Several great responses to Bush's lame wolf ad...

The Bush ad is lame, by the way, if only because the fear tactics he's using are all well and good and expected by now (and it's not particularly scary at that), but the "facts" they give about Kerry voting to "gut intelligence" have all been well debunked as nonsense months ago by FactCheck.org (See their article: "President claims 1995 Kerry plan would "gut" the intelligence services. It was a 1% cut, and key Republicans approved something similar.") Nonetheless, they they keep lying about them anyway. Never let a lie get in the way of a good old fashioned fear and smear, I guess.

As I mentioned, more on this whole "White House Website Scrub" story hopefully tomorrow, but in the meantime, here's a White House website video of a Martin Luther King portrait unveiling from January 21, 2002. They haven't removed it (yet) but lord knows they probably should have! Watch the first few incredible seconds of the video to see why.

But in case they take it down after we publish this item, here's the first few words from the transcript to listen out for:

Youch. Yes, he said that.

(Thanks to reader KB for this horrific find!)

Geez, AFP, I always give you guys credit when I report on your stories!

Anyway, glad they finally picked up on it and tossed it onto the AFP/Yahoo wires. Their report is filed here: "Iraq coalition vanishes from White House website"

(NOTE: That's two credits I've now given AFP in the same story! Oops, make that three!)

Oh, well, we're not looking for credit here, but we are glad that some of our work on the White House Website Scrub is finally breaking out of the Blogosphere (where the stories have been linked far and wide of late --- according to Technorati.com last night, one of our items had made it to #10 in all of Political Blogistan, and #6 with a bullet amongst the Liberal/Pinko Sector at the time someone had alerted me to it...But linked, so far, to none of the major Old School "News" Sites that I know of.)

Hey, CNN and MSNBC (won't even bother with Fox) it's your turn to start reporting now!

The specific information from the AFP (Oops...four) report filed today, on the disappearing "Coalition List" was originally reported here on 10/6/04 and then followed up on 10/17/04.

More to report on this whole story by the way. I've been doing a lot of research, and following up as many leads from you guys that I can. So, stay tuned. Thanks to all who have sent in stuff. Apologies for slow email replies, but I'm trying to get to them all.

More thanks though for spreading the information far and wide! We'll get those bastards, yet.

(Special props to reader "pamindurham" for catching the AFP story on the wire and letting us know! Oops...that's five!)

UPDATE 10/29/04: BRAD BLOG SUCCESS! WH restores Audio/Video! Though much still missing...

Just typed "poll" into Yahoo News. These are the first results I got back, both from headlines today:

"Reuters Poll: Bush Holds Two-Point Lead Over Kerry"
"President Bush holds a slim two-point lead on Democratic rival John Kerry in the stretch run of a tight race for the White House, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Friday."
Results reported in the story: Bush 47% - Kerry 45%

"AP Poll: Bush, Kerry in Tie Before Election"
"Many voters are dissatisfied with President Bush's job performance but uneasy about Democrat John Kerry's ability to protect the nation, according to an Associated Press poll that found the two presidential candidates locked in a tie."
Results reported in the story: Bush 46% - Kerry 49%

Yes. You read that correctly. There's your "Liberal" Media.

And as it turns out, a non-partisan study today shows us that Bush Supporters are so wildly disinformed even about their own candidate(!) that of course they'd believe there is a "Liberal" Media. You gotta click through this link to see what I mean!

And this is from the Washington Times of all places...

No word on whether the Army has cleared this policy with Newt Gingrinch yet.

(P.S. Please click the ad on the left for of our new sponsor, EnjoyTheDraft.com, for more drafty fun!)

Again, we attempt to appeal here to the intellectually honest conservatives out there (yes, there are a few left) who's company we enjoy on the BRAD BLOG from time to time.

In an article titled "Kerry's the One", American Conservative magazine's Scott McConnell endorses Kerry! Here's why:

Of course, I don't personally find endorsements to mean all that much, otherwise I'd link to Iran's endorsement of Bush or Jesse Ventura's endorsement of Kerry. Oh, wait...I just did! Hey, this saying one thing and doing another thing is kinda fun! I got your values right here, Mission Accomplished Boy!

Via Slate:

Haven't we been told by the Bush Administration for months now how al Qaeda would love to disrupt our elections with "a Madrid style attack"? Therefore, shouldn't our National Security Advisor be back at the White House War Room right about now manning her post with ever increasing vigilance the closer we get to the election? Josh Marshall asks just that...

Tough call. The White House has a long track record to support both of those possibilities. But then...anything to win!

Judy Woodruff on CNN was at it again yesterday, only reporting selective polls that were favorable to Bush instead of the several other available polls from the same dates which show Kerry leading, tied, or show a much smaller margin for Bush. That has been CNN's pattern all week.

The possibility that such one-sided reports might serve to dispirit Democrats and keep them away from the polls is potentially true. But brings up an issue I've often wondered about.

Why is it that Americans seem to regard voting in a Presidential Election as if they are placing a bet on a sporting event or something? It's as if there is some urge to vote on who they think will be the winner. This isn't a contest! You don't win a prize for picking the right guy! It's an election! Give your opinion about who you think should win the office!

We've heard so much in previous elections about "wasting your vote" if you voted for a third party candidate like Nader or Perot. True, a vote for Nader this year is certainly a vote for Bush, but in general, it's not a "waste" to vote for anybody you damn well please! There is no prize here for "getting it right"!

