Last week, Cliff Kincaid, Editor of the Accuracy In Media Report[1], wrote that at least two in Congress have considered a Rathergate hearing. Actually, the way I heard it was that Rep. Chris Cox requested that House Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-TX) schedule a hearing but Barton was not overly enthused with the idea.

Rep. Barton is quoted as saying, "A news organization's responsibility is to facts and truth, but the oversight of network news generally is a matter best sorted out by the viewing public and the news media."

I wholeheartedly agree.

There is a simple reason most of "Old Media" is losing money. The majority of the American public understands that most "journalists" working in the Old Media slant the political news they report to the left. Being shunned by so many American people nowadays, Old Media's profit margin is adversely affected.

CBS is investigating itself, so they say. However, they are not going about it in an acceptable way. Rather intentionally used false information to harm a sitting president during a campaign cycle. The bloggers in the "New Media" caught Rather and nailed him for it. Today, most everyone in both Old and New media agree the documents Rather used were forged. So, what's to investigate? Just call in Madame Guillotine to perform the necessary surgery.

Les Moonves, the co-president of CBS' parent company, Viacom, sort of announced the reason for the (cover-up) investigation at a Goldman Sachs media conference in New York. He said there was no timetable for the completion of the investigation but that, "Obviously, it should be done probably after the election is over so that it doesn't affect what's going on."

Let's see if we can get that straight: It is okay for the CBS news hacks to broadcast false information about President Bush during an election cycle. It is not okay, however, for CBS to broadcast that the Kerry campaign and Democratic Party gave CBS the forged documents because that information could be seen as favorable to President Bush and expose the Democratic Party activists (including those in the media) for the lying cheats that they are.

Is that how it works, Moonves? Sure looks that way.

Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) told a meeting of the TV engineering trade group, MSTV, that broadcast network news divisions "need to have safeguards to prevent reporters from infusing their opinions into news reports."

Agreed. But how? Old Media has the same freedom of speech as the rest of us. We can tell them to take a hike and/or stop supporting socialism but we cannot make them shut up. We can refuse to watch or listen to their programming misinformation and stop buying their newspapers, but we cannot constitutionally pass a law to censor their talking or writing.

What we can do, and are doing, is putting them out of business by not watching, listening or reading their leftist-liberal dribble. Because, they cannot pass a law forcing us to buy their product -- or the products of their sponsors.

Move over Old Media, New Media is here and has you stuck between a rock and a hard place. Old Media knows it, too, and the whining, kicking and screaming has already started.

Walter Cronkite's disparaging remarks about the Internet are on record several times. At the Society of Professional Journalists meeting in New York last month, Cronkite said: "I cannot understand how the Internet should have gotten so entirely oblivious to the whole theory of libel and slander. How is it possible for these people to get on the air with any allegation they want to make, any statement they want to make, as if it were true, as if they were journalists, which they are clearly not? They are scandalmongers."

Does that need comment? Nah.

It's sour grapes all around at the newsrooms nowadays because they see their pink slips coming. Liberalism is out -- or will be soon. Which means, liberal "journalists" are also on their way out.

The New Yorker magazine sponsored a panel discussion in New York last Saturday. It turned out to be a whining session for Old Media. NBC News' Tom Brokaw and ABC anchor Peter Jennings both bashed Internet bloggers and supported Dan Rather's style of broadcasting false news. Brokaw compared the bloggers' attacks on Rather's "60 Minutes II" report about President Bush to a "political jihad." (Wonder who wrote that script for him?)

"What I think is highly inappropriate is what's going on across the Internet, a kind of political jihad," Brokaw said. "It is certainly an attempt to demonize CBS News, and it goes well beyond any factual information a lot of them has, the kind of demagoguery that is unleashed out there."

Factual information concerning the forged documents used by CBS to help throw the election in favor of Kerry is available for all to read.[2]

And, while we're on the subject of media bias: Some of the paid mannequin news readers commented that President Bush "made faces" during the first debate. Yes, he did -- and for good reason. Most of us out here in flyover country saw that as an understandable reaction to all the ridiculous babble Kerry was spewing. One enterprising blogger put it in proper context for all to see.[3] Enjoy.

