Target Centermass

Category: Politics

  • VP Debate Thoughts (Limited)

    Okay, unfortunately my work pager dragged me into an emergency conference call, so I missed a good chunk. Of what I did see, I thought Cheney outperformed Edwards while looking more appropriate for the role. First impression: unlike Thursday’s presidential clash, this time style and substance were generally on the same side.

    I’ll try to give a more detailed postmortem after I review the transcript of the portions I missed, but that won’t be until tomorrow. I’ll look around for other stuff to blog tonight.

  • VP Debate

    Feel free to follow Vodkapundit’s live blogging.

    I’ll be back later with thoughts.

  • Iran Rejects Kerry’s Nuclear Proposal

    What did the individual viewer think of John Kerry’s performance at Thursday’s foreign policy debate? That answer probably depends on the viewer’s fondness for smoke and mirrors. Well, some of the smoke is clearing.

    Iran has dismissed a proposal by U.S. presidential candidate John Kerry, that Tehran be provided nuclear fuel if it agrees to give up its fuel-making capabilities.

    Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said Sunday it would be “irrational” to abandon its nuclear technology in exchange for supplies from overseas. He said there is no need for Iran to “beg” from other countries.

    During a debate last week with President Bush, Mr. Kerry suggested supplying Iran with nuclear fuel for generating electrical power, echoing a proposal made by several western European nations. The Bush administration and some international observers have accused Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons. Iran insists its nuclear program, including work on enriching uranium, is only for peaceful purposes.

    The International Atomic Energy Agency has demanded Iran freeze its uranium enrichment activities. Iran has refused.

    I’m sure Kerry has a plan to convince Iran to change its stance. It’s probably typed up (in MS Word using Times New Roman) and filed away with his plan to get more troops and participation in Iraq from our erstwhile European “allies.”

  • First Debate Analysis

    As I had hoped, Vodkapundit live-blogged the debate. As expected, he made several points with which I agree, and I’ll quote generously from him later.

    First, I didn’t actually live blog, but I did type up ongoing notes, punctuated with an occasional timestamp and comment. I’ve stripped out those portions from my notes to present my personal first debate skeleton.

    8:04 — Initial thought: Kerry doesn’t look orange.

    8:07 — Bush dodges a softball question, one where he had a golden opportunity to correct the misconception about Cheney’s statement.
    On the other hand, Kerry misses a chance to take advantage of this in his rebuttal. [Left this in just because missed opportunities seemed a prolonged theme of the evening]

    8:10 — Kerry states goal is Osama bin Laden. Wrong. It’s more than one man.

    8:24 — So far no discernable important moments.

    8:47 — So far Kerry’s performing better. But a performer ain’t necessarily a leader.

    8:51 — Man, November 3 can’t get here fast enough.

    9:02 — Just cracked my first beer. Went to the fridge, grabbed a Miller Lite, opened it and drank. Practically all during one of Bush’s pauses.

    9:10 — Well, only twenty more minutes, and then the spin can really begin.

    9:20 — All right! Last question.

    9:30 — Initial final impression, no clear winner without the effect of spin applied afterward. Which means a win for Bush.

    Now, to lift some greatness from the VodkaDude, all of which tie to some of my notes:

    “Osama bin Laden doesn’t determine American policy,” or words to that effect. Not well delivered, but the words themselves were perfect.

    ….

    7:45pm. Here’s what we have so far. Kerry is an impressive attack machine. Bush impressively refuses to budge. If I had to guess, the question most viewers will ask is, “In time of war, do I want the debate team captain, or the guy he can’t move?”

    7:48pm. “I will hunt and kill the terrorists wherever they are.” That’s the second (third?) time Kerry has used that line, and it’s a loser. For Kerry, it’s a promise. For Bush, it’s a perceived fact.

    7:50pm. Kerry is hedging, in a nuanced fashion, his promise to withdraw troops. It’s a MEGO moment, and even a junky like me is getting lost in his answer. On the other hand, I’m drinking.

    ….

    7:57pm. We’re almost to the two-thirds mark now, and it looks like a draw. A draw is a loss for Kerry, for reasons I’ll get into around midnight or so Eastern Time.

    ….

    I’m bored with both of these guys, and have been almost from the start. But Kerry just annoys me. And he thinks he’s going to win me over by complaining we aren’t TALKING to North Korea? What’s there to talk about? Clinton exhausted talk with them ten years ago. And what did it get us?

