Moore Doctors Headlines

We’ve known for a long time Rotundo Moore is a liar.
More proof arrived on my desk today in the form of a WhizBang post.

It seems a Florda newspaper noted itself being quoted for a story it never ran… and Moore apparently doctored a pic of the newpaper. Other blogs are all over the story, too…. First few I found were:

The Dead Pool
Right Side of the Rainbow
King of Fools
Sharp as a Marble
The American Mind
The Encyclopeteia

A few of them post the actual graphics.

ESPN has more.

Now, for 7.

McQ over at QandO points out…. “They oughta know it when they see it.”

He quotes a BBC report which says in part:

Gazeta Wyborcza reviewer Jacek Szczerba called the film a “foul pamphlet”.
He said it was too biased to be called a documentary and was similar to work by Nazi propaganda director Leni Riefenstahl.

“In criticising Moore, I have to admit that he has certain abilities – Leni Riefenstahl had them too,” Mr Szczerba said in his review.

The first new post at BitsBits is up. BitsBits is the location for my weekly long form posts. This week, the topic is “Targeting Protest”.

Is the DNC trying to hide from those who oppose it?
Or are they trying to project the image that everyone supports the Democrats?
Or are they muzzeling the heart and soul of the Democratic Party?

Read the link. You decide.

Also, read Blogs for Bush who has more on the subject. So does Right Wing News.

072504145930–Rochester, NY
It is, perhaps, fitting that this first column I’ve written directly to this new website, is being written as the Democrats are spinning up all systems in Boston for their coronation…. Errr… convention. The event, after all, provides us who are bloggers, with what can only be described as a target rich environment.

Well, frankly, it’s been somewhat less target rich than it might be. The assumed nominee, John Kerry, has been taking a decidedly low-key stance these last few weeks, apparently trying to give his detractors nothing to shoot at, so to speak. If you don’t say anything they can’t be critical of what you say. Thus the public debate over the worthiness of John Kerry for the office of President of these United States, and the validity of his stated policies, is once again strangled.

This kind of thinking apparently is also involved in the establishment of a so-called “Free Speech zone” which you see here. It’s so far away from the convention as to be laughable. There is no chance in hell the delegates will ever see this area, nor will they ever see the protests it contains… which in fact is it’s purpose. This is reinforced by the idea that the delegates aren’t even leaving Fleet Center for Meals; the DNC is providing. Apparently so they don’t interact with people who disagree with the DNC.

This point led to another protest from a local business owner, that I BitsBlogged about last week. The owner of one Pizza shop was forced to close his shop.. and left a sign on his shop, speaking his political mind. The Democrats are of course suing the owner, trying to get him to remove the sign… another attempt at the strangulation of protest.

It’s interesting to note that The Democrats, who have long complained about President Bush being isolated from the leftist Brownshirt Brigade, are now quietly about setting up and managing their own methods of strangling protest.

And isn’t that amazing? Consider that most forms of organized protest comes from the left…. Specifically, the FAR left. Think further; if the Democrats are so sure that they represent so great a number of people, how is it that they seek to stifle the free speech of those at the very root of their party?

Perhaps the Democrats are not willing to allow America to actually see and hear those at the root of their own party? People like these, for example, who showed up at the Funeral of President Ronald Reagan.:

Yes, my freinds, this is the heart and soul of the Democrat party. Undertsnadable why the Democrats don’t want you, the voter, to see this just before an election. Then too, they decidedly don’t want you to see it’s the heart and soul of their party to be drawing comparisons between Mr. Bush and Hitler, such as:

And, given the ovberwhemling support for our militaryt and Mr. Bush’s efforts in the Middle East, I suppose they’re not interested in you seeing the heart and soul of their party calling for Murder within the ranks of our military.

In looking at this (and many others that didn’t make the cut for bandwidth reasons) one can readily understand why it is that the Democrats don’t want to have the voice of the people…. People they claim support them… gets out. A real image problem for The DNC, I think. Apparently, so do they.

But more, now… Word on the street is the REAL people are showing up; Many, many pro-Bush protests are preparing to show up for the party… and they are decidedly an image problem for Kerry and Company. Folks like these, for example:

Perhaps the Democrat leaders are simply worried that their old friend… protest, will be used against them. Freedom, in their view, is apparently just ducky, so long is they come out on top.

The Democrats know that this week is all about image for them… and they need desperately, to control the image of them that is projected to the nation.

Which raises an interesting, and perhaps the central question for the next week;

Who will find themselves restricted to the ‘free speech zone” in Boston”?