Oh . . . and Walter, Dan, Tom and Peter . . . . Good Night.

1. <http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/2000_0_2_0_C/>

2. <http://216.180.225.13/forgery.pdf>

3. <http://www.ejsmithweb.com/fr/faces_fr_fast.wmv>

The title of this article could very well be: Trial lawyer debates senior executive and comes off looking lost and befuddled.

For the first time, Senator John Edwards met Vice President Dick Cheney. One would think that since Edwards has been a senator for a few years he might have, at some point, met the President of the Senate, Vice President Cheney. However, John Edwards, like John Kerry, isn't very good about showing up for work. Therefore, even though they were in the Senate together for the last four years, the two men had only met in passing.

Actually, Cheney said as much at the debate last Tuesday evening: "And Senator, frankly, you have a record in the Senate that's not very distinguished. You've missed 33 out of 36 meetings in the Judiciary Committee, almost 70 percent of the meetings of the Intelligence Committee. You've missed a lot of key votes: on tax policy, on energy, on Medicare reform. Your hometown newspaper has taken to calling you Senator Gone. You've got one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate. Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session. The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight."

Democrats had high hopes for Edwards. That didn't work out, though. The Democratic Party would like to dump him, but it's too late now.

At the debate, Cheney took Edwards to the woodshed and swatted him a few good ones. One of my favorites was when Edwards was tying to spread some hype about Kerry-Edwards having a better "plan" for Iraq. Dick Cheney simply replied: "They don't have a plan [for Iraq], it's an echo."

Vice President Richard B. Cheney has had a distinguished career as both a businessman and public servant. He served four presidents and was himself an elected official. Cheney's career in public service began in 1969 in the Nixon Administration, where he served in several positions, including at the Cost of Living Council, the Office of Economic Opportunity and within the White House. When Gerald Ford assumed the Presidency in 1974, Cheney served on the transition team and later as Deputy Assistant to the President. In November 1975, he was named Assistant to the President and White House Chief of Staff.

In 1977, Cheney was elected to serve as his state's sole Congressman. He was re-elected five times and elected by his colleagues to serve as Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee from 1981 to 1987. He was elected Chairman of the House Republican Conference in 1987 and elected House Minority Whip in 1988.

Dick Cheney served as Secretary of Defense from March 1989 to January 1993, wherein he directed two of the largest military campaigns in recent history -- Operation Just Cause in Panama and Operation Desert Storm in the Middle East. George W. Bush, of course, later tapped Dick Cheney as his vice president.

Cheney is unique in Washington. Not only was he a top executive in major industry, he also has decades of experience in top government positions. Dick Cheney may come off as a quiet man in public, but his results oriented attitude is legendary in Washington. So, when President Bush wants major results fast, Dick Cheney is the man to get them.

Contrast that with the experience of John Edwards. He was an ambulance chaser trial lawyer. He managed to get himself elected to the Senate once -- but that will probably never happen again.

That's it. That is the total of John Edwards' experience. As far as I can tell, he has never even been inside the White House yet, let alone knowing what goes on in there.

They say the vice president is but a heartbeat away from the presidency. Which means, it would be nice if the vice president had at least some of the experience necessary to become president. Dick Cheney does. John Edwards quite obviously does not even make a good senator and will soon be back working in the private sector.

I finally had time to listen to the tape of the debate.

Kerry continually repeated the mantra, "I can do it better." Bush has caught 75% of the Al Quida terrorists and has them in prison. Pakistan is catching terrorist leaders. Even Yemen is supporting us and gave the death penalty to two terrorists who bombed the U.S.S. Cole. How's Kerry going to do better? Oh, maybe he'll claim our troops were cutting off Iraqi's ears and raping women.

Kerry has continually voted over the years to cut funding to the CIA, FBI, and our military.

Kerry said, "We don't have the right to tell North Korea or Iran that they shouldn't develop nuclear weapons, when we're trying to develop a bunker busting nuclear missile." So, if we have nuclear bombs, Muslims have a right to have nuclear bombs. This is the sort of logic that makes people think that liberals hate America.

He also said, "We didn't need a tax cut, we needed to spend more on homeland security." Bush invented "Homeland Security", not Kerry or Clinton. Personally, I think that we need to limit immigration and post our military on the Mexican border.

