September 25, 2004


Good things are happening. Very, very soon we will have an official campaign website, Don't go there yet, because there's nothing there. But keep the address in mind, start talking it up and we'll fill it soon with information on the campaign, how it will work and how you can get involved. Updates will be forthcoming from this site, from and Those two fine sites have agreed to partner up with this one to lead the effort. Stay tuned.

In case you're wondering what all the fuss is about, it's about letting enemy propaganda influence our troops who are on the front lines protecting us from terrorists. Michael Moore's films and books outrageously charge that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are irrelevant to the war against jihad, and that both wars have only been undertaken to make President Bush and his friends rich. Moore's lies have found their way to Iraq thanks to a clever little game he played with file sharing: He permitted his fans to share bootlegged files of his Fahrenheit 9-11 film, burn them to cd or dvd and send them to US troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Military theatres, caught in a bind between a popular yet truthless film and a possible charge of censorship if they didn't run it, chose to run Fahrenheit 9-11. That has managed to give hack crockumentarian Michael Moore the imprimatur of the Pentagon's approval.

According to several reports, the results of all this have been devastating. Certainly not every unit has been effected, and certainly no majority of the troops have bought into Moore's lies, but in any group of 130,000 to 150,000 young individuals you will find enough people who will believe anything, and enough of them will become disgruntled or disillusioned enough to despise the very country and leadership that sent them to war. For commanders in the field, this can create a potential morale and discipline problem. From a post I wrote on the subject just a few days ago:

Inside dusty, barricaded camps around Iraq, groups of American troops in between missions are gathering around screens to view an unlikely choice from the US box office: "Fahrenheit 9-11," Michael Moore's controversial documentary attacking the commander-in-chief. "Everyone's watching it," says a Marine corporal at an outpost in Ramadi that is mortared by insurgents daily. "It's shaping a lot of people's image of Bush."


Other US troops expressed feelings of guilt over killing Iraqis in a war they believe is unjust.

"We shouldn't be here," said one Marine infantryman bluntly. "There was no reason for invading this country in the first place. We just came here and [angered people] and killed a lot of innocent people," said the marine, who has seen regular combat in Ramadi. "I don't enjoy killing women and children, it's not my thing."

As with his comrades, the marine accepted some of the most controversial claims of "Fahrenheit 9/11," which critics have called biased. "Bush didn't want to attack [Osama] Bin Laden because he was doing business with Bin Laden's family," he said.

Another marine, Sgt. Christopher Wallace of Pataskala, Ohio, agreed that the film was making an impression on troops. "Marines nowadays want to know stuff. They want to be informed, because we'll be voting out here soon," he said. " 'Fahrenheit 9/11' opened our eyes to things we hadn't seen before." But, he added after a pause, "We still have full faith and confidence in our commander-in-chief. And if John Kerry is elected, he will be our commander in chief."

Back in July I predicted that should Moore's film somehow reach our troops, it would take a toll on morale. That prediction was borne out within a few days, by a letter from Spc. Joe Roche of the US Army's 1st Armored Division, published on National Center for Public Policy Research's blog:

Michael Moore's film, Fahrenheit 9/11, is making the rounds here at U.S. bases in Kuwait. Some soldiers have received it already and are passing is around. The impact is devastating.

Here we are, soldiers of the 1st Armored Division, just days from finally returning home after over a year serving in Iraq, and Moore's film is shocking and crushing soldiers, making them feel ashamed. Moore has abused the First Amendment and is hurting us worse than the enemy has.

There are the young and impressionable soldiers, like those who joined the Army right out of high school. They aren't familiar w/ the college-type political debate environment, and they haven't been schooled in the full range of issues involved. They are vulnerable to being hurt by a vicious film like Moore's.

There are others who joined for reasons of money and other benefits, and never gave full thought to the issues. For them, seeing this film has jolted them grievously because they never even knew where some of these countries were that we have been serving in. Imagine the impact this film has on them.

And there are those who are hurting from being away from family and loved ones. They are burnt out, already hurting inside from 15 months of duty out here, and now to be hit w/ this film.. it is devastating.


Specialist Janecek, who is feeling depressed because a close family member is nearing the end of her life, just saw the film today. I saw him in the DFAC. He is devastated. "I feel shitty, ashamed, like this was all a lie." Not only is he looking at going straight to a funeral when he returns home, but now whatever pride he felt for serving here has been crushed by Moore's film. Specialist Everett earlier after seeing the film: "You'll be mad at shit for ever having come here."

And there are others. Mostly the comments are absolute shock at the close connections Moore makes between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia. "Bush looks really really REALLY corrupt in this film. I just don't know what to think anymore," is a common comment to hear. Some of these soldiers are darn right ashamed tonight to be American soldiers, to have been apart of this whole mission in Iraq, and are angry over all that Moore has presented in his film.

We know this is all based on Moore's lies and deceptions. But we, I'm afraid, are a minority. Right now, just days away from what should be a proud and happy return from 15 months of duty in Operation Iraqi Freedom, your U.S. soldiers are coming back ashamed and hurt because of Moore's work.

What Moore did in making that film was unconscionable, and what he did in making it available both via pirated files and even via the Army and Air Force Exchange Service--which operates theatres on bases around the world--is unforgivable. Michael Moore is trying to make sure we lose this war. His new book is just one more part of that effort. We are at war with the very same enemy that murdered in cold blood 3,000 innocents on 9-11, yet Moore chose to make President Bush the villian of his film. We are at war with the same enemy that is currently capturing and beheading civilians, including charity workers, and Moore insists that those killers are "the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen...and they will win."

Only if we let them. And part of letting them win is leaving Moore's shameless propaganda unchallenged. That's where Truth for Troops comes in. Truth for Troops is the counterattack to Moore's vicious lies. Truth for Troops gives you a chance to make a difference in this war where it will count the most--on the front lines, with the troops who are gallantly sacrificing so much to keep us safe. We can send DVDs of a movie that directly refutes Moore's lies, with a bipartisan cast. We owe it to the troops to make sure Michael Moore's insidious and evil manipulations don't stand as this generation's understanding of the war. We owe it to our troops to treat them better than Michael Moore has. He has lied to them about this war; we owe them the truth. That's what Truth for Troops is about.

So stand by to get involved. We'll let you know how once we've ironed everything out.

Posted by B. Preston at 10:07 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

September 24, 2004


Here's the latest relevant transcript excerpt from Scarborough Country on MSNBC


SCARBOROUGH: Let me begin with the first question. Did the person who forged this document and presented it to CBS commit a felony?

TACOPINA: Without question, if you read the Texas Penal Code, which I have in front of me, Section 3221, Joe, of the Texas Penal Code—I will break it down in very basic terms—says that this forgery is a felony.

If this person published a forged—and published doesn’t mean put it in the newspaper. Published simply means disseminate—a forged national government document, which this unquestionably is, with the general intent to harm someone, knowing the document was forged. Obviously, the facts of Rather-gate, if you will, or this document production fit into that penal code to make it a felony in Texas.

You then have, as Safire suggested in “The New York Times,” the potential of federal offenses by trying, attempting to influence a federal election. So there’s no question the creator of this document, because it is a national government document, committed a felony.

SCARBOROUGH: And this person is probably going to be convicted.

Let’s move on now. Could CBS be considered a co-conspirator in that felony if they knew or had reason to know that this document was forged?

TACOPINA: Well, when we say CBS, obviously, we need to have a lot more information there, Joe. Were there higher-ups? Was it an executive decision, or was it one particular producer, as seems to be suggested, that sort of may have been involved?

SCARBOROUGH: Well, let’s make it simple, Joe.


SCARBOROUGH: Let’s say that Mary Mapes saw this document, had reason to know, or should have known that this document was a forgery, decided to do move the story forward because this self-described liberal wanted to get this story before the public before an election. Could she possibly be convicted as a co-conspirator in this felony?

TACOPINA: Without question. Aiding and abetting is what that would be called. And, quite frankly, the two scenarios you posed, if she knew it was forged, it’s a ground ball. She is as guilty as the creator of the forged document.

If she did not know it was forged, Joe, but turned a blind eye to the obvious evidence that it was or was consciously avoiding the truth that it was a forged document, didn’t want to know, for instance, she is still—the law would consider her guilty if a reasonable person would have known it was a forged document. And, in this scenario, if that’s, in fact, the case, she is as guilty as the creator of the document and has committed felony.

SCARBOROUGH: Now, Joe, there are 50 states obviously that are impacted by this because of the national election. Could an attorney general from any state press charges against these people, since CBS disseminated this information and it came into their states?

