Friday, September 10, 2004

Unintentional Plagarism

One of my old professors at Harvard Law School, Charles Ogletree is in a wee bit of trouble...

A recent book by Harvard Law School professor Charles J. Ogletree Jr. includes a six-paragraph passage lifted almost directly from another author's work, Ogletree and the school acknowledged.

Ogletree said the inclusion of the passage from a book by Yale Law School professor Jack M. Balkin was the result of editing mistakes in drafts of his book "All Deliberate Speed: Reflections on the First Half-Century of Brown v. Board of Education," published in April, The Boston Globe reported Thursday.

"I made a serious mistake during the editorial process of completing this book, and delegated too much responsibility to others during the final editing process," Ogletree wrote in a statement posted on the law school Web site last week.

Ogletree said that he will face discipline from Harvard, but refused to specify the nature of the discipline. Law school spokesman Mike Armini said it was school policy not to discuss discipline. Phone messages seeking comment from Dean Elena Kagan and Balkin were not returned Thursday.

For the record, Tree's a good guy, although I disagree with most of his politics. But the fact that he's taking responsibility, rather than merely blaming the editors, shows someone who has integrity. He may need to call Dan Rather and help him, if the forgery story is true.

What Annoying Song is Stuck in My Head Today?

If I need to suffer with a song stuck in my head, why shouldn't you have to do the same? Sometimes they're good, most times they're bad... but no matter what, they make you suffer. So I like to share the suffering whenever it happens.

God, I hate it when DJs decide to be funny by playing clips from crappy songs. This morning, one of my sports talk radio programs decided it might be humorous to subject me to some crap rock. So now, I'm stuck with freaking Heart running through my head. Worst of all, it's their terrible song, "Alone." I wish it would leave me alone.

And before you complain, the other option was Roxette's "Faded Like a Flower."

Here we go...
I hear the ticking of the clock
I'm lying here the room's pitch dark

I wonder where you are tonight
No answer on the telephone

And the night goes by so very slow
Oh, I hope that it won't end though
Alone

Till now I always got by on my own
I never really cared until I met you
And now it chills me to the bone
How do I get you alone
How do I get you alone


You're welcome.

The Funny Side of CBS and Forgery

All sorts of good stuff on the forgery issue we covered yesterday. Powerline has more on the source of the documents. ABC News and the Washington Post are now on the story as well. CNN even is up on the story. John Podehertz briliantly summarizes yesterday's events in the New York Post. And the KerrySpot, as usual, has terrific coverage of it all.

But let's take a funnier look at the forgeries. Loyal reader RB weighs in with the following revelation via e-mail...

Some of us might remember the "combo" shows of the 1970s, when the cast of one television program would make a guest appearance on another. Perhaps the worst example of this was Scooby-Doo, where guest appearances became a regular feature with the Three Stooges being one of the most frequent guests. This attempt at combining shows is being resurrected for the Fall lineup of television shows, with one show having great promise:

In the tradition of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, CSI: Miami, and CSI: New York, CBS introduces CSI: 60 Minutes - Watch on Monday and Thursday evenings as a team of investigators tracks down the clues offered in the previous night's broadcast of 60 Minutes to uncover the truth that underlies the web of deceit.

This is taken directly from a press release issued by CBS. I have a copy of the press release. Um - its not on letterhead or anything, but I consulted with my 8-year old and she assures me it is authentic.


Whew. We hear Dan Rather only accepts such assurances from children ages 7 & up, so it's a good thing she's eight, or she wouldn't meet the exacting standards of CBS News.

Scrappleface.com also has its take on the documents...
CBS reporter Dan Rather today released the text of a recently discovered email from then-Lt. George W. Bush's Air National Guard commanding officer which casts more doubt upon the military service of the man who would become the 43rd President of the United States.

...According to Col. Killian's email, the young Bush wanted to go to Alabama to work as webmaster for a Republican candidate's website.

Mr. Rather said the authenticity of the 32-year-old email has been confirmed by several Nigerian officials who specialize in electronic funds transfer by email.


CBS is probably not laughing right now.

Labels:

The Wedding Update

by the world's least dangerous man

This wedding update is brought to you by Disney. They're looking for a successor to Michael Eisner. I'm willing to take on the task, since Eisner won't leave until 2006 -- this gives me plenty of time to get married and honeymoon. First move -- kill all reality TV shows.

323 days to go...

There's good news on several fronts. We have the photographer and florist, and are closing in on the DJ and the videographer. For those wondering, we opted for a DJ because bands are usually either a huge hit or a huge letdown (I will say that a few of my friends, in particular the Lord of Truth and Johnny Goblin, had fabulous bands at their weddings, which was the only thing that made me even consider the idea). Generally, I find bands annoying because they take much longer breaks, cost more, consume more food, and generally engage in more annoying banter. Of course, I would probably be fine with little to no music at my wedding, but I'm pretty strange.

Next step, bachelor party. I owe some people a list. That is forthcoming.

Thursday, September 09, 2004

The John Kerry Post of the Day

My latest discovery about my favorite cheese-eating surrendermonkey-looking Ketchup King cum Presidential candidate:

We're not sure what to say about this, which comes from Chris Suellentrop at Slate...

The other head-scratcher uttered by Kerry in the past two days came Wednesday in Greensboro, N.C. There, in response to a question from a woman about the health problems caused by mold and indoor air contamination—and her complaint, "There's not one agency in this government that has come forward" to deal with the problem—Kerry endorsed the creation of a new federal department. "What I want to do, what I'm determined to do, and it's in my health-care plan, is refocus America on something that can reduce the cost of health care significantly for all Americans, which is wellness and prevention," Kerry said. So far, so good. But then, "And I intend to have not just a Department of Health and Human Services, but a Department of Wellness." Again, what? Apparently this idea comes from Teresa Heinz Kerry, who told the Boston Herald in January 2003 that she would, in the Herald's words, "be an activist first lady, lobbying for a Department of Wellness that would stress preventive health."
Oh, wait, Mickey Kaus, who supports Kerry, may have put it perfectly...
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?
Maybe the Democrats need to invoke the Torricelli Option.

Labels:

The Dems Get Desperate, Part II... Forgery????

Our favorite story from the liberal media took a surprising turn today. Last night, CBS ran with an interview with Ben Barnes, the former Lt. Governor and House Speaker of Texas, who alleged in an interview with Dan Rather that he pulled strings to get Bush into the Texas National Guard...

A few months before Mr. Bush would become eligible for the draft, Barnes says he had a meeting with the late oilman Sid Adger, a friend to both Barnes and then-Congressman George Bush.

"It's been a long time ago, but he said basically would I help young George Bush get in the Air National Guard," says Barnes, who then contacted his longtime friend Gen. James Rose, the head of Texas' Air National Guard.

