Exposé of Kerry Campaign's activities to undermine Australian military support of our troops in Iraq forces John Kerry to practice disguising Simultaneous Flip-Flop as "intellectually nuanced" position  using "naked assertion" technique Dan Rather pioneered for CBS News' 60 Minutes as MemoGate (a.k.a. RatherGate).

            PoliSat.Com has learned that the Bush campaign will soon incorporate into campaign commercials the startling information about John Kerry's overseas campaigns to organize absentee voting for Kerry by Americans residing abroad as revealed in Charles Krauthammer's September 24, 2004, column (here).  According to Krauthammer, Kerry's sister, Diana, is running the absentee-voter campaign for Kerry in Australia, and in doing so, is providing vocal support for, and receiving vocal support from, Mark Latham, who's seeking to unseat Australia's current Prime Minister, John Howard, in the October 9, 2004, election in Australia by promising to withdraw Australian troops from Iraq.  

            Kerry has made it a cornerstone of his campaign to claim (a) that "foreign leaders" want him to defeat Bush and (b) that if he were elected, "more foreign leaders" would "support" our efforts in Iraq and thus reduce the burden on our troops.  The Kerry Campaign's Rapid Response Team is already anticipating that the Bush Campaign will characterize such activity by Kerry's operatives in Australia as not only undermining a cornerstone of Kerry's campaign but also undermining the security of our troops by trying to encourage a currently staunch military ally to withdraw.  

            Under authority of the top secret Private Patriot Act Covert Surveillance System, PoliSat.Com used its high-tech, remote-sensing capabilities to monitor discussions inside the Kerry Campaign's Rapid Response Team on how to respond to such criticism.   The Team quickly settled on two strategies:  First, they began preparing a campaign commercial to explain how people not as stupid as George W. Bush and his supporters are able to understand the "intellectually nuanced" explanation of how it would actually increase security for our troops in Iraq if one of our staunchest allies were to withdraw its troops supporting them.  (For this part of the strategy, they all quickly agreed that only Ted Kennedy or John Kerry himself had the capacity to make such argument with a straight face.)  Second, they began working on a second commercial to characterize the anticipated criticism by the Bush Campaign as a "conspiracy" to "attack" John Kerry's "patriotism."   (For this part, they all quickly agreed that only Dan Rather could make such patently illogical assertion with a straight face, so they sent a covert message to Mary Mapes at SeeBS requesting her assistance in arranging for Dan to covertly "coach" Kerry on how to make such patently illogical assertions with a straight face.) 

            As Kerry's Rapid Response Team began working on the first strategy, they quickly realized that it would require Kerry to perform what has heretofore been considered impossible:  a Simultaneous Flip-Flop.  It's an extremely dangerous maneuver requiring the candidate to turn himself inside-out while simultaneously expressing opposing views through his two major orifices.  Most politicians who have attempted this have only completed half the maneuver, which leaves them blinded by the inability of their eyes to see through their stomachs.  Even though Kerry has already demonstrated the ability to simultaneously speak through both orifices, he has not yet demonstrated the ability to do so while turned inside-out.

            Using our state-of-the-art capabilities, we managed to electronically intercept a transmission of the video/audio files for such commercial from the Kerry Rapid Response Team to Kerry Campaign Headquarters.  However, it appears that during that transmission, a slice of audio and video from the Bush Campaign became attached to the end of the Kerry commercial.  Here it is:

Title of Kerry Campaign Commercial:
Simultaneous Contradictions are Not "Flip-Flops" (Take Number One)

Intellectually Nuanced Subtitle:  
How Australian retreat would help America's Troops.

Hello, I'm the candidate Kerry
prepared to debate without erring
with Dubya about
his absence of doubt
on tactics for terror deterring.

To voters I'm ready to pitch
my plan which I've named "bait & switch."
It's dovishly hawkish
and hawkishly dovish,
so foes never know which is which.

I first must assume the position
required to achieve the condition
for showing the laity
that simultaneity
negates "flip-flop" names for positions.

Confusing our foes with this pitch
has one minor flaw, I'll admit.
My dual disguise
makes voters surmise
that I'm never sure which is which.