So it's troubling to see bad reporting from CNN and others about who's winning the horse-race, but perhaps even more troubling that such reporting should have any effect on that horse-race at all! Sadly, though, it does. So until we can help Americans to understand what the hell voting actually means the media would be far better serving this country if they figured out how to get their shit straight.

But --- since it seems to make a difference to you sports fans voters out there --- my money's still on Kerry! Now get out there a week from Tuesday and go win a million bucks!

As currently seen (at least until it too gets scrubbed) on this White House website page. Will the irony never end?

(Hat tip to reader "qxy" for the find!)

Our friend Krup has Triumph the Insult Comic Dog after Debate #3 in "Spin Alley" (or, "Deception Lane" as Jon Stewart --- our new Patron Saint of Democracy according to Oliver Willis as I recall --- referred to it on Crossfire).

Triumph's questions are at least as good as Wolf Blitzer's! And almost twice as funny! Check it out.

Is it too early or presumptuous of me to start turning on Kerry yet? As you can tell, I'm chomping at the bit to see him safely in office so we can then start tearing him to pieces.

But why wait? No, seriously...why wait?

Gay.com reports in their interview with Teresa Heinz Kerry:

Oh, brother. That's gonna go over well. You think the Clinton years were rough? Just watch how they'll be chewing up the Kerrys.

Oh. And get used to hearing her referred to as "Mama T." Already I hate it.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Paging the "Liberal" Media! Paging the "Liberal" Media! Hello? Anybody out there?

As reported previously here, here and here, it looks like the scrubbing of various historical documents and other elements of the White House Website is continuing! And may be wider and more systematic than previously known. The BRAD BLOG has discovered a boat-load of audio and video that has been removed from the website!

It's more than just Bush's "I'm not that concerned about Bin Laden" Audio and Video (reported here previously) that's been taken down. And more than the White House's "List of Coalition Members" as reported here.

After reviewing scores of pages of White House transcribed Press Conferences by George Bush, it seems that the removal of certain audio and video clips has perhaps been strategically or systematically orchestrated. Here's a few examples of some of the pages that have had their linked Audio and/or Video clips removed, along with some of the notable Bush quotes --- that "notability" is mere conjecture on my part --- from their transcripts that perhaps the White House would prefer not be easily available to folks anymore (NOTE: The Audio and Video links are still on the following pages, but the content for them, when those links are clicked upon, is no longer available.)

Those are just a few of the examples I've been able to find and just some of the quotes that jumped out at me as items the White House may not like their opposition to be able to use against them during this campaign. I'm sure you may find other now-uncomfortable Bush quotes in some of those transcripts.

I don't pretend to know for certain precisely what they are hoping to accomplish by doing this, other than an attempt to make it less convenient for folks opposed to Bush to use his own words against him in various ways (via homegrown audio and video ads, etc.). Much of the Audio and Video they've removed, no doubt, is publically available via C-SPAN.org and the Broadcast/Cable News operations certainly have their own versions. None the less, it's a lot harder for a guy like me to get a copy of say, Bush's March 22, 2002 Press Conference with Vicente Fox from the internal video tape libraries at CNN than it would be to merely grab it off the White House site where it had previously been available for all Americans.

The idea that the White House may be using their governmental website (which is owned by the People, not by George Bush or the Republicans) for potential partisan advantage is troubling at best and strictly illegal at worst. There is a strict legal line drawn that disallows the use of such public facilities (White House phone lines, etc) for blatant partisan/campaign activities.

It seems clear that the use of the White House website for this purpose would fall under that strict statute and monkeying with it --- and the historical documents it had previously provided --- for political/partisan/campaign gains, I'd think, would be strictly off-limits. I welcome the input from any political legal eagles on this.

I'll note the cautious words of Josh Marshall when he picked up on our earlier coverage of this story last week, "I can't say myself whether there's not some more innocent or more technical-snafu type explanation. But it does strike me as suspicious."

A "technical-snafu" might explain why some of this audio and video is no longer there when it once was, but that benefit-of-the-doubt was removed in at least this one instance when a graphical link to a "Who are the Coalition Members?" document on their special report called "RENEWAL IN IRAQ: The Coalition" was changed to no longer even exist in that report. The document linked from that clickable graphic first disappeared after Cheney accused Edwards of not counting Iraqis amongst the coalition casualties during the V.P. Debate, and after we had informed the webmaster of the problem, the graphic element that linked to that document was removed completely. That could only have been done purposefully by the White House webmaster as opposed to an incorrectly specified link.

Isn't it time someone from the national media asked the Bush White House about this? This has been reported here for about three weeks, and the various broken links reported so far are either still broken or removed entirely.

I'm sure you remember the hue and cry from the Right over Al Gore, back in 2000, making some potential phone-calls to donors that may have occurred on White House phone lines. Isn't the possible systematic removal of archival White House documents from their website for political purposes at least as notable?

Not to mention the continuing question of what else has been removed from the historical record there that is not quite as easy to notice?! Isn't it time the White House was asked about this? If there's an innocent explanation, I'm sure they can give it, and restore those links immediately. Otherwise...what's this all about?

UPDATE 10/22/04: Hooray! Mainstream media finally picks up on this story!

UPDATE 10/24/04: BRAD BLOG reports on more Scrubbing and evidence of violations of the "Presidential Records Act of 1978"! Right Here!

UPDATE 10/25/04: The Washington Post finally picks up the story today! Twice!

UPDATE 10/29/04: BRAD BLOG SUCCESS! WH restores Audio/Video! Though much still missing...