Friday, July 30, 2004

My blog will be on an operational pause for a week as I go on vacation with my family. I'll be in a sandy environment again, but it'll be the beach this time, not the desert.
Senator (he was a Senator for awhile following his tour in Vietnam, but he doesn't talk about it much because he doesn't like to brag) Kerry punctuated his speech at the convention last night by saluting the audience. I saw a picture of the salute on the net today. Lame is the first word that came to mind. I'm inclined to give the Senator a break, though. After all, he did serve in the Navy, a service whose traditions dictate that members only render a salute while wearing a cover (hat). Kerry's drill and ceremony training likely did not include saluting while not wearing a cover. However, if he is going to use the salute in his campaign speeches, it would behoove him to find an Army or Air Force veteran (both services salute without headgear in certain circumstances) to teach him to do it properly.
Today is the anniversary of the sinking of the USS Indianapolis.
At 12:14 a.m. on July 30, 1945, the USS Indianapolis was torpedoed by a Japanese submarine in the Philippine Sea and sank in 12 minutes. Of 1,196 men on board, approximately 300 went down with the ship. The remainder, about 900 men, were left floating in shark-infested waters with no lifeboats and most with no food or water. The ship was never missed, and by the time the survivors were spotted by accident four days later only 316 men were still alive.

The Indianapolis was returning from delivering the atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima.

Today is also the sixteenth anniversary of my marriage to Mrs. Eagle. The fact that both of these events occurred on the same date is purely coincidental.
Drudge is reporting that a major catastrophe occurred at the Democratic convention in Boston. DNC Director Don Mischer was heard over CNN's broadcast saying:
'Go balloons, go balloons! Go balloons! I don't see anything happening. Go balloons! Go balloons! Go balloons! Standby confetti. Keep coming, balloons. More balloons. Bring it- balloons, balloons, balloons! We want balloons, tons of them. Bring them down. Let them all come. No confetti. No confetti yet.

'No confetti. All right, go balloons, go balloons. We need more balloons. All balloons! All balloons! Keep going! Come on, guys, lets move it. Jesus! We need more balloons. I want all balloons to go, goddammit. Go confetti. Go confetti. More confetti. I want more balloons. What's happening to the balloons? We need more balloons.

'We need all of them coming down. Go balloons- balloons? What's happening balloons? There's not enough coming down! All balloons, what the hell! There's nothing falling! What the f@#k are you guys doing up there? We want more balloons coming down, more balloons. More balloons. More balloons'...

Without enough balloons, how are the American people expected to choose the better man for such an important job?

You can hear an MP3 of the above here.

Wednesday, July 28, 2004

Maybe I've been too hard on Theresa Heinz Kerry. At last night's Democratic Convention festivities, she did something that I would not have expected. During her speech to the delegates, Ms. Heinz Kerry told the crowd:
"My only hope is that, one day soon,” she said, “women who have all earned the right to their opinions -- instead of being called 'opinionated' will be called smart and well-informed, just like men."

I may be mistaken, but I think that THK was standing up for conservative columnist Ann Coulter. Coulter was hired by USA Today to cover the convention. The paper subsequently spiked the column she wrote for the July 26th edition of the technicolor, graph-intensive paper.

I know it sounds farfetched; a far out lefty like THK standing up for a card carrying member of the vast right-wing conspiracy. But who else could she have been talking about. THK was allowed to address the convention and speak her mind. Hillary Rodham Clinton was allowed to speak. Even the politically incorrect Iowa first lady was allowed to address the convention.

The only woman I can think of who has been "censored" so far at the Dem Convention is Ann Coulter. Yup, THK musta been standing up for Ann. That was damn nice of her, doncha think?

Okay, you can stop laughing now.

Monday, July 26, 2004

Drudge is reporting that the Boston Herald has unearthed excerpts from a book that Theresa Heinz Kerry wrote in 1975 in which she lamented the "putrid politics" of the Democratic Party and said:
"I know some couples who stay together only for politics," Heinz Kerry said at the time. "If Ted Kennedy holds on to that marriage (to ex-wife Joan) just for the Catholic vote, as some people say he does, then I think he's a perfect bastard."