So voters can learn which is which
among many nuances pitched,
I hereby provide
examples derived
from tactics I call 'bait & switch."

As "bait," I contend I'd recruit
more allies than Bush could recruit,
then switch to a pitch
for allies to ditch
the strategy Bush has pursued.

I list, for example, Australia,
where Latham calls Howard a failure
for helping Bush whack
Saddam from Iraq
with help of some troops from Australia.

My active campaign in Australia
with absentee Yanks in Australia
supports Latham's plan
to promptly disband
support for the Yanks by Australia.

That forthcoming vote in Australia--
October the 9th in Australia
will choose whether Howard
or Latham's empowered
as Minister, Prime, for Australia.

So-what if my "ops" in Australia
help Latham make Howard a failure?
So-what if that means
that Latham would scheme
retreat from Iraq by Australia?

To critics who'd claim this refutes
my claim that more help I'd recruit,
since Howard is not
my pal, like Chirac,
so-what if the Aussies withdrew?

I say to those doubting my plan
for more allies giving a hand
that Kofi and Jacques
and Gerhardt would stop
complaining and give us a hand.

.... static .... fade-out/in transition....

Excuse me, I'm Dubya whose plan
is not mocking friends lending hands
and surely not trusting
your "friends" merely lusting
for "clapping" as "giving a hand."

            As the sounds of clapping fade, one can still hear the faint sound of a Dan-Rather-like voice saying, "I still think withdrawal of Australian troops would strengthen, not weaken, international support for our troops in Iraq."

--Jim Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com

Sept. 27, 2004-- No Update-- Editor teraching MCLE seminar.

Sept. 26, 2004-- No update-- Editor away with family.

Sept. 25, 2004-- No update-- Editor away to teach MCLE seminar.

Sept. 24, 2004-- No update-- Editor away to teach MCLE seminar.

Sept. 23, 2004 #01:  Political Satire/Commentary where satire is always commentary but commentary isn't always satire™ 
(but we're confident you'll know the difference)  Search PoliSat.Com Home  Tell a friend about PoliSat.Com    Subscribe 
Permanent link to this installment in PoliSat.Com's Archives    Google-News list of recent updates    About author, Jim Wrenn.

Commentary-- Quagmire Kerry castigates Bulge-Battling Bush; MemoGate and RatherGate scandals about 60 Minutes' broadcast of forged documents about George W. Bush's Air National Guard service force CBS to investigate whether Dan apes Mapes or Mapes fans Dan or both.·

            John Kerry's most recent incarnation of his position on Iraq and Bush's reiteration of his own position are competing for public attention with the unfolding media/campaign scandal involving CBS and officials in the Kerry Campaign.   Some commentators contend the latter set of issues is a distraction from the former, but the unfolding nature of the latter set of issues are instead shedding light on how the public should view the debate on the former.  

            Issues about Operation Iraqi Freedom.

            John Kerry's most-recent pronouncements imply that he may have finally decided which of his numerous positions on Iraq has become he favorite-- i.e., the Howard Dean "quagmire" position, which he mocked during the primaries.  His post-Vietnam-service position was that our European and United Nations critics were right and we were wrong.  His quagmire position on Iraq is that our European and United Nations critics are right and we are wrong.  As Yogi Berra might say, "Deja vu all over again."

            Has the barbaric resistance in Iraq grown more than Bush and supporters of Operation Iraqi Freedom expected?  Of course hit has.  Did the Battle of the Bulge jeopardize the plans for unconditional victory over the Nazis?  Of course it did.  If the Battle of the Bulge were to have occurred in the late summer of 1944 rather than in December, would it have made sense to cite it as grounds for characterizing the campaign to liberate Europe as a "quagmire" and to advocate such characterization as grounds to vote Franklin Roosevelt out of office in the 1944 election?  Of course not.  Did the casualties and damages inflicted by the Ardennes Offensive, which we ultimately repelled in the Battle of the Bulge, invalidate the moral rightness of the strategy for unconditional victory over the Nazis?  Of course not.  Does the barbaric resistance in Iraq invalidate the moral rightness of Operation Iraqi Freedom?  Of course not-- instead, it underscores it.

Issues about the Media/Campaign Scandal:
MemoGate, RatherGate (and RatherKerryGate?) 