"I was a young, ambitious politician doing what I thought was acceptable," says Barnes. "It was important to make friends. And I recommended a lot of people for the National Guard during the Vietnam era - as speaker of the house and as lt. governor."

George W. Bush was among those he recommended for the National Guard. Was this a case of preferential treatment?

"I would describe it as preferential treatment. There were hundreds of names on the list of people wanting to get into the Air National Guard or the Army National Guard," says Barnes. "I think that would have been a preference to anybody that didn't want to go to Vietnam or didn’t want to leave. We had a lot of young men that left and went to Canada in the '60s and fled this country. But those that could get in the Reserves, or those that could get in the National Guard - chances are they would not have to go to Vietnam."
Hmmm. Note that Barnes is alleging that a man who is now dead -- Sid Adger -- was the one who asked for this "favor." Also note that Barnes is one of the three largest individual contributors to John Forbes Kerry between 1999-2004 (to the tune of over $400,000) -- a fact CBS didn't mention last night. Best of all, Barnes has told conflicting stories about this issue over the past few years -- at one point he was Lt. Governor when he pulled those strings, when he was only House Speaker. Not to mention the fact that Barnes testimony in a 1999 bribery case may contradict his new account. The Blogspirator has the tale in full.

No, we've barely gotten to the best part. The Boston Globe followed up CBS's story today with an article focusing on memos CBS cited during its broadcast last night. Here's what the Globe said today...

In August 1973, President Bush's superior officer in the Texas Air National Guard wrote a memorandum complaining that the commanding general wanted him to ''sugar coat" an annual officer evaluation for First Lieutenant Bush, even though Bush had not been at the base for the year in question, according to new documents obtained and broadcast last night by CBS News.

The commander, the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, wrote that he turned aside the suggestion from Brigadier General Walter B. Staudt, Bush's political mentor in the Guard. But he and another officer agreed to ''backdate" a report -- evidently the evaluation -- in which they did not rate him at all. There is such a report in Bush's file, dated May 2, 1973.

''I'll backdate but won't rate," Killian apparently wrote in what is labeled a ''memo to file." Initials that appear to be Killian's are on the memo, but not his name or unit letterhead.

The August 1973 document, dated as Bush was preparing to leave Texas to attend the Harvard Business School, represents the first apparent evidence of an attempt to embellish Bush's service record as his time in the Guard neared its end.

The four pages of documents also contain an August 1972 order from Killian, suspending Bush from flying status for ''failure to perform" up to US Air Force and Texas Air National Guard standards and failing to take his annual flight physical. The suspension came three months after Killian had ordered Bush to take his physical, on May 14, 1972.

The documents also contain what appears to be Killian's memo of a meeting he had with Bush in May 1972, at which they discussed the option of Bush skipping his military drills for the following six months while he worked on a US Senate campaign in Alabama. During that meeting, Killian wrote that he reminded Bush ''of our investment in him and his commitment."

CBS, on its Evening News and in an in-depth report on ''60 Minutes," said it obtained the documents from Killian's ''personal files." Anchorman Dan Rather reported that the White House did not dispute the authenticity of the documents and said the network had used document authorities to verify their authenticity.


Note that last line, because it's about to become important.

The key document in question is available here. It's the August 18, 1973 document, and it started a firestorm on the blogosphere today, when the gents at Powerline had e-mailers who noted that the document had a typeface that appeared to be Times New Roman... which wasn't available on typewriters in 1973. The following language started the investigation...

Every single one of the memos to file regarding Bush's failure to attend a physical and meet other requirements is in a proportionally spaced font, probably Palatino or Times New Roman.

In 1972 people used typewriters for this sort of thing (especially in the military), and typewriters used mono-spaced fonts.

The use of proportionally spaced fonts did not come into common use for office memos until the introduction high-end word processing systems from Xerox and Wang, and later of laser printers, word processing software, and personal computers. They were not widespread until the mid to late 90's.

Before then, you needed typesetting equipment, and that wasn't used for personal memos to file. Even the Wang and other systems that were dominant in the mid 80's used mono-spaced fonts. I doubt the TANG had typesetting or high-end 1st generation word processing systems.

I am saying these documents are forgeries, run through a copier for 15 generations to make them look old. This should be pursued aggressively.

The followup has been amazing.

Powerline started a firestorm. Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs literally duplicated the memos in form using Microsoft Word. AllahPundit showed that the same trick cannot be done with documents that are authentic. CNS News found three independent typography experts who doubt the authenticity of these documents, especially the May 4, 1972 memo...

But the experts interviewed by CNSNews.com homed in on several aspects of a May 4, 1972, memo, which was part of the "60 Minutes" segment and was posted on the CBS News website Thursday."

It was highly out of the ordinary for an organization, even the Air Force, to have proportional-spaced fonts for someone to work with," said Allan Haley, director of words and letters at Agfa Monotype in Wilmington, Mass. "I'm suspect in that I did work for the U.S. Army as late as the late 1980s and early 1990s and the Army was still using [fixed-pitch typeface] Courier."

The typography experts couldn't pinpoint the exact font used in the documents. They also couldn't definitively conclude that the documents were either forged using a current computer program or were the work of a high-end typewriter or word processor in the early 1970s.

But the use of the superscript "th" in one document - "111th F.I.S" - gave each expert pause. They said that is an automatic feature found in current versions of Microsoft Word, and it's not something that was even possible more than 30 years ago.

"That would not be possible on a typewriter or even a word processor at that time," said John Collins, vice president and chief technology officer at Bitstream Inc., the parent of MyFonts.com. "It is a very surprising thing to see a letter with that date [May 4, 1972] on it," and featuring such typography, Collins added. "There's no question that that is surprising. Does that force you to conclude that it's a fake? No. But it certainly raises the eyebrows."

Fred Showker, who teaches typography and introduction to digital graphics at James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Va., questioned the documents' letterhead. "Let's assume for a minute that it's authentic," Showker said. "But would they not have used some form of letterhead? Or has this letterhead been intentionally cut off? Notice how close to the top of the page it is."

He also pointed to the signature of Killian, the purported author of the May 4, 1972,
memo ordering Bush, who was at the time a first lieutenant in the Texas Air National Guard, to obtain a physical exam. "Do you think he would have stopped that 'K' nice and cleanly, right there before it ran into the typewriter 'Jerry," Showker asked. "You can't stop a ballpoint pen with a nice square ending like that ... The end of that 'K' should be round ... it looks like you took a pair of snips and cut it off so you could see the 'Jerry.'"

The experts also raised questions about the military's typewriter technology three decades ago. Collins said word processors that could produce proportional-sized fonts cost upwards of $20,000 at the time.