The Herald piece also includes a quote from a 1971 interview:
In an interview with The Washington Post in 1971, Heinz Kerry declared, "Ted Kennedy I don't trust, like I don't trust Nixon, although I think Nixon's done a helluva lot better than I thought he would."

Looks like the Senator from MA (John Kerry, not the "perfect bastard") is going to have his hands full this election season. Not that anyone would be surprised by that. Two words of advice for Senator Kerry: duct tape.
Our wannabe first lady did her best Johnny Paycheck imitation in Boston, telling a reporter to shove it when he asked for clarification of a statement she made in a speech to Democratic Convention delegates. Ironically, the speech was about the growing incivility in politics. Ms. Heinz Kerry's statement was caught on tape, leaving her Democratic Presidential Candidate husband with no other choice but to defend the statement.

Note to Ms. Heinz Kerry: You have to be careful of those open mikes. Just ask President Bush about that.
Planned Parenthood has a new way for its supporters to make a fashion statement. You can now purchase T-shirts reading "I had an abortion". According to their store website:
They have finally arrived!

Planned Parenthood is proud to offer yet another t-shirt in our new social fashion line: "I Had an Abortion" fitted T-shirts are now available. These soft and comfortable fitted tees assert a powerful message in support of women's rights.

Order yours for $15 each.

What's next? T-shirts reading "I selectively reduced"?

Saturday, July 24, 2004

There is a story linked on Drudge's site about the President's missing Air National Guard records. Apparently some of the missing records have been found by the Pentagon. According to the story, the recently located records shed no new light on the time period following his transfer to the Alabama Air National Guard.

This is such a non-issue that words fail me in describing how stupid this "scandal" is. Service in the Guard and Reserves is MUCH different than serving in the active force (trust me on this, I've done both). Excused absences from drills (weekend training) are not uncommon. The absences are supposed to be made up, but they are not always. If a reserve member earns a minimum number of points (50, if memory serves) during a year, they earn credit for a "good" year. A drill weekend is worth four points. Each active duty for training (ADT) day is worth one point. Mobilized days for a war/contingency/emergency are worth one point each as well. I have had years where I did not attend all of my drills. This year will be one of them, as I was deployed for several months. Other years, I have not gotten in all of my ADT days for various reasons. I have had nothing but "good" years since I've been a "weekend warrior".

The fact that records are missing is also much ado about nothing. A friend of mine quit the Army National Guard in a huff when they shorted him several good years in his retirement calculation. He swore that he never missed a drill or an ADT day. He was not dilligent about saving his payroll records (as many people aren't), so he had no way of proving them wrong. When you switch units in the Guard or Reserves (I've done this before, too), the odds of having a records SNAFU increases. The only way I avoided this fate myself was to hand carry my records from my old unit to my gaining unit.

Another point worth noting, while I'm on the subject, is early releases. Guard and Reserve personnel are sometimes granted an early discharge from the unit if circumstances in their civilian jobs or personal lives make it impractical to stay in. They are usually transferred to an inactive status for the remainder of their commitment. My father was released a year early from the Army National Guard when he took a new civilian job that afforded him less time to meet his military obligations. A guy in my current unit was released last year when he obtained employment as a Federal Air Marshall.

If the wannabe Woodward and Bernsteins in the news media really want to make a name for themselves, maybe they should look into alleged UN oil for food program corruption instead of this bogus "scandal".

Friday, July 23, 2004

Larry Elder wrote an excellent column on media bias the other day. He demonstrates how journalists frame stories to convey a message above and beyond a straight reporting of the facts.
CNN's "American Morning" anchor compared an upcoming Kerry campaign speech to one being given on the same day by President George W. Bush: "President Bush heads to the swing state of Florida today. He'll be in Tampa appealing to conservative voters (emphasis added) with an address on human trafficking and then to a rally in Beckley, West Virginia. . . . And John Kerry will be in Washington speaking to the American Federation of Teachers. He's promising full funding for the No Child Left Behind Act. Later he'll hold a rally in Arlington, Virginia." And exactly what kind of voters did Kerry aim for in his teachers union speech? "Liberal" voters, perhaps?