            The MemoGate and RatherGate scandals have forced SeeBS to investigate whether Dan apes Mapes or Mapes fans Dan or both.  In the wake of it having becoming clear to everyone in the universe except Dan Rather that the documents published by CBS 60 Minutes as being a part of George W. Bush's Air National Guard records are fraudulent, forged documents, defenders of Dan Rather characterize this episode as though it were an isolated incident in an otherwise distinguished career of objective news reporting.  Just one of the many incidents that make such characterization laughable to everyone not infected with the dominant-media mindset prevalent at ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times is Dan Rather's August, 2000, insinuation -- based entirely upon his partisan speculation-- that a "Republican ...dirty trick" on the day of Al Gore's acceptance speech to taint Gore with the Clinton scandals by anonymously leaking to the press a report that the then-independent-prosecutor, Robert Ray, was considering instituting criminal charges against Clinton for perjury.  As political operatives love to say, "the fact of the matter" is that one of the three judges (a Democrat) presiding over the independent-counsel investigation had the integrity to identify himself as the source of the "leak."  Knowing that CBS would soon delete Rather's unfounded partisan speculation from it's website, PoliSat.Com preserved it's content for posterity at http://polisat.com/ratherblather.htm.

            Was such speculation a "crime"?  Of course not.  Is it inherently wrong for a "news" reporter to ever express an opinion?  Of course not.  Is it hypocritical for such "news" reporter such as Dan Rather to deny having such patently partisan views?  Of course it is.  Is it justifiable to characterize a news-media person such as Rather as one with a "distinguished reputation" as a "news" reporter?  Of course not.  In the case of Rather, it's not only unjustifiable, it's ludicrous.  

            Can reporters with partisan views rise above their views to be fair?  Of course-- all one needs to do is watch Tim Russert, a former aide to Democratic Senator Patrick Moynihan.  Russert doesn't always succeed in being fair-- who could?  But it's always obvious that he's trying hard to do so.  That's all we can expect.  It's my personal opinion that one of the ways that Russert manages to rise above his own partisan views is that he admits them to himself and then consciously seeks to counter them in order to pose the kind of questions he believes fair-minded partisans on the other side would pose.  Dan Rather rarely, if ever, sought to rise above his own partisan biases and prejudices.

            As has long been the case with Dan Rather, the dominant media mindset is to view it's own partisan views in the news as examples of "objectivity."  That's why they perceive Fox News as being "pro-Republican" or "right wing."  Their perception of Fox News as being "pro-Republican" is a manifestation of their subconscious recognition that it doesn't fit their own pro-Democrat mindset.  They had become so accustomed to almost always hearing (or reading) "news" reported in a manner fitting their own mindsets that it shouldn't be surprising that their hearing news reported in a balanced manner seems to them to be "pro-Republican."  

            Surely all "reporters" have partisan views.  That's not the test.  The test is whether they consistently try to rise above such views when functioning as reporters of "news."  No less imperfectly than Tim Russert, Fox News, under the managerial guidance of Brit Hume, is trying to rise above partisan views in order to present a "fair and balanced" set of opposing views.  Do they always succeed?  Of course not.  Do they succeed far more often than have the dominant media?  Of course they do.

RatherKerry-Gate?  

            Suppose John Stossel of ABC's "20/20" were to have urged a top official in the Bush campaign to contact a confidential source for a forthcoming "exposé" on John Kerry.  The same dominant-media crowd now poo-pooing questions being raised about Mary Maples' request for a high-level Kerry Campaign official, Joe Lockhart, to contact here "confidential source" for Dan Rather's then-imminent "exposé" against George W. Bush would be apoplectic about any such communication between Stossel and a Bush Campaign official.  Contrary to what Dan Rather and the dominant media would have us believe-- notwithstanding their having plagiarized Richard Nixon by trying to characterize Rather's and Maple's conduct as a "third-rate [journalistic error]"-- there are common-sense reasons to strongly suspect that Rather and/or Maples were actively attempting to aid the Kerry Campaign against Bush.  Even worse, unlike Stossel, who honestly identifies his partisan perspective, Rather has tried to masquerade as an "objective" news reporter.  Thus, the Rather/Maples/Kerry-Campaign connection is potentially much more serious than my hypothetical example regarding Stossel.