"I'm not real sure that you would have that kind of sophistication in the office of a flight inspector in the United States government," Showker said.

"The only thing it could be, possibly, is an IBM golf ball typewriter, which came out around the early to middle 1970s," Haley said. "Those did have proportional fonts on them. But they weren't widely used."But Haley added that the use of the superscript "th" cast doubt on the use of any typewriter."There weren't any typewriters that did that," Haley said. "That looks like it might be a function of something like Microsoft Word, which does that automatically."

Ouch. As if you needed more proof, Bill at INDC got an even more authoritative expert to conclude the document is likely a fake. It gets better -- after CBS stated that it stands by the authenticity of the documents, Powerline noted an inconsistency in the timeline of information in the memos...

In the August 18, 1973 memo "discovered" by 60 Minutes, Jerry Killian purportedly writes: Staudt has obviously pressured Hodges more about Bush. I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job.

But wait! Reader Amar Sarwal points out that General Staudt, who thought very highly of Lt. Bush,
retired in 1972.
A retired general was putting on the pressure, huh? Wow, someone at CBS might just lose their job. Jim Geraghty at the Kerry Spot notes what might be the final nail in CBS's coffin...

The authenticity of newly unearthed memos stating that George W. Bush failed to meet standards of the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War was questioned Thursday by the son of the late officer who reportedly wrote the memos.

"I am upset because I think it is a mixture of truth and fiction here," said Gary Killian, son of Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who died in 1984.

Gary Killian, who served in the Guard with his father and retired as a captain in 1991, said one of the memos, signed by his father, appeared legitimate. But he doubted his father would have written another, unsigned memo which said there was pressure to "sugar coat" Bush's performance review.

"It just wouldn't happen," he said. "The only thing that can happen when you keep secret files like that are bad things. ... No officer in his right mind would write a memo like that."

News reports have said the memos, first obtained by CBS's "60 Minutes II," were found in Jerry Killian's personal records. Gary Killian said his father wasn't in the habit of bringing his work home with him, and that the documents didn't come from the family.
Stay tuned for more fun tomorrow. The real question... if this is a forgery, who did it?

Labels:

The Dems Get Desperate, Part I

Remember Susan Estrich's crazed rant last week about the Democrats loading up dirt to hurl at the President? Well, here it comes.

First, we have the sudden press desire to dig up more information on the President's National Guard attendance records. Let's ignore the fact that President Bush has never, not once, claimed that his qualifications for office rest upon his performance as a National Guard pilot. Let's ignore the fact that unlike John Forbes Kerry, Bush has never once used his Guard service as a bona fide for his character. Let's ignore the fact that Bush's service record was reviewed, torn apart, and reviewed again this winter.

Let's focus on two things. First, the Democrats' response to the latest developments in this so-called story smack of insane desperation. Remember, Bush, Cheney and every other GOP official connected with the President's campaign basically said little to nothing while the Swift Boat story developed. Only after Kerry alleged that the Swift Boat Vets were a subsidiary of the Bush campaign did the GOP get involved in the dispute.

But let's see what the Dems have said about Bush's National Guard service.

The issue here, as I have heard it raised, is was he present andactive on duty in Alabama at the times he was supposed to be. ... Just because you get an honorable discharge does not in fact answer that question.

--
John Kerry, questioning President Bush's military-service record, February 8, 2004.

Kerry served and fought, said retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark, who ran for the Democratic nomination against the senator but now is in his camp. "The other man scrambled and used his family's influence to get out of hearing a shot fired in anger," Clark said.

--
AP, 8/18/2004

Retired Adm. Stansfield Turner, who was CIA director in the Carter administration, said Bush "used his father's influence to get into the Air National Guard and avoid going to war."

--
AP, 8/18/2004

Jim Rassmann, who credits Kerry with saving his life while under fire in Vietnam, noted that Kerry has said Bush served honorably. However, Kerry also said in February of Bush's Guard service, which included time in Alabama: "The issue here, as I have heard it raised, is was he present and active on duty in Alabama at the times he was supposed to be? I don't have the answer to that question."

--
AP, 8/18/2004

"We know John Kerry was in Vietnam," Democratic Party chief Terry McAuliffe said after the Boston Globe reported that Bush failed to complete required training but was never disciplined. "My question to you, Mr. President, is, where were you, sir? How did you avoid being disciplined?"

-- Reuters, 9/9/2004

Democratic Party chairman Terry McAuliffe said, "George W. Bush's cover story on his National Guard service is rapidly unraveling. ... George W. Bush needs to answer why he regularly mislead the American people about his time in the Guard and who applied political pressure on his behalf to have his performance reviews 'sugarcoated.'"

-- AP, 9/9/2004


By the way, Mr. McAuliffe, we know John Kerry was in Vietnam, because he wasn't in Cambodia.

That aside, the Democrats are desperate. They want this story to explode on Bush the way the Swift Boat story exploded on Kerry. Unfortunately, that won't happen, for the following reasons:

1. This story has no legs.
2. This story's been played up already.
3. They can't catch Bush in a lie, since all they have is speculation on whether he did or did not show up in Alabama.
4. Bush has a better campaign that already defused the story once.
5. The Swift Boat Vets story has the public sick of negative campaigning about Vietnam.
6. The media is already overplaying the story.

The last point is one that should play in the Dems favor, but won't. The media is treating this story like Michael Moore treat an all-you-can-eat-buffet, but no one has nailed down the facts like Byron York over at The Hill...
News coverage of the president’s years in the Guard has tended to focus on one brief portion of that time — to the exclusion of virtually everything else. So just for the record, here, in full, is what Bush did:

The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he began an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three weeks of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training. That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served nearly two years. Not two years of weekends. Two years.

After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets. As he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service requirements. At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation.

According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in his first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis).Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first four years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. Did you know that?

That brings the story to May 1972 — the time that has been the focus of so many news reports — when Bush “deserted” (according to anti-Bush filmmaker Michael Moore) or went “AWOL” (according to Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee).

Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren’t unusual, says retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971.“In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots,” Campenni says. “The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In ’72 or ’73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem.”

So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points — not much, but enough to meet his requirement.Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard Business School, he again started showing up frequently.

In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year.

Then, at his request, he was given permission to go. Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service.

During his service, Bush received high marks as a pilot. A 1970 evaluation said Bush “clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot” and was “a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership.” A 1971 evaluation called Bush “an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot” who “continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further.” And a 1972 evaluation called Bush “an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer.”


The press coverage of the story will inevitably be compared with press coverage of the Swift Boat Vets, who were far more compelling than the folks the Dems are trotting out, not to mention far more numerous. What's truly incredible is that the press found the Swift Boat Veterans not worthy of coverage until Kerry was forced to respond, yet they're all over this story. They couldn't be Kerry supporters, could they?

