Page 3


Oct 11

David Brock protests airing of anti-Kerry film
62-station chain to show 'Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal'

Left-wing media critic and journalist David Brock is warning a television-station chain to cancel its plans to air the anti-Kerry film "Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal," contending it could violate campaign broadcast regulations.
Brock, known for his ideological switch from right to left, wrote in a letter that Sinclair Broadcasting's "plan to air anti-Kerry propaganda before the election is an abuse of the public airwaves for what appears to be partisan political purposes."
As WorldNetDaily first reported, the television documentary features testimony by former POWs of the demoralizing impact of the senators' war-crimes accusations more than 30 years ago.

Maryland-based Sinclair has ordered its 62 stations to preempt regular programming during prime time next week to air the 42-minute film. The station group, which reaches about 24 percent of U.S. households, has coverage in crucial battleground states.
In his letter, Brock wrote, "I don't have to remind you ... [that] 14 of the 62 stations the company either owns or programs are in the key political swing stations of Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, where the presidential election is being closely fought."
Brock is CEO and president of Media Matters for America, a Web-based non-profit "dedicated to correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
Sinclair's vice president, Mark Hyman, said the company decided to broadcast the film after it was rejected by the major broadcast networks.
"This is a powerful story," Hyman told the Washington Post. "The networks are acting like Holocaust deniers and pretending [the POWs] don't exist. It would be irresponsible to ignore them."
Sinclair invited Kerry to appear on a discussion program after the broadcast, Hyman said, but his campaign refused, calling the film "lies" and "a smear."
Brock maintains Sinclair's plan could constitute a violation of broadcast regulations requiring equal time for political candidates and the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
But the Post said Sinclair's invitation to Kerry could help the company satisfy federal requirements to provide "equal time" to candidates.
Brock noted that in the 2004 political cycle, Sinclair executives have given 97 percent of the company's nearly $68,000 in political contributions to Republicans.
In April, Sinclair ordered seven of its ABC-affiliated stations not to air a controversial "Nightline" segment that consisted solely of reading the names of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq.
Related stories:



Great article by the New York Times' only conservative writer: Pass it on!


How Bush Won Round 2

October 11, 2004
By WILLIAM SAFIRE in the NY Times

Washington

When pro-Kerry commentators solemnly pronounce Debate Round 2 to have been "a draw" - you know George Bush won that round.

The president won because he went in with a theme spoken by the heavyweight champion Joe Louis, just before his 1946 rematch victory over the lighter, faster Billy Conn: "He can run, but he can't hide." (The Brown Bomber caught up with Conn in the eighth round of that first TV spectacular.)

Bush's debate plan was to keep boring in on the Kerry record: flip-flopping this year on the war, but all too
consistently liberal for 20 years on tax increases.

On the war, Kerry almost eagerly made Bush's point, at first saying, "I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat,"and moments later denouncing Bush for being "preoccupied with Iraq, where there wasn't a threat."

The president exploited the contradiction in Kerry's latest policy, which claims the ability to attract troop support from France, Germany and Russia - while agreeing with them that the war was a diversion. To Kerry's "plan" to hold a summit, Bush asked: "And what is he going to say to those people that show up to the summit? 'Join me in the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place'?"

Although Kerry accused the Bush campaign of "mass deception," he let the president focus on that illogical
policy. The Democrat weakly cited recent worrying by Republican Senators Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel, recited a list of retired generals who endorsed him and embraced Ronald Reagan. Such a stretch for conservative company, followed by a plaintive "We will get tough!," hardly shows strength.

When Kerry complained again of "going it alone," Bush was ready with a powerful counterpunch: "Tell Tony Blair we're going alone. Tell Silvio Berlusconi we're going alone. Tell Aleksander Kwasniewski we're going alone."

This not only showed that Bush knew these allies personally, but could also pronounce Kwasniewski's name,
which reminded Polish-Americans that Poland's president had responded angrily to Kerry's brushoff of his country's sacrifices in the first debate. (Next day, Australians re-elected John Howard, a staunch coalition member, who trounced a cut-and-run opponent - good news for coalition leaders.)

When the questioning turned to taxes, Kerry pandered with a liberal's absurd promise not to sign legislation raising taxes on anybody making less than $200,000 a year, neglecting only to say,"Read my lips."

Kerry also blundered with a weird attack on an $84 item in the Bushes' federal income tax return, supposedly from a timber business. "I own a timber company? That's news to me," said Bush, adding engagingly in what was the most natural moment in the debate, "Need some wood?" It turns out that Kerry relied on an Annenberg Web site that later admitted it had been confused, which left the Democratic candidate out on a hardwood limb. Bush was too much the gentleman to point out, now that their income taxes were in dispute, that Mrs. Heinz Kerry paid only 11 percent in 2003 on her $5 million income, while the Bushes paid 28 percent.


(Although every Bush slip gets delighted examination - he called Kerry "Kennedy" and he said, "Internets"; can you imagine? - Kerry's minor gaffes attract little notice. When citing his overseas travel in the first debate, Kerry
talked of visiting the old K.G.B. headquarters "in Treblinka square." He meant Lubyanka Square; Treblinka was
the Nazi death camp. We all make mistakes.)

As Bush picked up steam, Kerry seemed to lose heart, again evoking Lugar and Hagel, skillfully backing away like Billy Conn. Asked about high damage awards gained by trial lawyers that drive up everybody's insurance premiums, he replied that John Edwards and he "support tort reform," even to limitations on punitive awards. Bush delivered a body blow: "You're now for capping punitive damages. That's odd. You should have shown up on the floor in the Senateand voted for it then."

In an anguishing moment, Kerry said he was against partial-birth abortion (as are most voters, including many
pro-choice) and then explained why he voted against the ban that is now law. Countered Bush: "He was given a chance to vote and he voted no. . . . It's clear for everybody to see. And as I said, you can run, but you can't hide."

VIETNAM VETERANS FOR ACADEMIC REFORM

Leonard Magruder - Founder/President
Former professor of psychology, Suffolk College, N.Y.
Member: National Association of Scholars

(Vietnam vet contact: General Carl Schneider (ret.) -Korea, Vietnam - at dukesch@aol.com or 1-480-595-7668. If this arrives chopped up, there is a correct copy at v-v-a-r.org.)

VET GROUP OFFERS FREE NEW FILM FOR TV - SHOWS NEGATIVE IMPACT OF KERRY, WAR PROTESTORS, ON VETS

"ARMY TIMES " POLL SHOWS 80% OF SOLDIERS REJECT KERRY - EXACTLY THE SAME RESULT AS OUR POLL, COVERED UP BY THE MEDIA.

The Kerry statement to Congress in 1971, shown recently on CNN, was more than what he claims it to be, just an anguished cry from those who had seen horror of war and wanted it ended. There was an agenda involved, an ideology, very similar to the one argued by people like Jane Fonda, Jerry Rubin, and Ramsey Clark. Like them Kerry emphasized "atrocities", "immorality", and "out now" with no regard for the fate of the South Vietnamese. He told Congress the whole war rested on “atrocities,” that South Vietnam was a “nothing,” that the idea of Communist involvement was “mystical,” that it was a “civil war” between freedom fighters (the Viet Cong) and an oppressive South Vietnamese government being helped by imperialist America. He fed the falsehoods that minorities were disproportionately represented, that the Vietnam veteran is ashamed of his service, and that the government had used them. Kerry said the U.S. was “the criminal element” in Vietnam, not the Communist North.

Craig Gordon of "Newsday's" Washington Bureau wrote of this testimony in an article on Feb 21, this year, "It is considered by many to be one of the peace movement's defining moments. Kerry's speech helped galvanize the protests and turn popular opinion against the war. "

On the effect of this, Chuck Lawrence, Vietnam vet and author wrote, "The conduct by Kerry and his friends played a significant part and role in Vietnam veterans being ostracized by our society."

By O'Neill and Corsi, in "Unfit for Command."-"Kerry's false allegations had a profound and lasting long-lasting effect on the American public's view of the Vietnam-era military. Soldiers returning from Vietnam were treated with a degree of contempt that has no parallel in American history, and the image of the Vietnam veteran as murderous, drug-addled psychotics persists in American cultture to today."

That is what this film is about, the disgraceful treatment of vets when they returned home, as a result of the lies of antiwar groups, including Kerry's group, Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Is it any wonder Lawrence went on to ask, "Do we really want a president who organized and led anti-war and anti-American protests and demonstrations under the flag of the enemy we were fighting ?"

Vets also complain that Kerry seems to have no understanding of a new type of enemy, nor any idea of how to handle such an enemy. His lifelong history of preference for negotiation, dialogue, compromise, even appeasement, they believe, would prove utterly useless in dealing with the terrorists, making him very dangerous as Commander-in-Chief.

To help in the debate over Kerry's role in demoralizing both veterans and the public during the '70's, I am offering a free copy of my new film,"Vietnam vets Condemn War Protestors like Kerry" to any vet or vet group, or any TV station person, that can get the film on local Public Access TV. Most TV stations, as a public service, will give up to an hour of free time to any group wanting to present some reasonable program. Based on 62 interviews with Vietnam vets there was only time for 12 in the film, but all 62 of those interviewed agreed about the damage done to them by antiwar groups such as Kerry's. It has been edited down to 38 minutes to allow for the addition of almost 22 minutes of live comment on Kerry by invited Vietnam vets. The purpose of this project is to provide testimony by vets about the damage done by the 60's-70's war protestors, followed by a live panel of Vietnam vets discussing how Kerry and his group contributed to this damage and why he is "Unfit for Command". Or the film can be used in any program to tell the story of how vets were treated when they returned because of the lies of the war protestors.

The standards for Public Access TV are lower than for other type films, but you should take out a good ad for the showing as Public Access TV doesn't as a rule get much publicity. I was able to show it once on Public Access TV locally and it was received quite favorably. Anyone who has success in getting it shown on TV, please let me know. I will send out a press release and the project will spread. I was only able to spot- check each copy, so if you find a problem, just let me know and I'll send you another copy. We have releases for each person shown in the film.There is still time to show the film, I will send it to you overnight, and even after the election it can be used to show today's students how the war protestors of the 60's lied, largely to avoid the draft. So everybody please ask yourself, can I get 2-3 vets to join me in going to the local TV station and asking them for an hour on Public Access. Maybe you will luck out and they will include it in their regular programming.

Many Vietnam vets write me asking how they can help. This is how you can help.

This film is an amateur production.But is seems to have come out rather well. In 1986 I simply grabbed a camcorder and went to the Houston Vietnam Veterans Parade and asked vets the one queston the media had studiously avoided, "How do you feel about the war protestors?" To my knowledge this is the only film we have that focuses on this one issue.
This special edition has only the interviews, no introduction or ending, so the TV station will have to add the following information:

"Vietnam vets Condemn War Protestors like Kerry"

presented by
Vietnam Veterans for Academic Refrorm
Production and interviews by Leonard Magruder
Founder/President
A representative sample from 62 interviews done
at the Houston Vietnam Veterans Parade..
Magruder44@aol.com
v-v-a-r.org

What the public wants to hear is how the Vietnam veteran community, and other vets, feel with regard to who would make the best Commander-in-Chief. From all the data I have seen it is clear that a very large majority are opposed to Kerry in this role. In fact, 32 polls sent to us from Vietnam vet groups all over the country show that 80% of all Vietnam vets are opposed to Kerry. (see our updated Presidential Poll at v-v-a-r.org) When we reported this in a national press release it was instantly covered up by the entire media.

Isn't it obvious that Vietnam veterans would very much like to see one of their own become President? Isn't it also obvious that if 80% are against one of their own becoming president that they must have a very good reason and the public should know about this ? Shouldn't the nation be alarmed when 220 out of 226 vets who served in the Swift Boat unit with Kerry signed a letter saying he was unfit to command, and even wrote a book documenting their concerns ? This is just the tip of the iceberg. Now Special Forces Vietnam veterans have sent a large petition to Kerry in solidarity with the Swift Boat veterans stating that Kerry is "unfit to be our Commander-in-Chief or to lead our nation as President. We call upon the American people to reject his effort."
In trying to warn America to reject Kerry are these veterans not making a second sacrifice for the sake of their country, inasmuch as they would like to see a Vietnam veteran become president? But the media, which betrayed their sacrifices in Vietnam, is betraying them a second time, not allowing them to be heard, calling it politics.
In times of crisis, as in the case of the Vietnam War, and now in the case of the Iraq War, the media tend to act as an unelected counter-government, believing that only they know what is best for the country. But what they are really doing is once again robbing the American people of the ability to make critical judgements about their most vital security interests in a time of war.
On the very reasonable assumption that those who have experienced war would know a lot about what makes a good Commander-in-Chief, then their views would be of great interest to those with no war experience trying to decide on this issue. The media knows this. That is why they won't discuss the issue.

There are two issues here of absolutely vital importance to the nation. First, the media is withholding from the public documented evidence that the Armed Forces, Vietnam veterans, and Swift Boat vets by a significant majority reject Kerry as Commander-in-Chief, and second, that what this means is that if Kerry wins there will be a paralyzing tension between the armed forces and the Commander-in-Chief in a time of war.
We therefore urge everyone to join us in this fight in any way you can until the headline "Veterans Overwhelmingly Reject Kerry as Commander-in-Chief "appears on the front page of ever major newspaper in the country.

I have just finished a second protest at a newspaper of the cover-up of our poll, carrying a large poster that reads, "Stop the Media Cover-up for Kerry." For an account of this campaign see "A Wave is Rising" at v-v-a-r.org.
There have now been some important breakthroughs in this campaign. "USA Today" on Oct. 4, because it was backed up by the Army, had to report that a large poll taken by "The Army Times" showed that today's soldiers prefer Bush by 4-to-1. (Troops in Survey Back Bush 4-to-1 Over Kerry) That is 80%, exactly the same figure we gave the media. Also, I was interviewed for an hour on this issue last Sunday on station KHNC, Golden, Colorado, carried nationally by the American Freedom Network thereby breaking through the cover-up by even the local newspapers, "The Lawrence Journal-World" and "The University Daily Kansan.".

Here are excerpts from what is said by every veteran that appears in our film, showing how the impact of statements by Kerry and other war protestors impacted the returned veteran.

Veteran A: Now that hurt me a lot. They yelled at us, “Nixon’s hired guns.” Does one need a college education to do that?
Veteran B: All they cared about was themselves, and those who served in Vietnam they didn’t give jack---- about and that stinks. When a country turns its mind and body against a veteran who fought a war for that country, that stinks.
Veteran C: When I returned I could only keep going if I forgot my Vietnam service, shut it out of my life. But I don’t feel that way anymore. I have every reason to be proud of what I did in Vietnam.
Veteran D: Humiliating, insulting, degrading. It hurt, what the protestors did.
Veteran E: They protested the fact that the American soldier was in Vietnam, but when we came back they treated us like dirt - they didn’t care.
Veteran F: When we came home we wanted to fit back into society as soon as possible. But it didn’t work out that way. They kept saying, “you must be one of those baby killers, one of the psychopathic killers of Vietnam.” When you start living with something like that you start telling people you were not over in Vietnam, just out of the country.
Veteran G: They were idiots...we came home alone, straight into the jaws of insensitive idiots. The peace movement was very diverse, from Vietnam Veterans Against the War (Kerry's group) to mothers and fathers who couldn’t understand.
Veteran H: Because of them we were portrayed as people that we were not, as “baby killers” and all of that. If they could make those returning feel they had done something wrong it added credibility to their arguments. It was a tack taken so they would not have to go.
Veteran I: Oh boy, do I remember that, spitting at us at the airport and saying we were rapists, that we raped babies, and they left a mark on us, making people think that we were no good.
Veteran J: When we got back we were blacklisted as very uncomfortable reminders to those people who opposed the war, and many of them felt the arrogant need to isolate many of those who tried to come home and re-penetrate those peer groups - they were ordered to the closet. It was especially difficult for disabled veterans, who were told their sacrifice was a stupid and unnecessary act of patriotism.

In listening to what the vets say in this film we need to remember that not only veterans, but the majority of the American people had no use for the war protestors. In fact, we need to remember just how treasonous the campus "peace"movement really was. "Commentary" of Feb. 1980 reported that 28% of all college students in the 60's supported the Viet Cong, while 51% of those in the "peace" movement favored a Viet Cong victory. A poll by the Univ. of Michigan showed that reactions to "Vietnam war protestors" by the public was by a wide margin the most negative shown to any group. The Harris poll showed, at the height of the war that 69% of the public believed that anti-war demonstrations were "acts of disloyalty against the boys fighting in Vietnam", and 65% agreed "the protestors were giving aid and comfort to the Communists." (see "America in Our Time", by the noted British historian Godfrey Hodgson.)

Yet, in spite of these facts, too often, the university, and even our high schools, continue to teach students that the war protestors were the "heroes" of Vietnam.They are never told the truth, that the real heroes came back to slander and ostracism by their peers who would not serve. There is this hugh lie still at the heart of today's discussion on campus about the Vietnam War, designed, of course, to protect the many in academia (and in the media) who turned their backs on a fight for freedom so many years ago. This film can help expose that. .
Like most liberals, Kerry shares the illusion that most Americans see the "anti-war" protestor such as himself as a "hero," and he even felt that this would help his candidacy.
David Broder, noted columnist of "The Washington Post," recently wrote, "Kerry once told me he thought it would be doubly advantageous that,'I fought in Vietnam and I also fought against the Vietnam War.' " He did fight in the war. Although apparently not enthusiastically, having first requested a year deferment to go study in Paris, and then seeking out safe off-shore duty in the Navy. But in his protest back home he lied about the war. Neither the American people nor the majority of veterans see the protestors as "heroes."It was a hugh blunder playing the Vietnam card.

We end this article by reproducing something from our last article, because this is the most important issue of all and so far no one is talking about it, not even in the debates- the connection between Islam and nuclear attack and the need to develop a doctrine to defend against this. Our next article will deal exclusively with this subject.The top priority issue in this coming election is who will best protect America against terrorists, whom we know for a certainty will use nuclear devices if they have them. Kerry would be very weak on national security compared to President Bush. The Center for Security Policy has rated Kerry among the worst when it comes to national security. In 1997 he scored exactly zero. Going by this, a vote for Kerry would appear to be suicide

For Bush to win this election all he has to do is publicly warn the terrorists of a new addition to the Bush Doctrine, a plan for instant, massive, terrifying retaliation on hundreds of known and suspected terrorist cells in any Muslim nation, with or without permission, in response to any attack on us. Bush would do this. It is doubtful that Kerry would. Therein you see the danger the nation is headed for if Kerry wins. Without a threat of retaliation, announced in advance, a president would have to surrender the nation, for example, in the face of multiple nuclear devices already in place.

Magruder44@aol.com - v-v-a-r.org - 1-785-312-9303
copy, distribute, link up with us
Distribution:
National and world media
Vietnam vet organizations
K.U. faculty and student org


Questions swirl around Kerry's Silver Star
Researchers say 'unheard of' multiple citations 'sanitize' record

Posted: August 26, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Raising questions about John Kerry's Silver Star medal won in Vietnam, two researchers say its accompanying citation was reissued twice, an "unheard of" occurrence serving to expunge from the record the shooting of an enemy solider in the back and upgrade the signer from an admiral to the secretary of the Navy.
To reissue a citation, regulations would have required Kerry to prove there was an error in the previous citation or that the existence of the citation somehow constituted an "injustice," say Henry Mark Holzer and Erika Holzer, writing in Front Page magazine.
Henry Mark Holzer, professor emeritus at Brooklyn Law School, and Erika Holzer, a lawyer and novelist, are co-authors of "Fake Warriors: Identifying, Exposing and Punishing Those Who Falsify Their Military Service." They plan a second edition of their book with a new preface entitled "John Kerry: The Ultimate Fake Warrior."
The authors, who want Kerry to release all documents related to the citations, have noted another peculiarity about Kerry's Silver Star -- its unauthorized "V" for valor which "makes it facially false, they say, and at variance with official government records." That's because Silver Stars are given for gallantry and never are accompanied with a combat "V," which would be redundant. But Kerry's DD 214, or "Report of Transfer and Separation," displayed on his website, shows the "V."

The researchers are not affiliated with Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth, the group of 254 men who served with Kerry in Vietnam and now assert he is unfit to be commander in chief of the United States.
But Jerome Corsi, co-author of the swiftboat vets' book, "Unfit for Command," told WorldNetDaily the group has a lot of respect for their work.
"They've done some groundbreaking research ... examining the documentary evidence in order to come up with the truth," he said.
Corsi noted the swiftboat vets also have raised questions about multiple versions of Kerry's citations.
"Some subsequent citations appear to be embellished by personnel not there at the time, raising questions about which one is accurate and who asked for them to be revised and reissued," he said.
In "Unfit for Command," Corsi and co-author John O'Neill, a former swiftboat skipper, write Kerry was awarded his Silver Star "by killing a lone, fleeing, teenage Viet Cong in a loincloth."
The Silver Star, they write, "would never have been awarded had his actions been reviewed through normal channels. In his case, he was awarded the medal two days after the incident with no review. The medal was arranged to boost the morale of Coastal Division 11, but it was based on false and incomplete information provided by Kerry himself."
The swiftboat vets also assert two of Kerry's three Purple Hearts were a result of accidental, self-inflicted wounds.
Kerry's most recent Silver Star citation, nearly two decades older than the first, was signed by then-Secretary of the Navy John Lehman, who did not hold that position when Kerry was in Vietnam.
None of the three citations refer to the combat "V" that appears on the DD 214 on Kerry's website.
The first citation, signed by Vice Adm. E.R. Zumwalt Jr., commander of U.S. Naval Forces in Vietnam, is significantly different from the latter two in this section:
" ... Patrol Craft Fast 23 and 94 moved upstream to investigate an area from which gunshots were coming. Arriving at the area, Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY's craft received a B-40 rocket close aboard. Once again Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY ordered his units to charge the enemy positions and summoned Patrol Craft Fast 43 to the area to provide additional firepower. Patrol Craft Fast 94 then beached in the center of the enemy positions and an enemy soldier sprang up from his position not ten feet from Patrol Craft Fast 94 and fled. Without hesitation Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY leaped ashore, pursued the man behind a hootch and killed him, capturing a B-40 rocket launcher with a round in the chamber. Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY then led an assault party and conducted a sweep of the area while the Patrol Craft Fast continued to provide fire support. After the enemy had been completely routed, all personnel returned to the Patrol Craft Fast to withdraw from the area.”
Citation No. 2, however, signed by Adm. John J. Hyland, commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, gives this account:
"On a request from U.S. Army advisors on shore, Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY ordered PCF’s 94 and 23 further up river to suppress enemy sniper fire. After proceeding approximately eight hundred yards, the boats were again taken under fire from a heavily foliated area and a B-40 rocket exploded close aboard PCF 94. With utter disregard for his own safety and the enemy rockets, he again ordered a charge on the enemy, beached his own boat only ten feet from the VC rocket position, and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy. Upon sweeping the area, an immediate search uncovered an enemy rest and supply area which was destroyed.”
The second citation was issued sometime between Feb. 29, 1969, and Dec. 5, 1970, when Hyland no longer was commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet.
Citation No. 3, signed by Lehman, who recently headed the 9-11 commission, reads this way:
"After proceeding approximately eight hundred yards, the boats were again taken under fire from a heavily foliated area and a B-40 rocket exploded close aboard PCF 94: with utter disregard for his own safety and the enemy rockets, he again ordered a charge on the enemy, beached his boat only ten feet from the VC rocket position, and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy. Upon sweeping the area an immediate search uncovered an enemy rest and supply area which was destroyed.
To obtain Citation No. 2, the authors say, Kerry would have had to prove that there was an error in Citation No. 1 and/or that the existence of that citation somehow constituted an "injustice."
The Holzers state: "While it is not difficult to understand why Kerry apparently sought and obtained a sanitized second version of his Silver Star citation, at first glance it is not so easy to surmise why Kerry went after yet a third citation, this time from Lehman (especially because the third citation is word-for-word, in every important respect, the same as the second)."
They speculate that in the 1980s, Kerry, by then a senator, may have been trying to upgrade his award, issued by a couple of "mere" admirals, to one issued by the secretary of the Navy.
Whatever the reason, they say, Hyland's Citation 2 and Lehman's Citation 3 would have had to satisfy the United States Code, which provides that the "Secretary of a military department may correct any military record of the Secretary's department when the Secretary considers it necessary to correct an error or remove an injustice."
The code provides that, "No correction may be made ... unless the claimant ... files a request for the correction within three years after he discovers the error or injustice. However, a board ... may excuse a failure to file within three years after discovery if it finds it to be in the interest of justice."
"Was the error in Citation 1 that he had shot the enemy soldier in the back, or that it was somehow an injustice to Kerry for the citation to say so?" the authors ask.
The problem for Kerry, they say, is that since Citation No. 3 is virtually identical to the second, there could be no error or injustice.
Another problem is that since the three-year statute of limitations had passed by the time Lehman was in office, in order for Kerry to obtain the correction, he would have had to prove that correcting Citation 2 was "in the interest of justice."
They conclude that changes based on any other reason than "for correcting misspellings or transpositions of service numbers or erroneous grades" would call into question the original decision to make the award.
That is why changing or correcting a citation is almost never done, they say.
The authors want Kerry to provide relevant records surrounding the issuance of the citations, contending that the questions they raise place him in a dilemma.
"If he stalls, or obfuscates, or refuses to answer, continuing a pattern he has employed about some of his more important records, the only reasonable conclusion is that he has something to hide," they write. "If he does answer, it is difficult to believe, given what is already known, that he will answer fully and truthfully.



Zippo Kerry!!
George Bates, an officer in Coastal Division 11, participated in numerous operations with Kerry. In UNFIT FOR COMMAND, Bates recalls a particular patrol with Kerry on the Song Bo De River. He is still "haunted" by the incident:

With Kerry in the lead, the boats approached a small hamlet with three or four grass huts. Pigs and chickens were milling around peacefully. As the boats drew closer, the villagers fled. There were no political symbols or flags in evidence in the tiny village. It was obvious to Bates that existing policies, decency, and good sense required the boats to simply move on.

Instead, Kerry beached his boat directly in the small settlement. Upon his command, the numerous small animals were slaughtered by heavy-caliber machine guns. Acting more like a pirate than a naval officer, Kerry disembarked and ran around with a Zippo lighter, burning up the entire hamlet.

Bates has never forgotten Kerry's actions.
MP3 Song about Kerry Zippo Hero (download)





Oct 9
Iraq/al-Qaida: The connection

Posted: October 8, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
If you believe what John Kerry and his stooges in the media say, there was never any connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden and his terrorist al-Qaida organization.

During the debate between Vice President Cheney and John Edwards the other night, Edwards attacked Cheney for maintaining that there was a real connection between the two, and the media rushed to claim that there is no evidence of any such connection.

Among them was ABC News, which either has a very short memory or is willing to cover up what they know about the connection. And they know plenty – they just won't talk about it. The fact is, ABC interviewed bin Laden and had disclosed the ties that existed between Baghdad and the master terrorist as far back as 1999 when Bill Clinton was president.
Here's what ABC News reported on January 14, 1999: Citing an alleged key military adviser and a man believed to be "privy to bin Laden's most secret projects" who had been apprehended, ABC News said:

The U.S. government alleges he was under secret orders to procure enriched uranium for the purpose of developing nuclear weapons. These are allegations bin Laden does not now deny. "It would be a sin for Muslims not to try to possess the weapons," bin Laden told ABC. "But how we could use these weapons if we possessed them is up to us."

Commented ABC: "With an American price on his head there weren't many places bin Laden could go unless he teamed up with another international pariah, one also with an interest in weapons of mass destruction. 'Osama believed in the enemy of my enemy is my friend and is someone I should cooperate with. That's certainly the current case with Iraq,'" an ABC reporter involved with the bin Laden interview said.
And the ABC narrator added:

Saddam Hussein has a long history of harboring terrorists, Carlos the Jackal, Abu Nidal, Abu Abas – the most notorious terrorists of their era all found shelter and support at one time in Baghdad.

Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Three weeks after (Clinton's bombing of a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory) on August 31st, bin Laden reaches out to his friends in Iraq and Sudan. Iraq's Vice President arrives in Khartoum to show his support for the Sudanese after the U.S. attack.
ABC News has learned that during these meetings senior Sudanese officials acting on behalf of bin Laden asked if Saddam Hussein would grant him asylum. Iraq was indeed interested. ABC News has learned that in December an Iraqi intelligence chief ... (who in 1999 was Iraq's ambassador to Turkey) made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden." During the meeting, ABC says their sources reported that "bin Laden was told he would be welcome in Baghdad.

ABC News was not alone in revealing this trip. In 1999, the Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that Farouk Hijazi, a senior officer in Iraq's mukhabarat (Iraq's intelligence service), had journeyed deep into the icy mountains near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with al-Qaida men. Mr. Hijazi is "thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq," the Guardian reported.

ABC News continued:

Intelligence sources say they can only speculate on the purpose of an (Iraqi-bin Laden) alliance. What could bin Laden offer Saddam? Only days after he meets Iraqi officials, bin Laden tells ABC that his network is wide and there are people prepared to commit terror in his name who he does not even control.
Here's what bin Laden told ABC News: "It is our job to incite and to instigate. By the grace of God we did that."

Do you hear ABC telling that story today?

Michael Reagan is the eldest son of former-President Ronald Reagan and is heard on more than 200 talk-radio stations nationally as part of the Radio America Network.




Oct 8
CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT JAMIE MCINTYRE: "[T]he fact that the Army chief of staff was not fired or forced to retire early is just that, Judy. It is a fact."(CNN's "Inside Politics," 9/24/04)

KERRY KEEPS REPEATING FALSE CLAIM

October 7, 2004: Kerry Claimed "I Will Do What The Generals Believe We Need To Do Without Having Any Chilling Effect As The President Put In Place By Firing General Shinseki."
(Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, Tipton, IA, 10/5/04)

October 5, 2004: Kerry Claimed President "Fired His Own Army Chief Of Staff [Eric Shinseki] When His Army Chief Of Staff Said How Many Troops He'd Need [In Iraq]."
(Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, Tipton, IA, 10/5/04)

THE FACTS

In Fact, Shinseki's Retirement Was Announced In April 2002, Long Before He Testified About Potential Conduct Of Iraq War. "[Defense Sec. Rumsfeld] and Army Secretary Thomas White have settled on Gen. John M. Keane, Army deputy chief of staff, to succeed the current chief, Gen. Eric Shinseki. Gen. Shinseki does not retire for more than a year. Sources offer differing reasons for the early selection." (Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough, "Inside The Ring," The Washington Times, 4/19/02)

It Was Not Until Late February 2003, More Than Ten Months Later, That Shinseki Said "Several Hundred Thousand" Troops Would Be Required For "Post-Hostilities Control" In Iraq. SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI): "General Shinseki, could you give us some idea as to the magnitude of the Army's force requirement for an occupation of Iraq following a successful completion of the war?" ARMY CHIEF OF STAFF ERIC SHINSEKI: "In specific numbers, I would have to rely on combatant commander's exact requirements. But I think ..." LEVIN: "How about a range?" SHINSEKI: "I would say that what's been mobilized to this point, something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers, are probably, you know, a figure that would be required." (Committee On Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/25/03)

MEDIA CORRECTS THE RECORD

Shinseki "Completed His Full Term Of Chief Of Staff And Retired On Schedule." BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: "John Kerry insisted today, as he has repeatedly over the past year, that the Army's former Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki was forced into early retirement for saying, in the run up to the war for Iraq, that not enough troops were set to be deployed to the region. Kerry said Shinseki is among the administration officials who, quote, 'lost their jobs for telling the truth.' But Shinseki was not forced out. He completed his full term of chief of staff and retired on schedule. However, his successor's name did come out a year ahead of the time, which his supporters say diminished Shinseki's influence in his final year." (Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume," 9/20/04)

Shinseki's Retirement Was Announced Well Before He Criticized Iraq Troop Levels. WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: "Kerry also said General Shinseki was forced to retire as a result of his criticism of troop levels in Iraq, but his retirement was announced in April of 2002, and he made the statement, his criticism of troop levels, in 2003." (CNN's "NewsNight," 10/1/04)

John Kerry's Assertion That Shinseki Was Fired Is "Factual Mistake." ED HENRY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: "Also, there was at least one factual mistake in the speech. John Kerry noted at one point that General Shinseki, the former Army chief of staff, was fired for not providing the right answers that President Bush was looking for in terms of troop levels, but, in fact, Shinseki retired on his own." (CNN's "News From CNN," 9/8/04)


SEARCH FOR OSAMA
Iranian intel: Tehran harboring bin Laden
2 officials say they've seen terrorist under care of Revolutionary Guard

Posted: October 8, 2004
5:00 p.m. Eastern


© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Iran's cleric leaders are harboring Osama bin Laden, according to two Iranian intelligence officials cited in a new book.