On the same day, "CNN Headline News" compared the two speeches: "Earlier today, in Tampa, the president addressed the Justice Department conference on human trafficking. He says it's a global problem that the U.S. must tackle head-on. It's also an issue many conservative (emphasis added) voters say is important in November's election. . . . Bush's Democratic opponent is talking to teachers in the nation's capital today. Right now, John Kerry is addressing the American Federation of Teachers. The Democratic candidate says he would fully fund the No Child Left Behind education reforms authorized by Congress."

Wait a sec. Again, Kerry's speech before the teachers union, apparently, does not count as a pitch to his "liberal" base? And when did the issue of human trafficking concern primarily "conservatives"?

Elder hits this one right on the head. "Objective" journalists seem to believe that equal time=balanced reporting. By portraying Kerry's speeches as addressing important issues while implying that Bush is pandering to fringe groups, there is a not-so-subtly hidden message here as to who is the better man for the job.

Elder also did an intersting comparison of how the "three wise men" (Jennings, Brokaw, and Rather) covered the first days in office of President Clinton and President Bush (43) respectively. This one's well worth checking out. You can read the whole column here.

Thursday, July 22, 2004

The 9/11 Commision report was released today. The Commission's ultimate conclusion was that there was enough blame to go around in terms of failing to predict and prevent the terrorist attacks. Congress' role in this failure did receive special attention in the report. Their systematic gutting of our intelligence capabilities goes back to the 1970's and the Church Committee hearings on CIA misdeeds that essentially threw the baby out with the bathwater.

The report also recommended creating a new high level intelligence office overseeing the intelligence function of all of the agencies in the intelligence community. This sounds like a good idea, but it would not be the panacea that its supporters claim. For one thing, there is already a position in the intelligence community for someone who oversees the entire community and reports to the President. That person is the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI). Most people refer to this person as the CIA Director, but the DCI is more than director of one agency, he is the President's primary advisor on intelligence matters.

Another issue that complicates the Commission's recommendation is bureaucracy. This new intelligence "czar' would be the supervisor of people in various agencies that are in different cabinet departments. The FBI Director would answer to the Attorney General, but his intelligence personnel would answer to this new intelligence official. The same would go for the agencies that were a part of DoD, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Homeland Security. Would their intel personnel answer to an outside official (a bad plan from the get-go), or would they answer to both the agency head and the intel czar (an even worse plan).

The answer is to let the DCI do his job. If he advises the President properly and coordinates between the agencies, the information can flow in the proper directions. In the end, they ALL work for the President. Their job is to make his job easier, not to bicker amongst themselves.

Wednesday, July 21, 2004

Unless you've been living under a rock, or you are hyptonized by "reality" TV, you're probably aware that former Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger is under investigation concerning some classified materials he took from the National Archives while preparing for his testimony before the 9/11 commission. At first, reports were that he "only" took the notes he made while studying the documents. As attorney Ron Kuby, hardly a member of the vast right wing conspiracy, points out this is still illegal:
"You're not permitted to remove anything from that room - period," he said Tuesday morning. "And that means even your notes. If you're taking notes about classified information, those notes are now classified. They're placed in a secure area. You can have access to them only while being viewed by a security officer. Nothing gets removed."

Even if Berger had removed only his personal notes on classified material, it would still be a crime, said Kuby, who learned about classified reading room procedures during his own involvement in the trial of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers.

Now it appears that Berger also took documents other than his notes from the archive. Some of these documents have not been located as of yet. Berger stepped down today as an informal advisor to Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry.

Many on the right are speculating that Berger was trying to conceal documents that did not reflect well on the Clinton administration's handling of terrorism. The folks on the left side of the aisle are questioning the "timing" of the leak that Berger is being investigated. Further, many have stated their belief of Berger's statement that this was all an accident. Berger has said that this is just a case of "sloppiness".

Sloppiness? According to some reports, Berger was seen stuffing documents in his pants and socks. I find it hard to believe that even the most enthusiastic left-wing kool-aid drinkers among us believe him.

If there are two things I know about, it's stealing and lying. After I was discharged from the Army in 1990, I found employment in retail loss prevention. I spent five years as a store detective and seven as a loss prevention manager/investigator. In that time, I caught somewhere in the neighborhood of 2000 thieves (give or take a crook, or two). If there is one thing I can say without equivocation, it's that people who take something they aren't supposed to have, conceal it in their pants (or socks), and then leave the building with it, are thieves. He meant to steal. Another thing worth noting is that when "respectable" thieves get caught, they almost always say it was an accident ("Honestly sir, I have no idea how that 10 lb lobster got into my purse." Yeah, musta crawled in there looking for tictacs; happens all the time).