Kerry said, "Iraq was the wrong country to invade. It's like Roosevelt invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor. Sadaam didn't have weapons of mass destruction." (another Democrat Mantra) I must admit that repeat a lie enough and it's believed, and making a big deal out of a minor point is somewhat successful at conditioning morons to hate Republicans. Look at the record -- Kerry and other democrats voted to cut funding for the CIA and FBI. Clinton was afraid of the FBI's investigation of his illegal campaign contributions from China, and selling of military secrets to China, and gave an executive order that forbid the CIA from sharing information with the FBI. (Which contributed to 9/11.) Sadaam used weapons of mass destruction against the Kurds, and Iran. Who knew whether Sadaam had any poison gas hidden? Sadaam murdered 300,000 people. Sadaam invaded Kuwait. Oh, but Bush should have given ten years of sanctions another try.

Muslim men beat their women, deny them an education or career, imprison them in the home, and force them to bear children for Islam. Yet, Democratic women in America bash Bush in support of Muslims; what un-American bigotry. Ted Kennedy recently said, "The President's handling of the war has been a toxic mix of ignorance, arrogance and stubborn ideology." That's funny when you consider that Clinton bombed Christian Serbs in Kosovo in support of Albanian Muslims and denied the Navy Seals the opportunity to assassinate Osama after the U.S.S. Cole was bombed. The Democrats send messages to our enemy that gives them hope.

Kerry said, "Bush invaded Iraq without a plan to win the peace." Eighty five percent of the insurgents fighting American soldiers are from other Arab nations. Who could have guessed that the Iraq war would draw so many out of town extremists. Muslim clerics in many countries, including Iraq, export terrorism and condition young boys (like Pavlov's dog) to hate everybody including Muslims of other sects. They brainwash them to be terrorists and martyrs and to kill American soldiers, behead people working in Iraq, and blow-up women and children in Israel and New York. Now, they're all heading to Iraq to join the Jihad against the Infidel U.S. As Tommy Franks said, "Better that we kill them there than fight them in New York." We're killing hundreds of these scum every week. Good riddance. Iraq's not a quagmire, it's a great solution to rid the world of future terrorists. The war is working out better than we dreamed.

The French disregarded the U.N. sanctions on Iraq and sold Sadaam weapons in exchange for oil, including anti-aircraft rockets, right up to the day of the U.S. invasion.

Kerry said, "Bush invaded Iraq without passing the Global test." In other words, if the French don't think we should invade Iraq, then we shouldn't. How absurd. Few countries will ever support us. We're America, we're hated by the world. Half the nations represented in the U.N. are piss poor and controlled by corrupt dictatorships and Kings. They don't want democracy in Iraq or anywhere. Democrats seem to hate Republicans so much that they support and aid terrorists. Do you think the French or the U.N. will support Bush or Kerry? Never.

Kerry said, "The Republican tax cut just benefited the rich. We need to equip our troops better. Bush sent our troops into Iraq without body armor." Kerry voted against funding body armor, and has continually voted against spending for more modern equipment for our troops. He did vote to invade Iraq, another flip/flop. The Republican tax cut was across the board and included a repeal of the marriage penalty, death tax, and it cut the capital gains tax for middle class investors. How do the Democrats get away with continually lying about Republican tax cuts are only for the rich?

Clinton's TAX RAISE was across the board. Which is better for working people -- Tax cut or tax raise? Kerry voted for a fifty cent tax raise per gallon of gas. Thanks a lot.

How the debate will fare on the domestic issues remains to be seen. Look for Kerry to say, 'We need to spend more on ... blah, blah, blah.' Who pays for increased spending, Kerry? Tax increases in your first year or first week in the White House? You have sooooo much sympathy for Muslims, how about American working people? Are we slaves?

This web page can NOT be altered or sold, but may be copied intact for reasonable distribution in keeping with the philosophy of uhuh, GR Force and FRON, who can assume no liabilities. Please make you own decisions.

The term U-Mail, uhuh and this web page are Copyright 2003 by Forest Glen Durland, subject to Fiedor's rights.

fron320.htm. Revised 10-10-04. uhuh, GR Force and FRON are non-profit.