The sources say they have seen the al-Qaida terrorist leader alive and well, although he no longer resembles the picture on FBI wanted posters.

Author Richard Miniter writes in "Shadow War: The Untold Story of How Bush Is Winning the War on Terror" that bin Laden "has trimmed his beard to fit the more traditional look of a Shi'ite cleric and he seemed to have put on weight, according to intelligence officials."

The sources say bin Laden is constantly on the move, "shuttling from Iranian safe houses controlled by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to areas of Afghanistan controlled by the Iranian-backed warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar."

"Choopan," one of the sources, gives three reasons why Tehran would give safe haven to bin Laden, risking the wrath of the West.

"First, the Iranians believe they can keep bin Laden's presence a secret and plausibly deny it if publicly accused," Miniter writes. "Second, the mullahs are feeling increasingly threatened by the War on Terror.

"The mullahs, Choopan says, fear a counter-revolution and see bin Laden's fighters as tools they can use to ensure the failure of these young democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan and the survival of mullah-dominated Iran. Finally, they share enemies, including many Arab leaders, the United States and the rest of the Western world."

The book, launched earlier this week by Regnery, publisher of "Unfit for Command," already is No. 2 on the Amazon.com list.


Kerry’s Fairy Tales About Clintonomics
by Allan H. Ryskind
Posted Oct 8, 2004

John Kerry says vote for him because he'll restore what Democrats talk about as Bill Clinton's "just-right, Goldilocks" economy. "Let's not forget what we [Democrats] did in the 1990s," he's been telling folks on the campaign trail and may well repeat in one of the next two debates. "And we can do it again."

But the splendid ’90s were not splendid because of the Democrats or Clinton or even Clinton's much ballyhooed Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, now a Kerry adviser. It's a nice party myth, but it's far from accurate.

Some recent history is in order: After Clinton's election, the President went full-bore left on the economy, pressing for the largest tax increase in history (the words of the late Sen. Moynihan), a special $72-billion energy tax and vastly increased domestic spending, including a federal takeover of the entire health-care system, equal to one-seventh of America's yearly domestic output. Before he could drop these economy crushers on the nation, the President was largely foiled by a feisty Republican minority in both houses of Congress.

True, he did get a hefty tax hike through Congress, but with Senate Minority Leader Robert Dole and House GOP Whip Newt Gingrich leading the charge, the congressional Republicans significantly scaled back the huge Clinton tax offering, rallied to deep-six a $16-billion stimulus package and knocked off the broad-based energy tax as well.

Hillary health care, exposed as an enormously complex and expensive boondoggle, was also collapsing under steady GOP hammering, with a nice assist from a devastating critique in the liberal New Republic. On Sept. 26, 1994, Majority Leader George Mitchell (D.-Maine), the chief Senate sponsor of Hillarycare, officially raised the white flag.

A little over a month before the November balloting, Gingrich and more than 300 House Republican candidates nationalized the election by proclaiming their support of the very non-Clintonian, non-Democrat "Contract With America." Under the Newt-designed Contract, the Republicans pledged to give the average American family major tax relief, cut taxes substantially for investors, make wholesale changes in the welfare system and balance the budget.

Less than six weeks later, the American voter, enraged by how Clinton was governing and intrigued with the Contract's promises, handed the Democrats a historic defeat. The Republicans not only captured the Senate, but also won a majority in the House for the first time in 40 years, enthroning Gingrich as speaker.

Thus the Clinton effort to socialize a huge chunk of America had been seriously blunted; Clinton economic policy, as pursued from 1992-94, was now over. How, then, can Clinton be given credit for an economic program that was largely thwarted?

Indeed, Clinton himself knew that his first two years had been disastrous, certainly for his party. Panicked by the popular verdict on his presidency, he brought in adviser Dick Morris to save his administration from total ignominy. He instructed Clinton, as outlined in Morris’s book, Behind the Oval Office: ". . .[W]ork to eliminate the deficit, require work for welfare, cut taxes and reduce the federal bureaucracy." Clinton, though kicking and screaming all the way, eventually adopted Morris' advice.

By the spring of 1995, the President had abandoned Hillarycare for good and was proposing balanced budgets, albeit initially for show . Then he insisted before an October 1995 fundraiser in Texas that "I think I raised them [taxes] too much, too." But his rhetorical surrender to the center and the right was not yet complete. In his 1996 State of the Union address, he made the grand pronouncement that "the era of big government is over."

The President then acquiesced in a series of important Republican initiatives, putting some substance behind the oratory. In election year 1996, he signed, reluctantly and with liberals raging in opposition, a historic GOP welfare reform program, eliminating scores of federal welfare regulations and transferring critical spending authority to the states.

The initial results--which Clinton hailed at the Democratic convention in 2000--were spectacular, with caseloads having fallen like stones within just a couple of years. Clearly, Republicans had gotten this area of public policy right and Clinton was quietly tipping his hat to them while loudly seizing credit for the program's stunning success.

More Clinton concessions were to come. The following August Clinton signed into law a bipartisan balanced budget measure that not only restrained spending, but also included several critical Republican tax-relief items, Among them a solid, middle-class tax cut. The President had promised just such a cut to the voters in his 1992 campaign, but had conspicuously crawfished (though he did trot out a half-hearted proposal right after the devastating House losses in the November elections). The GOP-sponsored cut came in the form of a $500-per-child tax credit--courtesy mainly of the lobbying of pro-family activist Gary Bauer--which would amount to about $75 billion over a five-year period and proved a godsend to millions of American families. The measure also contained substantial tax relief elsewhere, a nearly 30% cut in the capital gains tax burden, a serious decrease in estate taxes, repeal of the alternative minimum tax on small business and a new retirement savings account, known as the Roth IRA.

In truth, Clinton had now gotten around to embracing many of the very same proposals promised in the "Contract" and served up by the first Gingrich Congress in 1995. Equally important, the Republicans weren't imposing on the country--or even threatening to impose--the kind of dangerous domestic spending and regulatory programs that can wreak economic havoc. What proved critical, says former Congressional Budget Office Director (1995-1999) June O'Neill, was "the absence of legislation that meddled with the economy or that had major, long-run spending consequences for the budget."

The result of all this: The economy bloomed. Money flowed into the U.S. Treasury largely because people were becoming wealthier. revenues from income and capital gains taxes were soaring, not because rates were being raised, but because taxes were being lowered. Spending was restrained, GDP was rising at a healthy 4% clip and the Dow Jones average had more than tripled by the time Clinton left office--and has managed to maintain these stratospheric heights.

The Ronald Reagan peace dividend, with an assist from George H. W. Bush, also proved crucial in generating the surpluses the Democrats keep bragging about. Even Clinton's defense team acknowledged this truth.

According to John Shalikashvili, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs under Clinton, and William J. Perry, Clinton's defense secretary (Washington Post, Aug. 10, 2000): "This 'peace dividend,' amounting to about $100 billion a year, has been a major contributor to the balanced budget that our economy now enjoys."

In other words, the economy the current President Bush inherited, while hardly perfect, had soared due to Republican economic principles, indeed conservative Republican principles, and was embraced, albeit tardily, by William Jefferson Clinton. So, Kerry to the contrary, the 90s boom was largely a Republican phenomenon.


History unrevised ... again

Posted: October 7, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Unrevising history in this generation is becoming a full-time job. Especially as it pertains to the man who would be president, if he can convince enough Americans his version of history is the truth.

First, a little background – not because it is new information, but because it is accurate.

As a young man, John Kerry wore his nation's uniform into action in Vietnam. While it may not be entirely true that he volunteered for combat duty, Kerry did spend four months in Vietnam before coming back to the United States to denounce his comrades.

It was during his anti-war, anti-hero period that John Kerry learned how powerful the spoken word could be. It got him elected to the Senate. It got him nominated for president.

And the polls all suggest it won him new votes after last Thursday's debate. But how he said what he said is what earned him new supporters. What he said must not have made it through the barrier between their ears.
It is a matter of historical fact that John Kerry built his career by opposing the best interests of the United States. Both his anti-war activities in the 1970s and his Senate record in the years since contain all the evidence necessary to establish that as fact. There was his ringing endorsement of the now wholly discredited Winter Soldier investigation, which depicted U.S. troops in Vietnam as rapists and killers. He said that America was the single worst violator on the entire planet of the Geneva Conventions. By Kerry's lights, any Viet Cong atrocities paled in comparison with those committed by U.S. troops as a matter of policy.

In the '80s, Kerry was a passionate defender of the communist Sandinistas. Indeed, the point of his infamous "Christmas in Cambodia" Senate speech was to prevent the Reagan administration from taking action to overthrow the communists.

Today, for anybody listening to his recent debate with President Bush, Kerry's words should have removed any lingering doubt. John Kerry spent the first half of his debate time lambasting the Bush administration for "going it alone" against Saddam. But when it came to North Korea, Kerry lambasted the administration for having too many allies.

Kerry says in that case that America should engage in bilateral talks with Pyongyang. That's what the North Koreans favor as well. Right now, Pyongyang has to deal with not just the United States, but also China, Russia, South Korea and Japan. That puts the North at a disadvantage it wouldn't have in unilateral talks with the United States. For that reason, Pyongyang favors a Kerry presidency. After all, look what they won in bilateral talks with another Democrat president – Bill Clinton.

During last week's debate, Kerry called for sanctions against Iran as a way to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear power. When it was pointed out that we already have sanctions against Iran, Kerry blamed the Bush administration for the "unilateral" nature of those sanctions. The sanctions were first imposed by Ronald Reagan in 1987. A second set of tougher sanctions were imposed by Bill Clinton in 1995. And a third set of even tougher sanctions were imposed against Tehran by Clinton in 1999. There weren't any sanctions left for Bush to impose.

Kerry switched tactics at that point, saying if he were president, he would give nuclear fuel to Iran in return for a promise they won't use it for weapons. Within hours, Tehran's Foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi laughed at the Kerry proposal. He told a press conference, "We have the technology (to make nuclear fuel) and there is no need for us to beg from others."

Like the North Koreans, the Iranians were listening closely to the debates. Evidently, they were listening more closely than either the American mainstream media or Kerry's supporters. Our enemies evidently focused their attention primarily on what Kerry said, instead of how Kerry said it.

According to John Kerry, the only way to effectively combat terrorism is by working with "allies." But not the 30-odd allies in the coalition. Those allies, Kerry dismisses as "a coalition of the bribed and coerced."
To Kerry, the only allies that matter are France, Germany and Russia. Paris, Berlin and Moscow did not obstruct U.S. efforts in Iraq because they opposed President Bush – they did so because their own best interests required a Saddam Hussein in power.

In the debate, Kerry insisted he would "never give a veto to any country over our security." Asked by moderator Jim Lehrer to describe his position on preemptive war, Kerry said this:

No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

This is confusing. Before taking "preemptive" action, America has to pass a "global test"?

What if we don't pass?

According to Kerry, he wouldn't have taken action against Iraq without these so-called "allies." Since, as we now know, they were secretly Saddam's allies, they opposed the United States tooth and nail. Had Kerry been in office, would he have acted anyway? Wouldn't French, German and Russian opposition been the equivalent to a veto? It doesn't make sense.

Kerry now says that while the end result – Saddam's removal – was fine, the war itself was a tragic mistake. But how else would Saddam have been ousted? Kerry didn't elaborate, and Lehrer never questioned him.
According to the latest polls, the majority of Americans think John Kerry "won" the debate. He did win in debating skill and style, because his premises were not challenged. Pyongyang and Tehran critically analyzed his content and concluded he could be manipulated to their advantage.

The reality is that America is facing a greater existential threat at this moment in its history than at any time since British troops captured New York City in August 1776. America has no worse enemies among the assembled governments of the world than those in Tehran and Pyongyang. Now is not the time to empower North Korea by abandoning the six-nation diplomatic effort and making it a case of "us against them." Neither is it the time to offer to give the mad mullahs in Tehran more nuclear material in exchange for only a promise. It didn't work when Clinton tried it with Pyongyang in 1994, either.

And now is definitely not the time to let the United Nations, France, Germany and Russia decide what is in America's best strategic interests.

Or John Kerry.

JOHN KERRY'S 'ALLIES' — BOUGHT AND PAID FOR

The national media are busy trumpeting the news that the chief U.S. weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, found no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq .

Which is hardly news, right?

But there is news — real news — in Duelfer's 1,200-page report.

It tells the tale of how Saddam Hussein , clinging to power, enlisted top U.N. officials to help him bribe leaders of those European nations so dear to John Kerry 's heart into ending tough economic sanctions against Iraq.
Whereupon Saddam planned to resume his decades-long quest for WMDs.

And he almost succeeded.

What stopped him?

The attacks of 9/11 — which prompted determined leaders like President Bush  and British Prime Minister Tony Blair  finally to confront the threat Saddam represented — as Duelfer's report confirms.

The key was the United Nations ' Oil-for-Food program — meant to provide relief for Saddam's suffering millions, but, in the event, one of the most corrupt "humanitarian" undertakings in history.

It provided almost no help to the Iraqi people, but rather gave Saddam nearly $11 billion in hard currency — cash used to bribe foreign officials into a gradual loosening of sanctions.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan 's deputy, Benon Sevan, oversaw the program.

(Now it appears that Sevan may have enriched himself to the tune of $1.3 million, courtesy of oil companies he personally recommended to Iraq after the program began.)

Saddam's "evolving strategy," says Duelfer, "centered on breaking free of U.N. sanctions in order to liberate his economy from the economic stranglehold, so he could continue to pursue his political and personal objectives."

To do that, he resolved to divide the five permanent Security Council members. The United States and Great Britain were unapproachable — so instead he set about buying off the governments of France, China and Russia.

The three nations which — wouldn't you know? — worked at every turn to frustrate any attempt to hold Saddam's feet to the fire.

Among those to whom Saddam personally approved offers of oil vouchers — worth millions of dollars each — were:

* Charles Pasqua, a former French interior minister;
* Patrick Maugein, believed by Iraqi intelligence to be closely tied to French President Jacques Chirac; in addition, two of Chirac's aides and one of his spokesmen were given cash payoffs.

According to the report, an unnamed French politician wrote Saddam to assure him that France would use its veto power against any U.S. attack on Iraq.

* Officials in the Russian presidential office and foreign ministry.

In all, officials in more than a dozen countries were given the vouchers.

And dozens of oil companies in the same countries — their names still kept secret — got lucrative contracts.
Which were the nations with the highest percentage of oil-voucher recipients?

France, China and Russia.

The sweetheart deals "provided Saddam with a useful method of rewarding countries, organizations and individuals willing to cooperate with Iraq to subvert U.N. sanctions," according Duelfer.

In fact, Duelfer told the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday, "sanctions were in free fall . . . If not for 9/11, I don't think they would exist today."

Once the sanctions were gone, said Duelfer, Saddam could have had a biological weapons "within a few weeks."

"What is clear is that Saddam retained his notions of use of force" and "had experiences that demonstrated the utility of WMD," said Duelfer. (This, after all, was a man who'd already used poison gas against both Iranian soldiers and Kurdish women and children.)

Also clear, according to the report, is that "Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a chemical weapons effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable."

You certainly won't be hearing anything like that from the John-John Ticket — Kerry and Edwards.
The Democratic Duo has adopted the simplistic position that no weapons of mass destruction means no justification for the Iraq war. And that the enlistment of "allies" — France? Russia? — is the key to a secure America.

Back in the real world, while the Duelfer report may not be a smoking gun in the case against Saddam, it certainly represents a loaded pistol pointed straight at the United States and at the global economy — dependant as it is on Mideast oil.

Saddam fully expected sanctions to disappear — and he acted accordingly.

According to Duelfer's report, the Oil-for-Food program and Saddam's decision to once again kick out U.N. inspectors in 1998 "spurred a period of increased activity in [weapons] delivery-systems development. The pace of ongoing missile programs accelerated, and the regime authorized its scientists to design missiles with ranges in excess of 150 km."

Duelfer's investigators also "uncovered Iraqi plans or designs for three long-range ballistic missiles with ranges from 400 to 1,000 km and for a 1,000-km-range cruiser missile."

These plans, they said, "demonstrate Saddam's . . . desire — up to the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom — for a long-range delivery capability."

Moreover, Saddam had the help of a host of scientists and technicians from Russia, and "had entered into negotiations with North Korean and Russian entities for more capable missile systems."

In fact, a French arms firm was in negotiations to supply Saddam with critical surface-to-air missile and other high-tech parts "with battlefield applications" just three weeks before the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Duelfer's report makes it unmistakably clear that regional domination was Saddam's goal all along — and that he would have continued his quest once U.N. sanctions were lifted.

Which, thanks to the corruption at Turtle Bay, they would have been by now.

In retrospect, how can anyone doubt that Saddam represented a grave threat to the Middle East and the entire world?

That's exactly how Charles Duelfer describes him.

Waiting for U.N. "sanctions" to do the job — as John Kerry and John Edwards  now say they favored — would have been foolish.

The lesson of 9/11 is that America can't let the next threat grow until it's too late to do anything about it.
President Bush understands — which is why he was right to move militarily against Iraq.
To do otherwise would have been to invite another 9/11 — or worse.

Kerry fled after other swift boat hit mine, author says
by Mannix Porterfield
8 October 2004

Far from being the war hero a campaign ad depicts him, John Kerry fled in an act of cowardice when a fellow swift boat struck an underwater mine in Vietnam, says the author of "Unfit for Command."

In one ad titled "No Man Left Behind," Kerry is portrayed as a commander who heroically made a speedy turn after a swift boat was disabled by a mine and retrieved Jim Rassman from the water in a hail of enemy fire.

"That story is a complete lie," John O'Neill told The Register-Herald in a Wednesday interview from his Chicago hotel.

When the boat hit the mine, it began to sink, and other crews were scrambling to rescue four men trapped on board by armaments, but Kerry blasted away, spilling Rassman into the Bay Hop River.

An ex-shipmate campaigning for Kerry in West Virginia this week maintained Kerry was merely turning around to effect a rescue in the March 13, 1969, incident, but O'Neill laughed off this explanation.

"It takes only about three seconds to turn those boats around," he said. "It took Kerry five minutes to turn. That was the longest turn in history."

All the while, crews from the other vessels are frantically patching the boat by hand, he said.
"If it sinks, the guys are going to die," he said. "They are retrieving people in the water. No one knows Rassman fell off. He's 80 yards away."

When he finally is spotted, a boat moves into position to get him, but Kerry by now has returned to fetch him, O'Neill said.

O'Neill says his biggest complaint with Kerry is not his four-month tour of duty in Vietnam, but his anti-war antics upon returning to the United States and his rendezvous with communist leaders in North Vietnam without the Navy's knowledge or approval.

Kerry not only asserted the war was wrong, but falsely accused Vietnam troops of baseless atrocities, claiming they occurred routinely with the approval of superior officers, O'Neill said.
"We'll never forget this as long as we live," O'Neill said. "I remember it like the Kennedy assassination and the Challenger explosion. It was so untrue."

As for his highly touted Purple Hearts, O'Neill characterized two as outright shams.
The first cited a Dec. 2, 1968, incident where Kerry unleashed a grenade too close to a whaler, at a time no one witnessed any enemy gunfire, O'Neill said.

An admiral serving there said Kerry wounded himself with M-79 shrapnel and compared the cut to that one gets from a rose thorn, O'Neill said, adding there was no casualty report and no logs of any hostile activity that night.

Kerry provided two varying accounts of an incident that led to his third Purple Heart, the author said. One is he suffered a minor arm bruise that was treated with a cold cloth, the other involved a wound of buttocks, ostensibly from enemy shrapnel.

What really occurred was that Kerry, ashore in the March 13 incident, tossed a grenade into a cache of rice, but the senator claimed he got shrapnel from an underwater mine, O'Neill said.
This article was published by the Beckley, West Virginia Register-Herald.

That Old Issue, 'Character,' Keeps Popping Up
by George Melloan

During the televised debate between George W. Bush and John Kerry last Thursday night, moderator Jim Lehrer served the president a softball: "Are there also underlying character issues that you believe are serious enough to deny Senator Kerry the job as commander in chief of the United States?"

It must have been tempting to answer yes and introduce into the debate the "character issues" others have raised about Mr. Kerry. Certainly the senator, a skilled debater with an instinct for the jugular, was sparing no opportunity to take cheap shots at the president.

But the president deflected this "loaded question," as he called it, praising Mr. Kerry for his "service to our country" and being "a great dad" before wandering off into something about how the Kerry daughters had been nice to the Bush girls. Mr. Kerry exhaled and responded with a compliment, calling first lady Laura Bush "a terrific person."

But of course Mr. Bush knows, along with almost everyone else in the U.S. who hasn't been vacationing on Mars, that there is a character issue that has firmly attached itself to the Massachusetts senator. An open letter to Mr. Kerry signed by 197 officers and men who served with him in Vietnam -- the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth -- charges that, "you have deceived the public, and in the process have betrayed honorable men, to further your personal political career." It is not nothing to have almost 200 men you served with, of various political persuasions, call you a liar. The Swifties still are incensed, 33 years on, at Mr. Kerry's claims before a Senate committee in 1971 that he and his fellow soldiers routinely committed "war crimes."

"Unfit for Command," a book principally authored by Swifties leader John E. O'Neill that charges the senator with unprincipled fakery about his Vietnam record, has been flying off the bookshelves. Judicial Watch, a non-partisan Washington gadfly group, has requested that in light of the Swifties charges, the U.S. Navy and Justice Department launch an official investigation of Mr. Kerry's war record. Judicial Watch cites as possible illegalities the private negotiations Mr. Kerry had with a North Vietnam/Viet Cong delegation in Paris while he was still an officer in the U.S. Naval Reserve.

Mr. Kerry responds that he may have been guilty of some youthful indiscretions back then, although at 27 he was in no danger of being asked for his ID by a bartender. His supporters praise him for being willing to stand up for his principles, unpopular as they may have been. But in the torrid antiwar climate of 1971, when President Richard Nixon was under intense political pressure to pull out of Vietnam, Mr. Kerry was hardly risking unpopularity. Certainly, his "principles" didn't block him from eventually winning a Senate seat.

Mr. Kerry's 20-year Senate record has shown him to be frequently squishy on questions involving American efforts to combat aggression. He opposed resistance to the Castro-backed Sandinistas in Central America. He opposed Desert Storm, the Gulf War provoked by Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. And he voted against funding the Iraq war after voting in support of it.

It can be argued that the senator's record represents nothing more than political positions that are no reflection on his "character." That's a legitimate argument as far as it goes. But if the senator did in fact lie about his performance in Vietnam, as 197 of his former comrades claim, that is a character issue.

It evokes the memory of Bill Clinton, who lied under oath about his extramarital peccadilloes while occupying the nation's highest office and got himself impeached for his troubles. Some would argue that Mr. Clinton had a successful presidency despite his personal misbehavior. Their claim can be backed by the fact that he was re-elected in 1996 and ended his eight years in office with a federal budget surplus. It is argued as well that, unlike Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton maintained good relations with our allies in Europe.

Well, certainly the French were tolerant of a president who enjoyed female company, given that their own president at the time, Francois Mitterrand, had an equivalent taste. But while Mr. Clinton was making himself liked by foreign leaders and fighting off critics of his personal behavior, there were a lot of things going wrong in the world. North Korea's Kim Jong Il was cheating on a solemn agreement with the U.S. by continuing to build nuclear weapons. Terrorists were attacking U.S. embassies in Africa and a U.S. warship docked in a Yemeni port, to name a few.

In short, the character issue with Mr. Clinton involved not only his sexual habits but his toughness in standing up for American interests. He was better liked overseas than Mr. Bush partly because he was more pliable and risk averse.

In last week's debate Mr. Kerry signaled similar instincts. He would call a "summit of all our allies on Iraq," which seems to be shorthand for dumping the remaining problems in that country on the United Nations. It is not clear what he thinks the "international community" would be capable of doing that is not being done already by the combination of a resolute U.S. and Iraqi forces that are being trained to deal with the continuing security problems. Those forces have already subdued the al Sadr militia and are now taking on the insurgents in Samarra.

The international community doesn't have an impressive record in dealing with matters like the drive by both North Korea and Iran to build nuclear weapons and use them to blackmail neighboring countries. If an American president doesn't find ways to deal with such misbehavior, it is a safe bet that no one else will. Would anyone really want to put the fate of the world in the hands of Kofi Annan?

After the debate last week, a Gallup Poll showed that Mr. Kerry was thought to be the better debater. But this wasn't a college match-up with the winner being the one who scored the most points. One of these two men will be the next leader of the free world. When Gallup asked which man was "tough enough" to be president,
Mr. Bush won by a landslide, 54 to 37. Character does count.

This article was published by The Wall Street Journal.





Oct 7
id
House Votes Down Draft Bill

Many ROA members may be aware that an e-mail circulated on the Internet claimed that there would be a reinstatement of the draft, and this helped spread rumors. This e-mail claimed that the draft would restart in Spring 2005, after the presidential election. By combining fact with fiction, this e-mail perpetuated a hoax.

On the campaign trail, the Bush and Kerry campaigns have rejected the idea of a draft, and a president could only reinstitute a draft with congressional approval. Ironically, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, as a congressman in the early 1970s, was the first to introduce legislation to end the draft.

"I can't imagine our country going back to a draft," Secretary Rumsfeld said on May 17 to the Heritage Foundation, "We don't need it. We're able to attract and retain wonderful people the way we're doing it as long as we provide the appropriate incentives. And certainly this is a country that's wealthy enough to do that," he said.

A bill to renew the draft received an overwhelming bi-partisan rejection this week with a vote of 402-2 against it. (The two who voted to pass the bill were Pete Stark (D-Calif.) and John Murtha (D-Pa.) Initially sponsored by Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) in January 2003, only 14 of 425 members of Congress co-sponsored this bill in the past 21 months. (See http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR00163:@@@P .)

The bill failed to pass on a motion to "suspend the rules and pass the bill". With such limited support within Congress, the bill would have normally died in committee. Recent public debate, fueled by a rumor about the renewal of the draft, forced this issue onto the House of Representatives schedule.

News of the draft never had any substantial basis or support behind it that ROA could pinpoint. Yesterday's vote demonstrates that our legislative leaders agree that reinstituting a draft would not be the correct direction to go for our national security and our Armed Forces.

While the all-volunteer force has proven its mettle and cost-effectiveness time and time again around the world, untapped resources are still in place for additional call-ups of Reserve forces when and if they are needed. ROA strongly feels that enacting necessary programs, such as optional early retirement, TRICARE for all Reservists, end of Survivor Benefit Penalty, and Montgomery GI Bill, among others is the right thing to do to ensure we keep enough of America's brightest and best servicemen and women in the Armed Services.

John Kerry's Number 1 Ally, the United Nations!
By Michael Ashbury

In theory the United Nations would be the ideal body to control political disputes around the world and stop tyrants before they take military action against their neighbor or even their own people. Unfortunately in 54 years of existence the UN, though offering a forum for discussion, has proven itself impotent to stop tyrannical governments or even intercede in humanitarian disasters. John Kerry, however believes that any US involvement in world problems should first pass a Global Test; defined as the United Nations. His belief in the UN started with his father who was a Foreign Service Officer assigned to the Bureau of United Nations Affairs. In 1970, when John Kerry first ran for Congress, he told the Harvard Crimson, "I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed throughout the world only at the directive of the United Nations."

A colossal example of the failure of the United Nations to lead the World is the "Oil for Food Scandal" that currently engulfs the organization. The "Oil for Food Scandal" grew out of the UN agreement at the end of the first Gulf War. As one of the conditions for a cease-fire Iraq and Saddam Hussein were restricted as to how many barrels of oil they could sell on an annual basis to support the food and medical needs of Iraqi citizens. A noble agreement to protect the Iraqi people. However members of the United Nations and especially members of the Security Council who were charged with overseeing the actions of the Hussein government circumvented this agreement. To get around UN restrictions, Hussein negotiated sweetheart deals with member countries including those on Security Council that allowed them to purchase oil at less than market price and then resell that oil at a profit, pocketing the difference after they kicked back a percentage to Hussein's personal account. Monies, which Saddam used to build his Palaces and build his enormous stockpile of weapons. The Wall Street Journal (Oct. 6, 2004) reported that even the head of the Oil for Food program received rights for 13.3 million barrels of Iraqi oil, pocketing $1.2 million for his efforts. Reports also indicate that even the Secretary General's own son participated in this program.

A report, which appeared in the Iraqi daily Al-Mada, on Jan 29, 2004, lists 270 companies, organizations, and individuals who were awarded allocations (vouchers) of crude oil by Saddam Hussein's regime. The beneficiaries reside in 50 countries: 16 Arab, 17 European, 9 Asian, and the rest from sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America; many on the UN's Security Council. Only a portion of the 270 recipients are listed and identified below. Recipients include heads of state, state companies, political parties, and individuals. The countries of residence include:

Country Sweetheart Options
                    (Barrels of oil)

Canada: 1 million barrels
United States: (Not the US Govt.) 10.5 million barrels.
Great Britain: 1 million barrels
France: 69.2 million barrels
Switzerland: 36 million barrels
Italy: 3 million barrels
Spain: 3 million barrels
Yugoslavia: 12.5 million barrels
Romania: 5.5 million barrels.
Hungary: 4.7 million barrels.
Bulgaria: 12 million barrels
Slovakia: 1 million barrels.
Austria: 1 million barrels.
Brazil: 4.5 million barrels
Egypt: 46.6 million barrels
Libya: 1 million barrels.
Sub-Saharan Africa: 9 million barrels
Palestinians: 37.5 million barrels
Oman: 5 million barrels.
Syria: 33 million barrels
Lebanon: 13.5 million barrels
Jordan: 40 million barrels
Qatar: 16 million barrels
India: 1 million barrels.
Indonesia: 2 million barrels
Myanmar: 1 million barrels.
Ukraine: 9 million barrels
Belarus: 3 million barrels
Russia: 658.2 million barrels

From the list you can see why members of the United Nations, and the Security Council in particular , were reluctant to remove Saddam Hussein, who was benefiting them personally to the tune of millions of dollars a year. In addition these same countries were benefiting by contracts for arms and other consumer and industrial goods worth billions of dollars a year. In that regard Saddam also owed many of these countries billions of dollars for goods delivered but never paid for. To destroy his regime meant the loss of billions of dollars, which they were unwilling to do. And, this is the organization that a John Kerry Administration wants to yield the sovereignty of the United States?




