April 30, 2004 - April 23, 2004
Friday, April 30, 2004
. Now that Ted Koppel has figured out how to attract attention
to himself during sweeps week, we have been trying to imagine what it will
be like to see him honoring the Forgers (Ch.14.17-26)
by reading their names for half an hour. To be honest, we never watch the show anymore because
it's on opposite The West Wing
(on Bravo), which is irresistible
for its vision of a presidency so capable that its secretaries of defense
and state are but bit parts, far less important in formulating national
policy than the menopausal whims of the First Lady. How can tawdry reality
compete with that? So to refresh our memories about Ted we dug into the
archives of Shuteye Nation, where the names are always changed to protect
the guilty. Here's what we said back in the year 2000.
Ted Koppule. The sheer size of his head is stupefying.
It's so awe-inspiringly huge that no one has ever been able to listen to
a word he says. Maybe that's why he always gives the impression that he's
talking to himself, for his own amusement, but really really loud. It gives
you the feeling that if you could listen to him, he's being kind
of wry and witty and cogent, though loud. But it might be that he's just
reading the phone book off the teleprompter, really loud. His show is called
and did we mention that his head is just shockingly enormous? Oh.
This doesn't seem to bode well for tonight's
ceremony, does it?
Here's someone who treats Ted somewhat less respectfully than we do. Not
that we approve.
OF SHUTEYE NATION... While we were rummaging through the K's looking
for the entry on Ted the Head, we also stumbled across the entries for
two other guys who are very much in the news of the moment. One of them
just walked out of the big meeting he had been clamoring for at the top
of his lungs. The other just invited an anti-semitic demagogue to a big
meeting the Democrats have planned for this summer. Which is which? Read
the entries from the year 2000 edition of Who's Who and figure it out for
Bob Kerree. Is this maybe the tall craggy senator with
the tiny brain? Or is it the Veetnam war hero senator with the tiny brain?
One of them is from Machusetts. Nobody knows where the other one is from.
Or if you do, please let us know.
John Kerree. Is this maybe the Veetnam war hero senator with
the short attention span? Or is it the tall craggy senator with the memory
good enough to hold one talking point? One of them is from Machusetts.
Nobody knows where the other one is from. Or if you do, please let
That clears everything up nicely, don't you think?
Thursday, April 29, 2004
The Real American Arrogance
In today's edition of the Chicago Tribune, columnist Steve
Chapman asks, "Where is the loyal opposition to the war?"He thinks
it's awful that the only candidate demanding an American withdrawal from
Iraq is Ralph Nader. He's a former Harvard Crimson editor, so he
must be smart, right? (Pause for extended laughter from the audience.)
(More laughter, while I make gestures to calm the audience down so that
I can continue.) He makes the case that the situation in Iraq is complicated
and difficult, that American resources are stretched thin, and that therefore
we should... what? Pull out our troops, close our eyes, put our fingers
in our ears, and start whistling very loudly until the whole unpleasant
situation goes away.
This is the kind of reasoning we have come to expect from the liberal
intellectual rationalists who look down their noses at dimwits like George
W. Bush. They believe that reality must conform itself to the dictates
of logic. They believe that for every advocacy position, there must be
an opposing argument. And according to their peculiar rules of logic, they
believe that any position taken by someone they identify as the opposition
must be wrong and should be countered. Thus, if there is a pro-war position,
there must be an anti-war position. They further believe that every poor
outcome is necessarily the result of a poor decision, which means that
it's wrong to attempt anything unless a good outcome is assured ahead of
time. If the war is going poorly, then the decision to go to war was, ipso
facto, a poor decision.
The problem with their view is that reality does not conform itself
to the dictates of logic. There are things we must do without knowing that
we will succeed. There are even things we must do without knowing they
are even possible to do. A father sees his child fall into river rapids.
He must try to save the child with every resource he has. He does not know
that he can save the child. He does not know that it is possible to save
the child. But he must act as if it is possible.
