"As Franklin Roosevelt once reminded Americans, "Each age is a dream that is dying, or one that is coming to
birth." And we live in the country where the biggest dreams are born. The abolition of slavery was only a dream -- until it
was fulfilled. The liberation of Europe from fascism was only a dream -- until it was achieved. The fall of imperial communism
was only a dream -- until, one day, it was accomplished. Our generation has dreams of its own, and we also go forward with
confidence. The road of Providence is uneven and unpredictable -- yet we know where it leads: It leads to freedom. " George
Leaving the left
I can no longer abide the simpering voices of self-styled progressives -- people who once championed
"Wait, it gets better. When actor Bill Cosby called on black parents to explain to their kids why they are
not likely to get into medical school speaking English like "Why you ain't" and "Where you is," Jesse Jackson countered that
the time was not yet right to "level the playing field." Why not? Because "drunk people can't do that ... illiterate people
can't do that."
A Letter from Democrats (via Pat Sajak) to the Working Man
Human Events Online ^ | May 16, 2005 | Pat Sajak
Ronald Reagan and Richard Pryor By ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS
Personal Reasons of Necessity, The self-serving senator. By Rich Lowry
Michelle Malkin: The liberals who cried 'didn't do enough!'
Dr. Rice's Opening Statement Before The 9-11 Commission
Neal Boortz on the 9-11 Panel Questioning President Bush
This is history calling, quick, get me rewrite! Ann Coulter
Tilting at the Right, Leaning to the Left By Howard Kurtz
by: Donald Luskin
"But the Labor Department’s latest employment release shows the yearly gain
for nonfarm payrolls coming in at 2.3 million."
Victor Davis Hanson
Kathleen Parker: News from a parallel universe
Kerry Knows WMD exist in Iraq!
Jimmy Carter flaps his gums again.
The Day After Al Gore Sasha Lind
by Ann Coulter
"After perusing the year-end (Dec. 27/Jan. 3) issue of Newsweek, I defy any editor there to deny this magazine
is a mouthpiece for the political Left."
Watch the VLWC
Byron York warns against underestimating the Left’s new machinery.
Watchdogs of Democracy? The Waning Washington Press Corps and How It Has Failed
the Public by Helen Thomas, it’s
tempting to get swept up in her eyewitness accounts of history (really!). But then you reach a passage on the current Bush
administration that is so full of inaccuracies, and you come back down to earth and start to wonder whether you can take any
of Thomas’s stories at face value.
Let me give you an example of what I’m talking about. In her chapter
on press secretaries, Thomas writes:
In the long run-up to
the invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003, [former press secretary Ari] Fleisher intoned repeatedly from the podium “9/11-Saddam
Hussein,” a significant staple dating back to World War II. Repetition is the key marker of falsehoods.
Thomas should know. She repeats
the falsehood that the administration blamed Saddam for 9/11 several times throughout the book. That’s one key marker
that her analysis shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Fleisher never said Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, but it should
come as no surprise that he would mention both in the same statement. The 9/11 attacks were a key justification for the invasion
of Iraq because they demonstrated the danger of allowing regimes with ties to terrorism to pursue weapons of mass destruction.
Thomas omits another inconvenient
fact: If the administration’s goal was to convince the public that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, it did
a very poor job. CNN took a poll right after Sept. 11th that showed that 78 percent of Americans believed
that it was at least somewhat likely that Saddam Hussein was involved. CNN asked the same question in March of 2003. This time, only 51 percent thought that Saddam Hussein played
a role. Fleisher’s “repetition” of the “falsehood” — a falsehood he never told —
resulted in a 30-percent decrease in the number of Americans who believed Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11.
is Thomas entirely truthful about Joe Wilson and his prewar intelligence claims. In a chapter on “heroic leakers,”
During the summer of 2003,
someone decided to reveal to reporters that former ambassador Joseph Wilson’s wife was an undercover CIA agent. Wilson
had been a vocal critic of the Bush administration’s reasons for waging war on Iraq, discrediting the administration’s
assertion that Iraq had bought yellowcake uranium from Africa.