WHY IS THIS RELEVANT?

Because in a time of War - America needs a man that can be trusted to make the right decisions.

JOHN KERRY CANNOT BE TRUSTED.
We are the men who served with John Kerry.
We are the entire chain of command forJohn Kerry...
 we are the overwhelming majority of the officers who served with
John Kerry in Vietnam...
and we are the sailors who went on every mission with
John Kerry.

We have been joined by the men who were held captive during the
Vietnam War - the POWs - who experienced the additional hardships caused by John Kerry's betrayal. We number in excess of 300 men.

And we deserve some answers.!!

Q: Why did you accuse American servicemen of committing atrocities on a daily basis without ever offering proof?
You defamed the tens of thousands of men who served honorably and dishonored
those who died.

Q: What atrocities did you personally see and why did you not take action against these supposed atrocities?
You admitted on Face the Nation that you had committed war crimes. The American
public deserves a full disclosure by you of these war crimes.

Q: Will you apologize to these servicemen and recant your accusations?
Your accusations stole the pride and honor of the servicemen, and denied closure for the families of those men killed in Vietnam.

Q: Why did you meet with the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese in Paris while we were at war?
You have yet to explain the details of your meeting with the Viet Cong when American servicemen were fighting a war. Is that any different than a 25 year-old meeting with Al Qaeda operatives today?

Q: What response do you have to the Prisoners of War, who argue that your actions caused them prolonged internment and far greater suffering?
Paul Galanti, who was tortured at the hands of the North Vietnamese said that a tape
of your voice was used in an attempt to get POWs to admit to war crimes.

Q: Why did you in your anti-war book, The New Soldier, state: “we will not readily join the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars... we will not uphold tradition, which decorously memorialized that which was base and grim.”
Do you really believe the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars represent the worst of America?

Swift Boat Veterand For Truth

TAKE HEED!
What follows is a press release from the Muslim American Society. Throughout Europe we are seeing the perverse effects of massive Islamic immigration on their societies. It can happen here. I would remind you of the 1999 warning given by Catholic Archbishop Guiseppe Bernardini of Turkey, who quoted a high-ranking Muslim as having said:
"Thanks to your democratic laws we will invade you;
thanks to our religious laws we will dominate you"
I suggest that you vote as if the future of America depends upon.
Vernon

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

..: Muslim American Society :..

October 4, 2004 PRESS RELEASE

MAPAC Endorses John F. Kerry for President Muslim American choice in 2004: Senator John F. Kerry for President

The non-partisan Muslim American Political Action Committee (MAPAC) has formally endorsed Senator John F. Kerry for his bid for the Presidency in 2004. This decision comes after months of considerations, discussions with Muslim American leaders across the country, and extensive dialog with the Kerry campaign and the Democratic Party leadership.

In a statement, Mukit Hossain, President of MAPAC, stated, "What does it mean for Muslim Americans if President Bush is re-elected? It means more constricting laws and policies to curtail the civil liberties of the Muslim Americans, and harsher foreign policies toward Muslim countries - in the name of combating terrorism. It! also means a continuing and menacing rise of anti-Muslim sentiment in America, covertly nurtured by the Neoconservatives,and openly fanned by government officials like Lt. General Boykin and
Attorney General John Ashcroft.

"Since Senator Kerry is not controlled by religious and political ideologues, the possibility of an open and productive dialog with the Kerry administration for the Muslim Americans remains alive. The Kerry campaign has already shown an eagerness to be inclusive, and an inclination to engage in such a dialog.

"So, the only viable option open to the Muslim Americans is to strongly support John Kerry and assert ourselves as an important part of the electorate - as the swing votes in the battleground states, we are poised to do so. At the same time, before the election, we must extensively strive to impress on the Kerry campaign the crucial importance of the Muslim American voters through active engagement.! "

MAPAC - in cooperation with the Muslim American Society Freed om Foundation -has been creating a database of the Muslim American voters in the battleground states and other states where there are large presence of the community. According to preliminary findings, battleground states like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida have enough Muslim American votes to provide a formidable swing bloc. MAPAC intends to use the data for aggressive campaigns until the Election Day in hotly contested areas. The details of the new databases will soon be made public.

MAPAC was formed on July 4, 2004, in Washington, DC, as a federal political action committee (PAC) to boost political participation and empowerment of Muslim Americans. The organizers of MAPAC have considerable experience in mobilizing Muslim American voters at state level under the umbrella of state
PACs.

MAPAC is also working with several Congressional and Senatorial candidates,and plans to formally announce endorsing them.

For more information about MAPAC, please visit www.mapac-us.org or email
info@mapac-us.org.

*The Freedom Foundation is the public affairs arm of the Muslim American Society (MAS), a national grassroots religious, social, and educational organization. Learn more at www.masnet.org.

MAS Freedom Foundation
1050 17th Street NW #600
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: (202) 496-1288
Fax: (202) 463-0686
URL: http://www.masnet.org/index_publicaffairs.asp
Email: freedom@masnet.org


Questions for John Kerry:
JOHN KERRY'S WORDS


Mon Oct 4, 2:47 AM ET   Op/Ed - New York Post

Friday afternoon, as the talking heads picked over the remains of Thursday's first presidential debate — think of it as more words about words — the U.S. Navy  destroyer USS Curtis Wilbur was taking up station in the Sea of Japan.

The warship will be a key link in building missile-defense system meant to protect Japan and (eventually) the United States from the clear, present and rapidly growing threat of nuclear ballistic-missile attack from North Korea ).

It's hard work; it's dangerous work; it's necessary work.

So while the pundits and politicians patter on — North Korea's nukes were a major issue Thursday night — men of action and determination are doing the hard work that keeps America safe.

And talk remains cheap.

In his youth, John Kerry (news - web sites) wore his nation's uniform — into action.

Yet even then, and certainly since, he has been very much a man of words.

There's no denying that Kerry was well-spoken Thursday during his first debate with President Bush .

But while the Massachusetts senator's verbal presentation was impressive, his actual words bear closer examination.

On several key issues during the debate, Kerry continued a pattern that emerged early in his career — for example, when his words about U.S. "war crimes" generated headlines during congressional hearings in 1971.


Not to put too fine a point on it, his words too often tend to serve not the best interests of the United States — but of America's enemies.


FOR Kerry, the only way to combat ter rorism is in concert with allies.

But only some allies — the ones who won't help America because it is not in their interests to do so.

He dismisses the coalition — 30 nations strong — that toppled Saddam Hussein  and is now trying to install an unprecedented democracy in Iraq .

To Kerry, the only allies that matter are France, Germany and Russia — on Iraq, a fundamentally corrupt coalition that all along made it clear that it would never accept the removal of Saddam Hussein.

Paris, Berlin and Moscow did not obstruct U.S. efforts in Iraq because they opposed President Bush — they did so because their venal interests required Saddam Hussein in power.

The same Saddam Hussein that even whom Kerry concedes was a threat to regional and world security.

Kerry insisted he would "never give a veto to any country over our security."

But by insisting that the views of what was rightly termed the Axis of Weasel were more important than those of stalwarts like Britain's Tony Blair and Australia's John Howard — who recognized the threat a Saddam-ruled Iraq posed — Kerry, for all intents and purposes, embraced a veto.

'IHAVE a plan to have a summit with all of the allies, something this presi dent has not yet achieved," boasted Kerry, saying this was the approach Bush should have used before going to war.

But as the president said Friday, "I've never seen a meeting that would depose a tyrant or bring a terrorist to justice."

Back when it counted, the United Nations  talked and talked — and then watered down the very sanctions Kerry insisted would have toppled Saddam

Recalling that shameful period, Bush said Friday: "That wasn't going to work. . . . I believe, when an international body speaks" — in threatening "serious consequences" — "it must mean what it says."

And so Bush acted — where Kerry would have favored more talk. Which would have left Saddam in power.

Indeed, Kerry now says that while the end result — Saddam's removal — was fine, the war itself was a tragic mistake. But how else would Saddam have been ousted?

As the president said during a campaign stop Friday: "You can't have it both ways — you can't be for getting rid of Saddam Hussein when things look good and against it when times are hard."

Which is why Bush is spot-on when he notes that Kerry's "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" mantra not only will demoralize our troops, but will also make much less likely the enlistment of the allies Kerry says are so critical.

Not to mention the disheartening message it sends to the Iraqi people.

But then, demoralizing U.S. troops to the benefit of the enemies of freedom is nothing new for John Kerry.

It was at the heart of his anti-war efforts in the 1970s: his ringing endorsement of the now wholly discredited Winter Soldier Investigation, which depicted U.S. troops in Vietnam as barbaric rapists and killers — something of which Kerry, to this day, insists he is still "proud."

Indeed, he said that America was the single worst violator on the entire planet of the Geneva Conventions, making clear that any Vietcong atrocities paled in comparison with those committed by U.S. troops as a matter of policy.

All this while urging a precipitous U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam.

On that, John Kerry got his way. Uncounted millions of South Vietnamese and Cambodians paid a ghastly price, to America's everlasting shame.

In the '80s, Kerry was a passionate defender of the totalitarian Sandinistas. Indeed, the point of his now-famous "Christmas in Cambodia" Senate speech was to protect a Soviet puppet state then being established in Central America.

Thank goodness the Nicaraguan people rid themselves of Commandante Daniel Ortega. But they did it no thanks to John F. Kerry.

Now, on North Korea, Kerry's position also is that favored by another anti- America despot, Kim Jong Il.

The senator said again Thursday that he would seek bilateral talks with Pyongyang. This would effectively deep-six an ongoing effort involving China, Russia, South Korea and Japan.

Certainly Japan's concern with North Korean nukes will not be assuaged by John Kerry's words. Tokyo lives under the gun, and it will do what's necessary to protect itself.

As will, no doubt, South Korea.

It is precisely to prevent a proliferation crisis that USS Curtis Wilbur is on station in the Sea of Japan — under orders from George W. Bush to protect the peace. Tokyo and Seoul, while wary and uneasy, are satisfied. For the moment.

But it won't take much to destabilize this region of vast economic and strategic concern to America.

Cheap words won't help.

The same holds true for the Middle East, and in the larger War on Terror.

Kerry's words — and worldview — have been at odds with America's best interests many times in the past.

He's glib, but he's wrong.

Report fuels Iraq WMD debate
Thursday, October 7, 2004 Posted: 1015 GMT (1815 HKT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A long-awaited report which concluded Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion has intensified the debate about the decision to go to war.

The CIA report, authored by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, said Iraq's WMD program had essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War.

The report did say, however, that Iraq worked hard to cheat on United Nations-imposed sanctions and retain the capability to resume production of weapons of mass destruction at some time in the future.

In the U.S., Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, seized on the report as political ammunition against the Bush administration.

"Despite the efforts to focus on Saddam's desires and intentions, the bottom line is Iraq did not have either weapon stockpiles or active production capabilities at the time of the war," Rockefeller said in a press release.
"The report does further document Saddam's attempts to deceive the world and get out from under the sanctions, but the fact remains, the sanctions combined with inspections were working and Saddam was restrained."

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said the report demonstrated the U.N. sanctions were not working and Saddam was "doing his best" to get around them.

He said the report made clear that there was "every intention" on Saddam's part to develop WMD and he "never had any intention of complying with U.N. resolutions."

But Britain's opposition Conservative Party said the report again proved Blair had lied about Saddam's weapons.

Tory leader Michael Howard said the premier "did not tell the truth about the intelligence he received."
The Liberal Democrats said the report was further proof that the government had been wrong to take Britain to war. The party's foreign affairs spokesman, Sir Menzies Campbell, said: "Brick by brick, the government's case for going to war is being demolished."

Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh backed Blair's remarks, pointing to evidence that Saddam was diverting money from the U.N. food-for-oil humanitarian program to buy new weapons.

"We know Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. We know Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction. Those who see evidence should go to Halabja and to the mass graves.

"Saddam Hussein was evil. Saddam Hussein was himself a weapon of mass destruction."

Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiroyuki Hosoda said Japan -- a staunch U.S. ally -- stood by its decision to back the war because Iraq still posed a threat because it had previously been developing such weapons and it was not clear whether it had abandoned those programs.

"The Japanese government concludes that the nonexistent of facilities would not question the responsibility of our government, and we believe other governments reached the same conclusion," Hosoda told reporters.
Australian Prime Minister John Howard also refused to apologize for Australia's role in the Iraq war.

In a nationally televised speech Thursday ahead of Saturday's national elections, Howard did not mention the war, to which he sent 2,000 Australian troops.

But he remained defiant as journalists later questioned him about the report.

"I stand by the decision we took in relation to Iraq," Howard said. "I have no regrets at all about the fact that Saddam Hussein is no longer leading Iraq."

Speaking on the campaign trail in Pennsylvania, Bush maintained Wednesday that the war was the right thing to do and that Iraq stood out as a place where terrorists might get weapons of mass destruction.

"There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks, and in the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take," Bush said

Saddam hedged on arms to keep edge, report says

By David Johnston

NEW YORK TIMES

WASHINGTON - Saddam Hussein hid behind ambiguities and evasions about whether Iraq possessed unconventional weapons -- when in fact it had none -- partly as a deterrent to Iran, according to a report by the chief American arms inspector in Iraq.

The former Iraqi leader never discussed deception as a policy and did not adopt a formal written directive outlining his orders, the report said.

But privately he told aides, like Ali Hasan Majid, a close adviser, that "the better part of war is deceiving," the report said.

Majid said that Saddam "wanted to avoid appearing weak and did not reveal he was deceiving the world about the presence of WMD," or weapons of mass destruction.

The report by the chief arms inspector, Charles Duelfer, described Saddam's posture on prohibited weapons as "a difficult balancing act between the need to disarm to achieve sanctions relief while at the same time retaining a strategic deterrent."

Saddam never reconciled the two competing aims, the report stated.

"The regime never resolved the contradiction inherent in this approach," it said.

"Ultimately, foreign perceptions of these tensions contributed to the destruction of the regime."

The report provided the first detailed examination of Saddam's thinking about unconventional weapons and offered an answer to one of the most enduring mysteries of the war in Iraq: Why did Saddam risk so much to hide the truth that Iraq did not possess such weapons.

Overall, Saddam's strategic actions were aimed at one overriding objective: "the survival of himself, his regime and his legacy," the report concluded.

The report found that Saddam purposely communicated an ambiguous impression about whether Iraq possessed these weapons mainly as a deterrent to Iran, Baghdad's long-standing adversary and with which it started and fought a brutal war from 1980 to 1988.

The report was based on interrogations of Saddam, who was captured late last year, and his subordinates.
It said the confusion also helped Saddam disguise his underlying desire to maintain the intellectual and industrial foundation needed to quickly rebuild a weapons program in the event Iraq succeeded in lifting international economic sanctions, another top priority for the former Iraqi leader.

Beyond that, Saddam maintained an almost mystical faith in the power of unconventional weapons, whose stocks, the inspector said, were largely destroyed by Iraq after the 1991 Persian Gulf War under pressure from the United Nations.

The report found that Saddam believed that these weapons, particularly chemical arms, had preserved his rule through repeated military crises.

Earlier this year, the report said, Saddam was asked by an American interrogator why he had not used such weapons during the 1991 Gulf War.

Saddam replied, according to the report: "Do you think we are mad? What would the world have thought of us? We would have completely discredited those who had supported us."

The report's conclusions are based in part on interrogations of Saddam conducted primarily by a senior FBI interrogator who spent months questioning the former Iraqi leader in Arabic, attempting to extract information from Saddam about his weapons programs and other issues.

It is not clear from the report whether the former Iraqi leader accepted the motives attributed to him.
Some U.S. intelligence officials have said that Saddam was vague in responses to questions about his arsenal, and the report does not state explicitly whether Saddam himself has acknowledged that he engaged in a deception operation about these weapons before the war.

The report said that Saddam's belief in unconventional weapons stemmed from their use in the Iran-Iraq war, when the former Iraqi leader concluded that Iraq was "saved" by employing chemical weapons against Iran.
The report concluded that Saddam believed such weapons had helped him "multiple times," helping to stop Iranian ground offensives, and that ballistic missile attacks on Tehran had "broken its political will."
In 1991, Saddam apparently believed that the threat that Iraq might use these weapons helped deter the U.S.-led coalition from marching on Baghdad.

After that war, U.S. authorities found unused chemical munitions that had been distributed to battlefield commanders.

The report said that Saddam refused to dispel the impression that he still had such weapons even though the report concluded that his specialized weapons programs were nonexistent or mothballed in the early development stage because of international sanctions.

In Saddam's mind, the possibility that Iraq possessed these weapons helped keep Iraq's neighbors off balance.
The report said that the former Iraqi leader compared the U.N. inspection process to an analogy of a warrior striking an enemy's wrist.

"Despite the strength of the arm, striking the wrist or elbow can be a more decisive blow to incapacitate the entire arm; knowledge of your opponent's weakness is a weapon in itself."

UPDATE
Blair: Iraq report shows sanctions weren't working: British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Wednesday that a U.S. arms inspector's report on Iraq shows that United Nations sanctions against Saddam Hussein's regime were "not working," insisting that it backed the U.S.-British decision to go to war.

The finding by Charles Duelfer undermines the main argument for war put forward by President Bush and Blair. Duelfer did report that Saddam -- in questioning after his capture -- made clear that he hoped to revive his weapons program if sanctions were lifted.

The British leader has had to defend his support for the war in the face of heavy criticism from some in his own Labour Party.

Blair, speaking during a visit to Ethiopia, said he welcomed the report, issued Wednesday to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"I think what it will show is that this is a far more complicated situation than many people thought," he said.
"And just as I have had to accept that the evidence now is there were no stockpiles of actual weapons ready to be deployed, I hope others have the honesty to accept that the report also shows that sanctions weren't working," he said.

"On the contrary, Saddam Hussein was doing his best to get round those sanctions, had every intention of redeveloping these programs and weapons of mass destruction," he said.

"He was retaining the teams of scientists and facilities to do so and there were multiple breaches of the U.N. resolutions which after all was the legal justification for the conflict."




Oct 6
Protestors Ransack Bush/Cheney Headquarters In Orlando
1 of 20 nationwide
2 People Receive Minor Injuries During Protest

POSTED: 6:05 pm EDT October 5, 2004
UPDATED: 11:14 pm EDT October 5, 2004

ORLANDO, Fla. -- A group of protestors stormed and then ransacked a Bush-Cheney headquarters building in Orlando, Fla., Tuesday, according to Local 6 News.



Protestors Storm, Ransack Bush-Cheney Headquarters In Orlando   
Local 6 News reported that several people from the group of 100 Orlando protestors face possible assault charges after the group forced their way inside the Republican headquarters office.

While in the building, some of the protestors drew horns and a mustache on a poster of President George W. Bush and poured piles of letters in the office, according to the report.

"We told them to leave, they broke the law," Republican headquarters volunteer Mike Broom said.

Two protestors received minor injuries when the crowd stormed the building, including a Republican volunteer.

One of the protestors said she wanted to send a message.

"We want to send a clear message to Bush, we want him to take his hands off our overtime pay," protestor Esmeralda Heuilar said.



Local 6 News learned that most of the protestors were from the AFL-CIO and were taking part in one of 20 other coordinated protests around the country.

A spokesperson with the AFL-CIO told Local 6 News that the Orlando protest did not go as planned.

A protest similar to Orlando's demonstration was held at a Bush-Cheney office in Miami at the same approximate time, Local 6 News reported.

Watch Local 6 News for more on this story.

Shots fired at Bush Tenn. headquarters


Knoxville, TN, Oct. 5 (UPI) -- An unknown gunman fired several shots into the Bearden, Tenn., Bush-Cheney campaign office Tuesday, WBIR-TV in Knoxville reported.

According to Knoxville police officers on the scene, it is believed that the two separate shots were fired from a car sometime between 6:30 a.m. and 7:15 a.m. One shot shattered the glass in one front door and the other cracked the glass in another of the front doors.

There were no witnesses to the shooting. A customer at a nearby dry cleaning store noticed shattered glass on the sidewalk in front of the headquarters and called police.

Volunteers and staffers at the campaign office say they have no clues as to who might have committed the crime. However, they add that the shooting makes them even more enthusiastic and energized about working for their candidates.

"If I have to sleep here (at the campaign office) now, that's what I'll do," says volunteer Suzanne Dewar.


Few Leads in Shooting at GOP HQ


Secret Service to Investigate Incident

The Secret Service was contacted Friday to help investigate a shot fired at the Cabell County Republican headquarters in Huntington.

Supporters of President Bush had gathered at the 4th Avenue headquarters Thursday night to watch the president accept his party's nomination. About two minutes into the speech, someone fired a shot through the front window of the building.

Nobody was hurt, but there was plenty of anger in the aftermath.

"This is pretty low and shows how desperate the Democratic Party is," said Republican Amanda Beach.

Bobby Nelson of the Cabell County Democratic Executive Committee disagreed. "I hope it doesn't take on a political connotation, that this was done for politics," Nelson said. "I'd like to say it was some random thoughtless act."

Police did not have much to go on in their investigation. No bullet fragments were found, so detectives can't tell for sure what type of weapon was used.

Eyewitnesses told 13 News they heard a loud bang but weren't sure what had happened. One woman said she found pieces of glass on her neck and shoulders. The bullet hole pierced a sign that said marriage is between "One Man, One Woman."

"It's kind of scary," said Christina Gossett, a Marshall freshman. "The scariest part is that there were people sitting in there a few feet lower and could have been really bad."

President Bush is scheduled to campaign in Parkersburg on Sunday and in Huntington Sept. 10.

Thursday's incident attracted the attention of the Drudge Report Internet site. Its link essentially took wowktv.com offline for most of Friday.

Bush's state headquarters for re-election burglarized
By David Postman and Ashley Bach
Seattle Times reporters

The Washington state headquarters for the president's re-election campaign was broken into last night, and police are investigating the theft of three computers from the Bellevue office.

Missing are laptop computers used by the campaign's executive director, the head of the get-out-the-vote effort and one that had been set for delivery to the campaign's Southwest Washington field director, said Jon Seaton, executive director of the state's George W. Bush campaign.

Seaton said data on the computers was backed up and available elsewhere. But, he said, the loss creates a potential security breach about the campaign's so-called 72-hour plan, the Bush get-out-the-vote effort.
"Obviously there's some stuff there we wouldn't want our opposition getting their hands on," Seaton said.



Kerry Ad Falsely Accuses Cheney on Halliburton
Contrary to this ad's message, Cheney doesn't gain financially from the contracts given to the company he once headed.
September 30, 2004
Modified: September 30, 2004

Summary
A Kerry ad implies Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton and is profiting from the company's contracts in Iraq. The fact is, Cheney doesn't gain a penny from Halliburton's contracts, and almost certainly won't lose even if Halliburton goes bankrupt.
The ad claims Cheney got $2 million from Halliburton "as vice president," which is false. Actually, nearly $1.6 million of that was paid before Cheney took office. More importantly, all of it was earned before he was a candidate, when he was the company's chief executive.




Oct 5
John Kerry's Pessimistic View of the US Economy
By Michael Ashbury

The Kerry/ Edward team and the DNC have made outrageous claims about how the Bush Administration has damaged the US economy and made life worse for the average American. Let's look at some of these claims and the facts that are ignored:

CLAIM: A current Kerry/DNC ad states that George Bush has created the worst economy in 75 years!

FACT: That claim would bring us to 1929 and the Great Depression in the United States. Banks, factories, and shops closed, and farms halted production. Millions of people were left jobless and penniless. Many people had to depend on the government or charity to provide them with food. Unemployment at the height of the depression reached 23.6 percent in 1933. However, unemployment today in the US is 5.4 percent; often considered to be full employment by most economists. No banks, factories, shops have closed, or farms halted production in the 2004 economy. Does that resemble the Great Depression?

CLAIM: They say that we have lost 1 million jobs!

FACT: Such a loss would be less than 1 percent of the US workforce. Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan stated in his economic presentation before Congress, "A million American workers'' currently leave their jobs every week, two-fifths involuntarily.... A million, more or less, are also newly hired' every week."

CLAIM: The Bush Administration has supported outsourcing!

FACT: While this is especially hurtful to those that have lost one of these jobs, he fails to keep in perspective that this loss has only amounted to 3-400,000 jobs out of a 138 million-job market. Forrester Research, a national market research company, estimates that outsourced jobs will rise to 600,000 by 2005 -- out of a total of 140 million workforce. Still less than 1/2 of 1 percent of the nations workforce.

The Kerry/Edwards team also fails to mention that the United States IN-Sources 5.6 million jobs, of which 34 percent are manufacturing jobs, with an annual payroll of $307 billion and paying these employees 19.1 percent more than their US counterparts.


CLAIM: The Bush Administration has made the US dependent on foreign, and especially Saudi oil!

FACT: John Kerry and his Liberal Colleagues have voted against every energy proposal to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil.

CLAIM: The Bush Administration has created policies, which have squeezed the Middle Class!

FACT: Bush policies have:
- Lowered the taxes on the middle class,
- Increased the child tax credit,
- Eliminated the marriage tax penalty,
- Reduced home mortgage interest rates to the lowest level in more than 20 years,
- Reduced interest on personal credit,
- Reduced the death tax,
- Reduced taxes on dividends and capital gains, and
- Kept annual inflation at one of the lowest levels in recent years.

CLAIM: The Kerry/Edwards administration will help small business owners while increasing taxes on all individuals making over $200,000!

FACT: A large percentage of individuals in the $200,000 plus income range are small business owners. Increasing their taxes will reduce their ability to expand their businesses, reduce hiring and negatively impact the economy, which is just coming out of recession.

John Kerry and the Democrats are either ignorant of the US Economy or they are trying to hide their Liberal/negative approach to governing this country!

About the Writer: Michael Ashbury, a noted researcher and author, is the author of ''Who is the REAL John Kerry?'' (Booksurge.com 2004). His website is at www.whoistherealjohnkerry.com. Michael receives e-mail at michaelashbury@aol.com


Protest Against John Kerry’s Sabotage of
Vietnam Human Rights Act

WHERE: John Kerry’s Georgetown Home ~3322 O St. NW, Georgetown, Washington DC
DATE: October 2, 2004
TIME: 10 am to 4:45 pm
CONTACT: Ted Sampley 252-527-0442
cell 252-521-2641 or Mike Benge 703-698-8256

In spite of pleas from Vietnamese Americans, human rights activists and veteran’s groups, Senator JOHN
KERRY (D-MA) successfully sabotaged the Vietnam Human Rights Act (Senate Bill HR-2833).

The Bill was designed to sanction communist Vietnam for its calculated sterilization, terrorism and genocide
of the Christian hill tribe Degar peoples living in the Central Highlands region of Vietnam.
The Degar tribe’s people, commonly known to westerners as the MONTAGNARDS, are ethnically unrelated
to the Vietnamese. The Central Highlands region was never a traditional part of Vietnam. The region has been
the home of the Degar tribes for at least a 1,000 years.

As late as 1970 there were an estimated 3,000,000 Montagnards in various tribes living in the Vietnam region.
As a direct result of Vietnam's ongoing campaign of ethnic extermination, the total population of Montagnards
is now BELOW 650,000. This unadulterated genocide has taken nearly two thirds of the Montagnards in only 34 years, including more than half the male population.

Internal Vietnamese government documents recently obtained by Human Rights Watch support eye witness
testimony from Montagnards detailing long-standing incidents of torture and murder of Montagnard Christians
which resulted in Vietnam’s arbitrary confiscation of Montagnard lands.

In an ongoing terror campaign since 2001, Vietnamese authorities are forcing Montagnard Christians to stand in front of their entire village and renounce Christianity. The Christians are then forced to pledge to cease all contacts with outside groups.

To seal their loyalty, the Christians are forced to drink rice wine mixed with goat's blood.

"They asked us to drink goat's blood, but we never saw any goat," one traumatized young villager told Human
Rights Watch. "We wondered where the blood was from. If we didn't drink it, they would beat us.”

The villager suspected that Christians are being slowly poisoned. “We didn't know if it was from a chicken or
a dog or what. I am afraid I will have health problems in the future."

Human Rights Watch described the excessive use of force by security forces in Plei Lao, Gia Lai province in
March 2001, when several hundred troops surrounded and entered the village late at night to break up an allnight
prayer meeting. In a confrontation with villagers, security forces fired into the crowd, killing one villager.
They then burned down the village church.

One villager described what happened: "First the police ordered some Vietnamese civilians to ransack and
destroy the church with axes. They used a cable tied to a vehicle to topple it and the soldiers used their gun butts.

Then they forced the ethnic Jarai to burn it," he said. "Everyone was crying-for the dead and wounded, and for
the church."

Representative Chris Smith, R-NJ, authored the bill, which linked US aid to Vietnam to "substantial progress"
in Vietnam's human rights record. Smith's bill, the Vietnam Human Rights Act, passed the House by an
overwhelming 410-1 vote in 2001. But it never got a hearing or a vote in the Senate, where it was blocked
by the then-chairman of the East Asian and Pacific Affairs subcommittee -- John Kerry.

Kerry, with the backing of Sen. John McCain, explained his opposition to the human rights act by insisting that
the carrot of "engagement" will do more to nurture human rights in Vietnam than the stick of sanctions.

In July 2004, the House again passed Smith's bill, this time by 323 to 45. As in 2001, says Smith, the message
of the bill is that "human rights are central -- they are at the core of our relationship with governments and the
people they purport to represent."

With the Vietnam Human Rights Act stalled again by JOHN KERRY, the communist are free to continue
its ethnic cleansing of the Degar Christians in the Central Highlands region in an attempt to wipe out all
opposition to Vietnam’s theft of Degar land and resources.

Kerry and homosexual agenda

Posted: October 5, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
In the unlikely event he is elected, John Kerry pledges to advance the homosexual agenda further and faster than any president in history.
Even in his own sodomy-friendly party, Kerry is militant on any issue that touches the sexually ambiguous.
But the institution that might be in for the rudest awakening should Kerry become commander in chief would be the military.