The stance of liberal intellectuals like Steve Chapman with regard to
the war on terror is akin to that of a parent who observes his child sliding
away in the current and, instead of leaping in to attempt a rescue, constructs
a series of arguments about why he is right to stand on the bank and watch
his child drown. He's not a strong swimmer. He's just eaten a big lunch.
The current is very strong. The child had been warned not to go near the
water. And just possibly, given what he knows about his wife, the child
isn't even his.
The last argument speaks to the liberal pretense that the war in Iraq
is not part of the war against terrorism. For this to be true, the following
statements all have to be true. (In statistics this is called a dependent
series. The odds of each statement being true have to be multiplied together
to arrive at the odds of every statement being true. Try it with three
coin flips to determine the odds of getting three heads in a row. Adds
up fast, doesn't it?) 1. The terrorist threat consists only of al Qaeda.
2. Saddam Hussein provided neither help to nor cover for al Qaida. 3. There
is no way in which the removal of Saddam Hussein hinders al Qaida even
Note that we are talking about true odds, not evidence as we define
it in a court of law. For example, the definition of the terrorist threat
to America as al Qaida only is mere semantic game-playing. Everyone knows
(yeah, I mean everyone) (and I mean knows, too) that the
terrorist threat is Islamo-fascism. Another demonstration of logic: all
members of al Qaida are Islamo-fascists; not all Islamo-fascists are members
of al Qaida. Hence the first statement above is false, meaning that it
has a .000001 probability of being true. With regard to the second statement,
there is plenty of evidence to indicate that it cannot be a certainty and,
therefore, has less than a 100-percent probability of being true. If we
see a Boeing 707 parked in the desert as a training tool for hijackers,
records of correspondence between Saddam functionaries and al Qaida leaders,
meetings that may have occurred between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaida
terrorists, it's true we may not have proof we'd put to a grand jury, but
we have the equivalent of spotting our child's footprint on the river bank
-- enough to inspire alarm. The third statement cannot be true either.
The fact is that even the most autocratic governments in the Arab world
have stepped up their efforts against al Qaida since the war in Iraq began.
This alone is a hindrance, meaning that the third statement has a .000001
probability of being true. Conservatively, then, the odds that the war
in Iraq are not part of the war on terror are .000001 x .99 (?) x .000001
But that's not really the liberal argument. Claiming that the war in
Iraq is not part of the war on terror is merely the result of the backward
logic cited previously. The war in Iraq must be opposed because there is
such a thing as a pro-war position, and the pro-war position has been taken
by George W. Bush. In other words, a position taken by Bush must be a wrong
position, and therefore the right position is the opposite. That's the
triumph of liberal rationalism we are dealing with.
Once the "right" position has been decided, we can use the ordinary
inevitabilities of reality to buttress our position. Everything messy about
the workings of life becomes proof of the rightness of our logic. If the
war is hard and costly, we shouldn't fight it. If the Arabs complain, it
is the war that has made them hate us. (If they didn't hate us already
why did they attack us or cheer in the notorious "Arab Street" when al
Qaida attacked us?) If any Americans die in the war, the war shouldn't
be fought. If any Iraqis die in the war, the war shouldn't be fought. If
the U.N. criticizes us, the war shouldn't be fought.
The most hypocritical part of the whole process is that it manipulates
reality to define reality itself out of existence. It's as if the rationalists
believe that the right set of exclusive semantic definitions can undo the
very existence of a terrorist threat against the United States. "Yes, there's
a terrorist threat, but it isn't Saddam Hussein, it isn't Syria, it isn't
Qaddafi, it isn't Hezbollah, it isn't Hamas, it isn't the Iranian mullahs,
it isn't... well, anyone?" Except that it's all of them. Which is where
the liberals counter with the tacit second part of their construct, which
is that there really isn't anything we can do to win this war, because
no matter what we do, we will further inflame the enemy, anger our so-called
allies, lose American lives, spend billions of dollars, and none of this
sacrifice offers any assurance that we we will eventually prevail. Therefore
we should do... nothing?
In a way this is an All-American position. We're used to being effective,
choosing our battles, and proceeding in a spirit of caution and compromise.