Will it be the protestors bought and paid for by Millionaire George Soros? Will it be the members of Move-On.org, Or will the population of that so-called “Free Speech Zone” be limited to those, both left and right, who would cause red faces at the DNC, if their voices were actually allowed to be heard by America?

Oh.. and as a side note, what of the Union Picket lines? Are these not protests? After all, if the picket line is in the “Free Speech Zone” Democrats don’t have to cross the picket line.

Looks like by the end of this week, the Democrats with their actions and their double standards, will have provided us with a few targets, after all.

Instapundit gives us the lowdown on his Ketchup Taste testing results.

Amusing, Glenn, but who has to actually BUY the stuff? I’m still working on the 16,387 half-an-ounce foil packets I’ve been collecting over the last two years from various takeout orders. It’s like AOL disks… you’ll never run out of them.

WaPo: Millicent Kondracke Dies:

“Millicent Martinez Kondracke, 64, a psychotherapist whose struggle with Parkinson’s disease was chronicled in a book by her journalist husband, died July 22 at her home in Washington of complications due to her illness. ”

In a heart-tugging line from his book, “Saving Milly”, Columnist, editor and all around nice guy Mort Kondracke (who I’ve met twice) says:

“This is not the way I want the story to end. I want a medical miracle to save her. But even if there is none, our story will not end. However I lose Milly, if I lose Milly, memory will survive. . . . I will keep working to end Parkinson’s disease on her behalf, and I will hug her in my heart forever.”

I find myself with little to say, following such a line.  I will, then, merely add my own small voice to the many who have spoken on this point;

My heartfelt sympathies to Mort Kondracke and his family. Hold to your stated purpose, Mort. It’s the only meaningful thing any of us can do.

A few of those voices
Michelle Malkin
The American Mind
OTB
INDC Journal

NY Sun today comes up with a rather interesting read of a part of the 9/11 commission report that doesn’t show in the summary:

” In August of 2000, Mr. Berger was presented with another possible plan for attacking Mr. bin Laden.This time, the plan would be based on aerial surveillance from a “Predator” drone. Reports the commission: “In the memo’s margin,Berger wrote that before considering action, “I will want more than verified location: we will need, at least, data on pattern of movements to provide some assurance he will remain in place.

In other words, according to the commission report, Mr. Berger was presented with plans to take action against the threat of Al Qaeda four separate times … Spring 1998, June 1999, December 1999, and August 2000. Each time, Mr. Berger was an obstacle to action. Had he been a little less reluctant to act, a little more open to taking pre-emptive action, maybe the 2,973 killed in the September 11, 2001, attacks would be alive today. ”

And perhaps Berger wouldn’t have been trying to shove clasified documents, listing these missed chances into his socks, and shorts, huh?

Let’s recap;
Berger ran the security show in Clinton’s administration. Berger was also Kerry’s chief security advisor, and likley to be running the show in any (God Forbid) Kerry Administration. so along comes the 9/11 commission, threatening, in an election year to show the American people who had dropped all those golden opportunites to muzzle AlQuieda. Berger, and Clinton, thus threatening Kerry’s chances of being elected. So, Berger tries to remove said documents from the national archives, thus giving the Democrats the cover they needed… or so they figured.

And the connection between the Kerry and Clinton administrations is of great import;

Nobody has as yet explained to us the differences in foreign policy between the Clinton administration and any Kerry administration because there isn’t any…a point to which they tacitly admitted when they pulled their security plans the official Kerry Website the other day, following the story coming out about Berger stealing those damning clasified documents…. documents revealing this idiocy that was fatal so so many Americans. idiocy that rests with the Democrats alone.

Is this really the crowd the Americans want in office, again?

Blogs for Bush has more to say

Mona Charen: Democrats fight dirty

Mona’s worth your time always, but particularly today.

As fair a microcosm for environmental arguments as you’d want, is up over at Dan Drezner’s, with my comments to that thread posted here.

The topic s policy to reverse global warming.
I’m skeptical, to say the least, particularly given the report I posted here some days ago.

That still anyone thinks Kyoto, or any other action and or policy is going to affect our climate in any substantial way, is a wonder to me.

Let’s imagine, for a moment, that the report I posted is right; the sun is the cause of global warming. Would any of the policies being suggested… Kyoto, or anything else, be able to control the Earth’s temp in ANY amount?

For a long time, now, I’ve used as a part of my header, and my tagline, a saying:

Remember; those who tolerate everything, stand for nothing. What do YOU stand for?

Apparently a corollary of this is ‘Bipastisan stands for nothing.’

I’ve had the chance to read the 9/11 commission’s “Executive Summary” last night, and plan to tackle the larger volume of their report this weekend.  There are a number of thoughts that come to mind as I read this thing… The first of which is bipartisanship gets us nowhere.

Look; If the truth is what you’re after, you can’t be taking the extreme ends of the opinion about a given subject, and then simply draw a line down the exact middle between those extremes and call it the truth.  But this seemingly is what the commission has done. They’re so interested in being seen as non-partisan, that they apparently place that non-partisanship as a higher priority than actually answering the questions posed.

Well, are they being non-partisan, under that cloak of non-partisanship? There are several who have read the report who in my morning reading, don’t seem to think so. Boortz this morning is one of the louder examples, and says it better than most:

“So now we have this useless 575-page 9/11 Commission report.  The partisan document essentially condemns the war in Iraq by saying a failed Iraq in the wake of the U.S. invasion could become “breeding grounds for attacks against Americans at home.”  Apparently these idiots on this Commission believe we lost the war in Iraq.  They also don’t realize that Iraq was already a breeding ground for several attacks against Americans at home.  Saddam was harboring terrorists…this is a fact that cannot be denied.

The chairman of the Commission, Tom Kean, says we were unprepared.  Why were we unprepared?  Because Bill Clinton’s administration did nothing to fight terrorism, that’s why.  There’s real blame to go around here and they aren’t assigning it where it belongs.  The commission concluded that across the government there were “failures of imagination.”

‘Failures of imagination?’  More like failure of the terrorist-appeasing liberal Democrats that ran this country’s national security into the ground for eight years.

Boortz is correct of course.

E.D.Hill on FNC this morning makes the point that America, the voter, wasn’t thinking much of Terrorism, so some of the blame can be placed there, as well.. and she’s got a point.

But even there, think, people… How many of you heard about Usama BinLaden back in October of 1998 when Bill Clinton got that PDB laying out the threats against us?

Instead of spending the money on security, Clinton’s Democrats re-directed that money, that effort.  Michelle Malkin this morning goes to some lengths on the shorthanded intel agencies. So why were they so short handed, and under-funded? Because of a Clinton administration making light of it’s security tasks.

Michelle confirms what we’ve known for years… the intel agencies were going wanting. How is this? Bill Clinton and the Democrats wanted that money…. the so-called “peace dividend’ spent on socialist programs designed to buy votes.  Bill Clinton and the Democrats disregarded and heaped disdain on their task to keep us safe in the world.

To boot, of late we’re seeing evidence that the Clinton hacks have been trying to keep their actions or more correctly, their inactions, though this period, out of the limelight… they are in fact down right desperate to do so… ala Sandy Berger’s Document Storage system.  To listen to everyone who knows anything about Berger tell it, this is not a normal action for him. Such a foundational change in his actions suggests a certain desperation to keep the stolen documents, and the actions of the Democrats, including Berger, out of the light of day.

How can the people be blamed, here? In many ways, the President and the Congress set the national agenda. Not only did the Clinton misadministration ignore the threat, we were simply not told about this threat back in 98.  Which was Clinton’s JOB. Blaming the people in this case, reminds one of Jimmy Carter’s Malaise speech. What fabulous leadership!

And yes, I’ll agree…Mr. Bush shares some of that blame, but at least Mr. Bush was actually trying to address the threat, says the commission. Unlike Clinton, I would add. The commission, trying again to be bipartisan, has not addressed this very real and most key problem.

I’ll write more to this point this weekend, as I think on this some more.
But isn’t it time we placed the blame on the person who destroyed, in 8 years, this country’s ability to gather intel, and to defend itself, in pursuit of the great socialist wet dream?

In my reading so far, I’m not happy. I really must tell you, that the appearence is the members of the 9/11 panel stand more for bipartisanship, than they do for a secure America.

An interesting thought by way of E-mail. (I do get them, you know… in amongst all the hate mail, the spam, and so on, occasionally comes an interesting idea…)

Says my reader, calling himself GC:

“Let’s try a quote from someone:

“It’s a real conflict for me when I go to a concert and find out somebody in the audience is a Homosexual or Jew. It can cloud my enjoyment. I’d rather not know’.

So how does Ronstadt get a pass from the left over her quote of….

“It’s a real conflict for me when I go to a concert and find out somebody in the audience is a Republican or fundamental Christian. It can cloud my enjoyment. I’d rather not know.’

An interesting question I’ve not heard anyone ask.
Oh, I’ve asked such questions of course, repeatedly over the last ten years.
But I notice that nobody in the last week in talking about this inDUHvidual, has brought the subject up.

Thanks, GC for doing that.

Update:

Apparently, she’s still driving crowds away. She still doesn’t get it.

Update 2: If you were thinking of spending money at the Aladdin because of their principled stand, think again. They’ve changed hands. The new owner… The owner of Planet Hollywood… has issued a statement reversing the decision by the former owner.

News flash: Not dollar ONE of my money will EVER go to either establishment.
Consider the rather inglorious end of the career of another person… Ever heard of the Dixie Chicks? Shut up and sing, Linda.

(hat tip, to the beautiful and witty Laura I)
Another hat tip to Q and O who has more

Then, there’s the story about the poor guy in Boston, one Mark F. Pasquale, whose Pizza shop… HalfTime Pizza, which is across from the Fleet Center, who kinda figured on making Pizza for the Donkey convention hand over fist. No such luck. The Barriers go up, and then he finds out the delegates are getting free meals, anyway.

Says he’s now closing down for the week. But not until he expressed his displeasure with the Democrats putting this up on the front of the shop:

Don’t worry about it coming down during the convention, unless someone firebombs the place… Which given the level of hate coming from Democrats of late seems likely… Apparently, it’s bolted to the brick.
(snicker)

UPDATE:

The city is now trying to fine Pasquale for putting the sign up.
He says it’s staying. Apparently there are several efforts afoot to raise independant funds to pay this fine for him.

Meanwhile, a thought occurs….Shall I hold my breath wating for Rotundo Moore to show up and defend Pasquale’s right to free speech as he did the hateful comments of Rondstadt the other day?

McQ over at QandO quotes an AP article on the 9/11 commission report:

“The highly anticipated report provided new details on contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida, noting that Osama bin Laden began exploring a possible alliance in the early 1990s. In one new disclosure, the report says that an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan in July 1998 to meet with the ruling Taliban and with bin Laden. “

McQ asks, somewhat rethorically, if …

“…that will make it past page A27 in the NYT if it makes it at all.”

Thing is, That’s not new… Nothing the 9/11 commission came up with was new… they’re simply going over facts and reports that already existed.

And of course it is, all of it, stuff the left and the press (A redundancy) have been denying all along. What makes you think them likely to embrace these facts going into an election?

Sorry, I don’t see it.

Instapundit notes just now that he…

” got an email from a journalist asking me to assess Bill Keller’s Times so far. I’d say the answer is — not really any better than under Howell Raines.”

Big freakin shock, Glenn. Remember, I’ve already addresed this issue, back in June of Last Year…

I said at the time:

“Raines was part of the problem, granted… as too was his crony, Boyd. I can see, even, an argument suggesting that Lelyveld is a solution to the problem.

However, unlike the defenders of the Times, (and for that matter, the Times itself) let’s be honest, here.  Sulzberger himself is the biggest problem, and that situation doesn’t look to change very soon.

(Times Owner Arhtur) Sulzberger has always held the conviction that journalism is about helping people and building what they consider a better society.  If you think this isn’t the prevailing nonsense in the news world today, ask anyone coming out of journalism schools why THEY’RE doing what they’re doing, and they’ll tell you ‘to make a difference’, not to “report the news”. Simply and fairly reporting the news, and perhaps offering an even-handed comment on it, is too dull an assignment, for those on this ‘great mission’.  Once again, the Times shows up as the largest example of this kind of bias inducement. This is not something that’s just cropped up since Raines took over the ummm… errr…… reins. (Yeah, I know… sorry)”

Brent Bozell as you might expect, agreed with me back then:

“Now that Mr. Raines and Mr. Boyd have resigned, Publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. has a crucial decision to make. He can either continue to use the Times to promote an arrogant, left-wing advocacy agenda or he can return to the news. “The New York Times’ return to respectability is dependent upon whether it presents the news in an accurate, evenhanded manner. ‘All the news that’s fit to print’ is meaningless if the reporting is skewed to promote a liberal agenda.

Mr. Sulzberger has an opportunity to start afresh with new editors, and we hope he takes full advantage of it.”

I think it’s clear he never did, and thereby where this bias is coming from. And from that we can figure the situation is not going to change in the near future.  As such, the NYT is a lost cause so long as Sulzberger is running the place.

So, I take the stand that I flat out refuse to use it as a source in this blog.