In 1993, Congress essentially banned homosexuals from the military. But Sen. Kerry was an outspoken opponent of the legislation and led the fight against it – saying it was an absolute right of homosexuals and lesbians to serve in the armed forces. Here are excerpts from his May 7, 1993, Senate testimony, thanks to the Center for Military Readiness:


"I think it is fundamentally wrong to continue to deny gay and lesbian Americans the right to participate in the armed forces of the United States. Why? Because, quite simply, there is nothing inherent in homosexuality that makes a gay American incapable of serving."
"Now take the issue of living in close quarters and communal showers. Some folks say they do not mind living or showering with someone who is gay as long as the fact is not explicit. Only once it becomes explicit, somehow the world is going to end. Now, I do not know exactly what those who express those kinds of fears are thinking. I mean are they that irresistible? I suspect some of the guys who most fear being approached by gay men also consider themselves irresistible to heterosexual women, and they are probably sadly mistaken on both counts."
"The reality is that if you examine the opposition today ... you are listening to opinions that are heavily weighted by licensed hate, by licensed fear, by licensed confusion, by licensed misunderstanding, and even by licensed ignorance, and the reaction to that, of course, is going to be negative, as it was to letting women in, to letting blacks in, and so forth."
Asked what would have happened if an openly homosexual commander of his Vietnam swiftboat had been named, Kerry said: "Well, if you just plunked them down one day and said here is your new lieutenant and he is gay, I suspect they might have fragged him like they fragged a lot of other lieutenants back then."
Kerry was out of step with leaders in his own party, like Sen. Sam Nunn, with his radical positions on forcing open homosexuals and lesbians on the military.
Likewise, Kerry said more recently he approves of homosexual adoption and homosexual parenting.
He should. Recently one of the state representatives of his party in Massachusetts pointed out that a scandalous 40 percent of the children adopted out are going to same-sex couples.
Kerry boasted to the homosexual activist magazine The Advocate:
I was the only elected senator up for re-election to oppose the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. It was a tough position to take, but I took it because I thought it was outright gay bashing. My support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and civil unions has been complete.
Kerry also expressed optimism that Congress could pass hate-crimes legislation similar to Canadian law that attacks people of faith for their traditional religious beliefs and biblical morality.
Obviously, people with these views are acceptable to the people of Massachusetts. In fact, in that state, you can have these views and drown people, report to work perpetually drunk and be a serial womanizer and still get re-elected every six years.
But I don't think the American people would elect someone with this record and these radical views to the presidency if they knew what they were getting.



Friends:
 As the election date of Nov 2 approaches, detailed arguments get lost in the
 noise. Now is the time for something that appeals to the heart.
 Please see the attached message "Defeating John Kerry would be like giving
 Vietnam veterans the homecoming they never had." We want to put this simple
 message on billboards in battleground states the last two weeks of October.
 How much coverage we have depends entirely on contributions.
 If you would like to help spread the message, make a contribution in one of
 2 ways:
 1. By Paypal or credit card at www.kerrylied.com <http://www.kerrylied.com/>
 or
 2. Send your personal check (no corporate or labor union checks permitted)
 to:
 Vietnam Vets for the Truth
 PO Box 49
 Mt. Vernon, VA  22121
 Time is short, please hurry.
The reason many Vietnam vets don't back Kerry
by Lou Sessinger

Here's why a lot of Vietnam veterans don't support Sen. John Kerry's presidential ambitions: They believe Kerry is a political opportunist who betrayed them.

It has nothing to do with what Kerry did or didn't do when he served in Vietnam as a young naval officer in charge of a Swift boat.

It has everything to do with what he did when he returned from the war and aligned himself with such radical members of the anti-war movement as ardent North Vietnam supporter Jane Fonda.

Kerry entered the public spotlight when, as a representative of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, he testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April 1971. He was handsome, intelligent, articulate, even at times eloquent. Clearly he was a young man with political aspirations, a Massachusetts JFK wannabe if ever there was one.

Kerry's testimony spanned two hours. In a nutshell, he told the committee that the United States should get out of Vietnam, that the war was wrong.

Well, just about everybody by that time knew that the war was wrong, none more than those who had been there to fight it.

The worst wrong of the Vietnam War was that the civilian government of this nation sent its young men in uniform off to bleed and die but refused to allow them to end the bleeding and dying by defeating the enemy as rapidly as possible.

To their immense credit, America's fighting men continued to perform their duties, fully aware that their sacrifices were unlikely to achieve any overall victory.

But that wasn't the focus of Kerry's Senate testimony about the conduct of the U.S. military in Vietnam.
Instead he focused on veterans' statements obtained a few months earlier during what the VVAW called its Winter Soldier Investigation.

He told the senators that these veterans "testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command ...
"They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians ..."
Well, you get the picture.

Of course, Kerry's portrayal of the American military's actions in Vietnam was identical to that of Jane Fonda and her ilk, that U.S. boys in Vietnam were "baby killers" on a genocidal rampage against a gentle, peace loving people.

The trouble with Kerry's characterization as obtained from the testimony of the so-called "winter soldiers" is that the veracity of their testimony was highly questionable.

In some cases, the horror tales of atrocities were embellishments of actual events or the products of overactive imaginations. In other cases, they were out and out fabrications.

In their book "Stolen Valor," authors B.G. Burkett and Glenna Whitley, as well as others, have looked at the Winter Soldier testimony.

Some of the "veterans" who claimed to have witnessed atrocities had never been to Vietnam. Others had been there but served in rear area jobs far from the fighting in the countryside. At least one wasn't even in the service, and a few who testified weren't anywhere near Detroit at the time the investigation convened there, meaning that their "testimony" was delivered by men pretending to be them.

Undoubtedly, some American soldiers committed crimes in Vietnam, as soldiers of all nations have done in all wars since the beginning of time. When such crimes and atrocities occur, the military investigates and the perpetrators are held accountable.

For Kerry, whether it was deliberate or a case of naivete, to perpetrate such a dishonest image of those who served in Vietnam is to slander and besmirch the characters of all who served in that difficult war with honor and bravery.

So if you wondered why decorated Vietnam War "hero" John Kerry is not universally embraced by his former comrades in arms, that's why.

Panties?

The Detroit Free Press reports that the Michigan Republican Party is asking four county prosecutors to file charges against filmmaker Michael Moore, charging that he illegally offered underwear, noodles and snacks to college students in exchange for their promise to vote.

Never mind that the law prohibits a person from contracting with another for something of value in exchange for agreeing to vote.

Habitual nonvoters were invited on stage to pledge to vote for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. First-time student voters are offered prizes such as clean underwear. Presumably, the underwear is not Michael's.

The GOP said Moore also offered students a clean dorm room, a year's supply of Tostitos and a package of Ramen noodles.

Hey Mikey... how about a carrot? No? I didn't think so.




Oct 4
Iran dismisses John Kerry's nuclear offer

 Iran dismissed US Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's proposal to supply fuel for Iranian nuclear power plants if Tehran chose to shelve its own program for nuclear fuel cycle, IRNA reported from Tehran on Sunday.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said the proposal, made at the first face-to-face debate between Kerry and President George W. Bush Friday night, was a 'propaganda' overture.

"What guarantees are there if they say one day 'we do not want to give fuel anymore'?" he said.
"I think this issue is basically irrational since we have the necessary technology and there is no need to import nuclear fuel," Asefi said during a weekly news briefing.

Kerry, criticizing Bush's policies in the debate, saying the United States should have worked very closely with Britain, France and Germany on a deal with Tehran if Iran had accepted to abandon its program for complete fuel cycle.

Iran says its nuclear program is aimed at power generation, rejecting US accusations that the program is a cover to build an atomic bomb.


Would Kerry Surrender Our Sovereignty?
Written by Isaac Strahl
Monday, October 04, 2004
No, says John Kerry, he would never, as president, cede the right to preempt in order to protect our security. But if and when he does do it…whoa! Never? If and when? This contradiction has columnist Terrence P. Jeffrey in a bit of a dither. Kerry said he would give up our sovereignty only through a ''global test.'' But, asks Jeffrey, who scores the test? China? North Korea?
Actually, notes Jeffrey, there is only one test that is required: The authorization by Congress to go to war. President Bush secured that authorization, signed by Sen. John Kerry. Excerpts from the column are below, followed by a link if you want to read all of it.
* * * *
If the deciding issue in this campaign were to be which candidate is a smoother debater, John Kerry would win. George W. Bush was painfully inarticulate at times last night.

Yet, the biggest gaffe in the debate was not stylistic. It was deeply substantive. And it didn't come from President Bush. It came from Senator Kerry, who delivered it in plain English. It came when Jim Lehrer asked Kerry to state his position on preemptive war.

''No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when I do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.''

Global test? Prove to the world?

 Foreign Election Monitors Driven by Leftist Political Agenda
Written by Tom DeWeese
Monday, October 04, 2004
The U.S. State Department cracked open the door and now the invasion has begun. Foreign election monitors determined to oversee the U.S. election this November seem to be coming out of the woodwork. Even Jimmy Carter has gotten into the act. The bottom line is that the November election is being set up to humiliate the United States and place in doubt the legitimacy of our government.

Those calling for the election monitors, like Democrat California Representative Barbara Lee, argue that the move is necessary in order to ''make certain that every person’s voice is heard, every person’s vote is counted.'' Eddie Bernice Johnson, the Texas Democrat who is the leader of the thirteen members of Congress who originally started the process by writing to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, says ''The presence of monitors will assure Americans that America cares about their standing in the world.''

The constant blather about ''transparent and fair elections'' and the ''democratic process'' is simply a smokescreen to hide the real purpose of the monitors. They are coming here to impose a political agenda. Virtually everyone involved in the election-monitoring scheme is a radically-active leftist committed to a political agenda that calls for the destruction of national sovereignty by replacing it with global governance. To implement such an agenda in the United States requires a breakdown in the trust of our national and state government institutions. That’s the true mission of the monitors. Consequently, the November election will resemble nothing ever before seen at the polls by Americans.

Consider the players in this game. Secretary of State Colin Powell legitimized the presence of foreign election monitors by inviting the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). A spokesman for the OSCE said the group’s purpose in the election is to ''apply political pressure.'' That group, headquartered in Vienna, Austria, is led by one of the most corrupt politicians in the United States.

Alcee Hastings, the new president of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, will be the man who actually appoints and assigns the group’s election monitors. Hastings was a federal judge who was caught in an FBI sting in the 1980’s for trying to take a $150,000 bribe. He was impeached by a Democrat-controlled Congress that voted 413-3 to oust him. The vote proves there were a lot of Democrats and a lot of fellow blacks who knew just how corrupt Hastings was. This year alone, Hastings is being investigated by both the federal and Florida state elections commissions. Bribery, kickbacks, and intimidation are just a few of the tools Hastings uses to control his political fiefdom.

Part of Hastings’ fiefdom is Broward County, Florida, one of the disputed areas in the 2000 election. Though the monitor proponents want to blame Governor Jeb Bush for election problems, it can be confidently speculated that Alcee Hastings had much more to do with choosing some of the corrupt election officials in that county than did the Governor. Hastings has clearly stated that he believes George W. Bush intends to steal the election. Clearly the OSCE is biased with a mission.

Next into the game is a group called Global Exchange. This far left group, headquartered in San Francisco, bills itself as ''an international human rights organization dedicated to promoting environmental, political and social justice.'' For the record, the term ''social justice'' was invented by Karl Marx. Global Exchange promotes the radical Sustainable Development agenda of top-down government control over local representation. Its web site supports and praises Fidel Castro as a great humanitarian. Global Exchange hates free enterprise, private property, and cars. It is the poster child for the ''think globally--act locally'' crowd who were demonstrating outside the Republican national convention in New York City this past August. It should be noted that Global Exchange calls itself a non-governmental organization (NGO). Only the United Nations officially sanctions NGO’s. More importantly, Global Exchange is a private organization with absolutely no standing to bring election observers into this nation.

Yet on September 13, Global Exchange announced that it had already brought a team of international election monitors into the country. The 20-person ''pre-electoral fact-finding team'' split into five groups and headed to key battleground states to conduct ''investigations'' in Arizona, Georgia, Florida, Missouri, and Ohio. The teams met with state and local elected officials, held town meetings, talked with community organizations and observed voter registration drives. Another team is scheduled to fan out across the nation in time for Election Day.
One of the leaders of the Global Exchange delegation is Dr. Brigalia Bam, chairperson of the Independent Electoral Commission of South Africa. Unlike the United States, South Africa is considered an emerging, but not stable, governmental system and has held only two successful national elections since 1994. Yet, Dr. Bam promotes herself as an election expert, saying, ''Through sharing with Americans the democratic innovations and advances occurring around the world, we hope to bring to light the best practices that may benefit the U.S. political system.'' Dr. Bam’s ''light'' is globalism and ''social democracy,'' now practiced in much of the European Union and South Africa. Its other name is Socialism.

Other members of the Global Exchange team are from India, Guatemala, the European Union, Canada, Mexico, and a variety of Third World countries and U.N. international organizations.

Global Exchange said in its September 13 news release that its monitoring team is ''non-partisan,'' and that they just want to ''boost voter confidence.'' Such lofty goals don’t coincide with the rhetoric from Global Exchange’s founder, Medea Benjamin. She is currently on a speaking tour of key battleground states with Daniel Ellsberg, an anti-war activist and the man who stole top secret documents from the Pentagon in the 1970’s and released them to the media. Standing on a platform with Ellsberg at an appearance at Lane Community College in Oregon, Benjamin said the possible reelection of President Bush would lead to an escalation of the war in Iraq and an increase of anti-American sentiment throughout the world. She went on to appeal to the crowd to vote for John Kerry.

One final note to confirm the bias and leftist ties of Global Exchange; the group’s news releases are distributed by a public relations firm call Riptide Communications. Riptide’s website describes the mission of the company as one which ''provides high quality press and public relations to groups and individuals committed to progressive social change.'' Some of the causes and individuals Riptide has represented over the years include anti-war radical actress Susan Sarandon; a campaign to exonerate Alger Hiss of spying for the Soviet Union; attacks on the American tobacco industry; and a wide range of the usual America bashing.

Now, right on cue, former President Jimmy Carter has stepped into the election observation game, claiming that voting arrangements in Florida do not meet ''basic international requirements.'' For two decades Jimmy Carter has fancied himself as some kind of expert on election observation. In fact, his many intrusions into the elections of sovereign nations have helped to make the practice acceptable. The fact is Jimmy Carter goes into those nations with his own agenda.

That agenda is clearly revealed in his comment about ''international requirements.'' As a former president, Carter should know that the United States is a sovereign nation that elects its own observers through local and state elections. Unlike most tinhorn dictatorships found around the world, our Republic insures that the American people are in control of their own election process, thus guaranteeing them the power to replace corrupt officials. The only place that process fails to work is in areas where government has gotten too much power and allows a demagogue like Alcee Hastings to control the process. Carter should also know that there are no ''international requirements'' for elections except in his personal demented vision of a world controlled by an international self-appointed elite. It should be obvious to anyone that Carter, a Democrat, has a bias against George Bush and his comments are designed to add legitimacy to the invading international monitors.

In a final point to complete the circle, the Democrat National Committee has deployed up to 25,000 lawyers to run a ''voter protection program.'' In other words, the Democrats intend to file a massive amount of lawsuits if things don’t go their way.

Foreign election monitors are pouring into our nation for one purpose; to enforce a political agenda that will affect the outcome of the election. There is nothing open, fair or non-partisan about it. The game plan is simple. The monitors will challenge poll results, the Democrats will file suit and the media will deem the election void. U.S. prestige as the shining beacon of freedom will be tarnished and our ability to govern our own elections, as we’ve done successfully for over 200 years, may be permanently lost.

Americans must understand now that their very liberty is at stake. None of these monitors have official standing to do anything in this nation. None should be allowed anywhere near polling places. None should be allowed to see official election documents and any local or stand election official who meets, deals or offers services to the monitors should be thrown out of office. America’s election process does not belong to the international community – yet.

About the Writer: Tom DeWeese is the editor/publisher of "The DeWeese Report" and president of the American Policy Center. The center maintains a website at http://www.americanpolicy.org.

Money trail behind
Kerry's Iran stance
Candidate has financial ties to backers of mullah regime

Posted: October 3, 2004
10:25 p.m. Eastern


© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kerry's call for providing Iran with the nuclear fuel it seeks, even while the regime is believed to be only months away from developing nuclear weapons, is being linked to his campaign contributions from backers of the mullah government in Tehran.  

During last Thursday's nationally televised debate between the Democratic presidential candidate and President Bush, Kerry insisted as president he would provide Tehran with the nuclear fuel it wants for a pledge to use it for peaceful purposes only.

"I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes," Kerry said in a critique of the Bush administration's handling of Tehran's nuclear program, which the Iranians claim is only for civilian purposes.
The comments came in response to a question about whether diplomacy and sanctions can resolve the "nuclear problems" with North Korea and Iran.

"If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together," Kerry said of Tehran. "The president did nothing."

Among Kerry's top fund-raisers are three Iranian-Americans who have been pushing for dramatic changes in U.S. policy toward the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Most prominent among them is Hassan Nemazee, 54, an investment banker based in New York. Nominated to become U.S. ambassador to Argentina by President Clinton in 1999, Nemazee eventually withdrew his nomination after a former partner raised allegations of business improprieties, WND previously reported.
Nemazee was a major Clinton donor, giving $80,000 to the Democratic National Committee during the 1996 election cycle and attending at least one of the famous White House fund-raising coffees.
In 2001, at the invitation of Mobil Oil Chairman Lucio Noto, whom he counts as a "personal friend," Nemazee joined the board of the American-Iranian Council, a U.S. lobbying group that consistently has supported lifting U.S. sanctions on Iran and accommodating the Tehran regime.

The Kerry camp has identified Nemazee as having raised more than $100,000 for the senator's campaign, WND reported last spring.

A Nemazee friend in Silicon Valley, Faraj Aalaei, has raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for the Kerry campaign. Aalaei has worked in the telecommunications industry for 22 years and is the chief executive officer of Centillium Communications, a publicly traded company.

Last year, Aalaei married a 35-year-old recent immigrant from Iran named Susan Akbarpour, whom the Kerry campaign also lists as having raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for the campaign.
In just six years since coming to the United States on a tourist visa from Iran, Akbarpour has started a newspaper, a magazine and, most recently, a trade association whose goal is to get sanctions lifted and promote U.S. business and investment in Iran.

Most odd about the support from Akbarpour, writes Kenneth Timmerman in this month's issue of the American Spectator, is that she claimed political asylum from the Iranian regime when she came to this country.
Meanwhile, Kerry has embraced the entire political agenda of Akbarpour and other wealthy Iranian-Americans embracing Tehran. Those positions include:

ending the fingerprinting of Iranian visitors to the U.S.;
expanding "family reunion" visas to allow extended family members of Iranians living in the U.S. to immigrate here legally and in large numbers;
offering a "dialogue" with the hard-line, terrorist-supporting clerics in Tehran;
help Iran join the World Trade Organization.

The stunning remarks by Kerry were initially reported only by WorldNetDaily, and some analysts suggested the statements were misunderstood, taken out of context or simply a verbal gaffe by the candidate.


Under the heading "Prevent Iran From Developing Nuclear Weapons," the Kerry campaign makes the same point emphatically – that the U.S. should still give or sell the nuclear fuel Iran wants in exchange for a promise not to build nuclear weapons.

"A nuclear armed Iran is an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States and our allies in the region," the campaign policy statement reads. "While we have been preoccupied in Iraq, Iran has reportedly been moving ahead with its nuclear program. We can no longer sit on the sidelines and leave the negotiations to the Europeans. It is critical that we work with our allies to resolve these issues and lead a global effort to prevent Iran from obtaining the technology necessary to build nuclear weapons. Iran claims that its nuclear program is only to meet its domestic energy needs. John Kerry's proposal would call their bluff by organizing a group of states to offer Iran the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they cannot divert it to build a weapon. If Iran does not accept this offer, their true motivations will be clear. Under the current circumstances, John Kerry believes we should support the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) efforts to discern the full extent of Iran's nuclear program, while pushing Iran to agree to a verifiable and permanent suspension of its enrichment and reprocessing programs. If this process fails, we must lead the effort to ensure that the IAEA takes this issue to the Security Council for action."

However, according to the latest intelligence reports, Iran has decided at the highest levels of government to build its nuclear weapons program within the next four months. Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has urged his country's weapons developers to step up work on making a nuclear bomb, a U.S. official said, according to Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence news service.

Citing an authoritative source in the Iranian exile community, the official said Khamenei met recently with senior government and military leaders regarding the nuclear weapons program.

Khamenei told the gathering, "We must have two bombs ready to go in January or you are not Muslims," the official said.

Tehran has said the recent International Atomic Energy Agency resolution calling on Iran to halt uranium enrichment could lead to the country's withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Officials of the Kerry campaign were unavailable this weekend.

In addition to the nuclear weapons threat, Iran test-fired a Shihab-3 medium-range ballistic missile, capable of reaching Israel, Sept. 18 and also in August. The missile is reportedly capable of carrying nuclear warheads.
During the debate, Bush said he wants to continue to work with the foreign ministers of France, Germany and Great Britain to "convince the Iranian mullahs to abandon their nuclear ambitions."

Responding to Kerry, Bush noted the U.S. already has sanctioned Iran.

"We can't sanction them any more," he said. "There are sanctions in place on Iran."

Israel has said it wants to await the outcome of international pressure on Iran before it considers a pre-emptive military strike on reactors as it did in 1981 in Iraq.

At another point in the debate, Kerry also said he wants to end research on bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapons, which presumably could take out an Iranian reactor if his sanctions are ineffective.

Kerry said it "doesn't make sense" for Bush to be pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons when the U.S. is trying to tell countries, such as North Korea, to disarm.

"You talk about mixed messages," he said. "We're telling other people, 'You can't have nuclear weapons, but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using.'"

"Not this president," Kerry said. "I'm going to shut that program down, and we're going to make it clear to the world we're serious about containing nuclear proliferation."
Related stories:

Related column:

Terrorist funding traced back to U.N.?

...A watchdog group expects to have evidence soon that shows a corrupt United Nations program may be the source of funding for terrorism in Iraq today. The public-interest law firm Judicial Watch is probing the scandal-laden U.N. "Oil for Food" program, which allegedly funneled billions of dollars to Saddam Hussein and the countries that supported him. Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton believes there is a good chance that money is being used in Iraq today. He says the funds that Saddam was able to get as a result of the "Oil for Food program scam, many believe, is now the basis for the rebellion and the terrorism that's going on in Iraq -- that the moneys are being used to fund that type of activity." Kofi Annan's son and other U.N. leaders have been implicated in the scandal. [Bill Fancher]


Jim Lehrer's Bias Helped Kerry

Last night's debate, hosted by long term democrat operative Jim Lehrer, was completely biased to help democrat candidate John Kerry.

Lehrer, is the target of harsh criticism today for his line of questioning in last night's debate. Currently, Lehrer is denying charges of biased questioning.

Here are some examples of Jim Lehrer's bias:

LEHRER: New question, Mr. President, two minutes.Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2nd would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack?

LEHRER: New question, two minutes, Senator Kerry."Colossal misjudgments." What colossal misjudgments, in your opinion, has President Bush made in these areas?

LEHRER: All right, new question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry.Speaking of Vietnam, you spoke to Congress in 1971, after you came back from Vietnam, and you said, quote, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?

LEHRER: Forty seconds, Senator.

LEHRER: Thirty seconds, Mr. President.

LEHRER: New question, Mr. President, two minutes. You have said there was a, quote, "miscalculation," of what the conditions would be in post-war Iraq. What was the miscalculation, and how did it happen?

LEHRER: New question. Senator Kerry, two minutes. You just -- you've repeatedly accused President Bush -- not here tonight, but elsewhere before -- of not telling the truth about Iraq, essentially of lying to the American people about Iraq. Give us some examples of what you consider to be his not telling the truth.(Lehrer never asked Bush about Kerry's flip-flopping)

LEHRER: New question, Mr. President. Two minutes.
Has the war in Iraq been worth the cost of American lives, 10,000, I mean 1,052 as of today?

LEHRER: Mr. President, new question. Two minutes. Does the Iraq experience make it more likely or less likely that you would take the United States into another preemptive military action?

LEHRER: All right. Mr. President, this is the last question. And two minutes. It's a new subject -- new question, and it has to do with President Putin and Russia. Did you misjudge him or are you -- do you feel that what he is doing in the name of antiterrorism by changing some democratic processes is OK?

KERRY: Thank you, Jim.

The questions that Jim posed to President Bush were all hostile and kept the President on the defensive. Conversely, the questions that he asked Kerry enabled the Senator to go on the offensive. No question asked by Lehrer put John Kerry's record into question. Furthermore, Kerry was never scrutinized with loaded questions, unlike the President.

When grilled in a post debate interview, Lehrer was accused of throwing Kerry softballs and Bush grenades. Lehrer said,"I don't know what in the world you're talking about. I would argue that my questions were right down the middle. There were some hardball questions for each candidate. There were some softball questions for each candidate. But for the most part they were just terrific," said Lehrer.

The criticism stems from the fact that Lehrer pounded Bush on the Iraq issue and mentioned nothing of Kerry's inconsistency on key issues and his ultra-liberal voting record.

During his grilling of Bush, Lehrer claimed that over 10,000 troops were killed in Iraq, but quickly corrected his gaffe.

At the end of the debate, Lehrer was seen giving Kerry a hand shake and a wink.

Lehrer's television network, PBS, was tarnished in 1999 for sharing their donor lists with the Democratic National Committee. As a result, the President of PBS was forced to resign.

George Stephanopoulos , aide of former President Bill Clinton, revealed that Clinton's staff was thrilled to have Lehrer as the moderator in 1996 versus Bob Dole, saying "our moderator" had been picked.



FROM JOSEPH FARAH'S G2 BULLETIN
More chemical weapons in Iraq
Mustard and sarin traces found on improvised bombs

Posted: October 4, 2004
5:00 p.m. Eastern

Editor's note: Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin is an online, subscription intelligence news service from the creator of WorldNetDaily.com – a journalist who has been developing sources around the world for the last 25 years.

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Another chemical weapon has been discovered in Iraq – a 122-mm Borak rocket warhead containing sarin traces, according to an exclusive report in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, the premium, online intelligence newsletter published by WorldNetDaily.com.
The warhead was found earlier this month, and U.S. military commanders believe there are more to be found.

In fact, according to G2B's military sources, chemical attacks are expected in Baghdad.
In May, at least two other projectiles were found with traces of chemical weapons – mustard gas and sarin.

On May 2, the U.S. Explosive Ordnance Disposal team found an improvised explosive device in the Baghdad area. It was later found to be a 155-mm round with a cracked nose in the fuze-well area. The technical escort unit performed testing using a mass spectrometer and found traces of sulfur mustard.

The Army concluded the projectile was most likely an old Iraqi round from the Iran-Iraq war era and not one improvised by anti-U.S. terrorists.

In addition, in a totally separate incident on May 15, the same disposal team found another 155-mm projectile in the Baghdad area that tested positive for the nerve agent sarin. In this case, the round was set up as an IED, but it is not clear the terrorists were aware of the nerve agent inside the projectile.

Again the origin of the round is unknown, but it, too, is believed to be from the Iran-Iraq war era.

In addition, military sources say there has been an increase in the use of coordinated and sophisticated conventional attacks in and around the capital.

These are not "your normal Allah Akbar, spray-n-pray firing" style of attacks, said one source. They sometimes involved improvised explosive devices – or IEDs – that are evolving into deadlier ordnance.

The terrorists are learning that simply burying dozens of antitank mines in the same spot isn't terribly effective on U.S.-led forces.

"Now, there's a shift toward large improvised claymores - which are highly effective," said the source. "They still plan to influence our election by ramping up the violence."
The kill zone on a bomb has less to do with the shrapnel, according to military sources, and everything to do with overpressure. Apparently the shockwave generated by the blasts is the deadlier component.

"People die mostly of blunt trauma as opposed to actual cutting wounds," said a source familiar with the ordnance. Al-Qaida's military commander in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, is attempting, U.S. forces believe, to make it untenable for the coalition inside the Green Zone.
"They've brought in professional kidnap teams now," said one source. "Also, they are importing skilled bomb makers and apparently got somebody who knows how to fire a mortar."

There were more IED attacks in September than any other month of the campaign. Country-wide, approximately 60 percent were suicide bombings. In Baghdad, all of them were. The latest technique is for the driver of the car or truck to position himself between vehicles in a convoy then set off the explosive charge.

Military sources say radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr had planned to lay low after the his latest battles with U.S. forces, but Iran, his sponsor, has ordered him to resume the attacks. Al-Sadr approved an assassination attempt on Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's leading Shiite cleric, who has urged cooperation with the coalition forces.

Al-Sadr is now widely perceived to be an Iranian puppet and part of an overall scheme to annex southern Iraq for Tehran.

Zarqawi, meanwhile, is expected to announce publicly that he is formally merging with al-Qaida.

In addition, sources say, Iran has provided between 300 and 1,000 U.S.-style military uniforms to terrorist forces for future operations.

Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties
By Scott Wheeler
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
October 04, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders.

One of the Iraqi memos contains an order from Saddam for his intelligence service to support terrorist attacks against Americans in Somalia. The memo was written nine months before U.S. Army Rangers were ambushed in Mogadishu by forces loyal to a warlord with alleged ties to al Qaeda.
Read On     A  Must Read!!


The Right Frame of Mind
A Tragedy the World Does Not Know

By Rev. Mark H. Creech
October 4, 2004
(AgapePress) - Last month, Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi addressed a joint meeting of Congress and delivered a message of thanks to America from the Iraqi people. He wanted Americans not to doubt the progress for freedom that was being made in Iraq. Allawi said, "It is a tough struggle with setbacks, but we are succeeding." Of course, much of the media simply passed off Allawi's remarks as those made by a puppet of the United States.

It's truly disturbing that if we went entirely by the news provided by the mainstream media, we would be convinced the prognosis for success in Iraq is hopeless. But there are sources where the truth is getting out. Let me mention two you ought to know about.

Rick Leatherwood is a Christian missionary and president of Kairos International. He spent the last 18 months in Iraq and says in a press release that the international media is misleading the world about what is actually happening over there. I received my copy of the press release from Bob Stevens, head of the office for the U.S. Center for World Missions in Raleigh, North Carolina.

Leatherwood says the hooded terrorists that CNN, the BBC, and Al Jazeera are interviewing and passing off to the world as the Iraqi people are not from Iraq at all. Instead, he says, they are from Yemen, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or somewhere else, but not Iraq. How does Leatherwood know this is the case? He says it's possible to tell in the same way we know if someone is from Boston or Texas. "Accents," says Leatherwood. Yet the media makes these terrorists appear to represent the will of the Iraqi people.

"Nothing could be further from the truth," Leatherwood declares. "Nevertheless because CNN and Co. have told this lie loud enough and long enough, people around the world now believe them and have a negative view of the Coalition-led invasion ....The media has skillfully misled the world into thinking Iraqis are against America, and people the world over have become discouraged and disheartened by believing their lie."

Since arriving back in the United States, Leatherwood has made it his mission to tell as many people as possible, and wherever possible, the truth about the war effort. Like an evangelist of old, Leatherwood often stands up in a restaurant, cafeteria, or airport, and starts to tell a crowd about his experiences. Invariably, there's a hush that comes over the room when he begins by informing everyone that he's been working in Iraq for more than a year. Then the restaurant or gathering will break into spontaneous applause as they hear from him how the Iraqi people are truly grateful to America for delivering them from Saddam Hussein. He then tells everyone how he has worked closely with the U.S. military and watched our armed forces conduct themselves in an "exemplary fashion, exhibiting patience, kindness and sensitivity to the Iraqi people."

"The truth is," says Leatherwood, "we can all be very proud of U.S. forces." And once again, the crowd typically breaks into applause.

Another source saying the media isn't giving us the straight scoop about what's happening in Iraq is Sgt. Danielle Fritz of Middlesex, North Carolina. Sgt. Fritz served in Iraq with the U.S. Army Reserve between April 2003 and March 2004. I consider Fritz a very reliable source because I know her well. At one time, she was a parishioner of mine when I was a pastor.

