February 16, 2004 by s.z.

Kerry Intern Update: Brought to You By A Grant From Halliburton Well, actually by Frederick at BeatBushBlog: It seems that The Sun has the only new wrinkle on the story today, but it's a bombshell: a full-page photo of Kerry and Alex caught in flagrante delicto.  Ha ha, just a poking a little fun at this scandal for its total lack of evidence and its complete inability to get any of the details right.  Actually, what The Sun has for today is the report that Alex filmed a TV interview for a U.S. network (ABC? Fox News? The Shopping Channel?) revealing all, but that the network isn't going to air the tape until it has some evidence to back up the woman's story.  So, if you never see this interview, it's because the dastardly Kerry machine got there first and destroyed everything which would prove Alex's claims.  Like in a Robert Ludlum novel -- a novel which could be called The Drudge Fiasco. The other new tidbit is that "a TV source" allegeged that Alex told everybody about her "relationship" with Kerry, but that no one will believe her.  Apparently not even her parents, since they told The Sun that all Kerry did was hit on their daughter, and invite her to work on his reelection campaign.  Oh, then there's her fellow intern from ABC News, who said that Alex never even mentioned Kerry's name -- she must not have believed Alex either . . .unless she and Alex's parents are part of the sinister conspiracy to make the whole world not believe Alex! Anyway, seeing as the Sun story has Alex claiming to have been a Washington intern, I know I don't believe her.  In fact, I don't even believe that it's her making the claims about nobody believing her -- I think it's that Kerry-hating best friend mouthing off again. In fact, I don't even believe the Drudge is gay anymore, that's how suspicious I'm getting.  But read Frederick's report and make up your own mind. 10:22:17 AM

Like Bart Simpson Said, "We Need Another Vietnam to Thin Out Their Ranks a Little" As Sadly, No! has detailed, the Canadians (well, some of them) are protesting and stuff because Triumph the Insult Comic Dog insulted them.  Well, their country insulted us first by letting Mark Steyn be born and then inflicting him on us, and until they agree to take him back, I think we should threaten to have Triumph taunt them a second time. Mark's latest column (for which he was paid by the Moonie Times, so I think the RICO statutes might be applicable) is about how John Kerry may well have slept with the intern, but even if he didn't, he's guilty of being alive when Jane Fonda was, and he also insulted all Vietnam vets by saying that a few of them did horrible things (Mark is cribbing from Amber Pawlik here).  And then Mark decides that Ann Coulter sounded so smart and funny picking on Max Cleland that Mark decides he wants on that bandwagon too. Anyway, I'm too tired to give Mark the beating he deserves, but I'll gladly hold your coats if the rest of you want to pummel him.  Here are some of "highlights" from this column: Now let me say I've no idea whether there's anything to the alleged intern business but ... as Howard Dean says when he wants to air some conspiracy theory about President Bush, it's an "interesting" story.   And, if you think we should have concrete proof before we bring it up, then to paraphrase Wes Clark comment on whether Mr. Bush was a "deserter," I've no proof Mr. Kerry isn't an adulterer. Because, as others have said, when you don't have an affair you are supposed to keep the same kind of proof of not having it (forms, memos, pay stubs, etc.) that the state and the military keep regarding the people who serve in the Texas Air National Guard.  Thus, Bush's lack of evidence of having performed any military duties for most of a year is exactly the same as Drudge's lack of evidence that Kerry had an affair, and the two matters are totally equivilent. Look at John Kerry's stump speech: "We band of brothers," he says, indicating his fellow veterans. "We're a little older, we're a little greyer, but we still know how to fight for this country." Thirty years ago, he came back from Vietnam and denounced his "band of brothers" as a gang of drug-fueled torturers, rapists, and murderers. Let me just quote what NBC Political Analyst Lawrence O'Donnell said on Scarborough Country, when Scar made that very same comment (notice that everything Steyn is saying has already been said -- he's just compiling all the nastiness and stupidity into one handy column): O‘DONNELL:  No, he wasn‘t calling the band of brothers that he identifies with on the campaign the people who did those things.  When I first heard John Kerry say that, it was not the first time I had heard it.  I had heard it from friends of mine who came back from Vietnam with exactly the same reports.  Those reports have been documented now, from Lieutenant Calley‘s trial forward ... There‘s all sorts of accurate documentation for this.  Every single one of those things did indeed happen in Vietnam.  Vietnam was the single most dishonorable enterprise the United States government ever engaged in.  And the most noble, patriotic thing that you could do possibly was work to stop it... John Kerry did not want to subject any more American boys to that kind of experience.  