If a benefit becomes too costly, however we define the benefit and the
cost, we forego the benefit. This is a useful practice in economic decision
making. It's suicidal in matters of life and death. When you're facing
a huge amorphous enemy who really does want to kill you, then the cost
of fighting him is merely the cost. It's not part of a benefit equation
any longer. If the Arabs keep hating us because we are fighting Islamo-fascism,
that's a reality to be dealt with. If our allies are craven and treacherous
and corrupt, that's another reality to be dealt with. If Americans die
and the occupation of Iraq is prolonged and exorbitantly expensive, that's
just part of the struggle that was thrust upon us on September 11, 2001.
Returning to Steve Chapman's question, there is no such thing
as "the loyal opposition to the war." That's the real problem the Democrats
face. All their instincts tell them the child in the river can't be saved
and logically shouldn't be. Their instincts are wrong. There are many times
in life when we must attempt the impossible in defiance of reason and personal
pain. It is sheer arrogance to pretend that it's loyal to make the government
of the United States fight a war for national survival with one arm --
that is, half the electorate -- tied behind its back. The worse the odds
are, the more we need everyone to share the burden.
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
SCHUMER AND COMPANY
. Nat Hentoff of The Village Voice
carrying on what probably seemed to him a one-man campaign to repeal the
Democrat smear of Bush judicial nominee Charles Pickering. In his column
this week Hentoff recounts the ugly history of the combined efforts of
the NAACP, the editorial board of the New York Times
, and congressional
Democrats like Schumer and Kennedy to vilify Pickering as a racist.
The truth is otherwise, as at least two NYT reporters discovered by going
to Mississippi and interviewing the people who are knowledgeable about
the judge's life and record. Someone else who has discovered it is Mike
, to whom Hentoff gives full credit for digging deeply enough
to get at the truth in an upcoming 6o Minutes segment. We've made fun of
Mike here before, but this time he's done well. Hentoff's next column will
provide more details about the case that inspired the Dem smear tactics.
He closes the first installment thus:
But first, this exchange during 60 Minutes between Clarence
Magee, who heads the NAACP in Hattiesburg, and Charles Evers, brother of
the murdered civil rights leader Medgar Evers.
PUMPKINHEAD STRIKES AGAIN
Evers: "You know that Charles Pickering is a man [who] helped us break
the Ku Klux Klan?"
Magee said he didn't know that.
Evers: "I know that. Do you know about the young black man that was
accused of robbing the young white woman [at knifepoint, when Pickering
was a defense trial lawyer]? So Charles Pickering took the case. [It] came
to trial, and [Pickering] won the case, and the young man became free."
Magee didn't know that either.
Evers: "But did you also know that Charles Pickering is the man who
helped integrate [the] churches [in his hometown]?"
Again, the answer was no.
Evers: "Well, you don't know a thing about Charles Pickering."
Neither does Ted Kennedy, who said of Pickering's recent appointment,
"[It's] an insult to every African American."
sad irony. This week MSNBC's Hardball is promoting the show's seventh anniversary.
The celebratory graphics feature a huge Seven-Ball to remind us of the
"hard" in Hardball. But on Tuesday night Chris
interviewed John Kerry and couldn't have been more unctuous
and helpful to the senator if he had ceded his microphone to Larry King.
Not only did he fail to confront Kerry about his series of embarrassing
flip-flops on medals, SUVs, and records disclosures, but he also fed him
a series of pointed setups (volleyball, anyone?) designed to enable the
senator to hammer Bush, Cheney, et al without having seemed to initiate
the attacks himself. It was a disgraceful performance for someone who claims
to be a journalist. Matthews permitted Kerry to repeat the baseless charge
that Bush and Cheney had questioned his patriotism and that it was they
who were leading the charge on the medal controversy. To this falsehood,
Matthews merely responded, "Right."
ECHOES OF WILLIE.