We've all heard about Abu Ghraib and some of the other atrocities committed by a few American soldiers. The media has spared no efforts in getting those stories to us. But I bet you haven't heard much, if anything, about the tremendous humanitarian efforts by American military personnel.
Recently, Sgt. Fritz talked with me about her experiences and said her unit took on the task of helping several orphanages that were badly in need of repairs. Refrigerators, she said, needed replacing and holes in the ceiling needed fixing. So Fritz's unit got to work.

Although the predominate religion in Iraq is Islam, that didn't stop Sgt. Fritz and her unit from celebrating Christmas by providing the Iraqi orphans with gifts during the holiday season in 2003.

"We brought them whatever we could for Christmas. We brought them a bunch of toys and clothes," she said.
When asked about the news media's coverage of the war in Iraq, Sgt. Fritz said the spin just isn't accurate. She agrees there are serious battles with insurgents attempting to keep Iraq from achieving democracy, but strongly disagrees with any insinuation that the Iraqi people don't want the U.S. there.

"Everywhere we went, thousands of Iraqi people would come to see us," Sgt. Fritz said. "All of the people I met and saw were so grateful we were there. They pretty much wanted to give us anything they could to thank us."
In his press release, Leatherwood writes: "This war in Iraq might have been over 10 months ago if those trying to bring freedom to Iraq had not had to overcome the efforts of the media as well as the terrorists. As it is, the media has encouraged the insurgents and has undermined the Coalition at every turn .... Here lies a tragedy the world does not know."

Certainly what the world does not know can hurt it. As Theodore Roosevelt once said, "The men with the muck rakes are often indispensable to the well-being of society; but only if they know when to stop raking the muck." Indeed, it is time for a little less muck raking by the media and more accurate reporting concerning the war on terror in Iraq!


Oct 3
John Kerry Violated Debate Rules

John Kerry brought prohibited material into last Thursday's Presidential Debate. From section 5, pages 4-5 of the binding "Memorandum of Understanding" (pdf file) that was negotiated and agreed upon by both political campaigns:
(c) No props, notes, charts, diagrams, or other writings or other tangible things may be brought into the debate by either candidate.
...
(d) Notwithstanding subparagraph 5(c), the candidates may take notes during the debate on the size, color and type of paper each side prefers. Each candidate must submit to the staff of the Commission prior to the debate all such paper and any pens or pencils with which a candidate may wish to take notes during the debate, and the staff or commission will place such paper, pens and pencils on the podium, table or other structure to be used by the candidate in that debate.
(Emphasis mine)
As indicated by the linked video (fullscreen mode is very compelling), John Kerry clearly removes what look like note cards or papers from his right jacket pocket, and then places them on the podium at the beginning of the debate.
1. A candidate's unilateral use of prepared notes could provide a distinct advantage in the debate, hence their mutual prohibition.
2. While the nature of the object is possibly disputable based on the angle of the video, the rules clearly state that "[n]o ... tangible things may be brought into the debate by either candidate." That includes notes, Mont Blanc pens, magic hats, you name it.
INDC Journal and the Daily Recycler aren't going to hyperventilate and claim that this violation decisively influenced the outcome of the first debate, but it's certainly reasonable to request that the rules are followed by the Kerry Campaign, and enforced by the Debate Commission in the remaining two contests.


Talk About Outsourcing

Subject: FW: Teresa Heinz Kerry


 No matter your party affiliation, everyone needs to read this.

 HEINZ JAPAN LTD - Tokyo, Japan
 HEINZ-UFE LTD. - Guangzhou, People's Republic of China
 HEINZ COSCO - Qingdao, People's Republic of China
 HEINZ KOREA LTD. - Inchon, South Korea
 HEINZ WIN CHANCE LTD. - Bangkok, Thailand
 HEINZ INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED - Mumbai, India
 PT HEINZ ABC INDONESIA - Jakarta, Indonesia
 PT HEINZ SUPRAMA - Surabaya, Indonesia
 HEINZ UFC PHILIPPINES - Manila, the Philippines
 HEINZ HONG KONG LIMITED - Wanchai, Hong Kong
 H. J. HEINZ (Botswana) (Proprietary) LTD. - Gaborone, Botswana
 KGALAGADI SOAP INDUSTRIES (Pty) LTD. - Gaborone, Botswana
 REFINED OIL PRODUCTS (Pty) LTD. - Gaborone, Botswana
 OLIVINE INDUSTRIES (Private) LIMITED - Harare, Zimbabwe
 CHEGUTU CANNERS (Pvt) LTD. - Chegutu, Zimbabwe
 HEINZ SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD. - Johannesburg, South Africa
 HEINZ WELLINGTON'S (PTY) LTD. - Wellington, South Africa
 HEINZ EUROPE - Hayes, Middlesex, England
 H. J. HEINZ COMPANY LIMITED - Hayes Park, Hayes, Middlesex, England
 H. J. HEINZ COMPANY LIMITED - Rovereto, Italy
 H. J. HEINZ COMPANY LIMITED - Telford, England
 JOHN WEST FOODS LIMITED - Liverpool, England
 H. J. HEINZ FROZEN & CHILLED FOODS LIMITED - Hayes, Middlesex,England
 H. J. HEINZ COMPANY (IRELAND) LIMITED - Dublin, Ireland
 H.J. HEINZ COMPANY OF CANADA LTD - North York, Ontario, Canada
 OMSTEAD FOODS LIMITED - Wheatley, Ontario, Canada
 ALIMENTOS HEINZ C.A. - Caracas, Venezuela
 DISTRIBUIDORA BANQUETE, S.A. - San Jose, Costa Rica
 HEINZ ITALIA S.r.l. - Milan, Italy
 FATTORIA SCALDASOLE, S.p.a. - Monguzzo, Italy
 COPAIS FOOD AND BEVERAGE COMPANY, S.A. - Athens, Greece
 HEINZ POLSKA Sp. Z.O.O. - Warsaw, Poland
 PUDLISZKI S.A. - Pudliszki, Poland
 WODZISLAW, S.A. - Wodzislaw, Poland
 ETS. PAULET S.A. - Douarnenez, France
 H. J. HEINZ FROZEN S.A.R.L. - Paris, France
 HEINZ IBERICA S.A. - Madrid, Spain
 IDAL (Industrias de Alimentacã, Lda.) - Lisbon, Portugal
 MIEDZYCHOD S.A. - Miedzychod, Poland
 HEINZ C.I.S. - Moscow, Russia
 HEINZ GEORGIEVSK - Georgievsk, Russia
 CAIRO FOOD INDUSTRIES SAE - Cairo, Egypt
 HEINZ REMEDIA LIMITED - Tel Aviv, Israel
 STAR-KIST FOOD DÃ,'OR LIMITED - Haifa, Israel
 H. J. HEINZ GMBH - DÃÂ" ÃÂ"Â¥ldorf, Germany
 SONNEN BASSERMANN - Seesen, Germany
 KONINKLIJKE DE RUIJTER BV - The Netherlands
 HAK BV - The Netherlands
 FOODMARK - The Netherlands
 HONIG MERKARTIKELEN BV - The Netherlands
 DRUKKERIJ DE GROENBOER - The Netherlands
 H. J. HEINZ B.V . - Elst, The Netherlands
 H. J. HEINZ BELGIUM S.A. - Brussels, Belgium
 SERV-A-PORTION - Turnhout, Belgium
 Arimpex Industrie Alimentari S.R.L. - Rovereto, Italy
 Comexo S.A. - Chateaurenard, France
 HEINZ EUROPE - UK and IRELAND - Factories: Chorley, Fakenham,Grimsby, Kendal, Kitt Green, Leaminton, Luton, Okehampton, Telford, Westwick

 Think of the conflict of interest a President would have who's wife owns business interests in all of these countries.... I don't think John Kerry's Vietnam service is going to make people look the other way on this stuff.

 THIS NEEDS TO BE SENT TO EVERYONE!!
CAN YOU IMAGINE HOW THIS WOULD IMPACT HIS PRESIDENCY?



Hasn't John Kerry Ever Read a History Book?
Written by John Armor

John Kerry gave a fire-breathing speech at Temple University in Philadelphia on Friday. In it he announced what will be his themes for the balance of the campaign, subject of course to 180-degree changes at any time. There was one problem with the speech. It was largely ''fact-free,'' as Dave Barry is wont to say.

Here are the claims, and the relevant facts to each claim:

''The invasion of Iraq was a profound diversion from the battle against our greatest enemy -- Al Qaeda -- ...'' Kerry may not have noticed, but your average college student ought to know that the United States is capable of going after more than one bloodthirsty tyrant at a time. A Hitler and a Hirohito at the same time, perhaps? Hasn't Kerry ever read a history book?

''Instead of using U.S. forces to capture Osama bin Laden ... the President outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, who let bin Laden slip away.'' No one in Congress, including Kerry, complained at the time that the United States used a strategy in Afghanistan that less than 10,000 Americans would coordinate local forces and drive the Taliban from power in less than six weeks--something that the USSR was unable to do in a decade, using more than 100,000 troops. Didn’t Kerry read the newspapers, or the Congressional Record, in the last three years?

''We have alienated our allies, and we are going it alone.'' We have 31 allies right now in Iraq. We only had seven allies with us at the end of World War II. Hasn’t Kerry ever read a history book?

''The war on terror is as monumental a struggle as the Cold War. Its outcome will determine whether we and our children live in freedom or in fear. It is not, as some people think, a clash of civilizations. Radical Islamic fundamentalism is not the true face of Islam.'' For the first two sentences, Kerry had it right. But his logic veered into a ditch in the last two sentences. During the Spanish Inquisition, Torquemada WAS the face of Catholicism. Hasn’t Kerry ever read a history book on religious tortures and murders during the Middle Ages? That’s the right place to go to understand Islam and Wahabism today.

''Every week too many American families grieve for loved ones killed in Iraq by terrorist forces that weren't even there before the invasion.'' Killings of Americans and of Germans who were ''cooperating with the occupation'' continued for two years after Germany surrendered in May, 1945. The principal organized opposition was the werewolves, who were created before the Third Reich fell. Has Kerry never read a history book?

''We need energy independence from the Middle East.'' The folks who’ve fought tooth and nail in Congress to prevent increased domestic production of oil – such as using 2% of ANWAR in Alaska – are Democrats, including Kerry himself when he showed up. Hasn’t Kerry ever read the Congressional Record?

I will strengthen our intelligence system to detect and stop the terrorists before they can strike.” The history of Kerry’s votes for 20 years in the Senate were to decrease both spending for intelligence, and the legal authority of intelligence agencies. Hasn’t Kerry ever read the Congressional Record, in case he’s forgotten his own speeches and votes?

Twelve years ago, we began a bipartisan program to help these nations secure and destroy those weapons. It is incredible--and unacceptable--that in the three years after 9/11, President Bush hasn't stepped up our effort to lock down the loose nuclear weapons and materials in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere. More such materials were secured in the two years before 9/11 than in the two years after.” When more than half of the nuclear materials from the former USSR have already been secured, that leaves less than half to be secured in the future. Hasn’t Kerry ever read an algebra book?

We need to stop the development of nuclear weapons by Iran through international efforts.” The United Nations is already backpedaling from even passing a resolution suggesting the use of force in response to Iran thumbing its nose at the U.N. Hasn’t Kerry read any newspapers lately?

We need to keep North Korea from developing long-range missiles capable of delivering its nuclear weapons to the United States.” Kerry suggested we should negotiate directly with North Korea. Yet the last Americans to negotiate directly with North Korea were Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright. The result was an agreement including substantial bribes to North Korea to stop its nuclear weapons. They violated those agreements from the get-go. Hasn’t Kerry read a history of the Clinton Administration’s failed efforts with North Korea?

In a Kerry-Edwards administration, we'll give inspectors at our borders access to the terrorist watch lists.” Hasn’t Kerry noticed that upwards of a million people a year are sneaking across the open border with Mexico? They are NOT coming across at checkpoints and giving their correct names to border guards. Hasn’t Kerry read any newspapers from Arizona, California, New Mexico, or Texas in the last three years?

“We will win when we work with our allies, to enable children in poor countries to get a quality basic education. More than 50 percent of the population in the Arab and Muslim world is under the age of 25. The future is a race between schools that spark learning and schools that teach hate. We have to preempt the haters. We have to win the war of ideas.” Apparently, Kerry is totally unaware of what is taught in the Palestinian classrooms and Wahabi-based classrooms around the world. Doesn’t Kerry (or anyone on his staff) ever read the Internet?

''I will convene a summit with our European partners and leaders from the Muslim world to strengthen mutual understanding, economic growth and the fight against terror.” Oh, good. Another summit. Hasn’t Kerry ever read the history of the summits held to date since World War II? For that matter, the ones during World War II did result in putting Eastern Europe under communist dictatorships for 50 years.

''As president, I will rebuild and lead strong alliances.” Germany and France, to name the major European ''allies'' of the United States, have been consistent in their criticism of American policies and their refusal to cooperate in those policies. Hasn’t Kerry read any newspapers describing the antagonistic policies of those and other nations around the globe? What part of nein, non, and nyet does Kerry fail to understand?

''When I'm president, denying our most dangerous enemies the world's most dangerous weapons will become the central priority for America.” Is Kerry actually ignorant of the policies of every US Administration since the end of World War II? Does he not know that this has been the consistent policy of every president since Harry Truman? Has Kerry never read the history of American diplomacy since 1945, and especially since the USSR first tested nuclear weapons in the 50s?

I know we have to be resolute in confronting the evil that exists in the world. But in the end, one of our greatest strengths, one of our greatest safeguards, is that America can be the ideal that inspires others everywhere.” Kerry does not explain how giving in to the cash-and-carry or appeasement interests of the French, Germans, or others will enhance, rather than denigrate, the respect for American ideals around the world. Has he forgotten that it was the Chinese rebels in Tiananmen Square who quoted Jefferson and put up a replica of the Statue of Liberty? These ideas had no currency with the government of China, a point they emphasized by running tanks over the defenseless students. Has Kerry never read a history of the fate of reform movements in nations around the world in the last 30 year?

''This is all common sense; but none of it is a priority for the Bush Administration.” Everything that Kerry talks about is already being done, one way or the other, by the Bush Administration. And in instances like North Korea, this Administration has not repeated the mistakes of the Clinton Administration. Hasn’t Kerry read any national newspapers in the last three years?

The only way that anyone can take John Kerry's current statements on Iraq and other matters is with gross ignorance of the history of America in the world in the 20th and 21st Centuries. It is a sad but accurate commentary on the state of American higher education that both students and faculty at Temple University generally took Kerry’s comments seriously and several times applauded. Clearly, they are as ignorant of American history as he is. And, sadly, the same comment will apply to many--but not all--of the talking heads on TV and elsewhere who will discuss the Kerry speech over this weekend.

I’ve quoted this before. I quote again, because it’s still true: ''Those who do not know their history are condemned to repeat it.'' -Georges Santayana.

UN USED FOR MISSILE ATTACKS ON ISRAEL

TEL AVIV [MENL] -- The United Nations was shown to have been used to help Hamas gunners in missile attacks against Israel.
Israel has released video footage of Kassam-class, short-range missiles being loaded into an ambulance of the UN Relief and Works Agency in the northern Gaza Strip. The footage, taken last week, showed the ambulance with the Kassams driving off, purportedly to deliver the weapons to Hamas gunners.

Israel has demanded a UN investigation of the incident. Israeli officials said the government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has also called for the dismissal of UNRWA commissioner-general Peter Hansen.

Officials said Israel was preparing to send a letter to UN secretary-general Kofi Annan that would demand the dismissal of Hansen. Israeli officials said Hansen had been involved in the use of UN ambulances by Palestinian insurgents.


Oct 2
Swift Vets / POWs Post Petition Urging Kerry to Come Clean
In a new petition the Swift Vets and Pows for Truth are calling for Senator Kerry to set the record straight and come clean about his fallacious Senate testimony and postwar radicalism. In calling for Kerry to tell the truth, the petition asks Kerry to produce evidence for his claims about war crimes and atrocities committed by American soldiers in Vietnam.
If Kerry wants to become Commander in Chief he needs to clearly explain to the nation what he meant when he said he participated in war crimes and how he could justify working with a foreign government at war with the United States.
He must also acknowledge the damage his activities did to POWs in Vietnam when he was safely on American soil and apologize to our POWs for the harm he causes them.
Kerry's entire chain of command and the overwhelming majority of those who served with him refuted his version of his conduct in Vietnam. Yet Kerry refuses to respond himself. The burden lies with Senator Kerry to set the record straight.

Kerry: U.S. should've given nuclear fuel to Iran
But intelligence shows Tehran on its way to producing bomb

Posted: October 2, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
In a little noticed remark during the first presidential debate, Sen. John Kerry said he believed the United States should have provided Iran's hardline, cleric-led Islamic regime with nuclear fuel even as intelligence reports indicate Tehran is on the verge of producing a bomb.
"I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes," Kerry said in a critique of the Bush administration's handling of Tehran's nuclear program, which the Iranians claim is only for civilian purposes.

The comments came during Thursday night's debate in Miami in reponse to a question about whether diplomacy and sanctions can resolve the "nuclear problems" with North Korea and Iran "If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together," Kerry said of Tehran. "The president did nothing."

But Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has urged his country's weapons developers to step up work on making a nuclear bomb, a U.S. official said, according to Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence news service.

Citing an authoritative source in the Iranian exile community, the official said Khamenei met recently with senior government and military leaders regarding the nuclear weapons program.

Khamenei told the gathering, "We must have two bombs ready to go in January or you are not Muslims," the official said.

Tehran has said the recent International Atomic Energy Agency resolution calling on Iran to halt uranium enrichment could lead to the country's withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Iran test-fired a Shihab-3 medium-range ballistic missile, capable of reaching Israel, Sept. 18 and also in August.

During the debate, Bush said he wants to continue to work with the foreign ministers of France, Germany and Great Britain to "convince the Iranian mullahs to abandon their nuclear ambitions."

Responding to Kerry, Bush noted the U.S. already has sanctioned Iran.

"We can't sanction them any more," he said. "There are sanctions in place on Iran."

Israel has said it wants to await the outcome of international pressure on Iran before it considers a pre-emptive military strike on reactors as it did in 1981. Israeli officials say Iran could produce atomic weapons by 2007.

At another point in the debate, Kerry also said he wants to end research on bunker-busting nuclear weapons, which presumably could take out an Iranian reactor if his sanctions are ineffective.

Kerry said it "doesn't make sense" for Bush to be pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons when the U.S. is trying to tell countries such as North Korea to disarm.

"You talk about mixed messages," he said. "We're telling other people, You can't have nuclear weapons, but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using."
"Not this president," Kerry said. "I'm going to shut that program down, and we're going to make it clear to the world we're serious about containing nuclear proliferation."
Related story:



Why A John Kerry Presidency Would Lead To Doom In Iraq
By John Hawkins (10/01/04)

Despite the inordinate amount of time that has been spent debating foreign affairs during this election season, particularly the situation in Iraq, there is a crucial issue that hasn't yet received the attention that it deserves. The ignored point in question is how John Kerry's over-the-top campaign rhetoric would make it almost impossible for him to successfully deal with Iraq.

While Kerry's position on Iraq has wildly shifted to and fro over the last couple of years, his most recent comments have been particularly outlandish and irresponsible.

Kerry has called Iraq "a profound diversion from (the war on terrorism)", opined that the US shouldn't have invaded in the first place, and has called it "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time".

Also, we must keep in mind that Kerry has said he is "proud" to have voted against funding the war and has made it clear that he's not committed to Democracy in Iraq by saying,

"With respect to getting our troops out, the measure is the stability of Iraq. [Democracy] shouldn't be the measure of when you leave. I have always said from day one that the goal here...is a stable Iraq, not whether or not that's a full democracy."

So in John Kerry, we would have a vacillating Commander-In-Chief who believes the invasion was a mistake, didn't want to fund the war afterwards, and has made it plain that he's willing to settle for less than Democracy in Iraq.

In other words, unlike George Bush, John Kerry has no stake in Iraq and he might decide to cut and run at any time. He even has a ready made excuse; he can blame it all on George Bush! You can almost hear the speech John Kerry would make as he orders our troops out,

"Pulling out of Iraq and letting it collapse into Civil War was the toughest decision I ever made in my life. However, after thinking back to my time in Vietnam, I knew what I had to do. After all, how could I look one of our soldiers in the eye and ask him to be the last man to die for George Bush's mistake?"

Now, how do you think having someone with that attitude in the White House would affect the morale of the troops? Do you think they'd really want to risk their lives for a cause their own Commander-in-Chief doesn't believe in and might give up on at any time?

Would the Iraqi people trust a man like John Kerry who is now in effect saying that if he had his way, Saddam would still be in power? As if that weren't bad enough, when Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi came to the US to give a speech to a Joint Session of Congress, John Kerry in essence called him a liar, made it clear that he doesn't think elections will go forward in January of next year, and sent his senior adviser Joe Lockhart out to gratuitously insult Allawi by calling him a "puppet of the United States". Were John Kerry to become President, the Iraqi people could very well become panicky and lose all confidence that the United States still intends to help them become a Democracy.

And what about the "insurgents" and their terrorist allies in Iraq? What do you think is going to give them more inspiration to keep fighting -- four more years of George Bush, who has been the greatest foe of terrorism the world has ever seen -- or John Kerry, a skittish candidate who might pull the troops out at any time?

Then there are our allies in the Coalition, nations like Britain, Poland, Australia, Italy, South Korea, and Japan. Many of these countries sent troops to Iraq despite tough political opposition at home and have hung in there with us through tough times, even though they've lost soldiers and civilians in Iraq. Are they going to be willing to stay in Iraq and fight what the new President of the United States thinks is, "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time"? How many nations that are with us in Iraq today would continue to stick in there if a man who has mockingly referred to them as part of a, "trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted" becomes President? John Kerry claims he can bring new allies into the Coalition, but it's entirely possible that he would instead cost us many of the allies we already have in this crucial endeavor.

As John Kerry said during one of his pro-war phases, Iraq is, "critical to the outcome of the war on terror". Getting rid of Saddam was a blow against terrorism and helping Iraq become a Democracy is vitally important to improving our image in the Middle-East, helping freedom spread across the region, & winning the war on terrorism.

That's why it's so encouraging to see that we are making a lot of progress in Iraq. As Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi said, "2500 schools...have been renovated", they are working on "150 new health care centers", National elections are scheduled for January, and the Iraqis are rapidly moving towards a day when they can handle their own security without American soldiers having to be put at risk,

"The Iraqi government now commands almost 50,000 armed and combat - ready Iraqis. By January it will be some 145,000. And by the end of next year, some 250,000 Iraqis."

In Iraq, certainly there have been mistakes made, unexpected difficulties, and tough times, but we are going in the right direction and if we give George Bush another term, he has shown that he has what it takes to get the job done. The same can't be said of John Kerry. To the contrary, a vote for John Kerry is likely to be a vote for failure in Iraq, which would be a huge setback in the war on terrorism, a betrayal of the soldiers who gave their lives fighting there, and the breaking of America's pledge to help the Iraqis become a free people.

So make a wise choice in November because whether we succeed or fail in Iraq will likely depend on the outcome of the election.


Opinion To Dear Huck on Debate

Ron Leonard

Dear Huck:

I gave the style points on the debate to Kerry. Great Tan, cool manicure,nice tie.

As far as substance Kerry lost. He stretched every thing to almost lying proportions.

1. The war to date is 120 billion not 200 billion, a lie the other 80 is appropriated for next year

2. His version of cleaning up nukes in 4 years is impossible..go ask the russians. Can't be done

3. His version of controling nuclear prolifferation. For America to disarm to show in good faith as Korea and Iran ratchet it up...stupid

4. John Kerry wants to build a different coalition, but has gvien no indication of who would come to the party.The  French, Germans, and Russians Involved via the UN.?.....aint happening. We should leave theUN.

5.It was the Clinton administration that took the "Peace Dividend" on military hardware, armament for vehicles, body armor, guns bullets airplanes, and cut the Military in half...don't blame Bush.
It was the "Peace Dividend" that was the surplus Bush Inherited, now it has to be spent to defend the country.

6. Kerry has voted against everything Military for 19 years..why would he change face now.

7. I will "win the war", his version of win is get it to the point where the Iraquis have an army and then..cut and run and we will be back to bail them out.if they get in trouble instead of finishing it right the first time.

8. He voted against pay increases for the military every time.

9. He has no idea how to lead, he has never been a leader in anything..not even the Military, he was a passenger for a couple months before he deserted his friends in vietnam, The Swifties are right and Kerry is a f****** traitor.

10. His band of brothers is very small, no one has bothered to ask all the Vietnam  Vets, they are afraid to. You will find it is 96% against him, that from our own polls but the Liberal press don't want to hear it.

11. No One has polled  the modern day Military, it to is 96% against Kerry also

12.Kerry talks a good show, but he isn't doing his job now, why are we paying him? Running for president is not part of his job description as a Senator and it costs us tax payers146,000 a year for him to be absent..He owes us his salary back

11. He is on the Intelligence committee with a 76% absentee rate in the public sessions, and the closed sessions are worse.

12. Outsourcing of jobs?. He better take care of that problem with his wife before he has a right to say anything to corporate America. 29 Heinz plants world wide. 26 are off shore.

How could he be President, he can't show up long enough to be a Senator. If Joe blow in America had an attendance record like that they would be fired.

He is for the workingman, my ass. He forgot to show up to vote on the unemployment extension, and it failed by 1 vote...really for the small guy right? Some people lost their homes because of that.

In Vietnam Kerry and his Ilk via war protests funded inpart by the KGB at 13 Million a year, and North Vietnam caused the US to desert South Vietnam.

That cost American lives.

 John Kerry is directly responsible for names on that wall in DC. 100,000 drowned boat people. 2 million South Vietnamese killed by the North AFTER the war. 750,000 ARVN soldiers being put in reeducation camps for years, being human mine clearers.

But then he is on the "Wall of Heroes" in Saigon for helping the North Vietnamese win the war. He should be in Leavenworth not the White House..

I supported an orphangage in Vietnam. 71 Amerasian kids out of my own pocket, when the North invaded they were all killed. John Kerry is responsible in part  for all of those.

And he calls me a baby killer?

President? I wouldn't elect him dog catcher, nor would very few Nam Vets I know.

Did Kerry write own report of disputed clash?
October 1, 2004
BY THOMAS LIPSCOMB
A faded 35-year-old operations order recovered from the Naval Historical Center in Washington bears directly on the ongoing dispute between Sen. John Kerry and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth about who wrote the key after-action report that ended Kerry's service in Vietnam. The report appears in the official Navy records and is posted on Kerry's presidential campaign Web site.

The report details Kerry's participation in a naval operation on the Bay Hap River on March 13, 1969, in such glowing terms that he was awarded a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star for pulling Special Forces officer James Rassmann out of the water while under heavy enemy fire. This third Purple Heart allowed Kerry to cut short his Vietnam tour after only four months.

The report in question described a mission of five swift boats ambushed by a mine explosion that seriously damaged one boat while the swift boats received heavy fire from both banks. The fire continued for three miles, the report said. Roy Hoffman, the admiral who commanded the swift boats in Vietnam, finds that detail alone absurd. Hoffman, a member of the anti-Kerry swift boat veterans group, says: "There was never an incident under my command in all of Vietnam where my boats were engaged by continuous fire from both banks of a half mile in length, much less three."

'It never happened'

The report mentions two other mines detonating as well. So according to this report, which now stands as the official Navy record, this swift boat mission concluded by running a three-mile gantlet of enemy fire from both banks, the detonation of three mines, and yet the only casualties occurred on the boat that hit the first mine. The boats managed to escape and, even more miraculously, retrieve the sinking boat, PCF-3, without getting a single bullet hole in any vessel or crew member.

"It is miraculous all right because it never happened," recalls Larry Thurlow, a Kerry critic who commanded the mission. "PCF-3 hit a mine; all of my boats directed suppressing fire on both banks, expecting the mine to be followed up by gunfire. But after a couple of minutes, we ceased firing and took steps to aid the sinking PCF-3 and its injured crew members. There was never a shot fired at us, and no additional mines went off, either. And if we had been facing gunfire from both sides of three miles of riverbank, I would have called in the standby air support. I didn't."

After he returned to the United States the following month, Thurlow was surprised to find that he had received a Bronze Star himself because of his activities described in the after-action report. When Thurlow first saw the report last July, he didn't recognize the mission it described. The Kerry campaign pointed to Thurlow's own citation, referring to his being "under constant enemy small arms fire," when the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth first contested Kerry's account in August.

As the commander of the mission, normally Thurlow would have filed the disputed after-action report. But he denies writing it. And the after-action report supports his denial. It was written by someone designated "TE 194.5.4.4/1."

An operations order by Adm. Hoffman two months earlier set the format for the designation. The operations order procedures, originated by the operational commander of the Coastal 11 An Thoi unit Kerry served with, Cmdr. Adrian Lonsdale, was the basis for the terms of designation used in this kind of report subsequently. Upon seeing the report, Lonsdale, a Swift Boat Veterans for Truth member, recognized it and recalled the procedures it required as being followed in his command.

"TE" refers to a "task element," which is defined by the numbers to the right, which show the command structure over the task element in action. "194" is Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, commander of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam; "5" is Hoffman's swift boat command; "4" is Lonsdale's command, and the last "4" is Capt. George Elliot's swift boat base at An Thoi, where the boats on this mission were based. The last "1" indicates someone other than the commander of the mission. If the report had been submitted by the mission commander, in this case Thurlow, according to the operations order, it would have begun with a "C" for commander of the Task Element, and the sender would have been "CTE 194.5.4.4."

According to a Navy communications expert, Chief Petty Officer Troy Jenkins, who has examined the message traffic, the report in question was sent from the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Spencer, Lonsdale's command ship, at 11:20 that night.

Only three of the officers on the mission that day were on the Spencer, John Kerry, Dick Pease and Donald Droz. Droz took the wounded from the mine explosion to be examined and treated at the Spencer, including the third officer, the severely wounded Dick Pease. Since the Spencer had no helipad for the evacuation of the wounded, Droz then had to return to the USS Washtenaw County, stationed about 25 nautical miles away, leaving only Kerry aboard the Spencer at the time the message was sent at 11:20 p.m.

Could Droz have somehow written the report? Lonsdale says command precedence of days in swift boat service alone rules this out. "According to the command procedure I set down, Kerry would have been the only logical candidate. Kerry had been in Vietnam since November. Droz just arrived at An Thoi in February." Thurlow adds, "I never liked the paperwork anyway. I was happy to have Kerry write them up."

Operations order verified

And there is another factor. Thurlow ordered Droz to take care of the wounded after the action on the Bay Hap. Droz had ferried them 40 miles out to the Spencer and now had to take them 25 miles back to the USS Washtenaw County. Moving wounded on and off a 327-foot cutter from a 50-foot swift boat on the open sea was not something Droz was likely to leave unsupervised long enough to dash off a report. Kerry had no duties other than reporting to the sick bay, where according to his doctor he was seen at 7 that night. And he spent the night on the Spencer.

The head of the Operational Archives Branch of the Naval Historical Center in Washington, Kathy Lloyd, has verified Hoffman's operations order. Neither Kerry's campaign nor his swift boat veteran critics contest the validity of the after-action report by "TE 194.5.4.4/1." Kerry spokesmen have repeatedly insisted that Kerry denies writing the report and that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were arguing with the official Navy record.

But if "the official Navy record" now turns out to have been written by Kerry himself, the principal beneficiary of its glowing references to his performance, the swift boat critics' charges look far more consequential.