More on that in Part II on this issue later today. In the meantime, consider this -- the party of Bill Clinton is denigrating George W. Bush's service record. I know hypocrisy is required for politicians, but this one may belong in the Guinness Book or World Records.

Labels:

Wednesday, September 08, 2004

The John Kerry Post of the Day

My latest discovery about my favorite cheese-eating surrendermonkey-looking Ketchup King cum Presidential candidate:

Jim Geraghty at Kerry Spot nails the latest flip-flop from Team Kerry, in their attempt to make hay over the 1,000th combat death in Iraq...
Kerry, Monday:

"It's the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time."

Kerry, yesterday:

" More than 1,000 of America's sons and daughters have now given their lives on behalf of their country, on behalf of freedom in the war on terror."

Kerry Spokesman David Wade, today:

"Kerry was referring to U.S. soldiers fighting in parts of Iraq that have now become a breeding ground for terrorists."


It's the wrong war, yet it's part of the war on terror, because it's a breeding ground for terrorists, yet Kerry opposes the war, when he's not supporting it.

Seriously, are we sure Karl Rove isn't running the Kerry campaign?

Labels:

The Yankees Get Another Break

You know, there's something terrible about how the news media always conspires to help New York sports teams. The Red Sox get white-hot, are about ready to overtake the Yankees... and now have to battle the SI cover jinx.

Okay, Now He's Unfit

The Kerry speech on Iraq today is so chock full of crap, it may take a week to dissect it. But let it never be said we're not up to the task. I am going to focus on the comments that gave me the most pause, though, as I wonder what the King of Botox will try next.
I also want to speak directly to the more than 150,000 troops currently risking their lives as far away as Iraq and Afghanistan. Your country is proud of you. You are the most dedicated, capable military we’ve ever had. We are united as a nation in our support for you. We pledge to stand with your families as you stand on the front lines for ours. You are the best of America. And you perform magnificently every day. We thank you for your service and your sacrifice.
Yet, apparently, your sacrifice has been in the wrong war, wrong place and at the wrong time. I, John Kerry, will support you by denigrating the cause for which you currently fight, and opting to vote against $87 billion in appropriations for you because I need to score political points with my wacko left-wing buddies so I can beat Howard Dean. But hey, I'm still proud of you.
Twenty-three months ago, President Bush came here to ask the American people for our support. And he promised then to make the right choices when it came to sending young Americans to Iraq.

Here in Cincinnati, he said that if Congress approved the resolution giving him the authority to use force, it did not mean that military action would be “unavoidable”. But he chose not to give the weapons inspectors the time they needed to get the job done and give meaning to the words, going to war as a last resort.

Here in Cincinnati, he promised “to lead a coalition.” But he failed to build a broad, strong coalition of allies and he rushed to war without a plan to win the peace.

Here in Cincinnati, from this hall, on that night, he spoke to the nation, and promised: “If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully. We will act with the full power of the United States military. We will act with allies at our side and we will prevail.”

But then, George W. Bush made the wrong choices. He himself now admits he miscalculated in Iraq. In truth, his miscalculation was ignoring the advice that was given to him, including the best advice of America’s own military. When he didn’t like what he was hearing, he even fired the Army Chief of Staff. His miscalculation was going to war without taking every precaution and without giving the inspectors time. His miscalculation was going to war without planning carefully and without the allies we should have had. As a result, America has paid nearly 90% of the bill in Iraq. Contrast that with the Gulf War, where our allies paid 95% of the costs.

On the last comment, Kerry voted against the first Gulf War. Yet now, he's claiming it as a reference for how things were done correctly -- which means he was dead wrong then.

Second, apparently Kerry believes that the inspectors, if given if enough time, would have accomplished... what, exactly? What had the inspectors accomplished every other time they'd gone to Iraq? They'd been kicked out, because Saddam knew that the inspections were a tool that the U.N. used to avoid real action.

Third, apparently Bush didn't take every possible precaution. Kerry's turning into George McClellan on us. Do I think we screwed the pooch in Iraq? No, but I'll acknowledge that we could have done better. But no military plan in history has ever been executed flawlessly, and the post-war insurrection could indeed have been worse, if we had a feckless commander-in-chief who doesn't have the guts or credibility to stay in Iraq to get the job done.

Fourth, one more time, let's deliver a kick in the teeth to the nations that supported the invasion, because France, Germany and Russia opted not to do so, because they'd rather appease the enemy and keep raking in profits from corrupt programs at the U.N.

Fifth, apparently the monetary bill and sharing it matters more than the aim of the war. If our purported allies refuse to bear a portion of the cost of a war, does that mean we stay home? Based on this, we could not have invaded Afghanistan unless we got someone else to go along to underwrite the cost. Forget Iraq for a second -- even when the war is the right thing to do to protect America, Kerry wants to make sure we have someone else available to pay the bill. This pathetic excuse for a presidential candiate claims John F. Kennedy is his idol. Yet apparently, he's not willing to "bear any burden" or "pay any price" unless the French are along for the ride.
George W. Bush’s wrong choices have led America in the wrong direction in Iraq and left America without the resources we need here at home. The cost of the President’s go-it-alone policy in Iraq is now $200 billion and counting. $200 billion for Iraq, but they tell us we can’t afford after-school programs for our children. $200 billion for Iraq, but they tell us we can’t afford health care for our veterans. $200 billion for Iraq, but they tell us we can’t afford to keep the 100,000 new police we put on the streets during the 1990s.
I'm going to ignore the attempt to appeal to the worst in people by claiming that the $200 billion is essentially wasted. Please note that NONE of that $200 billion would have been earmarked for FIGHTING THE WAR ON TERROR in John Kerry's little world. It's after-school programs, health care for veterans, and maybe cops on the street who were already there. Don't liberals always complain that by fighting in Iraq, we took the focus of al-Qeuda? Yet Kerry wouldn't have spent another dime on that pursuit.
When it comes to Iraq, it’s not that I would have done one thing differently from the President, I would’ve done almost everything differently. I would have given the inspectors the time they needed before rushing to war. I would have built a genuine coalition of our allies around the world. I would’ve made sure that every soldier put in harm’s way had the equipment and body armor they needed. I would’ve listened to the senior military leaders of this country and the bipartisan advice of Congress. And, if there’s one thing I learned from my own service, I would never have gone to war without a plan to win the peace.

