I know that this story is true. I believe that the witnesses and the documents are authentic. We wouldn't have gone to air if they would not have been. There isn't going to be -- there's no -- what you're saying apology?

At 8:00 pm ET Wednesday night, CBS News does the story...

at 8:59 ET -- before the broadcast is finished!!! -- the documents come into question via a poster named Buckhead on the Free Republic Web site

47 posted on 09/08/2004 8:59:43 PM PDT by Buckhead

• People on the Net work nights.
• People on the Net work weekends.
• People on the Net work fast.
• People on the Net work diligently.
• People on the Net don't emit or swallow bullshit.

CBS News released a statement yesterday standing by its reporting, saying that each of the documents 'was thoroughly vetted by independent experts and we are convinced of their authenticity.' The statement added that CBS reporters had verified the documents by talking to unidentified people who saw them 'at the time they were written.'

Quote:

Just after campaigning for John Kerry, the Boy Blunder wonders:

Remind me why libertarians should support Bush again, will you?

Here's why: Because, whatever his faults, Bush is fighitng the War on Terror, when, as the Berger incident makes eminently plain, the Democrats were avidly avoiding doing the same. Between those two Blunders, there is this, quoted approvingly from the 9/11 Commission's report:

[Radical Islamism] is not a position with which Americans can bargain or negotiate. With it there is no common ground -- not even respect for life -- on which to begin a dialogue. It can only be destroyed or utterly isolated.

Libertarians should support Bush because, of our two bad choices, he will do this and Kerry will not. Very simple.

Another, from OpinionJournal.com:

This Saturday is Sept. 11, the third anniversary of, well, Sept. 11. A political organization holding a meeting that day urges its members to show up "wearing some clothing article colored black to mourn the deaths of the thousands of people who have died as a result of U.S. government policies."

That's right, this outfit thinks the anniversary of an attack on America is an appropriate day for a Blame America First-fest. Ah well, we've come to expect such things from moonbat Muslims and commie peaceniks. There's no point in getting upset.

Only this group of ideological extremists consists neither of Islamists nor commies. It's the Libertarian Party and its "presidential candidate," Michael Badnarik. They are, of course, perfectly entitled to exercise their right to freedom of speech. But really, what a bunch of sickos.

Sickos or not (Taranto is always there with the bon mot, eh?) they have lost their way and perhaps their minds. Do they moonlight as Democrats? So a government policy lived inside the mind of Mohammed Atta, did it? Why not the butchers in Russia just recently as well? But of course, those poor things; with some government's policies filling all available space in their heads and pushing out any means of moral judgment, what could they do but torture children and [so it's reported] enjoy it? Not only does "government policy" force someone to commit torture in the name of a sacred principle; it also makes him savor every moment of the terror he creates. And egad, how could we be so evil?

Not that I'm responsible for what the LP does -- I will never send them another dime. That aside, I am ashamed of them and embarrased by their childishness. Let them register as Democrats, put BUSH LIED! or perhaps MOHAMMED ATTA -- HELPLESS VICTIM OF IMPERIALIST PERFIDY stickers onto their Volvos, and cheer every lie told by Michael Moore. Perhaps these useful idiots could ask to sign on as the Stupid Party wing of the Sierra Club. Who knows -- it might boost the membership by a half-dozen or so and get a couple more LP dog-catchers elected on the Smoke Grass, Not Saddam ticket.

My gut tells me they're probably genuine

When the count of military deaths in Iraq reaches the "milestone" of equaling the number of deaths in the World Trade Center, will the count become even more earnest, more heart rending?

The Kerry campaign is a bore that's degenerating into a laughing stock.

'Bush-despising' is no doubt very comforting to McCrum's beleaguered literati but in the end it's little more than snobbery - fine for cocktail condescension but utterly inadequate for an election campaign. You can't beat something with nothing, and Kerry is about as spectacular a nothing as you could devise - a thin-skinned whiny vanity candidate who persists in deluding himself that Bush's advantage is all down to 'smears' and 'lies' and 'mean' 'attacks'. It's not.

Bush's something is very simple: his view of the war on terror resonates with a majority of the American people; when he talks about 9/11 and the aftermath, they recognise themselves in his words; they trust his strategy on this issue. For an inarticulate man, he communicates a lot more effectively than Senator Nuancy Boy.