After all, the report completely leaves out how Kerry's own boat, PCF-94, ran down river leaving James Rassmann overboard and the other three boats to deal with the ambush and the sinking PCF-3. All of the living boat commanders on that mission are in firm agreement on that action by Kerry and agree that the report is a fraudulent misrepresentation of an action they remember well.

The Kerry campaign didn't return calls for this article. But members of Kerry's crew have said Kerry is telling the truth. And Rassmann said he has vivid memories of enemies firing at him from both banks.

Thomas Lipscomb is a senior fellow at the Annenberg Center for the Digital Future in New York.


Oct 1
The Vietnamization of John Kerry

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, October 1, 2004; Page A29

It was a major mistake for John Kerry to spend four days at the Democratic convention establishing his connection to Vietnam. But it was oddly appropriate. More than any other politician of our time -- including John McCain, who spent five and a half years in a Vietnam prison camp rather than four and a half months on a Swift boat -- Kerry has been haunted and shaped by Vietnam.

Kerry in turn has been one of the most important shapers of the meaning of Vietnam for the rest of the country. Over the course of his three decades in public life, he has presented Vietnam in three different ways.

First, the one that electrified the nation and made him famous was Vietnam as moral outrage, a crime, a place where U.S. soldiers "with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command" acted like "the armies of Genghis Khan." That was Kerry in his antiwar phase, testifying before Congress in 1971.

Second, Vietnam as a strategic error, a quagmire stumbled into by a well-meaning nation. That was Kerry for the next 30 years. In a now-famous Senate speech denouncing U.S. support for the Nicaraguan contras, Kerry cited his own searing experiences in Vietnam (and Cambodia, he claimed) as an object lesson in not intervening abroad.

Third, presented to the nation at this year's Democratic convention: Vietnam as field of glory. Hence the flourish and fanfare for the Swift boat vets, the biopic featuring riverboat exploits, culminating in "I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty."

Unfortunately for Kerry, field of glory does not work in a place he himself once proclaimed the scene of a crime. There is simply no escaping the dissonance of glorying in a military service of which Kerry said, as he concluded his 1971 statement to Congress, "We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service."

Yet Kerry's convention strategy was perfectly understandable. He would use Vietnam to establish his credentials as a credible commander in chief. Having not distinguished himself in any way on national security in his 20 years in Congress -- a deficiency Hillary Clinton shares and which she is astutely addressing by establishing herself as a rather hawkish member of the Senate Armed Services Committee -- he fell back on his Vietnam heroism to cross the minimal threshold required in any wartime election. Cross the threshold, then go back to "the economy, stupid."

It did not work. He miscalculated the overriding salience of the Iraq war. It took him two months -- and sinking polls -- to realize that this election will be won or lost on national security. On Sept. 20, Kerry finally swung his campaign back to Iraq and the war on terrorism.

But character is destiny. Kerry fell back to talking about the current war in the only way he knows -- in terms of Vietnam.

He does not say "Vietnam" explicitly. But this new, aggressive Iraq stance has one unmistakable theme: wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. Vietnam -- not as crime, not as glory but as terrible strategic mistake.

But where does Kerry go from there? He now gets an exceedingly rare historical second chance: Vietnam II, getting it right this time. What, then, is he offering as a solution? He will begin withdrawing troops by next summer and get us out by the end of his first term.

But this makes no sense. Why wait four years? If it is a quagmire, then one has to ask the question that John Kerry asked Congress in 1971, the most memorable line he has ever uttered: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

If Kerry had not had such a tortured history on Vietnam and on Iraq, he might have run as a straightforward antiwar candidate and simply said: We are getting out.

Instead, Kerry is offering to magically get allies to replace us while accelerating Iraqification. (Does he imagine the administration is operating at anything less than breakneck speed to transfer the burden from U.S. soldiers to Iraqis?) In 1968 Richard Nixon ran and won on a similar platform -- Vietnamization -- and got us out of Vietnam almost precisely by the end of his first presidential term.

Nixon, remember, was vilified by Kerry and his antiwar colleagues for prolonging the suffering and dying in Vietnam for four unnecessary years. Yet here is Kerry, after 30 years of torturous reexamination of Vietnam, coming full circle and running as Nixon 1968: mysterious plan, Iraqification, out in four years. A novelist could not have written this tale. It would be too implausible.

John Kerry's fake tan fiasco
October 1, 2004

John Kerry's image makeover has backfired badly. Caroline Overington reports from New York.

There isn't a woman alive who won't sympathise with Democrat John Kerry for doing what he did this week.

Who among us has not done the same thing? That is, made a stupid, stupid decision regarding our appearance right before a Very Important Event.

Senator Kerry, who is trying to win the race for the White House, hit the bottle. The fake tan bottle. Or maybe the sun bed. No one is sure. But whatever, the day before this morning's all important first TV debate with President George Bush, Senator Kerry turned orange.
Not a little bit orange. His face is like a Halloween pumpkin. Or, as the New York Post put it, Senator Kerry, who is from icy Boston, has a tan "even George Hamilton would envy".
Talk-back callers had a good chuckle. America's top-rating comedian, Jay Leno, said Senator Kerry's face (like a city faced with terrorism) was on "orange alert". Matt Drudge, who runs the Drudge Report website, wondered whether he had been campaigning "in the rust belt".

The tan was so obvious that the Kerry camp, which really wants to get back to debating the big issues, such as war, was forced to explain it. They said Senator Kerry got the tan at a football match. The New York Post didn't buy it, nor did anybody else. Dr Ted Daly, of Garden City Dermatology, said: "Wow! That is a tan. From a tanning salon."
The New York Sun said Senator Kerry's "sudden, orangey-bronze glow" was highly unlikely to be the real deal. It quoted Cynthia House, of Enhance Me, who said: "It's an artificial tan. They went a little overboard."

So why did Senator Kerry - or, more likely, his handlers, since it's difficult to imagine the senator slathering the stuff on, not least because it would also leave him with orange palms - do it?

Probably because he has to face an audience of 70 million people this morning (Australian time) and wanted to look his best. He wouldn't be the first. Democrat John F. Kennedy was among the first politicians to use make-up for the TV debates and made Richard Nixon look tired and pale by comparison.

It's also possible that Senator Kerry, like many older men, thought a tan would help him attract the chicks. He needs those chicks. According to Time magazine, he has somehow managed to alienate women voters, who normally back Democrats over Republicans by a wide margin. At this election, women are thinking of voting for Mr Bush at least as often as they are thinking of voting for Senator Kerry.

This is catastrophic for the Democrats, since Mr Bush is 18 points ahead with men. Or, as Susan Carroll, of the Centre for American Women and Politics, put it in The Washington Post: "If Kerry loses among women, he will lose this election. It's as simple as that."
Like everybody, Senator Kerry knows that this morning's debate won't be about issues. It will be about image. Important topics will be treated in a superficial way. But, if he thinks a tan will help him woo women, he is wrong. Surveys show they are concerned about terrorism, and wonder whether he can handle the heat. And they don't mean from sun lamps.

John Kerry's self-inflicted wounds

Posted: October 1, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Though I am writing this column before the debate for publication after the debate, I want to address Kerry's gnawing, self-inflicted wounds on Iraq, as they are sure to be at the forefront of the discussion.

Indeed, given Kerry's disturbing lack of consistency on Iraq, the only chance he has for a draw or better in the debate, or the election for that matter, is to convince the voters that despite his obvious problems with decisiveness, directness and the truth, somehow President Bush is worse.

Almost all of Kerry's problems on Iraq can be traced to the ongoing conflict between his presidential ambitions and his anti-war liberalism. His many flip-flops reflect his political calculations at various points in the campaign about the viability of his anti-war sentiments.
If Kerry had been true to himself – his anti-war nature – during the primaries, he might not have survived, but he certainly wouldn't be faced with the problems he is today on Iraq. Yet he felt constrained to vote for the Iraq war resolution because of the overwhelming popular support for it at the time.

It was only after Howard Dean's anti-war rantings began to resonate among Democrats that Kerry realized he'd messed up. He had to explain his vote to authorize the war. What a bummer. Here was John Kerry, a guy whose lifetime anti-war credentials would put Tom Hayden's to shame, now branded by this indelible black mark on his voting record concerning the very war Howard Dean was railing against.

Kerry had to be thinking:

Who is this upstart singing from my hymnal and wooing my voters – the people who are supposed to put me in the White House after a lifetime of careful preparation? I mean, this guy can talk a good game, but he was a lowly state governor at the time of the Iraq War resolution vote. He wasn't faced with the problem of having to vote against the strong tide of American support for that stupid, annoying war. This Dean guy is an imposter. I'm the real anti-war guy. But how can I square my vote for the war with my lifetime anti-war record?

Then Kerry had an epiphany enabling him to construct two bogus rationales. Both were completely implausible, except to his Dean-starved anti-war supporters, who were desperate to believe him, and the hopelessly credulous among us.

His two explanations were: President Bush 1) lied about the intelligence on Iraqi WMD and the supposed connections between Saddam and 9-11; and 2) promised he would only attack as a last resort. Both were bald-faced lies, but generated just enough smoke to allow Kerry to save face with his base – just as with his whiplash-inducing positions on the $87 billion supplemental appropriations bill.

Even the 9-11 commission blamed the intelligence agencies, not President Bush for the intelligence errors, errors in which Sen. Kerry was equally complicit. Nor did President Bush say there was a direct connection between Saddam and 9-11, but between Saddam, al-Qaida and other terrorists, which is true.

Kerry's claim that he only voted for the war resolution to give President Bush negotiating leverage is similarly absurd on its face. The resolution, which was unconditional, speaks for itself.

Interestingly, these two rationales were designed to let Kerry have it both ways, pro-war or anti-war, whichever was convenient at the time. But in the end, he hasn't been able to sustain the ruse, because when you lie as often as he has, you eventually lose your bearings. When you listen to Kerry today on Iraq, you detect no sense of conviction or passion either way about the war, only a growing frustration and indignation that he has to explain himself. He is, after all, John Kerry.

So here we are in October, and Kerry is still reeling from his fundamental and transparent dishonesty on Iraq. Yet he's faced with the conundrum that if he fully discloses his true anti-war nature, he might not even garner as many electoral votes as Jimmy Carter did against Ronald Reagan.

The public is demanding a strong, resolute, decisive, pro-defense leader for the War on Terror. Either way he turns, Kerry cannot satisfy all those criteria.

His only hope is to change the subject to President Bush and his alleged mishandling of the War on Iraq. But the public is privy to the same news Kerry is and has concluded for now, at least, that Iraq is not nearly the mess that Kerry claims it is. And even if it becomes that way, President Bush, and not John Kerry, is better suited to navigate us through it.
John Kerry has made his own bed, but he can't sleep in it.

Kerry Lies and our Soldiers and Friends Die
By Michael Ashbury

Vietnam recently celebrated the 29th anniversary of the fall of Saigon and withdraw of American troops. In observance of the day Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap and Col. Bui Tin both gave credit to their friends in the US Anti-War movement and especially people like Jane Fonda, Ramsey Clark, and John Kerry for their efforts to bring the war to an end. They said that it was the anti-war movement that gave their people the motivation to continue fighting even when they felt that the US Forces might over power them.

They especially credited John Kerry's speech before the US Senate for weakening the US Government's resolve, and inspiring the Vietnamese people to continue their fight. A fight, which they felt, would have been concluded sooner had the US presented a solid front towards completing the action.

Considered the longest conflict in the history of the United States how many Americans and South Vietnamese lost their lives because ill informed Americans and decorated veterans like John Kerry felt they could I positively influence the war, but not as they imagined? From 1970-”1973 when John Kerry was fighting the war at home and throwing his medals across the Capital wall 9,000 American soldiers lost their lives and another 37,000 were wounded; many with lifetime injuries. And, almost 800 American Prisoners of War suffered additional abuse because Kerry legitimized the idea that they were criminals for committing atrocities against the people of Vietnam. There are untold stories of POW's who faced increased punishment after John Kerry's atrocity declaration before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Also an additional 100,000 South Vietnamese were killed because of this extended war and the fact that they had to unconditionally surrender when the United States pulled out.

Now John Kerry and his friends on the left are pulling the same trick on the soldiers and our friends in Iraq. For the past 8 months they have emboldened the insurgents in Iraq by holding out hope that the United States doesn't have the resolve to continue the fight for democracy and we will cut and run as we did in Vietnam.
Since the initiation of the Democrat primaries John Kerry and his supporters have daily called the war illegitimate and that if they are in charge they will pull our troops out, if not today in a matter of months. All the insurgents have to do is keep up the pressure and Iraq will become a sanctuary from which they can fosters their hatred against the West and have the oil resources to support their activities. During this period the daily rhetoric has cost almost 600 American and Coalition lives, and scores of Iraqi's who were trying to build a better life for their people.

John Kerry even added insult to injury by failing to meet with Iraqâ's Prime Minister Ayad Allawi or even being present during his recent speech before the US Senate. The message that was sent to the insurgents in Iraq , by the man that wants to be the next US President, was that this Ayad Allawi is not a legitimate voice for the people of Iraq and merely a stooge for American occupiers who they are fighting against.

When will the Left, as well as many countries in the United Nations, realize that you don't fight tyranny with appeasement, but with a solid unified front.

About the Writer: Michael Ashbury, a noted researcher and author, is the author of ''Who is the REAL John Kerry?'' (Booksurge.com 2004). His website is at www.whoistherealjohnkerry.com. Michael

Swift Boat Vets Should 'Shut Up,' Says Kerry Spokesman
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
October 01, 2004

Coral Gables, Florida (CNSNews.com) - A former Navy crewmate and supporter of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry says it is time to "let the dead rest." He demanded that the Vietnam veterans who are questioning Kerry's military service and anti-war activism "shut up."

Del Sandusky, one of Kerry's naval crewmates in Vietnam who was present during the actions that led to the Kerry's Silver Star, Bronze Star and two of his three Purple Hearts, made his remarks about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth immediately following Thursday night's debate between President George W. Bush and Sen. Kerry at the University of Miami.

Sandusky served as one of Kerry's official spokesmen following the debate.

"Let the dead rest, we have got to talk about the issues. Let those guys (Swift Boat veterans opposed to Kerry) go sit in a corner, you know, shut up," Sandusky told CNSNews.com.br>
Sandusky called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth "a Republican smear tactic."

"All of the claims and all of the TV ads were proven false. America ain't listening to them anymore. They are just a crock of lies," Sandusky said.

CNSNews.com asked Sandusky if he could sympathize with the anger that many former Vietnam prisoners of war harbor against Kerry because of his behavior when he returned home from the war. Some communist North Vietnamese prison guards used Kerry's 1971 testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to torment American POWs.

Sandusky responded, "Sure I can understand it -- right. But it doesn't matter if John Kerry made that [1971 speech] or not, they (the POWs) were still going to be tortured. They were prisoners of war."

John O'Neill, the co-author of "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry," said Sandusky's comments were consistent with the treatment all Vietnam veterans have received from Kerry.

"Sandusky's comments reflect the arrogance of Kerry's campaign. Instead of an apology, the answer is simply an additional insult to POWs and Vietnam veterans -- to say 'shut up' about it," O'Neill told CNSNews.com Thursday night shortly after Sandusky made his remarks.

"The truth is we are talking about a fellow (Kerry) who may become the commander in chief in the near future. The fact that he made these accusations of atrocities that were used to torture our servicemen in North Vietnam and that they were total lies about the people serving in North Vietnam should disqualify him from being commander in chief," O'Neill said.

Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971 about the testimony of more than 150 Vietnam veterans, who had "testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia..."

Those Vietnam veterans, Kerry said, admitted they "had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam..."

"It is important that there is no apology forthcoming from Kerry," O'Neill said. "He stands by his [atrocity] remarks that we were the army of Genghis Khan, and presumably he take no responsibly for the use of his own remarks to torture our troops."

Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), who was also present in "spin alley" following the debate, blasted the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth for broaching the topic of Kerry's performance in combat.

"I do not and will never question anyone's conduct in combat. Now what [Kerry] did after the war or at any other time, that is fine. But in combat, it's dishonorable and disgraceful," McCain told CNSNews.com.

When asked if he has forgiven Kerry for making atrocity allegations against Vietnam soldiers, McCain, a former Vietnam POW, replied that it isn't a matter of forgiveness.

"I worked together with [Kerry], trying to heal the wounds of the Vietnam War. And the worst thing we have done to the American people in this campaign is to reopen them. And the people who suffer more for that than anybody are the Vietnam veterans, and I think it's disgraceful," McCain said.

But O'Neill countered that "Kerry is the one who opened up Vietnam wounds." "He opened the wounds initially by accusing us of being war criminals and reopened them with his 2004 book Tour of Duty (written by Douglass Brinkley)," O'Neill said.

"That book repeated the same [atrocity] allegations just six months ago. And he is the one who inserted Vietnam in the campaign just a month and half ago at the Democratic convention," O'Neill explained.

"Under the circumstances, to not allow the people he's falsely accused of criminal conduct to respond makes no sense at all," he added.

'He was trying to help'

Former Democratic presidential candidate General Wesley Clark said Kerry's anti-war activism in the 1970s was designed to "help" U.S. soldiers serving in Vietnam and revealed the candidate's "moral courage."

"He was trying to help the men and women in the United States Army and help the United States by having the courage to go and testify in front of Congress," Clark said.

"So I can understand why people might have misunderstood John Kerry at the time. But that was 30 years ago," he added.

Former Georgia Democratic Senator and Vietnam veteran Max Cleland said that voters need to "forget about Vietnam."

"This is not about John Kerry's Vietnam 35 years ago, this is about the Vietnam that George Bush has created in Iraq where we are losing young men and women every day," Cleland told CNSNews.com.

"I agree with John Kerry 35 years ago. I agree with him now, and those of us band of brothers out there have been traveling around this country [supporting Kerry] for a long time," Cleland added.

Did Kerry write own report of disputed clash?
October 1, 2004
BY THOMAS LIPSCOMB
A faded 35-year-old operations order recovered from the Naval Historical Center in Washington bears directly on the ongoing dispute between Sen. John Kerry and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth about who wrote the key after-action report that ended Kerry's service in Vietnam. The report appears in the official Navy records and is posted on Kerry's presidential campaign Web site.

The report details Kerry's participation in a naval operation on the Bay Hap River on March 13, 1969, in such glowing terms that he was awarded a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star for pulling Special Forces officer James Rassmann out of the water while under heavy enemy fire. This third Purple Heart allowed Kerry to cut short his Vietnam tour after only four months.

The report in question described a mission of five swift boats ambushed by a mine explosion that seriously damaged one boat while the swift boats received heavy fire from both banks. The fire continued for three miles, the report said. Roy Hoffman, the admiral who commanded the swift boats in Vietnam, finds that detail alone absurd. Hoffman, a member of the anti-Kerry swift boat veterans group, says: "There was never an incident under my command in all of Vietnam where my boats were engaged by continuous fire from both banks of a half mile in length, much less three."

'It never happened'

The report mentions two other mines detonating as well. So according to this report, which now stands as the official Navy record, this swift boat mission concluded by running a three-mile gantlet of enemy fire from both banks, the detonation of three mines, and yet the only casualties occurred on the boat that hit the first mine. The boats managed to escape and, even more miraculously, retrieve the sinking boat, PCF-3, without getting a single bullet hole in any vessel or crew member.

"It is miraculous all right because it never happened," recalls Larry Thurlow, a Kerry critic who commanded the mission. "PCF-3 hit a mine; all of my boats directed suppressing fire on both banks, expecting the mine to be followed up by gunfire. But after a couple of minutes, we ceased firing and took steps to aid the sinking PCF-3 and its injured crew members. There was never a shot fired at us, and no additional mines went off, either. And if we had been facing gunfire from both sides of three miles of riverbank, I would have called in the standby air support. I didn't."

After he returned to the United States the following month, Thurlow was surprised to find that he had received a Bronze Star himself because of his activities described in the after-action report. When Thurlow first saw the report last July, he didn't recognize the mission it described. The Kerry campaign pointed to Thurlow's own citation, referring to his being "under constant enemy small arms fire," when the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth first contested Kerry's account in August.

As the commander of the mission, normally Thurlow would have filed the disputed after-action report. But he denies writing it. And the after-action report supports his denial. It was written by someone designated "TE 194.5.4.4/1."

An operations order by Adm. Hoffman two months earlier set the format for the designation. The operations order procedures, originated by the operational commander of the Coastal 11 An Thoi unit Kerry served with, Cmdr. Adrian Lonsdale, was the basis for the terms of designation used in this kind of report subsequently. Upon seeing the report, Lonsdale, a Swift Boat Veterans for Truth member, recognized it and recalled the procedures it required as being followed in his command.

"TE" refers to a "task element," which is defined by the numbers to the right, which show the command structure over the task element in action. "194" is Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, commander of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam; "5" is Hoffman's swift boat command; "4" is Lonsdale's command, and the last "4" is Capt. George Elliot's swift boat base at An Thoi, where the boats on this mission were based. The last "1" indicates someone other than the commander of the mission. If the report had been submitted by the mission commander, in this case Thurlow, according to the operations order, it would have begun with a "C" for commander of the Task Element, and the sender would have been "CTE 194.5.4.4."

According to a Navy communications expert, Chief Petty Officer Troy Jenkins, who has examined the message traffic, the report in question was sent from the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Spencer, Lonsdale's command ship, at 11:20 that night.

Only three of the officers on the mission that day were on the Spencer, John Kerry, Dick Pease and Donald Droz. Droz took the wounded from the mine explosion to be examined and treated at the Spencer, including the third officer, the severely wounded Dick Pease. Since the Spencer had no helipad for the evacuation of the wounded, Droz then had to return to the USS Washtenaw County, stationed about 25 nautical miles away, leaving only Kerry aboard the Spencer at the time the message was sent at 11:20 p.m.

Could Droz have somehow written the report? Lonsdale says command precedence of days in swift boat service alone rules this out. "According to the command procedure I set down, Kerry would have been the only logical candidate. Kerry had been in Vietnam since November. Droz just arrived at An Thoi in February." Thurlow adds, "I never liked the paperwork anyway. I was happy to have Kerry write them up."

Operations order verified

And there is another factor. Thurlow ordered Droz to take care of the wounded after the action on the Bay Hap. Droz had ferried them 40 miles out to the Spencer and now had to take them 25 miles back to the USS Washtenaw County. Moving wounded on and off a 327-foot cutter from a 50-foot swift boat on the open sea was not something Droz was likely to leave unsupervised long enough to dash off a report. Kerry had no duties other than reporting to the sick bay, where according to his doctor he was seen at 7 that night. And he spent the night on the Spencer.

The head of the Operational Archives Branch of the Naval Historical Center in Washington, Kathy Lloyd, has verified Hoffman's operations order. Neither Kerry's campaign nor his swift boat veteran critics contest the validity of the after-action report by "TE 194.5.4.4/1." Kerry spokesmen have repeatedly insisted that Kerry denies writing the report and that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were arguing with the official Navy record.

But if "the official Navy record" now turns out to have been written by Kerry himself, the principal beneficiary of its glowing references to his performance, the swift boat critics' charges look far more consequential.

After all, the report completely leaves out how Kerry's own boat, PCF-94, ran down river leaving James Rassmann overboard and the other three boats to deal with the ambush and the sinking PCF-3. All of the living boat commanders on that mission are in firm agreement on that action by Kerry and agree that the report is a fraudulent misrepresentation of an action they remember well.

The Kerry campaign didn't return calls for this article. But members of Kerry's crew have said Kerry is telling the truth. And Rassmann said he has vivid memories of enemies firing at him from both banks.

Thomas Lipscomb is a senior fellow at the Annenberg Center for the Digital Future in New York.




Sept 30
SWIFT BOAT VETERANS JOIN FORCES WITH POWs, LAUNCH $1.4 MILLION NATIONAL TV AND MAIL CAMPAIGN

POWs Take Aim At Kerry’s Post-Combat Activities Which Encouraged The Enemy And Prolonged Their Captivity

WASHINGTON, D.C. --- Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a non-partisan, non-profit group representing more than 250 Swift Boat veterans who served with Senator John Kerry in Vietnam, announced today they are joining forces with a group of American prisoners of war who were held captive by the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam War. The merger coincides with a new $1.4 million television ad campaign released by the new group Swift Vets and POWs For Truth.

“We welcome the POWs to this battle on behalf of truth, the real truth of who John Kerry is and how he betrayed his fellow veterans. His visits to Paris to meet with the enemy – and his subsequent public endorsement of their so-called ‘peace plan’ – only served to encourage our enemies and prolong the captivity of our POWs,” said Admiral Roy Hoffmann, founder of Swift Vets and POWs for Truth.

“For John Kerry to now claim that his activities were part of an effort to help solve the POW problem is absolutely ludicrous. Kerry encouraged the North Vietnamese to keep us in captivity longer which meant more torture, more lost years and, sadly, more death,” said Vietnam POW Ken Cordier who was held captive for six years and three months and was awarded two Silver Stars, a Bronze Star, and a Purple Heart among other decorations.
The new ad will air in three states as well as on national cable and is the most expensive media buy the group has made to date. The ad features wives of two POWs:

Mary Jane McManus: Three months after we were married, my husband was shot down over Hanoi.

Phyllis Galanti: Paul and I were married in 1963. Two years later he was shot down over North Vietnam.

MCMANUS: All of the prisoners of war in North Vietnam were tortured in order to obtain confessions of atrocities.
Galanti: On the other hand, John Kerry came home and accused all Vietnam veterans of unspeakable horrors.

McManus: John Kerry gave aid and comfort to the enemy by advocating their negotiating points to our government.

Galanti: Why is it relevant? Because John Kerry is asking us to trust him.

McManus: I will never forget John Kerry’s testimony. If we couldn’t trust John Kerry then, how could we possibly trust him now?

Several POWs and their wives will also be featured in a satellite media tour Thursday morning that reaches out to local television stations. The vets will be interviewed via satellite from Colorado Springs where they will be attending the Air Force/Navy football game Thursday afternoon. Swift Vets and POWs For Truth is also launching a direct mail campaign that will reach 1.2 million people.

Swift Vets and POWs For Truth now has over 63,000 online financial contributors to their campaign to get the truth out about John Kerry.

The POWs also released a new 40 minute documentary titled Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal, produced by Pulitzer Prize and Peabody Award winning journalist Carlton Sherwood (www.stolenhonor.com). The documentary features interviews with many POWs, as well as some of their wives, and details how Kerry’s activities actually further endangered the lives of the POWs. This documentary gives it to you straight from the mouths of the POWs and their wives themselves.

To schedule interviews with Admiral Hoffmann, Mr. Cordier, or other spokespeople for Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, contact Sean McCabe (ext. 110) or Keith Appell (ext. 112) at (703)-683-5004.

Two UN camps on terrorism
By ANNE BAYEFSKY

The plight of SC Resolution 1373

In the weeks immediately following 9/11 there comes another anniversary - this time of the UN response to the finally unmistakable global threat of terrorism. On September 28, 2001, the Security Council adopted resolution 1373. It has proved, however, to be the high water mark. Despite John Kerry's repeated calls for greater UN involvement, the organization's contribution to the war on terror has gone downhill ever since.

Three years after resolution 1373 was passed, the UN still cannot define terrorism. Member states are essentially divided into two camps.

In one corner is the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), composed of 56 states insisting that terrorism excludes "armed struggle for liberation and self-determination."

More precisely, blowing up Israelis of all ages in caf s, synagogues, buses, and discotheques is legitimate.
This point of view triggers collateral damage across the UN. For eight years the UN has been struggling to adopt a comprehensive convention against terrorism. It cannot finish the task because the OIC holds out for an Israeli exclusion clause. Another round of bogus negotiations is scheduled for early October. No UN member state is prepared to change the rules and insist that a vote be called in the absence of consensus.

The upshot is the one line on the UN Web site devoted to the definition of terrorism. It refers interested parties to the ongoing discussion over a terrorism convention that "would include a definition of terrorism if adopted."
The UN's inability to identify a terrorist has real-life implications. In the last month, the Security Council has been faced with the terrorist acts in Beslan, Russia, and the suicide-bombing in Beersheba, Israel. The bombings in Israel claimed 16 lives and wounded 100 from a population of 6,200,000. The hostage-taking in Russia left 326 dead and 727 wounded out of a population of 143,800,000. The proportionate trauma was as great, if not higher, in Israel.

The Security Council deadlocked over the Beersheba attacks, and no "presidential statement" was possible. Instead, there was a statement to the press saying that council members (read "not all") condemned the bombings along with "all other acts of terrorism" (code for "Israel engages in terrorism, too").

DURING THE debate, Security Council members Algeria and Pakistan maintained a position of "principle" - there should be no double standards, no singling out of one act, no selective condemnation. That was August 31.
On September 1 the Security Council adopted a "presidential statement" on behalf of the council as a whole concerning Beslan. It strongly condemned the terrorist attacks, expressing the deepest sympathy with the people and government of Russia and urging all states to cooperate with Russian authorities in bringing to justice the perpetrators, organizers, and sponsors of these terrorist acts.

Of course the council couldn't mirror such calls when it came to Israeli victims, since the perpetrators, organizers, and sponsors of Palestinian terrorism start at Yasser Arafat and end in the protectorates of Damascus and Teheran. Whatever happened to Security Council resolution 1373?
The resolution's legal requirements are impressive: "Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts;

"... take the necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts;
"... deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts;

"... prevent those who finance, plan, facilitate, or commit terrorist acts from using their respective territories for those purposes against other States or their citizens..."

To implement these obligations, 1373 gave birth to a Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC). The CTC then spawned 517 state reports about all those busy activities states were taking to implement the resolution. Among them is the most recent report from Syria - headquarters of Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and others featured on the State Department list of foreign terrorist organizations. It informs the Security Council about "procedures and measures adopted and in force in the Syrian Arab Republic aimed at the suppression... and prevention of terrorist crimes, and... the denial of safe haven, refuge, assistance or any form of help in the territory of... Syria."

A parallel universe. One in which the UN's chief global response to 9/11 - the Counter-Terrorism Committee - has never managed to name a single terrorist organization, individual, or state sponsor of terrorism.

Another UN committee was created in 1999 under Security Council resolution 1267 in response to al-Qaida and the Taliban. This so-called sanctions committee has never agreed on which states are not complying with their obligations or given the council a list of delinquent states for further action.

Oh, yes. In the other corner stands almost all the rest of the world: paralyzed, intimidated, or furiously giving campaign speeches about UN multilateralism as the sensitive way forward in the war against terrorism.

The writer is an international lawyer and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.



Sept 29

Iraq Marine: Troops 'Terrified' of a Kerry Presidency

U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq are "terrified" at the prospect that Americans back home might elect John Kerry president, a Marine and Iraq veteran who is on his way back to the front lines said Monday.

Asked how Kerry's election would affect troop morale in the combat zone, Lance Cpl. Lawrence Romack told KWEL Midland, Texas, radio host Craig Anderson, "It would destroy it."

"We're pretty terrified of a John Kerry presidency," added Romack, who served with the 1st Marine Tank Battalion in Iraq.

The Iraq war vet said he fears that most of the news coverage is being skewed to make the mission look like a failure in order to give the Kerry campaign a boost.

"What they're trying to do is get Kerry into the White House, because they know he doesn't want us to stay [in Iraq]," he told Anderson.