Thanks, Senator, for a detailed critique of the President's war plan. Here's what I would have done differently -- everything. What happens when the inspectors get kicked out -- again? What happens when the U.N. refuses to move? What happens when we need $87 billion to fund that body armor... oh wait, you'd vote against it. Forget the insult, yet again, to the allies who stand bravely by us in Iraq, in pursuit of "a genuine coalition" -- Lord knows France and Germany were dying to go to war in Iraq, and would have agreed with just the right diplomacy. Maybe if you'd offer Jacque Chirac an appointment with your hairdresser, he would have agreed.
I would not have made the wrong choices that are forcing us to pay nearly the entire cost of this war – $200 billion that we’re not investing in education, health care, and job creation here at home.

$200 billion for going-it-alone in Iraq. That’s the wrong choice; that’s the wrong direction; and that’s the wrong leadership for America.

While we’re spending that $200 billion in Iraq, 8 million Americans are looking for work – 2 million more than when George W. Bush took office – and we’re told that we can’t afford to invest in job training and job creation here at home.


Okay. Enough. I can't take reading this horse manure anymore.

Apparently, job creation is on Kerry's mind. Keep in mind, unemployment is lower than when Clinton sought re-election, jobs are being created at a faster pace, and Kerry and his band of mistrels refuse to acknowledge the massive impact 9/11 had on the economy.

But here's what's central -- we have a potential Commander-in-Chief who thinks $200 billion was far too much to spend on the Iraq War. This appears to be his central argument against the war -- even if it was the right thing to do to protect America, unless we had someone to share the cost, it would have been the wrong move, because the cost of $200 billion was too great. Kerry would not have responded to a threat unless we had support, because of the cost. How short-sighted can he be?

Based on this, would Kerry have invaded Afghanistan if he had credible evidence of what bin Laden & Co. planned on 9/11? Perhaps that's unfair, since 9/11 changed everyone's perspective. But would he, even in the face of credible evidence of a potential attack in the future, move on Iraq? Iran? Anyone? Would he even factor in that the $200 billion spent on Iraq would be preventative of a future attack by suspected WMD -- because the loss of life and property in such an attack might make the costs of 9/11 look like peanuts?

John Kerry's complaining about being called "unfit" to be Commander-in-Chief. I know this -- he's not fit to give a major foreign policy address, let alone serve as Commander-in-Chief.

There You Go Again, Ketchup Boy

An old friend, an esteemed expert on matters of international tax, has put forth his opinion on some of John Kerry's latest meanderings in an e-mail, which he graciously allowed me to re-publish:
I read a Kerry press release (I really am adhering to my news embargo, but this was in Tax Notes, so it doesn't count) about how Bush is "paying to export American jobs." How? Because W is just a tad tentative about destroying an anti-deferral tax system that we've had since 1962 and that already is more onerous than that imposed by an other OECD country. But get this, Kerry's press release said that W wants to "pay" for this by "raising taxes on U.S. manufacturers who export goods overseas."

All I can assume is that he means that the administration is planning to repeal the FSC/ETI regime. Now, I am not trying to get too technical here, but ALL of you must be aware that this has been the single most significant item on the Congressional tax agenda for more than a year. Why? Oh, only because the regime has been repeatedly found to be an illegal subsidy by the WTO and because the Europeans have been imposing millions (if not billions) of dollars of penalties upon us since March.

So I guess Kerry is really saying either that (1) he is the only person on Capitol Hill too stupid to realize the current state of our trade relations or (2) that he isn't going to go it alone in Iraq, but darn it, when it comes to maintaining illegal trade subsidies that will eventually lead to escalating penalties (WTO penalties are imposed on a schedule, so the Europeans can ratchet up the penalties (in the form of higher taxes on US goods) every few months) and acrimony with our leading trading partners, he is man enough to defy the whole world?

I am sure both sides twist stuff like that, but it is so stupid, so intentionally misleading, that when you actually catch Kerry at something like that, you have to wonder how you can trust a single word out of his mouth.
Keep in mind, this gentleman voted for Bill Clinton twice. Then again, I think most Democrats would prefer to be voting for Clinton over Kerry. Hell, if I were given the option, I would probably vote for Clinton over Kerry.

Labels:

Tuesday, September 07, 2004

What Annoying Song is Stuck in My Head Today?

If I need to suffer with a song stuck in my head, why shouldn't you have to do the same? Sometimes they're good, most times they're bad... but no matter what, they make you suffer. So I like to share the suffering whenever it happens.

I was having one of those great e-mail colloquoys with my buddies today. It was a nostalgic discussion about the days when it would snow when we were kids, and waiting by the radio to find out if school would be cancelled or not.

Then Joe had to ruin it.

He had to mention that his school closings always ran with music playing in the backgorund. Tears for Fears, to be specific, the song that opens with the line, "Welcome to your life..." Sigh.

Here we go, with "Everybody Wants to Rule the World"...
Welcome to your life
There's no turning back
Even while sleep
We will find you
Acting on your best behaviour
Turn your back on mother nature
Everybody wants to rule the world

It's my own design
It's my own remorse
Help me to decide
Help make the most
Of freedom and of pleasure
Nothing ever lasts forever
Everybody wants to rule the world

There's a room where the light won't find you
Holding hands while the walls come tumbling down
When they do I'll be right behind you
So glad we've almost made it
So sad they had fade it
Everybody wants to rule the world

I can't stand this indecision
Married with a lack of vision
Everybody wants to rule the world

Say that you'll never never never need it
One headline why believe it ?
Everybody wants to rule the world

All for freedom and for pleasure
Nothing ever lasts forever
Everybody wants to rule the world.


You're welcome.

One More Reason To Hate the NY Yankees

As if you needed another one...


Because of travel problems due to Hurricane Frances, the Devil Rays arrived three hours late for the rescheduled 3 p.m. ET opener of a doubleheader Monday at Yankee Stadium. Tampa Bay lost the game that was played 7-4. Afterward, [Devil Rays manager Lou] Piniella was angry that the Yankees asked the commissioner's office to declare the other game a forfeit victory for them.

Commissioner Bud Selig has no intention of ordering a forfeit.

...The Yankees reported to Yankee Stadium at noon for the doubleheader. Tampa Bay players arrived for the 7:05 p.m. start at 6:05, suited up, and lost their eighth straight.

Before the game, Yankees president Randy Levine and general manager Brian Cashman held a news conference on the field, explaining why they wanted a forfeit. Baseball rules say a forfeit may be called if a team isn't ready within five minutes of umpires calling "play" unless the delay is "unavoidable."

"The rule states that if your team is here and ready to play, and the other team isn't here and not ready to play, there should be a forfeit, and we believe there should be a forfeit," Levine said.

The guys in Tampa are dealing with the aftermath of two consecutive hurricanes. Hell, George Steinbrenner lives in Tampa. He should know how absurd this request was.

What a bunch of wimps. They're playing a team that's lost eight in a row, and they're complaining about needing a forfeit? Since when did the Yankees turn into a French team?