Wilson attacked the administration’s
credibility, but he did not discredit anything. Although he (and Thomas) implied otherwise, the administration never claimed
that Iraq actually bought yellowcake from Africa. Bush only said that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from Africa — an assertion which held up rather well.
In a chapter ironically titled “Spinning the News,” Thomas
spins the facts about a June 28, 2005 speech Bush gave at Fort Bragg, North Carolina:
In the speech before seven
hundred or so in the U.S. army stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, the president’s “stay the course”
words didn’t elicit much of a response from those watching their commander in chief in person – so Bush’s
advance team initiated applause for the televised event.
But an exchange at the next day’s White House press briefing clarified the matter. A reporter asked then-press secretary Scott McClellan:
A Bragg PAO told me that
the White House had left somewhat ambiguous how the troops should comport themselves during the speech last night, that he
didn't want a big pep rally with the rousing hooahs that you always get at most of these base speeches. But then, at the same
time, you weren't really expecting that there wouldn't be any applause, and that the person who went up to instruct the troops
on protocol sort of overinterpreted what the White House was looking for. Is that a fair assessment?
The troops didn’t applaud
because they had been instructed not to. The White House staff instigated one round of applause because the person
who instructed the troops not to cheer went overboard. This exchange took place during the White House briefing, which Thomas
Besides the multiple instances in which Thomas distorts the truth in order to make her arguments,
Watchdogs of Democracy? also suffers from Thomas’s exaggerations about the so-called “obsequious press
during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.” In the chapter “Lapdogs of the Press,” she makes roughly the
same accusations that Eric Boehlert made in his book Lapdogs, which I’ve written about before. According to their logic, the press should have given Saddam the benefit of
the doubt when he told inspectors he had given up his desires to obtain WMDs.
Thomas writes that in the run-up to
the war in Iraq, reporters should have asked questions more “tough questions” like the ones she asked. She is
not too modest to provide some examples:
Helen: Does he know of any
connection with the current fight against terrorism by Iraq? Does he have any evidence?
Ari: Well, when the President
referred to the axis of evil, and identified North Korea, Iran and Iraq, what the President was referring to is their –
not only their support of terrorism, which is plain – they are on the State Department list of terrorist states –
but also their development of weapons of mass destruction, their willingness in the case of several of those nations to export
technology and material and provide weapons of mass destruction. And the President does fear the marrying of any of these
nations with terrorist organizations.
Helen: Well, we have
weapons of mass destruction and we don't permit any inspection.
Ari: Helen, if you're
suggesting that there's a moral equivalence between the United States' success in keeping the peace for 60 years with our
weapons and the actions of terrorists, I would urge you to reexamine that premise. I see no moral equivalence.
Helen: At the earlier briefing,
Ari, you said that the President deplored the taking of innocent lives. Does that apply to all innocent lives in the world?
And I have a follow-up.
Ari: I refer specifically
to a horrible terrorist attack on Tel Aviv that killed scores and wounded hundreds. And the President, as he said in his statement
yesterday, deplores in the strongest terms the taking of those lives and the wounding of those people, innocents in Israel.
Helen: My follow-up
is, why does he want to drop bombs on innocent Iraqis?
Thomas doesn’t seem to realize
that by including such examples, she weakens her own argument. No matter what Saddam’s actual weapons capabilities were,
few doubted he wanted to acquire them, and fewer still saw any similarities between Israel having weapons and a regime like
Saddam’s having them.
All these distortions and exaggerations would be harmless enough if journalists weren’t
actually taking them seriously. Unfortunately, the press has experienced a classic overcorrection in an effort to shake the
“lapdog” charge. The result, as the late Casper Weinberger and Wynton C. Hall point out in their new book Home of the Brave: Honoring the Unsung Heroes in the War on Terror, is a press that has covered the war in a relentlessly negative way for the past three years.
At times as I
was reading Watchdogs, I must confess that I found Thomas’s anecdotes from past administrations interesting
and funny. But her passages about the current administration were so inaccurate, it made me highly skeptical about everything
else in the book. It made me think of one of the many clichés Thomas uses liberally: If you’re mother says she loves
you, check it out. Especially if your mother is Helen Thomas.