Sadly, Berger will probably get off with little or no punishment for what he did. The Republicans, ever fearful of being called "partisan", will let him skate. I hope I'm wrong about that.

Sunday, July 18, 2004

Last week, Tammi posted an entry on her blog about movies that you just have to watch all the way through if you catch them while flipping through the channels. She listed her "must watch" movies and asked her readers for theirs. My list (which is, I'm sorry to say, much longer than what I posted in her comments section) included the movie Ocean's Eleven. I was referring to the recent remake, not the "Rat Pack" film it was based on (also a good movie, BTW).

I was flipping through the channels a few nights ago and there it was, Ocean's Eleven. True to form, I watched it through to the end. As I watched it, I couldn't help but notice that this movie contains some prominent members of the Hollywood liberal elite. In 2003, cast members Don Cheadle, Matt Damon, Elliott Gould, and Carl Reiner all signed a letter to President Bush imploring him not to pursue military action in Iraq. While I disagree with these folks, they do have a right to their opinion. A few of cast members, however, have been downright mean about their liberal "activism".

-George Clooney made light of actor/NRA President Charlton Heston being recently diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease. He justified it by saying that being head of the NRA made Heston deserving of his affliction. Clooney also compared the Bush administration to the Sopranos TV crime family.
-Brad Pitt taunted Jenna Bush while she worked as an intern at a PR firm that represented him.
-Julia Roberts, the Pretty Woman herself, remarked that it is no mistake that Republican comes between "reptile" and "repugnant" in the dictionary (yeah, like she even owns a dictionary). Who says beauty is only skin deep.
-Matt Damon compared President Bush to Fredo (the dimmest of the Corleone brothers) in The Godfather.

It's hard to justify watching a movie with people like this in it. After all, I'm putting money into the pockets of some less than wonderful people. On the other hand, if I only watched movies made by people I agreed with, or were at least less disrespectful in their "activism", I would have a very short list of "approved" movies to watch. Since I am a movie buff, that just won't do.

I finally came to peace with this issue by viewing entertainers as service providers. After all, I don't know what the politics of the kid who served me that burger at the Wendy's drive-thru are. Ditto for my mailman, my car mechanic, the guy at the car wash, or the receptionist at my dentist's office. My only concern is that they provide me with good service. As long as they provide me with good entertainment, I guess I can overlook the politics of celebrities. There is, however, a limit to how far they should go. Politics is one thing, mean-spiritedness is another. Even the kid at the drive-thru knows that, which may make him smarter than Matt Damon and less repugnant than Julia Roberts.

I have to admit though, that there are a couple of them who are near the point of no return with me. It's not saying much about the state of things when you have to choose between popular culture and civility.

Tuesday, July 13, 2004

Cliff May has an excellent column on the National Review website about Joseph Wilson IV. As you may recall, Wilson is the former diplomat who was sent to Niger to investigate intelligence reports that Iraq had attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium there. After reporting that the intel reports were unsubstantiated, he hit the TV/media circuit to make his case that the Bush administration lied to make its case for the Iraq invasion. Soon after, columnist Robert Novak wrote a column exposing Wilson's wife Valerie Plame as an employee of the CIA. Wilson cried foul, claiming that his wife was an undercover operative and that the exposure endangered her life and the entire Wilson family.

Reacting like any international man of mystery would, Wilson hit the cable news circuit even harder. He then granted an interview for a piece in Vanity Fair, even posing for a picture with his undercover wife (wearing a clever disguise) in a jaguar convertible (hey, at least they didn't pose in front of their house with the street address visible in the picture). He even wrote a book "exposing" the Bush administration's transgressions.

The media tried to turn this into a scandal ("Plamegate"). An investigation was started to determine who was responsible for leaking Plame's name to Novak. I've always believed that there was a real scandal here, but the media missed the point entirely. Why was Jospeh Wilson, who had no military, intelligence, or investigative background, sent on such an important mission? What role did his wife play in his selection for this contract? How much of the taxpayers' money wound up in the Wilson family coffers?