The John Kerry Post of the Day

My latest discovery about my favorite cheese-eating surrendermonkey-looking Ketchup King cum Presidential candidate:

You know, there are moments when I feel sorry for John Kerry. Then I remember -- he could become President, and that would really terrify me.

Kerry's latest gambit to turn around his plunging poll numbers was to bring in Team Clinton. Granted, Team Clinton would normally recommend that they simply replace the candidate, but since the Torricelli Option is apparently unavailable outside the political netherworld known as New Jersey, these guys have to live with Kerry. The new focus appears to be an attempt to attack Bush on the economy and domestic issues. But then, in a move that defies the good advice he's been receiving from Bill Clinton and Evan Bayh, Kerry also meandered into criticizing the war in Iraq...
Kerry attacked Bush's Iraq policy on Monday, when he called the invasion
"the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time," and said his goal was to
withdraw U.S. troops in a first White House term.

He also issued a statement calling Iraq a "quagmire" created by Bush's
"wrongheaded, go-it-alone" policy.
Now, there's nothing wrong with making this assessment. In fact, the libertarian Cato Institute issued a paper entitled "Wrong Place, Wrong Time, Wrong War" back at the beginning of 2003. Bush plainly disagrees with this assessment. It's a difference in policy choices.

Unfortunately, Kerry appears to have played both sides of this coin. Again.

Here's how Howard Dean framed the issue in February 2003...
Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean says President Bush is focused on "the wrong war at the wrong time" and needs to do more for homeland defense such as providing money for emergency workers and suggesting more effective security measures.

Dean repeated these sentiments in December 2003, after the capture of Saddam Hussein. But note who criticized Dean for making these statements...
On December 15, 2003, in a speech at the Pacific Council on International Policy in Los Angeles, Dean said that "the capture of Saddam Hussein has not made America safer." Dean also said, "The difficulties and tragedies we have faced in Iraq show the administration launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time, with inadequate planning, insufficient help, and at the extraordinary cost, so far, of $166 billion."

But who challenged Dean immediately? John Kerry. On December 16, at Drake University in Iowa, Kerry asserted that "those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president."


Jim Gergahty at KerrySpot may have put it best...
This criticism of Kerry isn't really fair, however. It's obvious he misspoke. He meant to say, "I voted for the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time, and if I knew then what I knew now, I still would have voted in favor of wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. And so would John Edwards."

It gets better than that, by the way. Bush had a malapropism last night that was hysterical, as reported by the left-wing dishrag...
At a rally in Poplar Bluff, Mo., he was breezing through his domestic agenda when he came to a favorite: what he calls medical liability reform.

"We got an issue in America," he began, in a folksy diction aimed at his small-town crowd. "Too many good docs are getting out of the business."

Mr. Bush then turned to another point he has been making lately to appeal to women - that among those doctors being driven from the business are many obstetricians and gynecologists.

But Mr. Bush seemed to get derailed on the way to his point.

"Too many good OB/GYN's aren't able to practice their" - he paused a split second, as if searching for a word, then continued - "their love, with women all across this country," he said.


The rag decided this was comparable to Kerry's gaffe today...
Mr. Kerry stepped boldly into the verbal minefield early, arriving at a front-porch session with supporters in Canonsburg, Pa., near Pittsburgh. As he likes to do, he brandished a bit of local color to show he wasn't just any interloping politician blowing through town.

But in so doing he seemed to forget that Republicans have been tearing him down for months as a vacillating, indecisive, finger-in-the-wind politician of the worst order.

"Everybody told me, 'God, if you're coming to Canonsburg, you've got to find time to go to Toy's, and he'll take care of you,'" Mr. Kerry said, dropping the name of a restaurant his motorcade had passed on the way in. "I understand it's my kind of place, because you don't have to - you know, when they give you the menu, I'm always struggling: Ah, what do you want?

"He just gives you what he's got, right?" Mr. Kerry added, continuing steadily off a gangplank of his own making: "And you don't have to worry, it's whatever he's cooked up that day. And I think that's the way it ought to work, for confused people like me who can't make up our minds."


While each of these comments reinforces the common stereotype about each candidate, Bush is in far less trouble than Kerry. Bush often fails to communicate clearly -- no surprise there. But he knows what he wants to say, even if he can't always find the words to express the thought clearly. Put it this way -- he may not be able to pronounce the name of the dish that's on the menu, but he knows which one he wants.

Kerry, on the other hand, can't make up his mind. He's weak. He's indecisive. He's the guy at dinner who spends his time studiously reviewing each item and probably reading the names out loud and then asks everyone else to order first, before he asks the waiter to list the specials again, which is followed by requesting a detailed explanation of each special before he places an order, which is then cancelled in favor of another order.

I think most voters can identify with Bush's public speaking mistakes. What they find hard to stomach is the indecisiveness of Kerry, especially since he would need to take action in the War on Terror.

Labels:

Damn you, Ebay!

The title of this post is one of Homer Simpson's least-recognized great quotes. I use it in honor of the latest article noted by the Lord of Truth...

For anyone who didn't get enough of Hurricane Frances as it blew through Florida, remnants of the storm are for sale.

More than 170 items were listed on eBay's Internet auction site Monday, a day after the eye of the Category 2 storm came ashore.

The starting bid for Tupperware filled with wind was a penny. Photos showed Broward County residents running around with the containers "catching" the wind. Surprisingly, someone had already bid $10 for one of the four containers.

Somebody had bid $6.99 for beach sand a Broward County surfer had collected. Three Frances survivors had bid 15 cents each to have a woman pray for them.

One-cent vials of rain that fell in Orlando as the storm passed over had no bids. Neither did a woman's offer to sell the T-shirt she wore during the storm, nor did the request by a Longwood resident for someone to help get a large oak tree off of the seller's home and car.

"Winning bidder will receive branches, leaves, sticks, stumps, whatever you would like!" ... What a conversation piece! ... You can own a part of meteoroligical (sic) history!"

Carol Baroudi, industry analyst and author of The Internet For Dummies, said "I think these are all tongue in cheek. I don't think anyone's serious about these things. I think it's trying to find a sense of humor, which is a good thing."

She thinks they're all tongue-in-cheek? What makes her think that?

The Gods Are Smiling Upon Us

TiVo will be working with NetFlix. God help us all, I'll never leave the house.

Monday, September 06, 2004

What Annoying Song is Stuck In My Head Today?

I have XM Satellite Radio, truly one of the wonderful inventions of our age. The reason: I prefer talk radio to crappy music stations. On occasion, though, I share the car with my lovely fiance, who prefers to check out what's playing on XM's myriad music channels. This morning, she managed to get a song stuck in my head.