May 7: President and Laura Bush are greeted by two children after they land in the Netherlands.
Bush Visits Baltic States Despite Russia's Objections
"We will not repeat the mistakes of other generations, appeasing
or excusing tyranny, and sacrificing freedom in the vain pursuit of stability," the president said. "We have learned our lesson;
no one's liberty is expendable. In the long run, our security and true stability depend on the freedom of others." Bush singled
out the 1945 Yalta agreement signed by Roosevelt in a speech opening a four-day trip focused on Monday's celebration in Moscow
of the 60th anniversary of Nazi Germany's defeat.
Examining the bias of Dan Rather that showed itself in
the reports he read as news, just the way many of the other 'news' reports do, but then I'm just imagining it. You decide.
Rather reports on Bush/Cheney ticket
“In the presidential campaign, the official announcement and first photo-op
today of Republican George Bush and his running mate Richard Cheney. Democrats were quick to portray the ticket as quote ‘two
Texas oilmen’ because Cheney was chief of a big Dallas-based oil supply conglomerate. They also blast Cheney’s
voting record in Congress as again, quote, ‘outside the American mainstream’ because of Cheney’s votes against
the Equal Rights for Women Amendment, against a woman’s right to choose abortion -- against abortion as Cheney prefers
to put it -- and Cheney’s votes against gun control. Republicans see it all differently, most of them hailing Bush’s
choice and Cheney’s experience.”
-- Dan Rather, CBS Evening News, July 25, 2000.
Rather reports on Gore/Lieberman
“Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore officially introduced
his history-making running mate today, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. History-making because Lieberman is of Jewish
heritage and faith. The two started running right away. In their first joint appearance they gave a preview of the Gore-Lieberman
fight-back, come-back strategy. Their message: They represent the future, not the past, and they are the ticket of high moral
standards most in tune with real mainstream America.”
-- Dan Rather, CBS Evening News, August 8,
Q Mr. President, in the debate over Dr. Rice's confirmation, Democrats came right out and accused you and
the administration of lying in the run-up to the war in Iraq. Republicans, in some cases, conceded that mistakes have been
made. Now that the election is over, are you willing to concede that any mistakes were made? And how do you feel about --
The president then talked about Dr. Rice, but that wasn't good enough for the reporter. Q No reaction
to the lying? No reaction? (Laughter.) THE PRESIDENT: Is that your question? The answer is, no. Next. So
this reporter thinks that because some Republicans admitted mistakes, that the false accusations of Democrats about lies had
to be justified! Simply another example of liberal media bias that they insist doesn't exist. "No reaction to the lying?"
he urges, without ever engaging the idea that there were no lies? Or that the very Democrats he refers
to said exactly the same things the Bush Administration said about Iraq? No bias, yeah right!
At President Bush's press conference yesterday, ABC News (search) reporter Terry Moran (search) described the case of a Jordanian activist, Ali Hattar, who Moran said had been arrested and charged with slander for promoting
a boycott of U.S. goods. Moran called it an "abuse of human rights," and invited the President to condemn it, saying, "If
you won't, sir, then what ... do your fine words [about freedom] mean?"
President Bush said he was unaware of the case. He was in good company. The Hattar case appears never to have been
mentioned by any news outlet in the U.S., including Moran's own network, that is, until Moran asked his question.
Oh, and one more thing. Jordanian officials claim Hattar was not arrested for encouraging a boycott of U.S. goods,
but for claiming that Jordan was buying weapons from the U.S. and using them against the Jordanian people. As time passes, these liberal media pundits are finding it harder to hide their political bias in their news?
"But Dowd was talking about two different passes without telling
her readers (a process now known in journalism schools as "Dowdification"). Gannon didn't have a permanent pass; he had only
a daily pass. Almost anyone can get a daily pass – even famed Times fantasist Maureen Dowd could have gotten one of
those. A daily pass and a permanent pass are altogether different animals. The entire linchpin of Dowd's column was a lie.