We keep talking about Texas, but could somebody from Florida or Missouri or Washington state possibly move—start a prosecution against the forger or Mary Mapes or somebody else at CBS News?


Joe, look, as a former prosecutor, I can tell you that you want to examine all your open possibilities here. And the answer is probably yes, but, clearly, let me say this. Each state—forget about the federal government and the federal laws, but each state has their own independent set of books, if you will, regarding the penal law, and you would have to examine all the elements. But for the most part, Texas Penal Code regarding forgery as a felony is not unlike that of many states, sort of almost like a common law offense, if you will.

It’s pretty straightforward. It’s a forged document. It’s a national government document with intent to harm someone, and it was published. Those are the elements. If that’s in fact the case, a lot of people could go down here, Joe

Let's hope we at least try. I'm not in favor of the Janet Reno-esque "Hold on, are there any loopholes for the perp?" method of delaying and ultimately failing to investigate potentially serious crimes that may stem from unethical political activity. A criminal investigation could have, and should have, started long ago to lock down the evidence trail. Let defense lawyers find the loopholes to free their clients later.

Posted by Chris Regan at 08:55 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack


John Kerry either has absolutely no idea about the the historical lessons of warfare, and how it's often troop morale along with unflinching leadership and the dedication of your allies that makes the difference between winning and losing, or...he knows damn well and is deliberately trying to sabotage America's war effort. Since he's supposed to be such a smart guy, it's most likely the latter. First he called our allies in Iraq a "fraudulent coalition" and "some trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted," and he got away with it in the press. Now yesterday his campaign unleashed a disgusting insult of our most critical wartime ally, Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. This time the press actually used the exact same Kerry talking points when covering the story, so the message was clearly approved at the top.

Instapundit has an excellent roundup of reactions to the insult. Don't miss it.

Now we know exactly what the Swiftvets meant when they called John Kerry a "loose cannon." Kerry has once again taken on a reckless role in wartime and once again threatened the safety of Americans in harm's way. We should never allow this man in any position where would officially speak for all Americans. The Kerry campaign has gone insane. One can't help but see the disturbing possibility here that Kerry knows he's probably not going to get the votes to win as it stands now, and so he's decided to punish the electorate with a scorched Iraq strategy that will either "prove he's right" before the election or show us after the fact how we supposedly screwed up by not electing him.

Given the choice, I would prefer a relatively more responsible leftist such as Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee--even if that meant the Democrats had a better chance of beating George Bush. I personally would not protest the Dems using their infamous "Torricelli option" to replace Kerry because they have a valid reason to yank him off the ticket.

MORE: Mark Steyn says, "Kerry's looking for American failure -- and he's it."

Kerry didn't show up for Allawi's visit to Washington -- he was in Ohio again, which is evidently becoming the proverbial Vietnam-type quagmire for him. Nonetheless, barely had the prime minister finished than the absentee senator did a daytime version of his midnight ramble and barged his way onto the air to insist that he knew better than Iraq's head of government what was going on in the country. One question from his accompanying press corps was especially choice:

''Prime Minister Allawi told Congress today that democracy was taking hold in Iraq and that the terrorists there were on the defensive. Is he living in the same fantasyland as the president?''

It would be nice to think this was a somewhat crude attempt at irony, but given America's Ratherized media this seems unlikely. Just for the record, Allawi is not living in a fantasyland. He's living in Iraq, and he begins his day with a dangerous commute across Baghdad's ''Green Zone.'' John Kerry's regular commute, by contrast, is from his wife's beach compound at Nantucket to his wife's 15th century English barn reconstructed as a ski lodge in Idaho. Nonetheless, he's the expert on Iraq and the guy living there 24/7 is the fantasist, and he's happy to assure us the prime minister doesn't know what he's talking about. It's all going to hell, forget about those January elections, etc.

What a small, graceless man Kerry is. The nature of adversarial politics in a democratic society makes George W. Bush his opponent. But it was entirely Kerry's choice to expand the field, to put himself on the other side of Allawi and the Iraqi people. Given his frequent boasts that he knows how to reach out to America's allies, it's remarkable how often he feels the need to insult them: Britain, Australia, and now free Iraq. But, because this pampered cipher has floundered for 18 months to find any rationale for his candidacy other than his indestructible belief in his own indispensability, Kerry finds himself a month before the election with no platform to run on other than American defeat. He has decided to co-opt the jihadist death-cult, the Baathist dead-enders, the suicide bombers and other misfits and run as the candidate of American failure. This would be shameful if he weren't so laughably inept at it.

This is why it's short-sighted to look the other way when young radicals take the side of the enemy during a war. Without some jail time, or at least a felony on their record, they can come back to haunt you and your children during another war using mainstream Democrat political channels.

Posted by Chris Regan at 08:32 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack


Here's the latest from paratrooper at

Ladies and Gents,

I am so incredibly happy to announce to you that I have just secured 5000 free copies of Fahrenhype 911 for distribution to the troops.

Yes, you read that right. FIVE THOUSAND COPIES!

I will be giving more details in the near future.

But for now. I need your help.

I need to know who handles shipments like this to Iraq. Organizations, charities, or even official avenues.
How can we get them distributed? How fast can it happen?

I need addresses, names, phone numbers, anything.

Time is very short, and we must move quickly.

Also, I will still need help covering the distribution and freight costs to get them there, so stay tuned for the new site on monday where you can paypal some buck-a-roos to help us get them into the hands of the troops.

Thank you to all of those who helped with this so far , and thanks for all of those who will donate next week.

This is amazing.


Please be aware that we will be sending the movie “FAHRENHYPE-911” not Fahrenheit 9-11, some confused e-mails are coming in about this. We are not sending the Moore movie.

This is just a start. The battle to get the truth to the troops is not close to over yet. So keep those wallets loaded and ready to fire if needed. Once our current idea is successfully implemented, and FahrenHYPE 911 gets a massive free publicity boost, I can't imagine the people distributing Michael Moore Hates America and Celsius 41.11 won't want to rethink their current theater-only rollout plans. This might be a great time for one of them to step up and issue a press release announcing that their film will be made uniquely available for no-frills bulk DVD buys to send to military members overseas. Let's flood the warzone on this.

Posted by Chris Regan at 05:30 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack


Courtesy Jason Clarke of, our DVD effort has a name--Truth for Troops. Major thanks to Glenn Reynolds for promoting this idea on InstaPundit, and to everyone else who has already discussed it on their own blogs. You're all living proof that the blogosphere kicks the pants off the legacy media.

I am touched and overwhelmed by the response to this idea. So many of you have written in ready to volunteer and with other great ideas. Thank you, and keep 'em coming. We will have this effort organized one way or the other in the next few days--if you have ideas or have organized anything like this before, please feel free to email me at jybmail--at--gmail--dot--com with your suggestions. Those of you who have volunteered to send DVDs, keep that money set aside and we'll have the logistics lined up shortly. We'll keep you posted here, on and probably several other sites.

Anyone who wants to promote this effort on your own blog, go for it. Truth for Troops. Spread the word.

UPDATE: Keep the ideas coming! Some great ones have rolled in and we're going to see if we can work them in. I'm going to be offline for a day or two (prior family committment), but don't take my silence to mean anything's wrong. I'll be back tomorrow, and Chris Regan (whom I should thank for finding FahrenHYPE 911 in the first place) is around to field comments and emails.

Thank you everyone for your response and support. For you troops who have emailed from Iraq and Afghanistan, help is on the way. We will get these DVDs to you.

Posted by B. Preston at 09:03 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

September 23, 2004


Not content with making a film loved by terrorists worldwide, Michael Moore is back with another project. If it's possible, this one--a book--is his most offensive and repugnant project yet: He is using letters from disgruntled and disillusioned soldiers from the front lines to build a case against the war.

Which is awfully convenient, since he has been trying to manipulate a buildup of antiwar feeling among our troops for the better part of a year. First he made F*** 9-11, then egged people on to download it illegally, burn it to cd or dvd, then send it to troops in Iraq and Kuwait. The scheme worked, as I've written about before--our troops on the front lines have run smack into enemy propaganda endorsed by the Democrat Party.

Now that his poisonous egg has hatched, he has received (so he says) letters from the front lines from soldiers who now agree with his warped view of the war. Those letters form his new book, Will They Ever Trust Us Again?