Editorial Disclaimer.

            By the way, I'm not a Republican, nor am I a Democrat.  I'm a non-theist, but I'm also not an anti-theist or secular fundamentalist.  I classify my part of the political spectrum as "ClaLiCon"-- the Classically Liberal, Conservative Middle.  It's an eclectic mixture of classical liberalism and libertarianism tempered by NeoCon realizations that although might doesn't make right, might-less right can't triumph over right-less might. 

--Jim Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com

Sept. 22, 2004 #01:  Political Satire/Commentary where satire is always commentary but commentary isn't always satire™ 
(but we're confident you'll know the difference)  Search PoliSat.Com Home  Tell a friend about PoliSat.Com    Subscribe 
Permanent link to this installment in PoliSat.Com's Archives    Google-News list of recent updates    About author, Jim Wrenn.

Scientific poll about CBS 60 Minutes shows respondents would Rather buy the Brooklyn Bridge than Dan Rather's explanation and prefer the term Rather-Kerry-Gate or RatherKerryGate over MemoGate, Memo-Gate, RatherGate, Rather-Gate, DocuDrama, Docu-Drama, See BS, RatherBlather, Rather-Blather, MapesGate, Mapes-Gate, Mapes' Ape, WorderGate, Worder-Gate, DeadAnchorWalking, Dead-Anchor-Walking, DonkeyGate, or Donkey-Gate-- New CBS slogan to be I'm Dan Rather Sorry.

            PoliSat.Com has assembled all past and prospective purchasers of the Brooklyn Bridge to conduct a scientific poll to determine the proper political jargon for describing the scandalous broadcast of fraudulent documents by Dan Rather and CBS 60 Minutes.  One of the more shocking findings of this scientific survey is that none of those who have been, and would be, willing to purchase the Brooklyn Bridge was willing to believe that Dan Rather and CBS 60 Minutes acted in "good faith" in treating a well-known Bush-hater with a track record of unreliable allegations as an "unimpeachable source" for claiming "authenticity" for documents that anyone old enough to remember the age of the typewriter would immediately suspect as being forgeries.  

            How old is Mary Mapes?  Was she like Bud in "Back to the Future," who, when transported back to the Fifties, naturally assumed that "unscrewing" had always been the method for removing caps from soft-drink bottles.  If she's younger than 45, there's a high probability that she would have no recollection of having ever used a typewriter not equipped with software programming to produce proportional fonts and automatic word-wrapping for ends of lines within a paragraph.

            How eager was Dan Rather to embrace the conclusions supported by her ignorance of the past?  Surely he was just as eager to accept those conclusions as he was eager to speculate (without any evidence) in August of 2000 that the possibility of the then-Independent-Counsel Robert Ray bringing criminal charges against Clinton having been anonymously "leaked" to the press on the day of Al Gore's acceptance speech was a manifestation of "Republican dirty tricks."  However, soon afterward, one of the three judges (a former Democrat) had the integrity to set the record straight by identifying himself as the "anonymous source."  Did Rather ever apologize for his unwarranted speculation?  Of course not.  Knowing that CBS would soon eliminate the text of Rather's blatantly partisan speculation from its website "url," PoliSat.Com preserved it's content for posterity at http://polisat.com/ratherblather.htm.

            This same group of Brooklyn Bridge purchasers also found it too difficult to believe communications between Mapes and the Kerry Campaign were not manifestations of the coordination of news content at CBS News and political strategy in the Kerry Campaign.  What's amazing is the apparently greater willingness of most members of the dominant media to believe such communications were merely "innocent" mistakes in judgment than people proven to be gullible enough to actually purchase the Brooklyn Bridge.  Thus, this scientific sampling identified the proper political jargon to become historians' name for the scandal as being "Rather-Kerry-Gate" or "RatherKerryGate."

            Meanwhile, dominant-media apologists for See BS News (a.k.a. CBS News) continue wringing their hands about how "unfair" it is for anyone to question Rather's and/or Mapes' and/or the Kerry Campaign's motives.  These are the same media people who indignantly denigrated the motives of Swift-Boat Veterans reciting first-hand knowledge of events at variance with Kerry's recollections and who continue to fail to "report" those aspects of Kerry's accounts that Kerry's campaign has "revised" in response to some of the Swift-Boat Veterans' assertions.  