Wilson denied that his wife played any role in his selection for this contract. According to May, evidence uncovered in a Senate investigation says otherwise:
For starters, he has insisted that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, was not the one who came up with the brilliant idea that the agency send him to Niger to investigate whether Saddam Hussein had been attempting to acquire uranium. "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson says in his book. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." In fact, the Senate panel found, she was the one who got him that assignment. The panel even found a memo by her. (She should have thought to use disappearing ink.)

Wilson not only lied about his wife's involvement in his employment by the government, he lied about the evidence that led to his conclusions about the uranium. He claimed that CIA reports showed that the documents connected with the attempted uranium sale were forgeries.
The problem is Wilson "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel discovered. Schmidt notes: "The documents — purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq — were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger."

Not only did Wilson lie to further a political agenda, all the while endangering the security of the United States, he DEFRAUDED the government. His wife used her position to get him a job that he was not qualified for. He was paid, and I would love to know how much, to conduct an investigation. He took the money and spent eight days in Niger "drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people" (his own words). If there is a point to criticize the Bush administration on here, it's sending Joe Wilson on this mission in the first place. Who sent a clown to do the lion tamer's job?

Monday, July 12, 2004

Many of the opponents of President Bush are not satisfied to merely disagree with him. Working to defeat him in the upcoming election isn't enough for them either. For some, hate is the only answer.

A FEMA employee was sent home for wearing a shirt that read "Love America, Hate Bush". Hollywood luminaries at a recent fundraiser for the Kerry/Edwards campaign engaged in a Bush bashing fest where:
-Paul Newman said that the Bush tax cuts are "borderline criminal".
-Jessica Lange called the Bush administration “a self-serving regime of deceit, hypocrisy and belligerence.”
-Chevy Chase said of the President: “This guy is as bright as an egg-timer.”

Why all the hate? Whatever happened to honest disagreement? Maybe Eric Hoffer's study of mass movements might offer us an answer:
Hatred is the most accessible and comprehensive of all unifying agents.

Even more telling is this:
Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil. Usually the strength of a mass movement is proportionate to the vividness and tangibility of its devil.

George W. Bush as the devil? If he never existed, the Movement would need to invent him.

Sunday, July 11, 2004

Several days ago, I saw a link on the Drudge Report about a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom who was marching in a 4th of July parade on Bainbridge Island in Washington state. According to the story,
Jason Gilson of East Bremerton, who as a Marine corporal was wounded in Nasiriyah early in the Iraq conflict and is now in the inactive Ready Reserve, marched in Bainbridge's July 4th parade holding a sign that said "Veterans for Bush."

While marching in the parade, Gilson was met with booing by members of the crowd, and was reportedly called a "murderer" and a "baby killer".

I was angered when I read this report, but unsurprised. I considered posting about the incident on my blog, but decided against it after reading many excellent posts by other bloggers out there. Since they already said what was on my mind (minus the profanity that keeps popping up in my head when I think about this), I saw no reason to say what has already been said so eloquently.

As I gave this story more thought, the thing that I have found most disturbing about this is how unsurpirising it was to me. Why should it seem like business as usual when people behave in such a mean spirited and hurtful fashion. These people probably don't know Jason Gilson. I'm sure they have no idea what he did, or didn't do while serving in Iraq. Their actions betray their real beliefs: anyone who serves in this war is a criminal.

I have blogged before about how anti-war protestors often make it a point to "support the troops". This incident goes beyond mere hypocrisy, though. Some of these people made it a point to hurt Gilson personally. Why would such "compassionate" people be so mean.

First of all, Gilson supports President Bush. Service members are seen by the left as victims of the President's "evil plans". Since Gilson refused to play the victim, he therefore forfeited the "support" of those on the extreme left.

The second reason I came up with was based on something I have been reading recently. It's not an article, a blog, or even a book on the current best seller list. I found this bit of wisdom in a fifty year old book by a man named Eric Hoffer. Hoffer was a self educated longshoreman who became a respected political philosopher. He published a number of books. The most famous of these, The True Believer, is where I found my answer.