He was saying, they should not be sent over to that kind of experience.  Back to Steyn, and his REALLY objectional comments: So one John Kerry is a fake. Which is it? Running on biography is lame enough. Running on fake biography is pathetic. Likewise, Max Cleland, the former Georgia senator turned cable-show hit-man for the Kerry campaign on the Bush National Guard "scandal." He is untouchable because, as Terry McAuliffe likes to say, he's a "triple amputee who left three limbs on the battlefield of Vietnam."  As Ann Coulter pointed out in a merciless but entirely accurate column, it wasn't on the "battlefield." It wasn't in combat. He was working on a radio relay station. He saw a grenade dropped by one of his colleagues and bent down to pick it up. It's impossible for most of us to imagine what that must be like — to be flown home, with your body shattered, not because of some firefight, but because of a stupid mistake. Mr. Cleland at last no longer demurs to be passed off as a hero wounded in battle — because that makes him a more valuable mascot to the campaign.   Sad. No, what's sad is somebody so bereft of thoughts, original ideas, and moral decency that they would consider echoing the words of ANN COULTER to be a good idea. Like I said, I am too tired to flay Mark like he deserves, but I can offer him Cleland's response to Ann's vile remarks, in the hope it will help to shame him: Former Sen. Max Cleland defended his military service record Saturday night in response to comments from columnist and television commenter Ann Coulter that accused him of playing up injuries he suffered in the Vietnam War for political gain. Coulter, in a column published this week, said that Cleland, who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam, is no war hero, but rather a victim of a tragic, accidental grenade explosion who plays up his amputations for political gain. “If Cleland had dropped a grenade on himself at Fort Dix rather than in Vietnam, he would never have been a U.S. Senator in the first place. Maybe he’d be the best pharmacist in Atlanta,” Coulter said in her column, published on February 11. “He didn’t ‘give his limbs for his country,’ or leave them ‘on the battlefield,” Coulter said. “There was no bravery involved in dropping the grenade on himself with no enemy troops in sight. In fact, Cleland was wounded picking up a grenade that someone else dropped, during what he says was a combat mission. “I volunteered for a combat mission with the 1st Air Calvary division going into break the siege at Khe Sahn, and if that isn’t a combat mission, you ought to ask some of the people that were there and the 200 guys that were killed in that mission.” Oh, and since all that self-proclaimed "right-wing warmonger" Steyn has offered as service to his country (whichever one he claims) is a few hundred snide, uninformed, and self-congratulatory words every week, I can't see where he gained the creds to announce who and who isn't a war hero. Anyway, here's some info about the person at the Washington Times to whom one might address one's polite yet indignant comments, if one felt that Mark Steyn's column was, like Ann Coulter's, unfit for inclusion on the pages of a respectable newspaper: Web Editor webeditor@washingtontimes.com If you have questions or comments about the content of the site (articles, photos, etc.), contact Christopher Wavrin, the Web Editor. 8:50:46 AM

Favorite Quotes of the Day 1.  During the Presidential debates, President Bush was asked what he would say to a raped and pregnant family member.  He said that he would tell her that the decision whether or not to kill the child was up to her.  That is not pro-life.  That’s classic pro-abortion rhetoric.  If his daughter wanted to kill her grandmother to get the inheritance early, would he counsel her: “Sweetie, if you want to kill my mom, that’s completely up to you!?"  Personally, I think Jenna wouldn't ask, she'd just go ahead and kill Grandma Bar, either for the inheritance or because she got tired of the old battle-axe's nagging.  She strikes me somebody who isn't afraid to take action without asking her Dad's permission.  But if she did inquire of her father if it was okay to off grandma, he'd probably say, "Ask your mother." And when Jenna asked her mother, Laura would not only be okay with it, she'd help.  She can't stand Bar either. Anyway, the above passage is taken from Dr. Patrick Johnston's article "Why Christians Should Not Vote for George W. Bush," which appears in the current issue of Intellectual Conservative.  Per Dr. Johnston, the reasons Christians shouldn't support George are: Bush believes in rape in the case of rape or incest, so he's not really pro-life.  Plus, due to his policies, "It is no exaggeration to say that President Bush kills babies." Or maybe that's just one of his hobbies.  Plus, he's "pro-sodomy," as shown by giving Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter a job on "his" campaign; and "other issues," to include the following: His support of Clinton’s 1995 “assault weapons ban” which outlawed a host of semi-automatic guns.  The gun ban was due to expire in 2005, but according to Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan, "The president supports the current law (the Clinton gun ban), and he supports reauthorization of the current law." Because Christians should not support any candidate who is against God's assault weapons.  Patrick says that instead of voting for Bush as the "lesser of two evils," you should vote for the Constitutional Candidate, who will of course lose, but who at least holds the right views about abortion, homos, and firearms. 2.  "President Bush's service with the National Guard was pounded on by the press and Democrats, yet it was based on unsubstantiated rumors. That's "Republican media strategist Cheri Jacobus" frankly acknowledging that Bush's TANG service was mostly smoke and mirrors.  But for some reason she wants the press and the Democrats to apologize to the President! She was quoted in a Moonie Times piece about the Kerry rumors (which, says the Times, are unsubstantiated, but have been discussed extensively on the radio by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, which makes them newsworthy, and therefore just as good as true).  The piece also included this passage : Internet 'blogger' and magazine columnist Andrew Sullivan told CNN yesterday that he is "deeply conflicted" over how to approach the unsubstantiated but widely circulated story.   "Can you anymore not talk about something that's on the front page of the Times of London, front page of the Drudge Report, on everybody's minds?" Mr. Sullivan asked. "There comes a point at which the media has to acknowledge people are talking." Actually, Andrew, most normal Americans don't read Drudge or the London Times, so you can, in good conscience, not talk about the scandals they're covering if you don't want to.  I hope that helps you resolve your deep and painful internal conflict.  I mean the one about what to do about juicy but unsubstantiated rumors -- you're on about how to deal with a hunky, pro-war President who is supportive of the Federal Marriage Amendment. 3.  John Kerry tries to smear George Bush because George Bush never was deployed.  I ask you: does it matter that Bush’s physical body was never near combat? Of course it doesn't matter, because Bush's spirit was out there fighting the Viet Cong.  Sure, some might have thought he was stoned for most of the war years, but that's just what an out-of-body experience looks like to the untrained observor. And the quote came from Amber Pawlik, who finds it just terrible that John Kerry would say bad things about any soldier who fought in Vietnam.  See, young Amber has never heard of My Lai or any of the other atrocities committed by American soldiers, and so thinks that Kerry was just being mean and horrible to guys who were manly enough to kill for their country.  Amber contrasts the despicable Kerry with the noble George Bush, whose body was never actually in a war, but who has shown that he is the better soldier by being upbeat and positive about wars in general.  4.  Various media reports have pegged Anderson as a convert to Islam.  Why is this significant?    Because if he had converted to Buddhism or Hindu, for example, he almost certainly would not have not been caught up in a sting operation that found him trying to deliver to al Qaeda closely-guarded details about vulnerabilities and capabilities of armed tanks and Humvees. If he had converted to HINDU???  You probably won't be surprised to learn that the author of the above passage is Joel Mowbray, scourge of the State Deparment, defender of America from foreigny stuff. Anyway, it seems clear to me that Ryan Anderson might well have been caught in a sting operation even if he hadn't become a Muslim, because before his conversion he was a right-wing extremist who tried to join the militia movement (as David Neiwert at Orcinus documents).  And those guys are of interest to the feds too.  And Ryan seems like the type who would go to extrememes to get people to pay attention to him, and if he had converted to "Hindu" instead of Islam, it might have been the Indian intelligence service he tried to contact with his offers of really cool information about Humvees and lunch menus. Joel continues: Should Anderson have been denied the opportunity to serve his country because he is a convert to Islam?  Of course not.  But just as we give psych exams and various personality tests to soldiers, thorough examination of Islamic converts—at the least—would not seem to be such a bad idea.  And for people working in sensitive positions, then rigorous screening would seem to be nothing if not prudent. So, is Joel saying that the Anderson wasn't a "soldier" and so didn't get those "psych exams and various personality tests," or is he saying that they failed to weed out Anderson?  In any case, Joel is right if he is implying that psychological problems rather than religious beliefs are at the root of why Anderson attempted to pass info to al Qaeda.  But I wonder what other kinds of screening methods Joel would have us use on Islamic converts who want to serve as a member of a tank crew in the state National Guard.  Maybe he can ask Torquemada for some ideas. 7:29:48 AM

Blessed Are the Cheese Makers As Steve at No More Mister Nice Blog notes, there are conflicting reports about whether the line about the Jews' "blood guilt" has been cut from Mel Gibson's soon-to-be-released movie First Blood 2: The Passion of Rambo.  Steve quotes from the  Entertainment Weekly cover story, which indicates that the line was gone in November, but had resurrected when Mel was showing the film to Christian groups.  And then, "Word got out.  Controversy erupted.  The press pounced.  Gibson was heard to suggest that dark forces were moving against him.  And again, interest was piqued." And so in February, when Mel finally let his arch enemy The NY Times see the film, the line was gone.  Again.  Steve says that EW thinks this is just a publicity device, but he believes the line will be retained in some versions of the film.  Like perhaps in a special "Director's Cut: TRUE CHRISTIAN" DVD box set. Me, I think Steve could be right about Mel ultimately marketing a version which retains his artistic vision of a "blood curse" on the Jews, but I think that "shameless publicity whoring" is the main motivation for all of the annouced changes concerning this line. As evidence, I refer you to that favorable New Yorker piece (copy courtesy of Free Republic) from last September.  It's the one where Mel says he want's Frank Rich dead, his dog dead, and Rich's intestines on a stick, but this is the part I want to focus on today:   The antagonist in Gibson's vision is plainly the Jewish high priest Caiaphas, played by an Italian actor who can seem a bit of a ham as he cajoles the ambivalent Pilate into executing Jesus. Finally, an exasperated Pilate relents and condemns the prisoner, but, according to the Gospel of Matthew, he first makes a show of his own guiltlessness by publicly washing his hands. In Matthew, that gesture is followed by a shout from the crowd: “His blood be on us, and on our children.” This passage, which is depicted only in Matthew, is one of the sources of the notion of collective Jewish guilt for the death of Jesus. Gibson shot the scene, but with Caiaphas alone calling the curse down. Wright, Gibson’s editor, strongly objected to including even that version. “I just think you're asking for trouble if you leave it in,” he said. “For people who are undecided about the film, that would be the thing that turned them against it.” Gibson yielded, but he has had some regrets. “I wanted it in,” he says. “My brother said I was wimping out if I didn't include it. It happened; it was said. But, man, if I included that in there, they'd be coming after me at my house, they'd come kill me.” Because Mel is one of the Foremost Persecuted Christians of Our Time, you see.  And let us now recap The Gospel of Mel: in January 2003, St. Mel went on the Bill O'Reilly show to defend himself against "any Jewish people" who might attack his movie.  None had, of course, since nobody cared about Mel or his little Aramaic film project.  He kept up the claims about how Jewish critics were oppressing him by objecting to his film, and eventually some Jewish critics got with the program and started objecting (well, all they wanted back then was to see the movie, but Mel wouldn't let them, and so they objected to that).  Things really picked up for Mel in August, when the NY Times' Frank Rich accused him of trying to "foment the old-as-Hollywood canard that the 'entertainment elite' (which just happens to be Jewish) is gunning for his Christian movie."  And thus we come to the September New Yorker piece, where Mel has a hissy fit because Rich said Mel was "jew baiting."  And Mel announces that he filmed the line that had been used in the past to blame the Jews for the death of Christ.  Oh, but he had had to cut it for fears that his enemies would "killl him" if it were part of the movie.  But it had really happened, so he WANTED to include it.  But it was just too controversial.  Thus we see that Mel started using the line as an attention grabber five months ago.  And he hasn't stopped yet: it's in, it's out; it's Biblical so it can't be offensive; he will remove it as a sign of good will and brotherhood towards the Jews, etc.  Personally, I don't care if he has Caiphus saying, "His blood be on sale in the lobby; get your Passion souvenir before leaving the theater."  Because I'm not rewarding this kind of religious hucksterism (which sounds kind of "money changers in the temple-ish" to me) by buying a ticket for Mel's film.  Plus, I'm pretty sure he cut out the flying saucer rescue sequence described in Mark, and therefore his film really isn't totally true to the Bible. P.S. Plus, I don't like how Mel ripped off the plotline of Lethal Weapon (suicidal guy is teamed up with compassionate partner, and together they fight crime) as a biographical device to sell the film: Gibson traced the genesis of The Passion back to his own spiritual crisis 13 years ago when he became suicidal and came close to throwing himself out of a window. [snip]  Those feelings led him to reexamine Christianity, and ultimately to create The Passion. Yeah, 13 years ago was when Bird on a Wire and Air America came out.  No wonder Mel was suicidal.  And while getting back in touch with his Catholic-splinter-group roots might have saved his life, I think he could have repaid God for the favor by just promising not to make Mad Max 4. 4:35:12 AM