            These are the same media people who continue to fail (or refuse) to report:  (a) that in contrast to the "waiting list" for getting into the Texas National Guard generally, "special influence" wasn't even needed for fighter-pilot positions, (b) that the risks of death in non-combat flying of the particular fighter Bush flew were actually higher than the risks of death associated with serving in Vietnam, (c) that the Air National Guard routinely allowed participants to transfer to other units for purposes of temporary or permanent employment and/or education, and (d) that regardless of whether Bush had taken the final flight-physical, he nevertheless could not have flown the different planes in the Alabama unit without first taking additional, full-time, active-duty training that would have required nearly another two years of active duty in addition to the two years of active duty he performed at the beginning of his service.  

            None of these facts are complex or hard to understand, yet the dominant media so eager to attack the Swift Boat Veterans is utterly unwilling to even question Kerry campaign assertions contrary patently contradicted by the facts described in (a) through (d) above.  Yet they seem amazed that the rest of us lack confidence in their "judgment" and "fairness" and "good faith."  Gimme a break.

            When PoliSat.Com's Washington Bureau Drawer Chief contacted Dan Rather to seek a comment on this story, he insisted on replying poetically.  Below is forged version of his eloquent response, which, despite it's fraudulent nature, is nevertheless indisputably true:

I'm Dan Rather Sorry that Poll Respondents 
would Rather buy the Brooklyn Bridge than 
my story, but I'm sticking to it.

I'm Dan, Rather sorry that I
got caught in a partisan lie
describing my source
as one who perforce
spoke true, unimpeachable jive.

When caught in my partisan ruse,
I needed two weeks to peruse
the syntax to use
to label the ruse
as truth we can't prove to be true.

And since I expected the public
when hearing my answer would love it,
I'm shocked and amazed
and also dismayed
that most would suggest that I shove it.

So deep have I dug in this ditch,
the story I'm trying to pitch
they'll never receive--
they'd sooner agree
to purchase the famed Brooklyn Bridge.

Because Rather's efforts to knock-wood
by rhyming as though he were Osgood 
with answers in rhyme
cannot save his hind,
the "Eye" should replace him with Osgood.

            Who would be a good replacement for Rather?  Charles Osgood (click here).  He could quickly regain viewer-ship for CBS News by reciting the news in limericks, couplets and rhymes.  One of the most famous quotations of Osgood is:  ""The news of the day is so goofy at times, it just seems to fit into couplets and rhymes."  My vote is for Osgood, although Bob Schieffer also seems to be quite a fair-minded person.  If they were to want to maximize their chances of regaining their long-lost integrity, they would hire Brian Lamb, the founder of C-SPAN, who is the fairest media person in the country.  Jim Lehrer (click here) is another media person who tries hard to be fair.  Who will they really hire?  They'll probably keep Dan Rather for at least a decent interval and then hire Bill Moyers because they'll probably still think NPR and Moyer's PBS programs are "middle of the road."

--Jim Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com

Sept. 21, 2004 #01:  Political Satire/Commentary where satire is always commentary but commentary isn't always satire™ 
(but we're confident you'll know the difference)  Search PoliSat.Com Home  Tell a friend about PoliSat.Com    Subscribe 
Permanent link to this installment in PoliSat.Com's Archives    Google-News list of recent updates    About author, Jim Wrenn.

John Kerry, George W. Bush; the Rattlesnake and the Scorpion; Saddam Hussein and Usama bin Laden; and Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

            John Kerry's latest position on Operation Iraqi Freedom is that if he were to have been president, he would never have launched it-- i.e., he's now adopted the Howard Dean position he so caustically mocked in overtaking Dean in Iowa.  This position du jour rests on several flawed premises.  