Here is the write-up:

American soldiers serve willingly. They risk their lives so the rest of us can be safe. The one small thing they ask, though, is that they not be sent into harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary. But after being lied to about weapons of mass destruction and about the connection between al Qaeda and Iraq; after being forced by stop-loss orders to extend their deployment; after being undertrained, underequipped, and overworked long after George Bush declared Iraq "Mission Accomplished," these soldiers have something to say.

From his famous 2003 Oscar acceptance speech to his record-breaking documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration and the war in Iraq. But in this book, Moore gives the spotlight to the real heroes of protest: the men and women who have fought in Iraq and want the American public to know how they feel about their mission and their commander in chief. Moore also fields letters from veterans of other wars and mothers, wives, and siblings of our heir anger and frustration, their tears and pain, and their hopes and prayers.

Impassioned, accessible, and moving, these are letters that reveal the true hearts and minds of the men, women, and families on the front line.

If you clicked on the link, you may have noticed that it's on a site called Simon Says. That's Simon & Schuster's site, or one of its sites. S&S is a Viacom property, corporate sibling of CBS and publisher of such notables as Joseph Wilson, Ron Suskind and several other major anti-Bush books this year. Viacom is waging a corporate jihad against America's right and duty to defend itself, but that's a rant for another post.

All this has me thinking, blogosphere. We need to counter Michael Moore's propaganda. We need to find a way to get some kind of counter material into the hands of our troops in the field, so that they have some kind of balance and a truthful take on the war. Ideally, this remedy should debunk Moore's ideology at least as it relates to the war.

Due for release on DVD on October 5th is a film called FahrenHYPE 9-11. It's a documentary that refutes F*** 9-11. I've watched the online trailer and it looks solid. The DVD is just $14.99. If we could flex the might of the blogosphere, we could buy enough of these DVDs to get one in the hands of every platoon leader in Iraq. We don't need enough for each troop--just enough so that passing them around is easy and a majority of the troops can see it. If we do this we'll be helping the troops sort out truth from Moore's lies, and help buck up their morale. I think it's important that we give our troops some basis for refuting Moore and keeping his lies as far from infecting their warfighting ability as possible. Maybe FahrenHYPE 9-11 will help.

So what do you say, blogosphere? Can we help the troops here? Can we put a big dent in Michael Moore's effort to help destroy our military and cause us to lose the war?

Email me at the address on the right, or leave comments here telling me what you think of this idea or if you've pre-ordered one to send over. I don't have any addresses to send the DVDs to yet. This idea is so new I'm writing it up as I think of it. So if you know of specific units or individuals we can send them to, please email me that information. I'm not going to send over a gigantic shipment of DVDs myself, but I'd like to be able to list it here or pass it around to anyone willing to send a DVD.

UPDATE: Scroll up or click here to read the latest posts on Operation "Truth for Troops."

Posted by B. Preston at 09:32 PM | Comments (61) | TrackBack


Cat Stevens may be a jihadi now, but back in the 70s he got one thing right: It's a wild world.

One one side of that world, we have medieval lunatics cutting people's heads off trying to drag the rest of us back to the 7th Century.

From the other side of that world, we bring you dancing droids from the future.

Yes, they're real.

Posted by B. Preston at 02:43 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack


Susanna Cornett has a potential bombshell on her hands.

Posted by B. Preston at 11:36 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack


Riddle ya this: Who said the following in advocating government programs to block the procreation of "undesirables?"

“(It) makes possible the spread of scientific knowledge of the elements of sound breeding. It makes possible the creation of a new race; a new generation brought into this world consciously conceived. It makes possible the breeding out of human weeds-the defective and criminal classes-(and) the breeding in of the clean, strong and fit instruments to carry the torch of human destiny.”

And this, about Italians and Jews:

“(They) are filling the insane asylums, (they) are filling the hospitals and filling our feeble-minded institutions, (they) are the ones the tax payers have to pay for the upkeep of, and they are increasing the budget of the State, the enormous expense of the State is increasing because of the multiplication of the unfit in this country and in the State.”

And this, about family planning:

“The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it”

Who said all of these things? The answer may surprise you. Or it may not.

(thanks to JG-EBGD)

Posted by B. Preston at 10:53 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack


November's election will not make the wingnuts of the left go away. They'll just get more and more aggressive. They're already getting violent, attacking a soldier returned from Iraq in Ohio and taunting the mother of a slain soldier in Texas:

A candlelight vigil to commemorate the death of the 1,000 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq turned ugly last week when anti-war protesters began heckling the family of a GI who was among those killed.

According to NBC's Dallas affiliate, one North Texas family - whose relative, Chad Drake, was killed outside Baghdad on Sept. 6 - were among the mourners at Dallas City Hall Plaza, at an event organized by the Dallas Peace Center.

A family friend told NBC's News 5 that at one point during the ceremony, several peaceniks began hurling verbal abuse toward Drake's family after they learned Drake had fought in the war.

The friend, who witnessed the abuse, said Drake's mother was "harassed and yelled at, booed and hissed, [and] told her son died for nothing."

Mrs. Drake reportedly left the event in tears. Afterward, Drake's sister told NBC News 5 that the family thought some of the crowd was blatantly hostile to those who had sacrificed their lives while serving their country.

Of course they were. They hate America and want the jihad to succeed. They're Kosites who say "screw 'em" to anyone and everyone nobler than themselves. These people have no sense of decency at all, and defeatist war criminal John Kerry is their ring leader.

As for the Dallas Peace Center, should you wish to register a complaint with them you may do so here.

Posted by B. Preston at 10:10 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack


As Iran nears nuclear status, Israel is getting ready to stop them:

Israel admitted yesterday that it is buying 500 "bunker-buster" bombs, which could be used to hit Iran's nuclear facilities, as Teheran paraded ballistic missiles as a warning against attack.

The BLU-109 bombs, which can penetrate more than 7ft of reinforced concrete, are among "smart" munitions being sold to Israel under America's military aid programme.


The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week gave Teheran an informal deadline to halt all aspects of its controversial uranium enrichment programme by November - and answer all outstanding nuclear questions - or face referral to the United Nations for possible sanctions.

However, Iran has denounced the resolution as "illegal" and defiantly announced that it would continue converting 37 tonnes of yellowcake - milled uranium oxide - into uranium hexafluoride, the feed-material for uranium enrichment.

Teheran said it may renege on a promise to Europe to "suspend" enrichment. It says it seeks to make nuclear fuel for its planned electricity-generating reactors but the West fears that the same process could make material for weapons.

The point of bunker buster strikes won't be to destroy Iran's nuclear program outright, since it is widely dispersed and very well protected. Rather the purpose of strikes would be to wound it and set it back and to serve notice to the mullahs that there will be pushback if they keep pursuing nuclear weapons.

Posted by B. Preston at 09:19 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack


The Democrats have lately been suggesting that President Bush is secretly planning to bring back the draft. They're half right--there is a plan to bring back the draft, but President Bush has nothing to do with it. It's a Democrat plot to kill support for the war.

Want proof? Go here. Enter in "HR 163" and click on Universal Service Act of 2003.

There you will see the bill and its sponsors. They are:

Mr. RANGEL (for himself, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. STARK, and Mr. ABERCROMBIE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

These gentlemen have a couple of things in common. First, they're all Democrats. Second, none of them supports any aspect of the war on terrorism.

So why would a group of hard left Democrats, a group that includes Saddam apologist Rep. Jim McDermott, introduce a bill to re-instate the draft? Why would a group of Congressmen who don't support the war and denounce the United States every chance they get be interested in this bill?

Because they want to use the draft to anger parents and destroy war morale, and then they want to pin the blame for it all on President Bush. If you have a better answer, I'd like to hear it.

The fact is, as long as the Republicans control either the House or Senate, the draft is dead. Republicans recognize that the draft isn't needed and wouldn't help. It would bring millions of people into the military who don't want to be there, thus harming the professionalism of our volunteer forces, and yes it probably would harm war support. That's why Republicans don't want the draft, and it's exactly why some liberal Democrats do want the draft.

So when you hear John Kerry or any other Democrat suggest that President Bush has some secret plan to bring back the draft, keep this post in mind. That Democrat undoubtedly knows that it isn't President Bush, but a bunch of America-hating Saddamite Democrats, who want the draft to return. Any Democrat who says otherwise is lying to your face.

MORE: Here's more about Rangel's draft bill, which he introduced several months before the Iraq war. In the linked story, Rangel offers several reasons to re-instate the draft. None of those reasons include actually winning the war.