    ….

    8:17pm. Methinks he doth protest too much. Kerry, for the umpteenth time tonight, has said he’s never wavered on Iraq. The record says different and, even if it didn’t, that windsurfing TV ad makes it the public perception.

    ….

    Last question, and neither guy has flubbed anything.

    Some other thoughts from my own hastily-typed notes:

    • I’ll have to check a transcript but I transcribed that Kerry said, “We’ve got weapons of mass destruction crossing the border every day.” If so, where does that leave his no-wmd-wrong-war stance?
    • Bush had an excellent line about knowing when to bring home the troops: “I don’t want to do so for the sake of bringing them home; I want to do so because they’ve achieved their objective. … Artificial deadlines won’t work.”
    • Kerry repeatedly stated the war was wrong. However, when confronted with his “last man to die for a mistake” quote, he acted as if it wasn’t a mistake and we had to stay there. Well, which is it?
    • Kerry is certainly a fan of summits. My impression is that Bush will have them as needed, but Kerry will apparently wallow in them.
    • Kerry should not bring up his protesting of Viet Nam, especially not in a positive light. He is only opening himself up to the Swifties’ POW attacks.
    • Another great Bush line (possibly paraphrased): “That’s totally absurd. You can’t expect to build an alliance when you denigrate the allies standing side by side with our troops in Iraq.’
    • A third great Bush quote: “Every life is precious. That’s what distinguishes us from the enemy.”
    • Another thing I need to check the transcript on: I typed that, as a means of bringing in more allies to the coalition, Kerry said he would’ve taken time to ask other nations what it would take, what he could offer or give to get them on board. And he condemned our current allies as the “coerced and bribed?!!”
    • Fourth great Bush line (again, possibly paraphrased): “Trying to be popular in the global sense, when it’s not in our best interest, makes no sense.”
    • On the question of greatest danger facing the U.S., Bush repeatedly tied WMD-proliferation to terrorists, Kerry merely repeatedly cited nuclear proliferation. A bit of the old unilateral-freeze peacenik shining through? The Bush campaign could exploit this, though it should be done delicately.
    • Thank you, Mr. President, for publicly tying the Beslan massacre to the global war on terror.
    • Kerry actually had the balls to say, “We always have to stand up for democracy.” Ask the victims of the fall of South Veit Nam about that. Ask the Nicaraquans, whose fight for democracy Kerry tried to impair. Ask the Iraqis to match that quote with Kerry’s wrong-war crap.

    In summation, Kerry looked, acted and debated better. Bush was right. Style vs. substance, historical mistakes and newfound stances vs. established views and a track record of decisive leadership.

    The American public has been fooled before, but I hope not this time. The stakes are too high.

  • Initial First Debate Thoughts

    Kerry performed better, but no knockout blows. Kerry had to win the debate and not just the show, though. There were no major gaffes by either Kerry or Bush, and that still leaves Bush in the lead.

    Bush most assuredly had more of the message I wanted to hear. By a long shot.

    More analysis to follow.

  • Why I’ll Never Be Allowed to Ask Kerry Questions

    Now that Kerry has once again recast himself as the doubting, wrong-war-wrong-place candidate, blaming Bush for his statements on the progress of the war, here are the questions to which would I demand answers:

    • Are we at war?

      • If the answer was “no,” I would cut off the interview and call him an idiot. If yes, I would proceed.

    • Of our past wartime presidents, whom do you view as successful?
    • Of these successful wartime presidents, how many accurately and immediately reported to the American people every difficulty and setback, as you currently seem to expect of the Bush administration?
    • Of these same administrations, how many accurately foretold and dealt with every danger and complexity of their wartime and postwar situations, as you currently seem to expect of the Bush administration?
    • Other than bailing out of the current war, how can you assure the American public that every wartime decision you make will be above reproach, as you currently seem to expect of the Bush administration?
    • If you do bail out of the current war, how can you assure the American public that the dangers of expansionistic Islamic terrorism will not have a greater impact on their children and grandchildren than would’ve been the case had we fought the good fight now? Other than the fact you were in Viet Nam?
    • Do you plan to utilize the fact that you were on the wrong side of history in the Cold War, advocating a unilateral freeze instead of Reagan’s military build-up, during the last portion of your campaign?
    • What will you do if, after all of your diplomacy, negotiation and nuance to get your planned international assistance, our alleged “allies” still say no? What if, no matter what you do, they freakin’ still say no?