Asked if Americans back home were getting an accurate picture of what's happening in the war, the Marine corporal said: "No, they're not. It's not even close. All the press wants to report is casualty counts. They don't want to report the progress we're making over there."

Romack noted that in the southern part of the country, Iraqis welcomed U.S. troops when they set up an immunization programs for children, opened schools and began distributing food.

"Almost immediately people were lining up to get their kids shots," he told Anderson.

Contrary to reports that the general population was too afraid to help ferret out insurgents, Romack said, "We had Iraqis pointing out former Baath Party members for us to arrest."

When the KWEL host opened up the phone lines, a member of the 82nd Airborne who had returned from Iraq in March was first on the line.

He agreed with Cpl. Romack that media reports coming out of Iraq were often inaccurate – and sometimes even dangerous.

"The news media – sometimes I felt like I had as much to fear from them as I did the Iraqis," he complained.

Iran Issues Threat to Anglo-Saxon Civilization
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) just posted this ominous threat after it became known that Iran has a missile capable of hitting London, “Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Official Threatens Suicide Operations: ‘Our Missiles Are Ready to Strike at Anglo-Saxon Culture …’”

This is something I greatly feared would happen – the marriage of Shi’ite suicide squads to nuclear missile capability. This is an alarm that should be shaking the entire Western Civilization.

 The Ayatollah’s of Iran are capable of launching a nuclear barrage at Israel, England and the USA that they know would bring a devastating retaliation from the West. It would be a national suicide mission for the glory of Allah. This is the way they think in their twisted Fundamental religious minds.

If you think this is extreme, just listen to some of their latest comments. Agence France Press reported on September 21, 2004, “Iran showed off its range of ballistic missiles at an annual military parade on Tuesday, with the rockets draped in banners vowing to ‘crush America’ and ‘wipe Israel off the map.’

A banner stating ‘Israel must be wiped off the map’ was draped on the side of a Shahab-2 missile, while a banner saying ‘We will crush America under our feet’ was on the side of a trailer carrying the latest Shahab-3 missile.” The report continued, “These missiles enable us to destroy the enemy with missile strikes.”

The London based Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat reported that “an Iranian intelligence unit has established a center called The Brigades of the Shahids of the Global Islamic Awakening to replace the Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ Department of Liberation and Revolutionary Movements, which had been in charge of helping and training revolutionary forces across the world.”

The article went on to report a speech given by an official of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, threatening the U.S. with suicide and missile attacks at already-selected sensitive targets, and threatening to “take over Britain”.
There is no question that Iran has received much help in developing their nuclear and missile program. Russia, China, North Korea and Pakistan have all helped them accelerate their program – probably much faster than Western Intelligence groups realize.

From the nature of their increasingly brazen warnings to Israel, Britain and the U.S., they must be very near the point of operational readiness.

I am sure this is why Israel has accelerated preparations to deal with this monumental threat to their survival as a people and a nation. They are acutely aware that the time for effective action is fast drawing to a close.
Israel helped engineer and developed new versions of F-16 and F-15. They are officially known as the F-16i and F15i. These are very different aircraft than their predecessors. They have the most advanced targeting and defensive electronics ever put on an operational aircraft.


Both have been given engines with increased efficiency and power. Both have large conformal fuel tanks that fit along the sides of the fuselage, which enormously increased their range. Both have a two-man crew. The second pilot operates the very advanced electronics system. Both can fly to Iran and back, non-stop.

Another indication that Israel is preparing for action is its recent purchase of 500 ‘bunker buster’ bombs. These JDAM bombs (GBU-32) are capable of penetrating through 7 feet of reinforced concrete before detonation. .
The latest JDAM bombs can be launched from 15 miles away and hit targets with deadly accuracy. It weighs 2000 pounds. Each one is independently targeted by both an inertial navigation system and a global positioning system guidance kit. It is a perfect weapon for destroying uranium enrichment plants and nuclear reactors.

Israel knows that it cannot stand by while the U.N. plays the shell game with Iran and hopes to somehow get inspectors into the right places at the right time. Too many rogue nations have been able to play the delay game until they suddenly come out with nuclear weapons and missiles to carry them.

Such a raid will no doubt prove to be costly for Israel’s attacking aircraft. But it is a risk they know they must take.
Israel cannot afford even one mistake in its defense against the Muslim threats that face it. So if the U.S. doesn’t take action soon against this clear and apparent danger – count on it, Israel will. Thank God.

''Stolen Honor'' Restored

Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Jack Kinsella - Omega Letter Editor
One of the few good things to come out of the partisan debacle that passes for Election 2004 is the partial rehabilitation the reputations of those veterans who served in the Vietnam War.

They've spent the last thirty-five years being convinced that, although most of them had never witnessed war crimes, they MUST have been happening just over the next hill, somewhere.

As a consequence, they've spent the last thirty-five years trying to convince their friends and families that, while war crimes MUST have been rampant, they didn't have any part in them.

Since, as "everybody knows", American troops during the Vietnam War behaved worse than the Nazis, Vietnam veterans protesting their individual innocence didn't sound any more convincing than the Germans did after WWII when they said all the real Nazis were killed in the war.

It has been thirty-five years of secret shame. A 'secret' shame because the protests of innocence sound so hollow, given the widely accepted 'truth' that Vietnam veterans, "raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan," as Lt. (jg) John F Kerry testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in 1971.

For thirty-five years, Vietnam veterans have quietly endured this slander, mostly because the louder they protested their innocence, the guiltier they sounded.

(I know that there are some of you who know EXACTLY what I mean. And I know veterans who deny ever having GONE to Vietnam, just so they don't have to endure the silent questions.)

John Kerry has never been called to account for leading the effort to steal away the honor of those brave men who served their country in Vietnam.

Largely thanks to the efforts of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, which Kerry led during the early 1970's, returning Vietnam veterans were ashamed to wear their uniforms or display their medals for fear of being spit on or called 'baby killer'.

The VVAW had clout disproportionate to its size -- never more than 7000 members out of a pool of 9 million veterans -- and some of the movement's most vocal leaders were later proved to be frauds who never even saw combat, let alone the atrocities they described as being 'routine'.

The VVAW's wide influence came mainly thanks to the charisma of the young, politically ambitious John Forbes Kerry, and his high-profile fellow protestors, like Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden.

Kerry and his VVAW compatriots portrayed their fellow veterans as unwilling soldiers, morally debased and haunted by their service.

While this might have fit a small minority, the most accurate survey, done by the Harris Poll in 1980, showed that 91% of those who went to Vietnam were "glad they served their country," 74% "enjoyed their time in the military" and 89% agreed with the statement that "our troops were asked to fight in a war which our political leaders in Washington would not let them win."

Retired Lt. Ralph E. Gaither, U.S. Air Force veteran and author of "With God in a POW Camp", spent more than seven years as a POW.

In the documentary, 'Stolen Honor', he said something that stunned me. I suppose I knew it intellectually, but hearing it from Lt. Gaither connected the dots in my mind:

"We didn’t realize how powerful the [VVAW] movement was until toward the end of the war. I dedicated the book I wrote to John Frederick – he died 6 months before we came home. John would probably have been alive had the antiwar movement not been doing what they were doing. The Vietnamese grew great relish in the movement in support for their cause."

Then he said this: "I’m convinced that they held on to the war until after Nixon was reelected. They felt Nixon would not be re-elected, that the antiwar movement would be strong enough to get him out of office."

There was something haunting about Gaither's observation. It sounds too much like he is talking about 2004.
In an opinion piece published by Dar al Hayat on September 14, Mahmoud Rimawi declares in the title; "John Kerry, the Arabs' Candidate as Well".

Rimawi writes, "In a survey, conducted in 35 countries all over the world, have shown that citizens of 30 countries prefer the Democratic candidate, Kerry, over the Republican candidate and the current president George W. Bush…"

After explaining all that was wrong with George Bush and the Republicans from the Arab point of view, Rimawi opines;

"And since John Kerry is the only practical substitute, and a candidate open to discussion unlike Bush and his staff, its not an exaggeration or even unusual for us to express our favoring of Kerry for president . . ."
The same sentiment is shared by al-Qaeda. They see Bush as inflexible, whereas John Kerry seems far more open to intimidation.

According to intelligence reports, al-Qaeda plans to strike US targets in advance of the November election in the hope of recreating the 'Madrid Effect'.

That March 11 terror attack toppled anti-terror Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's government in favor of the more malleable Spanish Socialists who immediately began caving in to al-Qaeda's demands.

al-Qaeda hopes to do the same thing in America, with the same result -- a defeat for George Bush. The resurgent violence in Iraq is aimed at the same goal.

The terrorists there believe John Kerry will pull US troops out of Iraq, in effect, handing the country over to them and creating a new Afghanistan -- or, if you like, another Vietnam.

In a perverse sense, John Kerry and his crowd are correct in saying that Iraq is becoming another Vietnam -- thanks to the same propaganda methods that Kerry and the VVAW used to create the myth of the 'Vietnam quagmire' in the early 1970's.

A recent pro-Kerry political ad featured Iraq War veterans condemning the war and endorsing John Kerry, who they say will 'get us out' of Iraq. 'Peace with honor' is their catch-phrase. Sound familiar?

But, now that the story is getting a fair hearing, aging Vietnam veterans can tell the truth without sounding like post-WWII Nazis trying to cover up war crimes.

Because, in Vietnam, war crimes WEREN'T 'rampant'. The worst 'war crime' America was guilty of in Vietnam was turning its collective back on its defenders for thirty-five years.

And now that the chief war criminal of the Vietnam War is running for president of the United States, the honor stolen from an entire generation of America's defenders is being debated in public -- honestly -- for the first time.
And many of our children and grandchildren are discovering, for the first time, the quiet heroes that live among them. Its no substitute for the parade that never was, but, better late than never.

And in the most ironic twist of all, we owe it all to John Kerry.

VIETNAM VETERANS FOR ACADEMIC
REFORM
Leonard Magruder - Founder/President

Former professor of psychology, Suffolk College, N.Y.

Member: National Association of Scholars



(Vietnam vet contact: General Carl Schneider (ret.) -Korea, Vietnam - at dukesch@aol.com
or 1-480-595-7668. If this arrives chopped up, there is a correct copy at v-v-a-r.org.)

"TOPEKA CAPITAL-JOURNAL" JOINS "LAWRENCE JOURNAL-WORLD" AND "UNIV. DAILY
KANSAN" IN COVER-UP OF POLLS SHOWING VIETNAM VETS 80% AGAINST KERRY

MAGRUDER PROTESTS ROLL ON TO WASHINGTON WHERE VET COALITION WILL ASK
CONGRESS TO STOP MEDIA CAMPAIGNING FOR KERRY

LAWRENCE AND TOPEKA COVER-UP WERE REPORTED SUNDAY ON RADIO ADDRESS TO THE NATION ON AMERICAN FREEDOM NETWORK.



Running Dan Rather Out of Dodge City

by Leonard Magruder



An article in "The Topeka Capital-Journal" of May 11, 1986, was headlined ,"Magruder Campaign for Vietnam Veterans Rolls On." Magruder was paying (in Topeka, Atlanta, New Orleans, Charlotte, Washington,Chicago, and Lawrence) to show a film being boycotted by PBS because it documented how the media had lied about the Tet Offensive of 1968. This,
along with a letter to all PBS station managers broke the boycott with 280 out of 312 stations showing the film. In a letter , June 13, 1986,General William C. Westmoreland wrote to Magruder,"I congratulate you on your success in the showing of the film on PBS stations around the country." (see under "Vietnam and the Media" at v-v-a-r.org)



On Friday, however, "The Topeka Capital-Journal" refused to report on Mr. Magruder's latest campaign . Mr. Magruder stood in front of the newpaper building carrying a large sign that said ,"Stop the Media Cover-up for Kerry," and handed out material on polls from Vietnam veteran groups from all over the country showing that 80% of Vietnam veterans reject Kerry as Commander-in-Chief, or President. Last week the "The Lawrence Journal-World " had refused to report on the first of these protests. Magruder, who is President of Vietnam Veterans for Academic Reform, stood for two hours in front of the paper's offices while reporters and editors walked by, studiously ignoring him.The editor of the Univ. of Kansas newspaper, "The Daily
Kansan," well known for its leftist bias, also refused to report on the story, even though for years the veteran group had had an auxiliary unit at the university. Throughout those years the "Kansan" always ingored any of the news stories the group gave the paper and recently , when Mr. Magruder complained to the Faculty Advisor about the bias, the advisor stood up and shouted "Shove it up your butt," resulting in a big ruckus that went all the way to the Dean and
resulting in Mr. Magruder closing the auxiliary unit at the university to protest the leftist intolerance at The University of Kansas. Said Mr. Magruder, "David Horowitz is absolutely right, our universities are now nothing but hugh patronage machines for the Left."

"The national media is covering up for Kerry. Our polls (below) show that those who know war best have reasons for rejecting Kerry as Commander-in-Chief. The Ameican people need to hear what those reasons are.What Vietnam veterans have to say about one of their own, John
Kerry, is of extreme importance to the nation. As much as these veterans would love to see a Vietnam vet become president, and this situation is very sad because they have waited a long time, they are nevertheless once again putting the safety of the nation first, and trying to warn
the American people to stay away from Kerry. But they can't do that if the mainstream media, to help Kerry, is covering up what they have to say."

And there is no question about that. The Media Research Center just today sent out an article titled, "Major Media Biased to Help Kerry."

"New surveys have found that public perception of media credibility has  fallen and that by three -to-one , more see major networks and newspapers as "biased to help Kerry " over Bush. A Rasmussen poll found that many more see ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC as biased in favor of Kerry over Bush with CBS seen "as the most biased." 37% believe the CBS network news team is "trying to help the Kerry campaign " compared to just 10 percent who believe that CBS is trying to help Bush. 35% see"The New York Times", "USA Today", and "The Washington Post" as biased to help Kerry while only 7% see these as biased towards Bush."

The Magruder campaign now rolls on to Kansas City and beyond until it reaches Washington D.C., protesting at major newspapers along the way. As he goes Mr. Magruder will be putting together a coalition of Vietnam veteran groups from all over the country to aid in an appeal to Congress to examine the current media bias just as he did in March of 1986.

The Westmoreland vs. CBS case had just ended, Westmoreland having received an apology from CBS for the lies in its film "The Uncounted Enemy." In his final statement to the press Westmoreland gave top priority to pointing out that the trial had shown that the Tet Offensive
had resulted in a victory for the allies, not the defeat described by CBS at the time, and again in its film. With this ending of a second battle with CBS over false reporting, Mr. Magruder decided to file with Congress a request that it hold an investigation into the bias of the
major networks. The media likes to describe the charges regarding the Tet Offensive as a "right-wing fantasy", but Mr. Magruder was able to compile for Congress supporting documentation from 24 histories and commentaries on the Vietnam War all stating that the media, in particular CBS, had misled the American people about the Tet Offensive.

A large number of organizations went on pubic record with Congress as supporting Mr. Magruder's request , including chapters of Vietnam Veterans of America, Veterans of Foreign Wars, The American Legion, and the 20,000 members of the Northern Virginia Veteran Leadership Program .The issue was reported in numerous newspapers, including a front page
article in "The National Vietnam Veterans Review." General Westmoreland, who also called in a statement of support to Congress, said in this newspaper on April, 1986, , "Professor Magruder's project is an extremely important issue and I support his efforts 100% "(see
under "Vietnam and the Media" at v-v-a-r.org)

Said Mr. Magruder today, "We put together 37 Vietnam vet groups for that Congress fight, we have received reports in our poll campaign from 32 groups, I am confiident that we can put together an even larger coalition this time to appeal to Congress on this issue of the media
trying to steal the election for Kerry. We're going to run Dan Rather out of Dodge City. Any vet group wishing to join this coalition to fight the media please call or e-mail me. "(see below)

A Marine Vietnam vet and leader of a veteran group recently wrote in an article ,"Curiously, on one of the central contentions in the presidential election, none of the major polling agencies have surveyed the preferences of Vietnam veterans. Americans trying to make up their
mind about whom to vote for look to those most directly involved for their views, but none of the major polling firms deem it important enough to get at what Vietnam veterans feel about this issue. "

Our organization, Vietnam Veterans for Academic Reform is the only organization to make an effort to answer this question. Early on we asked our veteran contacts to send us any information on any polls their group had taken. We received responses from 32 groups. And when we totaled it all up it looks certain that at least 80% of Vietnam veterans are opposed to Kerry. We reported these findings in a press release to all local and major media but there was no mention of the material, with one exception. Marie Horrigan, an editor of United Press Internatinal, writing for Insight Online, connected with "The Washington Times", wrote
about our project.

In addition, on Sunday , Sept. 26, Mr. Magruder discussed this whole issue, including the cover-up in Kansas, on a one hour program over radio station KHNC in Golden, Colorado, which reaches from Pueblo, through Denver, to Casper, Wyoming, and heard worldwide on The American Freedom Network.

The data , which is ongoing, is reported from all over the country. Any group could just as well have preferred Kerry, but so far no group has. Although some groups are small, the fact that all point in the same direction , and very strongly at that , suggests that what this collection is telling us is very significant statistically, and it looks like our estimate now is that 80% of all Vietnam vets are opposed to Kerry. On sample size, the major polls use samples ranging around 1000. Newsweek this week , for example, used 1003 respondents, L.A.Times- 1352, Harris- 1012, CNN -767. There are at least four poll samples in our report larger than 1000, one with over 3000, allowing us to be quite confidant in our extimate , espcially when all these samples are added together .

When the opinions of Vietnam vets are added to all other vets in national polls, you will see the gap narrowing, but still significantly in favor of Bush. So what this is telling us is that Vetnam vets, who served in the same war with Kerry, have some special reason for opposing Kerry and that is what the public needs to know and what the media is covering up.



The V.V.A.R. PRESIDENTIAL POLL



GROUPS WITH DATA

Out of 45 Vietnam veterans... all say pooh on JFK...100% - powmiavets


Our heli-vets pol shows 160 against and 6 for Kerry - Ron Leonard-25th Aviation Battalion

I know about 650 Vietnam vets and their attitude toward about Kerry is 100% negative - Dan Decker, TSgt.USAF (ret.)

I know thousands of vets .I would say the opinion is about 98% against Kerry - Tony Cartlidge-Vietnam Combat Marine- 1968

Of 27 Vietnam Veterans I know, including myself, not one is willing to vote for John Kerry. - Charles Banto - USMC 1958-1974

100,000 e-mails, almost all veterans, around 100 to 1 against Kerry -Don Bendell, Special Forces, Vietnam, 1968-69, noted author

Out of 25 guys 90% against Kerry - Mike- mleonardos

240 vets, mostly Vietnam, 85% against Kerry -Tony Newcomb, Cpt.U.S.Army (ret.)

Of the more than 2500 veterans of all ranks who responded , 59 took umbrage with what I had to say against Kerry - Mark A. Smith, former POW, Vietnam.

An ongoing poll, with names and comments at 11thcavnam.com is running 16 for Bush, 4 for Kerry. (80% for Bush.)

I’d make the numbers 80 to 20 against Kerry - Philip Topps, Cpt. Inf.(ret), 1st Inf. Div. 69-70

100 against Kerry - 0 for him - Storrs Warinner- 67-68

17th Annual Reunion - out of 55 vets all against Kerry - Bob Griffin -101st Abn. Div. Vietnam 1968-69

99 for Bush - 1 for Kerry - Don Martin., USA, Combat Aviation

Vets - union factory workers- 170 for Bush - 73 for kerry -Tony Newcomb, Veterans Leadership program

All the vets I know, 50 or so, have no use for Kerry -John Morrill-Vietnam veteran

200 on the net for Bush, 1 for Kerry - flyc54@bellsouth.

net members, 151 for Bush, 6 for Kerry - Kenneth Roberts

All the vets I know, probably 50, have no use for Kerry - JohnMorrill -Vietnam veteran

Bush-3795 (90%)- Kerry 404 (10%)-Viper's Vietnam Veterans Page,Presidential Poll



GROUPS WITH NO DATA

Every vet we know is opposed to Kerry - Chuck and Mary Schantag, P.O.W. Network

Rangers are 100% against Kerry -noatlmus44 - President

Every veteran I've talked to is against Kerry - General Carl Schnieder (ret.), Air Force -Korea and Vietnam.

I am anti-Kerry, as are most of my friends who are Vietnam veterans -Stud 369

I share the distrust I hear from my veteran colleagues - Peter McHugh, CW4 USA -67-68,71-72

I would say 90% of the military here (power plant) are against Kerry -P.Rein

Our claim of a cover-up was strongly supported when Swift Boat Veterans for Truth announced that 220 out of 229 Swift Boat Vietnam veterans had signed an open letter to Kerry challenging his fitness to serve as Commander-in-Chief. NBC, ABC, and the Associated Press all covered this up, not realizing that this was just the tip of the iceberg. Dan Rather mentioned it briefly, showing that it was a national story, but dismissed it as "allied with the Bush campaign."

A new poll by Rasmusssen Reports shows that Bush holds a 23% lead among all veterans, but that those with no military service favor Kerry by 10%. This is alarming because it means that those with experience about war would prefer Bush as Commander-in-Chief, while those with no experience, unfortunately a much larger number, believe Kerry would be best. Because the media is covering up this issue, this larger group could make Kerry, the less able of the two men , Commander-in-Chief, placing the country in much greater danger than it would be under Bush. This underlines the importance of the media reporting on our findings, which are just as valid as the better known polls, or, looking into thismatter for themselves and reporting on it.

What is the reason vets reject Kerry ?

As to why Vietnam vets are against Kerry, we don't have to guess, we have it straight from Vietnam Veterans for the Truth, who sponsored a protest in Washington D.C. on Sept. 12 with the slogan "Kerry Lied...While Good men Died."

"Contrary to most media reports, Vietnam veterans are overwhelmingly opposed to Kerry. He lied to the American people and the U.S. Senate when he told our mothers and fathers, our wives and our children that we had raped, tortured, murdered, and ravaged the countryside in
Vietnam. Kerry is not the centrist, moderate, strong-on-defense candidate he represents himself to be and voters need to know these facts. The fine young men and women who fought in Vietnam came home to insults instead of parades, because the nation listened to Kerrys
lies, when they should have welcomed them home with gratitude."

Vets seem to sense that Kerry has no understanding of a new type of enemy, nor any idea of how to handle such an enemy. His lifelong history of preference for negotiation, dialogue, compromise, even appeasement, the typical tools of a liberal 20th century diplomat dealing with reasonably civilized nations would prove utterly useless in light of 9/11 and an enemy that has repeatedly said: (Osama binLaden)

"We will offer no chance for America to come to an agreement with the righteous warriors, no possibility for compromise, no hope for a treaty, no attempt for solutions. The war will be waged until the United States remains a memory."

The psychology by which the media cannot allow the public to find out that the majority of Vietnam veterans oppose one of their own is elementalry. Most Vietnam veterans agree they fought in a just war to stop Communist aggression from North Vietnam. But the media, the
university ,and John Kerry tried to tell the nation that Communism was nothing to fear, and that what we were doing was an "immoral" war against "freedom fighters" (Viet Cong) trying to reunify their country. These elements are apparently willing to risk the nation rather than finally admit that they were wrong. Once again, as happened in the case of the Tet Offensive, the media is robbing the American people of the ability to make critical judgements about their most vital security interests in a time of war.

The defeat of Kerry in the polls will be, not only a vote of no confidence in him as Commander-in-Chief, but because he chose to revive the whole issue of the Vietnam War, a final repudiation by the American people of the leftist version of the Vietnam War which Kerry espoused and which became institutionalized in our universities, in our history books and courses, in the media - the lies of the campus protestors, like Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Jane Fonda, Dave Dellinger, added to by John Kerry that were the reason for the disgraceful attack on the veterans of that war when they returned home. Attacks whose real purpose was to cover up the fact that in the end, the war protestors were on the side of tyranny and genocide, having betrayed a fight for freedom.

Here is the chance for veterans to get rid of a big one and straighten out the record. One who lied about their service to their country. Not to mention the fact that Kerry has no record on national defense, doesn't seem to understand the enemy, and has no plan for dealing with
the terrorists. Like the Swift Boat Vets say, "Unfit for Command."

Magruder44@aol.com

v-v-a-r.org

1-785-312-9303

If Bush lied about WMD, Kerry and 77% of the Senate lied also

Mary Mostert
August 16, 2004


In recent weeks I have received e-mail from readers asking me if a list of quotes making the rounds via e-mail that purport to be from anti-Bush politicians are actually "for real." The quotes are from Democrats who have attacked the President for "lying" about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction and invading Iraq when he was "not a threat to the United States.."

So, I researched the quotes. I found the origin of all but one or two of the quotes sent. However, in those cases, I easily found direct quotes, often made on the floor of Congress, that made the same point and made substitutions. Since Bush's invasion of Iraq has become a core issue in the current presidential campaign, it is time to set the record straight. We live in the information age. What politicians have said is easily traceable via Internet search engines. Any news person willing to find out what the candidates actually have said, but now don't seem to remember having said them, can find their quotes.

Below are the quotes, plus several interesting additions I found in the Congressional Record. In October 2002 the House passed Joint Resolution 114 to authorize the President to use military force in Iraq by more than a two-thirds majority — 266 to 133. The Senate passed the resolution 77-23.

Both Senators John Kerry and John Edwards voted for Resolution HJ 114 which puts Congress on record as approving President Bush's actions. It specifically states that the action was necessary primarily because "Iraq has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people" and because "Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens." The resolution also specifically mentions that Iraq was harboring "members of Al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq."

If, as the Democrats now claim, President Bush was lying about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction, 77% of the Senate, including those now running for president, were also lying. In fact, it was a Democrat, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut that introduced the amendment listing the "findings" of weapons of mass destruction as justification for the resolution.

Quotes from Democrats about WMD
1.  "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
       President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998


2.   "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." — President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


3.   Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." — Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998


4.    "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." — Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb 18, 1998


5.    "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." — Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D — MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998


6.    "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." — Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998


7.    "Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." — Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999


8.    "There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." — Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001


9.    " We should be hell bent on getting those weapons of mass destruction, hell bent on having a credible approach to them, but we should try to do it in a way which keeps the world together and that achieves our goal which is removing the... defanging Saddam.." — Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Dec. 9, 2002


10.   "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Transcript of Gore's speech, printed in USA Today

11.   "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


12.   "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." — Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002


13.   "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." — Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002


14.   "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable." —Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002


15.   "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." — Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002


16.   "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" — Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002


17.   "In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad. In the 4 years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

     "It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein wiill continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East which, as we know all too well, affects American security."
       Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002


18.   "The Joint Chiefs should provide Congress with casualty estimates for a war in Iraq as they have done in advance of every past conflict. These estimates should consider Saddam's possible use of chemical or biological weapons against our troops.

      "Unlike the gulf war, many experts believe Saddam would resort to chemical and biological weapons against our troops in a desperate -attempt to save his regime if he believes he and his regime are ultimately threatened."
      Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Oct. 8, 2002


19.   "There is one thing we agree upon, and that is that Saddam Hussein is an evil man. He is a tyrant. He has used chemical and biological weapons on his own people. He has disregarded United Nations resolutions calling for inspections of his capabilities and research and development programs. His forces regularly fire on American and British jet pilots enforcing the no-fly zones in the north and south of his country. And he has the potential to develop and deploy nuclear weapons... — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002


But inspectors have had a hard time getting truthful information from the Iraqis they interview. Saddam Hussein terrorizes his people, including his weapons scientists, so effectively that they are afraid to be interviewed in private, let alone outside the country. They know that even the appearance of cooperation could be a death sentence for themselves or their families.

20.   "To overcome this obstacle, and to discover and dismantle Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, UNMOVIC and the IAEA must interview relevant persons securely and with their families protected, even if they protest publicly against this treatment. Hans Blix may dislike running ''a defection agency,' but that could be the only way to obtain truthful information about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction — Sen. Joseph Biden


21.   "With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?
       Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), October 9, 2002


22.   "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.

       "Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf war and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction. — Sen. John Edwards, October 10, 2002


Mary Mostert is a nationally-respected political writer. She was one of the first female political commentators to be published in a major metropolitan newspaper in the 1960s. After working in President Lyndon Johnson's failed War on Poverty programs in New York state, she became a Republican. She ran, unsuccessfully, for the New York State Senate and became campaign manager for a number of candidates. She once served as the secretary of "Positive Action NOW!"--a South African women's group that sought to reduce the hostility among South Africa's various racial, religious, and political groups.

In recent years, Mary has researched, written, and edited articles for national talk show host Michael Reagan's Information Interchange on the Internet, and for The REAGAN MONITOR, a monthly newsletter that provides in-depth information on key issues. Her book, COMING HOME - Families Can Stop the Unraveling of America," was published in 1996 by Gold Leaf Press. Mary maintains a political media site, Banner of Liberty. She can be contacted at mary@bannerofliberty.com. Click here for more information.






Sept 28
Op Ed

IMAGINE if, in the presiden tial election of 1944, the can didate opposing FDR had in sisted that we were losing the Second World War and that, if elected, he would begin to withdraw American troops from Europe and the Pacific.

We would have called it treason. And we would have been right.

In WWII, broadcasts from Tokyo Rose in Japan and from Axis Sally in Germany warned our troops that their lives were being squandered in vain, that they were dying for big business and "the Jew" Roosevelt.

Today, we have a presidential candidate, the conscienceless Sen. John Kerry, doing the work of the enemy propagandists of yesteryear.

Is there nothing Kerry won't say to win the election? Is there no position he won't change? Doesn't he care anything for the sacrifices of our troops in Iraq?

Bush’s National Guard years
Before you fall for Dems’ spin, here are the facts

What do you really know about George W. Bush’s time in the Air National Guard?
That he didn’t show up for duty in Alabama? That he missed a physical? That his daddy got him in?

News coverage of the president’s years in the Guard has tended to focus on one brief portion of that time — to the exclusion of virtually everything else. So just for the record, here, in full, is what Bush did:

The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he began an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three weeks of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training.

That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served nearly two years.

Not two years of weekends. Two years.

After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets. As he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service requirements. At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation.

According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in his first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis).

Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first four years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. Did you know that?

That brings the story to May 1972 — the time that has been the focus of so many news reports — when Bush “deserted” (according to anti-Bush filmmaker Michael Moore) or went “AWOL” (according to Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee).

Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren’t unusual, says retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971.

“In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots,” Campenni says. “The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In ’72 or ’73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem.”

So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points — not much, but enough to meet his requirement.

Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard Business School, he again started showing up frequently.

In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year.

Then, at his request, he was given permission to go. Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service.

During his service, Bush received high marks as a pilot.

A 1970 evaluation said Bush “clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot” and was “a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership.”

A 1971 evaluation called Bush “an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot” who “continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further.” And a 1972 evaluation called Bush “an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer.”

Now, it is only natural that news reports questioning Bush’s service — in The Boston Globe and The New York Times, on CBS and in other outlets — would come out now. Democrats are spitting mad over attacks on John Kerry’s record by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

And, as it is with Kerry, it’s reasonable to look at a candidate’s entire record, including his military service — or lack of it. Voters are perfectly able to decide whether it’s important or not in November.

The Kerry camp blames Bush for the Swift boat veterans’ attack, but anyone who has spent much time talking to the Swifties gets the sense that they are doing it entirely for their own reasons.

And it should be noted in passing that Kerry has personally questioned Bush’s service, while Bush has not personally questioned Kerry’s.

In April — before the Swift boat veterans had said a word — Kerry said Bush “has yet to explain to America whether or not, and tell the truth, about whether he showed up for duty.” Earlier, Kerry said, “Just because you get an honorable discharge does not, in fact, answer that question.”

Now, after the Swift boat episode, the spotlight has returned to Bush.

That’s fine. We should know as much as we can.

And perhaps someday Kerry will release more of his military records as well.
Byron York is a White House correspondent for National Review. His column appears in The Hill each week. E-mail: byork@thehill.com


B.C. draft-dodger monument in limbo
NELSON, B.C. - The mayor of a B.C. city says plans to erect a monument honouring American draft dodgers have been scrapped, but the leader of the group funding the monument says it will find another place to put it.
           The proposed monument.

Isaac Romano and his group, called Our Way Home, had been planning to erect the monument in Nelson, B.C., during a July 2006 two-day festival in honour of U.S. conscientious objectors.

Roughly 125,000 Americans crossed the border into Canada during the 1960s and 1970s because of their opposition to the Vietnam War. Many settled in the Nelson area.

The planned statue depicts two Canadians reaching out to help a U.S. draft dodger.

The plan got the attention of FOX-TV News in the U.S. and has come under fire from Americans, veterans groups and some Canadian politicians.

On Monday night, Blair Suffredine, Liberal member for the provincial riding of Nelson, and Jim Gouk, Tory MP for federal B.C. riding of Southern Interior, both said they opposed the monument, calling it inappropriate and offensive to many Americans.

Jerry Newberry, with the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the oldest veterans' advocacy group in the U.S., said his organization was shocked by the idea.

"We're astounded and saddened and appalled...to think that someone would build a memorial and pay tribute to a group of people who saw fit to cut and run," said Newberry.

As a result of the criticism, the city of Nelson, afraid of alienating U.S. tourists, has distanced itself from the proposal.

On Tuesday, Nelson Mayor Dave Elliot said Romano had agreed to axe the monument, but go ahead with the festival.

"He has agreed that he will withdraw the memorial," Elliott said.

However, Romano said he only agreed to find another place to erect the monument.

"The Our Way Home National Reunion organizing group will be looking broadly for the appropriate setting for the peace monument. It may or may not be located in Nelson," said Romano in a statement.
Written by CBC News Online staff


No Help For Iraq From UN

Monday, September 27, 2004
Jack Kinsella - Omega Letter Editor
"Our struggle is your struggle, our victory will be your victory and if we are defeated, then that will be your defeat," Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi told the UN General Assembly this week.

In his speech to the U.N. General Assembly's annual session Allawi urged governments to put behind them the divisions over Washington's invasion of Iraq that ousted Saddam Hussein and later called "illegal" by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

"Some countries objected to the war, and that is their right, but difference over the issue shouldn't stop the aid now," he said.

Allawi attracted only a moderately-sized audience in the General Assembly's chambers, where he barely mentioned the United States but had great praise for the other nations who helped liberate the Iraqi people, and especially for those that are now providing military, technical or financial assistance to the reconstruction.
Allawi told the world's assembled leaders that his nation was facing "a struggle between the Iraqi people and [their] vision for the future of peace and democracy [on the one hand], and the terrorists and extremists and the remnants of the Saddam regime who are targeting this noble dream [on the other]."

Allawi told world leaders yesterday that Iraq's foreign debt remains "the most serious obstacle" to reconstruction. Repaying it, he said, is beyond Baghdad's capabilities. "It is an unjust burden [accumulated from] unjustified wars and the search of weapons of mass destruction."

He urged them to 'look forward, rather than continue to examine the acrimonious buildup' to the 2003 war. Allawi all but begged Kofi Annan in a private meeting to send the UN mission back to Baghdad.

He even met briefly with Annan yesterday, but didn't even get promises of an expanded U.N. mission, let alone any hope of a dedicated protection force of U.N. personnel.

For the interim Prime Minister of Iraq to expect help from the UN is like a mugging victim waiting for his mugger to call 9/11 for him. The UN spent the better part of twelve years actively working behind the scenes to protect Iraq's mugger so they could continue to take their cut of the loot.

While Saddam's forces murdered and pillaged across the country, in full view of the United Nations, UN bureaucrats siphoned uncounted billions out of Iraq's 'Oil for Food' accounts. To keep Saddam from complaining about the theft, they authorized pretty much anything Saddam wanted.

During the 12-year embargo, Saddam was able to order luxury cars, telecommunications equipment, and even weapons, using money that was ostensibly supposed to be used only to buy food and medicine for the starving Iraqi civilians.

If there is any record of the United Nations denying any purchase requests made by Saddam's government during the embargo, it hasn't surfaced in the public domain that I've been able to find.

So it didn't come as much of a surprise that Allawi's reception at the United Nations was about as friendly as that of a homeless wino crashing a cocktail party.

Everybody was too polite to throw him out, so they did their best to pretend he wasn't there. Allawi's speech was scheduled on the fourth day of speeches being offered during the UN's annual international boreathon.
By the time it was Allawi's turn, most of the UN diplomats, including the French ambassador, had vacated the premises, leaving lower diplomats to anchor their spots at the Assembly while they did something more important than listen to the appeals from Iraq for help.

About the only real attention Allawi's visit got came from the White House, and later from John Kerry. The White House received Allawi as an important ally. John Kerry immediately attacked Allawi's credibility, scoffing at Allawi's promise to hold elections by January.

Kerry called Allawi's visit a political ploy to help the Bush administration get reelected, and criticized Allawi's contention that Iraq's government was making any genuine headway.

"The prime minister and the president are here obviously to put their best face on the policy," Kerry told a press conference he convened immediately after Prime Minister Allawi's speech. "But the fact is that CIA estimates, the reporting, the ground operations and the troops all tell a different story."

Allawi fired back from the Rose Garden in a speech that was all but ignored by the mainstream media, saying, "When political leaders sound the siren of defeatism in the face of terrorism, it only encourages more violence."
But more violence in Iraq is EXACTLY what the Kerry campaign is counting on. Dismissing Allawi as an American 'puppet' is exactly the rhetoric the terrorists in Iraq need to keep up their recruiting goals. But if defeat in Iraq means defeat for George Bush in November, then so be it.

VP candidate John Edwards picked up where Kerry left off, saying Allawi was merely parroting President Bush's 'lies.'

"The best lesson for any fledgling democracy is that leaders should tell the truth, to always be straight with the people," Edwards said. "Prime Minister Allawi's trip to the United States was filled with all the wrong lessons, lessons from an administration that just can't seem to tell the truth when it comes to Iraq."

Kerry spokesman and former Clinton press secretary Joe Lockhart said of the man who is arguably America's most important ally, "The last thing you want to be seen as is a puppet of the United States, and you can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips."

I say that Allawi is arguably America's most important ally because at the moment, American soldiers are in combat, risking (and sometimes, losing) their lives in what John Kerry and John Edwards are calling a lost cause.
It will only be a lost cause if Allawi fails and Iraq descends into civil war. All Allawi has to work with is his credibility as a leader. Kerry and Edwards know that, or they aren't qualified to hold the jobs they seek. The worst POSSIBLE thing that could happen would be for Iraqis to view Allawi as an American puppet -- it would be the kiss of death to his government. And knowing that, they attacked Allawi's only real asset -- his credibility -- mercilessly and in public.

The war in Iraq is a real war, involving real people shedding real blood. It isn't political theater, it is life and death, both for the Iraqis and for the Americans trying to restore their country.

Last year, Kerry called America's coalition allies -- including England, Australia and Poland, "some trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted." In a speech in March, he called them 'window dressing' -- on the same week Poland lost five of its soldiers in combat.

At the same time, Kerry continues to criticize the White House for alienating our friends and allies, something he promises to rectify if elected. (To this point, I've yet to be able to find out how he plans to make up with the 'bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted' after getting elected.)

If America loses in Iraq, then the war was for nothing. Our troops shed their blood for nothing. America gave its sons and daughters for nothing. Are these guys even Americans?

One would assume that the rest of the Democrats are ALSO Americans. There might even be a few Democrats in harm's way in Iraq right now. But to listen to the Democrats now, one would also assume there is no hope in Iraq and the best thing to do is to bring our troops home and let the Iraqis sort things out themselves.

John Kerry asked the Congress in 1971,"How do you ask a man to be the last one to die in a lost cause?" before riding his 'lost cause' theme all the way into the United States Senate. Thanks to his testimony, America's Vietnam veterans have hung their heads in shame for the last thirty years.

But it got him elected to the Senate, and he's hoping the same tactics will win him the White House.
The amazing thing about it is that there are millions of Americans who don't seem to care, as long as it defeats George Bush.

"This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God." (2nd Timothy 3:1-4)

In Magazine Interview, Kerry Says He Owns Assault Rifle

By JODI WILGOREN

Published: September 26, 2004

enator John Kerry, a hunter who supported the recently expired assault weapons ban, frequently tells audiences he has never met anyone who wanted to use an AK-47 to shoot a deer. But it is not clear what Mr. Kerry does with the Chinese assault rifle he told Outdoor Life magazine he kept in his personal collection.

In interviews appearing in the October issue of Outdoor Life, Mr. Kerry and President Bush were asked whether they were gun owners, and, if so, to identify their favorite gun.

Mr. Bush named the Weatherby 20 gauge (although he gave a slightly different answer in a separate chat with Field and Stream magazine.) Mr. Kerry's answer was more complicated.

"My favorite gun is the M-16 that saved my life and that of my crew in Vietnam," Mr. Kerry told the magazine. "I don't own one of those now, but one of my reminders of my service is a Communist Chinese assault rifle."

Mr. Kerry's campaign would not say what model rifle Mr. Kerry was referring to, where he got it and when, or how many guns he owned. A spokesman for the senator, Michael Meehan, said Mr. Kerry was a registered gun owner in Massachusetts. On Thursday morning, Mr. Meehan said he had not been able to ask Mr. Kerry about the rifle because of Mr. Kerry's hoarse voice; he did not respond to further inquiries.

Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association - which has given Mr. Kerry "F" ratings throughout his career and backs Mr. Bush's re-election - said the Outdoor Life comment made Mr. Kerry's support of the assault weapons ban disingenuous.

"It's O.K. for John Kerry to own these kinds of firearms, but it's not O.K. for John Q. Public?" Mr. Arulanandam said, noting that if Mr. Kerry brought the gun home from the war as a souvenir he could be subject to court-martial. "He certainly owes people an explanation as to why there's a double standard."

Stephen P. Halbrook, a gun rights lawyer who has argued several cases before the Supreme Court, said the most common Chinese assault rifles, known as SKS clones, were not among the 19 models banned under the 1994 law. But some SKS's have magazines holding more than 10 rounds, which violates a Massachusetts law against large-capacity weapons, Mr. Halbrook said. If the gun is fully automatic, Mr. Halbrook said, it is illegal in Massachusetts and would require a federal permit if Mr. Kerry kept it at one of his homes in Pennsylvania and Idaho.

Such permits are not public records.

Bob Ricker, a former N.R.A. lawyer who is now a consultant for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, said he was not worried by Mr. Kerry's answer because "he knows a lot about firearms and he's also one of the most credible individuals when it comes to talking about gun-violence prevention and what it takes to keep weapons of war off the street."

Mr. Bush does not have such high-powered weapons but seems unable to pick a consistent favorite. To Field and Stream, he said, "My favorite gun is the first gun that my dad gave me, which is a Winchester .22 pump, Model 61."

He also mentioned the Weatherby he chose for Outdoor Life, saying that it was a "custom-made gun presented to me by the C.E.O. of the company, Mr. Weatherby." Mr. Bush said he had "six or seven guns" in his office safe, including two .22's, deer rifles and a .243-caliber "varmint" rifle.

"Given to me by the former lieutenant governor of Texas, Bob Bullock, my old buddy," Mr. Bush explained of the .243-caliber rifle, "who on his deathbed said, 'I want to give you a gun.' "

"If you really want the truth to get out, if you really want to spread the message of freedom from coast to coast, if you really want to change the political culture of America, there are innumerable ways to get involved and support the work that is already under way," says Farah.

John Kerry's Iraq Quandary
By
Michael Ashbury

     On September 6, 2002, John Kerry in an op-ed in the New York Times stated that "I refuse ever to accept the notion that anything I've suggested with respect to Iraq was nuanced. It was clear. It was precise. It was, in fact, prescient.

It was ahead of the curve about what the difficulties were. And that is precisely what a President is supposed to be. I think I was right, 100% correct, about how you should have done Iraq." Samplings of his
prescient remarks are:

1990 " John Kerry stated in the Senate "Iraq has developed a chemical weapons capability, and is pursuing a clear weapons development program."

1991 - Senator Kerry was in the minority of senators who voted against the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

1997- Senator Kerry stated, "Should the resolve of our allies wane, the United States must not lose its resolve to take action." He further warned that if Saddam Hussein were not held to account for violation of U.N. resolutions, some future conflict would have " greater consequence."

1998 - Senator Kerry stated, "I think there is a disconnect between the depth of the threat that Saddam Hussein presents to the world and what we are at the moment talking about doing. ... we have to be prepared to go the full distance, which is to do everything possible to disrupt his regime and to encourage the forces of democracy. "Saddam Hussein is pursuing a program to build weapons of mass destruction and I support regime change, with ground troops if necessary.   "I am way ahead of the commander in chief, and I'm probably way ahead of my
colleagues and certainly of much of the country. But I believe this. I believe that he has used these weapons before. He has invaded another country. He views himself as a modern-day Nebuchadnezzar. He wants to continue to play the uniting critical role in that part of the world. And I think we have to stand up to that."

2002 - Kerry states: "I would disagree with John McCain that it's the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it's what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel.

Those are the things that - that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It's the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat.

2003 - "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act."

2004 - Saddam Hussein took us to war once before. In that war, young Americans were killed. He went to war in order to take over the oil fields. It wasn't just an invasion of Kuwait. He was heading for the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. And that would have had a profound effect on the security of the United States. This is a man who has used weapons of mass destruction, unlike other people on this Earth today, not only against other people but against his own people. This is a man who tried to assassinate a former president of the United States, a man who lobbed
36 missiles into Israel in order to destabilize the Middle East, a man who is so capable of miscalculation that he even brought this war on himself. This is a man who, if he was left uncaptured, would have continued to be able to organize the Ba'athists. He would have continued to terrorize the people, just in their minds, because of 30 years of
terror in Iraq."


 September 2004 - "Let me be as blunt and direct with the American people as I can be,"The invasion of Iraq was a profound diversion from the battle against our greatest enemy -- al Qaeda --The president's misjudgment, miscalculation and mismanagement of the war in Iraq all made the war on terror harder to win.

Are these the comments of a candidate for President who says he was prescient, ahead of the curve about   the difficulties, 100% correct, or are these the comments of an opportunist who will do and say anything to sway public opinion?

About the Writer: Michael Ashbury, a noted researcher and author, is the author of ''Who is the REAL John Kerry?'' (Booksurge.com 2004). His website is at www.whoistherealjohnkerry.com. Michael receives e-mail at michaelashbury@aol.com

Kerry concedes we won the war

Posted: September 28, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Why is it that the press likes to report some misstatements by politicians but not others?
John Kerry gave a highly covered, nationally televised speech last week at Temple University.
The substance of the speech was front-page news across the country. Sound bites from it led all the major newscasts. It was analyzed by talking heads. It was rewritten into wire service reports.

But no one – not one news agency, not one analyst, not one commentator – mentioned Kerry's slip of the tongue.

It was an embarrassing one for the presidential candidate. After he made it and corrected himself, his entire cadence was off-kilter. He seemed never to fully regain his composure and self-assurance. It was as if he knew he had just lost the election through an admission that his opponent had indeed succeeded at something.

This was the speech in which Kerry assured the American people, once again, that he had a real plan for fighting the war on terror.

And what's the plan?

"As president, I will fight a tougher, smarter, more effective war on terror," he said. "My priority will be to find and capture or kill the terrorists before they get us. And I will never take my eye of the ball."

Not exactly inspirational. Not exactly ingenious. Once again, Kerry shows that he thinks he can beat George Bush by simply citing his weaknesses, his inability to capture or kill Osama bin Laden.

Of course, it still leaves the populace wondering how Kerry would fight this war tougher, smarter and more effectively.

Does Kerry even believe it?

Maybe. Maybe not. But Kerry launched into a long list of the sins of the Bush administration without mentioning one specific thing he would do differently as president. He would just be ... smarter, I guess.

Kerry promised to see the Iraq war to its conclusion – to win it.
And then came John Kerry's faux pas – the one the press ignored, the one the pundits ignored, the one even the Republicans ignored.

Every week, too many American families grieve for loved ones killed in Iraq by terrorists forces that weren't even there before the invasion – many of which got their weapons from the very ammo dumps that George Bush didn't guard after we won the war ...

Yes, that's what John Kerry said is his speech – that we had already won the war, which, of course, we have.

The Iraq war is over. Saddam Hussein was soundly and quickly defeated in one of the most stunning and one-sided military campaigns in the history of the world.

But John Kerry cannot acknowledge that the president or his generals did anything right. So, he quickly corrected himself.

"... after we won the military part of the war."

However, the damage was done. Kerry never completely recovered his composure after ceding that we had already won the war in Iraq – without his help. In fact, the United States won it in spite of Kerry – in spite of the things John Kerry always does during U.S. military campaigns.
What has John Kerry always done? Talk out of both sides of his mouth.

He may begin as a loyal American with a single-minded focus on victory, but always – sometimes within days, sometimes within weeks, sometimes within months – he tries to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

That's what he did in Vietnam – when he first came to the attention of the American people as a partisan of the North Vietnamese Communist enemy. That's what he did throughout the Cold War when he preached appeasement of the Soviet Union. That's what he did in Grenada when we invaded and chased out the Cubans. And that's what he is doing with Iraq.

But for one brief moment last week, either through a Freudian slip of the tongue or because even a broken clock is right twice a day, Kerry had it right. He said it. We won the war in Iraq. What's left is messy. What's left is hard. But it is no longer about overturning a regime. That business is completed. It was finished a long time ago.
No thanks to him.


Sept 27

Kerry on Iran

Posted: September 27, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
In recent weeks, John Kerry has crossed the line from the traditional American position of "loyal opposition" in his fierce and self-contradictory criticism of President Bush's policies in Iraq.
He crossed that sometimes blurry line in a free society to the point where he is endangering Americans' lives and giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

The man who urged pre-emptive military action in 1997 and who voted to authorize the invasion now says a policy of regime change was all wrong – simply to position himself as a viable political alternative to the president.

But Kerry is sending even more potentially dangerous and deadly signals to another enemy – one the United States must decide how to confront in the coming weeks and months.
That enemy is the soon-to-be nuclear-armed, fanatical mullah regime in Iran.

Over the weekend, there were reports Iran has developed the range and targeting capability of missiles and is now capable of hitting London, Berlin, Paris and, of course, all of Israel.
Iran is on the verge of becoming a nuclear power, and, despite the regime's claims of only wanting to build a reactor for peaceful energy uses, it is also moving rapidly to begin reprocessing weapons-grade plutonium.

In addition, there were new reports that Iran has been talking to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad about the possibility of providing safe haven for former Iraqi nuclear weapons scientists.
Despite these ominous developments, Kerry's campaign rhetoric is making it more difficult for the United States to address the imminent threat posed by Iran.

For instance, listen to what Teresa Heinz Kerry told an audience in Colorado over the weekend:
The way we live in peace in a family, in a marriage, in the world, is not by threatening people, is not by showing off your muscles. It's by listening, by giving a hand sometimes, by being intelligent, by being open and by setting high standards.

In case anyone wasn't certain which nation she was talking about, Heinz Kerry elaborated – even mentioning Iran by name and denouncing the administration's warnings to Tehran: "There are about 50 countries in the world that have the capability to build nuclear weapons. Are we going to attack them all?" she said.

It should be of grave concern to every American that among Kerry's top fund-raisers are three Iranian-Americans who have been pushing for dramatic changes in U.S. policy toward Iran.
I'm talking about Hassan Nemazee, 54, an investment banker based in New York, who has raised more than $100,000. Why is he betting on Kerry? Read Teresa's lips.

I'm talking about Faraj Aalaei, who has raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for the Kerry campaign. Why is he betting on Kerry? Read Teresa's lips.

I'm talking about his wife, Susan Akbarpour, whom the Kerry campaign also lists as having raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for the campaign. Why is she betting on Kerry? Read Teresa's lips.

And the Iranians may not have to read Teresa's lips. There may be more direct communication at work between Kerry and the terrorist-supporting mullah regime.

Last February, WorldNetDaily reported that Iran's official Mehr News Agency had received an e-mail from Kerry's campaign pitching the candidate as one who will "repair the damage done" to international relations by Bush.

Yes, once again, Kerry is doing what he always does – what he has done ever since he came to the attention of the American people in 1971 and, in fact, what first brought him to the attention of the American people.

He is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

But, this time, the enemy is not a group of communists in black pajamas with conventional weapons. This time, the enemy is a soon-to-be nuclear-armed jihadist nation with one goal in mind – destroying the "Great Satan," otherwise known as the United States of America.

Kerry's Terror War and Iraq Plans ''Point'' To Disaster

We know that consistency is not one of John Kerry's strong points. Neither is his ability to explain things succinctly and directly. Instead of saying "My plan to fight the war on terror is to kill the enemy before they kill us", the long-winded Senator will launch into a 10 minute soliloquy on what President Bush has done wrong. He's the kind of guy if you asked him "What Time Is It?", he'd tell you about the history of the watch.

But even we were shocked when we actually went back and compared John Kerry's speeches and op-eds to learn how he would win the war on terror and the war in Iraq (again, to us it's one in the same). What did we learn? - that the Senator has a few different plans. There's the "four point plan", the "six point plan" or the "fill in the blank point plans". Problem is those "points" often change.

Come with us now and venture into the realm of "Kerryland" in which no "point" goes unsharpened.



THE WAR ON TERROR

In this area it appears that John Kerry's "(X) point plan" change more often than most of us change underwear. This is a bit scary because without a sustained, consistent plan, confusion will reign among our military leaders, intelligence agencies, and allies. All of which benefits the terrorists. We're not saying different threats don't require new thinking - but what we're talking about here is the general overall strategy of winning. For example, Reagan's plan to win the Cold War was spend money on defense so that the USSR’s economy would collapse, develop SDI, and fight communism wherever it tried to spread. Many different specific plans were created to help us win - but the overriding strategy never changed.

But there'll be no such "simplicity" from such a brilliant man as Senator Kerry. Surely he can be more "nuanced" than some idiot actor or lay-about frat boy. Let's take a look.

The War on Terror - February 27, 2004

On February 27, 2004, Senator Kerry gave a major address in Los Angeles entitled "A Comprehensive Plan for Fighting Terror". The dictionary definition for "comprehensive" is "covering completely or broadly". Simpletons like us would think that this speech would cover John Kerry's entire plan for fighting the war on terror. He even called it a "comprehensive plan" in his speech. In that speech he lays out a four point plan as follows:

1. He will "order direct military action when needed to capture and destroy terrorist groups and their leaders." Gee, glad to hear that. Hell, even Dennis Kucinich almost wanted to do that.

2."Strengthen the capacity of intelligence and law enforcement at home and forge stronger international coalitions to provide better information and the best chance to target and capture terrorists even before they act." Sounds a lot like the "preemption" he so derides the President for. But notice he's still spouting on about "coalitions" and "law enforcement". How very Sept. 10th.

3. He says "we must cut off the flow of terrorist funds." Obviously. But how to do this? He doesn't say, other than to get all "Michael Moore" on us and criticize the "Bush/Saudi Arabia" connection.

4. Finally, he's going to "prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons". Interesting, isn't that why we wanted to get Saddam out? But how will he do this? Appoint a "high level presidential envoy" to other nations. Which "useful idiot" will he send - Albright or Carter?

So there you have it right? John Kerry's "comprehensive" four point plan for fighting terror? Ah, grasshoppa, you don't know John Kerry. That "comprehensive" strategy lasted all of 3 months.

The War on Terror -May 27, 2004

You see, on May 27, 2004, the good Senator gave a speech entitled "Security and Strength for a New World" in which he claimed to set forth a "new national security policy guided by four new imperatives". So you would think that these 4 would be exactly the same as the other 4? Silly Rabbit. Here's Kerry's 4 "imperatives":

1."Launching and leading a new era of alliances for the post 9-11 world." OK, we'll give him this one, it's the same as #2 above.

2. "Modernize the world’s most powerful military to meet the new threats." Hmm, that wasn't in the "comprehensive" plan just 3 months ago was it? Not that we disagree, but where was this "imperative" in February?

3."Deploy all that is in America’s arsenal -- our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, and the appeal of our values and ideas." OK, we get it. Bring democracy to the Mideast so they have something to live for besides waiting for their 72 virgins after a suicide bombing.

4."Free America from its dangerous dependence on Mideast oil." Oh, that's a good one. Probably poll tested and designed for the "I Hate SUV's" crowd. But what the hell has he done to accomplish that. The next oil drilling bill he votes for will be his first. And again, why was this not part of the "comprehensive" plan in February?
Hey, what about "taking direct military action when needed", or "cutting off the flow of terrorist funds", or "preventing terrorists from getting biological, chemical or nuclear weapons"? Nothing wrong with changing your mind on little details, but what if the whole US govt. moved heaven and earth to carry out Kerry's February,2003, "comprehensive" four point plan to fight terror, but just 3 months later, had to work out 3 new "points" and leave the other ones behind?

The War on Terror - September 24, 2004

But it's not over yet. At least the May "points" lasted a little over 4 months. Just last week Kerry gave another major speech at Temple University in which he stated that "I have a comprehensive strategy for victory over terrorism." (there's that damn "comprehensive" word again). In fairness he actually did repeat some of the same "points" in this speech, but there were now 7 of them, and some of the points that were in the February speech are back. Let's look at the changes and revisions.
His fourth "point" is to "make homeland security a real priority by offering a real plan, and backing it with real resources. The first task is to prevent terrorists and their tools of destruction from entering our country." Oh, there we go, the port security, etc. Agreed, this is a decent idea (one President Bush already had), but the President's goal is to make sure the terrorists are dead before they get the damn bomb on a boat.
His fifth "point" is "focusing on the long-term frontline of this war and "denying them recruits and safe havens"" does sound a lot like the "heart and minds" idea above, but isn't that what President Bush was doing by freeing 50 million people from repressive tyrants?
Finally, he wants to ""promote the development of free and democratic societies throughout the Arab and Muslim world"." Good idea, and again isn't that what the President did and what you are now criticizing him for?

The War on Terror - Campaign Website

But pay no mind to that speech. Go to his campaign website under the heading "Strength and Security For a New World" and you'll find only a "four point plan". Among the "points' above not listed are, "cutting off the flow of terrorist funds", "promoting free and democratic societies", "keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of terrorists", or "strengthening the capacity of intelligence and law enforcement at home". Guess they didn't make the cut?

IRAQ

But if you thought his plans to win the terror war had your head spinning, wait till you see what he says about what he'll do in Iraq.

Iraq - April 30, 2004

On April 30, 2004, Kerry gave first major speech outlining his plans for Iraq entitled " This Moment in Iraq is a Moment of Truth". Catchy title, complete with yet another "point plan", but this time it's only 3. To wit:

1. "He says we "must create a stable and secure environment in Iraq. That will require a level of forces equal to the demands of the mission. To do this right, we have to truly internationalize both politically and militarily." Blah, blah, blah. In English, call Jacques and Gerhard and see if they can spare a few soldiers who are happily enjoying their August vacation while their elderly relatives die in the Paris heat. Also forget the fact that they've already said they aren't coming.

2. Kerry claims that ""the second key element is the High Commissioner. Backed by a newly broadened security coalition, he should be charged with overseeing elections, the drafting of a constitution and coordinating reconstruction." Oh dear God, yet another international muckety muck doing nothing. And strangely again this feels like Jimmy Carter territory.

3. Finally, Kerry says "we need a massive training effort to build Iraqi security forces that can actually provide security for the Iraqi people. "We're with him there. They've been trying to do that since we started, but his friends in Europe won't get off their a$$es and to their share.

Iraq - July 4, 2004

Not to be outdone by that speech, Kerry wrote a July 4, 2004, op-ed for the Washington Post entitled "A Realistic Path In Iraq". You would think it would match the April speech right? Yeah, right. 3 months is an eternity in Kerry land. Let's take a look at his grand plan in July, which has 4 points.

1. Kerry writes that "we should secure a pledge from Iraq's neighbors to respect Iraq's borders and not to interfere in its internal affairs" Good luck getting Boy Assad and the lunatic Mullahs on the horn and talking about that one over coffee and scones. And we all know how good those pledges would be don't we? About as trustworthy of Kim Il Sungs. But hey, Madeline "The Cleaning Lady" Albright bought them.

2.. The second thing Kerry thinks we should do is "commit Iraq's leaders to provide clear protection for minorities". What, did Jesse Jackson write this? This is another job for the "high commissioner" says Kerry. Perhaps we should all sing "Kumbaya" and make sure the foreign dead enders know their rights are protected.

3. Finally, he writes that we should "realistically call on NATO to step up to its responsibilities." How exactly does one "realistically" call on someone to do something as opposed to just "calling" on them to do it. Does it mean saying "Pretty please" or "What do you want from us". When you figure it out let us know.

Iraq - August 30, 2004

Apparently John Jr. didn’t' get the message because on August 30, 2004, he gave a speech telling us "what John Kerry and I will do in Iraq.". This should be fun. it also comes with a few new "points".

1. We should "earn the respect of our allies and ask more from them to ease the burdens on our troops so they can come home." Hey, lawyer boy, if you ask and they say no, what next? Don't ask your jury consultant, let us know.

2. Edwards says they will "work with Iraq’s neighbors so they know in clear and unmistakable terms, we are going to do everything we can to make this succeed. Iraq’s neighbors must respect its borders and not interfere in Iraq’s democratic transition." Again, telling Assad and Rafsanjani that "we really, really, mean it" is not sound foreign policy.

3. Finally, Edwards says "we will ask our allies to do more. We can ask them to do more to help Iraq’s economy. We can ask them to forgive Iraq’s enormous debt and participate in the reconstruction. I think it’s time that our allies and not just Halliburton rebuild Iraq." First of all isn't that the same as #1. And second how about a drinking game for the debates for every mention of "Halliburton" or "no bid contracts"?

Iraq - September 20, 2004

Regrettably, however, this is not the Kerry campaigns last word on the matter. On September 20, 2004, Kerry gave a speech at NYU that derided the President's policy and briefly touched on his plans for Iraq. This speech was 4800 words long, and only about 25% of it was spent on his own plan for Iraq, rather than criticizing the President. In this one there were 5 "points", 2 of which were new. They were "carrying out reconstruction plans to bring tangible benefits to Iraqi's" and "taking essential steps to guarantee the promised elections can be held next year. "

We don't know about you all but our heads are spinning trying to piece together all these "plans". They are inconsistent, sporadic, and even less specific in nature. All we know is this - the only "point" plan we really want is killing the terrorists before they kill us. But hey, John Kerry's too smart for that. Hopefully come 2005 he can spend long hours in the Senate bloviating about what he would have done had he become President.



Next Page

Readers Comments - click the link to view

To Leave Comments click here-Leave a Comment

The information on this page is of public record and not meant to infuriate but to inform, I take no side one way or
 the other just nothing but the facts jack-Ron Leonard