Posted by B. Preston at 07:31 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

September 22, 2004


John Kerry wasn't just an anti-war activist after his brief stint in Vietnam--he was and remains so radical that his actions put him to the left of Jane Fonda.

That is the substance of the latest Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad, which you should watch here.

It's devastating, and it's right.

Posted by B. Preston at 09:43 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack



(via Cold Fury)

Posted by B. Preston at 04:04 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack


Ironclad proof that W stands for "win" in November.

(thanks to JG-EBGD)

Posted by B. Preston at 03:18 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack


Talk of Europe becoming Eurabia isn't just idle chatter. It's happening, one little city block at a time:

The UK's first Islamic law compliant stand-alone High Street bank opened in London on Wednesday. The Islamic Bank of Britain's first branch is on Edgware Road, conveniently located for London's Arab community.

The venture was given the go-ahead by City regulator the Financial Services Authority in August.

The bank will be run according to Islamic law, or Sharia, which forbids interest payments and stipulates that charges should be agreed in advance.

Next, there will be separate schools that will operate according to sharia, then hospitals, then courts, and so forth. And Europe's dhimmis are only too happy to play their part:

We are delighted to be opening our first branch," said Michael Hanlon, managing director.

"It marks a new era in Islamic banking in the UK and the beginning of our work to broaden our product offering and branch network."

It marks a new Islamic era alright--and not just in banking.

Posted by B. Preston at 11:58 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack


Via Opinion Paper, check out this interesting quote from the president's largely ignore speech before the United Nations yesterday:

Because I believe the advance of liberty is the path to both a safer and better world, today I propose establishing a democracy fund within the United Nations. This is a great calling for this great organization. The fund would help countries lay the foundations of democracy by instituting the rule of law and independent courts, a free press, political parties and trade unions.

Money from the fund would also help set up voter precincts in polling places and support the work of election monitors. To show our commitment to the new democracy fund, the United States will make an initial contribution. I urge all other nations to contribute as well.

Great idea. Really. Opinion Paper adds:

If, in his second term, the UN doesn't back this idea, they show their colors. What American then would support the UN if they can't get behind "the rule of law and independent courts, a free press, political parties and trade unions?"

Smart guy, Bush.

Yup. That dumb cowboy has once again found away to either force the UN to become useful or expose its tyrant-loving underbelly. Either way, it's a win for Bush and for the US.

Posted by B. Preston at 10:52 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack


The Philippine government insists that terrorist training camps on its soil were disbanded four years ago. New information suggests that's a lie, and terrorists are still using Philippine bases to train new recruits that threaten the Pacific and Southeast Asian region:

THE three main Southeast Asian Islamic terrorist groups have had a strong, secret alliance for almost 20 years, which continues to train Jemaah Islamiah's bomb-makers, intelligence documents reveal.

The documents, compiled from interviews with a senior JI defector and other sources, confirm long-held suspicions that two training camps of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front in the southern Philippines are the nerve centre of regional terrorism.

The former JI leader's admissions defy claims by the Philippines Government and the MILF that militant training in the camps ceased four years ago, at the start of delicate negotiations about autonomy for the Muslim minority in the country's south.

But the JI man Mohammed Nassir bin Abbas, formerly a leader of the main camp, has told foreign agents that links have instead strengthened, in particular with the infamous group Abu Sayyaf, renowned for beheading Westerners.


THE three main Southeast Asian Islamic terrorist groups have had a strong, secret alliance for almost 20 years, which continues to train Jemaah Islamiah's bomb-makers, intelligence documents reveal.

The documents, compiled from interviews with a senior JI defector and other sources, confirm long-held suspicions that two training camps of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front in the southern Philippines are the nerve centre of regional terrorism.

The former JI leader's admissions defy claims by the Philippines Government and the MILF that militant training in the camps ceased four years ago, at the start of delicate negotiations about autonomy for the Muslim minority in the country's south.

But the JI man Mohammed Nassir bin Abbas, formerly a leader of the main camp, has told foreign agents that links have instead strengthened, in particular with the infamous group Abu Sayyaf, renowned for beheading Westerners.

Nassir's first-hand account is seen as a missing link in decades of suspicion about the potential threat posed by the camps and their infiltration by terrorists.

"As long as the JI training camps are intact in Mindanao, JI will replenish its human losses and material wastage and continue the fight," said Rohan Gunaratna of Singapore's Institute of Strategic and Defence Studies. "JI's strategic base is the southern Philippines."

The information was provided about the same time an Australian white paper declared that militancy in the southern Philippines posed potentially the biggest security threat to Australia.

It also surfaced as John Howard yesterday announced the possibility of pre-emptive strikes against terrorist bases that threaten Australia.

Over the past two months, the Department of Foreign Affairs and its spy service, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, have made the region a primary focus of their intelligence gathering.

"Initially, the Australian authorities refused to believe that MILF was hosting and training JI members," Professor Gunaratna said.

"Today, there is overwhelming proof that JI has been training in the southern Philippines for over 10 years."

It appears that the Philippine government has become a terrorist enabler. Earlier this year it paid several million dollars to terrorists for the release of a Philippine hostage, and now it's turning a blind eye to terrorist bases on its own soil.

MORE: JI is set to increase the tempo of its bombings across the region. Which will be easier to do as long as the Philippines continues to give its terrorists a safe haven.

Look for the Australians to not take this situation lying down.

Posted by B. Preston at 08:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack


It appears the Iraqi government and Bush administration are about to make a colossal mistake: They're planning to free the two female Iraqi scientists currently in prison.

Iraq's government said one of two women in U.S. custody would be freed on Wednesday, but insisted the move was unrelated to the demands of kidnappers who have killed two Americans and are threatening to kill a Briton.

They can say it's unrelated all they want, but the terrorists won't see it that way. Nor should they.

The Tawhid and Jihad group led by Jordanian al Qaeda ally Abu Musab al-Zarqawi said in an Internet statement it had killed American Jack Hensley because its demands for the release of female prisoners from prisons in Iraq had not been met.

"Lions of the Tawhid and Jihad have slaughtered the second American hostage after the deadline," the statement said, adding that footage of the killing would be posted on the Internet.

"The British hostage will meet the same fate if the British government does not do what must be done to release him."

U.S. forces say they only hold two female Iraqi prisoners. Rihab Taha and Huda Ammash, dubbed "Dr Germ" and "Mrs Anthrax" by U.S. forces, are held in a prison for high-level suspects.

Those two know as much as anyone and more than most about Saddam's WMD programs. Freeing them just puts two people who might prove very useful to terrorists on the streets, and won't appease the Zarqawi faction currently beheading hostages. This will just encourage them to capture more innocent civilians and kill them until yet more demands are met.

Appeasing the demands of terrorists is how you lose a war on terrorism.

UPDATE: Now the US is saying they won't be freed.

Posted by B. Preston at 08:38 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack


Reuters won't call a terrorist by that name, preferring "militant" or just no descriptor at all.

It's now admitted the reason: It's scared of terrorists and doesn't want to make them mad.

As Islamic terror continues to spread worldwide, one major news outlet decided that enough is enough ― it's time to call terrorism by its name. CanWest, owners of Canada's largest newspaper chain, recently implemented a new editorial policy to use the 'T-word' in reports on brutal terrorist acts and groups.

So when CanWest's National Post published a Reuters report on Sept. 14, they exercised their right to change this Reuters line that whitewashes Palestinian terror:

... the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which has been involved in a four-year-old revolt against Israeli occupation in Gaza and the West Bank. (Jeffrey Heller, 9/13 'Sharon Faces Netanyahu Challenge')

to this, more accurate line:

... the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, a terrorist group that has been involved in a four-year-old campaign of violence against Israel.

Reuters didn't like the adjustment, and took the unusual step of officially informing CanWest that if it intended to continue this practice, CanWest should remove Reuters' name from the byline. Why? The New York Times reported (emphasis added):

"Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline."

Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations.

"My goal is to protect our reporters and protect our editorial integrity," he said.

This is a stunning admission ― Reuters' top international editor openly acknowledges that one of the main reasons his agency refuses to call terrorists 'terrorists' has nothing to do with editorial pursuit of objectivity, but rather is a response to intimidation from thugs and their supporters. (emphasis in original)

Just because the movtive may be--may be (I don't believe it's just about protecting reporters)--benign, that doesn't excuse what amounts to slanting coverage in favor of animals who murder children to advance their politics. Maybe Reuters' admission can become a first step toward better reporting that is actually honest. Maybe.