            Since we have not yet found WMD stockpiles after toppling Saddam, then it necessarily follows that continuation of inspections by Inspector Blixeau, et al, would have concluded with a pronouncement that Saddam no longer possessed WMD stockpiles or programs.  Surely Kerry doesn't contend that our French "allies" would then have joined us in an Operation Iraqi Freedom.  To the contrary, his stated intent of "cooperating" with our allies means he would have felt obliged to agree to our "allies" demands for ending of sanctions and withdrawing the quarter-million troops we had dispatched to the Persian Gulf to coerce Saddam into permitting inspections to resume.  (I'm assuming, arguendo, that a President Kerry would have dispatched a force of such size to "coerce" Saddam into re-admitting inspectors-- even though I seriously doubt he would have done so, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.  Kerry doesn't seem to understand that our "allies" wouldn't have even supported the 17th resolution except that they thought it would buy them enough time to prevent Bush from toppling Saddam.  Believing it highly unlikely Kerry could have convinced any of  them he was prepared to topple Saddam, I think it's highly unrealistic to think the allies would have supported the 17 resolution and hence even more unlikely that Saddam would have ever allowed the inspectors to return.)

            Thus, Kerry's argument necessarily implies that a President Kerry would have been willing to take a leap of faith in a Blixeau pronouncement that Saddam no longer possessed WMD's or programs notwithstanding the fact that Saddam had successfully kept most of his WMD stockpiles and programs hidden from U.N. inspectors from 1991 until 1995 when a defector revealed them to inspectors who had already declared their non-existence.   Indeed, Kerry's own internationalist logic would have forced him to take such leap of faith-- otherwise, the "allies" would have become as disdainful towards him as they became toward Bush and Blair, whose impeccably liberal credentials didn't shield him from the calumny of the French and our other "allies."

            Kerry's argument necessarily further implies that Saddam, being freed from sanctions and from the coercive effect of our having 250,000 troops in the Persian Gulf, would have been unwilling to furnish WMD expertise (if not materials) to aid the al Qaeda in attacking us even though he had no compunction about risking being associated with the plot to assassinate former President Bush.  Kerry knows, but chooses to ignore, the fact that before World War II, Stalin and Hitler made pacts of mutual convenience for perceived temporary tactical advantages even though their ultimate strategic goals were inherently incompatible.  (Indeed, Stalin was Saddam Hussein's greatest hero.)  This would require a leap of faith far greater than that taken by the most ardent religious fundamentalists, of whom Kerry and the secular fundamentalists who support him are so disdainful.   

            Reduced to its essence, Kerry's position is that he would have left the Saddam Hussein rattlesnake behind him in the same tall grasses in which he would be diligently searching for the Usama bin Laden scorpion.  Such checkers-game strategy by Kerry would have maximized the ability of al Qaeda sympathizers to concentrate their resources on further attacking the United States and its allies.  What Kerry ignores is that neutralizing the rattlesnake was a necessary strategic move in Bush's chess-like strategy against the scorpions in the terrorists networks.  That the terrorist sympathizers have flooded into Iraq to make establishment of a non-terror-supporting democratic state far more difficult than we expected is not proof of the failure of the chess-game strategy but rather is proof of it's ultimate wisdom.  How much more effectively could the al Qaeda sympathizers devoted resources to attacking the United States if they were not locked in such a life-and-death struggle against modernity in Iraq right now?

            One wonders that if Kerry were to have been running against FDR in 1944, and if the Battle of the Bulge were to have occurred in September rather than December of that year, would he have ardently focused on the Battle of the Bulge as a basis for questioning the wisdom of Eisenhower's and Roosevelt's insistence on seeking unconditional victory rather than something less? Surely he would deny that today-- but why?  Because he now knows the outcome after the Battle of the Bulge.  The test of leadership is perseverance in a morally right course of action rather than seeking nuanced positions of moral blamelessness in the refuge of alliances.

            The course of history presented us with three times for acting to effectively prevent Saddam Hussein from becoming able to use the threat of WMD's to further destabilize the Middle East and/or covertly provide such weapons and/or knowledge to our al Qaeda enemies:  (1) at precisely the right time, (2) too soon, or (3) too late.  Lacking confidence that the real world would provide us the insight to know when would be precisely the right time, I prefer too soon rather than too late. 

--Jim Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.

Daily Update immediately preceding the one above, click here.

Other sites that feature PoliSat.Com's Political Satire/Commentary-- Click here to view our Affiliates page.

·