If you missed it, look for another opportunity to see the documentary Weather
shown last night on PBS. It was interesting and illuminating, despite the
flaws to be expected in a work such as this. The more repellent excesses of the
radical era were glossed over, in particular the criminal machinations
of the Black Panthers, and the propaganda of the time was visually condoned
with all the most extreme footage ever filmed of the Vietnam War, including
vivid images of the My Lai massacre. We got to see the same old excerpts
from Gimme Shelter, in which Hell's
Angels beat a spectator to death while the Stones played on stage at
Altamont, and we got a film reenactment of the New York townhouse explosion
that took the lives of three Weatherman bomb makers. Worse, it seemed we
were being asked to feel sorrow for their deaths, which occurred while
they were planning to kill hundreds of U.S. Army soldiers and their dates
at a Fort Dix dance.
What redeemed the documentary were some of the interviews with former
members of the Weather Underground, all of whom eventually turned themselves
in after nearly a decade of political bombings. Interspersed with narration
by the same sweet-voiced woman who always provides the voiceovers for PBS
political documentaries are on-camera commentaries by the surviving Weather
People -- including Mark Rudd (organizer of the 1968 riots at Columbia
University), Bernadine Dohrn, Bill Ayers, Brian Flanagan, Naomi Jaffe,
David Gilbert, and Laura Whitehorn -- who talk about their past and present
perspectives on their lives as outlaw radicals. They're moving into late
middle age now, and it's fascinating to watch them trying to make sense
of their youthful selves parading, posing, and ranting in the filmed
artifacts of the time. The only really condemning voice we hear is that
of Todd Gitlin, himself a former leader of the infamous SDS, who nevertheless
was shocked and disgusted when the Weatherman "hijacked" the SDS and transformed
it into a vehicle for political terrorism.
But we do hear voices of regret and even shame. Oddly, there seems an almost
complete schism between the perspectives of the two sexes of Weathermen.
The women, including the once fiery spokesperson Bernadine Dohrn, seem
sorry that the Weather Underground failed to make any real difference.
Yet they remain politically active, principally in feminist and environmental
causes, and they seem to yearn for a return of the heady days of revolution.
Naomi Jaffe and Laura Whitehorn both said on camera that they would do
it all again. The men were a different story, with the possible exception
of Bill Ayers, who is married to Bernadine Dohrn and and didn't speak with
the same depth of emotion as the others. David Gilbert is serving a life
sentence in prison for a post-Weatherman crime he committed with an organization
called the Black Liberation Army. He pointed out that he has not complained
about his sentence and implied that he has gotten what he deserved. More
interesting still are the perspectives of Brian Flanagan and Mark Rudd.
Both appear to look at the defining events of their lives with a kind of
shocked puzzlement. They use terms like "crazed," "kind of crazy," and
"overwhelmed by the war" as they grope for explanations of their actions.
Flanagan makes open comparisons between their state of mind and that of the
9/11 terrorists. "When you believe you have right on your side, you can
do terrible things," he says. Mark Rudd is candid about his own anguish.
"I feel shame and guilt," he confesses. "We were full of hatred. I clung to my hatred."
The documentary ends with a surprising snippet of Brian Flanagan, who
now owns a bar in New York City, appearing as a contestant on Jeopardy.
He won $21,000. Some of the others are doing well for themselves, too,
by the look of it. Bill Ayers is a university professor (of course),
and his wife Bernadine Dohrn is a lecturer at Northwestern University Law
School. Mark Rudd teaches math at a community college in New Mexico.
The documentary doesn't openly comment on how we should look at all
this. That's our job. I personally resist the implied conclusion that the
more psychotic fringes of the antiwar movement represent a troubling chapter
of our national history that is now closed. The problem is, it isn't really
closed. The hatefulness of leftist political propaganda is never far from
center stage anymore. It was on display most recently at the so-called
"March for Women's Lives," where the legacy of SDS and the Weathermen was
boldly evident in the placards asserting that Barbara Bush should have
had an abortion, and in the harsh Dohrn-like screed delivered by ex-college-radical
Hillary Clinton. Mark Rudd didn't tell us what all he was sorry for. I
wonder how far his sense of responsibility goes. I wonder where and whether
POSTSCRIPT. Yes, the press has wanted
to put a pretty face on the ladies' little outing in Washington over the
weekend. That's why so many pretty, famous faces have been featured in
The march was literally star-studded, with celebrities turning
up to show their support for abortion rights and to entertain the massive
crowd gathered at the Mall. Susan Sarandon, Whoopi Goldberg, Ashley Judd,
Kathy Najimy and Cybill Shepard were among some of the most well-known
to address the crowd. The March Celebrity Coalition also included Carly
Simon, Christina Aguilera, Kirsten Dunst, Calista Flockhart, Salma Hayek,
Ewan McGregor, Demi Moore, Charlize Theron, Uma Thurman, Kristen Davis,
and many others. Lesbian comedian Kate Clinton hosted the morning portion
of the program. Both Ani DiFranco and the Indigo Girls treated adoring
fans to brief performances after the march. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton
and dozens of top pols, including lesbian Rep. Tammy Baldwin, also spoke
to the crowd.
The above is from an account in the Windy City News. The authors can't
restrain their glee, however, and do boast of some doings that many of
us might not be as enthusiastic about:
The march got underway around noon. The crowd inched off the
Mall onto 14th Street, decked out in pro-choice and anti-Bush buttons,
stickers, and t-shirts, and carrying signs with every imaginable slogan.
Some of the most clever included “Keep your rosaries out of my ovaries!”
and “The only Bush I trust is my own!” A group of lesbian supporters from
Idaho held up a homemade sign reading: “Idahomos for Choice!” Just when
marchers may have started to grow weary from hours on their feet, they
were met by anti-choicers lining Pennsylvania Avenue, brandishing huge
photos of mutilated fetuses and shouting “Baby Killer!” as marchers walked
past. The opposition only served to energize the pro-choice contingent,
who were quick to shout back, and due to sheer numbers, were often much
For a couple of other viewpoints on the proceedings see Kathleen Parker
Photos by Meghan Streit and Materville Studios
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
He didn't, of course. Even Woodward's new book about
the war demonstrates that the President gave direct orders that the intelligence
about WMDs not be overstated. But to Democrats, not finding WMDs after
the fall of Iraq is the same thing as lying about them before the invasion
of Iraq. This is what we call a silly-gism: A=B and G=H; therefore A=Q.
Except that the WMD question has not been finally resolved. A pair of fascinating
articles by Kenneth Timmerman in the current issue of Insight contain plenty
of evidence that Iraq's WMDs do exist and, to a significant extent, have
been found. The first article is headlined Saddam's
WMDs Have Been Found
. It begins:
New evidence out of Iraq suggests that the U.S. effort to track
down Saddam Hussein's missing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) is having
better success than is being reported. Key assertions by the intelligence
community that were widely judged in the media and by critics of President
George W. Bush as having been false are turning out to have been true after
all. But this stunning news has received little attention from the major
media, and the president's critics continue to insist that "no weapons"
have been found.
In virtually every case - chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic
missiles - the United States has found the weapons and the programs that
the Iraqi dictator successfully concealed for 12 years from U.N. weapons
The article is long, detailed, and well worth reading. The companion
piece is titled Iraqi
Weapons in Syria
. It includes extensive documentation of what have
long been regarded as rumors that Saddam transferred large amounts of his
banned weapons into the Syria's Bekaa Valley just prior to the onset of
hostilities. There are multiple confirming sources for this intelligence:
Reports of Iraqi WMD winding up in Syria were not just coming
from the Israelis. In October 2003, retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper,
head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, revealed that vehicle
traffic photographed by U.S. spy satellites indicated that material and
documents related to Saddam's forbidden WMD programs had been shipped to
Syria before the war. It was no surprise that the United States and its
allies had not found stockpiles of forbidden weapons in Iraq, Clapper told
a breakfast briefing given to reporters in Washington. "Those below the
senior leadership saw what was coming, and I think they went to extraordinary
lengths to dispose of the evidence," he said.
"We have had six or seven credible reports of Iraqi weapons being moved
into Syria before the war," a senior administration official tells Insight.
"In every case, the U.S. intelligence community sought to discount or discredit
Timmerman also suggests that pro-Syrian bureaucrats in the state department
and intelligence community are responsible for covering up the story.
is D-Day for Pennsylvania senator Arlen Specter. He's facing a strong conservative
challenger in Pat Toomey, who's nearly even with Specter in the polls despite
the latter's vigorous support from President Bush and conservative Pennsylvania
senator Rick Santorum. In honor of Specter's long and, well, long career,
we've decided to reprint an excerpt from the Shuteye Nation Who's Who from
the year 2000 (published by our sister site, boomerbible.com). Bear in
mind that all the names are changed in Shuteye Nation to protect the guilty.
Arlene Spectator. Republian Senator from Pennslavania
and all-time champion bore of the Senate. Spectator can't say good morning
in less than half an hour, and when it's his turn to interrogate a witness
in a senate subcommittee hearing, everyone immediately goes home and waits
a week before returning. All that verbiage conceals a razor sharp mind
the size and depth of a razor blade. In all the many years he has been
orating nonstop in the halls of government, he has never figured out that
the people who are for all the good things he's so strongly in favor
of are the Democratics. When and if he finally does figure it out, his
cry of outrage will probably outlast the heat of the sun.
And our observations are pretty mild compared to what others have been
saying, notably Ann Coulter
Monday, April 26, 2004
. The picture of the big crowd below is today's New York Times
front page. See the big crowd?
That is a picture of a bunch of people who think abortion is the greatest thing ever. They called the rally
the "March for Women's Lives."
The next picture is the New York Times
front page from Friday,
January 23, 2004 -- the day after the pro-life rally marking the 31st anniversary of the Supreme Court's supreme
finding that a woman -- above all other creatures -- is permitted to kill someone as long as that someone can't
vote or organize a rally. Do you see the big crowd, which numbered over 100,000? Neither do we.
I'm bringing this up not because I thought the New York Times
was an objective source of information, but because it seems they have abandoned even the pretense of objectivity. They don't feel the need to fake it anymore.
Maybe they're getting as tired of the charade as we are of pointing it out.
What I'd like to see is a single picture of a single abortion. There are four thousand performed every day in the
United States; maybe the New York Times
has a pool photographer near one of them. Just one picture so
we know what all these fine, kind, tender, loving, in-touch-with-their-feelings women are scratching their heads
over as they choose
Saturday, April 24, 2004
Someone wrote in to request that something be done with these two photos.
If I could do it without staining the sacrifices of a true patriot, I would.
But I can't. So I won't.
MORE BOOK OF ED STUFF.
The mainstream media are having a hard time with recent polls. They remind me of George Foreman in Zaire. Ali is lying against
the ropes, and the most fearsome body puncher of all time is whaling away
at the old man's belly. He has to be about to hit the canvas, doesn't he?
The testimony of Richard Clarke. Pow. The Ben Veniste assault-and-battery
on Condoleeza Rice. Pow. The 'uprising' in Iraq, dutifully rendered in
Vietnamese by the Times, Post, and the three Russian bears called ABC,
NBC, and CBS. Pow, Pow, Pow. The mugging of W at his nationally
televised primetime press conference. Pow, Pow, Pow, Pow, Pow, Pow. But
then the electorate hands in its scorecards and the President has gained
ground against Kerry. Columnist Mark Steyn weighs in on this. He suggests
that the American people are capable of seeing past all the hysteria and
noting that George W. Bush is hardheaded and determined to defend his country
in a pro-active way in the wake of September 11:
The left resists this analysis. ''Resolve,'' they say, may
sound macho but it's also simplistic. Not necessarily. In today's phony-baloney
world, nuanced inertia is the simple choice, the default mode of international
diplomacy, of the U.N. and the European Union. When you dig into what's
holding up American resolve on Iraq, the people seem to be making more
subtle distinctions than their elites. Thus, the president's numbers aren't
affected by the sob sisters of CNN's Baghdad bureau filing their heartrending
reports on how thousands of Baathist apparatchiks haven't been paid since
they were made redundant from Saddam's Department of Genital Mutilation
and Electrode Clamping last April. U.S. public opinion is hardheaded about
this: The welfare of the Iraqi people is a bonus, but the welfare of the
American people is the primary objective. That's why the United States
went to war.
That's the problem for the Democrats. If ''resolve'' is the issue, can
you beat it with ''nuance''? If I had to name the definitive Kerry campaign
headline it would be this, from Britain's (left-wing, Kerry-backing) Guardian
last week: ''Kerry Says His 'Family' Owns SUV, Not He.'' That Chevy Suburban
in the yard has nothing to do with him. Who you gonna believe? A respected
senator or your lying eyes? His statement is true in the sense that
his ''family'' (i.e., Teresa) also owns the house and the grounds, and
indeed a big chunk of his presidential campaign. But it's hard to claim
that your powers of diplomatic persuasion would have won over the French
and Germans when you can't even win over your ''family.'' And do Americans
want to hand over responsibility for Iraq to someone who won't even take
responsibility for the car in his driveway?
THE BOOK OF ADAM.
We've been fortunate enough to obtain a closeup photograph of Mrs. Kerry's
Suburban, which should prove that John has nothing to do with it. He would
never be mean spirited enough to drive this vehicle, would he?
FORGERS AGAIN. I
guess we were right about the dog that ate John Kerry's military records. (See our entry for April 20, 2004, below.)
Apparently, the Kerry website posted a tale of the senator's exploits
that predated his actual swift boat command. It takes a fine officer to
be responsible for events that occurred before he reached the battlefield.
That's why we're so pleased to have unearthed this rare photo of Kerry
commanding the swift boat that carried General Washington across the Delaware.
Friday, April 23, 2004
. Michael Moore is a big fat
I'm sorry. I don't know why I said that. This kind of language is simply
not appropriate to use -- on liberals. I apologize. In recompense, I'll
offer Michael one free Harry
the "I am no manner of man at all"
model, extral large, seems like a good choice).
NEWS FROM THE BOOK OF
ED. Don Hewitt, producer of the CBS show 60
Minutes, has announced that he's leaning toward Kerry in the upcoming
"I would bet I'll probably vote for Kerry," Hewitt said late
Wednesday afternoon during an hour-long interview in his office on West
57th Street. "But I don't know that yet." Although Hewitt, 81, is widely
recognized as one of the giants of television news, he pretty much sounded
like just another skeptical, undecided American voter during our conversation.
"I know why I don't want to vote for George Bush," Hewitt said. "But I
don't know why I want to vote for Kerry. I don't know who he is." Hewitt
laments the outbreaks of terrorist attacks that have occurred since the
U.S. invaded Iraq 13 months ago. "If I should hold anything against George
Bush," Hewitt said, it was that the invasion "created more terrorists."
Hewitt was careful to stress that he had no Democratic or liberal political
leanings. "I don't vote parties," he said. "I'm an Eisenhower-Reagan Republican
and a Roosevelt-Kennedy Democrat."
Various of Hewitt's anchor mummies also weighed in with shocking announcements.
Mike Wallace asserted, in response to a reporter's question, that the sun
will probably come up tomorrow morning, or at least he's "80 percent sure
it will." Ed Bradley volunteered that he was probably the oldest network
anchorman sporting a diamond stud earring, although he "couldn't be completely
certain about that. You never know." And when challenged by an impertinent third-grader, Leslie Stahl
declared that two plus two probably equals four, "most of the time, anyway,
I think." Andy Rooney interrupted Ms. Stahl's math lesson to point out
that if he fell down, he probably couldn't get up, "not without help anyhow."
He refused to speculate about the odds of receiving such help.
We'll do our best to keep you posted on any other surprising announcements
issued by the stars of the Jurassic Network.
Back to Archive Index