Which made me realize -- if I need to suffer with a song stuck in my head, why shouldn't you have to do the same? Sometimes they're good, most times they're bad... but no matter what, they make you suffer. So I'd like to share the suffering whenever it happens. This will be a somewhat irregular feature designed to share my torment.

Today's song is one that is notable for only two things -- some of the worst lyrics known to man, and it starred Arsenio Hall in the video. Yup, it's Paula Abdul's "Straight Up." In case you needed the lyrics to get it caught in your head...
I've been fooled before
Wouldn't like to get my love caught
In the slammin' door
How about some information please

Straight up now tell me
Do you really want to love me forever
oh oh oh
Or am I caught in a hit and run
Straight up now tell me
Is it gonna be you and me together
oh oh oh
Or are you just having fun?

You're welcome.

The John Kerry Post of the Day

My latest discovery about my favorite cheese-eating surrendermonkey-looking Ketchup King cum Presidential candidate:

There's been some speculation as to whether the Ketchup King had engaged in a little too much fun with the bottle before arriving at his campaign stop at midnight last Thursday. Personally, I'm guessing he was just tired. But Jim Geraghty of the Kerry Spot noted this bizarre story he told...

Otherwise, [Kerry] told stories like this while stone-cold sober:

“And I'll tell you another. Two nights ago — a few nights ago, I was in Philadelphia. And I got introduced to this tussle-haired little kid. The guy came — he came up to about here on me. Tiny little kid. But he showed me this picture. And it was a picture of him sitting out in the street where he was during the summer, with a sign and a table. At the table, he had some bracelets. And the sign said 'Kerry for President.'

"And this little six-year-old kid had gotten his nine-year-old brother to make the bracelets for him, and he was selling the bracelets.

"And this six-year-old kid came up to me with a Tupperware container, handed it to me with $680 to change America — to change America."

(APPLAUSE)

KERRY: "So, for all of you here tonight, we've got about 60 days in the most important election of a lifetime where everything that you care about is on the line: your job, your health care, education, the capacity of our kids to be able to afford to go to college…"

Okay, perhaps Kerry - the man married to one of the world’s richest women, whose net worth is one of the tops in the Senate - didn’t take the $680 from a six year old. But it would be nice if he had mentioned that he didn’t take the money.


Hey, maybe he needs another snowboard. Those things aren't cheap. But I'm wondering if Kerry told the kid he needed to pay taxes on those profits.

Even as Kerry's campaign staff is being re-organized for the 17th time, we're still trying to figure out why they let their candidate, drunk or sober, pop up for that rally Thursday night. It was a cheap stunt that reeked of desperation. Bob Novak nailed it perfectly...
Kerry's strategists seemed uncertain whether he should follow custom and stay out of sight during the other party's national convention, but finally decided he could not. After windsurfing at Nantucket, Kerry addressed the American Legion convention in what had been billed as an attack on his Swift boat veteran detractors. Instead, he delivered a quiet critique of Iraq war policy, which was unenthusiastically received by the Legion. That was followed by Thursday night's speech in which Kerry attacked his opponents "who refused to serve" in Vietnam -- that is, Bush and Cheney.

A midnight rally in Springfield, Ohio, is nothing like an acceptance speech at Madison Square Garden, but the unfair comparison was not flattering to Kerry. Bush delivered a conservative speech to a conservative party but also as a war president. After shocking his supporters earlier by saying he would still vote for Bush's war resolution, Kerry in Ohio Thursday night declared the president "misled America into Iraq." The Democratic nominee continues to define himself.

The new staff has a lot of work to do. This Kerry campaign press release accuses a number of speakers at the RNC of lying (including Kerry's good friend John McCain). What's funny is the fact that it either simply re-states what the main point each speaker was trying to make, or provides only a blanket statement that it was a lie. Take a look:

America Safer Under Bush.

20. Bernard Kerik: “Today, we live in a much safer world as a result of this President's strong leadership.”

21. Marc Racicot: Under President Bush, we have a safer, more hopeful America.

Bush Has Continually Supported Our Troops

22. Bernard Kerik: “It takes continued support for our troops and first responders, not votes against our military, our intelligence and law enforcement spending.”

Education Has Improved Under Bush.

23. Racicot: “Schools are focused on success, and children are learning.”

24. Hastert: And we are proud of what the Republican Congress and the president have achieved together …revolutionary education reform, which demands more accountability from schools and better results for our children;

Bush Leading the Global Fight Against Disease & Hunger.

25. Marc Racicot: We are leading the world in the fight to eradicate disease and hunger.

John Kerry “On the Wrong Side” on Taxes.

26. Dennis Hastert: He's on the wrong side of taxation.

...Republican Convention Will Present a Positive Agenda.

34. Ed Gillespie: We will present a positive agenda for our future that will expand our Republican majority in the Senate, expand our Republican majority in the House, and expand our majority of Republican governorships.

John Kerry Has No Clear, Consistent Vision of Terrorism.

35. Rudy Guliani: President Bush sees world terrorism for the evil that it is. John Kerry has no such clear, precise and consistent vision.

Bush’s Refusal to Change His Mind Even When Facts Prove Him Wrong is Indicative of Leadership.

36. Rudy Guliani: President Bush, a leader who is willing to stick with difficult decisions even as public opinion shifts.

John Kerry Changes His Position Often on Key Issues.

37. Rudy Guliani: John Kerry, whose record in elected office suggests a man who changes his position often even on important issues.

John Kerry Voted Against Funding Troops.

38. Rudy Guliani: And then just 9 months later, he voted against an $87 billion supplemental budget to fund the war and support our troops.

...Bush Lies About Cost of Kerry’s Programs.

141. Bush: “To be fair, there are some things my opponent is for he's proposed more than two trillion dollars in new federal spending so far, and that's a lot, even for a senator from Massachusetts. To pay for that spending, he is running on a platform of increasing taxes and that's the kind of promise a politician usually keeps.”

Bush Lies About Kerry Vote Funding Troops

142. Bush: “Again, my opponent and I have different approaches. I proposed, and the Congress overwhelmingly passed, 87 billion dollars in funding needed by our troops doing battle in Afghanistan and Iraq. My opponent and his running mate voted against this money for bullets, and fuel, and vehicles, and body armor. When asked to explain his vote, the Senator said, "I actually did vote for the 87 billion dollars before I voted against it." Then he said he was "proud" of that vote. Then, when pressed, he said it was a "complicated" matter. There is nothing complicated about supporting our troops in combat.”

Bush Lies About Kerry’s View of Coalition.

143. Bush: “In the midst of war, he has called America's allies, quote, a "coalition of the coerced and the bribed." That would be nations like Great Britain, Poland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, El Salvador, Australia, and others allies that deserve the respect of all Americans, not the scorn of a politician. I respect every soldier, from every country, who serves beside us in the hard work of history. America is grateful, and America will not forget.”

Somewhere out there, Howard Dean is screaming about how he could have pulled a better campaign out of his... well, you know. (Hat tip: Ed Morrissey at CaptainsQuarters).

Labels:

Just One More Front in the War On Terror

I haven't spent any time on here discussing the god-awful massacre in Beslan, Russia, where Chechen and Arab terrorists murdered over 300 people, most of them children, in a school. The story's probably gotten a bit lost between the end of the GOP Convention, Hurricane Frances and Bill Clinton's heart surgery. But reading some of the accounts of what happened makes you realize just how depraved these people are...

While despairing soldiers and rescue workers moved among the growing pile of body bags, it was revealed that an 18-month-old baby had been repeatedly stabbed by a black-clad terrorist who had run out of ammunition.

Other survivors told how screaming teenage girls were dragged into rooms adjoining the gymnasium where they were being held and raped by their Chechen captors who chillingly made a video film of their appalling exploits.

They said children were forced to drink their own urine and eat the petals off the flowers they had brought their teachers after nearly three days without food or water in the stifling hot gym.

Their stories came as Russian officials warned that the final death toll of the siege of Middle School No 1 at Beslan in North Ossetia - in which up to 1,200 people were held captive - was likely to be more than 400.

The official toll yesterday stood at 323 which included 156 children, 10 Russian soldiers and two emergency service workers - 35 of the hostage-takers were also killed. Last night 434 people were being treated in hospital with 247 children and 85 adults in a critical condition.

A Russian official said six seriously injured children had been taken to Moscow for treatment. "One of them is a child, just 18 months old, with many knife wounds," he said.

The Chechen terrorists - including two so-called "Black Widows" - had been meticulously planning the hostage-taking for months.

High explosives and ammunition had been smuggled into the building during the summer by rebels disguised as workmen.

...A "Black Widow" is thought to have blown herself up in front of more than 1,000 hostages, prompting the deadly fire-fight and triggering a further serious of explosions inside the gymnasium.

At least three rebels were thought to have been captured alive in the school's basement - but were later said to have died.

One disguised herself as a teacher leading children to safety. She was apparently shot dead seconds before trying to blow herself up in a nearby hospital. Another was apparently shot dead and beheaded by his comrades for trying to surrender.

I left out some of the first-person accounts, but they're beyond sickening. This massacre exceeds the terrible events at Columbine; Klebold and Harris were sick monsters, but the terrorists at Beslan are in another league of depravity. Imagine making a mother choose which child she would save. Perhaps there is a God, since this woman's daughter survived. Yahoo has a seies of pictures up, which include shots of the memorials and the wounded. (Hat tip: Allahpundit, who has perhaps the most heart-rending picture up on his website.)

What's chilling, of course, is that the terrorists will probably try this in other places. What's even more sickening is the tendency of some of the folks on our side to try and rationalize this sort of depravity. Mark Steyn offers the answer to the pathetic masters of moral equivalence...

PHOTOGRAPHED from above, the body bags look empty. They seem to lie flat on the ground, and it's only when you peer closer that you realise that that's because the bodies in them are too small to fill the length of the bags. They're children. Row upon row of dead children, more than a hundred of them, 150, more, many of them shot in the back as they tried to flee.

Flee from whom? Let's take three representative responses: "Guerillas", said The New York Times. "Chechen separatists", ventured the BBC, eventually settling for "hostage-takers". "Insurgents", said The Guardian's Isabel Hilton, hyper-rational to a fault: "Today's hostage-taking," she explained, "is more savage, born of the spread of asymmetrical warfare that pits small, weak and irregular forces against powerful military machines. No insurgent lives long if he fights such overwhelming force directly . . . If insurgent bullets cannot penetrate military armour, it makes little sense to shoot in that direction. Soft targets – the unprotected, the innocent, the uninvolved – become targets because they are available."

And then there was Adam Nicolson in London's Daily Telegraph, who filed one of those ornately anguished columns full of elevated, overwritten allusions – each child was "a Pieta, the archetype of pity. Each is a Cordelia carried on at the end of Act V" – and yet in a thousand words he's too busy honing his limpid imagery to confront the fact that this foul deed had perpetrators, never mind the identity of those perpetrators.

Sorry, it won't do. I remember a couple of days after September 11 writing in some column or other that weepy candlelight vigils were a cop-out: the issue wasn't whether you were sad about the dead people but whether you wanted to do something about it. Three years on, that's still the difference. We can all get upset about dead children, but unless you're giving honest thought to what was responsible for the slaughter your tasteful elegies are no use. Nor are the hyper-rationalist theories about "asymmetrical warfare".

For one thing, Hilton is wrong: insurgent bullets can "penetrate military armour". A rabble with a few AKs and a couple of RPGs have managed to pick off a thousand men from the world's most powerful military machine and prompt 75 per cent of Hilton's colleagues in the Western media to declare Iraq a quagmire.

When your asymmetrical warfare strategy depends on gunning down schoolchildren, you're getting way more asymmetrical than you need to be. The reality is that the IRA and ETA and the ANC and any number of secessionist and nationalist movements all the way back to the American revolutionaries could have seized schoolhouses and shot all the children. But they didn't.
Because, if they had, there would have been widespread revulsion within the perpetrators' own communities. To put it at its most tactful, that doesn't seem to be an issue here.

So the particular character of this "insurgency" does not derive from the requirements of "asymmetrical warfare" but from . . . well, let's see, what was the word missing from those three analyses of the Beslan massacre? Here's a clue: half the dead "Chechen separatists" were not Chechens at all, but Arabs. And yet, tastefully tiptoeing round the subject, The New York Times couldn't bring itself to use the words Muslim or Islamist, for fear presumably of offending multicultural sensibilities.

...I wonder if, as they killed those schoolchildren, they chanted "Allahu Akbar!" – as they did when they hacked the head of Nick Berg, and killed those 12 Nepalese workers, and blew up those Israeli diners in the Passover massacre.

The good news is that the carnage in Beslan was so shocking it prompted a brief appearance by that rare bird, the moderate Muslim. Abdulrahman al-Rashed, the general manager of al-Arabiya Television, wrote a column in Asharq al-Awsat headlined, "The Painful Truth: All The World's Terrorists Are Muslims!" "Our terrorist sons are an end-product of our corrupted culture," he wrote. This is true. But, as with Nicolson's prettified prose in London, the question remains: So what? What are you going to do about it? If you want your religion to be more than a diseased death cult, you're going to have to take a stand.

For those who have forgotten that here is a War on Terror, this should be serve as a reminder, since Russia is just another front. Sadly, many folks will ignore the warning.