Posted by B. Preston at 08:28 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack


By some of the people he was sent to Iraq to protect--American leftwing nutjobs. Michael Moore fans, no doubt. So...are they Nader voters or Kerry voters?

On the subject of leftist moonbats, but unrelated to the above except by ideology, I noticed something about a home near my neighborhood. On a sign in the yard: War Is Not The Answer. On a car in the driveway: Free Tibet.

Someone's neurons aren't firing too well.

(via The Corner)

Posted by B. Preston at 07:22 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

September 21, 2004


I think it's fair to say that the 21st Century will not resemble the 20th, at least not in one important respect: It will not be an "American century."

The 20th gets that monicker from the historians because in every respect it was America's time. It began with the young upstart easily defeating colonial power Spain, progressed through two resounding triumphs over Germany and its allies in Europe and the Far East, saw America create the world's first global and successful (depending on your definition of that term) deliberative body, and the spread of democracy thanks to America's example, trade policies and diplomacy. America led the world in manufacturing, invention, individual liberties, charity and in defeating fascism, Nazism, Communism--the three bogeymen of that time. America deserved to become hero of the world, and it did. But only among the reasonable. There was always an undercurrent of America-hating out there, though mostly on the left and on the fringe.

But the 21st Century looks like it might change things profoundly for America, and for the world, and forever. Gone is the gratitude of those freed by American might, those made rich by America's largesse or simply kept alive by America's charity. Gone too is the notion that individual freedom means much more than the right to work 30 hours a week or claim incredible welfare benefits across the very same Europe we defended from the Soviets after dispatching the Nazis. The fat, dumb and very perochial Europeans see no reason now to put in a full day's work, much less defend themselves from jihad when it's so much easier and lazier to just blame it all on those American cowboys in their idiot in chief Bush. Of all the nations we have helped and continue to help, only a handful really seem to want to stay at our side, and even many of them are wavering. When we lose the British, which we probably will soon, we will still have Australia, Japan, Poland and a few others. But for how long?

A small case in point. On any given day, and far from the screaming headline writers of the New York Times, Americans not connected to any government enterprise are busy helping people somewhere where their compassion puts them at great risk. In Mexico, Americans travel in bands of a couple dozen to distribute medicines, deliver health and dental care, give out books and clothing and food, and even entertain local people too poor to afford any of it. In the Philippines, across Asia and Africa and into India and everywhere there is a need, some American is probably nearby ready--and willing--to help. These Americans do this because, in spite to the hate spewed their way by the bigot Andrew Sullivan (a bigotry of which most of them are unaware since they're too busy helping people to pay attention to him), they're Christians. And their Christianity, quite traditional and therefore offensive to Sullivan and his ilk, compels them to minister to the needs of the world instead of worshipping their political pole star. So they help strangers. Every day. Other Americans help out of other senses of duty, but the point is that they sense that duty and act on it.

How many of these countries helped by ordinary Americans even expressed condolences when we suffered a string of hurricanes this year? How many of them or their citizens offered to drop everything--or anything--to come here and help out? None. But when I was in Japan some years ago, I saw two things that changed me for good. One was the sickening destruction one earthquake can cause. The other was the arrival in short order of Americans and American goods to help out. We earned our friendship with Japan over decades of benevolent protection from North Korea, China and the USSR, and earned it again when Kobe was crushed a decade ago by geology. Uncharacteristic of most of the world, Japan actually appreciated it.

But apart from a bit of gratitude grudgingly offered once in a while, what do we get for all this largesse? Denounced, decried and disparaged, mostly. It seems that the world, or an ever increasing share of it, doesn't want us around anymore. Today Mexicans may take the free medicines and dental exams from charitable Americans, but tomorrow they'll be cheering for Osama bin Laden like they did at that soccer game last year, and their government will still do everything it can to empower France and other terrorist-sympathetic states at our expense while agitating to keep our border as porous as possible. Why should we Americans even bother to help anymore?

So since the 21st Century looks like it will be inhospitable to us anyway, I have a modest suggestion: Let the world get along without us. They think we're tyrants, we think they're spoiled children--let's call the whole thing off.

Once our time in Iraq is done, let's not just pull out there. Let's ask every single country that hosts even a single US troop what they want us to do, and if they even blink we pull out immediately. We also pull out of any treaty we have with them, any trade agreement, any multilateral deal, no matter what that deal, treaty or agreement was designed to do. South Korea--you're on your own. If Kim nukes you, it's your own bloody fault. Germany--you'll just have to get along without 150,000 Americans around to defend you. Oh, and you'll have to get along without NATO, GATT, the UN and all the rest, too. The G-8 can be the G-7, because we just don't feel like playing anymore. You don't like us, we don't like you--let's call the whole thing off.

We'll have to militarize our border with Mexico, but by gum we'll have the troops to do it now that we don't have to worry about Kim Jong-Il for Seoul anymore. We can use our Predators to spot the infrared heat coming from every single illegal alien, and we can use our Bradleys to interdict them and take them back to their own side of the border. If that doesn't work, we'll just build a wall.

Iran's nuclear program will continue apace, but that won't be our headache anymore either as long as we shut down immigration immediately. No one from certain parts of the world can get into the US, for any reason, ever, so no one will be able to get their terrorist recruits here. In fact, let's just shut down immigration until the rest of the world figures out how to deal with jihad without us. We'll have to severly restrict trade too, since it's all too easy to smuggle bombs and personnel on cargo ships, but that's just the price we and the world will have to pay--the most lucrative market will no longer accept business from abroad. And we'll just wait out the war raging on elsewhere. Once France and Russia and the rest solve the problem they've been blaming us for, namely, terrorism, then we'll play along again. But not one second before, and no matter how many Eurabian cities end up as nuclear craters. You didn't like us, we got fed up with you--let's call the whole thing off.

I'm being mostly facetious here, but the fact is the world looks like it's fast becoming a crummy, run-down hellhole of a place in the coming century. Europe, demographically almost certain to move from post-Christian to Islamicist culture, is setting itself up to rival us even while it dips under the waves of Arabian influence. China is modernizing, threatening Taiwan, menacing the rest of Asia and intent on regional hegemony. Iran will become a nuclear power unless we stop it, but if we stop it we can expect the rest of the world (minus Israel) to loathe us for it. And as for Israel, well, we'll allow immigration from there for the foreseeable future. Because we'll have to. Once we let the world go its own way any trip from Israel to any other spot on earth will be a one-way trip.

Once we pull out, expect a lord of the flies mentality to dominate international relations, trade--everything. No more rule sets to enforce, and no one to enforce them. Democracy will retreat and die in most of the world, and ironically the world will blame us for it. Where are you, America? they will ask of us. And we'll reply that we're right here, staying on our side of the pond where you wanted us, thank you. Sorry about that nuclear blast in Paris the other day. Tried to warn you. I guess you could've use that missile shield after all, eh? It would've stopped a Shahab-6 from Tehran--we tested that scenario last month. Oh well. Back to American Idol.

The world loves to hate us, but we're sick and tired of being the only adults on the planet--so let's call the whole thing off. Call it the Great Divorce, call us Fortress America, call the new era whatever you want--but don't call us next time you're in a scrape, because we will not ride to your rescue.

Posted by B. Preston at 05:22 PM | Comments (11) | TrackBack


Two in two days--Zarqawi and his henchmen have beheaded another American. He was Jack Hensley, one of those civilian contractors that the Kosites think deserve brutal death at the hands of animals. Given the chance, they will do the same thing here, and the Kosites will probably cheer just as loudly. Until the terrorists kill one of their number. Then the Kosites will blame Bush.

Probably unrelated, I pass an "Islamic center" on my way to work most mornings. I've noticed an uptick in police presence in that block lately.

Kofi Annan Abu Ghraibed the US today. Morally equated terrorists killing civilian families on purpose with the abuse of a few terrorists in one prison outside the rules and regulations of our military. Said all nations must respect the rule of law. Didn't mention Syria's WMD-bombings in Sudan. Didn't mention his own probable role in Saddam's Oil-For-Food scandal.

The US should have left the UN to rot a long time ago. It's time to kick that hostile organization off our soil.

President Bush spoke before that body today, and John Kerry took press questions for the first time in about six weeks. One of the two re-iterated his position on the Iraq war, a position that hasn't changed in at least two years. The other offered up a position that differs with some of his previously stated positions, and agrees with some of his other stated positions, even though many of those positions are mutually contradictory. Guess which one is which.

A new poll has Bush and Kerry tied--in Maryland. Maryland, the laughably nicknamed "Free State," is Berkeley by the Bay. If Maryland is now a swing state, Kerry is finished. GOP victory in Maryland is rare but it can happen. Two years ago this month, a GOP congressman pulled even with the Democrat candidate for governor and ended up defeating her. He's Maryland's first Republican governor since Spiro Agnew. Ronald Reagan carried Maryland in 1984, the last GOP presidential candidate to do so. He won 49 states that year.

As for John Kerry, he's reduced to extorting campaign cash from little kids. Nice.

And by the way, against all the evidence, delusional Dan Rather still thinks the Killian memos are real. And apparently Burkett didn't burn the originals after all. He's suing CBS, which looks to this blog like a thinly veiled effort to lock up certain paper trails until a show trial, which would take place after the election and end up in an out of court settlement very, very favorable to Burkett financially and to CBS in other ways. Watch for it.

Posted by B. Preston at 03:36 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack


Thank you, Democrats! Thank you, Terry MacAuliffe! Thank you to all of you who embraced enemy propagandist Michael Moore! You're doing a nice job of denting our military's morale right on the front lines:

Inside dusty, barricaded camps around Iraq, groups of American troops in between missions are gathering around screens to view an unlikely choice from the US box office: "Fahrenheit 9-11," Michael Moore's controversial documentary attacking the commander-in-chief. "Everyone's watching it," says a Marine corporal at an outpost in Ramadi that is mortared by insurgents daily. "It's shaping a lot of people's image of Bush."

I'm sure it is. You have young people caught up in a confusing war and in strides a movie director with a message straight from the Democrats: Bush lied you to. You don't have to die here. Turn away from him and save yourself. That's a seductive message.

We continue, after a few choice vignettes of front-line soldiers and Marines who are mad at the president:

Other US troops expressed feelings of guilt over killing Iraqis in a war they believe is unjust.

"We shouldn't be here," said one Marine infantryman bluntly. "There was no reason for invading this country in the first place. We just came here and [angered people] and killed a lot of innocent people," said the marine, who has seen regular combat in Ramadi. "I don't enjoy killing women and children, it's not my thing."

As with his comrades, the marine accepted some of the most controversial claims of "Fahrenheit 9/11," which critics have called biased. "Bush didn't want to attack [Osama] Bin Laden because he was doing business with Bin Laden's family," he said.

Another marine, Sgt. Christopher Wallace of Pataskala, Ohio, agreed that the film was making an impression on troops. "Marines nowadays want to know stuff. They want to be informed, because we'll be voting out here soon," he said. " 'Fahrenheit 9/11' opened our eyes to things we hadn't seen before." But, he added after a pause, "We still have full faith and confidence in our commander-in-chief. And if John Kerry is elected, he will be our commander in chief."

Very nice. Marines want to know stuff, so they turn to a man who thinks Muqtada al-Sadr and Musab al-Zarqawi are Arab Paul Reveres. I know it's not a majority, but it could be enough to create discord in the ranks and harm unit cohesion. Not good, though I really don't expect you Democrats to understand why.

Democrats, your party is working for the enemy now. If it's not propping up Tubby Reifenstahl and creating cracks in our war footing it's helping push forgeries designed to execute a bloodless coup in the middle of a war. Show me where I'm wrong about either one of those facts.

I hope 2004 looks like 1984. I hope Bush wins every single state and clobbers Kerry by 20. Maybe, just maybe, you people will finally wake up and realize that you're out of touch with reality. But I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Posted by B. Preston at 02:03 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack


Bill Burkett was the source for both CBS and USA Today. We already knew that. What we don't know is where Burkett got the memos. Now he says some woman named Lucy Ramirez--who apparently doesn't exist--gave them to him and he burned the originals after making copies. Read the rest here, but be prepared for the feeling that you're reading a really bad spy novel.

Some questions come to mind. Does Lucy Ramirez exist, or is she yet another bit of Burkett fiction? If she does exist, who is she and what are her political/religious/ethnic connections? Put your tinfoil hat on for a moment--what better way for a terrorist to sow serious political discord than to push forged documents that could bring down a president who has relentlessly battled them for more than three years? Are we looking at a putsch from within, spearheaded by Democrat operatives, or are we looking at a putsch from without, engineered by the same enemies we're fighting in Iraq and elsewhere? Until we know all there is to know about Lucy Ramirez, anything is possible here.

While you're pondering that, there is a second possible forgery case that shouldn't go unmentioned. On John Kerry's DD214, which is basically a one-page summary of a man or woman's military career, there is a curious citation. To his Silver Star is attached a "Combat V." Combat V awards denote valorous conduct in combat, but the Silver Star itself is an award for valorous conduct in combat, and the military has never attached Combat Vs to Silver Stars. It's actually against regulations to do so. But right there on Kerry's DD214 in black and white, there's a Combat V attached to his Silver Star.

It could be an innocent error, but it's one Kerry has never seen fit to have corrected in all the decades since leaving the Navy Reserves. That in itself is a curious fact. Either Kerry doesn't know the regs on his own medals, or does know them but doesn't care that his DD214 lists an award he cannot have.

But it's looking more and more like the Combat V's presence on Kerry Silver Star award isn't an innocent error.

The U.S. Navy has launched a new probe into Sen. John Kerry's Silver Star citation, after the Navy Secretary whose signature appears on the document said he never signed the award.

"It is a total mystery to me," former Navy Secretary John Lehman told the Chicago Sun-Times in August.

"I never saw it. I never signed it. I never approved it. And the additional language it contains was not written by me," he complained.
The Lehman document is the last of three versions of Kerry Silver Star citation that have been posted to Kerry's campaign website.

On Friday, Navy Inspector General Adm. R. A. Route closed out a superficial probe into the circumstances of Kerry's war decorations; one that verified only that appropriate procedures were followed when the commendations were issued.

But Monday's New York Post reported: "Lehman's disavowal of citation No. 3 has prompted a separate investigation."

Word of the second Kerry medals probe comes as complaints escalate over the top Democrat's refusal to authorize the release of his full military file.

UPDATE: Hey, USA Today! CBS! If you're still looking for Lucy Ramirez, try Mexico City (I hear it's nice there this time of year). Scroll down to #2739. Is this our Lucy? Could be--one Luciana Ramirez signed a lefty petition to try and get the UN to pass an anti-US Iraq-related resolution.

(thanks to a very alert JYB splinter cell operative)

UPDATE: Or maybe Lucy is a little closer to home for Burkett.

(thanks to Chris)

MORE: There are too many Lucy Ramirez's to sort them out. Here's one connected to a Texas Democrat Congressman. According to the Congressman, she could have a great career in politics...

MORE: The Kos-ites are illiterate. They think Congressman Hinojosa is a Republican.

Posted by B. Preston at 08:55 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

September 20, 2004



NEW YORK — At the behest of CBS, an adviser to John Kerry said he talked to a central figure in the controversy over President Bush's National Guard service shortly before disputed documents were released.

Joe Lockhart (search) denied any connection between the presidential campaign and the papers. Lockhart, the second Kerry ally to confirm contact with retired Texas National Guard officer Bill Burkett (search), said he made the call at the suggestion of CBS producer Mary Mapes.

Why is CBS directing an advisor to John Kerry to talk to a known Bush-hating liar? And why did that Kerry advisor do what CBS wanted him to do?

Lockhart can issue all the denials he wants ("I don't recall"--what are you, senile? This was a couple of weeks ago!) but the fact is this story opens up the Kerry/DNC people to charges of collusion with CBS, and vice versa. It would seem to answer the question "Is CBS just another Democrat 527?" "Why yes, CBS is just another Democrat 527."

Hey hey ho ho--Mary Mapes has got to go!

(via Allah)

MORE: The DNC responds. As usual, nothing but lies:

"Now that we know what's not true, let's focus on the facts," Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe said in a statement regarding CBS's News' apology for broadcasting a Sept. 8 story about Bush's military service based on documents of dubious merit.

Yeah, like "Which DNC staffer forged government documents in an effort to destroy the president?"

"Today we learned that George Bush did not earn enough points to qualify for an honorable discharge and that he has given three different explanations for why he missed his physical," McAuliffe continued in the statement.

Lies. Bush had more than five times the points he needed to fulfill his duties--enough points for 15 years of ANG duty. And Bush hasn't given any reasons for "missing his physical," and it's not even clear there was a physical to miss. MacAuliffe has been reading his forged documents too often. He's starting to believe them.