      • And finally,

    • How long until you, the defeatist, repeat the last-man-to-die-for-a-mistake line? You do realize early voting opens soon in some states, right?

    Please, some journalist of importance or access, pretty please follow this line of questioning. If you need help for potential follow-up questions, let me know at gunner-at-targetcentermass-dot-com. I’ll help you, if only to salvage the concepts of journalistic integrity that Rather,et al., have thoroughly shamed.

  • Rather’s Producer Assured CBS Execs on Guard Papers

    The first victim of RatherGate has been clearly identified.

    Mary Mapes, the Dallas-based producer of Dan Rather’s controversial Sept. 8 60 Minutes segment questioning President Bush’s military record, is the focus of attention following published reports that she arranged for her Texas source on the story to talk to a top aide to Democratic hopeful John Kerry.

    CBS News executives want to know why Mapes, one of Rather’s most trusted producers, repeatedly assured them that both Bill Burkett and the documents he gave her could be trusted — only to have both widely called into question by Internet bloggers and rival news organizations soon after 60 Minutes aired the story. On Monday, CBS said the story should have never run, and Rather apologized to viewers.

    On Tuesday, it was revealed that Mapes arranged for Burkett to talk to a top aide to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.

    Standard journalistic ethical practices forbid reporters from doing anything that could be perceived as helping a political campaign.

    Congrats, Mary, you’re deservedly the first sacrificial lamb. G’bye.

  • WaPo Media Critic Inadvertently Slams Kerry Campaign

    Speaking via telephone with CNN Headline News, Howard Kurtz, a media critic with the Washington Post, responded to a question about possible DNC/Kerry camp involvement in the current CBS scandal with the following:

    I’ve seen no evidence of any involvement by any organized Democrat group or the Kerry campaign.

    Kurtz may not be accurate about involvement, but he is correct in distinguishing the Kerry campaign from an organized group.

    I chuckled. I blogged.

  • Dien Bien Phu Falls

    The defenses around CBS’s Dien Bien Phu have collapsed.

    From Drudge, Rather has finally admitted what most of us already knew:

    EXCLUSIVE // Mon Sep 20 2004 11:58:02 ET
    STATEMENT FROM DAN RATHER:

    Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a 60 MINUTES WEDNESDAY story about President Bush’s time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question—and their source—vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.

    Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where—if I knew then what I know now—I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.

    But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.

    Please know that nothing is more important to us than people’s trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully.

    Now, CBS is saying they “regret” running the story:

    “Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report,” said the statement by CBS News President Andrew Heyward. “We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret.

    “Nothing is more important to us than our credibility and keeping faith with the millions of people who count on us for fair, accurate, reliable, and independent reporting,” Heyward continued. “We will continue to work tirelessly to be worthy of that trust.”

    For now, I’ll wait a bit to see the scope of the fallout on this journalistic debacle.

  • Bush Wants Truth Out on CBS Docs

    Finally addressing the documents presented as part of Dan Rather’s partisan attack, President Bush has said that the core issue of the controversy should be the veracity of the documents.

    President George W. Bush has for the first time raised questions about documents used to bolster a report that he received preferential treatment during his Vietnam era military service.

    And amid mounting Republican attacks, the CBS network, which broadcast the allegations against Bush, has stepped up its inquiry into the authenticity of the documents.

    “There are a lot of questions about the documents and they need to be answered,” Bush told the Union Leader newspaper based in Manchester, New Hampshire in an interview on Saturday. “Let the truth come out.”

    “I think what needs to happen is people need to take a look at the documents, how they were created, and let the truth come out,” he told the newspaper.

    As Rather continues his Dien Bien Phu defense of his story, ridiculously demanding the content of forged documents is the actual issue, CBS seems to hope the story will just blow over and leave the public consciousness. Will the storm pass? Today’s Sunday Reader section of the print version of the Dallas Morning News printed 24 letters from the public, a plurality of nine (mostly negative to CBS and Rather) dealt with the issue. This issue is not going away fast enough, andCBS’s stance behind a story based on four faked (I know it, you know it) documents and the testimony of a man, previously shown to be a liar on this same topic, cannot withstand the seige.

    The sooner the capitulation, the more integrity CBS can salvage.