(And I'm sure the Times' public editor will get right on Dowd's deception.)"
Care More About Gannon Than Jordan, Many Softballs for Clinton "SENSITIVE SOFTBALLS....Eighty-something self-employed reporter
Sarah McClendon yelled the suggestion that Clinton had been worse than assassinated: "Sir, will you tell us why you think
people have been so mean to you? Is it a conspiracy? Is it a plan? They treat you worse than they treated Abe Lincoln."
"The government has announced sweeping powers to impose house arrest on terrorism suspects regardless of
nationality, replacing a policy of jailing foreigners without trial that had been thrown out by a court." My,
my, even the British now see the need for political protection from terrorism in their country that is similar to the Patriot
Washington Post: Aid Grows Amid Remarks About President's Absence. The first paragraph of this story:
The Bush administration more than doubled
its financial commitment yesterday to provide relief to nations suffering from the Indian Ocean tsunami, amid complaints that
the vacationing President Bush has been insensitive to a humanitarian catastrophe of epic proportions.
'Amid complaints that the vacationing President Bush'...strange, later in this story they
actually confirm what I thought about the President's 'vacation': Earlier yesterday, White House spokesman Trent Duffy
said the president was confident he could monitor events effectively without returning to Washington or making public statements
in Crawford, where he spent part of the day clearing brush and bicycling. Explaining the about-face, a White House official
said: "The president wanted to be fully briefed on our efforts. He didn't want to make a symbolic statement about 'We feel
your pain.' " That's right, his 'vacation' was in Crawford...at his own ranch! Liberals refuse
to accept (because they can always use it as an attack on the President) that when he is at the ranch, he is still working!
But his spokesman did get in an excellent jab at Clinton who wasted little time commenting on the situation..."
It is really important that somebody take the lead in this," Clinton said. Maybe he's just never
heard of the Red Cross before. Yeah, just like 'Chucky' the nightmare is back!
Question and Answer session with Kofi Annan: Mr. Secretary, picking up on
Richard's question, I think a lot of people are asking exactly why you waited three days on vacation in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, before you decided to fly back to New
York in the face of this extraordinary crisis. Could you give us a full explanation of your thinking on that? Secondly, what kind of signal does that 72-hour delay send
to the nations to which you are now appealing for greater help?
SG: First of all, there was action. It wasn't inaction.
We live in a world where you can operate from wherever you are. You know the world we live in now. You don't have to be physically
here to be dealing with the leaders and the Governments I have been dealing with. You don't have to be physically here to
be discussing with some of the agencies that we have done. I came back here because we have reached
a level that I wanted to have meetings with all the people that I have met with today. So, we have taken action. And
I don't have to be sitting in my office to take action. I think the same goes for you in your profession.
Does anything more need to be said?
Former International Development Secretary Clare Short: Bush 'Undermining UN with Aid Coalition'. She seems to think that, “Only really the UN can do that job.” And yet, there would be no UN without American
funding. JOHN PODHORETZ gets to the
heart of the truth about this matter in his editorial, IT'S ABOUT THE TRAGEDY - NOT MORE BUSH-BASHING.
Don't Be Stupid...Stupid!
The National Organization for Women . . . said separate classrooms are a dangerous step backwards--reinforcing
stereotypes and breeding sexism.
"I think it's very difficult to make separate equal, even if you were to have the same teachers and the same curriculum,
you don't have the same lively exchange and debate that you have if you leave out an entire gender," said Kim Gandy, NOW's
Isn't Gandy inadvertently making the case for the traditional two-parent family and against single motherhood?
Just read what the media thinks if a fair description of Mel Gibson's movie, The Passion Of The
Christ: Gibson, who wrote, directed and produced the blood-drenched film about the last hours in the life of Jesus, likewise spent relatively little on commercial advertising to promote "The Passion" before its theatrical release. Blood-drenched, not emotionally powerful... No, there is no liberal media!
Robert Arail from The State paper in South Carolina
Superman could have walked again with a shot of anti-freeze! Where's John Edwards
when you need him?