"The American people already know that strings were pulled to get President Bush into the Guard; and while in the Guard he missed months of service and was grounded. ... But what we still don't know is why Bush didn't fulfill his duty to his country or why he has continued to lie to the American people about it," he said.

Lies. No evidence has come to light as of yet that Bush pulled strings to get into the Guard. If you have it, MacAuliffe, you'd better show it. Your word is worthless. And Bush did fulfill his duty, a word the Democrats know nothing about and care nothing for.

If you want to talk about someone not fulfilling his duty, let's talk about a Navy Reserve officer smearing fellow troops as war criminals and meeting with enemy representatives in Paris. How's that for fulfilling one's duty, Democrats? That's what your guy did. And that was probably a crime.

What a sick, pathetic, useless and truthless joke of political party the Democrats have become.

MORE: Curiouser and curiouser. Burkett was using CBS as a political dating service, or so the latest story goes:

Burkett told USA TODAY that he had agreed to turn over the documents to CBS if the network would help arrange a conversation with the Kerry campaign.

The network's effort to place Burkett in contact with a top Democratic official raises ethical questions about CBS' handling of material potentially damaging to the Republican president in the midst of an election. This "poses a real danger to the potential credibility of a news organization," said Aly Colón, a news ethicist at the Poynter Institute for Media Studies.

"At Burkett's request, we gave his (telephone) number to the campaign," said Betsy West, senior CBS News vice president.

CBS would not discuss the propriety of the network serving as a conduit between its partisan source, Burkett, and the Kerry campaign. "It was not part of any deal" with Burkett to obtain the documents, West said, declining to elaborate. But Burkett said Monday that his contact with Lockhart was indeed part of an "understanding" with CBS.

CBS is was a news organization. What is CBS doing playing matchmaker between a wingnut anti-Bush zealot activist and a wingnut anti-Bush zealot news producer? Oh, I guess I answered that question.

The more we find out about this story, the less it seems we know. But here's what we do know, now for a fact. The documents are forged. Burkett gave them to CBS, and to the DNC and to USA Today. He either made them himself or someone known to him made them. There was an unholy triangle between Burkett, CBS and the Kerry campaign in the persons of Mapes and probaby one or two others at CBS and Lockhart and Cleland at KE04.

If there had been a similar situation going on in BC04, we would be hearing talk of impeachment, resignations, a midnight massacre of firings within both the campaign as well as the news organization, and probably a criminal probe in the works.

We should be hearing such talk now, but directed at CBS and KE04/DNC. There should be a criminal probe--these people are apparently part of a nefarious scheme to defraud the American public and execute a bloodless, extralegal coup against the president in the midst of war. Lockhart should go. Cleland should probably go. Kerry needs to purge his campain staff of all who had anything to do with this, or the scandal will reach him personally and doom his political career, not just this race this year. And CBS needs a serious bloodletting, soon. That network and its corporate parent are sinking in quicksand, and a massacre is its only way out. The DNC needs an internal inquisition, too. Its lack of morals and ethics have finally caught up with it--Clinton's philosophical buzzards coming home to roost.

Posted by B. Preston at 08:05 PM | Comments (12) | TrackBack


It's practically a full-time job just figuring out what in the world John Kerry thinks at any given moment. He voted for the Iraq war, then denouced it, then said anyone who denounced it doesn't have the judgment necessary to be president, then voted for the $87 billion to fund the troops in the field before voting against it, etc. Now he's back to saying the war was a mistake:

Less than two years after voting to give Bush authority to invade Iraq, the Democratic candidate said the president had misused that power by rushing to war without the backing of allies, a post-war plan or proper equipment for U.S. troops. "None of which I would have done," Kerry said.

No, you'd just send your sister off to our allies to convince them not to support us By the way, that's a very Arafat-like strategy--saying one thing here in America about the need to build up alliances to win the war, but saying something entirely different to effect politics in nations allied with us. It's called being double-minded, or unprincipled, or just full of it. Take your pick. Or maybe he'll just send out his wife to call Kerry critics "scumbags." Do you know the literal definition of "scumbag?" Look it up, then ponder whether America really needs a First Lady who apparently thinks the majority of the country are equal to used up condoms. Charming family, the Kerry's. Treason over here, potty-mouthed stupidity over there, with Lurch for a ringmaster in the middle. Let's invite them over for dinner! I don't think these people can balance their checkbooks on their own, let alone run a country in a time of war.

The above position on the war, number 537 at last count, is from the same John Kerry who said, just about a month ago, that knowing then what he knows now, the vote for force in Iraq was still the right move.

Kerry supporters, why should someone who sees the war as the #1 issue vote for Kerry? What could he do now, after adopting a zillion different positions on a yes or no question, to persuade me that he actually even understands that we're at war? And why are you voting for that clown? Don't give me "Because he's not Bush." That's not an answer.

What does John Kerry really think about the war? Was Iraq part of the war on terror, as he has had, or is it a distraction from the war on terror, as he has said? Has it made us safer, as he has said, or has it made us less safe, as he's saying today? What will he be saying about the war tomorrow? What does he believe in? What does your party believe in?

Frankly, I just don't get you people at all. Terrorists killed 3,000 of us on 9-11, we fight back and try to change the things that spawn terrorists and by the way free about 50 million people from two absolutely awful regimes, and all you people do is whine and complain and accuse and make up new stories when the old ones fall apart. You've never seemed terribly interested in the truth about the war, what led to it our how we win it--you just want to make it stop like a bunch of petulant children. You've shown no backbone and no principles. Get a grip. We're at war, and if we don't win all those precious freedoms you complain (without evidence) that Ashcroft has stolen from you will in fact disappear. If that happens, you'll have only yourselves to blame--until the next Zarqawi decides that your head should be the next to be lanced from an infidel body.

Frankly, sometimes I wish you were right about the war and that it's all Bush's fault. Then winning the thing would be easy--just vote the guy out and all the problems go away. But that's not reality, and you know it. 9-11 was in the works long before Bush took office, and we had been attacked repeatedly for a decade before that. Voting Bush out doesn't solve the problem, anymore than France staying out of Iraq has made it immune to terrorism or Australia's involvement in Iraq has made it a target (the Bali bombing occurred long before the Iraq war, fyi, and it was that bombing more than anything else that persuaded the Australian government that siding with us in the war was in its interests). The only thing we can do is win the war, and you're not helping and your candidate obviously doesn't grasp the situation and doesn't care to establish any kind of principled position. It's a pity, because these serious times call for serious responses, and you and your candidate are apparently incapable of being serious or standing with this country when you're needed.

Shame on Kerry for shifting his position on Iraq yet again. And shame on you who support him for letting him be such a good for nothing lout.

Posted by B. Preston at 05:50 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack


Having had a minute to go over Dan Rather's statement regarding the Killian memos, I'm left unsatisfied. It's a good first step, but does not resolve any of the outstanding questions. It also doesn't offer any remedy to ensure nothing similar will happen in the future.

The outstanding questions are:

1. Who forged these documents? The new story is that yes they're fake, but even Bill Burkett didn't make them though he did give them to CBS. Instead, some as yet unknown source we'll call Q made them. Who is Q, then? All CBS and Burkett have really done is move the goalposts back. It's a bit like those scientists who, when asked the origins of life on the Earth, answer that aliens seeded Earth with whatever they thought necessary to develop living organisms. Well then, where did that life come from? Silence is almost always the answer. And so it goes with CBS. If we are to believe them, and there's no reason we should, they were burned by a source who was burned by a source, yet CBS seems curiously uninterested in determining the identity of that original source/forger, the mysterious Q. Why?

2. What was the real chain of custody of those documents? We need to know who made them, how they got into Burkett's possession, and what he did with them after that to include whom he may have alerted about them within CBS, the DNC, and so forth. What was Max Cleland's involvement?

3. Why did CBS rush the story to air on September 8, 2004 when its own experts had either raised questions or weren't finished reviewing the documents? Was it intended to coincide with the release of Kitty Kelley's book and with the DNC's "Fortunate Son" ad? At this point it appears that CBS rushed the faulty story to air over the objections of the experts CBS hired to vet the documents. Why? And we need to know the chain of command that approved this story in detail. And why has CBS consistently misrepresented what its own experts said about the documents, and why has CBS trotted out other experts not qualified to rule on the documents' authenticity? Whose idea was the "fake, but accurate" lie?

4. Does CBS now agree that its critics--who have turned out to have been right all along about the documents--aren't just "partisan political operatives?" Can the same be said for CBS producers and those who defended the documents long past the point of credulity?

Kudos to the Washington Post and ABC News for pursuing the CBS story with some doggedness. Shame on the NYT for its backhanded reporting, shame on the LAT for outing an honest whistleblower and shame on CNN for its lousy coverage. Today, after CBS release Rather's statement, CNN had a former CBS producer on as a guest to talk about it. I didn't catch the gentleman's name, but he offered up the "Dan is a ruthless truth-teller" defense and lionized Rather as some sort of God of Objectivity while attempting to paper over the scandal itself. CNN's interviewer didn't ask a single tough or even skeptical question, and just let the former CBS employee's word stand for truth. Sorry, but that just won't fly anymore. I recently spoke with someone who retired from CBS not too long ago, and that person was very dismayed at what Rather has done to the CBS name. CNN's interviewee didn't express any similar feelings at all, and did express supreme confidence in Rather to investigate himself and tell the truth. That confidence is based on something other than Rather's track record.

CBS still has a long, long way to go before it can put this scandal behind it. Dan Rather must resign or be fired immediately. Mary Mapes should be fired immediately, as should Andrew Heyward. 60 Minutes II should undergo a housecleaning reminiscent of the Inquisition, and CBS should apologize for smearing its critics as partisans and for stonewalling the investigation. My take on the CBS/Burkett story, undoubtedly formulated over the weekend by Rather and Burkett in a face to face meeting, looks like a new turn in a continued effort to protect Q, their mysterious source. So I don't see today's statement as an end to the scandal, just a new beginning.

Posted by B. Preston at 02:12 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack


On the eve of Dan Rather's statement and second bizarre post-forgery "interview"--this time with Bill Burkett--here's a few more thoughts from Bob Kohn, author of Journalistic Fraud, on the brave new world where the U.S. Government leaves it up to witnesses to investigate and issue findings on felonies they may be connected to:

SCARBOROUGH: Should Dan Rather, as some Bush advisors are suggesting now, recuse himself from covering the presidential race?

KOHN: Yes. There‘s a clear conflict of interest here. You know, Dan Rather is trying to be the judge and the jury.

What he did the other night was the equivalent of witness tampering. He took this woman, this 86-year-old woman, and flew her to—to New York to interview her. They had prepped her in advance. He asked leading questions. God knows what‘s on the cutting room floor of that interview. And then puts her on without letting anyone really cross-examine her at all.

So, I mean, it‘s a tremendous conflict of interest. And the conflict might even go further.

Think about this Bill Burkett was a Democratic operative in Travis County, Texas. His lawyer was a former chairman of the Travis County Democratic Party. I also understand when Dan Rather spoke at a Democrat fundraiser, in 2001, it was in Travis County and it was at the behest of Robin Rather, his daughter. OK, so what‘s going on in Travis County?

There are much more questions here that have been raised than answered, and Dan Rather is not the person to be doing it. And the board of directors—I‘ll say it again—of Viacom, they have a duty under what‘s called the Sarbanes—Sarbanes-Oxley Securities Law to follow up, to look at these and do a complete independent investigation here.

See my previous post on this below. Note that Dan Rather is only coming forward with an explanation after he has flown to Texas and investigatedcoordinated his story in person with Bill Burkett and Mary Mapes.

UPDATE: Here's the bogus story CBS and Burkett came up with. It conveniently covers for Rather, Mapes and Burkett (I'm shocked!):

CBS said Burkett acknowledged he provided the documents and said he deliberately misled a CBS producer, giving her a false account of their origin to protect a promise of confidentiality to a source.

Yeah, right. Anybody want to bet that Burkett bought himself a new hard drive and switched to Word Perfect last week?

Or suppose he's not lying. Maybe one of Burkett's DNC contacts is the new "mystery source?" The source could even be Mary Mapes for all we know. Nothing would shock me at this point. Mapes was working for five years on this dead-end non-story wasn't she? And she was about to see zero results and President Bush reelected. Was there pressure from CBS editors to produce some real (political) results, and did it overwhelm her better judgment? Was she thinking a few MS Word documents based on info Burkett gave her would vault her into MSM superstardom on the heels of her Abu Ghraib story? Nobody knows, and we may never know, because DAN RATHER is conducting the investigation! What a joke.

MORE: The RNC thinks CBS is the proper entity to conduct a criminal investigation?? Weird.

UPDATE: John Ellis is advising Mary Mapes: "Call your lawyer immediately. DO NOT, under any circumstances, allow CBS counsel to represent your interests." (from Instapundit)

Posted by Chris Regan at 10:42 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack


What is it with lefties and spewing treasonous speech on foreign soil? John Kerry's sister is doing her best to undermine our alliance with Australia and thereby make the war harder to win.

JOHN Kerry's campaign has warned Australians that the Howard Government's support for the US in Iraq has made them a bigger target for international terrorists.

Diana Kerry, younger sister of the Democrat presidential candidate, told The Weekend Australian that the Bali bombing and the recent attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta clearly showed the danger to Australians had increased.

"Australia has kept faith with the US and we are endangering the Australians now by this wanton disregard for international law and multilateral channels," she said, referring to the invasion of Iraq.

Asked if she believed the terrorist threat to Australians was now greater because of the support for Republican George W. Bush, Ms Kerry said: "The most recent attack was on the Australian embassy in Jakarta -- I would have to say that."

Essentially--"Stick with the US and the terrorists will keep on killing you. Break your alliance with the US, and the terrorists will leave you alone." Nice gal. Is this how John Kerry plans to increase international support in Iraq?

Posted by B. Preston at 08:12 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

September 19, 2004


Remember how after Luke, Han and Co. destroyed the Death Star, the Empire gathered its remaining forces, used a little intel and destroyed the main rebel base on Hoth? Well...INCOMING!!!

Get ready pajama people, because in blasting the Evil Eye of CBS we just ignited a journalism war and the MSM is not backing down. The first big shot fired in return was when the LA Times continued with CBS' dirty work and did some more "opposition research reporting" for the Democrats. They exposed Freeper Buckhead's already known conservatism (shocking--a Freeper is a conservative! Call Mickey Spilane!) -- along with his identity and workplace. They curiously put the newspaper's investigative resources on him instead of the forger or his friends at CBS. Buckhead's thoughtcrime was being the first to notice an obvious forgery and exercising his free political speech under a pseudonym.

Why would the LAT do this? You have a likely forger whose purpose was to bring down the president on the one hand and his anonymous truth-seeking nemesis on the other--you'd think the forger would be the more interesting target. But not if you're the LA Slimes, a paper so in bed with the Democrats it makes Britney Spears look like the image of marital purity. Most likely, the purpose of the LAT story was to maximize the harassment of an innocent witness and to send a message to others who try to expose journalistic fraud: Don't mess with Big Media. You come after Dan Rather, you're coming after the rest of us. And we won't take your fact-checking oversight without a fight to the death!

Now Time Magazine is implying this new war is not between old leftist journalists and new fact-checking independent bloggers, but between our "red truth" (supposedly manufactured by the GOP) vs the MSM's "blue truth" (literally DNC talking points). That is so typical of liberals--there is no objective truth, just "your truth" and "my truth." Remember Jim McGreevy's maudlin, self-absorbed speech in which he spun his corruption around as some sort of statement about "his truth?" Same thing, different verse. Elements of the MSM will cast disputed facts in upcoming arguments as "mainstream truth" versus "those nasty old Republicans' truth." Look for it. Allah has the heads up. You heard it here first. Or at least second.

UPDATE: Here's another "Does anyone really know what truth is?" piece. Looks like we have ourselves a little MSM talking point pattern developing. It's funny how the MSM gets frustrated when they can no longer distort reality and redefine truth for Americans.

MORE: Readers' trust in bloggers in question: Internet critics of CBS turn out to have Republican ties

Hundreds of thousands of readers know him simply as "Mike," the creator of, an Internet blog spearheading a petition drive demanding the resignation of CBS News anchor Dan Rather because of his alleged liberal biases.

But what the visitors to his blog did not know when he launched it early last week was that "Mike" is Mike Krempasky, a 29-year-old Republican political operative from suburban Washington, D.C., a detail some might have found relevant.

The eye of the MSM Empire never blinks. Watch what you post, watch who you link and watch who you email. The shadowy web of connections between Karl Rove and his vast army of mind-controlled bloggers will soon be exposed--that is, once the NY Times is finished their investigation and illustration of the six degrees of separation between all bloggers using blogrolls and hyperlinks.

Evacuate? Evacuate in our moment of triumph?

Posted by Chris Regan at 11:48 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack