different than most Democrats, he just has a different single issue than they do. They just hate Bush, and that's their single issue. He's focused on his own little brand of identity politics mixed with a heavy dose of victimology.

Well, among his new anti-Bush issues is the question of WMDs in Iraq. In his initial post outlining his reasons for the turn, he included the "WMD debacle" as a reason to now oppose Bush's re-election, from one one could deduce that he thinks Bush may have lied about Iraq's WMD programs. I sent him an email calling him out on that, an email he has neither published nor responded to. I am a lowly blogger, and therefore not worth Sullivan's time. So here it is. If in the future, Sullivan continues to slam Bush for the Iraqi WMD question, you'll know that he's not being entirely honest.

Having read your blog for a while now, I have to tell you how disappointing it is to me to see that you have abandoned President Bush. Once the gay marriage issue hit front and center I did expect your turn, but it's nonetheless a jolt to see you turn the way you have. Particularly galling is that among the reasons you cite for the turn, you include the WMD debacle. I know you have been paying attention to this issue for quite some time. I know you know that Bush did not--could not have--lied about Iraq's pre-war WMD programs. He could not have lied about them for the simple reason that the previous administration said the exact same things about Saddam's WMDs that Bush and his administration have said, and used those statements to justify bombing Iraq in 1998, 1999 and 2000. As late as February 2002, former Vice President Al Gore cited both Iraq's WMDs and Saddam's connections to terrorists as reasons for war. If you'll recall, he was one of the voices leading America into the war he now says amounts to a betrayal.

If you don't know these things, take the time to Google "Clinton Iraq 1998." Add "Ohio State University" somewhere in the string and you'll see what I'm talking about. Better yet, check out this post on my blog, where I've laid it all out. It's an old post, and I don't care if you link it--I'm not link-whoring. I just want to make sure you have the facts about this. Bush has been maligned like no other President I've ever seen, even by yourself, but I hope you do have the honesty to admit that on the WMD question--a very, very big question--he did not and could not have lied about it. It's simply not possible, given what the previous administration said about Saddam's WMDs and given the fact that most of the intel that was used to justify the war was generated during the Clinton years. You could propose that the Clinton administration lied about WMDs (which I don't believe to be the case), but you cannot argue in good faith that the Bush administration lied about WMDs. And given the fact that banned missile components are starting to turn up in scrap yards around the Middle East and Europe, and given the fact that a significant quantiy of WMDs turned up in a thwarted attack in Jordan, I'd say the case on Saddam's WMDs is far from closed. You do your readers a disservice to suggest otherwise, and you're perpetuating one of the many smears of President Bush the left is pushing this year. I disagree with you on many things and as a conservative Christian am often chagrined at the way you smear me and my fellow social conservatives as "theocrats," but I do think you're better than this. I hope you prove me right.

Hope and expectation are, alas, not the same thing.

Posted by B. Preston at 09:32 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack