Tonight's post was going to be a hard-hitting Citizen Journalist report of Mary Mape's Friday studio interview with Doug Wright of KSL Radio out of Salt Lake, but their vaunted podcast archives don't seem to want to work.
That woman is clinical. Unhinged to a disturbing, my - goodness - she's - crazy - let's - just - back - away - quietly - before - she - notices - us experience usually reserved for people who make eye contact with a bag lady in a subway station.
I never knew that Texas lived in thrall to the Bush family - and in a deeper darkness than any peasant in Russia ever experienced under Stalin. (NO - not her words. But that was the inferrence I got from her account.)
I caught five minutes of the exchange while I was managing my survey controller files between staking jobs. Now, Doug Wright finishes a distant second to Larry King where the issue is getting the real marrow out of the bones of an interview, but I could tell that even he was apalled at what this woman had to say even if he couldn't bring himself to point out the simplest contradictions to her version of the events. I was at least hoping he would ask her why every one of Bush's ANG peers who had ever had anything good to say about the president were contacted ONCE by CBS, then never again. I believe he did mention this dissent of her work published by E.J. Will, a forensic document professional who was retained by CBS during the runup to the Rathergate fiasco.
I'd have loved to listen to the whole thing, but it's hard to say no when the contractor is ready to go.
But I can't get a transcript - at least I haven't had a reply to my email yet - so please go and visit Dr. Sanity, who has generously donated some couch time to the Angry Left:
"What makes Bush Hatred completely insane however, is the almost delusional degree of unremitting certitude of Bush's evil; while simultaneously believing that the TRUE perpetrators of evil in the world are somehow good and decent human beings with the world's intersts at heart."
Read it all.
See Protein Wisdom for an extensive post on the current "Bush Lied" campaign being conducted by the Democrats.
"What we are seeing now, however, is a cynical, orchestrated attempt to weaken the President—and importantly, one that is based on what most Congressional Democrats know to be a faulty premise, that Bush either “lied” or “manipulated intelligence” to take us into war.
Glenn Reynolds labeled such behavior unpatriotic. To which I responded, “Glenn touches on an important distinction that we should now be willing to embrace: namely, that though the anti-war position is not inherently unpatriotic, those in the anti-war movement who use lies and misinformation to harm the country are—and political opportunism that relies on revisionist history and the leveling of false charges in order to regain power is indicative of mindset that profoundly cynical and profoundly anti-democratic.”
I propose this: those that would presume to cater to crazy people have to have a few screws loose themselves. I used the word "clinical" back up there to describe Ms. Mape's patent inability to accept that she was at the very least a dupe - much less actively a party - to a blatantly partisan act of unethical journalism. If a cossetted main stream media professional will willingly bet the credibility of her entire organization on a three card monte pitch as laughable as the Killian memo, what's the leap to seeing what's left of the Democrats rolling the dice on making us lose this war in exchange for the satisfaction of seeing Bush brought down?
This strikes me as eerily similar to al Qaeda willing to blow up a score of school kids just to scratch the paint on a Bradley. It really does. Brutal, callous, and terribly, terribly counterproductive in the long run.
Mr. Goldstein's post doesn't refer to he-said/she-said opinion mongering, but rather to a years' long trail of documentary evidence showing clearly that the intelligence that was out there was judged as "good enough" by our intelligence agencies, foreign governments, and our own individual legislators and executive to base policy decisions on. The world of Saddam Hussein v. America didn't spring into existence in November, 2000, and all the television minutes and column inches to come over the next few weeks or months cannot cannot change the fact that regime change for Iraq was offical U.S. policy before GW Bush won a single primary.
Hindsight is always 20/20. But presuming to exculpate one's decisions while indicting another's based entirely on hindsight (especially of the disengenuous, hypocritical, and flat dishonest flavor) depends on the gullibility of the audience to be successful.
In this wired world there are ample resources with which to influence public opinion. But the market decides what actions will result. And the market moves on what is judged to be real. Look at where Mr. Goldstein goes, follow those links not to commentary but to source data.
All the PR in the world couldn't make New Coke a winner. Because New Coke flat sucked. How long will the Democrats flog this horse?