Hoffer's book examined mass movements and the people who are drawn to them. According to Hoffer, mass movements fill a void in some people that they are unable to fill themselves. Affiliating themselves with The Movement gives meaning to the lives of such people. They feel that they are important because they are a part of something important. For many people, this doesn't present much of a problem. For others, their dedication to The Movement takes on fanatical undertones. Their political beliefs become more than a mere point of view. These beliefs become a sort of dogma. Questioning the belief system of the fanatical is met with the same reaction one would expect from a religious zealot whose faith had been attacked.

This brings us to Jason Gilson. The people who attacked Gilson probably don't know him. All they know is that Gilson, the non-victim service member, represents an attack on their belief system. A wounded veteran who supports the man who should be held accountable for his injury (President Bush) is a living contradiction to their faith. Gilson is a threat to The Movement, and The Movement gives meaning to the lives of the faithful. Consequently, Gilson is evil. Evil deserves no mercy. So they lashed out at him the only way that spineless cowards (left wing pacifists) know how to, they engaged in name calling. It's revolting behavior, but not surprising. It appears that the left is waging its own Jihad against "infidels".

Saturday, July 10, 2004

Drudge is reporting that a new documentary will debut in New York City on Monday that shows Republican bias at FOX News. FOX has countered claiming that they are prepared to go public with a behind the scenes look at the editorial methodology used by CNN and MSNBC.

In a twisted bit or irony:
Elsewhere, the NY TIMES magazine on Sunday is planning a detailed expose on the FOX NEWS movie, and the question of the documentary's fair use of footage broadcast on FOX NEWS.

That's perfect. The people who gave us Jayson Blair is going to expose FOX's lack of journalistic integrity. What next? Bill Clinton touring the country to give lectures on sexual harrassment?

Friday, July 09, 2004

I completed my processing today. As of 1600 (4 p.m. for you civilian types), I am back to reserve status. With no drills (weekend training) scheduled until mid-August, I may have to grow long hair and a beard. On second thought, maybe a goatee will be sufficient rebellion for now.

Charles Krauthammer has an excellent column on Frontpage Mag about Hans Blix (the UN's answer to Mr. Magoo) and the mindless complacency of the left. You can read the column here.

Thomas Sowell has an excellent column on the "political malpractice" of the 2004 Democratic ticket.
It is an insult to our intelligence to act as if posing with guns is as significant as how the Senator has voted on gun control laws during his 16 years in Congress. It is an insult to our intelligence to claim conservative values when both liberal and non-partisan organizations have rated John Kerry's voting record as the most liberal in the Senate, more liberal even than Ted Kennedy's.

You can read the rest of it here.

Thursday, July 08, 2004

Today is my last day of leave. I'll be back in uniform tomorrow for my last day on active duty. After I finish out-processing, I'll be back to "weekend warrior" status again (for now). I'll be back to work at my civilian job on Monday. In the meantime, I'm trying to spend time with the kids. I took them to lunch at McDonalds today. If they get fat, I may have to sue. Hell, even Ronald McDonald is suing them. Serves them right, damn profiteers. How dare they get paid for their efforts.

In my internet travels today, I saw that Michelle Malkin gave Ted Rall a much needed cyber-spanking on her website. If only Rall's parents had given him a few of the real kind when he was younger he might not be such an insufferable jackass (apologies to jackasses everywhere) today. Apparently, Red Ted has grown tired of urinating on the graves of dead heroes like Ronald Reagan and Pat Tillman. His new gig is to judge the racial "authenticity" of minorities who dare to disagree with him. How dare they?!?!

Sunday, July 04, 2004

I've spent very little time online recently, so I've been remiss in posting. I'm trying to spend as much time as I can with my kids, so posting will be spotty for another week or so.

Wednesday's trip to the beach went well. The weather cooperated and the beach wasn't too crowded. A stop at Dairy Queen on the way home made everybody happy.

We went to see Spiderman 2 on Friday. If you liked the first one, you'll love the sequel. In some ways I found it superior to the original. It's been doing monster box office since its opening last week. It would be a terrible tragedy, however, if it drained viewers away from Fahrenheit 9/11, a movie that gives us the "truth" about the war on terrorism.

On a side note, according to Drudge, Time magazine will report that Michael Moore is unhappy that his "documentary" has been hijacked by those who would use it as a tool in the 2004 election. Poor Michael. I guess no one told him that you forfeit ownership in propaganda films to "the movement". He should have learned that lesson from his most famous predecessor.

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter