September 9th, 2004
I had more to say on this yesterday, but the fritz was on the blog. Mere hours after the Post reported that Cheney had said a Kerry-Edwards victory would lead to a terrorist attack on the United States, Dana Milbank and Spencer S. Hsu were playing it high in the lede of their front-page story in the morning edition.
Today’s Milbank/Hsu story reports that John Edwards has an answer for Cheney’s Vote-Bush-Or-Else rhetoric: “It is outrageous and shameful . . . It is completely inappropriate and dangerous, for the vice president to in effect threaten the American people, to be part of instilling fear in our country.”
A little perspective, please. First, Cheney’s argument—pretty sound as it goes—was that this election is pivotal in determining America’s long-term policy in the war on terror. It follows that, if Kerry-Edwards are elected, you’ll see a very different response to any terrorist attack on the United States than you saw in the aftermath of 9/11. Two, why isn’t it legitimate for Cheney to emphasize differences regarding the most important policy issue around—terror—which is nothing if not a life or death issue?
MEMRI TV
September 9th, 2004
New, from the good people of MEMRI: A translated video where a Chechen politician claims, “[T]he Chechen and Islam are innocent of this operation, which was planned by intelligence agencies . . . I am surprised at the Russian media and surprised that the Arab media repeats what is said in the Russian media. They always accuse the Arabs and claim there are Arab elements, but as of yet, we have not seen on TV Arab faces who participated in the operation.”
0 commentsSeptember 9th, 2004
Very Big Deal story on Power Line, concerning documents used in 60 Minutes story on Bush’s national guard service, which has been picked up all over the place. If true that documents were forged, more evidence of the hysteria overtaking the media and the left in the wake of the president’s bounce from the convention.
0 commentsSeptember 9th, 2004
SoxBlog takes apart Joe Biden’s Wall Street Journal op-ed. Not suitable for children or those with a weak heart.
0 commentsSuck-Up Watch
September 9th, 2004
Bill Kristol has a sobering column on Beslan.
0 commentsSeptember 9th, 2004
Buffy would be more horrified by this story than she was when she found Spike playing poker for kittens.
0 commentsSeptember 9th, 2004
An anonymous commenter says, “The no-boo story is mentioned in a forum at Campaign Desk called ‘Fact Check,’ and bears a title ‘Booing the AP’.”
This commenter is wrong. A quick visit to CJR’s Campaign Desk (followed up by an email query to, and response from, the nice folks over there) confirms that they have still not mentioned the AP “no-boo” story at all.
Now I understand why bloggers turn their comments section off. If you’re going to post a comment like this in the future, please include a link to buttress your claim.
0 commentsSeptember 9th, 2004
Mickey Kaus has an on-air conniption fit: “Spirit-crushing foolishness from my candidate, John Kerry. The nation is trying to figure out how to fight global terrorism and he’s talking about having ‘not just a Department of Health and Human Services, but a Department of Wellness.’ How about a Department of F***ing Perspective? If Bush is smart he’ll be ridiculing Kerry about this for the rest of the month. …Thanks, Iowa!”
[You mean “conniption fit” in the best possible way, don’t you?–ed Of course! One of the Iron Laws of Politics is that you should almost always dislike the candidate you’re voting for more than you dislike the other guy.]
0 comments
